[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1237-1304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 2, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd Amendment No. 2, to provide additional funds for 
     certain homeland security measures.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
hours of debate on the Byrd amendment No. 2, with the time to be 
equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I do intend to yield to my distinguished friend from West 
Virginia anytime he wishes to start discussing his amendment.
  The amendment pending before us to the amendment I have offered, 
which contains the 11 bills that were not enacted that the majority 
leader mentioned, the Byrd amendment, deals with additions to the 
homeland security package that is contained in these 11 bills. As I 
stated last evening, I find myself sort of in a position of a husband 
who has ordered a new car for his wife and tells her, when the bill 
comes, he is not going to pay the bill.
  I sat through the hearings Senator Byrd held as chairman on homeland 
security. I know the amounts that are in his amendment are amounts of 
money that various persons from throughout our society and from 
community after community all over the country have asked for. It is 
money they want. There is no question they want this money. We had a 
plan to make it available. Actually, it should have been made available 
sometime early last year, but we never got do that because we didn't 
have a budget last year. And we were unable to move the appropriations 
bills last year because of the lack of a budget.
  What I am seeking to do today, and started yesterday, is to ask the 
Senate to exercise a rare type of discipline and allow us to take these 
bills to conference. My amendment to this pending

[[Page 1238]]

continuing resolution bill that is before us will allow us to take 
these bills to conference with the House. There are 11 bills that 
should have been passed before October 1 of last year. As I said 
yesterday, it does not do any good to try to point fingers to say why 
we didn't do that. The simple fact is, we did not pass them.
  Now in this new Congress we have to pass bills that actually expired 
at the end of the last Congress. All of the work that was done on those 
bills in the House and the Senate was eliminated by the end of that 
last Congress.
  We have initiated a process to catch up with those bills. There are 
bills that deal with the moneys to be expended by the agencies in the 
Federal Government between the time the President signs the bill and 
September 30. That is a very short period of time. It does not exceed 
7\1/2\ months. It is probably 7 months. The money that is in my 
amendment will provide ample money for those departments for that 
period of time. It is less than they would have gotten on October 1 of 
last year, because since October 1 of last year they have been 
following the provisions of the continuing resolution Congress enacted, 
and they are using no more than the amount of money that was available 
to them in the fiscal year 2002 budget. The 2002 budget was contrived 
by the President really in the fall of 2001. We enacted it sometime in 
2001.
  We are dealing, in other words, with a process of funding our 
Government based upon decisions made in 2001, continuing down to the 
end of this fiscal year.
  I note the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is here. I am 
pleased to yield to him whenever he wishes to speak.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Go ahead.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is money in this amendment I have 
offered, in one bill or another, dealing with each subject Senator Byrd 
wishes to cover by his amendment. I can say that the money in the Byrd 
amendment is going to be spent sometime by the Federal Government in 
dealing with these issues. The question is, when should we make it 
available?
  The President of the United States has said, because of all the other 
pressures on our Federal Government, he wanted to limit spending under 
these bills to $750.5 billion. He has given us a new amendment--there 
will be a second one, too--and that adds $825 million to deal with the 
enormous fires that occurred in our country last year. As a 
consequence, we agreed before the end of last year to try to live 
within the President's limitations. We were unable to do so in the 
period after the election. Now that we have come back, of course, it is 
a new Congress and that agreement we made last year to limit it to the 
President's level was not still binding. But it is binding on me, 
because I went to see the President and he asked if I would try to do 
this and get these bills done so we can turn to the budget request, 
which he will submit to the Congress after the State of the Union 
Message. I told him I would.
  I am in the position of asking the Senate to hold to the amount the 
President asked, the amount of these 11 bills. I didn't really decide 
every number in these bills. These bills came from 11 subcommittees of 
the Appropriations Committee, with staff members working from both the 
Republican and Democratic sides at my request to reduce the amount so 
the total did not exceed the President's request. That has been done. 
We have a letter now, Mr. President, which I will put into the Record. 
I will read some of it to the Senate:

       Dear Mr. Chairman:
       I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 
     leadership--

  I won't read the whole first paragraph. The second paragraph says 
this:

       I am writing today to strongly oppose amendments to your 
     bill that would add extraneous spending above the levels 
     requested by the President. In particular, the ``Byrd 
     amendment'' purports to add $5 billion in additional 
     ``homeland security'' spending that is unnecessary.

  This letter goes on to say:

       We are now more than a quarter of the way through fiscal 
     year 2003 and much of the funding contained in the ``Byrd 
     amendment'' could not even be obligated in the remaining 
     months of this year. For these reasons, I urge you to oppose 
     the Byrd amendment.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record at the end of my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am prepared to try to explain any 
provision that is in the 11 bills that are contained in the amendment I 
have offered, or I will call upon the chairmen of all those 
subcommittees whenever anything is questioned.
  My hope is the Senate will understand the problem. The problem is, do 
we take care of these 11 bills in a very expeditious way, get them to 
conference between the House and Senate, working with the President and 
his people, and really fashion this into a satisfactory piece of 
legislation which the President will sign now. If we don't, we must 
wait for the House to pass these bills individually. That will take a 
considerable time for them to pass. We are putting this amendment on a 
resolution that has already been passed by the House and we will send 
it back to the House. If we have to wait for 11 bills to come back from 
the House and send them to conference one by one, it will be late March 
or late April before we get through this process. We will not be able 
to deal with the pressing needs of this economy, with the problems of 
taxation, the problems of homeland security itself, and all of the 
problems that really perplex us in terms of medical problems of our 
Nation, the health care delivery system. We have the chance now to 
really try to eliminate the problems caused by a failure to act last 
year, and act decisively and take these 11 bills, in one bill, to a 
conference and work it out with the House and the President, and come 
back with a final bill in a conference report and send it to the 
President and, hopefully, obtain his signature and have this put behind 
us.
  I intend to oppose any amendment to this bill which adds money. I 
intend to try to get the concept to move expeditiously, if possible. We 
now have the majority leader's agreement that we will stay in session 
until we pass this bill. We can do it sooner or we can do it later. 
When we get to conference, we will have representation from both sides 
of this aisle. We will be dealing with the Appropriations Committee 
from the House and from the Senate and, by definition, that committee 
is made up of the most experienced people on both sides of the aisle. 
Every point of view is represented in that conference, and every 
amendment that could be offered here could be offered through one of 
the members on that conference. We ought to be able to come back to the 
Senate very quickly with a final solution to this problem, and that is 
the problem of how do we eliminate this sword of Damocles that hangs 
over this new Congress--that is, the 11 bills that were not enacted.
  I ask unanimous consent that a chart that my staff and the staffs of 
the individual subcommittees have prepared, which shows the major 
elements of Senator Byrd's amendment, item by item, the amount in 
Senator Byrd's amendment, and the amendment in my amendment for each of 
those items, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I confess that if we didn't have the 
limitations we face, the deficit we face, I would once again support 
Senator Byrd's funding in each of these items. Under the circumstances, 
we cannot. We must get a bill the President will sign as quickly as 
possible and get these bills behind us so we can come before the Senate 
with the individual 13 appropriations bills that represent the bills 
for fiscal year 2004.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 1239]]



                               Exhibit 1

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Homeland 
           Security,
                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to take this opportunity to 
     thank you for your leadership in bringing the FY 2003 Omnibus 
     Appropriations Bill to the Senate floor and for supporting 
     critical funding for out Nation's homeland security.
       I am writing today to strongly oppose amendments to your 
     bill that would add extraneous spending above the levels 
     requested by the President. In particular, the ``Byrd 
     amendment'' purports to provide $5 billion in additional 
     ``homeland security'' spending that is unnecessary.
       The base omnibus bill contains, as the Administration 
     requested, an unprecedented 30% increase over 2002 (including 
     supplemental funding) in the fiscal commitment to defending 
     the homeland. The funds requested and provided are sufficient 
     to address homeland requirements and, in many cases, are the 
     most that can be absorbed responsibly in the remaining months 
     of this fiscal year.
       In total, the budget for FY 2003 will provide $37.7 billion 
     in homeland security funding, nearly doubling the pre-9/11 
     levels. Investments made in previous supplemental 
     appropriations and the FY 2003 Budget will build capacity in 
     areas that will help protect our Nation against terrorist 
     attacks. Since 9/11, the Administration and Congress have 
     committed to providing: $9.6 billion to defend against 
     biological terrorism, more than doubling the level that the 
     Government spent prior; $3.3 billion to secure our borders 
     and ports and over $10 billion for aviation security 
     activities. The omnibus bill as proposed by Senator Stevens 
     supports all of these homeland security initiatives and 
     further funding is unnecessary.
       We are now more than a quarter of the way through fiscal 
     year 2003 and much of the funding contained in the ``Byrd 
     Amendment'' could not even be obligated in the remaining 
     months of this year. For these reasons, I urge you to oppose 
     the Byrd amendment.
       Thank you again for your support and we look forward to 
     working with you to ensure that our homeland is protected.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Steve Abbot,

                                              Admiral (ret.), USN,
     Deputy Homeland Security Advisor.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

         MAJOR ELEMENTS OF $5 BILLION HOMELAND SECURITY PACKAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         FY 2003 level/
                                      Byrd amendment   Stevens amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Assistance to       $1.4 billion.....  $3.7 billion
 Combat Terrorism.
Border Security...................  1.0 billion......  4.3 billion
Airport Security..................  720 million......  374 million
Port Security.....................  585 million......  120 million
Nuclear Security/Energy Security..  296 million......  1.1 billion
Mass Transit Security.............  300 million......  15 million
Federal Law Enforcement...........  212 million......  1.2 billion
Water Security....................  178 million......  65 million
Cyber Security....................  128 million......  48 million
Other (Food Safety, Securing        167 million......  1.9 billion
 Biohazardous Materials at USDA
 Facilities, Embassy Security,
 Research to Combat Chemical
 Attacks, Security at Washington
 and Jefferson Memorials, and DC
 Emergency Response Plan).
Total.............................  5 billion........  12.8 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I begin my speaking with reference to my 
colleague, Ted Stevens. He is a beacon of reasoning. I was saying to my 
staff last night--or this morning, I forget; I am almost oblivious to 
time--here is a man who is standing up for the institution.
  It is not the administration's desire that we have a time agreement 
that allows the minority, the Democrats, to offer amendments with up-
or-down votes, with an understanding there will be no stacking of the 
tree. This is something new in the Senate, in a way, under this 
administration. Yet this man, Senator Stevens of Alaska, has taken the 
position the minority is going to have its opportunity--when I say the 
minority, I am talking about the Democrats--to offer amendments. We 
will have up-or-down votes. We are not going to stack any tree. This is 
a breath of fresh air, and I think we ought to recognize this in 
Senator Ted Stevens' chairmanship. He is fighting for fairness and 
equality between the two parties when it comes to deliberations on the 
Senate floor and the offering of amendments. I want to pay this tribute 
to him. This is really the kind of chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee a Senator ought to be. We have not always seen this insofar 
as the other side of the aisle is concerned, when the other side has 
been in power. We have seen a willingness to run roughshod over the 
rights of the minority to offer amendments and to debate.
  I do not say this to gain any favors from this chairman. He has been 
around a long time. I have been around a long time. We know we have to 
give and take, but I point this out at the beginning of this debate. If 
it were not for Ted Stevens, we would not be debating my amendment 
today. I would probably not have any amendment up. This is the way the 
Senate ought to work, a forum for free debate and for amendments to be 
offered.
  So to begin with, I salute him. I admire him. I respect him. It does 
not matter how this finally turns out. As far as this Senator from the 
State of West Virginia is concerned, Senator Stevens is my friend, I am 
his friend, and that is the way it is going to be.
  I also recognize that Senator Stevens would probably do things 
different if it were not for the circumstances that he is in. The 
administration kept the House from acting on appropriations bills after 
July of last year. This administration put their foot down, put the 
brakes on. The House Appropriations Committee chairman, Mr. Young, 
wanted to go forward with additional appropriations bills. He is 
another man who is entitled to great credit. Of course, my counterpart 
in the House, Mr. Obey, is a very knowledgeable and forceful advocate 
of programs, a very experienced man.
  So what I say has nothing to do with Mr. Obey or Mr. Young, but Mr. 
Stevens is, in a way, swimming upstream. He has the opposition, I am 
sure, of the administration and, being as fair as he is being, he has 
the opposition, I would imagine, of the House leadership. The House 
leadership has not wanted the appropriations process to go forward 
since July of last year. Of course, I can only assume that the House 
leadership was carrying the water for and taking its orders from the 
administration, which I do not exactly agree with when it comes to 
taking orders and giving orders, if I may use those crude forms of 
expression.
  I pay tribute to this chairman. He is swimming upstream. I expect 
even on his own side he has a lot of opposition to the fairness he is 
displaying. I do not know that, but I have a feeling that is true. I 
have a feeling that is true with respect to the Republican-controlled 
House and the administration.
  I fully understand Senator Stevens' situation. In many ways, I expect 
his heart is not in the coffin with Caesar. I have a feeling he has 
great empathy for what he is doing, but he is also trying to get a 
massive bill through. We failed last year because of the 
administration's bullheadedness, its stubbornness, its pigheadedness in 
refusing to go forward with these bills and holding them back so that 
we would operate on automatic pilot with continuing resolutions, so 
spending would not be one dollar above last year's levels--if we might 
speak in general terms.
  So I pay him tribute and I pay tribute to the Republican members of 
the Appropriations Committee who time after time voted to report out 
these appropriations bills. We had unanimity, complete bipartisanship. 
What a model for committee bipartisanship that committee was.
  Now we come to the situation where in order to get a bill that is 
made up of the 11 appropriations bills that were not passed last year, 
the Senator from Alaska has to come in with some cuts. I do not believe 
his heart is in those cuts, but he has to make this presentation. He 
does it forcefully, and I respect him for that.
  Having said that, I have to vigorously oppose the amendment offered 
by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Stevens.
  Before I make any further remarks, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow. If she needs more 
time, let us know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia for yielding 5 minutes to me. I also share his great 
respect and admiration for the Senator and the processes in which he is 
involved and the bipartisan way the Appropriations Committee has moved 
forward in working together with our two leaders.

[[Page 1240]]

  I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on the issue of homeland--
many of us are saying ``hometown''--security, because that is really 
what it is. I come with thanks and gratitude from law enforcement, 
firefighters, EMS workers, hospital emergency room workers, all across 
the great State of Michigan.
  I have held six different community meetings around Michigan in the 
last month asking our local first responders how they are doing, what 
do they need, do they feel prepared, what can we do to be of 
assistance. I have scheduled three more meetings in Michigan to listen, 
and I am hearing the same thing over and over again, and that is our 
first responders, our firefighters and police officers on the front 
line, emergency personnel, health departments, local emergency rooms, 
desperately need us to partner with them to give them the resources 
they need to take the necessary steps to be prepared in the case of 
terrorism in their communities.
  I heard concern about training, not only the need to have a trainer 
but the costs that it takes to remove that police officer. In a small 
police department, when an officer goes to training for a week, there 
is the additional cost to replace that person, with overtime involved, 
and all kinds of concerns about training relating to the cost. They 
very much want this training. They need the training. But they need our 
help to be able to continue to provide law enforcement safety services, 
fire services, and other services in the community while their 
personnel are being training.
  I heard great concern about the lack of resources for equipment and 
communications, one county not being able to speak to the next county, 
large departments in one city not being able to speak to a township, 
very small fire departments that are not yet on e-mail. We have 
information coming out from the Federal level, many of them saying they 
appreciate the information coming from the FBI or the Department of 
Justice, but small departments are not receiving that in a timely 
manner. There are great concerns about lack of coordination and 
communication, all of those things involving resources.
  We have also heard great concerns about additional personnel who are 
needed in this time when the States are cutting back. In my own State 
of Michigan, because of tremendous budget crises, we have seen cuts in 
revenue sharing to our local governments. Police officers are being 
laid off. Firefighters and other front responders are coming to us and 
asking us to partner with them. We have a new Homeland Security 
Department. We have new responsibilities that have been given to our 
local hometown security leaders. We need to provide them the resources 
to be able to get the job done.
  Michigan is a border State. In Senator Byrd's amendment, the 
resources for border security are absolutely critical. We have three of 
the top five busiest borders, the busiest being in Detroit.
  I rise today to support Senator Byrd's amendment and to urge that we 
pass it as he has provided. We are in a situation that I believe is 
absolutely critical. We are hearing this from Republican sheriffs and 
Democratic sheriffs, from Republican police chiefs and Democratic 
police chiefs. This is not a partisan issue. This is about the local 
law enforcement and emergency management personnel desperately needing 
our help to be able to get the job done to keep families safe and 
secure in their homes and in their neighborhoods.
  I urge colleagues to support this effort. Once last year we came 
together to pass emergency dollars in the supplemental. The dollars 
that are being proposed are absolutely critical. It is a small amount 
to pay in order to give the assurance to our families that they will in 
fact have the resources given to first responders in their community so 
they know they can respond in a crisis. I cannot think of anything more 
important today than making sure we are funding hometown security 
efforts. Senator Byrd's amendment is critical to that effort. I hope we 
will join and have 100-percent support to send a message to our police, 
firefighters, emergency health personnel, and medical personnel that we 
stand with them in partnership, the Federal Government with our local 
communities, and we will be there and make them a priority for the 
resources they need in order to keep us safe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from West Virginia. We all 
admire his commitment to the issue as we all try to make sure we as a 
nation have prepared effectively to address the issue and the threat of 
terrorism in our homeland. This has been a priority. This has been the 
No. 1 priority of the President of the United States. I don't think 
anyone can argue that this President has not committed himself and his 
administration in an almost messianic effort to get our Nation ready to 
defend itself in the face of this terrorism threat.
  Thus, we have to give great credibility to do what the President 
wants and believes he needs in order to accomplish the protection of 
the homeland. What he has said he wants and needs is in the bill as 
brought forward by Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. In fact, the add-ons which are requested by the Senator from 
West Virginia, in large part, although well intentioned, may in fact 
undermine the effort to try to get efficiently into place a response to 
the threat of terrorism.
  Why is that? Because sometimes when these agencies receive much more 
money than they can handle, they handle all their money poorly. If they 
receive the money they need to do the job right, they focus on doing 
the job right rather than simply spending the money.
  The administration has written us and said they believe the 
additional funds requested by the Senator pro tempore emeritus are 
inappropriate. I have a letter signed by Admiral Abbott, the Deputy 
Home Security Adviser:

       I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 
     leadership in bringing the fiscal year 2003 omnibus budget 
     bill to the floor of the Senate. I am writing today to 
     strongly oppose amendments to your bill that would add 
     extraneous spending above the levels requested by the 
     President. In particular, the Byrd amendment purports to 
     provide $5 billion additional homeland spending that is 
     unnecessary.

  That is one paragraph from this letter. He is very clear. The 
President of the United States, through his Deputy Secretary for 
Homeland Security--Deputy Secretary-designee anyway--Admiral Abbott, 
has said this money is not needed and it is not appropriate for the 
effort they are trying to undertake to protect the homeland.
  I don't think anyone can question but that this President understands 
the importance of protecting the homeland.
  I will go through a few specifics relating to issues over which I 
have had jurisdiction with my subcommittee I have been honored to chair 
on the Appropriations Committee, the Commerce, Justice, State, and the 
Judiciary Subcommittee.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. Of course, I yield----
  Mr. BYRD. I will refer to something----
  Mr. GREGG. For a question.
  Mr. BYRD. He is citing a statement of a Deputy Director of Homeland 
Security; is that it?
  Mr. GREGG. Designated Deputy Director.
  Mr. BYRD. Citing that individual as saying that they do not need any 
additional moneys as we find in the amendment I have offered; is that 
what he is saying?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I was off the floor, and I want to make sure I heard. I 
make this comment in that regard. We heard that same tune last year 
from Mr. Ridge who was at that time the Director of Homeland Security. 
His comment was with respect to moneys that were in legislation I was 
offering. His comment was: We don't need any more. We don't need any 
more money. The same old tune: We don't need any more money. We heard 
that from Mr. Ridge last year.

[[Page 1241]]

  I don't speak with criticism of the distinguished Senator who is on 
the floor, but I am simply pointing out, that is the same old saw, the 
same old tune we heard last year from the then-designated Director of 
Homeland Security, Gov. Tom Ridge. He even wrote me a letter.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a second? I have to reclaim my 
time.
  Mr. BYRD. I had the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I yielded for a question.
  Mr. BYRD. I am talking on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. He has the floor, but I point out that I had the floor. I 
had to leave the floor, and I yielded to the distinguished lady from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now the Senator from New Hampshire has the 
floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I understand that. I very well know the rules of the 
Senate. I am not itching for a fight with the Chair. I respect the 
Chair. I respect the Senator from New Hampshire. But the Senator from 
New Hampshire, let him understand that I am yielding--I have asked for 
him to yield on my time, my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Fine. I am yielding for a question. I am not yielding the 
floor, but the time is being charged to the Senator from West Virginia; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The time is so charged.
  Mr. BYRD. I only want to point out that we heard that same old tune 
last year from then-Director Tom Ridge of the Department of Homeland 
Security. He wrote me a letter--probably wrote the same letter to 
Senator Stevens at that time--that they didn't need the money we were 
trying to put in the bill. So we have heard that before.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. That is the only 
point I wanted to make. I wanted to recall for the record that we have 
heard that same argument before from this administration, at that time 
through Director Tom Ridge, whom the President of the United States 
refused to let come before the Appropriations Committee and testify on 
budget matters.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his comments.
  I simply add, today we have a letter from Admiral Abbott, in which it 
is stated that they think this money is unnecessary, and I believe 
their point is it is unnecessary at this time because these agencies 
can't handle it.
  Let me go through why that is the case with the agencies with which I 
have some familiarity. I have been fortunate enough to serve as either 
ranking member or chairman of the Commerce-State-Justice Subcommittee 
for about 8 years, and during that time I have come to know with some 
familiarity of the activities of the agencies under that jurisdiction, 
many of which impact homeland security. Let me specifically talk about 
the FBI, INS, first responders, and the issue of the Marshals Service.
  This amendment includes in it $137 million for the Trilogy Program. 
The Trilogy Program was an attempt to get coherence into the computer 
systems of the FBI and basically be able to get every agent at the FBI 
the capability to go online and instantaneously access the database of 
the FBI, so you would have the capacity of a field agent actually 
having the information necessary to find out, if they ran into a 
suspect, what that suspect's threat situation was and also to feed into 
the system information they may have developed that was important to 
protecting the country, especially in the area of terrorism.
  Unfortunately, Trilogy has become a large disaster. A big part of the 
disaster of the Trilogy Program is that we, last year, threw $237 
million at the program that they didn't need in order to develop it. 
That was part of our efforts last year to try to show that we were 
concerned about terrorism. This money, essentially, buried the program. 
As a result, in large part, the program has fallen apart. The situation 
is that the FBI software and hardware contracts for Trilogy have 
essentially become gold plated. The cost is soaring. The schedule is 
out of control. Right now we still do not have contracts on Trilogy 
hardware or Trilogy software. We are completely at the mercy of the 
contractors.
  The practical effect of that is that we now have a program which has 
what is estimated to be an approximately $213 million increase in 1 
year--that is a 57-percent increase--and we are not getting what we 
expected out of the program. The simple fact is that putting another 
$137 million on top of a program which already is awash with money, so 
much awash in money that it basically has caused the FBI to lose its 
focus on how to best get contracts for software and hardware, is not 
going to help the program at all. In fact, to put another $137 million 
into the program is not going to contribute anything to making Trilogy 
work better.
  Regarding the additional funds in this amendment, there is a point 
made that, in the prior bill from which this bill was brought up, there 
is at least $100 million of unobligated funds at the FBI. We happen to 
think it is probably much higher than that. It may approach $150 
million. It makes much more sense to say to the FBI: You spend the 
unobligated funds first before we put more funds on top of the funds 
you already have, because we already know you are having trouble 
managing the additional resources that you have received.
  The FBI is, regrettably, a very troubled agency today. I don't think 
there is anybody who has been following the news who doesn't recognize 
that. If you happen to follow the actual substance of the situation, 
you can appreciate that. For example, the National Infrastructure 
Protection Center, NIPC, which presented a spending plan that was so at 
variance with what the committee guidance was--and this was committee 
guidance when the committee was under the chairmanship of Senator 
Hollings, who did an extraordinary job as chairman of this 
subcommittee, by the way--it was so at variance with that we had to 
redirect $30 million and basically NIPC was transferred out of the FBI 
because they simply couldn't handle the program any longer.
  The Foreign Terrorism Tracking Task Force--this was created on a 
whim. It was a press release creation. We still don't know what it 
does. We still can't figure out what it does. As a practical matter, it 
doesn't know what it does.
  The efforts to implement the Webster Commission mandates on security 
have ended up creating unnecessary tasks because of the initial Bureau 
reluctance to allow us to have full oversight. That has made it 
impossible for us to determine whether the Webster Commission mandates 
are being met.
  Director Mueller is trying very hard, and I have immense respect for 
him. I honestly believe--unfortunately, with time--he is going to get 
the FBI up and running, to be the type of force it needs to be in order 
to protect us from terrorist attacks.
  But right now the FBI has serious managerial problems. It does not 
have serious cash problems. We have funded the FBI at very high levels 
in this bill, very high levels. They have significant unobligated 
funds. Programs such as Trilogy do not need more money. What they need 
is more management.
  We can move on to the INS. The amendment would add $267 million more 
for INS construction. The fiscal year 2003 bill before us already 
provides $267 million for INS construction. We doubled INS 
construction, compared to historic levels at which INS construction was 
getting funded. If you take the money now being proposed in this 
amendment, you will be doubling it again. This is one area in the INS 
Department where they actually do things well--construction. They know 
what they are doing. They do it well. But, as any other agency, if you 
overwhelm it with funds, many more funds than it can handle--and I 
respectfully present that a quadrupling of funds in one agency's 
construction account is an overwhelming event--you are going to find 
that agency starts to erode its internal control mechanisms and you are 
probably going to find that money will be spent recklessly, 
inappropriately, and, unfortunately, wasted.

[[Page 1242]]

  The doubling of the money in this account is a reasonable number. I 
don't see how anybody can say it is not a reasonable number, which is 
in this legislation as it comes from Senator Stevens. It does not need 
to be quadrupled.
  The amendment also calls for $262 million in the exit/entry program. 
The exit/entry system is, unfortunately, another computer disaster. It 
is a proposed system. Unfortunately, it is a promise; it doesn't exist. 
We can't even begin to develop the system until the INS has a central 
computer control network. The INS has so mismanaged its information 
technology programs over the years that we now have several core 
systems that cannot communicate with one another. That is one of the 
reasons the 9/11 disaster is so frustrating. It was the fact that the 
INS systems couldn't communicate with each other that didn't allow us 
to find out that we had folks training in flight school 9 months before 
the event.
  The situation is so bad that the proposed fiscal year 2003 mark 
provides $83 million for the Justice Department to come in and develop 
a new central computer system for the INS, because we have decided--and 
this wasn't my unilateral decision; this was a decision made under 
Chairman Hollings' leadership, and I applaud him for it because he went 
into this and they understand the problem--we came to the conclusion 
the INS couldn't straighten this out; it is such a disaster, their 
computer systems. The amendment would have us spend $362 million on a 
system that, if developed, would be standing in isolation because there 
is no central computer system that is working now at the INS.
  What we need to do first is develop a central computer system at the 
INS that can communicate within the INS, and then with the exit/entry 
system in place. So we are putting the cart before the horse, to say 
the least, and it is going to cost us $360 million to do it and it 
makes very little sense, although it is well intentioned. But it is not 
good fiscal management for that agency.
  Finally, the amendment adds some $80 million for salaries and 
expenses. The fiscal year 2003 mark already funds 500 new Border Patrol 
agents and 460 new inspectors. We know from the historical experience 
over the last few years that we have been trying to hire up the Border 
Patrol and that we simply can't fill these positions as fast as we 
would like. We can say they want 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. We 
know they will not get them. Why? Because we have language 
requirements. We require significant training experience for these 
individuals. And up until last year or the year before, we didn't pay 
them enough to get the people who had those qualities. We are losing 
them at a high rate, especially since TSA came into existence and the 
rate of pay there was better than the Border Patrol. We saw people 
migrating from the Border Patrol over to there. We need to fill the 
slots that are already there. We need to hire up those slots and not be 
putting another $80 million on top of that. That is $80 million that 
can't be used. It really isn't necessary in order to accomplish what we 
want in the area of hiring up the Border Patrol.
  We know--once again, like the FBI--that the INS has huge amounts of 
money that are sitting there that are unobligated and basically 
becoming slush funds. That is what this $80 million would be added to.
  Just last month, like a rabbit out of a hat, when a hole in the 
security bill was announced, they came up with $30 million at the INS, 
bang, just like that. We don't know where it came from, but we know 
they found it in that agency.
  Unfortunately, this $80 million, as well intentioned as it is, is 
simply not going to be able to be used because we have already put in 
place as many new positions as they possibly can hire up in the next 8 
months which this bill covers.
  In the area of the U.S. Marshals, the U.S. Marshals is a small agency 
that is trying hard. They are sort of like the little-engine-that-could 
agency. This amendment is suggesting $537 million for 200 new deputy 
U.S. marshals--the revival of an idea that I think was initially put on 
the floor here by Senator Graham of Florida last year. Again, it is 
well intentioned. But this is especially an agency that we do not want 
to overload with money they can't use and with which they would 
potentially end up producing inefficiencies and waste.
  Rather than throwing a whole lot of money and saying hire up a whole 
lot of new people at the U.S. Marshals Service, this bill suggests that 
we shift 106 presently underused senior U.S. marshalls away from their 
desks and back onto the front lines. What is the advantage of doing 
this versus hiring up? The advantage is you don't end up with fresh, 
new faces out there; you end up with people who have line experience, 
knowledge, and ability, and who will from day 1 know how to handle a 
difficult situation should they confront it in a courthouse. This is a 
prudent course.
  The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, unfortunately, in my 
opinion, would simply swamp the marshals. It is better to bring 106 
senior deputies back to the fold than to chase and try to capture 200 
rookies who may or may not be able to be added in time, and may or may 
not be able to be constructive, compared to moving the 106 onto the 
front line.
  By moving those senior marshals to those positions, we will address 
the problem most effectively. That is why the bill takes this approach 
rather than additional funding.
  The bill has also added a huge new increase on top of the very 
dramatic increase that is in the bill for first responders. This is an 
area where I have spent a huge amount of time, as has Senator Hollings. 
Our committee basically first began the first responder effort 3 years 
before the 9/11 event. We set up five major schools across the country. 
We started with training. Actually, we had them in 167 cities before 9/
11. We wish we had been able to do more. We weren't. But as a practical 
matter, this is an area where we have focused a lot of energy and a lot 
of time to get this program to work right. It is working right. This is 
one of the real things in our efforts to address terrorism that is 
working right.
  This bill has put $2 billion into what used to be DPO, the Domestic 
Preparedness Office, which will go out to the police and the emergency 
responders. Then it has another $1 billion-plus going over to FEMA, 
which will help with fire first responders.
  We don't want to put more money on top of that--and I will be willing 
to place odds on this one--than these agencies are going to be able to 
handle in the next 8 months, and at the end of the next 8 months we are 
going to pour another dramatic amount of money into this account.
  We understand that these are the people who need the support. They 
need the technical support and the training. They need the equipment. 
But we also understand, once again, that putting these types of dollars 
into these agencies this fast--into the local fire departments, local 
police departments, local public health departments--if you do it at a 
rate that you can't keep track of it and you can't manage it 
effectively, you are going to end up with a lot of bells and whistles 
rather than substantive equipment. That is what we don't want. We don't 
want people buying blue lights; we want people taking care of the 
equipment they should be buying--respirators or machines--and we want 
the training to be directed at the training needed by a first responder 
in a terrorism event--especially weapons of mass destruction. We don't 
want this money simply ending up by placing dollars that are flowing 
into these agencies.
  The $2 billion that is coming out of our subcommittee and the $1 
billion-plus coming out of the FEMA subcommittee is a dramatic increase 
and a very significant commitment to the first responder program. 
Putting more money on top of that, as the Homeland Security Assistant 
Secretary, Admiral Abbott, pointed out, simply isn't going to add to 
solving the problem.
  As well intentioned as this amendment is--it is well intentioned, and 
I respect immensely the author, but certainly the author's commitment 
to this issue which has been acted on for

[[Page 1243]]

the last few years in a very aggressive way--I think at this time that 
the administration has it right and knows what it is doing as well as 
anyone can in this type of a climate and that this bill properly funded 
was brought to the floor by Senator Stevens.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 52 minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield on the Senator's time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the rollcall 
on Senator Byrd's amendment be changed to commence at 12:30, with the 
time added to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me compliment the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire. He is a very knowledgeable Senator. He is a 
reasonable Senator, and he is a courageous Senator. He doesn't always 
fall in line and do the party thing. But let me say this. He raises a 
straw man when he talks about computers. We are knowledgeable. He is 
right on the computers. So we didn't ask to put any money in this 
amendment for computers.
  Let me also say this. Is there anybody in this Chamber who would 
maintain that we know who is coming into this country and who is going 
out of this country from day to day? The borders are wide open. We know 
that. So let it not be said that the FBI and the other agencies, the 
Border Patrol people, and all of those are awash with money. Don't 
listen to that. Our country is not secure. This amendment is attempting 
to make our Nation secure.
  With regard to the FBI, we have $46 million. We say we are awash with 
money, that we don't need any more money. That was a mainstay of the 
distinguished Senator's argument. I will defer to Senator Hollings 
because he can best speak to this subject matter with respect to the 
FBI, and so forth.
  But the Senator from New Hampshire says we are awash with money; we 
don't need any more money. Well, in this amendment, there is $46 
million for aviation support, including funding for additional pilots 
and mechanics, for two Blackhawk helicopters and surveillance aircraft, 
funding for maintenance and equipment, and other items needed by the 
aviation program.
  This money has been requested by the President of the United States. 
Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing here? This 
amendment is attempting to, in this instance, with respect to the $46 
million--nothing was said about that by the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire. Now they are sending in their top artillery people over 
here on this amendment. I hope our top artillery people will come and 
address these comments.
  But let it not be said that we are spending more money on computers. 
We are not doing it in this amendment. The Senator from New Hampshire 
is exactly correct. We know that, so we did not add money for that.
  But there is other money here requested by the President. So let it 
not be said we do not need that money. Who is right? If a President 
requests the money, is the Senator from New Hampshire, or any other 
Senator on that side of the aisle, or any Senator who is opposed to 
this amendment, willing to stand on the floor and say the President is 
mistaken, the President does not know what he is talking about, the 
President does not speak for us?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. REID. I have listened to this debate, and it appears, with the 
remarks from the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, that these 
amounts in this amendment which the Senator from West Virginia has 
filed were just brought out of the sky someplace. The fact is, agencies 
of the executive department requested these matters initially; is that 
true?
  Mr. BYRD. That is true. And not only the agencies in the executive 
department, but the distinguished Senator from Utah, for example, 
talked about cybercrime, cyberterrorism, the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, Mr. Bennett. He is a very knowledgeable Senator on this subject. 
So in this amendment we have $70,600,000 to combat cybercrime and 
cyberterrorism. We have taken this from testimony at last spring's 
homeland security hearings. These are funds that were blocked--
blocked--by the President in the $2.5 billion supplemental.
  Hear me now. Who asked for this money? Senators on that side of the 
aisle have maintained that this is a very, very worthy cause; we need 
to combat cybercrime and cyberterrorism. This amendment is trying to 
respond to that need that was evidenced by Senator Bennett at the 
hearings.
  Everybody knows we have a language translation problem in the 
services. We have heard that from all sources in the hearings that were 
held by the Appropriations Committee last spring. We heard it from the 
people at the local level. They could not talk with one another. And 
there are problems in language translation. So this was a Hart-Rudman 
report recommendation, and this amendment is trying to respond to that.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 49 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  How much time does the Senator from New York want?
  Mr. SCHUMER. If it is all right with the Senator, 6 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I stand here to back up our leader, the 
Senator from West Virginia, who has waged a long fight.
  First, I wish to say that the Senator from New Hampshire is very 
erudite, and I am glad he chairs his subcommittee, but what he is 
saying, that we do not need money, does not square with the facts. The 
bottom line, if you have followed the fight of our good friend, our 
leader, the Senator from West Virginia, is that this administration has 
constantly cut back on homeland security, on requests they have made, 
and on things that we need.
  We are in a strange situation; that is, when we fight a war on 
terrorism overseas, every penny is available, as it should be. We back 
up our men and women who are overseas. But when it comes to fighting 
here at the homeland, we have no money. The analogy would be telling 
the generals to fight the war in Iraq--the upcoming war we pray to God 
will not happen; but if it does, fight the war in Iraq--with no new 
money. It makes no sense.
  I want to point out three areas because I heard my colleague from New 
Hampshire.
  First, in my State--all of which I know from my State; and I will 
take one end of my State and the other--at one end we have a northern 
border; at the other end we have a port. The northern border is totally 
unguarded. Every 2 weeks we hear on television the fact that some 
unknown group may have come over the northern border.
  In the PATRIOT Act, a bipartisan act which the Justice Department 
pushed, we called for tripling the Border Patrol, Customs, and INS on 
the northern border. In Buffalo we have the second largest port of 
entry between Canada and the United States. I have been there. I have 
talked to the head of the Border Patrol in New York on the northern 
border. I have talked to the head of Customs. I have talked to INS. 
They are desperately short of people.
  If my friend from New Hampshire thinks we don't need money to 
increase personnel for Customs, INS, and the Border Patrol, I would 
invite him to come to my State.
  For the southern border, we have some guards and strictures, and, 
unfortunately, the terrorists have realized that and they use the 
northern border.
  Again, the President called for tripling--tripling--in the PATRIOT 
Act, the personnel of those three Departments on the northern border. 
The underlying amendment does virtually

[[Page 1244]]

nothing. Even the amendment offered by my good friend from West 
Virginia does not triple the amount we need on the northern border, but 
at least it takes a step in that direction.
  I have asked the people in Buffalo and in Plattsburgh and in 
Ogdensburg why they can't hire people. Because they don't have the 
money. Not that the personnel aren't there, not that there are 
bureaucratic bottlenecks, but they don't have the money.
  Let's go to the southern end of my State, New York City, the port. 
Right now, unfortunately--and this is well known--we are wide open in 
terms of what can be smuggled into our ports on the Pacific, on the 
Atlantic, and on the gulf coast. God forbid if a nuclear weapon was 
smuggled in.
  My good friend from Virginia and I, Senator Warner and I, put in an 
amendment in the homeland security bill, and then in Senator Hollings's 
port security bill, to create detection devices to prevent these 
nuclear weapons from coming in. Do you know what we were told? There is 
no money. The President asked that it be taken out.
  How can we say we need to go into Iraq to find nuclear weapons--I 
supported the President in his move to go into Iraq--and at the same 
time leave our ports wide open to someone else--al-Qaida, a Chechen--
smuggling in a weapon?
  Again, the amendment of our leader, the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, does not come close to putting the money in we need, but 
he puts in some. At the same time we are raising the budget for the war 
overseas by tens of billions of dollars, we refuse to even begin to do 
what we need on homeland security.
  Let me say to my friend from New Hampshire, the only bottleneck that 
prevents us from developing a detection device and implementing it on 
every container, on every toll booth at the northern and southern 
borders, to prevent nuclear weapons from coming in, is money. Again, if 
we are going to fight this war on terrorism abroad, we need the dollars 
to do it. Everyone agrees. But, somehow, there is a disconnect, and 
when we fight the war on terrorism at home, we say there are no 
dollars.
  God forbid that something happens and we rue the day.
  One final point. My friend, again, from New Hampshire was saying that 
our first responders in our localities do not need any more money, that 
the $3.4 billion they put in is enough. I beg to differ.
  Let me talk about New York City.
  If you drive over the Brooklyn Bridge, there is a police officer at 
each end of the bridge now. There never used to be. Now that has to be 
24 hours, 7 days a week, to prevent someone from placing a bomb there. 
That is six police officers--three shifts, 24 hours a day--for each end 
of that bridge and for each end of every one of our bridges.
  We, in New York City alone--Commissioner Kelly, Mayor Bloomberg--have 
requested $265 million of this committee, not for anything new, and not 
for the new equipment that my good friend from New Hampshire talks 
about, but simply to pay for some of the costs.
  Let's face it, ladies and gentlemen, the city of New York has been--
up until now; I hope it does not happen again--their No. 1 target.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator for 2 more minutes to 
complete my point.
  Mr. BYRD. Two more minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 more minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. We, in New York City, are stretched. I know what is 
going to happen. They are going to say: New York City, $265 million out 
of $3.4 billion? That is unfair. Everyone else needs the money.
  Well, we are the No. 1 target. We don't have enough money for the 
first responders. And this is true throughout every part of our 
community--our hospitals, our firefighters. Everyone is stretched. Our 
States and local governments have no money to do all this. So, of 
course, we need more. The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia 
doesn't do enough, but at least it is a step on the road.
  I could go on and on. I have talked about the northern border, which 
involves Customs, INS, and Border Patrol. I have talked about the port 
of New York and all the ports of the country which involve both TSA and 
some of the scientific research. I have talked about first responders. 
I could go on and on, but I know there is not enough time. We 
desperately need this money. Let us hope and pray that our stinginess 
in this vital area, where there is no ideological dispute, doesn't hurt 
our people this year or next year or the year after.
  The Senator from West Virginia is making a lonely and difficult 
fight. He has done it for 6 months. But once again, we will look back 
on history and say he was right. We cannot fight a war on terror at 
home if we don't appropriate the dollars.
  My good friend from New Hampshire can say we may not need this or we 
may not need that. In my State, the focal point of terrorism, we are 
not doing what we should on homeland security because we don't have the 
dollars--plain and simple.
  I will enthusiastically support the amendment by the Senator from 
West Virginia, my leader. I hope the rest of the Senate will, too. God 
forbid we regret the day we do not.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
York. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Recently, former Senators Rudman and Hart released a report 
that concluded that American transportation, water, food, power, 
communications, and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorist 
attacks.
  The report highlighted the vulnerabilities created by the miniscule 
fraction of trains, ships, trucks and containers that are searched for 
weapons of mass destruction; poor radio communications and equipment 
and training for police, fire, and emergency medical personnel; 
inadequate coordination and focus on threats to food safety; lack of 
lab capacity to test for biological or chemical contaminants; and 
insufficient sharing of intelligence information with State and local 
governments on potential terrorist threats.
  Not only has President Bush failed--failed, failed--to lead the 
Nation in addressing these vulnerabilities, he has in fact actively 
opposed efforts to provide the resources necessary to address these 
significant weaknesses. The record will show that. When it comes to 
homeland defense, the President is strong on rhetoric and weak on 
resources. The record will substantiate that statement of mine.
  Under pressure from the White House since September 11, 2001, $8.9 
billion of critical funding to address the specific concerns identified 
in the Rudman-Hart report and in our bipartisan Senate Appropriations 
Committee hearings have been squeezed out of spending bills considered 
by the Congress. In November of 2001, just 2 months after the attacks 
of September 11, the President said: Wait.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 2 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
  The President said: Wait, we can wait until 2003 to begin spending 
more on homeland security.
  Now it is 2003. What is the President saying? He is saying: Let's 
wait until 2004.
  Now the administration is saying we don't need more money for fiscal 
year 2003 because the administration has not spent some of the money 
that was appropriated for fiscal year 2002. The administration is 
leaving itself wide open to justified criticism when it maintains that. 
So it is saying we don't need more money because the administration has 
not spent some of the money that was appropriated for fiscal year 2002. 
What poppycock.
  If the administration has not spent essential funds approved by the 
Congress over 1 year ago for homeland security, then the Senate 
Appropriations

[[Page 1245]]

Committee should be holding hearings to find out why. Where does the 
fault lie? Who is right here? Who is wrong? What are we doing?
  Very little is being said on the part of the administration these 
days about protecting the homeland. Everything is go, go, go, go, go. 
They are sending off our National Guardsmen. We see the tears streaming 
down the cheeks of the wives and the children and of the guardsmen and 
reservists themselves. We see this on television every day or so. These 
people are part-time soldiers, but they are full-time community 
workers. They are lawyers. They are doctors. They are firemen. They are 
policemen. They are State policemen. These people are being sent 
overseas to fight a war in Iraq, an undeclared war on the part of the 
Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 2 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield myself whatever time I need from my time.
  It is time somebody says something about what is going on in this 
country.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Not for the moment. I will shortly.
  Mr. President, I don't hear a whimper from the Congress which only a 
short time ago attempted to give up its constitutional power to declare 
war to one man. He will determine when, how, and where our military 
forces will be used in an unprovoked war against a sovereign state that 
has not attacked us in this new doctrine of preemption. It is a new 
doctrine.
  This Senator is just not going to take this lying down. I don't care 
how popular Mr. Bush may be. I answer to my constituents, I answer to 
my Constitution, and I answer to my conscience.
  Here we are penny pinching when it comes to protecting the homeland. 
This administration is not paying enough attention to the protection of 
the homeland--our country, our people, our institutions, our 
installations.
  I think it is time we called the hand of this administration. If the 
administration says: We don't need any more money, we are awash with 
money, well, then, if the administration has not spent essential funds 
approved by the Congress over 1 year ago for homeland security, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee ought to be holding hearings to find 
out why. Let's find out why.
  We need these homeland security resources now to meet real needs that 
have been authorized by the Congress for port security, airport 
security, border security, nuclear security.
  I understand the Senator would like for me to yield. How much time do 
I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished chair. I yield time to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  One of my favorite historians, William Manchester, in writing his 
volumes concerning the life of a great man named Winston Churchill, 
entitled the second volume ``Alone,'' telling of that period in Winston 
Churchill's career in the 1930s when he stood in the House of Commons 
in England as a lonely voice warning his countrymen of the impending 
peril of what was to occur in World War II. He was ignored. He was 
derided. He was ridiculed. Eventually, history vindicated him.
  The same will be true of the Senator from West Virginia. I want to 
let him know, he does not stand alone in this battle. There are many of 
us who believe we need to step up at this moment in time and speak up 
for not just the defense of America from foes who attack us overseas 
but the defense of hometown America, the defense of our homeland. It is 
not enough to create a new bureaucracy and a multi-agency unit with a 
high-sounding name, the Department of Homeland Security, and not 
provide the resources that are essential to protect hometown America.
  My colleague from New York recounted the challenges in New York City. 
The same can be said for the city of Chicago and for small towns and 
villages all across Illinois. Something as basic as establishing a 
communications network for police and fire first responders and the 
medical community is essential to respond to a crisis. The money is not 
there. My State is deep in debt, as are many States across the Nation. 
The question is whether this administration will come forward and 
support Senator Byrd's amendment to put in a small proportional 
increase, a small incremental increase in terms of homeland security, 
and to think this would be resisted is an open invitation for critics 
to say this administration supports a hollow homeland security--one 
that will not be there when we need it. I hope this great Nation and 
our people never face an act of terrorism again. But it is foolhardy 
for us to ignore the threat of September 11, 2001, and its repetition. 
We live on Capitol Hill most of our working lives and we know that two 
letters mailed to an office in Capitol Hill containing anthrax cost us 
$20 million to clean up, cost us American lives, and closed down office 
buildings for months--two envelopes. That is our vulnerability. That is 
the vulnerability of America.
  Senator Byrd, you do not stand alone. I hope there are Members across 
the aisle who will join us in this effort to make certain our 
commitment to homeland security goes beyond rhetoric.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois. He stood with me when we opposed the Iraq resolution, and we 
stand together today.
  Let me say this, Mr. President: This is not the last word with 
respect to sending our men and women across the seas to fight a war 
that has been unprovoked. We have not been attacked. We will have more 
to say about that later.
  We do need to protect this homeland. This amendment will do that. The 
Senate is at a crossroads. We face a choice: Will we allow partisan 
politics to rule the day or will we step up to the responsibility to 
respond to the growing security crisis facing our country? Of course, 
this administration is not going to support me in this amendment. The 
administration has opposed every effort I have made in the past to add 
moneys for homeland security. The administration, the White House, 
would not let their key point man on homeland security come before the 
Appropriations Committee in the Senate last year. They said: He is a 
staff person. Yes, he was, but he was the administration's point man on 
homeland security. They kept him from coming. Then when we tried to 
appropriate more money--unanimously--in the committee, what did we get? 
We got veto threats from this administration.
  Now, what does that tell you about this administration? They don't 
want to work with the Congress. They want to have it their way all the 
way. They don't want to admit there are weaknesses, admit Congress can 
be right, and is right on many occasions. No, we don't expect them to 
support this amendment. They have not supported our amendments in the 
past.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 29 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I see my distinguished chairman and I will be glad to yield 
the floor for now.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. 
Again, I have to come back to where we are. We are trying to send to 
the House, in order that we might convene a conference between the 
House and Senate, the 11 bills we did not pass last year, governing 11 
different appropriations bills. The President has to be taken into 
consideration because we are asking him to sign 11 bills with one 
signature. Rather than have 11 bills individually come over here from 
the House, handle them individually in committee, bring them to the 
floor and handle them individually, take them to conference and handle 
them individually, pass them by the Senate again individually, and send 
them one by one to the President, we are asking to play catchup, send 
them to conference, work it out with the President, within his limits, 
and he will sign the bills and we will put this problem behind us.
  The Senator from West Virginia raises a series of issues about 
homeland security. This Senator does not dispute

[[Page 1246]]

the fact that additional funds will be needed for homeland security. 
For instance, if we go back to the State, Justice, Commerce bill, the 
section of the amendment I have put before the Senate contains $11.3 
billion for homeland security for State, Justice, Commerce functions 
only--Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of 
State. There is $8 billion for the Department of Justice, $222.7 
million for the judiciary, $262.8 million for the Department of 
Commerce, and $280 million for the Department of State.
  Adding another $1.2 billion, as the Senator from West Virginia 
directs under his amendment, would not be something that can be used by 
these departments in the 7-plus months that are left--plus maybe a week 
or two--to spend that money.
  My position is, let's get this behind us. In every instance, there is 
money in the bill that would deal with the issues at the President's 
level; but Senator Byrd wants to increase that money. For instance, for 
the DC emergency response plan, Senator Byrd wants to add $12 million 
for the District's unified communication center. We have $10 million 
for that purpose in this amendment. The President didn't request any 
money, so we have already added $10 million. Senator Byrd wants to add 
$12 million to that.
  In the District of Columbia, Senator Byrd wants to add $13 million 
for the bioterrorism hospital preparedness account. We already included 
$10 million in this amendment, and there is $8 million already 
available from the supplemental passed late last year for the fiscal 
year 2003. So the District of Columbia has already $18 million for that 
function to which the Senator wants to add $13 million.
  In the civil defense area--this is under the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee--the Senator from West Virginia wants an additional $100 
million for security upgrades for the Army Corps of Engineers. That is 
for reviewing facilities such as dams, water treatment plants, et 
cetera. We already have $65 billion to be spent in less than 8 months. 
My friend wishes another $211 million for security upgrades for the 
Department of Energy's nuclear facilities. In this omnibus amendment 
before us, we have $1.2 billion for that purpose. Even that money will 
not be spent in the balance of fiscal 2003.
  It doesn't do us any good to pass bills that contain surplus money 
that cannot be spent in this fiscal year. This omnibus bill is for 
funding the balance of fiscal year 2003.
  For the Department of Homeland Security's national infrastructure 
simulation and analysis center in New Mexico, the Senator from West 
Virginia wants to add $25 million. The President asked for $20 million. 
We have increased that to $30 million--more money than requested for 
that function. We increased it 50 percent already. This agreement is 
not with the function, it is with the pace of spending. The money the 
Senator wants just cannot be spent in this period of time. I say that 
respectfully because we have already passed 4 months. At the end of 
this month, it is 4 months of the fiscal year that is gone. It takes 
about a month to allocate money, get it out to where people can use it, 
and it takes time to contract it and hire new people to spend it. It is 
not physically possible, administratively possible, to spend this 
additional money. The main thing is, if it is needed, we have a 
supplemental that is coming along. We will be looking at additions to 
these bills.
  We will have money in the 2004 bill which will be available in the 
last 3 months of this calendar year, this coming October 1. I urge the 
Senate to look at each issue.
  Again, I sat with my good friend when we had those hearings. There 
was not a person there who did not want more money. I do not remember 
one single person who did not want more money. As a matter of fact, as 
a father of six, I have had people around me who wanted money all my 
life. The question is: How much should be allocated, and how fast 
should they spend it?
  Now, on this concept of taking the bill and saying, we want to add $5 
billion to this omnibus amendment I have, we will take it back into the 
same fight we had last year, the same thing that delayed us last year, 
and it will delay us so we cannot even get to the battle for the 2004 
appropriations bills.
  Not to be disrespectful to my friend from West Virginia, but I urge 
the Senate to not approve this amendment that really does not solve the 
problem. The problem is, how do we catch up with the appropriations 
process? How do we face up to the fact that the last Congress did not 
pass 11 of the 13 bills?
  I admit I have suggested a rather abrupt and arbitrary procedure, 
putting them all together in one package, but I did not do it alone. 
Each of the subcommittees reviewed every single line in these bills.
  I put into the Record last night the summary of the reports that 
would have been prepared had we brought out 11 separate bills so that 
everybody can see where this money is intended to go.
  Very clearly, it is designed to go to conference with the House. As 
we go to the conference with the House, I hope we can have a wide-open 
conference that deals with the issues, and it may be that some of the 
items that Senator Byrd wants will be brought to us by the House. I do 
not know, but I know every issue the Senator wants to cover goes into 
conference. We have rule 28, and those things will be in conference. 
They can be increased if the conference wishes to do so.
  I know of no instance where anyone has come to this Senator and said 
the amount of money that is in this omnibus bill is not enough to 
finish their functions for fiscal year 2003. There are a lot of them 
who want more money, but there is not one of them who said, we cannot 
survive with that amount of money.
  We have ample money for every function of homeland security that I 
know of in this bill, and we should not confuse the issue. The 
Senator's amendment does not address how much money is required for 
homeland security but whether we should go beyond the President's total 
request for homeland security.
  As I mentioned in several instances, we have recommended more than 
the President requested, but we offset it with cuts from other areas. 
Unfortunately, the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia does not 
offset at all. It adds to the bill. There are no offsets. So we do not 
have a budget resolution. We ought to have agreed to that level right 
after the election, and had we had the chance to move before then, 
Senator Byrd would have had the job I have of coming down to that 
level.
  Now the gavel has shifted, but the problem has not changed, and I am 
asking the Senate to do what I think Senator Byrd would have asked last 
November/December had we gotten to the point where we are now, actually 
considering the bills on the floor.
  Again, I do not want to put all of this in the Record, but, again, I 
will put the summary in the Record in terms of the charts I have 
prepared. We have covered these functions. We have funded the functions 
for the amount that the subcommittees, working with the staff of both 
Republicans and Democrats, believe is sufficient to carry this through 
until October 1 of this year, fulfilling the obligation to fund the 
fiscal year 2003 functions of Government.
  If we do not do this now, there is not one agency that is going to 
get any money until at least the end of March. It would be a miracle 
for any one of these bills to pass before the end of March.
  My suggestion is, let's take it to conference now, and if anyone 
wants to come in and convince the conference that something is 
underfunded, do it. These are the collective recommendations of the 
staff, the chairmen, and ranking members of these subcommittees as to 
how they would live under this lid of $750.5 billion, as I agreed to 
do, staying within the President's level, get it to him, and let him 
sign the bills.
  Don't misunderstand me. The President is not too happy with this 
omnibus package either because there are lots of items that are 
increased and others decreased in terms of his requests. It is not over 
until the pen moves, until the President signs the bill.

[[Page 1247]]

  I think the only place we can get to the point where he will sign the 
bill is in conference, and I urge the Senate not to approve this 
amendment and not to approve the other amendments. Let's take this 
omnibus package to the conference and work with our counterparts in the 
House on a bipartisan basis and fashion a bill that the President will 
sign.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I realize my leader is in the Chamber and wishes to speak 
on leader time, and we have other Senators who wish to speak. How much 
time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 28 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished friend, and he is 
my friend, but remember that my friend from Alaska said in December a 
year ago: Now, 4 months have already passed. We have 8 months. Let's 
wait until 2003. We have already gone through 4 months. Let's wait 
until 2003.
  Now we are hearing the same argument, may I say, from my dear friend: 
Let's wait until 2004.
  We cannot wait.
  The distinguished chairman refers to the fact that the President will 
not like this either. Well, I accord this President the same respect I 
accord any other President. This President is not infallible, nor is 
any other President we have ever had.
  The problem with what I see in this administration is they want to 
have it their way with every comma, semicolon, colon, and hyphen. They 
do not want the Congress to come forward with anything. They are 
against anything we propose. They have been against everything we have 
proposed thus far.
  Let's take their own argument and turn it on its head. Congress has 
approved $365 billion for Defense. That is a lot of money. We have 
never squeezed a penny. We have never denied Defense anything. We do 
not deny the Defense Department anything they want. When they come up 
and want more money, we give them more money, almost without questions 
asked.
  On top of the $365 billion for Defense that we have provided, this 
bill adds $3.9 billion. That is $3.90 for every minute since Jesus 
Christ was born.
  Can the Defense Department spend that money? My distinguished 
chairman asks, can this Government responsibly spend this additional 
money that Senator Byrd is asking for in this amendment? Well, I ask 
the same question: Can the Department of Defense spend the money? Can 
it spend $3.9 billion more? Yes.
  We are adding $5 billion for homeland defense on homeland security--
the security of your people, Mr. President, my people, my children, our 
installations, our institutions, our borders, our country. Can we spend 
that money, $5 billion for homeland defense and homeland security? Yes, 
they can spend it, and spend it well.
  Let something happen, and then we will see what the polls show. If 
something happens, let the American people then take a look backward 
and see how this Congress sought to add monies for border security, for 
airport security, for homeland security, for port security. Those are 
monies the administration threatened to veto. It turned its back on 
them. It turned its back on the $2.5 billion last year. The President 
refused to sign a bill that provided $2.5 billion for emergency 
planning. He turned the back of his hand. He turned his back on his own 
country when he turned down that opportunity to give $2.5 billion for 
homeland security, to put it in the hands at the local level, the law 
enforcement people, the health personnel, the people at the local 
level. He flatly rejected it. Let something happen, and then see what 
the polls show. Then see where the questions are asked. Then hear what 
the answers will be. I say a stitch in time saves nine.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time that I have under 
the order of the day.
  Let me begin by congratulating the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia for his eloquence and for his leadership on this critical 
issue. As we consider all of the priorities we ought to be concerned 
about in this bill, there is no priority of greater import than the 
homeland defense of this Nation. I have immense respect for the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I admire the way he works 
and his dedication to his work and the leadership he provides. I can 
only surmise this would not be his package, either, had he had the 
opportunity to do this on his own. He is forced to work with an 
administration and people in the House that have different priorities. 
I understand that.
  We have differences and disagreements with regard to priorities, but 
there should not be any disagreement under the Constitution as to what 
the most important priority is. It is to protect and defend this 
country against enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is what the 
Constitution says. They leave no doubt, our Founding Fathers, about 
what our priorities ought to be as we consider budgets, as we consider 
each year what should be our priorities under fiscal management. Over 
the course of the last couple of years we have turned to experts to 
ask, How are we doing with that constitutional responsibility in light 
of 9/11?
  The Conference of Mayors, under the leadership of President Tom 
Morino, said about a year ago: It has been 16 months since 9/11, and 
the Congress has still failed to deliver public safety money for first 
responders. They vote for tax cuts for special interests but deny 
cities and States money for critical programs. Washington, he said, is 
out of step with the rest of the country.
  We asked two of the most respected experts in the Senate, former 
colleagues, to give their evaluation of how it is we are doing as we 
attempt to protect this country against enemies both foreign and 
domestic. Their response: America remains dangerously unprepared to 
prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
  We hear from the experts. We hear from those people who are charged 
with the responsibility of ensuring that first responders have the 
ability to do what our constitutional obligations require. Today what 
Senator Byrd is proposing is we put our money where our mouth is, that 
we make the commitment required to live up to those constitutional 
obligations.
  I find the current circumstances in the Senate absolutely bizarre 
because, on one hand, we are told by our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that we can afford a tax cut of the magnitude almost equal 
to what we passed 2 years ago. Take the President's recently proposed 
tax package, add to it the cost of interest, and add to that his 
proposal that we make those tax cuts permanent, and you come to about 
$1.3 trillion. Now they tell us we can afford that. We can pass this 
``leave no millionaires behind'' bill. We can do that. We can somehow 
find the resources to give more tax breaks to 226,000 millionaires, but 
we do not have $5 billion to live up to our constitutional obligations. 
That is bizarre. That is, in my view, one of the most preposterous 
positions anyone could come to the Senate floor and take.
  Yet that is exactly what I hear our Republican colleagues saying. I 
have a handout I was given this morning from the Republican caucus. It 
says: Homeland security funding, and it lays out the reasons why 
Senator Byrd's amendment ought not be supported by Senators on their 
side. It says the Byrd amendment is well-intentioned but unaffordable.
  Unaffordable? Five billion dollars is unaffordable? Unaffordable, 
when we know we have to provide smallpox vaccine? Unaffordable, when we 
know we have to ensure that we synchronize the police and fire 
communication systems and have the emergency planning? Unaffordable, 
when we see cuts in Coast Guard programs and our efforts to try to 
protect our ports and bridges and infrastructure? Unaffordable, when we 
cannot find the money to ensure that we can even deal with the security 
questions we are facing right now in

[[Page 1248]]

protecting our nuclear facilities and our water and other unique needs 
to every community in the nation? Unaffordable? That is preposterous. 
This debate is bizarre. For the life of me, I cannot understand how 
anyone can say in light of their advocacy of a $1.3 trillion tax cut 
that defending this country, as the Constitution requires, is 
unaffordable.
  I hope our colleagues think very long and hard about how unaffordable 
this is. God forbid anything happens in the coming months. God forbid 
we once again experience what we did on 9/11. I would think we would do 
exactly what Senator Byrd is proposing, and even more. I think $5 
billion is just the beginning for what we are going to be required to 
do to make this country safer and stronger and to live up to those 
constitutional obligations.
  If we do not start now, in this fiscal year, when do we start? Tell 
the mayors they cannot spend the money. Tell our firefighters and our 
police officers, they cannot spend the money. Tell all of those who are 
concerned about responding to whatever eventuality there may be, they 
can't spend the money. I have not found one yet who has given me that 
answer. When I ask them, Do you need more resources, they say yes, I 
needed them yesterday. Yes, if we are going to defend our water system, 
and if we are going to defend all of our facilities and our 
infrastructure in this country; I needed that money a year ago. Yes, I 
need the money.
  But for Heavens' sake, if anyone can say with a straight face that we 
ought to spend $1.3 trillion more on tax cuts, they ought to be able to 
say yes, we have $5 billion to protect our homeland, as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Does the Senator still have time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am sure I do.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say to the leader, how long ago was it we 
heard the President of the United States saying, no price is too great 
a price to pay for freedom? Right? When they talk about war in 
Afghanistan, they talk about war in Iraq, no price is too great a price 
to pay.
  Where are those voices now from the administration? Where are the 
voices that say no amount of money is too much to pay? What about this? 
What amount of money is too much to pay for homeland security? Who 
knows but when the first shot ricochets in the war against Iraq--which 
Congress is not declaring--when that first shot is fired, is it 
possible we may hear some shots fired in our own country; that we may 
see the terrorists come out of hiding; we may see them come from the 
veil; we may see them come forward? What will happen then? What will 
happen then to this Capitol?
  What saved this Capitol from being demolished on September 11? A few 
brave men and women on that plane that went down in Pennsylvania saved 
this Capitol. Who is to say that these terrorists--we don't have them 
among us now? Who can say there are not terrorists out here now, 
waiting, just waiting, waiting for the moment?
  And here the people downtown, when it comes to homeland security, 
when it comes to the protection of our homeland, when it comes to the 
protection of our families, when it comes to the protection of our 
churches, our schools, our stores, our jobs--aha, $5 billion is too 
much to pay, too much to pay; we don't need it.
  If you don't need it, don't spend it, and let's have some hearings as 
to why it isn't spent.
  No price is too much to pay. No price is too much to pay for the 
security of this great land of ours.
  I thank the distinguished leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would just say to the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia that he is absolutely right. This city has heard a lot of 
great speeches since 9/11, but I keep thinking of Teddy Roosevelt who 
said: ``Speak softly but carry a big stick.''
  What I find this administration doing is speaking loudly and carrying 
a small stick. It is a small stick when you consider what they are 
doing with homeland defense. What you want to do is give them a bigger 
stick. What you want to do is send as clear a message as we can that we 
are willing to commit the resources of this country to carry out the 
rhetoric that we have heard so often on the floor of the Senate and in 
every one of these State of the Union Messages. We have to match our 
commitment in resources to the rhetoric we hear from our leaders.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is what you are doing.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have heard various accounts of how much 
the war in Iraq will cost. The accounts range from $60 billion to $250 
billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars. That is the wide range of the 
cost of a war in Iraq. A resolution passed here saying the President 
could go to Iraq when he believed it appropriate.
  It seems to me that if we can spend up to a quarter of a trillion 
dollars to go into the Middle East, we can spend a paltry $5 billion to 
make sure that my people in Nevada have some semblance of protection.
  Would the leader agree that if we can spend hundreds of billions of 
dollars going to Iraq, we can afford, we should spend, $5 billion to 
take care of the people in South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, 
Nevada, Alaska, Kentucky--the States of the Senators I see on the floor 
here now?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from Nevada makes a very important 
point. I have about 1,000 people from South Dakota who are now in the 
Persian Gulf, who are awaiting further orders from the President of the 
United States and from the Pentagon with regard to what may occur in 
the Middle East and in Iraq in the next couple of weeks.
  Of course, I want to provide whatever resources are necessary to see 
that they are protected and that they have the ability to do their job. 
But I ask, if we are willing to make that commitment to those fighting 
the war in the gulf, why aren't we willing to make the same commitment 
to those fighting the war here at home? Why aren't we willing to 
provide the resources to the police and the first responders and to all 
of those who are fighting just as critical an effort to defeat 
terrorism here at home?
  Why do we say we have the money for the people in the gulf but we 
don't have the money for the people here at home? Are they less 
vulnerable? Is their role less important? Do they have some degree of 
disadvantage because they are here at home? I think the Senator from 
Nevada makes a very critical point in the argument here. If we have the 
resources and if we have the commitment to fight terrorism, regardless 
of whether it is abroad or here at home, we ought to have the resources 
commensurate with that commitment.
  What the President is saying is we don't have that kind of commitment 
here at home. That is inexcusable. And it is especially inexcusable 
when he says we have the resources for a tax cut of the magnitude they 
are considering today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I want to 
yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington.
  I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his contribution 
today. I thank both the leader and the assistant leader for what they 
have contributed to this debate.
  Mr. President, we talk about sending our troops, men and women, 
fathers, brothers, husbands, wives, overseas to fight a war in Iraq. We 
talk as though it is just a video game. Nobody raised a question. We 
don't hear a whimper--not a whimper.
  We see the pictures on television every day. These people are going 
away. We see them kissing. We see them waving goodbye. We see them 
shedding tears. We know that those tears are shed at night on those 
pillows. There seems to be no thought to the sacrifices that may be in 
the offing for this country. They talk as though

[[Page 1249]]

it is a video game, just a matter of pushing a few buttons and we will 
win.
  Well, now, we may be lucky. If we go to war, we may be lucky. I hope 
we will be lucky. But what if we are not lucky? Where will those who 
are silent now be? Why don't they raise their voice now? Why don't we 
ask questions?
  I am not one to be driven in a hole. We hear a lot about driving them 
in the holes and we will go in and get them. Our men--our men--will go 
in and get them. We talk about driving the enemy into holes in 
Afghanistan and in Iraq--we will drive them into holes.
  I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  We will drive them in the holes; we will go get them. Who is ``we''? 
It is not I. I don't think I will be going in those holes, driving 
anybody out. It is going to be those poor men and women who are giving 
up their salaries as lawyers, as doctors, as teachers, as security 
people, as law enforcement people, as firemen--they are the people who 
are going in those holes in Afghanistan. They are the people who are 
going to go into those holes and bringing out the enemy.
  We talk as though it is a video game. I hope and I pray to God that 
if we do go to war with Iraq, we will be lucky. I hope Saddam will 
catch the first plane out to Libya or to some other country. I hope he 
will. But what if he doesn't? We have to contemplate that.
  So I think it is our responsibility here in the Congress to do two 
things at least: Raise questions, and provide the money for the 
security of this homeland. We don't know what will happen to this 
homeland once we open fire in the hot sands of the deserts in the 
Middle East. We don't know what may break out in this country. Are our 
water resources fully protected? Are our energy resources fully 
protected? Are our nuclear facilities fully protected? Are our borders 
secure? Are our ports secure? Are our airports secure? Are our people 
secure? No. And here we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when it 
comes to fighting and protecting ourselves on the homeland.
  How many here, right here in this Chamber today, will feel secure in 
this very Chamber in the future? I say we had better stop, look, and 
listen while there is time to stop, look, and listen. I will have 
plenty more to say on that subject.
  But on the subject of homeland security, let it not be said that we 
are not doing our very best to give this administration all the tools 
it needs, all that it can possibly usefully use, all that it can 
possibly efficiently use, to protect this homeland of ours. And who 
will say that this land is fully protected? Who feels secure in this 
homeland of ours today? Ask your wives. Ask your mothers if they feel 
secure. And here we are, quibbling over $5 billion.
  Nobody is going to put you in jail if you don't spend it. But if you 
need to spend it and don't--don't have it, and if you haven't spent it 
already, why haven't you? Surely we are not perfect. Surely we are not 
absolutely secure.
  Mr. President, how much time does the Senator wish?
  How much time does the Senator from Washington want?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I simply ask for 1 minute, or 2, I say to the 
distinguished Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. REID. Will the Chair indicate at what time the vote will occur as 
a result of Senator Daschle having spoken?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is estimated right now by the 
Parliamentarian that 12:44 will be the time for the vote.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came to the floor last night to give 
extensive remarks about the tremendous importance of the amendment that 
has been offered by Senator Byrd in the area of transportation for port 
security, airport security, and transit security. I have been listening 
to the debate this morning.
  I wanted to come to the floor to refute a critical misstatement that 
has been made about the amendment that has been offered by Senator 
Byrd. It was argued by my friends on the other side of the aisle that 
the funds in this bill are all over and above the funding requested by 
President Bush. I need to tell my colleagues that in the area of 
transportation that is just simply not true. In the underlying bill, 
the funding level for the Transportation Security Administration is 
some $460 million short of what is needed to fully fund all of the 
congressionally directed initiatives, as well as fully fund the 
security requests of the Bush administration. It is a simple 
mathematical fact. This amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd 
provides $460 million for the TSA needs to fully fund what President 
Bush has requested for the Transportation Security Administration. 
Without the amendment offered by Senator Byrd--if we enact this without 
that--the TSA will have to cut $460 million to make way for the 
congressional mandates that all of us have worked on, supported, 
passed, and told our constituents are coming. The only way to fully 
fund what President Bush has requested for screening passengers at our 
airports and purchasing the explosive-detecting machines is by 
providing the funding for the Byrd amendment.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me a minute to 
clarify this critical point--that we need to have this amendment to 
fully fund President Bush's request, particularly in the area of 
transportation security.
  I thank the President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Washington for clarifying a very critical point. I thank her, and I 
apologize to her for keeping her waiting. She has been on the floor 
waiting to make this correction. I am glad she made the correction. I 
hope that Senators will carefully study what she has said. She has 
pointed to a yawning flaw in the argument of the other side. I thank 
her for her contributions to her country.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, once again Senator Byrd has taken up the 
fight to fund adequately our homeland security needs. I supported his 
efforts last year, I voted with him today, and I will continue to back 
his efforts to sufficiently fund out security needs in the future.
  Last year the Senate included supplemental funding for homeland 
security needs but the President refused to spend those funds. The 
Senate Appropriations Committee wanted to spend an additional $8.3 
billion, but the administration only agreed to spend $4.2 billion. The 
President effectively vetoed $2.5 billion in emergency funding for 
homeland security last August. We hear reports that our country is no 
more secure today than we were on September 10, 2001, but the 
administration refuses to spend the funds required. This administration 
seems to believe that wisdom can only come from one end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue.
  The $5 billion in this package goes for hiring and salaries for FBI 
and Customs Agents. It purchases more patrol boats for the Coast Guard 
and improves port security. This money will help transform the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service and improve security at our 
embassies around the world. Almost $150 million will go out to our 
first responders through the COPS program, one of the more effective 
community policing programs. There are important funds in this package 
to protect and secure important Army Corps of Engineers infrastructure. 
We need to protect our dams and water projects from potential attacks 
or tampering.
  There is also significant funding to improve our transportation 
infrastructure. There is $300 million for improving security at 
airports and hardening cockpit doors. These two issues are critical to 
improving safety in the air. We know these changes have to happen, and 
should have happened a long time ago. We can't afford to waste any more 
time. Two years have passed and we cannot say that our aviation network 
is safe from a terrorist attack.
  This money meets real, documented, legitimate demands. These needs 
have been testified to in hearings, they were

[[Page 1250]]

exposed in the Hart-Rudman report, and the agencies themselves have 
asked for these funds but have been denied by the Office of Management 
and Budget. I understand that some on the other side of this issue are 
concerned that the money will not be spent correctly, that we are 
forcing these agencies to grow too quickly. I believe we have a duty to 
give the agencies an opportunity to do their job. We have a duty to 
give the agencies all the tools they need to protect the American 
people. I would rather be accused of trying to do too much, than not 
enough.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there is nothing more important than 
America's homeland security. I support Senator Byrd's amendment because 
it provides essential funds for hometown security.
  It will improve our ability to prevent terrorism, through stronger 
port security, border security, and transportation security. And it 
will improve our ability to respond to acts of terrorism by giving 
first-responders the tools they need.
  Local communities are on the front lines in our war against 
terrorism. They must not bear the full cost of this war. This means 
Congress must do its share by providing funds for: local law 
enforcement, first responders and public health professionals; extra 
security for critical infrastructure like public water supplies; and 
improved communications systems.
  This amendment accomplishes six important things. First, it improves 
port security, airplane cockpit security, and airport security by 
giving the Transportation Security Administration $1.64 billion. It 
permits INS to better monitor who is coming into our country by giving 
them $363 million to develop an entry/exit system. It enables community 
law enforcement agencies to upgrade communications equipment by 
providing $100 million through the COPS program. It ensures that the 
Children's National Medical Center here in DC can expand their 
quarantine and decontamination facilities for children and families by 
giving the Center $8 million. Senator Byrd's amendment allows states to 
enhance their chemical response capabilities by giving them $9.5 
million. Finally, the amendment assures that 10 million doctors, 
nurses, and first-responders will receive the smallpox vaccination this 
year by giving $850 million to state and local health departments.
  Without this additional funding, States will be forced to cut back on 
other critical public services, such as putting more police officers on 
the streets to fight ``everyday'' crime, or tracking West Nile virus 
cases. I have received dozens of letters pleading for promised Federal 
assistance for first-responders. For example, Laurel, MD continues its 
efforts to organize and prepare their regional emergency services to 
respond not only to terrorism but to all local emergencies. Since 
September 11, Laurel has had to use their limited resources to respond 
to several critical events, a tornado on September 24, 2001, and the 
sniper shootings that required them to be on extended heightened alert. 
Despite this, Laurel continues to prepare its emergency service 
providers to respond to the various alerts and incidents that continue 
to occur. Baltimore, MD also has the additional task of securing large 
public arenas such as Camden Yards and Ravens Stadium against terrorist 
attacks.
  This is why it is so important that we pass this amendment. Cities 
are on the front lines in preparing for, and responding to, acts of 
terror. Who are the people on the front lines? They're police, 
firefighters, EMS and public health responders. Firefighters in 
Maryland alone need $40 million for equipment, training and personnel 
protective gear. Our law enforcement officers play a critical role in 
detection and prevention, and must also have equipment, training, and 
better information from federal agencies to do their jobs. By investing 
this money today, we get double value, more money to prepare for 
terrorism means more money to fight crime and fires.
  My own State of Maryland has made great strides in preparing our 
Nation against a terrorist attack, but communities need this additional 
funding to make sure they are combat ready and fit-for-duty. Let's 
protect the protectors and keep our promises to the warriors on the 
front lines of this new war against terrorism.
  That is why I support homeland, and hometown, security, and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to strongly support the 
amendment by the Senior Senator from West Virginia to restore funds 
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last year to enhance 
our homeland security.
  The Byrd amendment would be giving law enforcement the tools they 
need to do their job, focusing on both immediate and long-term threats 
we face at home and abroad. It aims to bolster our security against 
terrorists, and to improve the administration of justice throughout the 
country.
  This Federal support is desperately needed by our States, counties, 
cities and towns, which are now facing fiscal crisis.
  Since September 11, 2001, States, counties, cities and towns have 
become overwhelmed by increasing homeland security costs. The National 
Governors' Association estimated that States incurred about $7 billion 
in security costs in the past year alone. The National Association of 
Counties believes at least $5.2 billion is needed to better equip 
public health systems to cope with attacks and fight terrorism.
  The President's ill-conceived tax cut in 2001, along with the new 
cuts he proposes now, are likely to exacerbate these economic woes.
  The Byrd amendment would provide the Federal support that our States 
need by restoring $1 billion in homeland security cuts, restoring $2.5 
billion of emergency homeland security funds, and funding the Airport 
Security Act, all critical needs.
  The Byrd amendment would also provide needed funding to protect our 
borders. Through the USA Patriot Act and the Enhanced Border Security 
and Visa Reform Act, a Democratic Senate led the fight to dramatically 
increase authorizations for personnel and technology to guard our 
northern border. Unfortunately, the appropriations package before us 
would shortchange that pressing need.
  Senator Byrd's amendment includes an additional and much-needed $83 
million to enforce our immigration laws and safeguard our borders, 
including funding to provide pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents and 
Immigration inspectors. We are asking more and more of our border 
personnel, and we must reward them for their hard work or risk losing 
them altogether.
  In addition, the Byrd amendment expands the COPS program by providing 
$150 million for grants to law enforcement and first responder agencies 
for improved communications systems. I know that Senator Gregg and 
Senator Hollings, the new chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, understand that 
communication is key to coordinated and effective law enforcement 
efforts. I thank them for their past bipartisan support in my home 
state for upgraded communications systems for better law enforcement.
  This year marked an unfortunate turn after a decade of remarkable 
declines in the Nation's crime rate. The decade of progress we made 
under the leadership of President Clinton and Attorney General Reno 
helped revitalize our cities and restore a sense of security for 
millions of Americans. According to the latest FBI report, however, the 
number of murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, and property crimes is 
up across the United States, the first year-to-year increase since 
1991.
  It is troubling that, at this crucial moment, the Bush Administration 
is proposing to reduce by nearly 80 percent the Community Oriented 
Policing Services, COPS, program that has helped to put 115,000 new 
police officers on the beat since 1994 and Byrne grants to State and 
local law enforcement. I believe that we must fight to maintain and 
extend the COPS program and Byrne grants, which has proven its value in 
increasing the security of our cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

[[Page 1251]]

  I am a strong supporter of Senator Biden and Senator Specter's 
bipartisan bill to reauthorize the COPS program, which the Senate 
Judiciary Committee approved unanimously last year only to have an 
anonymous Republican hold put on it to prevent final passage. I hope we 
can finally reauthorize the COPS program this year since it has proven 
to be such a crime-fighting success.
  As we provide the necessary tools for federal law enforcement 
officials to protect our homeland security, we must remember that State 
and local law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency 
personnel are our full partners in preventing, investigating and 
responding to criminal and terrorist acts.
  As a former State prosecutor, I know that public safety officers are 
often the first responders to a crime. On September 11, the Nation saw 
that the first on the scene were the heroic firefighters, police 
officers and emergency personnel in New York City. These real-life 
heroes, many of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice, remind us of how 
important it is to support our State and local public safety partners.
  In addition, the ``Comprehensive Homeland Security Act of 2003'', S. 
6, and the ``Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act,'' S. 22, 
which Senator Daschle introduced on behalf of the Democratic Caucus and 
which I am proud to cosponsor, establish the First Responders 
Partnership Grant program, which will provide $4 billion in annual 
grants for each of the next 3 years to support our State and local law 
enforcement officers in the war against terrorism.
  First Responder Grants will be made directly to State and local 
governments and Indian tribes for equipment, training and facilities to 
support public safety officers in their efforts to protect homeland 
security and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Grants may be 
used to pay up to 90 percent of the cost of the equipment, training or 
facility, and each State will be guaranteed a fair minimum amount. This 
is essential Federal support that our State and local public safety 
officers need and deserve.
  Our State and local public safety law enforcement partners welcome 
the challenge to join in our national mission to protect our homeland 
security. But we cannot ask State and local law enforcement officers, 
firefighters and emergency personnel to assume these new national 
responsibilities without also providing new Federal support.
  The Byrd Amendment is an essential down payment and with the First 
Responders Partnership Grant Program, which I hope the Senate will turn 
to and enact without delay, we can provide the necessary federal 
support for our State and public safety officers to serve as full 
partners in our fight to protect homeland security and respond to acts 
of terrorism.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from West Virginia 
for his leadership in providing the resources needed to enhance our 
national security.
  One of the most important aspects of the Byrd amendment is the 
additional resources it will provide to protect America from the threat 
of bioterrorism. The anthrax attack of a year ago has made all 
Americans aware of the grave threat posed by biological weapons. We 
know, for example, that terrorists bent on savage destruction may well 
have access to the smallpox virus, one of the deadliest plagues ever to 
threaten humanity.
  Faced with this obvious danger, it is essential for Congress to 
provide adequate funds to our hospitals, medical professionals, and 
communities. They need to act now to prepare for this threat.
  In a few days, thousands of health and emergency workers will be 
asked to roll up their sleeves and be vaccinated against smallpox. 
There is a cleave need to inoculate health care workers, so that they 
can quickly vaccinate millions of Americans in the event of an 
outbreak, as a CDC advisory committee has recommended to the White 
House.
  We need to protect the safety of those who receive the vaccine. We 
need to provide financial assistance to the communities that will bear 
the expense of giving the vaccine to thousands of workers. We need to 
provide compensation to those who are injured by the vaccine and 
guarantee their medical care.
  Smallpox vaccination must be coupled with effective education and 
safety programs to minimize the risks to those receiving the vaccine 
and to their communities. The health of those receiving the vaccine 
must be closely monitored. Recipients of the vaccine must be educated 
about its risks and potential benefits. All of these essential elements 
cost money.
  The Nation's health departments and hospitals should not have to 
implement the smallpox plan by taking from other vital health 
priorities or risking their financial viability.
  Just this month we've seen new figures that the current death toll 
from the flu has surpassed that from HIV/AIDS. Senior citizens around 
the Nation may have to go without flu vaccinations if local health 
departments are spending their immunization budgets on smallpox. Women 
may not receive needed screenings for breast cancer because scarce 
funds are being siphoned away. Certainly, we must enhance our 
homeland's security, but we must not purchase security at unacceptable 
price of missed immunizations or reduced care for those most 
vulnerable.
  The cost of implementing the smallpox plan should not be reducing 
efforts to enhance our preparedness for other forms of biological 
attack. Public health organizations report that many communities are 
thinking of following the example of Seattle and Arlington, VA, where 
almost all other bioterrorism preparedness activities have been 
suspended in order to free up funds for smallpox vaccinations. The 
Massachusetts State Laboratory Institute has had to divert $110,000 
from preparedness planning, $165,000 from epidemiology, $125,000 from 
expanding disease tracking networks, and $261,000 from health education 
and information, all to fund the new smallpox plan.
  These diversions of funding may be just the tip of the iceberg. 
Although the direct costs of the smallpox plan are large, the indirect 
costs may be even larger. Even with the best safety measures, some 
individuals will be injured by the vaccine. Military personnel 
receiving smallpox shots can rest assured that anyone injured by the 
vaccine will get the best of medical care. We should do no less for the 
civilian heroes who put their lives on the line to safeguard our 
security. It would be shameful for the Federal Government to encourage 
any American to receive the vaccine, and then deny proper care for the 
consequences.
  Yet this is just what the current plan would allow. Instead of 
assuring medical care to vaccine recipients, the plan relies on the 
uncertain coverage of the private insurance market or workers' 
compensation programs to provide care. If a health care worker who 
volunteers for vaccination has no coverage or has inadequate coverage, 
they are out of luck, and that is wrong.
  Nor does the plan provide an assured system of compensation for those 
who are injured by the vaccine or for health workers who must take days 
away from work to protect their patients from the risk of accidental 
transmission of the live virus in the vaccine. Instead, the plan forces 
claimants to sue the U.S. Government in Federal courts, where they face 
the arduous task of proving that their injuries were due to negligence.
  The Byrd amendment takes the steps that are necessary to deal with 
these problems. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia provides 
almost $1 billion to help communities around the Nation implement the 
administration's smallpox plan. I urge my colleagues to approve the 
Byrd amendment and devote adequate resources to protecting not only 
safety of the Nation, but the health and safety of those who defend it.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment proposed by Senator Byrd, which would restore a portion of 
the devastating cuts to this year's Senate-passed appropriations 
measures that

[[Page 1252]]

are contained in the pending Republican omnibus appropriations package.
  In my own State of Maryland and across the Nation, State, local, and 
regional authorities are struggling to make even the most basic of 
homeland security improvements. In many cases, these communities have 
taken exhaustive measures to identify their areas of greatest 
vulnerability, and have made commendable advances in enhancing their 
own preparedness and response capabilities.
  Last year, this body made a series of nearly unanimous legislative 
commitments to assist these local security efforts in several important 
areas. Moreover, while the House of Representatives passed only a 
portion of its spending measures, the Senate completed action on all 13 
of its own appropriations bills. After months of hard work on behalf of 
both my Democratic and Republican colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee, difficult decisions were made, and spending levels were 
agreed to. Contained in these bipartisan commitments was critical 
Federal support in several key homeland security areas.
  The Republican omnibus appropriations proposal slashes an astonishing 
$9.8 billion in Federal support--funding that was overwhelmingly agreed 
to in the Senate during the 107th Congress. A disturbingly large 
portion of these cuts--approximately $1 billion--were made in the area 
of homeland security. Senator Byrd's amendment would restore this 
important funding.
  Maintaining these funding levels becomes even more critical in light 
of the regrettable decision made by President Bush this past summer to 
short-change many of our vital security needs by not spending $2.5 
billion in emergency supplemental funding passed by the Congress. 
Senator Byrd's amendment would also restore much of this important 
support.
  Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have become 
increasingly aware of the woefully inadequate safeguards to our 
Nation's 361 seaports. Last November we took a significant first step 
in improving this aspect of our homeland security by passing the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act. I joined 94 of my Senate 
colleagues in supporting the passage of this measure, and the bill was 
signed into law by President Bush soon thereafter.
  A critical section of this legislation reaffirms the importance of 
providing funding to the Nation's seaports for security upgrades. The 
omnibus appropriations package introduced yesterday by my Republican 
colleagues would cut this program significantly. Senator Byrd's 
amendment would restore these dangerous cuts, providing $585 million 
for port security grants to implement the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act--which, I again remind my colleagues, we overwhelmingly 
approved a mere 2 months ago.
  In my own state of Maryland, the Port of Baltimore is an important 
and vulnerable point of entry for the country. Indeed, handling over 30 
million tons of cargo each year, it is one of the busiest seaports on 
the East Coast. Clearly, the volume and traffic associated with this 
distinction present considerable security challenges for the port. 
While the port has made important progress in this area, the grants 
provided are vital for making some of the most basic of security 
upgrades.
  Unfortunatley, the cuts made in the Republican spending package are 
not confined to our Nation's seaports. As the outgoing chairman of the 
Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I have heard many of the concerns 
of first responders in Maryland and around the country.
  First responders were devastated last summer when they learned last 
that the President would be withholding $100 million in grant funding. 
Another $155 million was withheld from State and local law enforcement. 
Now we learn that the administration and my Republican colleagues are 
proposing further cuts to the Senate-approved funding for first 
responders. This time, first responders would lose an additional $132 
million. This amendment would merely provide some of the basic promises 
the Congress has already made to those Americans who we call on to 
provide our most vital emergency preparedness and response needs.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Byrd's 
amendment. If the Congress and the administration are to enact 
legislation signaling our commitment to securing the homeland, we must 
provide the resources to provide even the most basic levels of 
protection. We must demonstrate steely resolve in our efforts to 
protect our citizens and critical infrastructure, and this will not be 
achieved if the resources committed to the task are inadequate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Byrd's 
amendment to increase funding for homeland security.
  A little over a year ago, we experienced the worst terrorist attack 
in U.S. history. As a result, we began to examine where our country had 
security weaknesses and work to prevent another attack. Unfortunately, 
the appropriations bill brought forward by the Republicans does not 
fund homeland security to the level that is needed, which is I why I 
support Senator Byrd's amendment.
  Since the September 11 attacks, the State of California and its 
cities and counties have spent almost $600 million on homeland 
security, on emergency operations and response, on protecting 
powerplants and water supplies, on fire and emergency medical services.
  Our States and cities and counties need our help. The Federal 
Government cannot abdicate its responsibility. Yet last year, after 
Congress passed $5 billion in funding to improve homeland security at 
the national, State, and local levels, President Bush refused to spend 
that money. It is still needed.
  Let me mention just a few things the Byrd amendment does.
  It increases funds for port security by $585 million. Last year, I 
was a member of the Port Security Conference Committee. We ended up 
with a good bill to improve security at our Nation's ports. But, there 
was no way to pay for it, despite my efforts and the efforts of 
Chairman Hollings. To get the money to our ports, we need to rely on 
the appropriations bill, so the additional funding in the Byrd 
amendment is crucial.
  For over a year now, I have been calling for the Federal Government 
to protect first responders--police, firefighters, emergency personnel, 
nurses, and doctors--by immunizing them against smallpox. If terrorists 
were able to unleash smallpox in the United States, these people would 
risk their lives to save us and protect us. We need to protect them 
now. The Byrd amendment provides $850 million to immunize first 
responders against the smallpox virus.
  The amendment would also increase funding for the Coast Guard for 
patrol boats by $40 million. The Coast Guard has many important 
missions including homeland security, drug security, and environmental 
work. After September 11, Coast Guard resources needed to be shifted. 
We now need to provide the Coast Guard with the necessary patrol boats 
to protect our coastline and ports as well as undertake its other 
missions.
  The amendment includes $200 million for airports for the installation 
of the baggage screening machines. Screening of all baggage was 
required as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which 
became law in November 2001. Estimates for the cost of installing these 
machines are, at a minimum, $2 billion. Los Angeles International 
Airport estimates that it will spend $135 million, San Francisco $65 
million, and Oakland $16 million. So I support the $200 million that 
Senator Byrd proposes. This is only a downpayment.
  Congress has also required that cockpit doors be reinforced. But the 
airlines, for a variety of reasons, are in a difficult financial 
situation. Senator Byrd's amendment would provide $100 million to 
strengthen the cockpit doors. Let's not let another terrorist gain 
control of an airplane.
  Every day millions of people across the Nation take public transit to 
work. We need to ensure that these people are protected from a 
terrorist attack. Senator Byrd's amendment does just that

[[Page 1253]]

by providing $300,000 in grants to public transit agencies.
  One of the problems in the aftermath of the September 11 attack was 
that first responders often could not communicate with each other. This 
amendment provides $150 million to first responders in our local 
communities in order to improve communications. That way, if there is 
another attack, and we all hope there will not be, we can rescue and 
save as many people as possible.
  The Byrd amendment also increases funding for border security, for 
food safety, and for the FBI.
  The Byrd amendment is vital for our nation's security for our 
homeland security, for the security of our cities and towns. I urge all 
Senators to vote for it to ensure that we can prevent more terrorist 
attacks.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled that the Bush 
administration has not done more since September 11, 2001, to close 
major gaps that remain in our domestic security. Senators Gary Hart and 
Warren Rudman, who presciently predicted a major terrorist attack 
within our borders before it actually happened, produced a new report 
last September in which they observed that ``America remains 
dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic 
terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the next attack will 
result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American 
lives and the economy.''
  This is a sobering prediction. And it has convinced me to make it a 
personal priority and mission to ensure that the Department of Homeland 
Security has the resources it needs and deserves.
  The fact is homeland security costs money, to train people in the 
skills they need, to buy the right equipment, and to pay the men and 
women in every community across America, on police forces, in fire 
departments, and emergency medical services, who are our front line 
troops in the war against terrorism here at home.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors reported last year that cities will 
have already spent more than $2.6 billion on additional security costs 
between September 11, 2001, and the end of 2002, with precious little 
help from the Federal Government.
  Seventeen months after the September 11 attack, thousands of 
communities across the country have been unable to press ahead to meet 
this awesome security challenge. Our firefighters are left holding the 
ladder. Our police departments are put in fiscal handcuffs. Washington 
is demanding expensive new programs without offering States the 
financial support to implement them. And the States, according to the 
National Governor's Association, are already experiencing their worst 
budget crises since World War II.
  Governors will have a harder time developing and implementing 
emergency preparedness plans. And local communities may not even be 
able to pay for critical security projects and programs that are 
already underway. Federal agencies, too, are being underfunded, with 
the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and others coming up hundreds of 
millions of dollars short of what they need to protect us.
  Indeed, it may surprise some people, though not the first responders, 
to know that all the money appropriated by Congress in the days 
immediately following the terrorist attacks in 2001 has not reached its 
destination, and the administration has exercised no leadership that I 
can see to speed up the process. For example, according to a December 2 
report from the Office of Management and Budget, FEMA had obligated 
only $33 million out of some $214 million in budget authority for 
States for emergency management planning and assistance. That is truly 
shameful.
  A year ago, in his fiscal year 2003 budget, President Bush proposed 
spending $3.5 billion on first responders for training, equipment, and 
planning to respond, if necessary, to a major terrorist attack. Of 
course, none of that money has been appropriated, and now, as we try to 
resolve outstanding fiscal year 2003 appropriations, I am distressed to 
learn that our Republican colleagues are seeking to cut $1 billion from 
the homeland security funding levels Senate appropriators agreed to 
last year.
  Homeland security cannot be had on the cheap. Therefore, I am proud 
to cosponsor Senator Byrd's amendment. This amendment would make good 
on our promises to put in place critical new programs to boost homeland 
security and, most important, to help State and local governments and 
first responders bear the costs of their front-line responsibilities in 
the war on terrorism.
  First, it would provide the full $2.5 billion in homeland security 
funding in last summer's emergency supplemental appropriations bills. 
This is money, for first responders among others, that was approved by 
Congress but which the President blocked from actually being spent.
  The amendment also restores about $1 billion in cuts to the fiscal 
year 2003 spending bills below what Senate appropriations agreed to 
last summer and fall.
  Finally, the Byrd amendment provides money for critical new programs. 
It includes $850 million to help States and localities implement the 
President's smallpox vaccination plan. Another $585 million would go to 
implement the new port security law, legislation that passed 
overwhelmingly in November but which to date has not been funded. We 
will not be any more secure if we just pass these security blueprints, 
then walk away.
  Taken together, the amendment will provide $1.4 billion to State and 
local governments, including grants to make first responder radio 
equipment compatible, a priority ever since we learned of the 
communications problems that hampered September 11 rescue workers.
  The amendment will provide an additional $1 billion for border 
security, including funding new initiatives to identify suspicious 
container traffic and to keep track of who enters and exits our 
borders.
  I truly hope the Bush administration hasn't settled on a strategy to 
talk tough on homeland security, while withholding the money necessary 
to make that security possible. So far, their approach has been all 
talk and little action, but we can't defend the country on words alone.
  It is time to make our commitment to our domestic defenses ever bit 
as strong and bipartisan as our commitment to our Armed Forces. If we 
won't do that now, with September 11 still fresh in our minds and 
hearts and our communities still struggling to protect themselves, when 
will we?
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support Senator Byrd's amendment 
to add $5 billion in homeland security funding to the omnibus 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. I cannot be here for the 
vote, but if I were, I would vote in favor of the amendment. The Byrd 
amendment provides funding for several critical initiatives aimed at 
strengthening our efforts to protect America and its interests. It is 
unbelievable to me that the President can propose a $674 billion tax 
cut, but can't make a sufficient investment in homeland security. When 
I look at the important programs that this amendment would support, I 
can't fathom that the Senate won't pass it. It is imperative that we 
provide the resources necessary to protect this Nation. Vulnerabilities 
exist in our homeland security infrastructure and we should not 
squander a single day addressing them. An independent task force, 
chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recently 
advised that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and 
respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' We must act to ensure 
that the functions needed to better protect our borders, coasts, 
cities, and towns have sufficient resources to do so.
  The Byrd amendment would provide more money to states and localities 
to implement President Bush's smallpox vaccination plan, to make the 
radio equipment of first responders interoperable, and provide 
emergency planning and training for terrorist attacks. It would make 
critical investments in our preparedness for biological attack.

[[Page 1254]]

It would also fortify our borders by funding such things as additional 
Coast Guard patrol boats and improvements to the INS entry and exit 
system. The Byrd amendment also fully funds the newly created 
Transportation Security Administration so that our airports are made as 
secure as possible. Mr. President, last year I was very involved in the 
development of the new port security law, and I am pleased that the 
Byrd amendment includes funding to help implement these new rigorous 
security requirements for our ports. Finally the Byrd amendment 
provides resources to secure nuclear weapons and materials and conduct 
vulnerability assessments for energy supply and distribution systems.
  The funding that the Byrd amendment provides for the Transportation 
Security Administration is critical to our national security. Given the 
vulnerabilities that we know exist in our port and airport security, I 
cannot imagine that this body would opt to provide insufficient funding 
to address these problems. The need to fully fund the TSA cannot be 
overstated; installing baggage screening equipment in the top forty 
U.S. airports alone is expected to cost billions, and to date only one 
major airport has installed the necessary equipment mandated by the 
Aviation Security Act. Mr. President, we cannot hope to maintain the 
confidence of the American people in our ability to secure the nation's 
transportation system if we fail to adequately fund the legislation 
we've passed to achieve that goal. These investments are essential if 
we are to be fully protected from those who threaten our freedom.
  Our task is to make America more secure. We cannot allow the 
Republican omnibus appropriations bill to undermine the war on 
terrorism and we must pass the Byrd amendment.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to correct some 
inaccuracies that were stated by my colleague from Nevada during last 
night's session regarding nuclear security and Senator Byrd's amendment 
to increase funding for homeland security. My friend from Nevada came 
to the floor and argued that this body should support Senator Byrd's 
amendment because our Nation's nuclear facilities are ``inadequately 
protected.'' After hearing this statement, I felt it was my duty as the 
chairman of the Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety 
Subcommittee to set the record straight on the security of our Nation's 
nuclear facilities. This is an area that I have worked hard to 
investigate and fully understand. I urge my colleagues to also spend 
time carefully reviewing the existing security controls at our Nation's 
nuclear facilities before they rush to any judgments. The best way to 
do this is to go and visit the facilities in order to see the security 
measures in practice.
  Last August, I visited the Davis Bessie Nuclear facility in Oak 
Harbor, OH, for the purpose of reviewing the operations of the plant. I 
was extremely impressed with security measures in place to gain 
entrance and access to the facility. Also this last April, I had the 
opportunity to spend a half day at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in 
Perry, OH to specifically review their security systems. I received a 
classified security briefing at the facility, which I highly recommend 
to all of my colleagues. In addition, I participated in personnel and 
vehicle searches, and I reviewed the external security systems, 
including meeting with the Coast Guard which patrols Lake Erie off the 
coast of the Perry facility.
  My tour of the security operations confirmed for me that every 
security measure is being taken to protect our energy supply from 
terrorist attack and the members of the surrounding community should be 
very comfortable with the level of security that protects them and the 
facility. In fact, if I were a terrorist the last place I would try and 
take over or attack would be a nuclear powerplant with the security 
measures at Perry and Davis Bessie. This past fall, I visited the EU 
Headquarters at The Hague in Brussels. I was impressed with the 
security required to gain entrance to the facility, but it didn't 
compare to the security at Perry and Davis Bessie nuclear plants.
  In addition to these visits, I have participated in several committee 
hearings on nuclear plant security and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
including a classified security briefing. While I have found the 
security measures to be impressive, this does not decrease my resolve 
to remain at the forefront of this issue and ensure the safety of these 
facilities. Last Congress, I supported the Nuclear Security Act of 2002 
in the EPW Committee. In the 108th Congress, I will continue to look 
for ways to improve our excellent security at our Nation's nuclear 
powerplants.
  Nuclear energy is important to our Nation's economy and environment. 
America's nuclear energy industry currently provides approximately 20 
percent of our energy. It is a safe, reliable, and zero-emission source 
of energy that is an important part of our energy future.
  I agree with my colleague that we have an obligation to the American 
people to ensure the safety of these facilities. I have and will 
continue to scrutinize the security at our Nation's nuclear plants. 
However, I disagree that this is an appropriate argument for this 
debate on homeland security funding. I urge my colleagues to look at 
the facts and go and see for yourself the efforts of these plants.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to myself.
  In this new world, we face a new kind of war--a war on our shores, a 
war that is different in scope and intensity from any that we have ever 
faced before. The enemy is no organized army. There is no organized 
army of infantry, or artillery. The enemy is not an organized army with 
maps and bayonets. The enemy follows no rules of engagement. The enemy 
heeds no Geneva Convention. Their weapon is fear. Their application is 
destruction.
  We cannot stand idly by and put our total faith in some new 
bureaucracy. We ought not be lulled into complacency that the hope of a 
new government department may eventually make us safer.
  This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American people. 
That responsibility lies here as well as downtown in the executive 
branch. This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American 
people. This Congress has the responsibility to invest the dollars 
where they are most needed and to focus on the Nation's many serious 
vulnerabilities. But by blindly supporting the arbitrary figures that 
are undermining the package before this Senate, we take a dangerous 
gamble with the lives of the American people. And we do not have that 
right. We do not have the right to take that danger and gamble with the 
American people. The White House does not have that right. The 
President of the United States does not have that right. Let him come 
before the cameras of the electronic eye. Let him say to the American 
people that you are secure and you don't need more money; that we don't 
need to spend another dollar; and that we don't need to spend any more 
than we have.
  I can be mistaken, and I am often mistaken. I don't maintain that I 
am always right. But I maintain that we have a duty to protect our 
people. I maintain that in the Appropriations Committee we conducted 
hearings--lengthy hearings. We heard from administration witnesses. We 
heard from the people at the local level. We heard from mayors. We 
heard from Governors. This Appropriations Committee, when I was in 
charge, unanimously voted out these bills appropriating moneys. Time 
and time again, this administration turned the back of its hand to the 
Congress and in so doing to the American people because the people in 
the Congress are the elected representatives of the American people. 
The people in the Congress are the elected representatives of those 
taxpayers out there who send us here. We don't come here at the bidding 
of any President. No President can say when I have to go home or when I 
can come to this place. The people of West Virginia determined that, 
and they are my bosses.
  No President is infallible. But this administration, more than any 
administration that I have seen in my 50 years in Congress, maintains 
that it is

[[Page 1255]]

right; that it is always right; that Congress is wrong, always wrong.
  We are coming to some very difficult showdowns in this country. Who 
knows what may happen in the days ahead?
  This legislation would cut investments in homeland security. I 
appreciate the work and the effort Senator Stevens and his staff have 
put into this package given the arbitrary constraints placed on them by 
the White House. But the Senate should not allow itself to be 
handcuffed by the political advisers inside the White House. Who are 
they? To whom do they answer? They answer to the President of the 
United States, I guess. They do not answer to the American people.
  We should not accept the hundreds of miles of our northern and 
southern borders remaining unguarded. We should not accept the alarming 
deficiencies in our seaport security, an area that many experts have 
identified as perhaps the Nation's single greatest vulnerability. We 
should not accept the fact that first responders and local doctors and 
nurses do not have sufficient training and equipment to handle wide-
ranging threats involving madmen who may have gotten their hands on 
weapons of mass destruction.
  This Senator from West Virginia is not now nor will he ever be 
prepared to accept those dangers. This Senator is prepared to do 
whatever it takes to close the gaps and to protect the American people. 
I urge my colleagues to join me.
  Since September 11, 2001, the threat of a terrorist attack has only 
increased. It has not decreased. Administration officials have said 
time and time again that another terrorist attack will happen. It is 
inevitable, they say, and it could involve weapons of mass destruction.
  Last September, the administration raised its terrorist alert system 
to its second highest level and closed nine embassies for security 
reasons.
  Last October, the FBI warned of terrorist attacks against railroads.
  Last November, the FBI warned hospitals in Houston, Chicago, San 
Francisco, and Washington of an imminent terrorist attack. The CIA 
director warned of terrorist dangers, and testified that once war 
begins in Iraq--hear me now, hear me--the CIA director warned of 
terrorist dangers and testified that once war begins in Iraq, Islamic 
extremists will likely increase their effort to attack us here at home.
  It is not to be a video game. Oh, praise God that we will be lucky. 
We could be. I hope we will be.
  Last December, the administration reported that Islamic extremists 
associated with al-Qaida may have taken possession of chemical weapons. 
Canadian intelligence told us that al-Qaida was plotting attacks from 
Canada.
  An increasing number of terrorist warnings threats to the use of 
weapons of mass destruction against us, a war with Iraq that could 
escalate the threat level, yet this Congress and this President process 
all of that information and conclude that the best place to find 
savings is in the funding for homeland security funds. That is simply 
astonishing.
  Our borders remain dangerously unguarded. They leak like a sieve. We 
don't know if terrorists have crossed into the country, as we saw over 
the New Year's holiday, when the FBI was frantically looking for 
suspected terrorists. Do you remember that? They were frantically--
frantically--looking for suspected terrorists who they later concluded 
had not entered the country after all. Yet this administration wants to 
cut border security funding by $705 million.
  The Customs Service is able to inspect only 2 percent--at most, 5 
percent--of cargo entering this country. We know terrorists could 
smuggle weapons of mass destruction into our ports, either to blow them 
up and cause massive economic and physical destruction or to explode 
those weapons within the interior of the country near a major city. Yet 
this Bush administration wants to cut port security funding by tens of 
millions of dollars. Astonishing? Yes, astonishing.
  The FBI lacks the law enforcement personnel to track potential 
terrorists and disrupt potential terrorist cells already based inside 
this country. Yet this White House--this White House--the Bush 
administration wants to cut money for Federal law enforcement personnel 
by more than $250 million. Irresponsible? Yes, irresponsible.
  The President has suggested that a smallpox attack is a big enough 
risk to the American public that a smallpox vaccine should be made 
available to the public by the beginning of 2004. Yet this President 
knows that State and local governments lack the necessary funding to 
administer the smallpox vaccination plan, let alone provide for the 
homeland security protections for which the State and local governments 
are responsible. Never mind. This administration wants to cut aid to 
the States by more than $500 million.
  Our nuclear facilities remain dangerously exposed. Yet this White 
House, this administration, seeks to cut funding to protect our nuclear 
facilities by more than $230 million.
  Airport security, mass transit security, cybersecurity, water 
security, embassy security, food safety--these are all critical 
vulnerabilities and yet the administration wants to whack those moneys 
by a total of $1.5 billion.
  Then, on top of all of those reductions, this bill has an across-the-
board cut of 1.6 percent for each and every Federal law enforcement and 
homeland security initiative across this country. It is a shameful 
way--a shameful way--to fund the protection of this Nation.
  Sound policy decisions cannot possibly be driving these spending 
cuts. Clearly, these programs need more money, not less. The 
administration cannot blame these decisions on growing budget deficits 
because that same administration now argues that deficits don't matter.
  It is politics. The administration chose an arbitrary number last 
year, and it is twisting the arms of the Congress to stick to it. The 
result is a disaster for homeland security programs.
  While our troops overseas are equipped with high-tech gadgets to 
fight our enemies, our troops left at home will have to defend us with 
meager resources. Our troops in the desert are bouncing their 
communications off satellites, while our homeland defenders may have to 
communicate with twine and coffee cans. This may sound ridiculous, but 
it is much closer to the truth than many of us would like to believe. 
When it comes to fighting overseas, this administration's attitude is: 
Spare no expense. There is no pricetag on freedom. But when it comes to 
fighting the war here at home, this White House, this administration, 
prefers to shop in bargain basements.
  Delays of this funding for a few months, until the next fiscal year's 
appropriations bills, translates into more than a calendar year. By 
waiting for the next fiscal year, we would force first responders to 
wait for help until the calendar year 2004. By waiting for the next 
fiscal year, we force our airports and our seaports to struggle with 
security until the calendar year 2004. These delays do not serve any 
constructive purpose, and they certainly do not help to protect 
American lives. If we provide these moneys, the oversight committees 
should do their job to ensure that the agencies invest these dollars 
quickly and effectively.
  The amendment I have proposed would invest funds where they are most 
needed. First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in 
homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed 
appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations 
Committee voted. Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in 
emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress 
overwhelmingly in the summer but was vetoed by this White House.
  Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has 
found so necessary and that President Bush has already signed into law. 
This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that 
passed the Senate 97 to 0 and that the President signed last May. This 
amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed 
the Senate 95 to 0 and that the President signed into law last 
November. This amendment would provide funds--hear me now--this 
amendment would provide funds for the

[[Page 1256]]

10 million smallpox vaccinations that this administration has mandated 
from State and local health professionals.
  These dollars address our most critical needs, Mr. President. These 
funds would help to shore up our defenses and could save lives here at 
home.
  We are in new and dangerous times. No attack should be deemed so 
unlikely that it can be ignored. The men and women who send us here 
demand that we protect them, that we protect our country first. The 
fathers and mothers who send their children to school each morning 
expect us to invest the dollars to keep their little precious ones 
safe. That is a solemn duty that lies on the conscience of every man 
and woman Member of this body. It is a basic and sacred duty. And may 
God forgive us if we so cavalierly fail in our duty to protect our 
people, the American people.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute twenty seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute twenty seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SARBANES. First, I commend the very able Senator from West 
Virginia for this amendment. This is an extraordinarily important 
amendment. If we are going to provide for homeland security, we must 
provide the resources for homeland security; otherwise, it is all a 
charade.
  I wish to focus on just one thing. I represent a great port, one of 
the world's great ports. In fact, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia worked in the Port of Baltimore in World War II.
  Mr. BYRD. That is right.
  Mr. SARBANES. Contributing to the war effort in the construction of 
Liberty ships.
  We passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act last year; 95 to 0 
I believe was the vote in this body. But what good does that bill do us 
if we do not have the resources with which to carry out the promises 
and the concepts that are contained in the legislation?
  Mr. BYRD. Right. Right.
  Mr. SARBANES. What good does it do us if we pass this legislation on 
homeland security, we beat our chests about it, and then we don't 
provide the resources? The Senator's amendment will provide the 
resources to carry out this legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. It will. It will.
  Mr. SARBANES. Is that correct?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. SARBANES. I very strongly support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has 
expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. 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. 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the time of the Senator from 
West Virginia has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the majority whip, and he has allowed me 
to read a letter Senator Byrd has asked me to read into the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. This letter is from the American Public Health Association, 
addressed to the Honorable Robert Byrd.

       Dear Senator Byrd: On behalf of the American Public Health 
     Association (APHA), the largest and oldest organization of 
     public health professionals in the nation, representing more 
     than 50,000 members from over 50 public health occupations, I 
     write in strong support of your amendment that would provide 
     an additional $850 million to assist state and local 
     governments with implementing the Administration's smallpox 
     vaccination plan.
       States and localities are preparing to vaccinate more than 
     500,000 public health and hospital response teams. Should the 
     risk be elevated to merit the need for a broader smallpox 
     vaccination program, significant new resources will be 
     required. Beyond vaccinating workers, funding will be needed 
     to educate volunteers, monitor adverse events, treat 
     complications and train personnel.
       APHA believes this additional funding is essential to 
     provide local health departments with the resources they will 
     need to implement the Administration's plan without having to 
     divert scarce funds and staff away from other important 
     bioterrorism preparedness and public health programs. At a 
     time when many states are facing large budget deficits, it is 
     essential that the federal government assist state and local 
     governments in undertaking this expensive and labor intensive 
     task.
       APHA also believes that those who volunteer to receive and 
     administer the vaccine must be protected from liability and 
     compensated for vaccine-related injuries that result in 
     medical costs, lost wages and pain and suffering. We hope 
     that Congress will address these issues as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your efforts to address this important issue 
     facing our nation's public health system.

  The letter is signed by George C. Benjamin, Medical Doctor, Fellow of 
the American College of Physicians, who is executive director of the 
American Public Health Association.
  I thank my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I announce for the information of all 
Senators it would be our intent to yield back the balance of the time 
at 12:30 so the vote can commence at that time.
  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. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time 
on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. All time has 
expired.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2 offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID, I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each 
vote ``aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller

[[Page 1257]]


     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Conrad
     Edwards
     Hagel
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 2) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in order to give Senator Byrd a chance to 
review the amendment, 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes and that I retain the 
floor thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  (The remarks of Ms. Mikulski are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have an understanding with Senator 
Byrd. He will have the floor to offer the second amendment, if he 
desires to do so. We await that decision.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment Senator Byrd will offer now be subject to a time agreement 
under which Senator Byrd has an hour and a half for his amendment and I 
have one half hour in rebuttal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I add to that request that this amendment not be subject 
to second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 90 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. On the last amendment, what was the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the last amendment, the vote was 51 to 45; 
45 ayes and 51 nays.
  Mr. BYRD. How many absentees were there on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There were three on the minority side not 
voting, one on the majority side not voting.
  Mr. BYRD. One Democrat voted against my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                            Amendment No. 8

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I make another plea to my colleagues, and I 
speak on behalf of the American people in doing so because it is their 
security I am talking about. By all let this be heard, by Democrats as 
well as Republicans. I make this last plea to my colleagues with 
respect to homeland security. If they will not allow the Government to 
invest $5 billion to protect the lives of the American people from 
terrorist attacks, at least let us invest in the most obviously 
vulnerable segments of our infrastructure.
  Now listen to me, colleagues. You are going to have to answer to the 
American people for your vote. Democrats are going to have to answer 
for their votes. Republicans are going to have to answer for their 
votes. You may say, well, I am ready. That is all right. You be ready. 
You be ready. And the record will follow you. The record will follow 
you.
  You cannot nonchalantly say: Well, we had a caucus and we decided we 
would have a party-line vote; we would stand against Senator Byrd's 
amendment and we would oppose all amendments, et cetera, et cetera--if 
that is the case. That may be OK here, but wait until the American 
people look at the record. It was their safety that you are 
compromising when you voted against this past amendment. I am surprised 
that we had any votes at all, at least from this side of the aisle, 
against that amendment. But every Senator has to answer to his own 
conscience and to his own people. I respect that on any Senator's part.
  I will send up an amendment in due time, and I understand the time is 
limited on this amendment whether I send it up or not, so that is 
understood to start with.
  In the past year and a half, this Senate, and indeed the entire 
Congress, have voted overwhelmingly for authorization bills that commit 
funds for the protection of the American people. This Senate and the 
entire Congress have voted overwhelmingly for authorization bills that 
commit funds for the protection of the American people.
  In November 2001, this Senate, by a 100-to-0 vote, approved the 
Federal Aviation Security Act: a vote of 100 to 0. The President signed 
this legislation amid great fanfare--how sweet it is. Oh, it was great 
to pass the legislation. But despite the high-toned rhetoric, the 
resources to implement this act have been denied.
  Last May the Senate passed the U.S. Border Security Act under an 
array of great speeches, noteworthy speeches. Oh, the speeches, I can 
hear them yet. I can hear the reverberation of those stentorian tones--
the reverberations around this great Chamber and outside the Chamber as 
well, and other places.
  The border security bill passed the Senate 97 to nothing, and the 
President very accommodatingly and happily signed that legislation into 
law. So with a flourish of the pen it became law, a flourish of the pen 
in the mighty hand of the chief magistrate of this country, a great 
flourish of the pen. Headlines in the newspaper, excellent paragraphs 
as to the comments that were made, worthy of keeping in our scrapbooks, 
may I say.
  And then this past November, by a vote of 95 to 0 again--95 to zero? 
Where was the opposition then? A vote of 95 to zero the Senate passed 
the Port and Maritime Security Act, giving approval for massive 
investments at the Nation's seaports. And, again, the Commander in 
Chief--if I may use that term, if I may pluck that term out of the 
Constitution--the Commander in Chief signed the bill into law.
  Despite these overwhelming bipartisan votes, despite the stentorian 
rhetoric that came from many voices that spoke as though they had lungs 
of brass, despite that great rhetoric that accompanied the signing of 
these bills, the resources have been slow in coming, to say the least. 
As a result, our Nation's defenses against terrorist attack have 
remained vulnerable--vulnerable. You better ponder that word.
  I have seen more than 85 summers. More than 85 years have passed; 50 
of those 85 years have been spent in the Congress of the United States. 
Never have I seen a Congress that has been more recreant in its duty to 
stand up against an executive branch that looks with utter contempt on 
the elected Representatives of the people in this, the legislative 
branch.
  People downtown, many of them it seems, feel that the legislative 
branch is beneath the dignity of the executive branch. They have 
nothing but contempt for this branch.
  So when this branch comes forward with recommendations as to what is 
needed to ensure the people's security, the executive branch turns the 
back of its hand to the recommendations of the legislative branch. And 
it has done that repeatedly, time after time, over the past year.
  The fact of the matter is that the Senate Appropriations Committee in 
the 107th Congress did its work. It passed all 13 appropriations bills. 
It did so responsibly. It did so in a bipartisan fashion, in a fashion 
that was remarkably bipartisan. What we have before

[[Page 1258]]

us is not merely the last year's committee-passed bills for fiscal 2003 
with a nip here and a tuck there to address new budgetary 
circumstances. The bills that are now before us are shaped around 
policy completely divorced from reality.
  Mr. President, the Chamber is empty. I, too, would like to be sitting 
somewhere. It is not easy. It is not easy to make this fight. But who 
cares whether it is easy or not. That is not important. I will give the 
last vestige of my strength to stand and speak on behalf of the 
security of the American people. I am putting this amendment before the 
Senate today, and I am asking Senators to carefully weigh the amendment 
on behalf of the American people. It is not easy. But never was I more 
willing to expend my limited energies and my frail voice on behalf of 
the safety of the American people than I am here today.
  I know that what I am saying will fall upon deaf ears in some 
quarters. But the bill before us now, let me say again, was shaped 
around sound policy that is completely divorced from reality. If we are 
to be treated to speeches touting what this administration can do when 
it controls the Congress, perhaps we should take a close look. The most 
telling example of what we are in for is demonstrated in how these 
appropriations bills treat domestic security.
  Just yesterday, two distinguished Members of this body, the senior 
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the senior Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, released a report from the General Accounting 
Office that examined the vulnerabilities in the Nation's air cargo 
system.
  Let me say that again. Two distinguished Members of this body on 
yesterday, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the 
senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, released a report from the 
General Accounting Office that examined the vulnerabilities in the 
Nation's air cargo system.
  The GAO found that while 22 percent of the Nation's air cargo is sent 
on passenger aircraft, very little of that cargo is ever inspected.
  Listen to that. How many Senators have ridden on cargo planes? I 
have. Does it make one pause to reflect upon the fact that so little of 
that air cargo is ever inspected?
  Your life and the lives of others who ride those cargo planes are in 
the hands of God. He isn't getting much help from this administration, 
and He isn't getting much help from the Congress of the United States 
as reflected by this last vote, for example.
  The GAO found that while 22 percent of the Nation's air cargo is sent 
on passenger aircraft, very little of that cargo is ever inspected.
  The GAO reported that:
  First, there are simply not enough safeguards in place to ensure that 
someone shipping air cargo under the existing protocols has taken the 
proper steps to protect against the use of that shipment by terrorists.
  Second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where shipments 
transfer from company to company.
  Third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal 
background checks and do not always have their identities verified.
  Fourth, most cargo shipped by air is never screened.
  How many more attacks, how many more warnings, how many more reports 
will it take before this Congress awakens, before it believes that this 
Nation is seriously at risk?
  Instead of simply paying lipservice to the many vulnerabilities in 
this Nation, it is time to invest real resources to protect the 
American people from terrorist attack. We cannot nickel and dime the 
protections of American lives. Think of your own. National security 
requires national investments. We hear that freedom has no price. The 
same can be said of safety--the safety of the American people. The 
safety of the American people should have no pricetag.
  The lessons from September 11, 2001, are clear--as clear as the 
noonday Sun on a cloudless sky. Terrorists live among us, and they 
traverse our open borders with relative ease.
  We know that the enemy prefers weapons fashioned from the ordinary 
infrastructure of modern life--trucks, trains, planes, mail delivery, 
envelopes in the mail, ports, energy sources, cyberspace, spent nuclear 
materials, and one can go on and on. All of these, we are told, can be 
easily adapted to cause death, sudden death and destruction, fear and 
panic.
  At home, our technology is deficient, with outdated computers in key 
government agencies unable to easily transmit vital information back 
and forth.
  Last April and May, in 5 days of hearings, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee heard testimony that indicated our adversaries could cripple 
the U.S. economy without great difficulty and without enormous cost. It 
can be done on the cheap.
  The warnings have been prolific. The warnings that have come down 
from the various agencies of this administration have made it clear 
time and again that we are at great risk. This country is at great 
risk. With these warnings in mind and with the realization of the many 
gaps in our homeland security network, the men and the women of this 
Congress are playing Russian roulette with the safety of our people 
unless we take immediate steps to protect American lives and to avoid 
future tragedies.
  I could go on and on. But Senators already know where we are 
vulnerable--border security, airport security, port security. We are 
well aware of the gaps in our protections. If we know where those gaps 
are--if we know where those gaps are--you can be sure that the 
terrorists know where those gaps are.
  Further delay is unconscionable. Further delay on the part of the 
elected representatives of the American people is unconscionable. This 
is not a time for politics. We may think we can play politics. But this 
is not something with which we can play politics. Further delay is 
unconscionable.
  That is why I offer an amendment that is smaller in scope and more 
narrowly defined than the one that was just considered by the Senate 
and defeated by the Senate. This amendment, which I shall shortly send 
to the desk, would fund the core mandates of the authorization bills 
which the Congress last approved and the President of the United States 
has signed into law. What are they? The Airport Security Act, the 
Border Security Act, the Seaport Security Act. Let us match the 
rhetoric with resources. Let us fulfill the promises that we made to 
provide the necessary funds when we voted for and last passed those 
authorization bills and when they were signed.
  I urge Senators to expedite this much needed assistance for our 
Nation. We must not turn our backs on the efforts to bolster our 
weaknesses, on the effort to address our vulnerabilities, on the effort 
to protect American lives, the lives we say may be our own.
  Now, the amendment which I am going to send to the desk shortly, I 
shall explain. This is the summary of the amendment.
  This amendment provides $500 million for aviation security--get that, 
$500 million for aviation security--to implement the law signed by 
President Bush in November of 2001.
  The amendment directs $750 million for border security to implement 
the law signed by President Bush in May 2002.
  The amendment invests $500 million for seaport security to implement 
the law signed by President Bush in November 2002.
  The amendment provides $850 million to State and local health 
professionals to implement the President's announced plan from December 
2002 to vaccinate 10 million first responders and health care workers 
against smallpox.
  Are you going to vote against that? This is your President. This is 
my President. This is our President. Are you going to vote against 
that?
  Let me say it again, lest you did not hear. This amendment provides 
$850 million to State and local health professionals to implement the 
President's announced plan to vaccinate 10 million first responders and 
health care workers against smallpox. The President

[[Page 1259]]

mandated that the States--including West Virginia, including New York, 
including California, including Alaska, including Washington, including 
Texas, including Florida--and local governments carry out this 
vaccination plan but provided no financial support to implement it.
  Let me say that again. The President mandated that the States and 
local governments carry out this vaccination plan--we are talking about 
a plan to vaccinate responders, local responders, and health care 
workers against smallpox--the President mandated that the States and 
local governments carry out this vaccination plan but provided no 
financial support to implement it.
  This amendment directs $200 million for law enforcement agencies and 
other first responders to address the communications conflicts that 
exist in their current radio systems.
  How many times have we heard that the local responders--the fire 
department people, the law enforcement personnel--could not talk with 
one another? Law enforcement could not talk with firefighters. 
Firefighters could not talk with emergency health personnel. How many 
times have we heard that? How many times did we hear it during the 
course of those hearings last year in which both parties worked 
together, in a bipartisan fashion, to have the hearings, to shape the 
hearings, to determine who would be called, and to pass the legislation 
implementing the requests of the people from the local levels--the 
mayors, the Governors, the first responders?
  So I say again, the amendment directs $200 million for law 
enforcement agencies and other first responders to address the 
communications conflicts that exist in their current radio systems.
  The amendment invests $200 million for nuclear security to protect 
against theft of nuclear materials and to provide increased security at 
nuclear facilities.
  Did we hear Sam Nunn? Did we hear former Senator Sam Nunn when he 
appeared before the Appropriations Committee in last year's hearings? 
Did we listen to former Senator Rudman when he appeared there before 
the Senate Appropriations Committee in those hearings? Senator Nunn, 
working with Senator Lugar, addressed these problems. And they continue 
to be very concerned about the problems involved in nuclear security.
  This amendment invests $200 million for nuclear security to protect 
against theft of nuclear material and to provide security at nuclear 
facilities.
  Now, Mr. President, that is all I shall have to say.
  I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask that it be read in its 
entirety so that all Senators will hear it today, not wait until 
tomorrow to read it in the Congressional Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 8.
       At the appropriate place in the joint resolution insert the 
     following:

       DIVISION   --HOMELAND SECURITY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

       That, in addition to the funds provided elsewhere in this 
     joint resolution, the following sums are appropriated, out of 
     any money in Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                               CHAPTER 1

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $363,000,000, to remain available until expended, only for 
     the Entry Exit System, to be managed by the Justice 
     Management Division: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act, or in Public Law 107-117, for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service's Entry Exit System 
     may be obligated until the INS submits a plan for expenditure 
     that: (1) meets the capital planning and investment control 
     review requirements established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget, including OMB Circular A-11; part 3; (2) complies 
     with the acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and 
     systems acquisition management practices of the Federal 
     Government; (3) is reviewed by the General Accounting Office; 
     and (4) has been approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That funds provided under 
     this heading shall only be available for obligation and 
     expenditure in accordance with the procedures applicable to 
     reprogramming notifications set forth in section 605 of 
     Public Law 107-77.

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     enforcement and border affairs

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     Enforcement and Border Affairs'', $77,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $25,000,000 shall be only 
     for apprehending absconders, of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     only for fleet management, and of which $6,250,000 shall be 
     only for pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents and 
     Immigration Inspectors.


                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                  community oriented policing services

       For an additional amount for the Community Oriented 
     Policing Services' Interoperable Communications Technology 
     Program in consultation with the Office of Science and 
     Technology within the National Institute of Justice, and the 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance, for emergency expenses for 
     activities related to combating terrorism by providing grants 
     to States and localities to improve communications within, 
     and among, law enforcement and other first responder 
     agencies, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                               CHAPTER 2

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                National Nuclear Security Administration


                           weapons activities

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' for 
     emergency expenses, $150,000,000: Provided, That $25,000,000 
     of the funds provided shall be available for secure 
     transportation asset activities: Provided further, That 
     $35,000,000 shall be available for construction and 
     renovation activities at the National Center for Combating 
     Terrorism: Provided further, That $90,000,000 of the funds 
     provided shall be available to meet increased safeguard and 
     security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex, 
     including at least $25,000,000 for cyber security.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                        Other Defense Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Other Defense Activities'' 
     for emergency expenses needed to conduct critical 
     infrastructure assessments at critical energy supply 
     facilities nationwide, $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That $25,000,000 of the funds made 
     available shall be provided to the National Infrastructure 
     Simulation and Analysis Center: Provided further, That 
     $25,000,000 of the funds made available shall be provided to 
     the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

                               CHAPTER 3

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                        Office of the Secretary


            public health and social services emergency fund

       For additional amounts for grants to state and local health 
     departments to support activities related to immunizing first 
     responders against smallpox, $850,000,000: Provided, that 
     this amount is transferred to the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention.

                               CHAPTER 4

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                 Transportation Security Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For additional amounts for necessary expenses of the 
     Transportation Security Administration related to 
     transportation security services pursuant to Public Law 107-
     71, $1,120,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2004, of which not less than $500,000,000 shall be available 
     for port security grants for the purpose of implementing the 
     provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, not 
     less than $200,000,000 shall be available for the costs 
     associated with the modification of airports to comply with 
     the provisions of the Aviation and Transportation Security 
     Act, and not less than $120,000,000 shall be available for 
     Operation Safe Commerce.

                               CHAPTER 5

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                     United States Customs Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $89,600,000, to remain available until expended; of the 
     total, not to exceed $47,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Container Security Initiative; not to exceed $15,000,000 
     shall be available for pay parity; and not to exceed 
     $27,600,000 shall be available for northern and southern 
     border port-of-entry infrastructure.

[[Page 1260]]



                               CHAPTER 6

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


              emergency management planning and assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Emergency management 
     planning and assistance'' for emergency expenses to respond 
     to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United 
     States, $100,000,000.
       This division may be cited as the ``Homeland Security 
     Supplemental Appropriations Division'', of this joint 
     resolution.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have not yet seen a copy of the 
amendment. I need to have a copy in order that I may address it.
  I have a summary of the major elements of this. This is a $3 billion 
package as opposed to the one we just voted upon that was $5.1 billion. 
I am compelled to make the same statement I made before, that unless 
this is offset, we would not be within the guidelines of the commitment 
I made; that is, to take a bill to conference which does not exceed the 
President's total request to the Congress for the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations bills.
  I can hear and see that a great many of the items in this amendment 
are items for which we will appropriate these moneys sometime, but the 
Homeland Security department itself is not yet organized. The funds 
already contained in the Omnibus and prior year funding is sufficient 
to begin the first phase of the smallpox vaccination program. The 
border security systems, the security systems, are still in the process 
of being evaluated. We do have sufficient money in the bill, a 
substantial amount of money, as a matter of fact, in the bill to deal 
with those issues.
  It is with a great deal of sadness that I must tell the Senator, I 
continue to oppose his efforts to increase the amount of money that 
would be available to be spent during the fiscal year 2003. I do so 
with great respect but with total confidence that each of these 
agencies has enough money to go forward. If they run into problems that 
are really serious, we can act expeditiously to meet them.
  The goal we want to achieve now is to get the bill to conference and 
to get it to conference in a way that we can work out differences with 
the House over the total amount of money that is to be made available 
to the administration for these various items.
  For instance, there is already $24.7 billion in this bill, the 
amendment I have offered, for homeland security efforts; $4.3 billion 
of that is for INS, $1.26 billion is for the FBI. We have $5.3 billion 
for the Transportation Security Administration, including an increase 
of $1.84 billion for that agency. There are funds for the airport 
security concepts. We have money for the port security concepts. Each 
of these items has been covered by the bill that is before us in my 
amendment.
  I say to my friend, I cannot in good conscience support this, having 
opposed the same amounts of money in the larger amendment upon which we 
just voted.
  I would hope the Senator would understand, again, what I am trying to 
do. I am trying to get the 11 bills to conference as a whole and to 
work with the House and try to come back with a bill the President will 
sign, if possible, this month. If it can get to the President this 
month, we will have this money working by February. If we don't do that 
and the House has to start moving single bills, the 11 bills that 
affect 2003, when they should be starting to move the 2004 bills, we 
will be more than a full year behind by the end of this year. That will 
be a collapse of the appropriations process. I hope we don't have to 
face that.
  I urge the Senate to defeat amendments to add money to this Omnibus 
bill unless it is offset. If the offsets are valid, we will be pleased 
to consider such amendments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 61 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska need have no 
second thoughts as to where I stand. I understand the problem he has to 
deal with and the efforts he is making, trying to do what he sees as 
the right thing under the circumstances. I can understand that. I 
sympathize with what he says regarding offsets. But I don't believe all 
this defense money is offset either. I haven't heard anything about 
offsetting defense moneys in this amendment. Perhaps I missed 
something. I haven't heard anything said about offsetting defense 
moneys.
  The $24.7 billion in the bill compares to $24.2 billion for fiscal 
year 2002. That is hardly a significant increase in our commitment to 
homeland defense.
  For 50 years, I have been supporting funds for the defense of this 
country. For 50 years, I have been supporting the appropriations for 
our military men and women. So when it comes to supporting funds for 
the defense of this Nation, I have been at that job 50 years. I think I 
am doing that now. I support the moneys for defense. I consider 
homeland security, homeland defense as much a part of defense, the 
overall rubric, as anything else or more.
  The defense of our homeland is No. 1, as far as I am concerned. We 
have a war on terrorism going on right here at home. I don't hear much 
about it anymore. I hear more about fighting a war in foreign lands, 
across the seas. I hear more about sending our men and our women away 
from their homes, away from the fatherland, sending them abroad to deal 
with an enemy that has not attacked our country.
  We are sending those men and women at great cost. Are they fully 
prepared? I don't know. I hear that they are not fully prepared to meet 
and contend with biological weapons, which might be lodged against 
them. I understand that there is equipment--by way of protecting our 
troops from biological warfare--that is unaccounted for, and there is 
equipment that is untested.
  I am not for pinching pennies when it comes to our troops. I will 
support those troops as they are sent across the seas by air and by 
water, perhaps against their own personal will, certainly at great cost 
to themselves personally. They give up salaries; they give up the wages 
of sweat and labor and work and thought; they give up those wages to go 
abroad, to answer to the call of a war overseas; they give up home and 
fireside, warm quarters at home, where they can be with their families, 
where they can be with their wives, children, parents; they sacrifice 
their own businesses--small businesses perhaps--and their own 
professions. I am for every penny; I am not for pinching pennies when 
it comes to our men and women who are sent overseas. For 50 years I 
have never been for pinching pennies.
  I am not for wasting money. I often think of myself as the last 
warrior in Vietnam, the last man to come out of Vietnam. I stood at the 
elbows of the then-Commander in Chief, Richard Nixon. I supported him 
in his efforts to protect our men who were sent overseas, sent to 
Cambodia, sent to fight the Vietcong across the borders in Vietnam, to 
deal with people in the Vietcong located in Cambodia and striking our 
own men. I stood by the Commander in Chief in those days, and we were 
under a Republican administration at that time. I stood with that 
President, at times against my own then-majority leader. I don't know 
how many other Senators in this body would do that. But my credentials 
are pretty good when it comes to supporting and standing up for 
defense.
  But today I am pleading on behalf of the unprotected men and women, 
boys and girls, in this country who may be subject to terrorist attack 
at any moment. I am pleading with my colleagues here on both sides of 
the aisle to forget politics and to vote for what is right and to vote 
for the security of the American people.
  I am trying to support funds here for the legislation that we 
passed--with great fanfare--to protect the airports, to protect the 
ports, to protect the borders. I am fighting for funds to provide 
vaccinations for those first responders,

[[Page 1261]]

the people at the local level who will possibly have to deal with 
biological and chemical warfare. So when you say stand up for the 
defense of the country, count me No. 1. I am up there first in the 
ranks.
  Mr. President, this is not a political matter. I note that, again, 
the Deputy Homeland Security Adviser, Mr. Steve Abbott, wrote Senator 
Stevens to strongly oppose amendments to Senator Stevens' bill that 
would ``add extraneous spending.''
  Well, can you imagine extraneous spending to protect our homeland? 
This amendment is not about politics; it is about a vulnerable nation. 
Any Member who has told his or her constituents that he or she will 
work for homeland security should vote for this amendment. Our 
President has signed an authorizing bill to improve port security, 
border security, airport security, and he has called on State and local 
governments to implement his smallpox vaccination plan. All right. Step 
up, belly up to the bar here. Let's put the money where our mouth is. 
This amendment funds those important programs.
  Mr. President, I hope other Senators will come to the floor and speak 
on behalf of this amendment. I will be glad to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska at any time he wishes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I inform my friend that none of the 
persons who spoke on the previous, similar amendment by my colleague 
from West Virginia wish to speak on this amendment. They have called my 
attention to the fact that this amendment deals with the first five 
items in the last amendment.
  What was in the first amendment for State and local assistance to 
combat terrorism, the $1.406 billion has been reduced to $1.05 billion; 
for border security, the $1.008 billion is reduced to $750 million; for 
airport security, the $720 million has been reduced to $500 million; 
for port security, the $585 million has been reduced to $500 million; 
for nuclear security and energy security, the $296 million is reduced 
to $200 million.
  In other words, the Senator's amendment takes the first five items he 
had in the last amendment and reduces them by a reasonable amount in an 
attempt to reduce its impact in terms of the budget. He has reduced it, 
by quick calculation, by $1.015 billion in those five areas. He also 
has deleted another $985 million in other categories.
  I commend the Senator for being willing to come down in his request. 
It still amounts to a concept of offering a portion of the last 
amendment. Instead of the amount that would have been requested--$5 
billion--the Senator now says $3 billion.
  Under the circumstances, I am constrained to again say I oppose the 
amendment. I would like to have a vote on it. I have no requests for 
time on this side. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I may consume. 
I will not be long. I think Senators ought to be aware that a vote can 
take place on this amendment momentarily, virtually.
  Let me simply say, in closing my remarks on this amendment, I think 
the record is clear, and I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens, for his 
having accommodated me, and those Members who may wish to speak on the 
previous amendment that I offered and on this amendment. He has done 
everything he possibly could do to accommodate us. We have not been 
cramped for time on these amendments. I again want to thank him for his 
fairness, absolute fairness.
  I also want to thank the two leaders for their fairness. I thank our 
new Republican leader for his fairness. He has been willing to debate 
this matter at considerable length. I am not aware if he has pressured 
my colleague, Mr. Stevens, to cut the debate short, not have the 
debate, to try to thwart the efforts on the part of Members on this 
side to call up amendments. I am not aware of any effort toward that 
end. I am only aware of the fact that we have been allowed ample time 
to debate. I have been allowed ample time to offer amendments, other 
Members on my side allowed to offer additional amendments dealing with 
education, dealing with Amtrak, and other matters involved in homeland 
security.
  I thank Senator Stevens again. I thank Senator Frist. I think this is 
a good indication on his part that we are going to debate matters in 
this forum and that we are going to be allowed to call up amendments. 
That is what the Senate is all about. That is why we are here. That was 
the beauty of the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, when it was 
decided there would be two bodies and that the size of one body would 
be determined on the basis of population, while in the other body 
States would speak with equality. A small State would be equal with a 
large State and with the largest States in our numbers here. That is 
what the Senate is all about.
  I am glad to see that in this instance we are being allowed to work 
our will. The Senate is being allowed to work its will on this 
important matter. We have offered the amendment. We have had our say. 
We have not been shut off at the pass. There has not been an effort 
here to gag the Members. We have had our say. I do not ask for anything 
else. That is the Senate.
  I say that to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who now 
presides over this Senate with a degree of dignity and aplomb and poise 
that is so rare as a day in June. When I see our former colleague, our 
quondam colleague, Howard Baker, I want to pass along to Howard Baker a 
good word concerning the new Senator from Tennessee who sits in the 
Chair today, as he listens. He is sitting at the desk. He is not 
reading newspapers. He is not reading letters. He listens to what is 
said. That is the appropriate role of a Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, we do not have any complaints. I am ready to have a 
vote. I do not think I have anything else to say at this point, so I 
yield the floor. I am ready for a vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on Senator 
Byrd's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 8. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each 
vote ``Aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl

[[Page 1262]]


     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Conrad
     Edwards
     Hagel
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 8) was rejected.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kennedy be recognized in order to offer an amendment relating to 
education; provided further that when Senator Gregg is recognized, 
Senator Kennedy's amendment be temporarily set aside in order for 
Senator Gregg to offer a first-degree amendment relating to education; 
further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments 
prior to votes in relation to the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, is it the understanding 
then that the first vote will be on my amendment and the second vote 
will be on Senator Kennedy's amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is my understanding.
  Mr. FRIST. That is the understanding.
  Mr. GREGG. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 13

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), for himself 
     and Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, 
     and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 13.

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

         (Purpose: To provide additional funding for education)

       At the appropriate place in division G, insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE __--EDUCATION TO SECURE TOMORROW

     SEC. __. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Trust in Education to 
     Secure Tomorrow (TEST) for America's Future''.

     SEC. __. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY; FINDINGS.

       (a) Declaration of Purpose and Policy.--Congress declares 
     the following:
       (1) The security of the Nation requires the fullest 
     development of the mental resources and technical skills of 
     its young men and women. The present national security 
     emergency demands that additional and more adequate 
     educational opportunities be made available. The defense of 
     this Nation depends upon the mastery of modern techniques 
     developed from complex scientific principles. It depends as 
     well upon the discovery and development of new principles, 
     new techniques, and new knowledge.
       (2) We must increase our efforts to identify and educate 
     more of the talent of our Nation. This requires programs that 
     will correct as rapidly as possible the existing imbalances 
     in our educational system and will give assurance that no 
     student of ability will be denied an opportunity for higher 
     education because of financial need.
       (3) Congress reaffirms the principle and declares that the 
     States and local communities have and must retain control 
     over and primary responsibility for public education. The 
     national interest requires, however, that the Federal 
     Government give assistance to education for programs which 
     are important to our defense.
       (4) To meet the present emergency requires additional 
     effort at all levels of government. It is therefore the 
     purpose of this division to provide substantial assistance in 
     various forms to individuals, and to States and their 
     subdivisions, in order to insure trained manpower of 
     sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense 
     needs of the United States.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) In fiscal year 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 
     2001 (Public Law 107-110) was funded at $22,195,000,000. The 
     Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2003, 
     as submitted to Congress, proposes to fund the No Child Left 
     Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) at $22,105,000,000.
       (2) The size of the maximum Federal Pell Grant is 
     authorized to be $5,800, but because of insufficient funding, 
     in fiscal year 2002, the maximum Federal Pell Grant was only 
     $4,000.
       (3) State budget deficits are having a pronounced effect on 
     State education funding and public college and university 
     tuition.
       (4) In fiscal year 1946, the share of the Federal budget 
     dedicated to education was 10.4 percent. In fiscal year 2002, 
     the share of the Federal budget dedicated to education was 
     2.5 percent. On March 23, 1994, the United States Senate 
     unanimously resolved to increase to 10 percent by 2004 the 
     share of the Federal budget dedicated to education.

     SEC. __. MEET THE PROMISE OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT.

       In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under 
     this Act for part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, the following sums are 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, 
     $4,650,000,000 for carrying out such part, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2004: Provided, That 
     $2,325,000,000 of the amount of funding appropriated under 
     this section for part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be distributed 
     according to section 1125 of such Act: Provided further, That 
     $2,325,000,000 of the amount of funding appropriated under 
     this section for part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be distributed 
     according to section 1125A of such Act.

     SEC. __. HELP FOR FAMILIES PAYING FOR COLLEGE.

       (a) Additional Appropriations.--The following sums are 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, 
     for an additional amount for ``Student Financial Assistance'' 
     for carrying out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965, $1,350,000,000 to remain 
     available through September 30, 2004.
       (b) Maximum Pell Grant.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the maximum Pell Grant for which a 
     student shall be eligible during award year 2003-2004 shall 
     be $4,500.

     SEC. __. RESTORATION OF FUNDING FOR EDUCATION.

       Section 601 of Division N shall not apply with respect to 
     programs funded under title III of Division G.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as all of us in this Chamber understand, 
and perhaps those American citizens who are watching this debate do not 
understand, this matter that we are considering is also the instrument 
by which we are going to fund the support for educational programs. The 
amendment which we offer is directed primarily at the title I parts of 
the educational programs. It also has an important addition in terms of 
the Pell provisions which make such a difference to children who have 
considerable ability but lack financial support.
  I wish to review very briefly where we have been in terms of the 
funding of education. The Federal role in the area of education has 
been limited but very important. It goes back to the early mid-1960s 
when the Congress and the President at that time made a decision that 
it was in the national interest to try to provide some help and 
assistance to the neediest and poorest children of this country, 
recognizing that education was a local and State responsibility. And 
they continue to remain the responsibilities for the localities and the 
States. But, nonetheless, the issue of very poor children in our 
society was a matter of national interest and national concern, and so 
we tried to fashion an educational program to provide assistance so 
those children would not be left out and left behind.
  That was, basically, the reason for the development of the title I 
program in the mid-1960s.
  In the 1960s, as that went through the Senate and eventually went to 
the

[[Page 1263]]

House of Representatives, the formula for the implementation of that 
program spread those resources far and wide. Rather than being really 
targeted on the neediest children, it was spread among a broader area. 
The actual resources that went to aid the neediest children was very 
little, sometimes $100 or $200, but essentially small, generally 
speaking.
  In the review of the effectiveness of title I, we have seen over a 
long period of time that hasn't produced the kinds of results that many 
of us had hoped would be achieved. We have seen a number of different 
steps that were taken during the Clinton administration where we had a 
variety of different pieces of legislation, for instance, the Goals 
2000, which provides help and assistance to localities through the 
States. That was the legislation that helped develop the concept of 
standards which has been so important and embraced in the No Child Left 
Behind bill, with the idea that States would develop the kinds of 
standards they thought necessary for each grade in that particular 
State.
  What No Child Left Behind tried to do was say these are the standards 
established by the States, this is the curriculum for teaching those 
standards, and these are the tests to try to make sure those children 
are learning what was intended they should learn, and then these are 
the supplementary services to try to help those children who are 
falling further behind.
  That was the concept in the No Child Left Behind bill. Nonetheless, 
the good work of the Goals 2000 made an important downpayment.
  There was also the efforts of the School-to-Work Program to assist 
some of the children who might have been dropping out. We have close to 
500,000 children a year who drop out of school, who think they can not 
make it academically. This program provided help and assistance when 
they went from school to work. We have had strong success in a number 
of different areas, and continue to, even though the legislation has 
expired.
  We had additional educational funds in the AmeriCorps and in the 
direct loan program to try to provide help and assistance to children 
in higher education--a whole range of HOPE scholarships, and lifelong 
learning scholarships for educational efforts during that period of 
time.
  Nonetheless, if we look back over the focus and attention of where 
this institution has been in funding educational programs, it is not a 
strong record.
  I wish to review very quickly as we put into perspective the needs of 
this amendment, which adds some $6 billion to the overall omnibus bill, 
meaning we would have $16 billion in the title I program and which 
effectively is what our conference committee agreed to when we reported 
out and accepted the No Child Left Behind bill that the President 
signed.
  In my opening comments, looking at the figures, I mention to the body 
the amendment that was offered by my friends and colleagues from 
Connecticut and Maine. During authorization of the No Child Left Behind 
bill, we took the time to consider the Dodd-Collins amendment which 
would have provided $18 billion. That was agreed to by 79 Members of 
this body. It had 29 Republican votes supporting that increase of $18 
billion as the total amount in title I. This is $16 billion. We are 
going to find out this afternoon whether there is that kind of 
commitment so clear from the debate and discussion and vote that we had 
on May 3 which provided 79 votes in favor of that, with virtually no 
Democrats voting in opposition to it.
  Now we have a chance for real money. This is real money. That is the 
authorization. Now we have the chance to implement what we voted for 
some time ago in terms of the No Child Left Behind bill.
  As we look over the last years in terms of where we are and what the 
record is in this body on various educational funding, the reason this 
is so important is that we find there has been a strong element in this 
body that believes there is no role whatsoever for the Federal 
Government in the field of education. I understand that. I respect 
that. I differ with it. I think most parents want to see their children 
learn. They want to see smaller class sizes as we have seen in 
recognizing the distinguished Presiding Officer's State of Tennessee 
which has moved to get smaller class sizes. They want well-qualified 
teachers. They want afterschool programs to help and assist the 
students who are falling further behind. They want that certainly. They 
need that kind of a program. They want some help and assistance for 
limited-English-speaking students to help and assist those individuals. 
They want to make sure when these children, who may come from limited 
resources, also have an opportunity to continue their education in 
terms of help and assistance with either Pell grants and loan programs. 
They work hard during the course of the summer and they may want to 
take out some loans to continue their education. I think that is what 
the American people expect.
  There should be no mistake about it. In this body, we have had a 
long, hard battle in getting adequate funding in education.
  In considering the No Child Left Behind bill, we have a great sense 
of expectation for the children in this country. No Child Left Behind 
said to the young people in this country: We will do our best to give 
you a well-qualified teacher, smaller classrooms, and help and 
assistance when you need it. And we are going to be committed to trying 
to assist you to continue your education.
  We put strong responsibility on the children. We put strong 
responsibility on the schools that if they are failing, they have to 
reorganize or restructure themselves or there will be action by the 
States. We put responsibility on the parents with the report card to 
inform parents how their children are performing. We have even involved 
the parents in a variety of educational alternatives, all of which have 
been recommendations and experiences which we have found to have 
benefited the children left behind.
  We have to ask ourselves today, who is failing in meeting their 
responsibilities? It is right here in the Congress of the United States 
that we are failing the children of America. This omnibus bill is 
failing the children of America. With this amendment we have an 
opportunity to provide the kind of assistance to the children all 
across this country that the No Child Left Behind bill was intended to 
provide.
  This has been a long and continuing struggle. Many of us can 
remember, going back to 1995, when we had already appropriated funding 
in the area of education, and there was actually a rescission offered 
by the new Republican leadership for moneys going to education of $1.7 
billion. And we were able to get $1.1 billion restored with the 
Democratic support.
  The next year, there was a $3.9 billion reduction in the cut in the 
Republican House of Representatives. We, the Democrats, were able to 
restore $3.5 billion. It was repeated again in 1997. It was repeated 
again in 1998. In 1999, the Republicans authorized and appropriated $2 
billion below what the President requested. And then, after tough 
negotiations, President Clinton was able to get the $3.6 billion. And 
the list goes on.
  I want to bring to the attention of the Senate, and our friends who 
are watching this debate, these figures. This is what was actually 
offered by the President of the United States. In the year 2000, he 
asked for a $2.5 billion increase, and we stood for, with the reform, 
$7.7 billion.
  We are going to hear a lot about increases over 2002. Let's remember 
theirs was $2.5 billion and this was $7.7 billion. Then, this year, 
they asked for $1.4 billion, which is 2.8 percent above what was asked 
for in the previous years.
  I want to say, right at the outset of this debate, money isn't 
everything, but it is a pretty clear indication of a nation's 
priorities. That is what this debate is about: a nation's priorities. 
That is what the omnibus bill is about: reflecting the Nation's 
priorities in the amount of moneys that are going to be appropriated by 
the Congress and Senate of the United States. That is what this debate 
is all about.

[[Page 1264]]

  When we talk about these figures, we are not just talking about 
dollars--hundreds of millions or billions of dollars--we are talking 
about making sure qualified teachers get in those classrooms. That is 
what money represents. It is not just spending; it is providing 
qualified teachers. It means smaller classrooms and afterschool 
programs and assistance to students with limited English.
  We do not have the construction money in here that we had in the 
previous administration. So we effectively made a contract with the 
American people. We said: Look, we will pass No Child Left Behind. We 
had made a contract with the parents, with the students, with the 
States, with the local communities, and we were signatories. The 
President was a signatory. Every Member of this Congress, at that time, 
was a signatory with their vote. There were a handful of Members who 
voted in opposition, but those who voted in favor were signatories to 
that particular proposal.
  So we are looking, effectively, with the report that we have before 
us, at an increase of $1.7 billion instead of the amount that was 
requested, $1.4 billion. We will hear a good deal on the floor of the 
Senate about what kind of increase this is, what kind of increase it 
isn't, that it is a large increase or that it is really just a small 
increase, as I have described it.
  I have here the Department of Education Fiscal 2003 Budget Summary. 
It says on page 2: The President is requesting $50 billion in 
discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education, an 
increase of $1.4 billion or 2.8 percent over the 2002-enacted level. So 
2.8 percent over the 2002 level.
  That does not even take care of inflation. That is effectively a cut.
  Let me show you what has happened over the previous years in 
education. Let me just show you what has happened over the last several 
years in the areas of education funding. This chart includes total 
education. Going back to 1997, a 16-percent increase; 1998, 12 percent; 
1999, 12 percent; 2000, 6 percent; 2002, 19 percent; 2002, 16 percent.
  Now, the administration's budget is at 2.8 percent--the lowest we 
have had over this whole period of time. This is when we have the most 
important education legislation before the children of America. That is 
wrong. That is wrong. And that is what we are attempting to address.
  This is, as I mentioned, under the Department of Education, 2.8 
percent. I mention this because we will hear others talk about: Oh, we 
have the largest increase we have seen in recent times.
  Listen to this. I have here a page, which I will print in the Record, 
entitled ``Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related 
Agencies Appropriations.'' It says: ``Republican House Appropriations 
Staff Document Accompanying [their bill] H.R. 246.]''
  If you look down at ``Total: Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
programs,'' there is a cut of $89.655 million. So a $90 million cut 
right here in the effect of their program, a $90 million cut, because 
their funding does not even meet the education inflationary needs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the item to which I just 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations
                                                                       [$ in 000s]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Difference                  Difference
                                                                         FY 2002     President's                 President's   Difference    House bill
                                                                       comparable      budget      House bill   request/2002   House bill/   President's
                                                                                       request                      comp.      2002 comp.      request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Statistics:
    Research.................................................     D        121,817       175,000       140,000       +53,183       +18,183       -35,000
    Regional Research Laboratories...........................     D         67,500        67,500        67,500             0             0             0
    Statistics...............................................     D         85,000        95,000        95,000       +10,000             0
                                                                     ===================================================================================
    Assessment:
        National Assessment..................................     D        107,500        90,825        90,825       -16,675       -16,675             0
        National Assessment Governing Board..................     D          4,053         4,682         4,562          +509          +509             0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal: Assessment...................................  .....       111,553        95,387        95,387       -16,166       -16,166             0
                                                                     ===================================================================================
      Total: Research and Statistics.........................  .....       385,870       432,887       397,887       +47,017       +12,017       -35,000
Multi-year Grants and Contracts..............................     D         58,000             0             0       -58,000       -58,000             0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total: ERSI............................................  .....       443,870       432,887       387,887       -10,983       -45,983       -35,000
                                                                     ===================================================================================
Departmental Management:
    Program Administration...................................     D        418,798       411,795       411,754        -7,003        -7,003             0
    Office for Civil Rights..................................     D         79,666        86,276        86,276        +6,610        +6,610             0
    Office of the Inspector General..........................     D         38,588        41,000        41,000        +2,412        +2,412             0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total: Departmental Management.........................  .....       537,052       539,071       539,071        +2,019        +2,019             0
                                                                     ===================================================================================
Student Aid Administration:
    Administrative Costs.....................................     D              0       932,000       105,388      +932,000      +105,388      -826,612
    Federal Direct Student Loan Reclassification (Legislative     D              0      -795,000             0      -795,000             0      +795,000
     proposal)...............................................
      Total: Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs.  .....    22,222,794    22,133,139    22,292,239       -89,655       +69,445      +159,100
      Total: Departmental of Education.......................  .....    52,416,982    52,843,371    52,843,371      +426,389      +426,389             0
                                                                     ===================================================================================
Current Year.................................................  .....    37,405,681    37,832,070    37,832,070      +426,389      +426,389             0
                                                                     ===================================================================================
FY04.........................................................  .....    15,011,301    15,011,301    15,011,301             0             0             0
                                                                     ===================================================================================
Related Agencies:
    Armed Forces Retirement Home:............................
        Operations and Maintenance...........................     D         61,628        61,628        61,628             0             0
        Capital Program......................................     D          9,812         5,712         5,712        -4,100        -4,100             0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--This document is an unofficial staff description of Appropriations Committee activities.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is all against a background of what 
is happening out there in the States. Six months ago, we thought the 
States had about a $45 billion shortfall; now the best estimates are 
$90 billion. A conservative estimate is that a third of those budgets 
are education budgets, divided between higher education and elementary 
and secondary education. But that is $30 billion that is going to be 
withdrawn from the States in terms of education.
  We have an administration program which is effectively cutting back 
on the title I at the same time that we are considering the largest tax 
reduction in the history of the country--$670 billion now over the next 
10 years. When you add on the costs of carrying that out, another $300 
billion. So it is close to $1 trillion. And the administration cannot 
find $16 billion out of that $640 billion tax cut, much of it going to 
the wealthiest individuals in this country, to say: Let's invest in 
what America was proud of when the President of the United States 
signed the No Child Left Behind bill.

[[Page 1265]]

  How do you explain that? How do you explain that to parents in this 
country? How do you explain that? This is an institution of choices. We 
have choices. We have choices here this afternoon. And we have the 
recognition, when all is said and done, that this proposal before the 
Senate of the United States is $10 billion less than what was generally 
agreed to in the last Congress by Republicans and Democrats, reflected 
in a vote of 59 Senators but agreed to as being the target figure for 
the appropriators.
  This bill is $10 billion less. Republicans voted for that higher 
number. I am not asking to exceed it. I am just saying, instead of $10 
billion, let's fund education including title I programs and the Pell 
grants and use up $6 of that $10 billion, which would move us a little 
closer to what we voted for.
  Is that so irresponsible? Is that so outrageous, when we have the 
kind of need and opportunity taking place all across the country? This 
is a matter of enormous importance to the children.
  I see my colleagues on the floor who want to speak. Let me wind up 
this phase quickly.
  We know that the earlier the intervention in terms of children, the 
better the opportunity that they will have a successful education. We 
are not talking here about early education, which I hope later in the 
session we will be able to address in a bipartisan way. Hopefully we 
will. But all of the Academy of Science's studies show that early 
education is absolutely crucial in terms of children. And that is 
effectively what the title I program is all about, trying to intervene 
in the early years.
  We have tried to coordinate the Head Start Program with the first 
year of education training and with the title I. We have made efforts 
and we will make more of an effort this year on reauthorization. We 
tried in the last Congress, with the last reauthorization, increasing 
and enhancing the quality of the Head Start Program, and we are going 
to try and bring this into greater conformity in the course of this 
year. But all of our efforts are going to be weakened dramatically if 
we are going to fail to meet even our minimum responsibilities to the 
children by investing and restoring this kind of commitment.
  The amendment which we offer today will invest $16 million in the 
title I program. It was passed overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan way, on 
the reauthorization. I am hopeful we can have bipartisan effort when we 
vote later in the afternoon. By doing so, we will live up to our 
commitment and meet our responsibility in the contract of No Child Left 
Behind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the presence of several of my 
colleagues. I will not take long.
  I commend our friend and colleague from Massachusetts for offering 
this amendment. He mentioned at the close of his remarks how this body 
in the previous Congress had voted some $16 billion in authorization 
moneys for title I. That amendment was offered by myself and my 
colleague from the State of Maine, Senator Collins. We received 79 
votes on that amendment, a recorded vote, supporting the $16 billion 
figure to authorize the title I funds.
  What we are doing here today with this amendment is merely trying to 
confirm once again the Senate's commitment in the previous Congress to 
that dollar amount. My colleague from Massachusetts has laid out the 
substantive arguments--in fact, even gone back and reminded us of the 
history of our efforts to try and get additional funding for the 
critical area of elementary and secondary education. I rise to support 
this effort and hope once again for the same spirit that imbued this 
body only a Congress ago, when 79 of us thought this was so important 
we ought to support the authorization figure of $16 billion. You now 
have an opportunity, albeit a bit late, but nonetheless an opportunity 
to reconfirm the commitment made by most of us to that dollar amount.
  We have all heard the language and the rhetoric over the last several 
years about leaving no child behind. Nothing could be more important to 
the well-being of this country than to see to it that we make the 
necessary investments our children will absolutely need if they are 
going to have the quality of education necessary to maximize their 
potential in the 21st century. I can't think of a better way to begin 
that effort than by providing the resources necessary.
  We have already seen the budget cuts, some $4.6 billion short of the 
promise made when the President signed into law the $16 billion 
authorization level. Yet hardly before the ink was dry on that 
commitment we saw the cuts come in. How many of us remember the 
President traveling around the country, celebrating this major first 
initiative of his administration, proud of the fact he had built 
bipartisan support for dealing with the educational needs of America's 
children. What a great irony to find ourselves back here in this 
Congress arguing with the administration about restoring some funds to 
a program that was so highly celebrated by them.
  This is an issue that should not divide Americans by ideology or 
party or partisanship. I do not know of a single citizen who believes 
we can continue to prosper and grow as a people while simultaneously 
depriving the youngest of our citizens the opportunity to acquire the 
skills necessary to do what will have to be done to make us a strong 
and prosperous Nation in the 21st century.
  We all know how painfully difficult it is to provide that opportunity 
of education today at the local level, with property taxes being the 
major source of funding for educational needs, and in some areas State 
budgets also contribute. It is incredible to me that we contribute less 
than 2 percent of the entire Federal budget to the elementary and 
secondary educational needs of our students. About 6 cents on the 
education dollar comes from the national Government, and the 
overwhelming burden falls on local property taxpayers.
  We have been debating the issue of affirmative action and the 
President's decision yesterday to oppose the plan at the University of 
Michigan. I will find another moment and time to address that issue 
head on. But let me suggest to the President and others, if you want to 
know why there is a need for affirmative action, you merely have to 
look at how we spend money when it comes to elementary and secondary 
education and on title I. If you are wondering why a child entering 
college may need some further consideration when it comes to accepting 
them or rejecting them to a higher educational opportunity, consider 
what we do at the earliest stages of their educational development.
  In most States in this country, if you go to the inner city urban 
schools, you will find that 35 or 36 percent of the teachers are not 
certified to teach the course the children are taking; whereas 
Statewide, in the more affluent communities, those numbers are 
dramatically lower.
  We should be doing everything we can. If you want to eliminate 
affirmative action, then you better begin here with the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, to make it possible for 
every child to have an equal opportunity to learn. Today, given the 
disparities in our communities based on the wealth, the poverty, or 
affluence of those communities increases the likelihood of an 
educational opportunity. It should not be a question of where you were 
born as to whether you will have a right or an opportunity to succeed. 
We ought to be doing everything we can to see to it that every child, 
regardless of the circumstances of their birth, will have an 
opportunity to achieve to their maximum potential.
  We bear no responsibility to guarantee success. We bear every 
responsibility to see to it that there is an opportunity to succeed or 
fail. That is all we are trying to do in this one area of title I and 
Pell grants which the Senator rightly has added to the amendment.
  I can't recall a prouder day in the last Congress than when we stood 
here, 79 of us, and Senator Collins and I offered that amendment.
  Many thought we could not pass it. But 79 of us here said we ought to 
do

[[Page 1266]]

this on title I. I hope the Members who cast the vote that day, as they 
walk into this Chamber in the coming hour or 2, will recall how they 
felt when they actually voted to see to it that we maximize the dollars 
necessary to support this critically important program and cast a 
ballot again today in this Congress to see that we have full funding 
for title I and the necessary dollars to support the Pell Grant 
Program, which will make it possible for children of modest means to 
achieve a higher education which, in the absence of this amendment, 
would be difficult to do.
  This is important to children at both the elementary and secondary 
school levels. It is important to the security of America. Our security 
is directly linked to the wellness and ability of our children to 
acquire the educational skills they will need. This is a national 
security issue, not just an education issue. I look forward to 
supporting this amendment when the vote occurs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also want to speak in favor of the 
amendment my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has 
offered. I commend him and Senator Harkin, in particular, for the 
leadership they have shown in trying to maintain an adequate level of 
funding for education. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment 
and the amendment Senator Harkin will offer later today.
  The pending omnibus appropriations bill we are debating on the floor 
is woefully inadequate when it comes to funding education. Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Dodd have just pointed out that last year, with 
great acclaim, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, and I supported 
that. I believe there are accountability provisions in that act that 
will move us in the way of implementing major changes in our 
educational system and will bring us a long way toward ensuring equal 
educational opportunity for all children in this country.
  What we were starting to do with that act, as I understood it, was to 
work in partnership with States and local governments to see this 
improvement occur, and part of that partnership was that we would help 
provide resources to the schools and the teachers so that those 
children could succeed.
  The President's budget abandoned that effort. This bill that we have 
on the floor today--although it is slightly better than the President's 
budget--also abandons the promise to leave no child behind.
  Like the President's budget, the pending bill underfunds the No Child 
Left Behind Act by several billion dollars. I do think the context is 
important here. The context is the one to which Senator Kennedy 
referred. We are being urged as a Congress and a nation to embrace some 
$660 billion or $670 billion worth of new tax cuts. At the same time, 
we are being told now there is not enough money to adequately fund the 
No Child Left Behind Act: We cannot make good on the promise that we 
made when we passed that act because we cannot afford it, but, by the 
way, why don't you speed up and pass this $660 billion tax bill, which 
is really focused on assisting those who are the best off in our 
society.
  So you have an interesting juxtaposition, where tax cuts are targeted 
at the wealthiest versus having adequate funding for programs to 
benefit our most disadvantaged children. That is the choice we are 
going to have to make in the Senate this afternoon.
  Unlike the President's budget, this bill has a small increase for 
programs authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act--an increase of 
$400 million. But that funding level will mean a significant cut in 
services because of expected inflation. Inflation is not going to be 
much; it is expected to be 1.8 percent. But even with that, we are not 
providing the funds to make up for it. The only significant increases 
for education in the bill are a billion dollars for title I and a 
billion dollars for IDEA.
  This bill--like the President's budget--makes those increases at the 
expense of other very crucial programs. In addition, even with the 
increase for title I--the program targeted on districts and schools 
with large numbers of our most disadvantaged students--in this bill, 
the program is $4.6 billion short of the levels agreed to on a 
bipartisan basis when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act.
  The proposed funding level will not be sufficient to keep pace with 
the growth in child poverty. It will mean that over 6 million poor 
children will in fact be left behind.
  If we truly intend to leave no child behind, then education funding, 
particularly targeted at this group of disadvantaged children, needs to 
be our top priority.
  The increase for IDEA is also insufficient. I am sure people will 
come to the floor today and say, no, we are increasing IDEA. At the 
rate of increase provided for in the underlying bill today, it will 
only take us 33 more years to get to the level we promised the Federal 
Government achieve when we enacted that program. That is covering 40 
percent of the cost of that program. So the funding level in this 
year's bill is a mere 17 percent of those costs.
  The pending amendment would go a long way toward ensuring that no 
child, in fact, will be left behind. If Senator Kennedy's amendment 
prevails--which I hope it will--we will have over 2 million more needy 
children who will be fully served by the title I program. It will 
provide sufficient funding to hire 50,000 fully qualified new teachers. 
It will provide afterschool opportunities for a million more children. 
Every one of the 10,000 schools currently identified as not meeting the 
standards provided in the No Child Left Behind Act will be able to 
implement research-based school reform models. There are 200,000 
college students nationally who will be able to receive a Pell grant to 
defray the cost of college. So this amendment can make a great 
difference.
  Let me give a few statistics about my home State of New Mexico, and 
then I will yield to my colleagues who also wish to speak on this 
important amendment.
  This amendment will provide the Albuquerque Public Schools $9.8 
million in increased funding. In my home State, we will receive 
approximately $54 million under this amendment; 1,400 more college 
students will be eligible for a Pell grant in New Mexico and over 
42,000 grant recipients will receive a substantial increase.
  This is an important amendment for my State, and it is an important 
amendment for all the schoolchildren in the country. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I also come to the floor to support the 
extremely important amendment offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts, which is offered to ensure that all students get the 
educational resources they deserve.
  This amendment funds title I at the level we agreed to when we passed 
the No Child Left Behind Act and increases Pell grants so we can help 
more low-income students afford college. This is the minimum investment 
we need to make if we truly are going to leave no child behind.
  Leaving no child behind is a noble goal, one that we all endorse. But 
it is a travesty to use the mantra of the Children's Defense Fund as a 
cover for policies and budgets that hurt rather than help American 
students. Make no mistake, the bill before us, based on the President's 
budget, will leave students behind.
  I find it particularly incredible that at the same time the President 
and his friends in Congress are pushing for a $674 billion tax cut, 
they are insisting that we provide less money for the education of our 
children.
  Look at title I. Title I pays for things such as books, teachers, 
tutoring, and preschool for our most needy students. The President and 
his party are saying that we can no longer afford the $1.5 billion 
increase slated for title I last year, yet we can afford to give $20 
billion to 226,000 millionaires.

[[Page 1267]]

  One year ago, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we agreed 
on new sweeping requirements and mandates. We also agreed that title I 
would need to be funded at $16 billion this year for schools to meet 
those requirements. America's students and their parents have entrusted 
us with their future. We cannot turn our backs on them and say we have 
done our part by setting high standards and creating tough 
accountability, and the rest is up to you--even if you are trying to 
learn in overcrowded classrooms or from unqualified teachers or you are 
coping with crumbling school buildings. That is what they are really 
saying.
  Last week, the President celebrated the 1-year anniversary of the No 
Child Left Behind Act by calling it the most meaningful education 
reform probably ever. But that reform had two parts. On the one hand, 
it called for higher standards and accountability, and on the other 
hand it promised more investment so schools could make progress.
  My good friend, Senator Paul Wellstone, spent many hours on this 
floor reminding all of us that the so-called No Child Left Behind Act 
would, at best, be a sham and, at worst, a serious blow to the public 
school students of our country if it was funded on a tin cup budget. I 
fear this appropriations bill will prove him right.
  By providing only an inflationary increase in education funding while 
significantly raising the demands on our schools, we have reduced 
America's students to begging for the Government's spare change to 
finance their future.
  Setting a high bar is important, but setting a high bar and failing 
to give kids the resources to succeed is just setting them up for 
failure.
  The appropriations bill before us offers the smallest increase in 
education funding in 7 years. It freezes the State grants that reduced 
class size and improved teacher quality and, as a result, no new 
teachers will be hired and fewer teachers will get professional 
development.
  This bill does not fully fund our share of special education costs, 
failing yet again to fulfill that commitment to our communities, our 
schools, and our disabled students. And it falls far short of title I 
funding we included in the No Child Left Behind Act because we knew it 
was necessary to help our students succeed.
  We know what the needs are. We know what works to help our children 
succeed. And we also know that making college affordable is critical to 
helping students succeed and to helping our economy grow. Senate 
Democrats have worked to increase funding for Pell grants. In fiscal 
year 2002, while the Bush administration proposed no increase in Pell 
grants, Senate Democrats increased the top limit from $3,750 per year 
to $4,000 per year.
  Again this year, the President proposed no increase in Pell grants. 
It is a good step that this bill includes a small increase for Pell 
grants, but it is not nearly enough to meet the rapidly rising needs. 
In my home State of Washington, our legislature cut $1.6 billion out of 
their budget last year. This year they are suffering from even deeper 
economic stress, and they need to cut an additional $2.5 billion. A 
result of that is tuition at our public colleges and universities 
increased 12 to 16 percent this year, and we could be looking at 
similar increases next year. I am really worried that students will 
look at that increase in tuition, see no significant increase in 
Federal aid, and decide they cannot afford to go to college.
  One of the most important things we can do to ensure a safe and 
secure future is to help educate our young people. We know a college 
degree means on average an additional $20,000 a year for men and an 
additional $15,000 a year for women. Given today's global-based 
economy, the gap in earnings between those Americans who have a college 
degree and those who only have a high school degree is likely to grow. 
Ensuring that our young people have the resources to go to college is a 
critical national priority.
  Putting America's future first means putting our children's education 
first. But the sad truth is that this appropriations bill shortchanges 
all of America's students. We have spent so much time talking about how 
we can hold teachers, administrators, and parents accountable for doing 
their jobs well. I think we ought to focus on how well we are doing our 
job, and that means making good choices for our children and investing 
in their futures.
  At a time when we are and should be demanding more than ever from our 
schools, we must not slow down the Federal investments in our schools. 
We must not abandon our commitment to help reduce class sizes and 
provide quality teachers. We must not continue to shirk our 
responsibility to disadvantaged students.
  The Republican bill freezes our progress. That is why we have offered 
this amendment. That is why Senator Kennedy has offered this amendment: 
To provide the resources that parents, teachers, and students need.
  This amendment will ensure more children start school ready to learn. 
It can help children learn in smaller, well disciplined classes by 
hiring 50,000 fully qualified teachers so we can reduce the size of 
classes. It will help our local districts that are badly in need of 
help right now to ensure there is a high quality teacher in every 
classroom. It could allow communities to offer more afterschool 
programs to keep 1 million additional latchkey children safe and 
learning, and it would help more Americans afford college at this 
critical time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I was listening to the Senator. I see my colleagues who 
have not spoken. I will only take a minute.
  I was listening to the Senator talk about opportunities for young 
children to go to college. I have here a chart which indicates the 
average requested increase during the Clinton years was $167. Last 
year, the Bush request was $100 in Pell grants. The Congress raised 
that to $250. This year it is zero. In the matter before us, this 
amendment raises it by $500. I want the Senator to know, as she talks 
about higher education, the administration request was zero. Last year 
it was $100, and we raised it to $250.
  If this amendment is successful, it will be $500. There will be 
200,000 new Pell grant recipients, 4.5 million college students with 
Pell grants that on average are $300 higher, and it hikes the maximum 
Pell grant to these needy students by $500.
  As she was talking about the importance of higher education, after 
being the leader in this body on the issue of smaller class size and 
qualified teachers over the years, and I believe the only former member 
of a school board, as well as a teacher, it is wise that our colleagues 
listen to the Senator from the State of Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. On 
his point on the Pell grants, I remind us again that our States are 
suffering severe budget crises. Some people estimate as much as a $100 
billion shortfall in our State legislative budget this year. Those 
State legislatures are going to have to look toward increasing revenue 
in their States at this difficult time because they have to balance 
their budget. Many of those States will do as my State has done--raise 
college tuition. At the same time, if we do not have Pell grants 
available to students under this appropriations bill presented to us, 
we are going to have kids say: I cannot afford to go to college. That 
is the wrong message for our students at this time in our Nation's 
history.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding in some schools they are cutting 
back the school week from 5 days to 4 days because they have inadequate 
resources.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. Many State legislatures are 
looking to cut back the school week because of lack of resources for 
education at this time because of the effects of the economy.

[[Page 1268]]


  Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator agree with me that you cannot give 
meaning to the Leave No Child Behind legislation, which not only did 
the President sign but made a great to-do about signing it? He traveled 
around the country and said this was his commitment to education, but 
you cannot make a reality out of what that legislation contains if you 
do not provide the resources with which to carry it out. Would that not 
be the case?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Maryland makes an absolutely critical 
point. He knows as well as I do that we sincerely miss Senator Paul 
Wellstone who I know would be sitting next to Senator Ted Kennedy--
actually, he would be roaming up and down this aisle saying: I told all 
of you this No Child Left Behind hype is a sham if we do not provide 
the resources. Providing accountability on one hand and not providing 
resources on the other hand says we only did half what we promised.
  Mr. SARBANES. What does the distinguished Senator from Washington 
make of the contrast that the President, while not providing the 
resources to carry through on the promises contained in the Leave No 
Child Behind legislation, is pushing very hard in every way he possibly 
can for a tax cut for very wealthy people, what I have characterized as 
the ``leave no millionaire behind'' legislation?
  So the sense of priorities from the administration is that they are 
determined to try to get this tax cut to benefit the very wealthy so no 
millionaire is left behind, at the same time that they are failing to 
provide the resources in order to deliver on the Leave No Child Behind. 
These connections must be made.
  There is a tendency to look at the tax side as though it is somehow 
something separate, but the fact is, the President wants to commit 
scarce resources, given our fiscal position, to the tax cut to benefit 
the very wealthy at the same time that he is unwilling to commit the 
resources in order to fund the educational programs.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. The 
President is asking for a $674 billion tax cut that essentially means 
we can no longer afford the $1.5 billion increase to title I funds that 
we promised in No Child Left Behind at the same time he is giving 
226,000 millionaires a $20 billion tax cut.
  Mr. SARBANES. Absolutely.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On this point, will the Senator give a reaction to this 
particular chart? This chart provides a tax cut for the top 1 percent 
versus the Leave No Child Behind. This is the point the Senator from 
Maryland made so eloquently. That amounts to a $180 billion tax cut for 
the top 1 percent versus No Child Left Behind.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is the top 1 percent of the income and wealth 
scale; is that correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Now, this is the choice for the Senate. We can fully fund No Child 
Left Behind, reach the 10.8 million children all across this country; 
we can provide for universal afterschool programs, provide the needed 
resources to assist those children who need the extra help and 
assistance in afterschool programs. We can make sure there is a 
qualified teacher in every title I classroom in America, and provide 
help and assistance for the English instruction to every LEP child, 
every child who needs language training in English.
  We have the alternative of funding the tax cut for the 1 percent, the 
wealthiest individuals, or all of these items of the No Child Left 
Behind. That is the choice the Senator from the State of Washington has 
posed to this body and that the Senator from Maryland has underlined, 
and I think it is important that our colleagues and the American people 
understand what this debate is all about.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct, and I 
appreciate the comments of the Senator from Maryland. I think we should 
ask the millionaires in this country whether they want the tax cut or 
whether they would prefer to see no child left behind. My guess is many 
of them would prefer to make sure that the generation that follows them 
has the same opportunities they have had in this country.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator would yield, hopefully many of them 
would be sufficiently enlightened to perceive that by strengthening our 
society through implementing the Leave No Child--actually, this goes 
beyond implementing the legislation because it sets out other 
priorities that we can accomplish to succeed in strengthening our 
society to the benefit of everyone. It is a clear choice of priorities, 
what we are going to put first.
  I think most of the American people would put education first, 
recognizing that it not only benefits the students who gain the 
education but benefits the society generally. We all draw a benefit 
from having a well-educated society with people who are able to work to 
the very limits of their capacities.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his comments 
because I think they are essential to this debate. I also thank the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for one more observation and 
indicate whether she agrees, and I hope I have the attention of the 
Senator from Maryland.
  I will read these words. It will take less than a minute.

       The security of the Nation requires the fullest development 
     of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men 
     and women. The present national security emergency demands 
     that additional and more adequate educational opportunities 
     be made available. The defense of this Nation depends upon 
     the mastery of modern techniques developed from complex 
     scientific principles. It depends as well upon the discovery 
     and development of new principles, new techniques, and new 
     knowledge.
       We must increase our efforts to identify and educate more 
     of the talent of our Nation.

  That was President Dwight Eisenhower in 1958. Those words are the 
same words that we need today when we are talking about the defense of 
our country as well, and that had virtually unanimous support in this 
body at that time in 1958. That is the same principle we are trying to 
support with this amendment today.
  Mr. SARBANES. Absolutely.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for that 
statement as well.
  As I finish my statement, and I know the Senator from Iowa also wants 
to speak, I think we have to ask ourselves are we going to let our kids 
go to school in overcrowded classrooms in crumbling school buildings 
with underpaid and inadequately prepared teachers or are we going to 
rise to the occasion and make the choices to invest in our children's 
futures?
  We know what the needs are out there. We know what helps our kids 
succeed. We need Members of Congress to stand up and put the money 
where their mouths are.
  Parents, teachers, students, and community leaders are saying do not 
just talk about the importance of education funding, make the tough 
choices to show the American public that education is truly a priority, 
and that means giving our local school districts the resources they 
need to provide a first-rate education to every student in this country 
by supporting this amendment.
  I urge the millionaires in this country who are looking at a tax cut 
to let this Congress know that the education of the next generation, 
the possibility of creating future millionaires, is far more important 
than the tax cut they have been promised by this administration. I urge 
my colleagues to vote yes on this extremely important amendment that 
will benefit our children and grandchildren and their future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his great leadership on this specific item, but also 
his great leadership on all issues concerning education, both in this 
Congress and in Congresses of the last 25 or 30 years.
  This amendment is one that is needed to meet the barest of needs of 
this country in terms of educating our children and making sure we live 
up to the

[[Page 1269]]

commitments we made a year ago when the President signed into law the 
Leave No Child Behind Act.
  It is time to stop talking about a commitment to education and start 
proving it. All across my State of Iowa, all over the Nation, teachers, 
principals, and parents are deeply worried about this new education 
law. They are on edge not because they are afraid of accountability--
teachers and parents want their schools to be held accountable--but 
they are on edge because they are afraid the Government is going to 
come in and label their schools a failure without giving them the 
resources they need to succeed.
  People all over this country are now beginning to see this law for 
what it is: an unfunded Federal mandate. President Bush keeps saying 
that schools do not need more money. His attitude is more tests are 
needed, more unfunded mandates; the schools do not need more money.
  Well, it is a funny thing about money. It sure comes in handy when 
tax cuts are being given to the rich. When it comes to tax breaks for 
millionaires, why, money seems like a pretty nice thing to have, 
according to this White House. But when it comes to education, 
President Bush's education plan sounds more like that old beer ad, the 
Miller Lite ad: Great tests, less funding. In essence, what it is all 
about is priorities, President Bush's priority, as we have seen now, is 
leave no millionaire behind.
  Instead of focusing on dividends for millionaires, we should be 
focusing on making sure our kids can multiply and divide. If we really 
want to do something that will pay dividends for our country, we need 
to invest in our children.
  No one in this Chamber thinks money is the only answer to improving 
schools. We all can come up with examples and instances of chasing bad 
money with good in education. But it takes money to hire a highly 
qualified teacher. In fact, I submit that what we are seeing happening 
in education in America today is what I call ``finally the education 
system is meeting the marketplace.'' More and more of our teachers are 
finding they can make a better living doing something else than what 
they went to school for and were trained for. That is why we have so 
many teachers leaving education after two or three years, because the 
market in the private sector will pay them more for their skills and 
their learning than they can get in education.
  In my time, when I was in elementary school and high school, perhaps 
even college, there were not that many opportunities for a lot of the 
people who were teachers. Most of the teachers in those days were 
women. Women did not have access openings. You could be a teacher or a 
nurse and that was about it. Thankfully this country, through various 
Civil Rights Acts, now has a society where an American woman can become 
anything she wants. So we have women who are lawyers, doctors, Senators 
and Congresspeople, truck drivers and welders, and everything else. 
Therefore, we do not get the teacher on the cheap anymore like we did 
when I was younger. If you want a good, qualified teacher, you have to 
pay the money. There is no way around it.
  If we want to reduce class sizes so kids can learn better and have a 
better learning environment, that takes some money. If we want to send 
a poor middle-class kid to college, that also takes some money. If we 
want to fix up our broken-down school buildings--the average age is 
almost 50 years old--and get the new technologies in the classroom, 
that is not free. That costs some money.
  President Bush does not want to face that fact. As soon as he signed 
the No Child Left Behind Act, he walked away from the job of improving 
our schools. Take a look at this chart. There seem to be mistakes made 
on the Senate floor a week ago by my friend from New Hampshire. I 
thought I might correct the Record. About a week ago, I was on the 
floor talking about how the President actually cut funding for Leave No 
Child Behind. Secretary Paige said that was not true, and the Senator 
from New Hampshire, in the Record of January 10, also said Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Harkin had it wrong and that it was not cut. Just 
get the executive branch budget book, what he requested in funding for 
this year. In fiscal year 2002 we put $22.195 billion into the programs 
authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's request in 
the budget for this year was $22.105, a $90 million cut. One might say 
that is not much. All right, it is not, but my point is that right 
after signing the Leave No Child Behind Act the President submits his 
budget to this Congress and actually cuts the programs authorized by No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  The Senator from New Hampshire last week was talking about $90 
million from earmarked programs, which he says is not working to begin 
with, which has virtually no purpose other than to fund special 
interest activities which is worth $90 million. The fact is there were 
25 programs authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act.
  For instance, rural education in fiscal year 2003 was $162 million. 
This is part of No Child Left Behind. We do not want to leave rural 
kids behind. It is part of the bill. For this year, President Bush 
zeroed it out. He requested zero dollars for rural education. School 
counselors, $32 million in the previous year--this is the previous year 
before we had No Child Left Behind. These were specifically authorized 
by No Child Left Behind. These are not earmarked programs, not in the 
least. These are authorized under the heading of No Child Left Behind 
Act. Dropout prevention; $11 million to zero for gifted and talented. 
Zeroed it out. The national writing project, of which I know the 
Senator from Mississippi has been supportive, $14 million before, is 
zeroed out. This is just a partial list of the 25 that were cut--either 
zeroed out or cut--under the President's budget.
  Again, we in Congress in both the Senate and the House did not follow 
President Bush's lead. We put money back into these programs. The fact 
is the money we put in is now cut out by the appropriations bill we 
have before us in the Senate. The amendment offered by Senator Kennedy 
puts that money back in. President Bush requested this $22.105 billion 
for all of the programs under No Child Left Behind, less than what we 
had the year before. Our Appropriations Committee last year bumped that 
up to $24.512 billion. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee 
voted for that. It passed unanimously. The bill before the Senate today 
cuts that back down to $22.65 billion. The amendment offered by Senator 
Kennedy, of which I am a cosponsor and many others are, brings that 
back up to over $27 billion, to meet the minimal requirements of what 
we need around the country to support No Child Left Behind.
  The real question is, Are we going to do it? The President, we know, 
says, no, we do not have to. Now we are fighting to make sure we live 
up to our promise we made just 1 year ago when the President signed No 
Child Left Behind. As this chart demonstrates, President Bush's request 
for this year for education was the lowest, 2.8 percent, of the last 7 
years. One might say you could live with that but for the fact a year 
ago the President signed into law No Child Left Behind, touted it 
widely, said it is a new era in education, and we are not going to 
leave kids behind, and then sends Congress a bill that gives us the 
lowest increase in education in 7 years.
  I suppose maybe the President and others might say we will leave it 
up to the States and local schools. They just got hit with the biggest 
Federal mandate in education in over 30 years at the same time they are 
facing the worst fiscal crisis they have had since World War II.
  Again, why am I spending so much time talking about funding? I 
suppose I will be accused of saying money is the answer to education. 
That is not it at all. I support accountability. I support making sure 
parents of all kids, including poor kids, get a report card and know 
how their kids are doing so they can hold their schools accountable. I 
support the law. I voted for it. But I voted for it because there were 
representations made to us by this administration that they were going 
to back it. In fact, they walked away from it.

[[Page 1270]]

  I read this weekend that schools in Portland, or may have to cut 24 
days from the school year because they have run out of money. More than 
100 school districts in 7 States have switched to a 4-day week during 
this school year because they are out of money.
  If students are not in class, they are not going to reach the 
standards we set for them in No Child Left Behind. Right now, the 
Federal Government is leaving behind 6.2 million students who are not 
being fully served by the title I program, the main Federal program for 
educating disadvantaged students. That is what the Kennedy amendment 
will do, get these title I students back to where we make sure we meet 
the needs of these title I students. Only 4.1 million out of the 10.3 
million needy students are getting the services for which they are 
eligible.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator remembers, the legislation actually is a 
guarantee that all of those children, the whole 10 million, will reach 
what we call proficiency.
  Mr. HARKIN. That's right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That means they will have the basic kinds of educational 
skills over a 12-year period. That was the national goal. That is what 
had the support of the President, Republicans, and Democrats alike.
  Can the Senator possibly explain how we are ever going to have those 
6 million begin to even reach proficiency when, year after year, they 
are left out of any kind of coverage, any help--a qualified teacher, 
smaller classroom with supplementary services, which is guaranteed in 
the legislation?
  Mr. HARKIN. I respond to the Senator, it is a promise delayed. We 
promise these kids and their families we are not going to leave them 
behind, that they are going to have good teachers, good education--but 
not these kids, not this year, maybe not even next year but sometime in 
the distant future. But in the distant future these kids will be out of 
school and they will be ill-educated. They will not be fully productive 
members of our society. A day lost in education today is a day you 
cannot make up. A year lost to these students is a year that cannot be 
made up. That is why we have to put this money back, to make sure we 
meet our commitments.
  The bill before us would add just 289,000 students. We have 4.1 
million out of 10.3 million needy students. The Republican bill would 
only add 289,000 students to that total. That does not even keep pace 
with the growing number of needy students in this country. They are 
falling backwards.
  This amendment would make it possible to serve another 2 million 
students--not 289,000 students, 2 million students--by funding title I 
at $16 billion. That is the level we committed to, if I am not 
mistaken, in the bill last year.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That's right.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, is that not the 
level to which we committed?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is the figure that came out of the conference. That 
is the figure the President agreed to and signed to. That, actually, is 
$2 billion less than was voted on by 79 Members of the Senate in the 
Dodd-Collins amendment, which would have added $18 billion. This is $16 
billion. That's what came out of the conference.
  Mr. HARKIN. That's right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So the Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Last year this Senate voted, 79 
Senators voted to increase title I by even more than what Senator 
Kennedy has proposed in his amendment. We will see how they vote today.
  There is one other aspect of this amendment, too, to which I just 
want to address myself. It addresses the needs of students who cannot 
afford to go to college. This amendment would add $1.35 billion to the 
Pell Grant Program, which would make it possible to increase the 
maximum grant award from $4,000 to $4,500. Pell grants are the key 
program for making sure that poor and middle class students have the 
same opportunity to attend college as our wealthy students. Pell grants 
buy a lot less than they used to. In 1976 the maximum Pell grant award 
paid for 84 percent of the average 4-year public college tuition. Last 
year it paid for half of that, just 42 percent. So we have fallen far 
behind in Pell grants.
  With the economy still in a rut, more people laid off, more 
unemployment, two things are going to happen. More students would like 
to go to college, to fine-tune their job skills and enhance their 
careers. Second, more and more families will fall below the eligibility 
line. So kids who may not have qualified for Pell grants in the past 
will now qualify because their parents are unemployed, or not employed 
full time. So the demand in the Pell grant program will go up as the 
economy continues to slow down. The Kennedy amendment would provide 4.5 
million college students an average increase of $300 a year.
  Think about this, think about $300 a year for the neediest students 
in this country to go to college, that juxtaposed against the 
President's proposed tax plan to give more and more tax breaks to the 
richest people in this country.
  Again, as I said, it is really a matter of priorities. This amendment 
is one that ought to have strong support in the Senate from both sides 
of the aisle. It is the right thing to do for our kids. It is the right 
thing to do for our country. Frankly, in the end, what it does is it 
just makes us live up to the commitment we made 1 year ago, to actually 
leave no child behind.
  I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership. I hope 
we have an overwhelming vote in support of education, making sure we do 
not leave any kids behind.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Massachusetts 
and all the others who have come before us this afternoon supporting 
this amendment. This amendment supports funding for two significant 
programs, title I and Pell grants.
  I have been in the Congress 30 years now and this is the worst 
education crisis this Nation has seen in that 30 years. I will go back 
to some of those that we faced before.
  I come from the State of Justin Morrill, a United States Senator who 
gave America the Land Grant College System. The Land Grant College 
System opened the doors for college education for every American child, 
and I am proud of that. I am proud of Vermont's history in education.
  I have spent 30 years, as I said, in Congress, and this is the worst 
education crisis I have seen in that time.
  I should have known this was coming because I was the chairman of the 
education committee when it was introduced. I realized, as we started 
that it was going to be tough. We gave the tests out and did a model on 
it and found out every school in America, I think, failed to pass it.
  Then I asked them who was going to pay for the cost of the test, to 
find out how bad you were. They said: Oh, that will be up to the 
schools. I think I finally won a battle and shamed them into thinking 
that maybe at least they ought to pay for the tests that were going to 
prove how bad they were, and they agreed to do that.
  Unfortunately, though, now, due to budget cuts at the State, local, 
and Federal level, those doors we thought we were opening are becoming 
closed. We have the worst education crisis in this Nation in 60 years.
  Pell grants are important avenues toward making higher education 
available. The amendment before us will increase higher education 
opportunities for today's students who will be tomorrow's workforce.
  The worst crisis we had was at the end of World War II, where 
thousands of young people came back. I was a young person at that time. 
But I know that my neighbors came back and they had been interrupted in 
their studies in high school. They had been interrupted going to 
college. So we had a crisis of a magnitude that was even worse than 
today. Hundreds of thousands of young people came back without any high

[[Page 1271]]

school education. With huge increases in Federal funds we made at that 
time, we finally got a sufficient amount of money into the system to 
allow the creation of junior colleges all over this Nation, and allowed 
people to get back to try to make up all they had lost.
  So we have experiences of how it is to react to crises and that we 
can react if we have to. Our higher education institutions are the envy 
of the world. Yet we have so many individuals who graduate high school 
first in their class and so desperately want a higher education, but 
the means are not there for them to make that goal a reality. That is a 
sad situation.
  A similar crisis existed in this Nation in the 1960s, when the 
Sputnik launch came. All of a sudden, we who thought we were the best 
in the world in science and all found that a Sputnik was raised into 
the sky by Russia, and we recognized that we were defenseless against 
that. Our institutions of higher education rallied due to some good 
strong economic help. They became the best in the world. Federal funds 
were provided to make that possible.
  Instead of being behind the eight ball, we had thousands and 
thousands of students coming from all over the world to come to our 
institutions of higher learning, to pass and to be ready to bring this 
country up to a position where we could hopefully be able to head off 
attacks by missiles.
  But we have slipped again. Our schools are in dire need, and it is 
perhaps the worst position we have been in since World War II.
  Last week we celebrated the 1-week anniversary of No Child Left 
Behind--the law that is to provide the tools so every child will be 
able to receive a quality education. In order to accomplish this 
mission, significant commitments were made to fund K-12 programs 
authorized under No Child Left Behind. We have yet to see those 
commitments realized.
  In addition, the Federal Government, all 50 States, and cities and 
towns, are facing budget troubles as well. This is especially true in 
the area of education--both undergraduate and graduate. For example, 
some of our school districts are considering 4-day weeks. The Tulsa 
School District recently announced that it could no longer afford to 
hire substitute teachers for the remainder of the school year.
  Beginning in the late 1940s, and continuing through the 1960s, this 
Nation decided that education was a top domestic priority. I mentioned 
earlier what we did at the end of World War II. The passage of the GI 
bill at that time gave veterans access to higher education. The passage 
of the Defense Education Act, which concentrated on teacher preparation 
for math and science, and title I which realized the importance of 
providing education resources to our children so economically 
disadvantaged children could also receive a quality education. We gave 
them an opportunity, and we succeeded in doing what had to be done to 
get the quality of our education up.
  Now we jump back to World War II again and the horrible problems we 
had in education when hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of 
young people arrived without the opportunity to have had even a high 
school education, to say anything about higher education. We found that 
we had a crisis of great magnitude about which we had to do something. 
We did. We made the highest increase in educational spending that 
probably will ever be made because we increased it from 2 percent of 
the Federal budget to 10 percent of the Federal budget--a huge 
increase.
  It worked. We were able to make sure those young people could 
flourish and that this country could flourish and that it could be the 
economic wonder it turned into. But now we are in a similar situation 
which we need to do something about.
  To give you an example of the comparison of what our Federal 
Government pays for education with the rest of the world, almost all of 
our economic competitors pay a substantial percentage of the local 
school money. In Japan and other countries, 40 percent of the money 
that goes to the local schools comes from their federal government. 
What is it in the United States? Right now, less than 2 percent--right 
around 2 percent--of the moneys for local schools comes from the 
Federal Government. We need to recognize that our schools are having 
deep financial problems.
  We have to, as every other country has, recognize the modern needs 
and get our share of the education up in the area of 30 to 40 percent 
for our local schools rather than the meager 7 percent that it is now. 
That is a big charge and a big challenge for us in the future.
  Right now we must correct the problems created by the committee in 
marking up this particular piece of legislation and make sure we bring 
it up to a more reasonable and effective amount of funding to make sure 
that every child will not be left behind, but, even more than that, 
that every child will have some chance of being able to have the 
education they need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to support the compelling notion 
that we need to as a Congress and as a Senate and, hopefully, with this 
administration, find a way to fully fund the Leave No Child Behind Act.
  It is imperative for any number of reasons. I would like to speak to 
a few of those reasons for a few minutes and join my colleagues who 
have so eloquently expressed in their own ways and in their own words 
why this is so important.
  Let me give you just three reasons why I think it is very important, 
critical, and essential that we have this amendment, or something 
similar to it, and continue to fight for full funding.
  No. 1, it is important that this Senate and this Congress in a 
bipartisan way continue to push for reform. We must not fail in that 
effort or we will not be able to reform our schools, whether the 
schools are in Louisiana, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Vermont, or 
California. We cannot continue to encourage them and push them to 
reform in excellence and greatness if we don't help fund them.
  No. 2, I think it is important that as an adult, as a citizen, as a 
mother, and as a Senator we keep promises when we make them. We are, 
unfortunately, in the process, with this administration leading us, to 
cause us to break a promise. We shouldn't be breaking our promises to 
anyone, let alone the children, the schoolchildren and the students and 
their parents and families at a time such as this. We simply shouldn't 
break our promises.
  The President is wrong to break his promise to the schoolchildren and 
to the families and to the Americans when he did not sign the act that 
those of us on both sides of the aisle helped to craft. He just simply 
should do that. He doesn't have to do it because there is money enough 
to fund it. It is a matter of priority.
  A third good reason why we shouldn't go down this path is that if we 
want to promote long-term stimulus, which I actually believe we 
should--I believe in short-term stimulus, and there are a number of 
things that would do that--the tax cut for dividends is not one of 
them, but there are many ways that we could do that.
  But one of the things that is clear to me and should be crystal clear 
to everyone in this Chamber is that a college graduate makes 50 percent 
more over a lifetime than a person without a degree.
  In a country where we have 260 million-plus people--maybe close to 
300 million now--it would be very important for us to make investments 
today that help our children, teenagers, citizens, and citizens of all 
ages, to get that college degree by preparing them before they even hit 
the kindergarten door, and then promoting their lifelong learning.
  Why? Not only is it good for them personally and their personal 
growth and development as a human being, and their immediate family, 
but for a nation, for long-term economic stimulus it brings wealth to 
America. When America has wealth, and when America spends its wealth 
correctly, we help to lift the world to a higher place, including 
ourselves. Those are just three reasons why this amendment is worth 
considering and just three reasons why we

[[Page 1272]]

should respond in the Senate, and in Congress, to what the American 
people are asking us, imploring us, and telling us how they would like 
to have their money spent.
  Let me just begin by giving a very brief history of how we got here. 
About 30 years ago or more, 35 years, the Federal Government decided 
that States alone should not have to fund the education of its 
citizens. While the bulk of that has to be picked up at the State and 
local level, the Federal Government decided it was in the Federal 
Government's interest to make sure every child was getting a quality 
education. Regardless of whether a child was born or grew up in a very 
poor, small town, with limited resources, and a limited tax base, or 
whether a child was born in a very wealthy part of the country, it was 
in the country's interest to have a school system that was strong in 
educating the citizens of the future.
  So the Federal Government enacted, 35 years ago, a way for us to 
supplement in a small way, but in an important way, money for 
education, and we went along that road for over 35 years. Every 5 years 
we would reauthorize the elementary and secondary account, adding 
program after program, trying to get money to places that needed it, 
trying to help promote and urge and encourage States to, at first, help 
all students, and then we helped disabled students, and then there have 
been many early reading programs. I could go on--arts in education. We 
tried it, and many of these programs worked. Some of them did not work, 
but many of them worked.
  But then, just a few years ago--2 years ago--after 35 years of this 
general framework, we said: That is not enough. Because the public 
isn't just asking us to spend more money, the public wants results for 
the money we spend. Why are we continuing to fund schools that fail? 
Why is it every time there is a problem, we just add a new program? So 
some of us said: It doesn't make sense. We have been doing it for 35 
years. Let's do something differently. And we did.
  We joined forces, Republicans and Democrats, and we said: No, we are 
not going to abandon the public school system and come up with a system 
of vouchers. We said no to a group of people who only wanted to send 
more money. And do you know what? We won that battle, and the President 
helped to lead that battle. We said: No, we are not going to abandon 
the public school system, but we are also not going to keep funding 
just yet one more program and throwing money at it. We are going to 
reform the schools.
  So we raised standards. We instituted pretty rigorous tests. We put 
on deadlines, to tell our schools--and in Louisiana this is a big 
deadline for us to meet--no longer can you have unqualified or 
uncertified teachers. You have to have completely certified teachers. I 
am happy with that. I helped to initiate that as one of the major 
reforms. But it is going to be a heavy lift in Louisiana and in other 
States, even with alternative certification, even with recruiting, even 
with raising the teachers' salaries, even with improving their 
benefits, to get a qualified, certified teacher in every classroom in 
America. But we did that. We put that deadline in the bill.
  We also, besides the testing, besides the qualification, increased 
standards. Then we turned around and pulled the plug on funding. So we 
have set our students up and our system up, made them a real big 
promise, and then are just about getting ready to walk away. And it 
should not happen. I am going to fight, along with many Senators in 
this Chamber, to make sure it does not happen because it is not right, 
it is not smart, and it is not fair.
  So we did not just throw more money. We said: Investment in education 
without accountability is a waste of resources. I do not believe in 
wasting resources. Why? Because we have a couple of wars we might have 
to fund. We cannot waste a penny. We are fighting in Iraq. We are 
helping rebuild Afghanistan, holding off a potential conflict in Korea. 
We do not have time in this Chamber to waste any money.
  So we have reformed the system, retooled the system, and said: We 
don't want you to just continue funding failure. So the States all over 
this Union--and there are a lot of people engaged in this effort--are 
depending on us to deliver the funding to help them. And what do we do, 
at the first chance? This administration backs down from its commitment 
to fund it.
  I am hoping we can reverse this decision, move some money into this 
area, so we can eventually increase the share of Federal funds to 
education, maybe yet, to a percentage of somewhere between 10 and 20 
percent. We were at 7 percent. We got up to 12 percent. I would like to 
see us get up to 20 percent.
  Why? There is no magic number, but if we want to be honest with 
ourselves, and we want to say, as a Federal Government, what portion we 
have to contribute so we can pretty much guarantee that even if you 
were born in a poor little town, with very little tax revenue to 
support your school, or you graduated, like Harry Reid did, from 
Searchlight, NV--he had eight people in his graduating class; I don't 
know how rich Searchlight is, but probably it is not a very rich town--
or a small town in Louisiana, such as Dulac--whether you come from a 
small town or whether you happen to be born in a very wealthy place, 
because you are an American, and because we think it is important for a 
democracy to be educated in order for it to exist, the Federal 
Government thinks we should contribute at least 20 percent to the 
education of our children.
  We are not even anywhere near there, and the Senator from New 
Hampshire understands this. We need to be moving, not in the direction 
we are going but in a different direction, even if it means cutting 
down on some tax cuts we would like to give.
  If the President would fund this, I don't care if he would give every 
millionaire in the country a big tax cut. I don't have a problem with 
that. What I do have a problem with is suggesting tax cuts before he 
lives up to his promises he made, with our support, to the children of 
this country.
  Let me also say, this is pretty much of a crisis. I will tell you 
why. Everybody says everything is a crisis on this floor, but let me 
try to give you some hard numbers.
  The States have a shortfall. Maybe it is because they do not manage 
their money well. Some people think that: They have a shortfall because 
they cannot run any good programs and Government is bad and Government 
does not do anything good. But, for whatever the reason, the States are 
going to be short $17.5 billion.
  As you will recall, what I just said is that the States pick up the 
most important part of funding for schools. In my State, it is a great 
percentage because we rely less on property taxes at the local level 
and more at the State level. So my State government contributes between 
60 and 70 percent of the total education budget for all of the 
schoolchildren in Louisiana.
  Maybe in other States the local governments pick up more of that 
funding. But as States have crises in their budgets, they are going to 
pass that headache of the shortfall on to their cities and on to their 
counties, and, in our State, on to their parishes.
  So the States are going to have to probably cut their education 
budgets unless they are in some kind of trust fund. While our State has 
something like that, we cannot completely protect our education 
dollars.
  So if we do not step to the plate and live up to our promise, they 
are going to get a double whammy. We have said--and basically did not 
tell the truth about funding this new reform act: You raise your 
standards, you put in these goals and objectives, and we will be there 
with you, buddy, every step of the way. And the first chance we get, we 
walk away. Then, on top of that, you could argue that policies 
conducted by this Congress, and things that are out of our control--
such as 9/11 and terrorist attacks, which we, of course, are doing 
everything we can to fight against--have caused the economy to turn 
sour in many ways. But they find themselves $17.5 billion short.
  Where are the States going to go to get their money? To their 
education

[[Page 1273]]

budgets, which will make the situation worse. I know the Senator from 
Massachusetts wants to engage others in the debate. I want him to know 
the reason I would like to stay on the floor for a couple of hours is 
that this isn't a little change to Louisiana, this is $122 million that 
is going to be short in my State, on top of which they are going to 
have to probably cut the education budget to balance their budget. Why? 
Because States can't deficit spend like we do--sometimes in a more 
haughty fashion than we should. They can't deficit spend. They have to 
balance the budget.
  On whose backs are they going to balance the budget in the State? The 
backs of the children who are trying to learn to read but they can't 
learn to read because we won't put a qualified teacher in their 
classroom.
  When you want to spread the responsibility for fighting a war and for 
other things, then put the responsibility at least on the backs of 
those physically strong enough to bear it. But no, we are about ready 
to put it on the backs of kids who can't bear the burden and should not 
have to bear the burden. It is wrong.
  I hope we will find the wherewithal, from wherever we get the money, 
or, if we have to, put this on par with the tax cut. We are deficit 
spending for a tax cut. Why not deficit spend for education? What 
answer will the President give to the Senate? What will he say? I think 
it is OK to deficit spend for a tax cut but it is not OK to deficit 
spend for education? What is his answer? He doesn't have an answer.
  I have a quote I keep in my office. I try to read it to myself to 
remind me of why I am here: If you want 1 year of prosperity, you grow 
grain. If you want 10 years of prosperity, you grow trees. And if you 
want 100 years of prosperity, you invest in people.
  The best way we can invest in people is to invest in an education 
system. If we don't want to invest in it, then we should not be telling 
them every year what to do, what tests to give, how many teachers to 
hire. We should just keep our mouths shut and walk away and let them 
figure it out. But we dragged them to the deal. We dragged them to the 
table. Some of them came more happily than others. And we got a new act 
and a new approach. And then the first thing we do is walk away. I 
think it is a disgrace.
  I know my colleagues are going to come down here and they are going 
to talk about the other side of the aisle: All the Democrats want to do 
is spend more money. I am not one of those Democrats. And I don't think 
Democrats generally want to. But I most certainly have shown on this 
issue I am not just willing to spend more money for education. I will 
fight the good fight for accountability, but I will be darned if I am 
going to fight the fight for accountability and then have the 
Republicans say they will deficit spend for everything--the military, 
tax cuts--but won't deficit spend for education, leaving the country 
vulnerable in the short term and in the long term because of it.
  I rise to support the amendment. I would like to fund it in many 
different ways. It could be funded. It is a relatively small amount of 
money, $6 billion to live up to even a partial part of our promise, 
over 10 years $60 billion, one-tenth of what the President is 
suggesting for a tax cut.
  For those reasons and others, I strongly suggest that we reverse 
course, that the public, the people in Louisiana, the viewing audience 
would let the President of the United States know how disappointed they 
are that his budget and his proposal fail to live up to the promises he 
made when he signed the bill for education. Let Democrats themselves 
recommit to make sure that we have our priorities in order and that we 
put the education of our children and their ability to grow and to 
become all that God intended for them to be when He created them, let 
us be part of that part of strengthening our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am hopeful we can arrive at some 
timeframe for wrapping this up and getting on to a vote. I have spoken 
with the Senator from Massachusetts about that. I believe he is also 
amenable to that approach. I do intend to lay down an amendment in a 
few minutes which we have already represented will be one of two 
amendments voted on.
  Prior to laying down that amendment, I did want to respond to a 
number of the representations made over the last hour or so on the 
issue of the President's commitment to No Child Left Behind and the 
Republican Party's commitment to it and how we will make this law work 
well.
  First, let's remember, when this law was passed, it really was a 
bipartisan effort to try to accomplish something special for our kids, 
especially low-income kids on whom we had just an inordinate amount of 
data and, unfortunately, real-life examples of the fact that they were 
not being educated at a level that made them competitive in America, 
that low-income kids were being left behind and that, as a result, we 
were turning out generations of children who were not able to 
participate in the American dream because they were not able to read 
and write and to add and subtract and do math at a level competitive 
with their peers.
  All these numbers get thrown out here, but this bill, No Child Left 
Behind, has at its core the simple purpose of making sure that American 
children, children in our public school system, which is the essence of 
the strength of our Nation--we all understand that; the ability to get 
an education in America and the public school system has and always 
will be the essence of our strength--learn what they need to learn, 
that they are able, when they finish their elementary and secondary 
school experience, to participate in American society, to find a good 
job, and take part in the American dream. That was the purpose.
  You have to thank the President for leading the Nation in this 
direction. He feels it with great emotion and purpose, as does the 
Senator from Massachusetts, as do many people who worked on this bill. 
We want to do something that gives those kids an extra shot at the 
American dream, make sure they do not get left behind.
  No Child Left Behind was passed, and it had four basic purposes. I 
will just quickly recite them so we are all working off the same page. 
The first purpose was to give local school districts more flexibility 
over how they managed their dollars, Federal dollars specifically.
  The second purpose was to make sure there was an accountability 
system where, when a child goes through the system, how a child is 
doing at different grade levels could be compared to other grade 
levels.
  The third purpose, of course, was to fund adequately this bill, which 
I believe was done, and which I think we can defend. On that point of 
funding, I want to start with a little bit of a comparison. When the 
President came into office, we, of course, had the experience of a 
prior administration in the area of title I, low-income programs. The 
Clinton administration--in the 7 years leading up to President Bush's 
undertaking of this effort--had put approximately $2 billion into title 
I.
  Within the first 2 years of President Bush's administration, he added 
$2.5 billion to title I. The single largest increase ever experienced 
by title I occurred in his first year, the second largest increase was 
in his second year, and probably the third largest will occur in the 
third year--if he gets the billion dollars he asked for. That is title 
I.
  The practical implications of this are that increases under President 
Bush represented about a 27-percent jump in title I over what the prior 
administration did. If you look at it in cumulative years, you see it 
is rather startling. Over 7 years, the Clinton administration did $2 
billion. Over 2 years, President Bush did $2.5 billion. Massive 
increases. To put it into real dollar terms, the difference in new 
education funding--total--between the last year of the Clinton 
administration and the first year of the Bush administration is, again, 
$20 billion--$42 billion versus $60 billion. These are massive 
increases of funding into the educational system

[[Page 1274]]

in order to try to make sure we meet the requirements and needs of No 
Child Left Behind.
  In addition to this type of funding, which was direct cash into the 
school systems type of funding on the discretionary side, the President 
also made a huge and dramatic commitment in the area of giving parents 
more dollars in their pockets, through a tax cut, which was directed 
specifically at the issue of helping parents educate their children--a 
$30 billion tax cut, which created new deductions for qualified high 
education expenditures, increased the amount individuals could 
contribute to their educational savings accounts, and dramatically 
expanded the availability of tax-free distributions for qualified 
tuition plans--a very significant effort, which has basically been 
overlooked and never even mentioned in the debate on the other side.
  This tax cut the President put in place, which benefits moderate-
income Americans as they attempt to educate their children with cash in 
their pockets, which they can then put into the savings vehicles and 
other vehicles that assist them as their children get ready for 
college--and also assist in the elementary and secondary school area--
also helped teachers by giving them some deductions that they didn't 
have before as they spend money in doing things relative to their 
classrooms, such as buying books, maps, and things such as that.
  In addition to the huge increases, the $20 billion actual increase--a 
huge increase in title I funding--the President made a dramatic 
commitment to IDEA, special education, the biggest single commitment to 
special education in the history of the country. Again, this dwarfs the 
effort made by the Clinton administration in special education. During 
the run-up years before President Bush came into office, President 
Clinton actually proposed virtually no increase in special education. 
In fact, in 1992-93 when he came into office, you would see virtually 
no green bar. The only year the Clinton administration asked for a 
significant increase was in his last year in office when they asked for 
$300 million, I think. There were dramatic increases made in this 
period--in 1999, 2000, 2001--and they came as a result of the 
Republican Congress and the leadership. I would like to think I played 
a role in that, along with Senator Lott and Senator Specter. We were 
able to dramatically increase special education funding during this 
period.
  When President Bush came into office, he ratcheted up special 
education funding dramatically, putting a billion dollars of new money 
into special education in each of the first 2 years of his term in 
office, which translated to money going back into the school districts 
to assist them in moving forward and addressing the requirements of 
special needs children.
  So we have had increases in title I, which are historic under this 
administration, and which dwarfed the increases in title I put in by 
President Clinton's administration--a 27-percent increase just in year 
1. We have increases in overall discretionary education funding of $20 
billion year to year. We have the increases in special education 
funding--again, dwarfing anything done in the prior administration--a 
billion-dollar annual increase each year. And we have the massive 
increase in availability of money to parents to save for their 
children's education through the tax cut.
  So the effort here has not been anything but significant in the area 
of trying to make sure we have funding in education, and this 
administration has certainly made that commitment. This chart shows how 
that works in relationship to all the other funding going on in the 
Federal Government. Here we are in the midst of a war on terrorism. We 
have a health care concern. If you look at the education funding, it 
has gone up 132 percent. Health care funding has gone up 96 percent. 
Defense spending has gone up 48 percent. The fact is that education 
funding is outstripping every other element of the Federal budget by 
dramatic amounts as a percentage and, in real terms, in real dollars 
flowing back to the States.
  No Child Left Behind specifically. I already mentioned that the title 
I money has jumped by 27 percent. Let's look behind that to some of the 
other accounts that are involved in the No Child Left Behind bill. One 
of the important things the No Child Left Behind bill did was to take 
all sorts of accounts, merge them together, and then say to the local 
communities: Here is the money, with no strings attached. You can do 
what you want with this money. But in the end, what we want is to make 
sure that every child at the third-grade, fourth-grade, fifth-grade, or 
sixth-grade level has learned enough so that their parents and the 
other people in the community can compare whether or not that child is 
learning at a level that is competitive with their peers and with other 
school districts: Accountability, to put it quite simply.
  Instead of controlling input and having lots of strings running to 
the child and to the funding, as it came out of the Congress, we 
reversed that trend and said: We are not going to put a lot of strings 
on what comes out of the Congress, but we are going to expect results. 
We have had discussion of this before. One area where I think this has 
been most telling and constructive is that of teachers. This bill took 
a lot of the different teacher funds, such as the Eisenhower Fund and 
the classroom size fund, and moved them into a pool of money, and then 
it said to the local school district--principals especially because 
they are key here--you can take this new pool of money, and instead of 
having to spend it under the categorical terms you used to get it under 
so you could only spend it for the purpose of basically classroom size 
reduction or teaching math-science, you can use it however you want for 
your teachers, to improve your teacher situation. If you want to hire 
more teachers, you can do that. If you want to have your teachers 
better trained, you can do that. If you want your teachers to have 
better technical support, you can do that. If you have good teachers 
and you want to pay them more to keep them, you can do that with the 
money. All sorts of different options were given to the local school 
districts to make sure that teacher money was more effectively used. 
And then we increased the money flowing into that account, again 
dramatically--35 percent. That was up by $742 million over the last 
year of the Clinton administration.
  So, once again, I think you can see that the game plan of No Child 
Left Behind was to fund aggressively, with flexibility, and then leave 
it to the local school districts to find out how to best use the 
dollars. That is exactly what has been accomplished. The number 
increases, as I have said, are rather dramatic in this area. In fact, 
the number increase in education has been so dramatic that we presently 
have here at the Federal Government approximately $4.5 billion that has 
not been drawn down by the States and local communities because the 
money has been flowing in so fast that they cannot keep up with how to 
spend it. That is hard to believe, but it is true.
  Here is a chart that reflects that $4.5 billion. The majority of it 
is in the school improvement program, and in the special education 
grant program, and in the education for disadvantaged program. But it 
is there, and it is available, and it hasn't been spent yet.
  When I hear colleagues on the other side saying there is a dearth of 
money available in the Federal Government, and just because we have 
increased it by 27 percent, that is not enough; and because we 
increased it by $20 billion in a year, that is not enough; and just 
because we cut these taxes, that is not enough; and just because we 
have a 12-percent increase in educational funding, that is not enough, 
it does seem to me when we have $4.5 billion sitting down there at the 
Department of Education waiting to be distributed, that might be a sign 
we are doing a pretty good job in putting money into the system and, 
hopefully, we are going to start getting it out the door, too, fairly 
soon.
  That is where we stand today. A very important point is that if you 
want to do another comparison, which I think is fairly interesting, we 
have heard almost incessantly we have to fund the authorization level; 
we have to fund the authorization level; we have to

[[Page 1275]]

fund the authorization level. The only problem with that argument is 
the Congress almost never funds the authorization level. Authorization 
is a goal, but it is hardly ever attained. The purpose of authorization 
and appropriations is sometimes quite different.
  If we are to assume that is the purpose--that we must fund the 
authorization level--then I have to ask my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle: What were they doing the last time they controlled the 
Congress and the Presidency? What were they doing? Because at that time 
there was a $2.7 billion difference between the authorized level and 
the appropriated level, which represented a 21-percent difference.
  If we look at the Bush administration's difference between authorized 
and appropriated levels, it is 15 percent. We are doing 50 percent 
better under this administration. It is pretty hard to defend this 
authorization argument, in my opinion.
  That puts us at the point where we are now, and I hope I have 
adequately responded to some of the comments on the other side, 
although I suspect I might have engendered some other comments from the 
other side. But let me go on to the amendment which I intend to offer. 
I am still awaiting its arrival, so I will have to wait before I can 
send it to the desk.
  The purpose of the amendment is to say: OK, I am willing to increase 
the funding for education, and I think people on our side are willing 
to increase the funding for education, but let's do it in a way that is 
responsible. The President has said--and it was agreed to at one 
point--that we will stay at a $750 billion discretionary number. I 
think it is pretty important we start getting fiscal discipline around 
here or we are going to be in big trouble. I think that is obvious.
  In order to accomplish this--I do think education is a priority, and 
I do think as we prioritize items within the Federal Government we have 
to put education right up there. In fact, if I were to prioritize, I 
would put fighting terrorism as No. 1, and that is in a class by itself 
because we have to defend ourselves. These people want to kill us 
because we are Americans, and we have to make sure we are ready to 
respond to them and defend ourselves. Fighting terrorism is No. 1.
  Right behind fighting terrorism comes the issue of education. I 
believe a reasonable approach to this question of how we fund education 
is that if we are going to jump the number significantly--and under the 
proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts, he has about $4.6 billion 
in here for No Child Left Behind, we are going to jump that amount 
dramatically, then we ought to do it in a way that is fiscally 
responsible.
  I am offering an amendment which increases the funding by $5 billion, 
but it says that we do an across-the-board cut to get to that number so 
that we are going to stay under the $750 level.
  In addition, I do not know about my colleagues, but I am hearing from 
my school systems again: We need more flexibility. I am saying we have 
$5 billion you can fund No Child Left Behind, you can fund anything 
under the No Child Left Behind bill, but we are not going to put any 
strings on this. You are, basically, going to get this money to assist 
you at the local schools in undertaking and accomplishing the No Child 
Left Behind effort. In addition, you can use this money, if you feel 
you need to, for IDEA and for programs like TRIO.
  Essentially, we are not going to put any strings on this. We are 
going to send it back to the States and say: All right, States, this is 
an add-on. You are concerned about unfunded mandates. If there is 
anything in this bill that is unfunded and is a mandate, these dollars 
will certainly take care of it.
  I want to touch base on that because there was some representation 
out here that the testing regime in the bill is an unfunded mandate. It 
simply is not. It is fully funded under this bill, and the bill 
specifically says you do not have to pursue the testing regime if it is 
not paid for. That is a totally irresponsible statement.
  In fact, and I know in my State, they are spending $300,000 per test. 
Under this bill, they are going to get $500,000 per test. So they are 
actually going to make money in their testing regime in New Hampshire, 
which I am sure they will put to good use in some other area of 
education.
  This amendment is a fairly reasonable, straightforward amendment. It 
is $5 billion more. It is actually a little higher than the proposal of 
the Senator from Massachusetts in the area of No Child Left Behind 
funding--$5 billion more--but it is going to be done by an across-the-
board cut so it is fiscally responsible. The money will be available 
with no strings attached. Our local school districts and State school 
districts can see we mean it when we say there is no unfunded mandate 
in this bill.


                            Amendment No. 19

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk. I hope we 
can enter a time agreement for a vote on these two amendments. I ask 
the Senator from Massachusetts if he feels we can enter such a time 
agreement.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have yet to see the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. It is being brought to the Senator at this moment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me have a chance to review it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 19.

  Mr. GREGG. 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 provide additional funding for innovative programs at the 
                         state and local level)

       At the appropriate place add the following:

     ``SEC.  . FUNDING FOR INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS.

       In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated under 
     this Act for part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, the following sums are 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, 
     $5,000,000,000 for carrying out such part, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2004; Provided, that 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any amounts 
     appropriated for programs or activities under title III of 
     Division G that are in excess of $54,195,685,000 shall be 
     distributed to States and local educational agencies in 
     accordance with sections 5111 and 5112 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 to be used by such States and 
     local educational agencies to carry out any activity 
     authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 
     or the Higher Education Act of 1965, to remain available 
     through September 30, 2004: Provided further, that the 
     percentage amount of any across-the-board rescission provided 
     for under section 601 of Division N of this Act shall be 
     increased by the percentage amount necessary to rescind an 
     amount of funds equal to the total amounts appropriated in 
     excess of $54,195,685,000 for title III of Division G.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I reserve my request of the Senator from 
Massachusetts and yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I want to have a chance to review 
the amendment.
  Mr. President, we have had a very good discussion with seven or eight 
of our colleagues who have spoken. Senator Reed wants to speak. Senator 
Clinton, Senator Corzine, and Senator Stabenow also want to make 
comments.
  This has been an important debate. I agree with the Senator from New 
Hampshire that the issues of ensuring protection at home and education 
are the Nation's top two priorities. We do not differ, evidently, on 
those issues. We have important differences on how to assist in 
education. I will mention a couple quick responses to the Senator.
  My first response is about the unspent figures, about $4.5 billion. 
Most agencies, not all, but most agencies have unspent funding. The 
reason the funds are not spent is because we are in the middle of the 
school year. Do we understand that the funds that will be in this 
omnibus bill will be for the next year, for July? That is when they 
will be committed.
  We have unspent money because we are only halfway through the school 
year. The districts have already obligated these funds. Anyone who does

[[Page 1276]]

not believe that there are severe fiscal challenges in local school 
districts has not talked with their local school board, principals, 
students, or the teachers in communities across this country. That is 
number one.
  Second, I welcome the fact the Senator from New Hampshire wants to 
effectively take credit for the increases we were able to agree on in 
the No Child Left Behind legislation. As he remembers very well, when 
the bill was first introduced, it was $500 million. It ended up at $1.5 
billion because we insisted on it. I am glad we worked that out in a 
bipartisan way. I am glad he is prepared to say that is part of the 
Bush commitment at this time.
  We ought to understand exactly what the history has been. When he 
talks about the increase over the last 2 years, he is talking about the 
increase which the Democrats were able to get, with the agreement of 
the Republicans, in the last year of the Clinton proposal.
  The Senator makes a fair point in terms of the funding of Title I 
under the previous administration. I would have liked to have seen this 
funding higher, but it was not higher. We have to recognize all that 
was being done in the area of education during that period of time, 
which was extremely important, to respond to many of the challenges in 
the areas of title I.
  Under the previous administration, what did they have? They had no 
school left behind. To do what? To provide funds at the local school 
level. To do what? To establish standards, which were eventually 
adopted in the No Child Left Behind legislation. There was basic school 
reform in the good legislation of Goals 2000 that was passed. We had 
the school-to-work program, that has not been referenced, but has been 
very important in terms of opening opportunities for students moving 
out of high schools.
  There was expansion of the TRIO program, which also is a program 
which targets the disadvantaged. We also had expansion and improvement 
of Head Start. We had AmeriCorps, which was a new educational 
opportunity. We had the GEAR UP program, which built upon the concept 
that rather than just looking for individuals whose education ought to 
be furthered by special individual help and assistance at the 
university, to look instead at the idea of helping a whole class, 
moving a whole class forward. A very interesting and new concept, 
particularly to tie universities to school districts with disadvantaged 
children. A great deal was done in that time.
  There was also the HOPE scholarship, the lifelong learning 
scholarship. There was a lot of educational activity during that period 
of time. I think it is fair to say that we did not see the expansion in 
Title I that we have seen in recent times; but in the area of 
prioritizing education, no administration can compete with what was 
achieved in the Clinton administration, quite frankly. Many of us are 
proud to be a part of it.
  Nonetheless, when we take all of that apart, let us get to what the 
facts are. I have in my hand a report by the Center on Education 
Policy. This is not a Democratic report. This is not a Republican 
report. This is a board of some of the most distinguished educators 
across the country, and this is what it says, effectively: We have 
found that the fiscal crisis in most States, coupled with the prospect 
of limited Federal aid, threatens the successful implementation of this 
ambitious law, the No Child Left Behind Act.
  There it is. At this time, we have more than 6 million children who 
qualify for assistance under Title I who are not assisted without this 
kind of amendment. With this amendment, we would include 2 million more 
of those children. Without this amendment, maybe 354,000 of those 
children are helped. So are we going to try to reach out to children 
who are being challenged educationally in every community, as the 
Senator, my friend from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, has pointed out, 
which is a major kind of reform in terms of advancing teacher training, 
involving the parents, developing good curriculum and working with 
afterschool programs, or are we going to cast them adrift?
  We have the framework. We will lose the opportunity. Those are the 
facts concerning the number of children who still remain to be covered. 
That is the essential part of where we are in the funding.
  Now I will say a word about the Gregg amendment, and then I will 
yield. This puts $5 billion in a block grant which will go to the 
States. As far as we are reading it now, it is not directed toward the 
title I program. If I am wrong on that, I hope to be corrected because 
we just received this amendment.
  What our amendment does is, it deals with the title I program. It 
also deals with Pell grants, but it is primarily for title I, the 
neediest children. The primary purpose of President Bush's program was 
title I, but the Gregg amendment is not a title I program, it is 
basically a block grant to the States. It does not focus on or require 
that it be spent on title I.
  It provides for a 1.3-percent across-the-board cut in addition to the 
1.6-percent cut, which is almost double the amounts that previously 
would have been cut. If this program is supported, this will mean 
248,000 women, infants, and children will be turned away from the WIC 
program. It eliminates 8,600 children from the Head Start program. It 
means 250,000 fewer veterans being treated, 1.6 million fewer visits by 
veterans to outpatient clinics. Eighty-eight thousand fewer families 
would receive housing assistance. And the list goes on.
  This omnibus bill is $10 billion less than what was basically agreed 
to in the previous Congress. My amendment says $6 billion of that will 
be used now. It will still be $4 billion less than what was agreed to 
last year, even with this amendment. It is effectively replicating what 
79 Members of the Senate voted for.
  Some say, well, that does not really make much difference because it 
was an authorization. It evidently made a difference to the Senators 
from Maine and Connecticut who offered the amendment and to the 79 
Members who voted for it and went back to their constituents and said 
they voted for it, said: This is what we believe in.
  I take their votes seriously. That was for $18 billion. This would be 
a total of $16 billion. I hope the Senator's amendment will not be 
agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as we consider appropriations for fiscal 
year 2003, I want to express my strong support for Senator Kennedy's 
amendment to increase funds for education spending by $6 billion. This 
increase would bring the total funding for Title I programs to $16 
billion, the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act that was 
signed into law by the President. It is imperative that Congress sends 
a strong message supporting education accompanied by strong funding for 
this important goal. The practice of paying lip service to improving 
education for our Nation's children without following up with the money 
that States and local school districts to do so must cease. Only then 
will children and educators receive the resources they need to meet 
higher standards and eliminate barriers to higher education.
  States are struggling with budget shortfalls, rising student 
enrollment, and an increasing number student with limited English 
proficiency. At the same time, States are working to meet the new 
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I supported the No Child 
Left Behind Act because I agreed with its principles, all public school 
children should be able to achieve and all schools should be held 
accountable in seeing that they do so.
  I believed the President when he said education would be a priority. 
But now the Senate is considering a spending bill that encapsulates the 
President's proposed education funding levels, a bill that does not 
even provide a 1 percent increase over fiscal year 2002 spending. The 
No Child Left Behind Act requires a variety of new requirements 
including annual standardized testing and increased teacher 
certification. While we can expect our educators to do all within their 
power to improve our schools, we cannot expect this landmark 
legislation to be effective if States and school districts are

[[Page 1277]]

not given the resources to implement these programs.
  Congress must also demonstrate its commitment higher education. We 
all know that pursuing a college degree dramatically increases earning 
potential. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median 
income for high school graduates is $28,800 but is $46,300 for those 
with a bachelor's degree. However, the burden of higher education costs 
is crushing low-income students and their families. The inability to 
pay for college makes it more and more likely low-income students will 
be unable to pursue higher education or do so facing staggering debt 
upon completion. The economic benefits are clear but the promise of 
many will not be fulfilled if Congress does not assure that every 
student eligible for a Federal student aid receives it and if the 
maximum Pell Grant award is not raised to bridge the gap between higher 
education costs and the ability of many to pay.
  Many States are considering stiff tuition hikes at their public 
institutions. Between 1991-1992 and 2001-2002, average tuition and fees 
grew 37 percent in private 4-year institutions and 38 percent in public 
4-year institutions, outstripping the 8 percent growth in inflation-
adjusted median family income over that same period. Maryland's public 
university system is notifying its students that it may have to raise 
tuition by up to five percent for the Spring 2003 semester so these 
young people have to face the dilemma of addressing increases after 
already budgeting for a certain amount. The National Center for 
Education Statistics estimates that annual prices for undergraduate 
tuition, room, and board were estimated to be $7,621 at public colleges 
and $21,423 at private colleges for the 2000-2001 academic year. Yet 
the maximum Pell Grant award is only $4,000 per year. In addition, more 
and more student aid is being shifted from grant money to loans. 
Senator Kennedy's amendment would help over 200,000 students by adding 
$1.35 billion for the Pell Grant program making it possible to increase 
the maximum award to $4,500.
  While we consider education funding, it is important to note the 
challenges we face in educating children with disabilities. Congress 
must increase the Federal contribution for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act, IDEA. When Congress enacted IDEA, it committed the 
Federal Government to pay 40 percent of the average per pupil cost of 
educating students with disabilities. However, to this day, the Federal 
Government has provided only 16.7 percent. The Federal Government must 
make good on its promise and provides the resources disabled students 
and their families need.
  That we can consider a tax cut aimed at the wealthiest Americans 
while purporting to be unable to adequately fund education programs is 
absurd. Where are our priorities? Now is the time to move beyond the 
rhetoric of the No Child Left Behind Act and deliver the resources that 
teachers and students so desperately need. I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of Senator Kennedy's amendment and to support meaningful 
increased in education spending.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is one thing that this Senate 
can agree on wholeheartedly is that we, as a Nation, need to invest in 
our children's educational future. There is no other issue that hits 
closer to home for America's families.
  But even as we recognize the importance of education, we must realize 
that close to home is where education works best in America, and simply 
spending more and more Federal dollars on more and more Federal ``one 
size fits all'' education directives will not, by itself, make our 
education system perform better.
  When this body voted to pass the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, I 
did not vote for this bill. I could not vote for this bill in good 
conscience for two reasons. One, the bill fundamentally usurped control 
over education from those closest to the students. Education has been 
and should continue to be a State and local responsibility. 
Additionally, the excessive spending within the bill provided 
unrealistic expectations.
  Over the course of my 36 years of public service to the people of 
Ohio, I have developed a passion for the issue of federalism, that is, 
assigning the appropriate role of the Federal Government in relaxation 
to State and local government.
  Our forefathers outlined this relationship in the 10th Amendment: The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states 
respectively, or to the people.
  Education is one such responsibility. And this was the tradition in 
America for 200 years. Only in the last 35 years has the Federal 
Government played a prominent role in education in America. And even 
then, the most we sent to our State and localities is 7 percent of the 
education spending in America.
  In my view, the No Child Left Behind Act not only violated that 
principle of federalism, it puts us on a fast-track towards thoroughly 
federalizing education and violates local control of schools.
  Some of my colleagues think that the Congress is the national school 
board. Well, we are not the national school board here in this 
Congress.
  With the expansion of education programs that the Federal Government 
undertook in that bill, I have a genuine concern that in ten or fifteen 
years, Washington will be dictating what is happening in every school 
house in America. In spite of the limited contribution of the Federal 
Government, under the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington will be 
mandating annual tests for elementary and middle school children in 
America regardless of how the kids are doing or whether or not the 
States already have sophisticated testing regimes in place.
  States as Ohio, where the Governor signed a new testing system into 
law on June 12, 2002, detailed testing systems are already in place. 
And no one understands how onerous additional testing programs will be. 
Principals, local school boards, parents and especially teachers in 
Ohio are saying, ``Here we go again.''
  We are already seeing the results of Federal intrusion into our 
Nation's schools. It is an unworkable, unflexible plan that is punitive 
to our children. Simply spending more Federal dollars on more Federal 
``one size fits all'' education directives will not make our education 
system perform better.
  Besides the dangerous increase in Federal control of education, I 
want to point out the real increase in funding the Department of 
Education has received over the past several years, during which 
deficits have only grown. From 1998 to 2002, we have increased total 
funding for the Department of Education by 57 percent or $20.3 billion.
  Specifically following the passage of the No Child Left Behind 
legislation, according to the Congressional Research Service, funding 
for ESEA in Fiscal Year 2002 increased more by than $3 billion, 17 
percent, from fiscal year 2001.
  Unfortunately, because the majority of No Child Left Behind does not 
provide actual monetary guidelines for its authorization--instead 
utilizing ``as such sums''--we have no idea of the potential costs of 
the bill.
  However, we can look at Title I, one of the largest accounts within 
the No Child Left Behind Act.
  In the Omnibus bill before us, the base text already includes an 
increase for Title I funding of $1 billion, a 10 percent increase from 
fiscal year 2002.
  Senator Kennedy has brought an amendment to the floor that seeks to 
appropriate the entire amount of the authorization for Title I--$16 
billion for fiscal year 2003. His one amendment alone would cost $6 
billion.
  If we follow the argument that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle make, that the authorization level is a mandate to fully fund 
these account, in this case Title I, this body will vacate any fiscal 
responsibility we have.
  Just look at the increases for Title I if we were to fully fund them: 
from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003, an increase of 18.5 percent; 
from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004, an increase of 15.6 percent; 
from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, an increase of 11 percent;

[[Page 1278]]

from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006, an increase of 11 percent; 
from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007, an increase of 10 percent; 
where is this money coming from? We are spending money we don't have.
  The projected deficit for fiscal year 2003 is already $315 billion, 
and don't forget, folks, we have a $6.2 trillion national debt.
  According to CBO projections that I recently requested, if we 
continue spending at the rate we have been spending and extend the tax 
cut, we could rack up an additional $5.4 trillion in debt by fiscal 
year 2012.
  This means that by fiscal year 2012, our national debt could stand at 
a whopping $11.6 trillion.
  Leaving this sort of burden on our children and grandchildren is 
simply wrong. We need to make hard choices now so that this doesn't 
happen.
  We just increased the debt ceiling in June 2002, and we will probably 
need to increase it again before the end of this year. We are looking 
at oceans of red as far as the eye can see.
  This entire omnibus process is indicative of how the entire budget 
process has slipped.
  While the House passed a budget resolution in March 2002, the Senate 
never did.
  That was the first time in the history of the budget process that the 
Senate failed to enact a budget resolution. Not only did we not pass a 
budget, the Democrat leadership did not even bring a resolution to 
floor for consideration.
  This only precipitated what has become modus operandi for the 
Senate--not getting our appropriations bills out in time.
  This body cannot go back in time to correct our past mistakes. We 
need to move forward and we need to move forward now.
  The executive branch is already one-third through the fiscal year. 
Starting this week, executive branch agencies must absorb a 3.1 percent 
pay raise within Fiscal Year 2002 funding levels.
  Many agencies will be unable to effectively allocate funds prior to 
the end of the fiscal year without a final appropriation in the next 20 
to 30 days.
  Let's get on with the business at hand. This Congress has much work 
to do, not the least of which is providing our Nation's seniors with a 
prescription drug benefit and an economic growth package to stimulate 
the sagging economy.
  The Congress and the administration have already agreed on a $750 
billion cap for fiscal year 2003. This amount meets President Bush's 
request and will fund critical priorities.
  And let me remind my colleagues who seek to spend additional money; 
$750 billion represents an increase of over 12 percent in discretionary 
spending in just the last two fiscal years.
  We need to be real in our assumptions and our spending habits.
  If Congress doesn't wake up and smell the coffee, we are going to 
wake up with enormous deficits--by CBO's most recent projections, $866 
billion in fiscal year 2012.
  Enough is enough.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Kennedy-
Harkin amendment to increase education funding by $6 billion in Fiscal 
Year 2003. I cannot be present for the vote on the Kennedy-Harkin 
amendment, but I would vote for it if I were present. The increased 
accountability and teacher quality requirements of the No Child Left 
Behind Act necessitate a significant investment in our schools, but the 
omnibus appropriations bill before the Senate falls short of the needed 
investment. The Kennedy-Harkin amendment is critically important to 
ensuring that all children can learn to high standards, which is the 
goal of the No Child Left Behind Act. States, schools, and districts 
are diligently working to meet the stringent requirements of the new 
law at a time when they are facing shrinking education budgets due to 
the state fiscal crisis. Right now states are facing a shocking $75 
billion budget deficit. Twelve states cut K-12 education spending last 
year and another eleven are poised to do so this year.
  The Kennedy-Harkin amendment would increase funding for the Title I 
program--the education program that provides resources for the most 
economically disadvantaged students in the country--to the level that 
was authorized for Fiscal Year 2003. The omnibus appropriations bill 
includes an increase of only $1 billion, falling $4.65 billion short of 
the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act. The Department of 
Education announced that 8,652 schools will begin the 2002-2003 school 
year ``in need of improvement.'' How will these schools be able to 
perform Mr. President, if they are not provided with the resources to 
attract and retain high quality teachers and to implement reforms that 
will ensure all children can learn to high standards? As I stated many 
times during debate on the No Child Left Behind Act, tough 
accountability requirements without sufficient resources to meet the 
requirements is cruel to students, teachers, administrators, and 
parents and ultimately it will undermine the success of the education 
law.
  The Kennedy-Harkin amendment would also provide $1.35 billion to 
increase the maximum Pell grant award from $4,100 to $4,500. Pell 
grants are extremely important in helping financially needy students 
enroll and stay in college, many of whom would not otherwise have the 
opportunity to attend college. According to Empty Promises, a report 
released in June 2002 by the congressionally-mandated Advisory 
Committee on Student Financial Assistance: ``. . . this year alone due 
to record-high financial barriers, nearly one-half of all college-
qualified, low- and moderate-income high school graduates--over 400,000 
students fully prepared to attend a four-year college--will be unable 
to do so, and 170,000 of these students will attend no college at 
all.'' If we are to reduce income inequality in this country, then we 
must support students who are academically prepared to attend college, 
but do not have the financial means to do so on their own.
  The Kennedy-Harkin amendment is about opportunity. The chance for 
economically disadvantaged students to succeed in school, and the 
chance for those same students to attend college. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy 
amendment to increase funding for vital education programs. There is a 
lot of talk about leaving no child behind. Yet the No Child Left Behind 
Act, which we passed just last year, will be a hollow promise if we 
don't match our rhetoric with resources. We must make sure no child is 
left out of the budget. This amendment increases funding for two of the 
most vital educational programs--title I and Pell grants.
  The No Child Left Behind Act placed the burden on schools to improve. 
It is a worthy goal, but it will be a difficult task for our schools. 
We knew this when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, and so we 
promised to give schools adequate resources. I am outraged that only 1 
year later, we are already falling behind in our commitment to 
providing the resources needed to make the reforms work. By increasing 
funding for title I, our Nation's poorest schools will be able to hire 
more teachers, buy more computers, and implement the kind of reforms 
they need to improve student achievement.
  Increasing funding for Pell Grants is equally vital. In the 21st 
century, a college education is the key to moving up the opportunity 
ladder. Yet the average Pell grant doesn't come close to covering 
tuition at a State college, and the gap between the cost of college and 
the amount of financial aid available to the neediest students is only 
getting bigger. In my own State of Maryland, colleges have had to raise 
tuition by 5 percent this year because of the State budget shortfall. 
This amendment raises the maximum Pell grant from $4,000 to $4,500. 
That is a big step on the way to making college more affordable for 
students of all backgrounds.
  Education and the opportunity to go on to higher education are what 
give parents hope for their children. Yet today we are still fighting 
to make sure our children go to good schools with good teachers and up-
to-date

[[Page 1279]]

books and facilities. That is why this amendment is so important. It 
will help the neediest students of all ages, elementary school, middle 
school, high school, and college.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my good colleagues, 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin, in offering this amendment to 
ensure that we live up to the promise we made just over 1 year ago to 
improve student achievement by raising standards, increasing 
accountability, and investing more resources in the classroom.
  Recently we celebrated that 1-year anniversary of the most far-
reaching Federal education reform in a generation. Today, we ought to 
be celebrating our progress and looking forward to more. Instead, too 
many public schools across the country are being taught the difference 
between rhetoric and reality, and when they read the name of this bill, 
the No Child Left Behind Act, they are being taught the meaning of 
irony.
  It is sadly fitting that the traditional first anniversary gift is 
paper because so far, this education reform has happened only on paper, 
not in practice. The bill was signed, but the bills haven't been paid.
  The No Child Left Behind Act is an important law. It is a bipartisan 
law. It is a strong expression of our intent to prepare all our 
children to excel in our increasingly competitive information economy. 
I am proud to have helped shape it.
  But what good is a piece of legislation if the executive branch ducks 
its implementation? What value is a bill if government lacks the will 
to make it happen?
  A little over a year after signing the bill, the President deserves a 
report card on putting it into action. And here is what I would give 
him: an ``A'' for words, a ``D'' for deeds, dollars, and dedication. In 
Stamford Public Schools, where I was educated, those are pretty bad 
grades.
  President Bush talks plenty about the soft bigotry of low 
expectations; somebody needs to make sure he understands the hard 
reality of inadequate appropriations. The fact is the funding levels 
that the President has requested have been consistently, dramatically 
below what was originally promised, leaving inadequate funding to 
educate our neediest children.
  Money isn't everything, but schools need money to hire good teachers. 
They need money to implement high quality reforms. They need money to 
truly raise standards. Without those resources, the new bill is just 
Washington's hollow holler for them to change.
  It is a disgrace that the President has underfunded title I by nearly 
$5 billion compared to what was called for in the bill he himself 
signed with great fanfare. Our amendment would, will, fill that gap by 
funding an additional $4.65 billion, to ensure that we meet our 
commitment to fully fund education for our Nation's most disadvantaged 
students.
  In my own State of Connecticut, this would mean an addition of nearly 
$11 million for local schools to help them fund the critical reforms 
that will raise academic achievement for all students.
  It would also raise the maximum amount of the Pell grant to $4,500 so 
that more low-income students are not priced out of higher education. 
My father worked days and nights in his store to earn enough to send me 
to college. I was the first in my family to go. But for most families 
in an equivalent position today, even two incomes aren't enough to 
cover tuition.
  The Pell grant increase we propose is not nearly enough to fully meet 
the needs of low- and moderate-income students, but it is a positive 
step forward. It will help make the college dream, the dream to keep 
climbing the learning ladder and get the skills necessary to compete in 
this information economy, a reality for more students.
  Of course Federal money can't flow freely, not while we fight a war 
against terrorism at home and abroad. But the choice we face isn't 
between fighting the war against terrorism and fixing our schools. It 
is infuriating to hear people suggest that false choice.
  The truth is, this administration's unfair and unaffordable tax cut, 
which does too little to grow the economy and too much to reward a few 
taxpayers, has made it all but impossible to meet other critical needs.
  Think about what it would cost to fully fund the new education law 
and raise Pell grants versus what the President wants to spend on the 
least effective pieces of his 2001 tax cut, or on his misguided so-
called stimulus plan proposed earlier this month.
  This is about priorities. Do we spur economic growth with responsible 
tax cuts and necessary investments in education, or do we blow the bank 
on unaffordable and ineffective tax cuts and chronically fail to rise 
to our commitment to education?
  Throughout our history, public schools have been the ladder that 
children in poverty climb to enter the middle class, the ladder that 
kids at all economic levels climb to reach greater heights and access 
new opportunities. More and more that ladder is extending into higher 
education as well.
  But in recent years, for too many kids those rungs have gotten 
slippery. The ladder has gotten rickety. If passed, this amendment will 
help make the learning ladder steady and strong again. But if not, as 
standards continue to rise in our elementary and secondary schools, and 
college costs continue to soar, we will be setting up our kids for a 
long, hard fall.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to 
join me in supporting this amendment that will restore $6 billion to 
our public schools, and put us back on track for meeting our funding 
commitment to the high-quality academic reforms Congress strongly 
supported last year.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment by Senator Kennedy. But frankly, I am surprised and 
disappointed that it is even necessary.
  Just one year ago, Congress overwhelmingly passed, on a bipartisan 
basis, the No Child Left Behind Act. Eighty-seven Senators supported 
it. Three hundred eighty-one House Member supported it. And the 
President signed it into law, hailing it as the most sweeping reform of 
Federal education policy in a generation.'' We all agreed that the 
combination of flexibility, accountability, and investment were the key 
to making the new law work.
  Now, a year later, States and school districts are working hard to 
meet their responsibilities. But the Republican majority in Congress 
and the President are reneging on that deal.
  The omnibus bill before us falls far short of the funding we promised 
just a year ago. In other words, just as we are asking States, teachers 
and students to achieve more, we are taking away the funding they need 
to succeed. That is a cruel joke to play on students who we committed 
to help 12 months ago.
  The Kennedy amendment would increase education funding by $6 billion 
overall--rather than the $90 million cut recommended by the President. 
It would ensure that Title I, the main Federal program that serves 
poor, disadvantaged children, would be fully funded. That means 2 
million more poor children would be served nationwide. Wisconsin would 
receive $229 million, an increase of nearly $80 million over fiscal 
year 2002 levels.
  In addition, this amendment would ensure that 200,000 more students 
in our nation have the opportunity to go to college. Unlike the 
President's budget request, which flatlines Pell grants, this amendment 
would provide $1.4 billion more for Pell grants. It would increase the 
maximum award to $4,500--the highest level ever.
  The amendment before us would keep the promises we made to States, 
school boards, teachers and parents across this country. It would 
increase funding--not exhorbitantly, not unnecessarily--it simply 
provides the funding we have already promised. States and school 
districts are working hard to do their part to improve education. It is 
time that the President and Congress take responsibility and do our 
part.
  I realize that our country has tremendous needs. We need to fully 
fund homeland security. We need to spur strong economic growth. But we 
cannot turn our backs on our children. We can afford to fully fund 
education if we

[[Page 1280]]

are serious about making it a priority and not just a soundbite.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Are we under a time agreement at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I come to the floor to congratulate the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts on his amendment and on his efforts this 
afternoon. I said this morning I believed the amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia was perhaps the most 
significant priority we could address, and indeed in terms of our 
personal security that is true, but I cannot think of a higher 
priority, in terms of the long-term future and strength of this 
country, than this issue and this amendment.
  We talk about the need for strength. This amendment provides it. I 
have been home a good deal over the course of the last several months, 
and I do not know that I have ever seen a time when my teachers, my 
school districts, my school superintendents, were more alarmed at the 
circumstances they faced than they are today.
  We are not alone. There are many schools in South Dakota that have 
now been forced to move from 5-day-a-week school sessions to 4 days a 
week. Why? Because they do not have the resources. Why? Because they 
have to share teachers. Why? Because in many cases the Federal 
requirements are putting burdens on them that they simply cannot meet 
budgetarily.
  I recall a debate we had years ago about unfunded mandates. I recall 
that debate so vividly because, I think probably with unanimity, we 
said: Let's put an end to unfunded mandates. Let's say we are no longer 
going to press upon States and local governments more regulation if we 
are not going to provide the funding for them.
  What has happened since that vote? Year after year, session after 
session, we have done just the opposite. There is layer after layer of 
additional unfunded mandates. I cannot think of anything more critical 
and more in evidence of that trend than this.
  I was an enthusiastic backer of the No Child Left Behind Act when we 
passed it. There is a need for greater accountability. There is a need 
to recognize the importance of more shared information and a better 
understanding of how schools are performing. We know we need that. We 
said at the time, as important as reform is, it is impossible without 
resources. So we said at that time, in order to ensure that we do not 
get to the position once more of imposing unfunded mandates and 
impressing upon school districts the need for reform without the 
support for reform, we would guarantee them the resources, guarantee 
them the support. Guarantee them they would not be facing the 
extraordinary nightmare that my school districts are facing right now.
  That is what this amendment does. This amendment says we are serious 
about providing those resources. We are serious about providing the 
opportunity for meaningful reform. If we are going to do it, we have to 
start in this year's appropriations bill. We cannot wait 6 more months. 
We cannot tell the school districts, hold on, help is on the way. Help 
is needed now.
  This amendment fully funds title I. As I talk to school districts all 
over my State and around the country, they say, if there is one thing 
you can do to help, it is ensuring we have the resources for title I.
  What is troubling to me is the bizarre set of priorities we continue 
to face as we look at the budgetary questions that have come before the 
Congress in the early days of the 108th Congress. We are told we cannot 
afford this amendment. We are told the cut is necessary because it is 
in keeping with a budget that requires us to cut $10 billion, first, 
and another 1.7 percent, or $6 billion, second, out of an 
appropriations bill that is already inadequate. That is what we are 
told. We are told the only way we are going to be able to meet our 
obligations is if we make these cuts.
  I guarantee in a couple of weeks we will be right back, saying in 
spite of all the need for the cuts, we have plenty of room for a $1 
trillion tax cut, most of which will go to those in the very top 
brackets of income in the country. That is a bizarre juxtaposition of 
priorities. We have a choice of helping our kids, building strength for 
our future, recognizing that school districts are in dire straits and 
in desperate need of this help, or turn around and say no to those 
children, no to those school districts, no to those States, and yes to 
the millionaires, yes to the tax cuts, yes to this extraordinary zeal, 
in spite of the need we find this very afternoon.
  I hope on a bipartisan basis we can recognize that if we were serious 
about passing real reform a year ago last December, if we were serious 
about suggesting that school districts would have a new day, a new 
opportunity for meaningful reform with accountability and resources, we 
are going to support this amendment. We are going to recognize that 
school districts have no choice but to rely on us for help through this 
amendment. We are going to say yes, we recognize this is important from 
an educational point of view, from a stimulus point of view, from the 
point of view of providing strength to our schools and to our kids. 
There can be no more important amendment we could take up on this 
appropriations bill than this amendment this afternoon. We have to 
recognize that.
  I can say with unanimity, we do on this side. I only hope there are 
those on the Republican side who recognize it, too. Let's put our real 
commitment where our mouths were a little over a year ago. Let's say we 
understand the need for reform but we also understand the need for 
resources. That is what this amendment does. That is why I feel so 
strongly about supporting it. That is why I applaud its author, Senator 
Kennedy, and others, who have presented it to us today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I would appreciate it if the Senator from Rhode Island 
would allow me to proceed with a unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent there now be 60 minutes equally divided 
between myself and Senator Kennedy; provided further that following the 
use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relationship to my amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote in 
relationship to Senator Kennedy's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Rhode 
Island. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the Kennedy amendment 
which would allow us to live up to the commitment we made just over a 
year ago in the No Child Left Behind Act, that we would fully fund 
educational programs contained in that law and other educational 
initiatives that are so important to all of our citizens. Today we are 
facing a budget that does not do that.
  I was listening to my colleague who talked about President Bush's 
efforts of the last two years with title I, which is very important. 
These increases are commendable. I was listening to comparisons with 
President Clinton. I think President Clinton did extremely well in 
terms of funding education, and he focused not just on title I but also 
efforts to reduce class sizes, increase professional development, and 
increase and improve the quality of the educational efforts throughout 
this country.
  It is particularly noteworthy that President Clinton exceeded all of 
his recent predecessors in terms of Title I increases. President Reagan 
proposed a 2.99-percent cut; President George Herbert Walker Bush, a 
2.31-percent increase; and President Clinton, a 4.01-percent per year 
increase.
  When I arrived in 1990 in the other body and served on the Education 
Committee there, it was recognized that education was important, but by 
1995 a Republican Congress was making its

[[Page 1281]]

first priority the elimination of the Department of Education. Yet in 
that environment we were still able to increase funding for title I and 
other educational programs.
  The issue is not about comparing President George W. Bush to 
President Clinton. We are simply asking President Bush to do what he 
said he would do when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act, when he 
embraced all of the reforms within this act, when he touted these 
reforms as a path-breaking development in Federal education policy.
  He understood, I think, and certainly in the deliberations we all 
came to the understanding, that education is not just about one 
segment, not just about students. It is about teachers. It is about 
facilities. It is about giving local school districts incentives to 
improve and ensuring they do improve by setting up accountability 
measures. We cannot do that without providing the resources.
  There have been discussions in the Chamber about unfunded mandates, 
and my colleague from New Hampshire pointed out that in his view the 
testing is not an unfunded mandate because we will fund the testing. 
The reality is that we are telling school districts to not only test, 
but then to take those results and improve schools.
  I already have schools in Rhode Island that have been required by the 
Department of Education to be certified as not making sufficient 
progress. Under our legislation, that triggers steps the State and 
school districts must take. Those steps are not without costs. Yet we 
are not providing sufficient resources to meet all of those costs.
  That is the unfunded mandate. That is what is objectionable. That is 
what we hear in every State capital in every community. You asked us to 
go out and test our children, you asked us to start reforming, you 
asked us to have better teachers, better facilities, better libraries. 
You give us money to test, but where are the other resources? That is 
the heart of this whole discussion and whole debate.
  I recall, they were so eloquent and so passionate, the words of our 
late colleague, Paul Wellstone, who said repeatedly:

       We cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a 
     tin cup budget.

  There were loads of us who, a year ago, applauded the approach but 
feared the authorization would be what it seems to be on the floor this 
evening, just a hortatory, nice thing to do, rather than a goal we are 
bound and committed to achieve.
  Last year, no one was talking about this as just merely suggestions, 
these authorization levels. They talked about it as a real commitment. 
That is why we are here. That is why Senator Kennedy has this 
amendment. Let's make a real commitment, not just a rhetorical one. 
Let's put our money where our mouth was last year and should be this 
year. We have to do that because we recognize unless we invest in 
education we are not going to be able to prepare young people to assume 
roles, not just in our economy, but also in our civic life.
  The tasks before schools today are so much more complicated. The new 
Americans who arrive daily with different languages and different 
cultural viewpoints have to be, we hope, seamlessly brought into our 
system, and public education has been the great institution to do that. 
We have to support that.
  So we are here today to be very serious about education, not just to 
pass a bill that we can go out and tout in our states and then come 
back here and say that was just rhetoric. We are here for the 
resources. We are here for the second part of the equation.
  The goals are there. The structure is there. Now we really have to 
put the resources to those goals and to that structure. Senator Kennedy 
has identified two of the key components: title I, which serves 
practically every community in this country, and also Pell grants.
  In distinction to the approach of Senator Kennedy, my colleague from 
New Hampshire would suggest an across-the-board cut. So many people 
have already pointed out this overall omnibus is deficient in so many 
different ways, to take from the Department of Veterans Affairs, to 
take from the other departments, is not a way to solve this issue. We 
have to stand up and fund these programs in education without denying 
other worthwhile programs. I think we can. I think we should.
  Of course, all of this is in the context of what follows this 
appropriations process. It is already the announced goal, the objective 
of the President, to propose a huge tax cut. We should ask ourselves 
why can't we, today, simply reserve from that proposed tax cut 
sufficient moneys this year and in the years to come to fully fund 
education? I would suspect, and I would even wager that, if you asked 
most Americans whether they would prefer to fund this bipartisan 
education act--which has been touted, supported, embraced by all sides, 
President Bush, Republican congressional leaders, and Democratic 
congressional leaders--by taking money from that tax cut and putting it 
into this sound program, and they agree it is sound, they would agree 
overwhelmingly.
  In a way, we are not doing that directly, but that is the overarching 
context of our efforts this afternoon. We want to put the resources 
where they should be, in title I and in Pell grants. We want to keep 
our promises. We want to make sure all the provisions of this No Child 
Left Behind Act have a fair chance to operate and succeed.
  Let me just conclude by saying one of the major points that persuaded 
me with some--I wouldn't say reluctance, but with some hesitancy, 
because I feared this day where we, a year after our press releases, 
would be coming here and finding the money is not there to do the job--
but what persuaded me is that this bill essentially recognized that 
education is not just one thing, it is many things. That is why this No 
Child Left Behind Act has funding for professional development, 
parental involvement, school libraries, and a host of other programs.
  Let me tell you, those programs are going to be drastically 
underfunded in the President's budget, as I see it, even if we put more 
money into the title I program.
  But the point is, if we do not commit ourselves to the full change of 
educational reform we are going to, I think, sadly misspend even the 
money we commit to the program.
  I hope we can support the Kennedy amendment. I hope we can support 
additional resources for education. In doing so, let's fulfill our 
commitment, not just our commitment to the act that was passed last 
year, but a greater commitment, to give every citizen in this country 
the opportunity to succeed, and the best instrument to do that is good 
education. We all believe that. Let's translate our beliefs into votes 
this evening and put the money where it should be.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, every time we have the education debate I 
feel a little bit compelled to come over to the floor and point out to 
my colleagues the extent of what we are talking about. We are talking 
today as if the Federal Government solves all education problems. We 
are the problem. We provide about 8 percent of the funding for 
education and we provide over 50 percent of the paperwork for 
education. We have been attacking this accountability thing with papers 
that have to be turned in to the Department of Education for years.
  I have a person on my staff who is a former principal. He was a 
principal and he took a leave of absence to come back to Washington and 
take a look at what happens to the forms he fills out. He spent a 
semester at the Department of Education. When he reported back he said: 
You know, they actually read all of those documents. They make sure 
that every ``i'' is dotted and every ``t'' is crossed. He said the big 
disappointment is then there is no use for the paperwork. Nothing 
happens with it. There is no accountability. There is no support. There 
is no help to the

[[Page 1282]]

schools. We need to do something differently.
  That is what No Child Left Behind is about, taking a different 
approach to accountability. We have been placing this huge burden on 
schools for a long time. We have not been providing the money to 
provide the paperwork. Now we said let's try a different approach; 
let's let them set up an accountability mechanism; let's give them some 
money so they can do the accountability; and then let's see if we can 
hold their feet to the fire with that so it's not just another report 
going into the garbage can. Actually, they don't go into the garbage 
can; they go into some file cabinets that we also pay a lot of money 
for.
  I am not going to spend a lot of time defending the levels of funding 
or trying to show who is outbidding whom--and that is what this is, 
just a bidding war, and we do it every year. Of course, what I would 
like to ask the other side of the aisle is, if the increases in funding 
and the funding is so important, why did we have to change majorities 
before we could even debate it? Why wasn't this appropriations bill 
done last summer? Why wasn't it done in July or September? We are just 
debating it now, and 4\1/2\ months of the time has already passed and 
we are saying this is a crisis and we need to outbid each other.
  This is a crisis and we need to get it done, but it doesn't have to 
be a bidding war. We need to get this done so we can get to the next 
part of the process, which is to do a budget. Remember, we missed 
having a budget last year, the first time in 32 years that we had not 
had a budget. That kind of kept us from getting to those appropriations 
bills. And we did not. Now what we need to do is get this done, get on 
to the budget, get on to the appropriations, and do it correctly this 
next year; have the hearings, have the debates on this floor without 
the time constraints of being 4\1/2\ months late.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his presentation on the 
way the Bush administration has increased funding for schools. As the 
accountant, I am pleased with the charts he has done and the figures he 
has given on the increases the Bush administration has done for 
education.
  Elementary and secondary education funding is growing at a faster 
rate than enrollment. In 2002, there was a 27 percent increase in 
elementary and secondary education funding, and that was compared to a 
0.3 percent increase in enrollment.
  Let me say that again. In 2002 we did a 27 percent increase in 
education funding, and that was compared to a 0.3 percent increase in 
enrollment.
  Since much of the new money from 2002 is just reaching the schools 
for the first time, the massive increase for 2002 began reaching them 
in last July. It is disingenuous to make the case that the Federal 
Government isn't doing its share when it comes to dollars for 
education. Again, I point out the delay in appropriations this year. In 
fact, a total of $19 billion from 2002 is still sitting over at the 
Department of Education and has not been drawn down by the schools. 
That is $19 billion. That is more than we are talking about in any 
bidding wars we are doing here.
  But let us not forget that the No Child Left Behind Act is not just 
about Federal investment in education. It is about getting a return on 
that investment and improved student achievement for all of our 
children. That means dedication of the States, too. It is not just an 
effort to move the burden to the Federal Government. The States have to 
be involved.
  I am pleased to say that according to the Washington Post there are 
two States in the United States that fully fund their education plan. 
One of those is Wyoming. When we are talking about increases in 
dollars, we are certainly hoping it can have the flexibility that will 
go to the kinds of programs to help develop our kids for the kind of 
jobs there will be in the future so they can stay in Wyoming and so 
they can compete in the global market. We have recognized the 
importance of education. We have fully funded education. That isn't 
enough money. We are also one of those States with a declining 
enrollment. We aren't even three-fifths of 1 percent in increase in 
enrollment.
  Let us keep in mind that, even with limited resources, economic 
concerns, and many additional important national priorities as a result 
of our Nation's war on terrorism, the President's 2003 budget and this 
bill contain significant increases in the areas that most directly 
affect the neediest children.
  I could go into some more detail on that. We have a time agreement. I 
appreciate having a time agreement so we can begin some votes.
  But I do think we have the capabilities to do the kind of things for 
which the No Child Left Behind Act is intended. We can do better next 
year, and we will as we do the process the way it was designed to be 
done.
  We know well-prepared teachers lead to a child's success in school. 
However, millions of children don't have the benefit of a qualified 
teacher in their classroom. That is why this bill provides almost $3 
billion this year to support our Nation's teachers.
  I am particularly sensitive to that because my oldest daughter is a 
principal in the Wyoming School System. She was a teacher. She taught 
English to seventh graders for about 6 years. I think that is one of 
the challenging places to teach because students have all those 
hormones and body changes and all of those things. She really enjoys 
it. She got two masters degrees while she was doing that, and one of 
them entitled her to be a principal. She was hired principal in a 
little community called Chugwater. I hope you will try Chugwater chili 
and the great spices for the chili. It is the community activity and 
the community business in a town of 256 people.
  Enrollment in the school, kindergarten through 12th grade, is 130. 
She found out there are some experiences the education textbooks don't 
cover. On the the first day of school there was a rattle snake in the 
building. On the second day, a seventh grader found a black widow 
spider. Day before yesterday, there was a skunk in the schoolyard. This 
is 45 miles from anywhere. There are some different problems dealing 
with a situation such as that. It took 45 minutes for the police to get 
there to remove the skunk.
  Teachers are challenged. Principals are challenged. We need to have 
well-prepared teachers who are qualified to teach. I am blessed to say 
that in Wyoming that we have met that goal--not completely. We are 
still working on having better teachers all the time.
  I remember one fellow running for superintendent in the public 
schools saying the job of the principal was to make sure good teachers 
got better and bad teachers got better somewhere else.
  But I do want to say the President's budget asks for money for 
increases in teachers and increases for reading programs.
  I want to close by saying that the combination of the very 
substantial new funding provided over the past 3 years and the reforms 
in the No Child Left Behind Act will make a real difference in 
improving the performance of our schools and the achievement of all 
students.
  What I have said today shows the picture in addition to what the 
Senator from New Hampshire said. He has put in an amendment that does 
call for an increase in spending and the flexibility that I have been 
talking about for the Wyoming schools and for other States that have 
been doing an adequate job of funding their students presently. It 
gives them the flexibility to spend it on the things they think are 
needed the worst.
  I hope you will support the Gregg amendment. I hope you will defeat 
the Kennedy amendment and provide for a budget and appropriations now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 6 minutes 
from the time allotted to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 1283]]


  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I want to say a few words to reflect what 
I know the people of New Jersey believe with regard to the debate we 
are having on the floor about the omnibus appropriations bill, 
particularly with regard to the two priorities we talked about today--
homeland defense, but particularly as it relates to our educational 
priorities in this country.
  I feel as if I am living in a different world from what I hear talked 
about on the floor of the Senate. We are experiencing in my home State 
a severe fiscal crisis. We have a $5 billion budget deficit this year 
that has to be closed at the expense of our kids and investing properly 
in our homeland defense. Then I hear, by the way, that we are having on 
average, across our local communities, about a 7-percent increase in 
property taxes, which is really going to fund education.
  Since I have been here in Congress, we are doing a lot to put new 
mandates on our local communities about what their responsibilities are 
with regard to education. But we are not providing the kind of 
resources that will allow them to fulfill those mandates effectively to 
meet the needs of our kids--those 6 million children left behind under 
title I whom Senator Kennedy so appropriately tried to address with his 
amendment.
  I just have an incredible misunderstanding of why we think we need a 
$675 billion tax cut and $375 billion of it going to dividend 
exclusions, 80 percent of the overall tax cut going to the top 5 
percent, and 60 percent going to the top 10 percent in our society, 
when we are unwilling to invest in those 6 million kids and the 10,000 
failing schools that have already been identified. And 40 percent of 
the title I schools don't have teachers who are qualified to sit in the 
classroom. I don't get it. I don't understand why there is this serious 
deficit problem back in our State and local communities and we are 
talking about a tax cut and a priority that doesn't relate to the long-
term health and growth of our Nation. It just doesn't make sense.
  I hear all the arguments about who is growing the educational budget 
faster, or whether it is this year or over in the Clinton 
administration. The fact is we have a real need. These are tangible 
needs to be addressed. They need to be addressed now. We have choices. 
Six billion dollars is not even a tenth of the $675 billion we are 
talking about in the tax cut. And, by the way, when you add the 
interest, it is $1 trillion. What is $6 billion among friends?
  This is not the right priority, in my view, and it certainly is not 
what the people of New Jersey are telling me they want.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point? I yield myself 2 
minutes on this.
  Is the Senator saying as we are considering the omnibus bill and the 
money which is going to be expended on that--of which $10 billion was 
generally agreed to last year by Republicans and Democrats--that we 
would take $6 billion of that $10 billion--and there are those who are 
opposing it--that we are still going to say we can afford the $670 
billion, and a great percentage of that will go to the top 1 percent of 
the wealthiest individuals, and that is a higher priority than meeting 
what President Bush and a bipartisan group pointed out were the needs 
of children in many of the poorest areas of this country?
  Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Massachusetts is, as always, using 
common sense. We are saying this tax cut is more important than 
investing in our kids, investing in our schools, fulfilling the promise 
that we talked about and debated and worked, on a bipartisan basis, to 
provide. Improvement and flexibility--all the things the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire talked about in principles--we are all for 
that, but we are saying this darn tax cut is a lot more important than 
the priorities of educating our kids.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself one more minute.
  Is the Senator, therefore, suggesting, as we look down the line in 
terms of the national budget--and what the budget is going to be--that 
we have the choice of having the $6 billion to take care of 2 million 
more children, who we promised we would take care of in title I, and 
perhaps reducing the President's tax cut by $10 billion this year?
  That could be done, as the Senator said. We could say: Look, we, in 
the Senate, say, OK, we think it is more important to provide funding 
for the children and to reduce the President's tax cut by the $6 
billion that would be affected this year. We have that choice, do we 
not?
  Mr. CORZINE. I think it is absolutely in the hands of the people who 
sit in this Chamber to make the decisions. We are elected to talk about 
priorities. Where are the priorities in this Nation with regard to 
homeland defense, and certainly with our longrun health and security--
that American promise that we hear and we all embrace?
  We are making a choice that a tax cut, which is going to promise 
those who are already doing really well--that 1 percent, that 5 
percent, or 20 percent; however you cut it--they are more important 
than our kids in making sure that everybody has access to the American 
promise.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator again and appreciate his comments. I 
hope he will continue.
  Mr. CORZINE. I will just wrap up.
  Again, I have a hard time understanding this debate, when we have 
such a clear choice in front of us, when we talk about the needs of 
these 6 million kids, the 10,000 identified failing schools.
  By the way, we are all in favor of the flexibility and making sure 
that the local school districts have the ability to deal with a lot of 
these issues. But we cannot turn around failed schools if we don't have 
teachers who are qualified to sit in the classrooms. And we need to do 
it.
  By the way, one of the ways we get those qualified teachers in those 
classrooms is to make sure the Pell grant program is properly funded, 
where people who need the opportunity to get a higher education 
actually have access.
  I hear about the tax cut, $30 billion that went into the tax system. 
That is great, as long as you have taxable income. If you don't have 
anything to have a tax credit against, it is pretty hard to figure out 
how you are going to use that to fund higher education that will 
ultimately end up providing our teachers, our doctors, our researchers, 
and all the people to go forward.
  So I hope my colleagues can understand the simple concept: Do we 
really need a $675 billion tax cut, for those who are already doing 
well, when we can't make the choice to provide the $6 billion that we 
want to invest in our schools?
  I appreciate Senator Kennedy's efforts here. I wholeheartedly support 
them and hope my colleagues will as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 11\1/2\ 
minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire has 19 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts not 
only for yielding time but also for his leadership on this issue.
  I would like to note to the Senator from Massachusetts that the 
President gave a speech last night relative to the issue of affirmative 
action in which he said he did not believe preferences should be given 
based on race but, rather, people should be chosen based on merit.
  If you accept the President's premise, that Americans should have an 
opportunity to be educated, and then compete for spots at good 
universities, then doesn't it follow you would want to make certain 
that people across America have equal opportunity in education? Because 
how can you compete on the basis of merit and education if you don't 
have a good school and a good teacher, a good curriculum, and an 
opportunity to learn?
  Senator Kennedy comes to us today offering this amendment saying: Why

[[Page 1284]]

aren't we putting money into education so that children--all children, 
minority children as well as majority children--have an opportunity to 
learn?
  I think this is a test for the other side of the aisle. If you 
support the President's position, in opposition to affirmative action, 
and believe people should be judged on merit, then, for goodness sakes, 
create a level playing field, so the children from the poorest 
families, in the poorest schools, have a chance to learn, compete, and 
lead fulfilled lives.
  It will be interesting to see what happens, whether the same Senators 
who oppose affirmative action will also oppose funding education.
  Secondly, let me suggest Senator Kennedy is keeping his word. When he 
and I and others joined the President in voting for No Child Left 
Behind, it was not an empty promise; it was a promise that we would 
stand with the schools, the families, and the children in improving the 
quality of education across America.
  The President took great pride in this education bill, and he passed 
it and said: The first thing we need is accountability. I certainly 
agree with that. But he called for more tests than usual, so that we 
could monitor, on an annual basis, how our children are doing in 
school. And, of course, those schools that are not doing a good job, 
where children are falling behind, will require some remedial effort. 
The remedial effort involves title I, part of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, which Senator Kennedy is trying to fund.
  Senator Kennedy is trying to keep President Bush's promise to America 
when it comes to education. It is not enough to say that the schools 
are failing us, the schools are falling behind. Senator Kennedy brings, 
with this amendment, a chance for every Republican who voted for No 
Child Left Behind, and those of us on the Democratic side who joined, 
to keep our promise and keep our word.
  Failing that, if we do not come up with the resources for West 
Virginia, for Massachusetts, or New Hampshire, then they will have to 
make difficult decisions.
  They will have the Federal requirements of No Child Left Behind--
requirements to improve their curriculum, improve their teachers, 
improve their teaching assistants, formulate all sorts of tests and 
evaluate the students--but they will not have the resources to improve 
their schools.
  What will we have accomplished? We will have diagnosed an illness, 
but the President refuses to come up with the drugs necessary to cure 
it. Senator Kennedy's amendment does. Senator Kennedy comes forward and 
says: Let's put the money we promised on the table. If you don't do 
that, I will tell you what will happen in my State and most other 
States. You will have a mandate from Washington, under President Bush's 
No Child Left Behind, and no funds to meet the mandate. And what a 
terrible time for that to happen.
  Estimates across the Nation suggest that States are falling behind 
$90- or $100 billion this year. In my State, it is $5 billion. I can 
tell you where the cuts will be made. Sadly, they will be made in 
education. And so, in Illinois, we will be cutting basic funds for 
education while President Bush's requirements under No Child Left 
Behind are being imposed on Illinois school districts facing 
bankruptcy.
  Where is the fairness in that outcome? And the Senator from New 
Hampshire suggested we do across-the-board cuts from all the other 
agencies to come up with a pot of money, and send it to the States to 
deal with on a grant basis. You can certainly argue with his premise as 
to whether or not we can continue to make cuts in a lot of different 
agencies that have already been cut and trimmed, time and time again--
whether it is the Veterans' Administration or homeland security; and 
those are certainly areas where we could debate long and hard as to 
whether that is the right thing to do--but what Senator Kennedy is 
doing with this amendment is asking Congress to keep its word.
  All of those who posed for those political ``holy'' pictures with the 
President, which showed us being friends of the education President and 
friends of education, now have to come through with the money to make 
sure it happens. If we do not, then, frankly, we should be held 
accountable.
  Those who vote no on this amendment--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thirty seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those who vote no on this amendment have 
basically asked for the best of both worlds. They want all the positive 
publicity for reforming education, but they don't want to pay the bill. 
That is an abdication of responsibility to my State and every other 
State.
  I urge Senators who believe in the President's program to stand with 
the program when it comes to providing the funds. This amendment will 
give them that chance to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 19 minutes 
17 seconds. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let's remember what we are debating here relative to 
the merits of the various amendments. We heard another restatement of 
this representation that the President has not made a commitment to No 
Child Left Behind. He has not only made a commitment, he has made the 
most significant commitment to education in recent history, the most 
significant commitment to title I in history, and the most significant 
commitment to IDEA in history. Compared to the prior administration, 
his commitment represents a massive increase. In fact, if you take the 
7 years of the prior administration, running up to 2001, and compare it 
to the President's first 2 years, the President has actually made a 
commitment that exceeds those 7 years in 2 years by approximately $500 
million. Or almost 25 percent more than what President Clinton put into 
education over 7 years, President Bush has put into education in 2 
years.
  His commitment to title I has been a 27-percent increase over the 
Clinton commitment. His commitment to special education has been $1 
billion a year each year for the first 2 years of his administration, 
the two most significant increases in history compared, again, to the 
Clinton years. It dwarfs what the administration did during that 
period. That isn't necessarily the issue, although it has been a matter 
of debate.
  The issue is the appropriateness of the two different amendments. The 
Kennedy amendment essentially tries to fund No Child Left Behind at 
about a $4.6 billion level of additional funding, which theoretically 
gets to an authorized level, which is pretty hard to put your hand 
around but theoretically gets there. We are talking about putting $5 
billion, which works out to about the same number as Senator Kennedy's, 
into the No Child Left Behind bill.
  From a dollar standpoint, the two amendments are essentially the 
same. Where they differ is in how they approach those dollars. We say 
to local school districts: Here is the money. You can take it. You can 
use it to address your needs in your local school systems as you try to 
respond to No Child Left Behind.
  We know that many of our school systems think that in areas such as 
teacher training or classrooms or maybe just testing or whatever it is, 
they think they need more money for No Child Left Behind. This money we 
are proposing goes to them without any strings, without any controls 
coming from Washington. It says, you have to use it for No Child Left 
Behind initiatives. As a result, it is going to give the flexibility to 
local school districts which they really want with these dollars to 
accomplish the goal which, let's not forget, is to make sure the kids

[[Page 1285]]

learn. The whole purpose of this bill is to make sure the kids learn. 
The priorities should be how we get to that point.
  The second thing we do in our amendment, which is not done under the 
Kennedy amendment, is that we pay for it. I just heard the Senator from 
Illinois say: We don't need to pay for this. We can't cut anything 
else.
  Listen, we are running a deficit. We are at war. We are a nation 
which is under some fiscal strain in our economy. The fact is, we have 
to reinstitute fiscal discipline in the Congress. Regrettably, under 
the prior Congress, no budget was passed. The Democratic Party, for 
whatever reason, decided not to bring a budget to the floor of the 
Senate in the last session of the last Congress, which left us without 
any enforcement mechanisms. It was, in my opinion, a grossly 
irresponsible act; the first time in my experience in this Congress 
that we did not have a budget. Therefore, we did not have enforcement 
mechanisms.
  Now we are in a situation where the President has said, through the 
force of his bully pulpit: Here is the number, 750. It is a reasonable 
number. It represents a significant, dramatic increase in funding by 
the Federal Government. It represents a massive increase in Federal 
spending. It is a double-digit increase in Federal spending. He said: 
Hold that 750 number.
  Members of the other side are not willing to do that. They don't want 
any budget discipline. We believe there should be budget discipline. We 
believe our job as legislators is to prioritize.
  The first order of business is to defend our Nation with strong and 
effective antiterrorism activity, and we have a President who is doing 
that. We have aggressively funded that.
  I happen to believe the second order of business is to fund 
education. That is why we propose this amendment which basically 
reallocates funds from other accounts into the education account and 
fully funds No Child Left Behind as defined by Senator Kennedy's 
definition.
  I happen to believe No Child Left Behind is getting significant 
dollars, probably more than they can spend, but these additional 
dollars will absolutely guarantee that our local school districts have 
the money they need.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 
45 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dayton, Durbin, Edwards, Kerry, 
Corzine, and Landrieu be added as cosponsors of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We will have a chance to vote in a few minutes. One will 
be for the Gregg amendment. And I hope our colleagues will vote against 
it. Then we will have an opportunity to vote for the amendment I have 
introduced with a number of our colleagues that will add some $6 
billion and achieve what the President had actually committed; that is, 
to begin the real downpayment in reaching all the children who need the 
Title I funding.
  If you accept the Gregg amendment, that will result in reducing 
funding for Head Start by $104 million; NIH by $410 million; highways 
by $501 million, NSF by $64 million.
  I see our ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. He talked 
about a 1.3-percent cut. I have indicated what the 1.3 percent would be 
over the year. But as the good Senator from West Virginia knows, we are 
talking about a budget that is only 9 months. So the 1.3 will mean 
deeper cuts in each and every one of these programs. If you vote for 
that, that is what you are voting for in the Gregg amendment.
  Secondly, on the Gregg amendment, it is basically the block grant 
program that will go for any education purposes. I remind my colleagues 
what the President of the United States said, and I agree with him. 
This is in his report from the Department of Education: President Bush 
emphasized his deep belief in public schools, but even a greater 
concern about too many of our neediest children being left behind.
  That is President Bush.
  That is what we are trying to get at. The Gregg amendment doesn't 
even address that issue. It doesn't say, look, I will take $5 billion; 
I will just put it toward title I. He says it can be used for anything.
  President Bush says he is concerned about the neediest children being 
left behind. Then this amendment really makes very little sense.
  I see my friend from Florida. How much time do I have totally?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 3 minutes 
22 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield a minute to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for the time.
  Mr. President, I wish to express support. I thought a deal was a 
deal. Last year, when the Senator from Massachusetts negotiated the 
authorizing bill with the White House, it was that we would increase 
the funding level from the Federal Government, which is only 7 percent 
of all of the educational funding, because most of the educational 
funding is at the State and local level, as it should be, but the 
Federal Government had a unique position, especially for the 
disadvantaged, to help out the States so that a child would have an 
equal opportunity to learn.
  So in the minute that the Senator has given me, I wanted to express 
my support for his position to honor the agreement that was made 
between the White House and the Congress last year on educational 
funding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
  Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Gregg has authorized me to yield 
10 minutes to myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is always difficult to oppose 
increases in education funding because education is the greatest 
capital asset this country has. However, in approaching this 
legislation today, with an omnibus bill on the floor, an effort is 
being made to cram into two days what should have occurred during the 
course of a year. Last year the Senate did not have a budget.
  I have just returned from a trip to Israel where the Palestinian 
Authority has a budget, but the United States Senate doesn't have a 
budget. Now, we are being called upon in the course of a few hours to 
make decisions involving billions of dollars.
  What we have here, realistically, is an auction, a bidding war, a 
political bidding war to see who will look the best, trying to clothe 
themselves with being the protectors of education. We have a duty to 
the taxpayers of America to make rational decisions. I am the chairman 
of the Appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the 
Department of Education. I have been on the subcommittee, and I am now 
in my 23rd year. I took over the chairmanship in 1995 and have worked 
very closely and coordinated with Senator Tom Harkin. On a bipartisan 
basis, we have added an enormous amount to the Department of Education, 
starting in my first year as chairman with $23 billion, and now being 
up to $51.5 billion. Since the year 2000, we have had a 45 percent 
increase in education funding.
  Now, maybe we do need an additional $6 billion, or maybe we don't 
need an additional $6 billion. It cannot be rationally decided in the 
course of a few hours on the Senate floor. We ought to have hearings 
and have experts and have witnesses come in and define the subject and 
delineate the subject to allow us to analyze it and to make rational 
decisions.
  It is widely noted that the two things you never want to see made are 
sausage and legislation. Well, this legislation is giving sausage a bad 
name. We

[[Page 1286]]

are being asked to make this decision in a rushed way in the course of 
a few hours.
  Now, on the Pell grants, I agree the Pell grants are very valuable, 
but take a look at what has happened in the course of the last several 
years on Pell grants. They have gone from $2,600 in 1997, up to $3,300 
in 2000, up to $4,000 last year. When Senator Harkin and I put that 
$4,000 figure in, the director of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, 
came to my office and complained bitterly that it was too much money 
and wanted it offset. Senator Harkin and I stood by our guns. This 
year, they are going to go up to $4,100.
  We have a budget that has to accommodate a great many factors. One of 
my other jobs is chairing the Veterans Affairs Committee. This 
afternoon, I sat down with Secretary Tony Principi to go over a program 
he has to reduce eligibility for VA care. He has to do that because the 
veterans covered were 2.9 million in 1998, when we went to open 
enrollment, and now it is 6.8 million. There simply isn't enough money 
in the VA budget. I would like to see more money in the VA budget. I am 
concerned about what is going to happen in the National Institutes of 
Health budget when and if this is adopted. Senator Gregg's amendment is 
the less irrational of the two amendments on the floor--the less 
irrational. I don't think either is rational. We have to make a 
judgment and a choice about which is the least undesirable. If the 
Gregg amendment is adopted, we are going to be cutting the NIH. Why? 
Because Senator Gregg, realistically, is offering a counterbalance to 
what Senator Kennedy is offering, and that is because we are in an 
auction and a bidding war for political cover, because everybody wants 
to look good by adding money to education.
  Maybe we ought to take more money for education from some of the 
other accounts. But, it ought not be done on an afternoon when we are 
racing against time to finish this multibillion dollar omnibus bill so 
we can get out of here for the weekend and give 600 speeches over the 
weekend that are already committed to, and the Martin Luther King 
holiday is on Monday, and the prospect of being here Sunday, or coming 
in on Tuesday--if people really knew what we did and what the pressures 
were on spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, they would 
throw all the rascals out. Unfortunately, C-SPAN 2 doesn't have 
sufficient coverage to really tell the American people what is going on 
here.
  If you take a look at what Senator Harkin and I have done as we have 
changed the gavel over the years, raising the education budget from $23 
billion in 1996 to $51.5 billion-plus now, at a 45 percent increase 
since the year 2000, and the way we have raised the Pell grant awards, 
there has been a tremendous increase.
  I am prepared, in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee, to go 
to work and see whether you need more money here so as to not to leave 
any child behind. However, I must protest the way we are conducting the 
business of the Senate because we didn't get a budget last year. It is 
just absolutely inexcusable. The Palestinian Authority has a budget, 
but the Senate doesn't have a budget. Now we are being asked to 
appropriate billions of dollars under time pressure, which is simply 
not right. Between the lesser of the irrational amendments, I choose 
Senator Gregg's. I think we ought to go through the hearing process, 
the legitimate process, and do our jobs for the public interest and not 
pass these amendments, which are really a political bidding war to look 
good under the mantle of backing education.
  Let me repeat, in the 23 years I have been in this body, I have 
seldom, if ever, voted against increasing money for education, but this 
goes too far.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, let me state I greatly admire the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, who has done an extraordinary job of 
attempting to fund some very complicated issues, with lots of different 
priorities. He has driven increases in special ed funding and has been 
a huge player in title I and many other positive efforts as ranking 
member and chairman of the subcommittee. I congratulate him. I am 
always happy to be the more rational of the irrational.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk on the floor 
in the last few weeks about the deficits we are facing and about the 
irrational conduct of the President proposing reductions in taxes. I 
want to point out the exercise we are engaged in right now. As the 
Senator from Massachusetts said, we are talking about real money. It is 
real money. What is being proposed in these amendments is real money 
that will add real dollars to the deficit.
  I am going to start a process with every amendment we vote on. We are 
going to keep a running tally of how much money--over this period of 
time we are proposing amendments to add spending--we will add to the 
deficits over the next 10 years. The Byrd amendment, which got 45 
Democratic votes, adds $5 billion for this year. People have to 
understand when you add $5 billion this year, it becomes part of the 
baseline, which is $5 billion not just this year but for 10 more years, 
plus inflation and the interest costs it takes to finance that deficit; 
that is $70 billion over 10 years. That $5 billion you voted for this 
year is $70 billion over 10 years.
  We don't know what the vote is yet on the Kennedy amendment, but it 
is $6 billion; over 10 years, it is $84 billion. So these two votes add 
up to $154 billion. And we are just starting, folks. It is $154 billion 
added to the deficit.
  So let's look at the folks who are crying about how we don't have 
enough money to let people keep some of it, but we certainly have 
enough to spend more of it. I am going to warn my colleagues that this 
is the starting of a, hopefully, short but presumably long process of 
adding the numbers of how much our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are going to add to the deficit; and when we reach about $600 
billion--and I would not be surprised if we do--you will be at the 
amount the President wants to give back.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes for debate equally divided prior to the beginning of the second 
vote on the Kennedy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 2 minutes 
52 seconds.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 2 minutes. I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  I have difficulty in understanding the argument of my good friend 
from Pennsylvania. We debated the No Child Left Behind legislation for 
7 weeks. On May 3, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, voted 
for an $18 billion increase in No Child Left Behind. This is $16 
billion. This comes as no surprise to any of the Members who are 
debating the issues of Title I.
  President Bush galvanized the Nation in giving attention to the 
neediest children in this country. He recognized that there are 11 
million children who have been left out and left behind. He talked 
about a partnership between the Federal Government, the students, the 
States, the local communities, and the parents; that we were going to 
work together to enhance academic achievement and responsibility, and 
that there was going to be tough accountability. We supported that in a 
bipartisan way in this Senate, in the House of Representatives, and all 
across this country.
  All this amendment does is make sure we are going to have a real 
downpayment to that commitment by ensuring that at least 2 million more 
children will be included in the No Child Left Behind legislation. Four 
million will still be left out. Four million will still be left behind. 
This

[[Page 1287]]

amendment is just a downpayment on that pledge made in the No Child 
Left Behind Act.
  If my colleagues support this amendment, we are still under the 
overall caps that were agreed to. For anyone worried about the budget, 
I say this is a better investment in the future of our country than the 
$670 billion that the Republicans and the administration are supporting 
in tax breaks. This is what the American families want: Invest in their 
children, invest in education. That is what our amendment does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 52 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator from Massachusetts retain any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He is out of time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let us return to the amendments. The 
amendment I put forward is a $5 billion increase in educational 
funding. It is a process of funding, however, that sends the money back 
to the States without strings, gives them the flexibility they need to 
meet the obligations of the No Child Left Behind legislation. It 
addresses many of the concerns we are hearing from our local educators 
and our communities about whether they are going to have adequate funds 
and whether those funds are going to be free enough for them to 
accomplish what they need to do to bring these children up to speed and 
educated.
  It is a paid-for amendment. That is probably the most significant 
difference. This is a paid-for amendment, and in a time of deficits, in 
a time of economic concern, in a time of war, we need to be setting 
priorities and be willing to pay for them and make the tough decisions 
on those priorities, and this amendment does that.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 19. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) would each vote ``no''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Hagel
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 19) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 13

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes evenly divided before a 
pending vote on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Two minutes to each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute on each side.
  Mr. REID. That wasn't the unanimous consent.
  Mr. STEVENS. There seems to be some disagreement about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield for a question. I don't want to lose the floor.
  Mr. REID. I was on the floor when the Senator from New Hampshire 
offered a unanimous consent agreement. I understood it would be 4 
minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it was 2 minutes 
equally divided.
  Mr. REID. I apologize, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. If they want 2 minutes for each side, let's do it. I ask 
unanimous consent it be 2 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought, since it is my amendment, we 
would have the opportunity to go last, if that is agreeable to the 
Senator. Can we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the chair please use his gavel and get some 
attention and tell Senators to keep quiet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, although I do not believe it is stated, I 
believe it is the proper protocol for me to go first. The amendment is 
different from the one that was just passed. I think it was a good 
decision by the Chamber to pass the one that was just passed. The way 
the Kennedy amendment differs is, first, it costs more money; but, 
second, it is not paid for; and, third, it comes with strings.
  Obviously, in a time of fiscal discipline, under which we should be 
functioning, it is inappropriate to be passing plus-up amendments 
without paying for them. This amendment would take us over the $750 
billion number, which is the number at which the President has 
requested us to stay.
  Regrettably, we do not have a budget resolution. We should have a 
budget resolution, but no budget resolution was brought to the floor of 
the Senate under the leadership of the other party during the 107th 
Congress in the second session. Therefore, we have to sort of self-
discipline around here.
  We have just done that by passing the amendment I have offered. We 
will not do it if we pass the amendment the Senator from Massachusetts 
offers.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the overall budget figure we are 
considering is $10 million less than what was effectively agreed to 
last year in a bipartisan way, and which the Appropriations Committee 
marked up. This would take $6 billion of that, which is the amount the 
President signed into law under the authorization. This figure was 
effectively supported by a 79-vote majority here in the Senate when we 
debated the authorization. It had strong bipartisan support.
  With all respect to the previous amendment, it is not targeted on the 
neediest children in this country. President Bush, to his credit, 
aroused the Nation to give focus and attention

[[Page 1288]]

to the neediest children in this country, that they should not be left 
out and should not be left behind.
  We made a commitment with the No Child Left Behind Act that over a 
period of 12 years, every child in this country would reach 
proficiency. Now, unless we are going to pass this amendment, we are 
going to only include 354,000 more children--and not meet what the 
administration had committed itself to, and what the President had 
committed himself to, and what I think the bipartisan membership 
committed itself to. That is to include the 2 million children. We will 
still have a long way to go.
  Mr. President, this is about education. This is about teachers. This 
is about parents. This is about local schools. This is about local 
school boards.
  This is needed across the country. There isn't a school district in 
this country that does not have a financial crisis. This will be a 
lifeline to those children who are going to need these resources. The 
States are $90 billion in debt. A third of that comes from education. 
So we are seeing enormous cuts in the support of children, and the 
neediest children. This will continue the strong commitment we made to 
accountability, to reliability, to better teachers, smaller class 
sizes, and afterschool programs. I hope the Senate will accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) would each vote ``aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Hagel
     Kerry
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Murray now be recognized to offer an amendment regarding Amtrak; I 
further ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes for debate 
equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or 
yielding back of time the Senate proceed to a vote in relationship to 
the amendment without further intervening action or debate; further, I 
ask that following the disposition of the above amendment Senator 
Harkin be recognized to offer an amendment regarding the Byrne grants 
and there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form to 
be used this evening; provided further that following the debate the 
amendment be temporarily set aside and Senator Schumer be recognized to 
offer an amendment relating to port security and there be 60 minutes 
for debate equally divided in the usual form to be used this evening; 
further, I ask consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of 
the bill tomorrow morning at 9:30, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the Harkin amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote 
in relation to the Schumer amendment, with no amendments in order to 
any of the above prior to the votes, with 5 minutes for debate equally 
divided before each vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that the Murray amendment will be accepted by voice vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is our intention that we will accept that amendment 
by voice vote. It is my understanding that 90 minutes will probably not 
be used.
  Mr. REID. With both leaders on the floor, it is my understanding 
there will be no more rollcall votes tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am not authorized to say that.
  Mr. REID. I said to Senator Stevens that with both leaders on the 
floor, it is my understanding that if this agreement is accepted there 
will be no more rollcall votes tonight.
  Mr. STEVENS. The majority leader has agreed that is the case. There 
will be no more rollcall votes tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wasn't 
hearing so well back here. As I understand it, because I have an 
amendment involved in this agreement, there are 60 minutes equally 
divided but we will not be voting on it tonight; we will vote tomorrow.
  Mr. STEVENS. That request was put forward by your side. We agreed to 
that.
  Mr. HARKIN. With 5 minutes of debate before each vote?
  Mr. STEVENS. Before each of the two votes--your vote and the vote on 
the amendment of the Senator from New York, and 5 minutes prior to 
votes on each amendment tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no objection. I understand we probably will not 
use that 90 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                            Amendment No. 30

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

       The Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), for herself and 
     Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
     Chafee, Mr. Biden, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 
     30.

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

[[Page 1289]]



 (Purpose: To ensure the continued viability of the National Railroad 
                         Passenger Corporation)

       On page 741, strike lines 3 through 9, and insert:
       For necessary expenses of operating costs and capital 
     improvements of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
     as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 24104(a), $1,200,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $550,000,000 shall 
     be for operating expenses, $369,000,000 shall be for capital 
     expenses along the Northeast Corridor Mainline, and 
     $281,000,000 shall be for capital expenses along the 
     remainder of the Corporation's national rail network.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise, along with the 
ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and 
my other colleagues who are in the Chamber tonight, to offer this 
amendment to boost funding for Amtrak to a level that was included in 
our Transportation appropriations bill that was reported back in July 
of last year.
  Six months ago, the Appropriations Committee unanimously reported a 
bill that funded Amtrak at the level of $1.2 billion. That is the same 
level that was requested of us by the Amtrak board of directors.
  Some people seem to believe that the funding level of $1.2 billion 
represents a massive funding increase for Amtrak. As all Members know, 
the appropriations bills that we approved last year have now been 
rewritten by the majority to reflect their priorities, and those new 
bills are now before us. For Amtrak, that means a cut of $374 million 
below the level we provided back in July. It also means a $318 million 
cut, or a 27-percent cut, below the level the railroad received in 
fiscal year 2002.
  I am not familiar with the funding level proposed for every single 
program that is funded in this massive bill, but I suspect there are 
very few, if any, other programs that have been singled out for a 27-
percent cut below last year's level.
  There is no question that at this funding level Amtrak is heading 
straight for bankruptcy. That is not a debatable point. That 
representation is simply not true.
  We have a letter from Amtrak's new president and chief executive 
officer, Mr. David Gunn, that makes it clear that Amtrak will be 
insolvent by spring should this funding level become law.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       National Railroad Passenger


                                                  Corporation,

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murray: I appreciate the opportunity to have 
     met with you and your staff yesterday to discuss the crisis 
     that will occur this Spring at Amtrak if the FY03 funding 
     level is below $1.2 billion. Neither the revised Senate level 
     of $826 million nor the House level of $762 million will be 
     adequate. As I said to you yesterday, any level less than 
     $1.2 billion, will leave us with no choice but to begin plans 
     for a total shutdown of the railroad, including all 
     operations in the Northeast Corridor in the Spring. We are 
     into the second quarter of the fiscal year and we are beyond 
     the point where we can make significant changes to avoid a 
     shutdown. None of us want to repeat a financial crisis 
     similar to the one we experienced last year.
       As I told you, Amtrak's FY03 request of $1.2 billion is, in 
     reality, a small increase of the money made available to 
     Amtrak in FY02. Including $310 million in supplemental 
     funding, Amtrak received a total funding of $1.4 billion last 
     year. The number currently in the Senate bill is a 
     significant cut from the FY02 level.
       We have taken significant steps to stabilize Amtrak. We 
     have opened our books and made them available to the United 
     States Department of Transportation and the appropriate 
     oversight committees in Congress as you have requested. As I 
     told you yesterday, we are making progress to stabilize the 
     organization. I hope that you will be able to convince your 
     fellow Senators to give me a chance to turn this railroad 
     around by restoring the money to the level that was 
     previously recommended by the full Appropriations Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David L. Gunn,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that this is 
not one of those situations where we can just make everything OK in 
conference. My colleagues need to know that while the House of 
Representatives never passed a transportation bill for the current 
fiscal year, the House Appropriations Committee did report a bill to 
the floor, and it included only $762 million for Amtrak. So if we do 
not restore the funding needed to keep Amtrak alive today, Members 
should not expect this will be rescued later.
  For those of my colleagues who don't want to accept the word of 
Amtrak's president or even my word on what will happen to Amtrak 
without this funding, they can look to the words of the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General. The DOT IG's office conducts an 
annual audit of Amtrak's finances. They are as familiar with Amtrak's 
books as anyone in this country.
  The DOT IG's office was asked to review every element of Amtrak's 
request for $1.2 billion. What they concluded, after an extensive 
review, was that the budget request was indeed flawed. The Inspector 
General concluded the budget request was $12 million too low.
  One thing we know for sure is that Amtrak is not going to get its 
final appropriation level until almost half the fiscal year has been 
completed. No observer of Amtrak's financial situation--not the 
Secretary of Transportation, not the Federal Railroad Administrator, 
not the DOT IG, no one on the Amtrak board of directors, including the 
three Republican appointees on that board--no one has put forward a 
credible argument that Amtrak can absorb a funding cut of this size in 
the middle of the fiscal year and do anything other than declare 
bankruptcy.
  So let me remind my colleagues that we are not talking about a 
bankruptcy like we are experiencing with some of our airlines, such as 
USAirways and United. Amtrak will not keep operating with the benefit 
of bankruptcy protection. It will stop the trains, and they will shut 
their doors.
  Members will recall last summer when we faced an Amtrak crisis. The 
railroad was days away from running out of cash, and we were still 
working on a supplemental appropriations bill, a bill that would 
eventually provide $205 million in additional cash for Amtrak to 
continue operations.
  It was not just Amtrak service that was at risk; it was not just the 
tens of thousands of Amtrak passengers that were going to be left 
standing on the platform; there were hundreds of thousands of daily 
transit riders utilizing commuter rail systems from Boston to San 
Diego, from suburban Virginia to Seattle, WA--systems that depend on 
Amtrak remaining a viable entity in order to continue their daily 
operations.
  Thankfully, due to the enactment of the supplemental appropriations 
bill, and a $100 million temporary loan that was extended by the Bush 
administration, we avoided an Amtrak catastrophe last summer. However, 
if we enact the bill currently before us without getting the additional 
$374 million called for under the amendment that is pending, we will 
once again face that crisis in just a few months' time.
  Some of my colleagues in the Senate continue to press their position 
that Amtrak needs to tighten their belt. Well, Amtrak has been 
tightening their belt. Since David Gunn took control of the company 8 
months ago, hundreds of employees have been let go, certain trains have 
been eliminated, and dramatic efforts have been initiated to rid the 
corporation of unnecessary costs. But we need to recognize that the 
funding level included in the underlying bill for Amtrak is not an 
exercise in tightening the company's belt. It is a death sentence.
  Those who would impose these cuts on the Amtrak budget may have 
forgotten the experience of September 11, 2001, when our aviation 
system was brought to a halt for almost a week and travelers flocked to 
Amtrak trains in order to get to their destinations.
  The Senate needs to have a meaningful debate about Amtrak. We need to 
have a debate that is based on facts. We need to focus on the fact that 
Amtrak is burdened with a huge debt. We need to focus on the fact that 
Amtrak

[[Page 1290]]

has billions of dollars in capital needs on the Northeast corridor and 
no way to pay for them.
  We need to focus on the fact that terminating Amtrak's long distance 
trains effectively saves the railroad almost no money. We need to have 
that fact-based debate without the distraction of another Amtrak 
funding crisis every few months due to congressional budgetary 
shenanigans.
  I was hopeful last year we were going to have that debate. Last year 
the Senate Commerce Committee, by a vote of 20 to 3, reported an 
authorization bill for Amtrak calling for funding of just under $4 
billion in fiscal year 2003. Not only a majority of Democrats on the 
Commerce Committee but also a majority of the Republicans on the 
Commerce Committee supported that bill.
  The returning chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator 
McCain, did not support that bill. However, he did introduce his own 
Amtrak authorization bill calling for Amtrak funding in fiscal year 
2003 to be at the level of $1.3 billion. My amendment would not succeed 
in providing that level of funding. It would only succeed in providing 
$1.2 billion.
  There is a widely held myth that the principal financial drag on 
Amtrak's finances is the long distance trains that travel across this 
country. One of those trains is the Empire Builder which originates in 
Chicago but provides service between eastern and western Washington, as 
well.
  The fact is, the long distance trains pose a comparatively little 
cost to Amtrak each year because they carry with them extremely small 
capital costs. These trains run over tracks that are owned and 
maintained by the Nation's freight railroads. By comparison, the 
Northeast corridor between Boston and Washington, DC, is owned by 
Amtrak and burdens Amtrak with hundreds of millions of dollars in 
capital costs every year.
  Using generally accepted accounting principles, Amtrak's Northeast 
corridor has not yielded profits, as some are fond of saying. It never 
has and it never will. In fact, just last year, Amtrak's Northeast 
corridor lost a total of $367 million.
  It is also estimated that the Northeast corridor has a critical 
maintenance backlog of between $5 and $6 billion. Even the Bush 
administration concedes that fact.
  During a hearing I held on Amtrak's finances last year with the 
administration and the DOT Inspector General, I asked them about the 
comparative financial burden of the long distance trains versus the 
Northeast corridor. DOT Inspector General Ken Mead made the following 
statement:

       Some have suggested that Amtrak's financial woes would go 
     away if you would cut out the trains outside the Northeast 
     corridor. That is not true. In fact, the annual net operating 
     subsidy that is required to continue Amtrak's most 
     unprofitable trains is less than one-third of the annual 
     capital subsidy that is required to operate the most 
     profitable trains in the Northeast Corridor.

  To those who would say that Amtrak just needs to eliminate its long 
distance trains to get its finances in order, I tell them to look at 
the numbers.
  Amtrak's own financial analysis of savings associated with 
eliminating 18 of the long distance trains--those are 18 trains that 
are considered the worst performers in the national system--would 
effectively yield zero savings in the first year.
  In the second year, the net savings of eliminating all 18 of those 
trains would only be about $18 million. Only after 5 years would the 
elimination of those trains yield savings that exceed $200 million.
  Let me say that again. If we eliminated all of Amtrak's 18 long 
distance trains, the railroad would eventually yield savings of $200 
million--only after 5 years.
  However, the underlying appropriations bill would call on Amtrak to 
absorb a cut of some $400 million right now, today, with only 9 months 
left in this fiscal year.
  These are the unpleasant facts that no one wants to face.
  So I encourage all Members to support this amendment. I would love to 
tell my colleagues there is an easy way to make significant savings in 
the Amtrak budget--such as the company could absorb funding reductions 
this year and next year--but the fact is there is not.
  So I ask that we provide stability for Amtrak while we debate the 
larger issues regarding the company's future. I ask that we provide 
some surety to the millions of Amtrak riders and commuter rail 
passengers across the country who depend on a solvent Amtrak. I ask 
that we provide sufficient funding so Amtrak can approach the level of 
funding it received in total in fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. President, I know there are a number of colleagues who wish to 
discuss this amendment as well. I thank Senator McCain, chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, for agreeing to accept this amendment at this time. 
I understand his need to have a reauthorization. I look forward to 
working with him on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think Senator Hollings controls the time 
for the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Murray controls the time.
  Does the Senator wish to yield?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina such time as 
he may need.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairwoman.
  Let's talk about the good news with respect to Amtrak. Eight months 
ago, the Bush administration worked with the Amtrak board to get a new 
director to operate this particular railroad. The selection, of course, 
was Mr. David Gunn who had operated the Metro system here in Washington 
and up in New York, another particular system, but more particularly, 
the Canadian railroad, with tremendous success. He had just retired to 
his home there in Nova Scotia, and they finally persuaded him to come 
and take on this task because he knows railroads. He knows what needs 
to be done. He is for reform, and he set about doing just that in the 
last 8 months.
  What has happened is that he has turned around and gotten out of the 
express business. If my distinguished colleague from Arizona, the 
chairman of our authorization committee, Senator McCain--if I could get 
his attention, the distinguished chairman of our authorizing committee, 
Senator McCain, I wanted him to know that our David Gunn, who is 
operating Amtrak, went first right to the heart of the number of 
employees. And those who were not producing he has already eliminated. 
He got out of the express business. That wasn't paying at all. And with 
a lot of objections and everything else from fruit growers, flower 
folks, and everything else, he got out of the express business. He took 
the Kentucky Cardinal line, a passenger line that I think the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona cited several times in the debate 
about a tremendous waste, and discontinued it.
  But more particularly, he opened up his books--which has never been 
done before--to the Department of Transportation. And the budget he is 
now operating under was OK'd, signed off on by this administration by 
the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, plus the 
Secretary.
  That reminds me to thank colleagues who are cosponsors on the other 
side: The distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
who has been the chairman of our Surface Transportation Committee; 
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine; Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; 
and Senator Arlen Specter of Pittsburgh.
  When I approached Senator Specter earlier today, he said: Let me just 
do some checking. He wanted to make sure this was in consonance with 
what the administration was having done. That is the case today.
  So the good news is that we are on course with what Mr. Gunn calls 
the conservative, tight budget. We are not in the red there right now. 
Yes, this $1.2 billion allows for the payback to the Department of 
Transportation. In other words, it is just swapping moneys of a $100 
million loan back to the Department of Transportation. But he is

[[Page 1291]]

working again on the reservation system with the Internet reservations 
and otherwise. Some economies can be had there with the personnel. A 
lot of these reservations now are coming through with the Internet.
  I could list out many other good things. There is a bill in Chairman 
McCain's committee with 30 cosponsors for reform. I pledge to work with 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona, with whom I have worked during 
the past few years in perfect harmony. We have agreed on just about 
everything. We wanted reform. He wants reform. I want reform.
  I was having difficulties from time to time trying to explain what 
they were doing because I couldn't get the information. But we now have 
an open operation there with David Gunn.
  What happens is, with the $1.2 billion the Appropriations Committee 
just reported out, they thought they had some carryovers and everything 
else and cut it back to $826 million. With that cutback to $826 
million--it was not considered by us or anybody on the committee--that 
actually is a 27-percent cut under the present operation. We presently 
are operating on a continuing resolution of 1.1, plus the $100 million 
loan to pay back to the Department of Transportation. So what happens 
is, that is a 27-percent cut.
  Mr. Gunn comes in in distress and says: Look, if that occurs, we will 
run out. We are operating very economically, very conservatively. I 
have some other initiatives that I will put in, but by April, under 
this particular $826 million amount, I will have to be closing down 
sometime this spring.
  None of us wants that. I am sure the chairman of the committee and 
all of us want to make sure we do the right thing.
  Incidentally, we have an operator in Mr. Gunn who is not going to 
play games. We have had others who evidently liked the job, needed the 
job, or wanted the job, or whatever it was, and so they went along over 
the last 30 years. To give colleagues some grasp of this situation, 
Amtrak has always come for over $1 billion in requests, and they have 
always compromised at around $500 million. So at $500 million, on an 
average, per year, it amounts to about $15 billion in a 30-year period.
  Now, wait a minute; 9/11; the airlines immediately got $15 billion. 
Plus the airport and airways transportation act is another $15 billion. 
Here comes where we really need some reform, $30 billion in 1 year, and 
we keep jumping and picking and picking and nagging and fussing at 
Amtrak when we ought to be fussing at each other. We are the ones who 
really haven't gotten into it.
  Thanks to the leadership of Senator McCain, we are getting into it 
because, as chairman, he has said: We are not going to let this one go 
unless we work together on reform.
  With that in mind, let me yield the floor and thank these particular 
Senators and Chairman Murray here on her leadership also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I have 5 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from New Jersey and 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, and I ask 
the Senator from Arizona if he wants to use time before us since he has 
not had time on his side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Go ahead. I am fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington 
and commend her and Senator Hollings for their work on getting this 
amendment in front of us. And I am pleased to see the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee here because over the years, while this is the first 
time I have spoken on the floor in a couple of years, nevertheless, the 
tune is similar and we have sung it before. I hope that finally we will 
come to the realization that Amtrak is not simply a Northeast corridor 
program, that it is an essential part of an intermodal transportation 
system. That fact was made abundantly clear on September 11, 2001, when 
jet-liners crashed into the World Trade Center and shocked America to 
its very core. Aviation--I never believed that it would shut down--was 
shut down across the country as a result of that terrible tragedy. 
Highways were jammed. Thank goodness we had Amtrak still running. It 
kept some semblance of order going between Washington and New York and 
throughout the Northeast region.
  How quickly this seems to be forgotten when we get to appropriating 
proper funding for Amtrak to continue its operations. Amtrak has been 
starved almost since birth. We heard the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina talk about the amount of funds that were put into Amtrak 
over a 30-year period--something like $500 to $750 million a year, 
which is certainly not peanuts in anybody's vocabulary--but the fact 
is, we have just never spent enough.
  Last fall, the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $1.20 billion 
for Amtrak. The bill we are considering tonight cuts that amount by 
$374 million, to $826 million. That's a cut of nearly one-third! Amtrak 
would be better off under the Continuing Resolution, which at least 
provides $1.04 billion. Amtrak can't survive on $826 million--it's that 
simple, that stark.
  I was with the distinguished Senator from Arizona at a meeting in 
Brussels when there was a NATO gathering there, and I took the train 
from Brussels to Paris. The train ride was about 200 miles--roughly the 
equivalent of the ride to Washington from New York, which is 225 
miles--and it took an hour and 25 minutes. Can you imagine what would 
happen to the traffic along I-95 if we could ride like that from 
Washington to New York? Even if the New York to DC trip were 2 hours, 
frankly, it would not pay to go near the airport--not by the time you 
get out to the airport, finish parking and unloading, and all that. We 
could avoid so many problems. Two hours, city to city, would facilitate 
so much travel and commerce between these two capitals, New York City, 
the financial capital of the world, and Washington, DC, the capital of 
our great country.
  So when we look at what we have done, what we have done is just not 
enough. Amtrak has received $24.2 billion in Federal support since its 
creation in 1971. To put that in perspective, it's less than we spent 
on highways just in 2001 alone. In the 1980s, the Western European 
nations made a push to develop their high speed corridors and spent 
$101 billion in just ten years. That is more than four times what we 
have spent in 30 years.
  It is time now to start facing up to the reality. The Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA)--a precious instrument in terms of our 
aviation system--got $13 billion worth of funds this year; $3 billion 
of that came from the General Treasury and $10 billion came from 
passenger facility charges and taxes on aviation.
  What happened after 9/11 with aviation? I think the Senator from 
South Carolina made reference to it. The fact is, we had to go to the 
airlines and bail them out further, make sure they got plenty of 
subsidies.
  I hope this amendment that is being offered here to restore fiscal 
year 2003 funding for Amtrak to $1.2 billion is passed--but not only 
passed here. I ask the Senator from South Carolina, can we be confident 
that this amendment won't fall by the wayside in conference? Can we be 
confident that we have the full support of the leadership in the 
Senate, especially on the Majority's side, when Committee Members sit 
down at the table with their House counterparts to discuss this 
funding? I certainly hope so because it is essential.
  We spent almost $10 billion on Northeast Corridor infrastructure 
improvements. About a third of that amount was for the electrification 
of the line from New Haven to Boston to make sure we had continuous 
service. There has been a real improvement in rail passenger service in 
the Northeast as a result, and there has been an improvement in rail 
passenger service in the country. But we can and need to do more.

[[Page 1292]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for 1 more minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. So we have made improvements and 
they have been popularly received. People could not stop talking about 
what a nice ride it is from Washington to Wilmington to New York to--
you name it, along the way. What a change from what we used to have.
  I hope my colleagues will recognize that continued investment in 
Amtrak and higher speed rail is essential for our Nation. It is not 
just a Northeast corridor thing, which is often the mythology here. And 
I hope that we will see a positive vote on this amendment, supported 
further by an insistence that the conference committee retain the full 
funding.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to 
restore funding to Amtrak. I just served as chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee and we had a great interest--and still do--
in the health of Amtrak.
  Amtrak president, David Gunn, has made clear that failure to 
adequately fund the railroad will lead to its bankruptcy and 
liquidation of its assets. This will cost us far more than the dollar 
value of this amendment. That is unacceptable to my State of Vermont 
and to the Nation.
  Across the Nation, Amtrak carries over 23 million riders a year, or 
roughly 65,000 riders each day. On holidays and other peak times, 
Amtrak is the best option for many of our citizens.
  An Amtrak bankruptcy will have a devastating effect on employment and 
the economy. Amtrak alone employs over 23,000 Americans, and roughly 
233,000 commuters will find their daily trip to work delayed and 
disrupted.
  In Vermont, as in many rural States, Amtrak is an essential service. 
My home State provides over $2 million a year to maintain Amtrak 
service to our towns and villages. If we turn away from Amtrak tonight, 
Vermonters will surely lose this very vital service.
  On September 11, Amtrak kept America moving as our airports were 
idled. I was chairman of the committee at that time and I know the fear 
we had that Amtrak would not be able to keep going. We need the 
redundancy in our transportation system, especially in light of the 
continuing threats.
  Even when it is Mother Nature who comes calling, as in the blizzards 
on the east coast in recent years, the rail mode makes it through while 
our highways and airports are buried and stopped.
  I have spent the last year examining the state of our Nation's 
transportation system. The system is hemorrhaging. Our highways and 
airports are congested and unreliable. We need a viable third choice. 
Passenger rail is that choice.
  The United States stands alone among the world's advanced countries 
in our neglect of the rail mode. Europe, in particular, has a modern 
rail system, a key part of its balanced continental transportation 
network. Europe is developing new and advanced rail technologies and 
exporting these technologies around the world. I have seen 
demonstrations of those technologies.
  Our Nation's surface and aviation programs are up for renewal during 
this session of Congress. So is Amtrak. This is the year to shape 
America's transportation future, and that is a job for Congress, not 
for the bankruptcy court.
  As the ranking member on the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, I don't want to give away a third of our option--our passenger 
rail system--before we even begin.
  Our choice is clear. We can shortchange Amtrak, throw away its 
assets, disrupt the economy, and forfeit this unique chance to create a 
balanced transportation system or we can restore Amtrak funding, 
preserve our options, and bring our Nation's transportation system into 
the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I thank Senator Hollings for his continued efforts on this 
issue. It has been a great pleasure and honor for me to have had the 
privilege of working with him for the last 16, 17 years as a member of 
the Commerce Committee, where I find the most interesting and 
challenging issues.
  Frankly, this issue of Amtrak, to me, has been one of complete 
frustration. I say that because time after time after time, until the 
present administrator of Amtrak became the head of Amtrak, Mr. Gunn, 
with those who ran this organization, which was put together in 1973, I 
believe, and was committed to being financially independent within 3 
years, there has been an endless drain of resources, an endless series 
of frustrations, and a continuous battle, which goes on as we speak.
  I think it is important, particularly in light of the last comments 
made by my dear friend from Vermont and my newly renewed friend from 
New Jersey, who rejoins us, about the importance of Amtrak. The fact 
is, Amtrak carries less than 1 percent of the traveling public, and we 
continue to pour in billions of dollars.
  We are subsidizing--it is remarkable--we are subsidizing long 
distance the Lake County Limited, $1,218.45 per passenger--per 
passenger. You could charter an airplane and fly these passengers from 
one place to the other rather than pay $1,200; the Sunset Limited, 
$347.45; the Pennsylvania, $292.34; the Three Rivers, $244.99 per 
passenger. We recently, thank God, canceled the Lake County Limited 
which was subsidizing $1,218.45 per passenger.
  I say to my friends, the reality is that Amtrak is probably a vital 
and important means of transportation for the Northeast corridor. It 
has the potential to perform that same vital function in the Far West. 
But to continue with this grandiose vision of a national train system 
where you envision someone getting on a train in Dallas and riding that 
train all the way to Los Angeles, which takes about 2 days now, where 
they can go to the airport in Dallas and fly to Los Angeles in about 2 
\1/2\ hours, is crazy. It is crazy.
  Americans are not interested, even if you have a 200-mile-an-hour 
train. I say to the Presiding Officer, at present, they are not going 
to get on a train in Atlanta and go to San Francisco. They may for 
vacation, and they may for recreation, but to think it will ever be 
anything close to sustaining just flies in the face of every experience 
we have had since Amtrak was formed.
  I am glad to hear of the commitment to reform Amtrak on the part of 
my distinguished friend from South Carolina who knows as much about 
this issue as any Member of this body. I am pleased the Senator from 
Alaska who, in negotiations, as this bill goes into conference, will 
insist that we come up with a reform plan. I am encouraged, I am 
exuberant that Mr. Gunn has taken control, and already, as my friend 
from South Carolina has pointed out, has made some very tough decisions 
and increased efficiency rather dramatically.
  Let me also point out to my friends, despite claims that it is 
essentially the same level, ridership is the same level as it was in 
1979. I remind my friends to read again the August 6 Washington Post.

       The Acela Express, the premium high-speed train that Amtrak 
     has counted on. . . .

  That I heard for years was the panacea; this was the pot of gold we 
were looking for.

       Amtrak President David L. Gunn said that Amtrak will never 
     order another Acela Express, which is manufactured by a 
     consortium of Bombardier Transportation of Montreal and 
     Alstom of Paris.
       The train has become highly popular with travelers in the 
     Northeast Corridor but has also become increasingly 
     unreliable. In July, the number of Acela problems spiked. 
     There was an average of one cancellation or en-route 
     breakdown for mechanical reasons every day. The train also 
     has the worst on-time record for any Northeast Corridor 
     train.


[[Page 1293]]


  This, I say to my friends, is the train that was going to solve all 
our problems because we would be able to get from Washington to New 
York in an hour to an hour and a half. Now Mr. Gunn is not going to 
order any more of them. In fact, he is going to go to court and sue 
them for the lousy product he got.
       But the trains experienced repeated delays and 
     developmental problems. The first one arrived more than a 
     year after the last extended deadline. In a rush to get the 
     trains on line, the manufacturer made modifications to each 
     train set to solve the latest problem, meaning that none of 
     the 18 train sets delivered to Amtrak so far is the same as 
     any other.

  My God.

       That fact complicates maintenance and trouble shooting.
       Gunn said the problems range from the serious--one Acela 
     electronic braking system froze up and blocked other traffic 
     North of Union Station--to less serious, such as restroom 
     doors that sometimes stick and trap passengers inside.
       ``You'd think that after 170 years of railroading, you 
     could have a crapper door that works,'' Gunn says.

  Some of this is entertaining, but it is also the investment of 
billions of taxpayers' money. I urge all of my colleagues to read a 
very interesting article out of the New York Times Sunday magazine, 
``Amtrak Must Die: A Train Lover's Lament.'' It is a very interesting 
and entertaining article which I will not read because it is at some 
length. But it talks about an individual who got on a train in Chicago 
and tried to get out to L.A. hours late. It is just a sad story, but it 
is a story that is repeated.
  My point is, after dealing with this issue for all these years, we 
need fundamental reform. I wish to point out--and I think all my 
colleagues should know--we are going to provide them now with enough to 
meet the $1.2 billion Mr. Gunn says he needs. He also says he needs 
$2.2 billion next year. He needs $2.2 billion next year to keep 
operating.
  Now remember, we are talking about less than 1 percent of the 
passengers of the traveling public. For less than 1 percent of the 
traveling public, we are going to spend $1.2 billion this year, $2.2 
billion next year, and God only knows when this will stop.
  We have every right to expect reform, and if that reform means 
cutting long distance lines, then we ought to admit there is a clear 
record that some long distance lines do not work and no one wants to 
ride them. The facts are overwhelming.
  When I say we are going to have reform, I mean reform, and that means 
the Department of Transportation has to come up with a plan, and that 
plan has to be validated by Mr. Gunn, who has already gained great 
credibility amongst all of us, and then that plan has to be put into 
effect.
  I wish to point out one other point in my conversation, and I am sure 
Senator Hollings had the same conversation with Mr. Gunn. If the States 
want to contribute, and admittedly States are in severe difficulty now, 
including my own, to maintain these routes, then we welcome it. I think 
it is a fine idea. It may be difficult because when you go through one 
State from another to another, then you have to have participation of 
all the States. But we have to think outside the box.
  Thirty years ago we were going to have a fiscally independent Amtrak 
in 3 years. Maybe that was unrealistic at the time, but as short a time 
as 2 years ago, Mr. Gunn's predecessor testified before the Commerce 
Committee and said: We are on the glidepath to fiscal independence. 
Those were his exact words. I looked at him with astonishment and 
amazement because nobody who knew anything about Amtrak believed that. 
But yet we sat there and watched Amtrak deteriorate further and 
further.
  The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, an attempt that 
again Senator Hollings and I and Members of the Commerce Committee 
made, provided the operational procurement, labor and liability reforms 
that Amtrak requested so it could operate more as a legitimate 
business. The reforms were designed to allow Amtrak to run its 
operations based on good business decisions rather than political 
pressures. For example, reforms allowed Amtrak to set its own route 
structure instead of conform to a statutory mandate. Reforms allowed 
Amtrak to contract out work where it decided it would make sense. 
Reforms allowed Amtrak to negotiate reasonable labor protection 
agreements. Unfortunately, little, if any, progress was made as a 
result.
  As I said, for years after the passage of that bill, Amtrak presented 
glowing reports on its achievement that it was on a glide path to self-
sufficiency. How many times did members of the Commerce Committee hear 
those words: We are on a glide path to self-sufficiency?
  If I sound a bit cynical, it is because we have not been told the 
truth, but I do believe that Mr. Gunn has. Mr. Gunn's straight talk has 
been refreshing.
  In a letter to me, Mr. Gunn stated:

       Amtrak pretended it was on a glide path to self-sufficiency 
     and maintained that fiction far too long. It took actions 
     such as borrowing money through a variety of means, the 
     primary example being the mortgage of Penn Station last year, 
     and now debt service is a huge cost. This is not a way to run 
     a railroad and not the way I will run the railroad. Too many 
     happy words have hidden some very dismal financial results.

  That really is the first time, in Mr. Gunn's letter to me, that we 
have had a straightforward and honest depiction of Amtrak's conditions. 
I think that was the day when many of us began having confidence that 
Mr. Gunn's stewardship would lead to some beneficial results.
  Over the past decade, Amtrak spent almost $3 billion in taxpayers' 
dollars on the Northeast corridor to develop higher speed service, as I 
mentioned. Acela was to have been Amtrak's silver bullet for achieving 
operational self-sufficiency, reportedly generating $180 million in 
profits annually. Instead, it has become another of their many failures 
over the past 5 years and has raised concerns about Amtrak's ability to 
handle major rail infrastructure projects.
  Problems with the project, as I mentioned, have included significant 
cost overruns, a year's delay in the introduction of Acela service and 
ongoing mechanical problems with the equipment. The latter recently 
became so severe that Amtrak was forced to remove the train sets from 
service for considerable periods of time. Again, we are losing a huge 
amount of money per passenger on those routes I mentioned before.
  So I want to thank my colleagues for their involvement in this issue. 
I really believe we have every right to demand a genuine proposal to 
reform the system. I believe we need a Northeast corridor. I believe we 
may need them in the West and we may need them in other parts of the 
country, but the burden of proof of having to need them lies with 
Amtrak and its proponents, and we should not be asking our citizens to 
continue to subsidize routes in the hundreds and sometimes even 
thousands of dollars per passenger that will never, ever, become 
economically viable.
  So the status quo at $2 billion, in my view, which will be what 
Amtrak will be asking for next year, is not affordable or acceptable.
  I guess this is a triumph of hope over good sense. I hope it is not, 
but I have some confidence that Mr. Gunn will work with us and the 
appropriators, as well as the authorizers, and come up with a reform 
plan that will give us a system that Americans can be proud of rather 
than the shameful history of Amtrak over the last 30 years.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be joined as a cosponsor on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I know the Senator from Alaska, the manager of this bill, 
has been confined to quarters, so to speak, but I wanted to make sure 
everyone understood the snow is starting, and so maybe that will 
shorten some of the speeches.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be pleased to go out and see my normal condition 
of life and enjoy the snow this evening.
  Does the Senator from Delaware expect to speak tonight?

[[Page 1294]]


  Mr. CARPER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time do I have remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen and a half minutes are remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be listed 
as a cosponsor on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time does Senator Carper need?
  Mr. CARPER. I would appreciate 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Five or less, and the Senator from Illinois would like 3 
minutes. And I believe that is all we have.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware and 3 minutes to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
yielding 5 minutes. I also express my thanks to her, and especially 
Senator Hollings, for their work. I say to Senator McCain that I 
appreciate his comments and his willingness to join with the Senator 
from Delaware last year as we tried to address the issue of rail 
security.
  It looks like we will pass, on a voice vote, an appropriation level 
for Amtrak which will carry Amtrak through the balance of this fiscal 
year. That sets the stage for a robust debate, which we need to have, 
on whether the future of passenger rail service in this country is the 
Northeast corridor and maybe some routes on the West Coast. If there 
are other high speed corridors that make sense, if there are long 
distance trains such as the Auto Train that make sense, I welcome that 
debate. The concurrence of reauthorization of T-21, reauthorization of 
our transportation programs along with reauthorization of Amtrak, is a 
very fortunate confluence of events. I think we will have the 
opportunity to maybe do the right thing not just by Amtrak but by the 
people of this country.
  I have said on this floor before and I will say it again tonight, 
when Amtrak was created roughly 30 years ago it was created at a time 
when private rail companies wanted out of the passenger business. They 
could not make money carrying passengers. They said to Congress: Let us 
out of that business, and Congress freed them of that responsibility.
  Amtrak was created with the private railroads, the freight railroads, 
giving to this new entity their old rolling stock, their old passenger 
cars, their old cafe cars, their old locomotives. Amtrak was given the 
old track bed from Washington to Boston. Amtrak was given the old 
repair shops, the old train stations. Somehow, given all this old 
equipment and being undercapitalized for 30 years, we said to Amtrak we 
expect them to make money when nobody in the private sector could make 
money.
  There are a number of other countries around the world that have 
terrific passenger rail service. We have talked about some of them 
tonight. The reason why they have good passenger rail service is 
because they believe it is in the naked self-interest of their country 
to invest in passenger rail, and that is some of the reason why they do 
it. They want to reduce their reliance on foreign oil. They want to 
reduce the size of their trade deficits that grow out of importing 
foreign oil. They want to reduce the amount of congestion they have on 
their highways and at their airports. They are concerned about the 
quality of the air and the kinds of emissions that their cars, trucks, 
and vans put up into the air.
  As a result, those countries rather generously support passenger rail 
service. They do not do it for reasons of altruism or nostalgia. They 
think it is in their naked self-interest, and it is. When we think 
about it, we have an interest in clean air as well in this country. We 
have problems with congestion around our airports and our roads as 
well. We have a huge trade deficit, $400 billion this year. About a 
third of that is imported oil.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, I do not think it makes sense for us 
to run trains where people do not want to ride them. But today in this 
country, 75 percent of Americans live within 50 miles of one of our 
coasts. Think about that. That provides for a lot of congestion, but it 
also provides for some wonderful high speed train routes that if we are 
smart we will figure out how to take advantage of and give people the 
chance to move throughout those densely populated corridors more 
quickly.
  From time to time, there is going to be a train like the Auto Train 
which runs south of Washington, DC, down to Orlando. It leaves every 
day and comes back every day. It basically makes money. A lot of people 
ride the train. It is the longest train in the world. They take their 
cars, trucks, and vans, hitch them up to the train and head on south or 
bring them back from Florida. There are probably some other routes like 
that around the country that would make sense, too.
  Then there are some States where, frankly, the States would like to 
put in some of their own money in order to have passenger rail service 
to routes that are losing money, but inexplicably, at least to me as an 
old Governor, I was never allowed to use Delaware's Federal 
transportation money or congestion mitigation money to help provide for 
passenger rail. We could use that money in our State for freight 
railroads, for bicycle paths, but we could not use it to help pay for 
passenger rail service. That makes no sense. We should give States and 
Governors the flexibility to use a portion--not all, a portion--of 
their Federal transportation money to invest in passenger rail if it 
makes sense for the States.
  We will have a great debate this year. It is time for that debate. I 
am pleased to participate with all my colleagues on this. I thank 
Senator Murray for her leadership, Senator Byrd and Senator Hollings 
for their work, Senator Hutchison, Senator Specter, and others who 
believe in the cause.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, we look forward to a debate that 
will lead to better passenger rail service and, frankly, the return of 
common sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the Senator from New York if he has a request.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the 
body for 7 minutes after my colleague from Oregon.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 8\1/2\ 
minutes and already yielded 3 to the Senator from Illinois, so there 
are about 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I ask 
unanimous consent to be included as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arizona is a 
skeptic on Amtrak, and whether there is forbearance or blind hope, 
thank you. And thank you to the Senator from Washington for showing 
leadership because $1.2 billion means Amtrak has hope and an 
opportunity.
  It means a lot when you consider the context of our Federal support 
for transportation: Over $30 billion for highways each year, over $10 
billion for airports, so $1.2 billion for national passenger rail 
service is not an extraordinary amount of money in that context.
  People talk about the coastal service. The Senator from Delaware made 
that point a moment ago. But for the State of Illinois, it means that 
2.6 million passengers last year used Amtrak. If Amtrak disappears and 
we do not provide the money the Senator from Washington asks for, 2.6 
million trips will be converted into automobile trips, by and large, 
and that means more highway congestion, more pollution, more use of 
petroleum products, and more dependence on foreign oil. None of that is 
good for my State of Illinois. We value Amtrak. It not only means a lot 
of service, it means a lot of jobs. I think it is important to our 
economy.

[[Page 1295]]

  My hometown, a downstate city, is the largest user of Amtrak outside 
of the city of Chicago. We believe in Amtrak. We believe investing in 
Amtrak and improving its service so we can have high-speed rail is 
going to dramatically increase passenger ridership. I hope those who 
are skeptical of Amtrak will understand we have in this new 
administrator, Mr. Gunn, a man who has been brutally honest in terms of 
the future of Amtrak and what it needs, and the Senator from Washington 
is offering him the resources he needs to continue to reform this 
important service to our Nation. I thank the Senator from Washington 
for her leadership on this.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on July 26, 2002, just 6 months ago, the 
Committee on Appropriations, on a unanimous, bipartisan vote reported a 
Transportation Appropriations bill that included $1.2 billion in 
funding for Amtrak.
  At that time, Amtrak had just weathered a severe financial crisis. 
Amtrak's President, Mr. David Gunn, testified before the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, just a few weeks into his tenure, and 
described to us the desperate financial conditions he found when he 
assumed control of the railroad.
  It was only through a combination of a $205 million supplemental 
appropriation that our Committee approved back in July, as well as a 
temporary loan by the Bush Administration against the railroad's 2003 
appropriation, that the railroad survived and continues to run to this 
day.
  That Amtrak funding crisis served as a wake-up call for many of us in 
Congress as well as for the millions of Amtrak riders and the millions 
of commuter rail riders whose train service depends on a viable 
operating Amtrak system.
  However, when the new Republican majority drafted its new 
appropriations bill for the Transportation Department, it singled out 
Amtrak for a whopping $374 million cut, a reduction of over 31 percent.
  Amtrak's new President, David Gunn, has made clear in letters to me 
and to Senator Stevens, Senator Shelby, Senator Murray, and others that 
a funding cut of this kind will mean certain bankruptcy for Amtrak by 
this coming Spring.
  Now many Senators will speak on this amendment, including a great 
many that represent the states along the Northeast Corridor.
  These Members will speak to the impact of an Amtrak bankruptcy on the 
very fine rail service that we have between Boston and Washington, DC.
  These Members will speak on what a bankrupt Amtrak means for their 
daily commuter lines that are either operated by Amtrak under contract 
or operate over Amtrak's property. But as a Senator from West Virginia, 
I want to speak today on what Amtrak means to rural America. Amtrak 
does not just stop in cities like Boston, New York, and Washington, DC.
  Amtrak serves communities like Beckley, WV; Hinton, WV; Alderson, WV; 
Charleston, WV; Huntington, WV; Martinsburg, WV, and, Harpers Ferry, 
WV. These are some of the communities in my state that are served by 
Amtrak.
  I can tell you that for a great many of the citizens in those 
communities, the Amtrak train may be the only way into town and the 
only way out. When you talk about long-distance travel, the situation 
is no different in the great many other communities that are served by 
Amtrak: communities like Pascagoula, MS; Lordsburg, NM; Crestview, FL; 
Gilman, IL; Wilson, NC; Libby, MT; Winona, MN; Fort Morgan, CO; White 
Salmon, WA; Sun River, OR; Fulton, KY; Ardmore, OK; and Weaverville, 
CA.
  Many of the communities I have just named, like so many communities 
across the United States, were put on the map by the arrival of the 
freight railroads as they were built across our country east and west, 
north and south.
  Those communities continue to be connected to our national rail 
network and our national economy through Amtrak.
  The service may not be the kind of high speed, high comfort rail 
service that people have come to expect in the Northeast, but it is 
service that gets grandmothers to their grandchildren; it gets soldiers 
home to see their parents; it gets college students home for the 
holidays; and lest we forget, Amtrak moved Americans all over this 
country, immediately after September 11, when our aviation system was 
brought to a complete halt.
  We are now faced with a funding proposal to take all of rural America 
off of the national rail map and do away with passenger service in its 
entirety; not just in the heartland of America, but in the Northeast as 
well.
  I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to talk to the mayors of 
their towns on the Amtrak rail map and see how they feel about losing 
their daily service. At a time when rural communities across the 
country are suffering from economic isolation, ask the people of those 
communities if they want even greater isolation by losing their rail 
service.
  The Amendment that we have offered here today holds the promise of 
continued rail service and the promise that Amtrak's new president, Mr. 
David Gunn, will continue his efforts that he just started in getting 
the railroad's costs under control and creating a national network of 
which we all can be proud. I ask all of my colleagues to support this 
Amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York 
be given 2 minutes of my remaining time and the Senator from Delaware 
be given 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her leadership, the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from West 
Virginia, and I thank our Senator from Arizona for letting this 
amendment go through. If we did not, we would have the same situation 
we had last August when Amtrak closed.
  I find it rather perplexing that so many of my colleagues are willing 
to subsidize the basic transportation infrastructure for roads--it is 
the Federal Government, not the passengers, that pays for roads--we are 
willing to pay for airports--again, Federal Government money pays for 
airports, both general aviation and commercial aviation--but we are not 
willing to do it for rail. It makes no sense, no sense whatever. It is 
unfair. It is probably geographic. Every State has airports and every 
State has roads but not every State has Amtrak. So people who do the 
same thing for air and for roads do not do it for rail.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield on my time?
  Mr. SCHUMER. On the Senator's time.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is a tax fund for roads with the gasoline tax; 
there is a fund for airports with airplane tickets. How about a program 
that charges people on trains to pay for whatever you need for trains?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, that is something we could consider. 
May I answer on the Senator's time?
  Mr. STEVENS. It is not my time now.
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is something we should consider, but we should not 
consider pulling the rug out from Amtrak. Roads are subsidized far 
beyond the nickel gas tax, and airports are taxed far beyond the ticket 
price. Federal dollars go into each of those; we all know that. It is 
not simply that one is subsidized by the other. It makes no sense if 
you just believe in air and roads.
  Before September 11, we had delay after delay after delay in the 
Northeast and then throughout the country in the air. In Europe, where 
they have as great a density, they do not have it. If you go a short 
distance, you take a speedy train. If you go from Paris to London, you 
take the Chunnel. From Paris to Frankfurt, you take the TGV. We will 
have to have rail in this country because we do not have enough space 
at the airports, we do not have enough space on the roads in the 
Northeast corridor, in California, and

[[Page 1296]]

in so many other parts of the country where we have dense populations. 
So let's all pull together.
  My good friend from Arizona fights subsidies in a lot of places, and 
I appreciate that. But so many others will vote for subsidies in every 
other place, but when it comes to rail, we say no. That makes no sense. 
It is unfair.
  I am glad we have this amendment on the floor. I salute the 
leadership of my colleagues. I hope we will do something about Amtrak. 
The new head of Amtrak will shut that place down if we do not fund it, 
and then the country will have an economic cataclysm that will affect 
everyone, whether you have Amtrak in your community and in your State 
or not.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are once again back here on the Senate 
floor fighting for the future of passenger rail in this country.
  Everyone here is well aware of my position on railroads. 
Unfortunately, this is a battle that those of us who believe in 
passenger rail service have had to make over and over.
  I don't need to tell anyone here that our national rail system is at 
a crossroads. Decades of underfunding have finally caught up to us.
  Amtrak is struggling to stay afloat. They have imposed drastic 
spending cuts in the last 2 years. They have deferred key capital 
maintenance projects. They have mortgaged Penn Station in New York--
their most valuable asset. They have slashed jobs.
  These short-term moves have only served to worsen Amtrak's long-term 
financial viability and put its future in jeopardy.
  For 30 years, Congress has dragged its feet. It has taken a back-seat 
approach to dealing with the long-term needs of a national passenger 
rail system. It stalled. It bickered. In the end, it provided only 
enough money to allow Amtrak to continue to limp along.
  And we broke the deal we made with Amtrak to help it meet its capital 
needs. Year after year, Amtrak received only $521 million--far less 
than it was promised--forcing it to turn to private sector loans and 
dramatically increasing it debt burden.
  No industrialized country in the world operates a rail system that is 
completely self-sufficient. Japan, Germany, France--all of the 
supposedly superior, successful rail systems, received some level of 
subsidy from their governments, in most cases far more than that sought 
by Amtrak.
  They understand the enormous capital costs involved in developing and 
maintaining a national rail system. Why don't we? Why don't we speak 
the truth: America needs a passenger rail system and it will take a 
national commitment. It makes sense. It's simple common sense.
  And yet, though we've made a substantial commitment to highway and 
aviation development--over $750 billion since 1971--somehow we don't 
seem to get it. We don't seem to understand the parallel commitment 
necessary for railroads.
  Instead, we have starved the rail system. And that's why Amtrak is in 
this situation today.
  We have to end that practice. We have to sit down with governors, 
mayors, railroad workers--with everyone who cares about keeping the 
railroads solvent, safe, and moving.
  We need to discuss and resolve the kind of passenger rail system this 
country deserves. And how much support from Federal, State, and local 
agencies will be needed to sustain it now and over time.
  And we need to do this in the larger context--taking into account 
increasing capacity constraints on our highways, at our airports, the 
chronic overcrowding, and the air pollution that comes from that.
  I commend my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina, Senator 
Hollings, because as chairman of the Commerce Committee, he made the 
reauthorization of Amtrak a priority and stepped up to the plate--
recognizing the depth of commitment that is needed. I am proud to 
cosponsor his bill.
  But this is not what we're fighting over today. Today, we are asking 
for the life-support to keep Amtrak moving until we are able to reach a 
consensus on its future. If we don't adopt this amendment, if we don't 
fund Amtrak at $1.2 billion this year, this system will die, commerce 
will be disrupted, passengers will be abandoned, and it will cost us 
much more to build a new rail system down the road.
  I want to thank the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, and the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, for giving Amtrak a 
fighting chance, and to give us the time we need to resolve these 
issues.
  Last spring, Amtrak got a new president, David Gunn. Right out of the 
gate he was faced with the prospects of shutting down the system 
because of the lack of operating funds.
  We were here less than a year ago, fighting for an emergency $200 
million to keep the trains running.
  This administration was not especially receptive to the idea of 
helping, but in the end, after long hours, an agreement was reached and 
Amtrak got the infusion of funds it needed to keep going.
  But David Gunn made it clear to the Congress even before then that in 
this fiscal year--the one we are in right now--Amtrak was going to need 
$1.2 billion in this year to stay alive.
  The administration sent up a budget with just a placeholder number in 
it: $521 million--the same number Amtrak has received in other recent 
years. But everyone knew that number wasn't real, that it was grossly 
insufficient.
  The number in this bill is grossly insufficient as well. Its $374 
million short. Once more, Amtrak is getting underfunded. But this time 
we can't expect it to keep limping along. This time--if we don't step 
up to our commitment--we're going to strand millions of rail 
passengers.
  We need to give David Gunn the resources he needs to get Amtrak back 
on its feet again. Now--with new leadership at the helm--it is critical 
that we don't short change Amtrak one more time.
  Mr. President, this is unusual for me. I thank my friend from 
Arizona. I appreciate him. My friend from Arizona is right on one very 
basic point. We have had such a stark disagreement, he and I, for so 
many years, as close as we are. It is the only thing ever where we have 
gotten each other's hackles up, and in the middle of these debates we 
have occasionally felt like walking across and pummeling one another, 
but we are close friends.
  But he is right--and I mean this sincerely--about one important 
thing. We should make a decision. We should shut this sucker down or we 
should fund it. I have been fighting this fight for 30 years as a 
Senator, and it is always a bridge too far. I am not referring to my 
friend from Arizona because he says: Look, let's figure out how to 
reorganize this sucker; let's chop it, move it, change it, but whatever 
we are going to do, let's do it.
  I agree. Let's have the final fight here. Not tonight. Let's this 
year have a fight over whether or not to reauthorize Amtrak. Let's do 
it. If we do it--whatever we call it, subsidy or not--let's pay for it. 
If we call them giveaways, whatever it is, let's just be realistic and 
decide, is it worth the price?
  It reminds me--and I will end with this--every single year I have 
come on this floor since the Nixon administration, and said: I will 
take whatever you can give me; just keep part of it open; just keep it 
open. It was always less than everyone said was needed to make it run. 
It kind of reminds me of when we talk about vouchers--I am not talking 
about my friend from Arizona--we talk about vouchers for school.
  In my State, the cost of the average private school is about $1,500. 
If you go to the real private schools, they cost about $13,000 a year, 
like down here in Washington. If I go to some African- American or 
Latino kid in the neighborhood and say: You have $500. Here it is. I 
could give him $5,000, if the cost is $13,000--I could give him 
$10,000--and he can't get there. That is kind of where Amtrak is. There 
is no way to get from here to there without funding it, like I guess we 
have basically reached an agreement on. We are going to get, at least 
initially here, a reform.

[[Page 1297]]

  I thank my friend. I really hope this year he and I and others--the 
leader in this deal for me has always been Senator Hollings, and now 
Patty Murray, who has for the last I don't know how many years headed 
up this subcommittee. I think we should just have a knockdown, drag it 
out debate about whether we should have the railroad or not. If we have 
it, fund it. If not, let's get rid of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 28 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator from Delaware like to take a couple of 
extra minutes?
  Mr. BIDEN. No, I am fine. I said all I want to say. I sincerely mean 
what I said about let's decide whether we are going to have this system 
or not.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Delaware. I will just take a few 
minutes, I say to my dear friend from Delaware. I just want to point 
out I don't think the decision necessarily has to be to shut it down or 
to fund it. I think it is to reform the system.
  The Senator from New York just came on and talked about how the 
general funds subsidize aviation. The fact is that $3.08 over the last 
5 years has come out of the general fund per passenger. Compare that 
with the Sunset Limited, which is $347 per passenger; the Texas Eagle, 
which is $258 per passenger; the Pennsylvanian, which is $292 per 
passenger; the Lake County Limited, which has been canceled--$1,200 per 
passenger.
  The fact is that most of the funding for highways and for air service 
in America comes out of user fees. It comes out of trust funds that are 
funded by user fees. And we just laid a whole lot more on the airlines 
in the interest of aviation safety.
  But the fact is that if it is going to cost $347 per passenger, then 
the Senator from Delaware is right: You either shut it down or you tell 
the American people that we are going to fund the Sunset Limited for 
$347 per passenger forever. Or we are going to tell the American people 
that we are going to fund the Northeast corridor, we are going to fund 
the Far West and other places in the country where it is economically 
viable and, in many cases, as the Senator from Delaware and the Senator 
from Vermont have pointed out, vital to have that service.
  The problem with Amtrak has not been in the Northeast, although the 
mismanagement--I am sorry you were not here while we talked about Acela 
and those incredible failures.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I think I could have guessed 
what he said.
  Mr. McCAIN. They are the words of Mr. Gunn, the new President, not 
mine--the new President of Amtrak, Mr. Gunn, about their failures. I am 
sorry the Senator from Delaware wasn't here:

       Amtrak pretended it was on a glidepath to self-sufficiency 
     and maintained that fiction far too long. It took action such 
     as borrowing money through a variety of means, the primary 
     example being the mortgaging of Penn Station last year, and 
     now debt service is a huge cost. That's not the way to run a 
     railroad and not the way I will run the railroad. Too many 
     happy words have hidden very dismal financial results.

  I come to this floor year after year, talking about these problems 
and, in all due respect to my dear friend from Delaware, he never 
recognized these problems. These problems were never recognized by the 
proponents of Amtrak. These were serious problems.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to my friend from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will only take 2 minutes. The Senator is right. It's 
like going to someone and saying: By the way, we are going to demand 
that you be self-sufficient within the next 2 weeks or 2 years. By the 
way, we are going to give you half of what you need to be self-
sufficient. And now you have to promise me you are going to be self-
sufficient.
  I know darned well I can't get self-sufficient based on what I have 
to operate with. But what do I do? What has been done--and this is the 
lie of it, in effect--what has been done too long, they say: OK, don't 
shut us down now. We will be self-sufficient--hoping that something 
happens in the next year and the year after and the year after.
  So my friend is exactly right. He made a believer out of me. He's 
absolutely right. That is what I mean by let's not do that anymore, 
let's shut it down or whatever we want to do.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
Senator from Delaware if he wants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I really appreciate the courtesy, and this is really the 
last thing I will say. I realize, and I don't think other people here 
do--I realize my friend is not ``against rail.'' He has said to me, I 
don't know how many times over the years: Why can't we work something 
out, Joe, that funds the places needed, the dense populations, the 
Northeast corridor? But the rest of this apparatus is bleeding us to 
death. And you have inefficiencies even in the corridor. Why don't we 
work that out?
  What I am saying to my friend, and I say it sincerely, he is right in 
this respect. We should either decide what we mean by Amtrak, that it 
is the Northeast corridor and West Coast system and that's it, or we 
should decide it is a national system and we are going to pay the 
price. We should decide what it is. He is right about that debate. 
Let's have that debate. Whatever it comes out, in terms of 
reorganization, let's then make sure it can function.
  I wasn't being smart with my friend. I am sincere when I say I know 
he is not ``against rail.'' He is against what he believes to be--and 
in many cases is right--total inefficiency and outrageous subsidies. 
That's the only way we have been able to keep the Northeast corridor 
going, because we had to get everyone from Texas to West Virginia and 
Minnesota to vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Let me add one additional point. The thing that 
frustrated me--and I know my friend from Delaware appreciates this--is 
that people who are running Amtrak would come before the Commerce 
Committee and say: We are on a glidepath to self-sufficiency.
  We have kind of an odd thing, that we have hearings and witnesses 
come and testify and we take their word for it. We say: Gee, that's 
wonderful. Time after time after time.
  The reason why we express our frustrations is because, despite the 
assurances that are made, ``glidepath to self-sufficiency,'' it was far 
from the truth. That is why I know the Senator from Delaware and I are 
both very pleased that Mr. Gunn is telling us exactly how it is. That 
is a critical aspect of this whole issue and frankly one of the reasons 
why I believe that Mr. Gunn has said he needs this $1.2 billion to 
continue operating while he institutes these reforms. That's one of the 
reasons why I am in favor of it and I think the reason why the Senator 
from Alaska very reluctantly agreed to allow this amendment to go 
through.
  I am sorry. I want to apologize to my colleagues. I have probably 
overtalked this issue. But I do take them at their word, that we will 
sit down this year and work together: First with the Department of 
Transportation, sending over their reform plan. Then working with 
Amtrak and working with all of our colleagues and coming up with a plan 
for genuine reform of Amtrak so we don't have to go through this debate 
on an annual basis. And it will remove the only existing impediment to 
the friendship and affection that I feel for my friend from Delaware.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Murray's amendment to add $438 million to Amtrak to fund system-wide 
rail security upgrades and to reiterate my unwavering support for 
Amtrak.
  I believe it is essential to fund Amtrak at $1.2 billion in fiscal 
year 2003 to prevent our passenger rail system from grinding to a halt 
and stranding millions of commuters coast to coast. In fact, Amtrak's 
President David Gunn has said a funding level of only $762 million 
would ``guarantee insolvency

[[Page 1298]]

by spring and the shutting down of the railroad at that time.''
  And as James Jones, California State Legislative Director of the 
United Transportation Union, wrote to me in a recent letter:

       This shutdown would end all intercity rail and much of the 
     commuter operations in California. This would cause a serious 
     adverse effect on the general public, the Amtrak employees 
     that would be out of work, as well as the California economy.

  Amtrak's passenger rail service is an essential link in our 
transportation system and our economy.
  Every day, Americans use Amtrak and local commuter rail systems that 
depend on Amtrak to get to and from work. More and more Americans are 
relying on long distance Amtrak trains for their travel because of 
security changes at our Nation's airports.
  I cannot think of a worse time to underfund Amtrak.
  What will happen if Amtrak shuts down? Well, you can be sure the 
roads will jam up even more and air travel will become an even greater 
headache.
  Last year, I joined many of my colleagues in a commitment to fund 
$1.2 billion for Amtrak in fiscal year 2003. This is the amount Amtrak 
needs and it was the amount the Appropriations Committee unanimously 
approved last year despite the Bush administration's paltry budget 
request of $521 million for fiscal year 2003.
  I cannot understand why President Bush continues to stand by his 
budget request of $521 million.
  Amtrak needs more funding, not less and last week I was pleased to 
again co-sponsor Senator Hollings's legislation to fund Amtrak for the 
next 5 years. The National Defense Rail Act would authorize $4.6 
billion annually for passenger rail service. The legislation, which 
passed the Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3 last April would fund 
rail security improvements, high-speed rail development, and 
operational costs for existing rail routes.
  I strongly believe that Amtrak is not a failure, it is the government 
that has failed Amtrak. If we do not properly fund our rail system, how 
do we expect it to thrive?
  Since 1971, when Amtrak was founded, only $25 billion has been spent 
on passenger rail, compared to over $750 billion that has been invested 
in highways and aviation. The Federal Government has made a commitment 
to fund road construction and expand aviation capacity, but we have 
always come up short to provide fair funding for our rail system.
  The Federal Government provided $15 billion in payments and loan 
guaranties to aid the airlines after the September 11th terrorist 
attacks. Why can't we provide $438 million more to keep our trains 
running?
  Imagine the chaos that will ensue if Amtrak does shut down. There 
will be even more traffic on our roads and air travel will slow down if 
trains are not an option for commuters heading to work or travelers on 
vacation.
  Last summer, Senator Boxer and I wrote President Bush to ask him to 
approve Amtrak's $200 million loan guarantee to prevent the rail system 
from grinding to a halt. I cannot believe that 6 months later Amtrak is 
again being denied life support.
  If Amtrak shuts down, thousands of people in California who depend on 
Amtrak service every day will be stranded. Since most rail lines in 
California are run by Amtrak or depend on Amtrak, everything is in 
jeopardy.
  These include three Amtrak routes funded by the State and the Federal 
Government:

       No. 1, the Capitol Corridor route between San Jose and 
     Auburn;
       No. 2, the San Joaquin route between Oakland and 
     Bakersfield; and
       No. 3, the Pacific Surfliner route between San Diego and 
     San Luis Obispo.

  These are three of the most successful routes in the United States. 
In fact, all three are among the top five intercity rail corridors, and 
the Pacific Surfliner is the fastest growing route in the Nation. 
Overall the State of California has added 28 new daily trains since 
1995, and over 1.5 million new passengers.
  But a shutdown will also threaten some of California's largest 
regional transportation systems including:

       No. 1, Caltrain, the rail service between San Francisco and 
     San Jose;
       No. 2, Metrolink, Southern California's regional transit 
     system; and
       No. 3, the Coaster, San Diego County's regional train.

  It is clear to me that a shutdown of Amtrak will be devastating for 
rail passengers across the Nation. I believe we must act immediately to 
avoid it. I urge my colleagues to approve Senator Murray's amendment to 
add $438 million to Amtrak to fund system-wide rail security upgrades.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Senator Murray to restore funding for Amtrak to 
the full $1.2 billion level needed to ensure the solvency and continued 
operations of the railroad. I am deeply troubled by this 
administration's failure to address Amtrak's financial needs.
  Since it was first established in 1970, Amtrak has been an essential 
part of our transportation network. The railroad currently carries 
nearly 23 million passengers each year including over 1.7 million 
travelers in Maryland who rely on Amtrak for commuting to work and 
other transportation needs. Amtrak operates 87 trains daily in Maryland 
alone. And these figures do not include the MARC trains or the 1.9 
million passengers annually who use the MARC/Amtrak lines for service.
  In recent years, we have made great strides toward improving our 
highway, mass transit, and aviation systems. In 1998, we enacted TEA-
21, providing record levels of funding for highway and mass transit 
improvements throughout the country. In 2000, we enacted AIR-21, 
substantially increasing funds for needed airport infrastructure. To 
ensure a transportation system that is truly intermodal, we need to 
continue to invest in Amtrak, doing for inter-city rail what we have 
already done for highways, transit, and aviation. The level of 
government support for passenger rail in Japan and European countries 
far exceeds the level of government support in the United States. In my 
view, we cannot afford to be the only industrialized country without a 
comprehensive national passenger rail system.
  Across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in 
terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal 
frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute's Annual 
Mobility Report, in 1997, Americans in 68 urban areas spent 4.3 billion 
hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the Nation of $72 
billion in lost time and wasted fuel. It is clear that highway and 
airport expansion cannot be our only solution. We need a balanced 
approach, and passenger rail must be a part of that approach. Without 
the additional funds provided by Senator Murray's amendment, Amtrak 
cannot continue to operate.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Murray to restore funding for Amtrak for the 
remainder of this fiscal year.
  The underlying amendment before the Senate includes a $374 million 
cut in Amtrak relative to the level approved on a bipartisan basis by 
the Senate Appropriations Committee last year, and relative to the 
level requested by Amtrak. Amtrak tells us that if this cut remains in 
place, Amtrak would have to shut down as early as March.
  This amendment would restore Amtrak funding to $1.2 billion, the 
level it needs, and the level that originally was approved by the 
Appropriations Committee.
  It is absolutely critical that we approve this amendment, and save 
Amtrak from bankruptcy. I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues 
how important it was to have a national intercity rail system in the 
immediate aftermath of September 11th. On that terrible day, our 
commercial aviation system was shut down, stranding thousands of 
travelers. Meanwhile, Amtrak ridership surged, as thousands of people 
took Amtrak to get home to their loved ones. It has been clear from 
that day that we can never afford to let this vital lifeline be shut 
down.
  A shutdown of Amtrak would have an especially devastating effect on 
commuters in my State of New Jersey;

[[Page 1299]]

that is because Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor, upon which many 
trains of New Jersey Transit also depend. So an Amtrak shutdown would 
not only inconvenience the many New Jerseyans who depend on Amtrak 
directly, but it would force more than 80,000 riders of New Jersey 
Transit to find another way to work. The end result clearly would be a 
disaster for New Jersey.
  Amtrak badly needs a guarantee of the financial assistance that will 
allow it to survive. Senator Murray's amendment would help ensure 
Amtrak's operations for the remainder of the fiscal year. We should 
approve it today. And then, before too long, we should take up and pass 
the National Defense Rail Act of 2003. That bill would authorize $35 
billion to maintain and further develop our passenger rail system. It 
also would provide more than $800 million for vital safety improvements 
to the tunnels under the Hudson River that connect New Jersey with New 
York City. These tunnels are used on a daily basis by over 300,000 New 
Jerseyans. I was proud to get $100 million to begin work on these 
tunnels in the supplemental defense appropriations bill signed by the 
President last year. But we need to do more.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Murray Amendment. 
It is absolutely critical that Amtrak remains a safe and viable 
transportation alternative in the 21st century. And only by adopting 
this amendment can we make that happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if the Senator wants me to, I yield back 
the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to say at this late time 
of the night, that President Lincoln offered a bonus of $1 million and 
every odd section along the railroad right of way to anyone who 
completed the transcontinental railroad. Subsidies to railroads are 150 
years old.
  But the problem is that was not a taxpayer burden. I think we have to 
really examine this and find out what is the taxpayer burden for the 
future as far as Amtrak.
  I yield the remainder of my time and I urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 30.
  The amendment (No. 30) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the next order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 60 minutes 
on the Harkin amendment. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                            amendment no. 32

  (Purpose: To restore funding for nondiscretionary Byrne grants to a 
                         level of $500,000,000)

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

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Biden, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 32.
       On page 101, line 1, strike ``$134,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$634,700,000''.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment which I 
send to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Feinstein, Biden, 
Leahy, Murray, Rockefeller, Johnson, Nelson of Florida, Kohl, and 
Lautenberg.
  This amendment will restore the funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Grant Program at the fiscal year 2002 level. The bill before us 
virtually eliminates this grant program which provides a critical 
resource directly toward our State and local law enforcement 
communities.
  The bottom line is if you eliminate the Byrne grant program, you 
eliminate most of the local counterdrug task forces in rural America. 
Our amendment would restore those cuts to fully fund Byrne at $500 
million at the fiscal year 2002 level.
  I am sure every Senator on this floor on both sides of the aisle has 
on more than one occasion talked to their local police departments, 
their State sheriffs, or narcotics enforcement agencies in their States 
about the vital necessity of having this Byrne grant program for local 
law enforcement to battle drugs throughout this country.
  To give you an example of how critically needed this funding is, in 
my State of Iowa, 25 of the multicounty task forces are funded through 
the Byrne grant program. Without the Byrne grant, those task forces are 
gone. Iowa receives about $5.4 million a year from Byrne. Believe me, 
we use every cent of it well and wisely.
  It is a formula grant program that goes out to States, and basically 
it is based on population. As I said, Iowa gets about $5.5 million, 
Texas gets about $32 million, Alaska gets $2.1 million, Massachusetts 
gets $11.5 million, and California gets $50.9 million, and on and on.
  I ask unanimous consent that the State-by-State breakdown of the 
amount of money for the Byrne grant program listed by State as of 
January 14 of last year be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


         FY 2002 Byrne Formula Grant Program--State Allocations


        State                                                    Amount
Alabama......................................................$7,763,473
Alaska........................................................2,158,472
Arizona.......................................................8,766,474
Arkansas......................................................5,670,673
California...................................................50,933,474
Colorado......................................................7,549,473
Connecticut...................................................6,235,473
Delaware......................................................2,388,472
District of Columbia..........................................2,078,472
Florida......................................................24,687,474
Georgia......................................................13,249,474
Hawaii........................................................3,016,472
Idaho.........................................................3,137,473
Illinois.....................................................19,460,474
Indiana......................................................10,160,474
Iowa..........................................................5,532,473
Kansas........................................................5,183,473
Kentucky......................................................7,169,373
Louisiana.....................................................7,795,473
Maine.........................................................3,109,473
Maryland......................................................9,009,474
Massachusetts................................................11,591,053
Michigan.....................................................15,820,474
Minnesota.....................................................8,456,474
Mississippi...................................................5,412,473
Missouri......................................................9,448,474
Montana.......................................................2,562,472
Nebraska......................................................3,749,473
Nevada........................................................4,170,473
New Hampshire.................................................3,052,472
New Jersey...................................................13,584,474
New Mexico....................................................3,907,473
New York.....................................................29,080,474
North Carolina...............................................13,048,474
North Dakota..................................................2,181,472
Ohio.........................................................17,895,474
Oklahoma......................................................6,301,473
Oregon........................................................6,258,473
Pennsylvania.................................................19,257,474
Rhode Island..................................................2,777,472
South Carolina................................................7,125,473
South Dakota..................................................2,346,472
Tennessee.....................................................9,586,474
Texas........................................................31,831,474
Utah..........................................................4,515,473
Vermont.......................................................2,344,472
Virginia.....................................................11,624,474
Washington....................................................9,886,474
West Virginia.................................................3,892,473
Wisconsin.....................................................9,108,474
Wyoming.......................................................1,963,472
Puerto Rico...................................................6,826,473
Virgin Islands................................................1,398,472
Guam..........................................................1,443,752
American Samoa..................................................953,222
No. Mariana.....................................................470,076
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Byrne program is one of the most 
successful Federal anticrime programs ever. It pays for drug 
enforcement task forces, more cops on the street, improved technology, 
and countless other valuable antidrug and anticrime efforts in local 
communities. Restoring the Byrne funds is a top priority of law 
enforcement groups who know the impact the program has had on crime and 
drugs.
  The National Association of Police Organizations, the National 
Sheriffs Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police have contacted me urging full funding of this program.

[[Page 1300]]

  For example, Iowa and the Midwest have made great strides in reducing 
methamphetamine production and supply over the last few years. These 
cuts will only set them back in their uphill battle. Without Byrne, 
most of the small agencies in that region would lack the manpower, 
funding, and technology necessary to combat this methamphetamine 
problem.
  I have heard this story over and over again from my contacts in Iowa. 
These drug task forces are funded primarily by the Byrne grant, and 
they are desperately needed to fight our State's uphill battle against 
methamphetamine. I know that is the case in States across the country.
  I also want to make one more point. At this crucial time in our 
history, we cannot afford to reduce the effectiveness of our Nation's 
State and local law enforcement agencies. It makes no sense to cut this 
successful program that directly benefits our local communities.
  Today, I received various letters from various organizations I just 
mentioned in support of putting the funding back in for the Byrne 
program.
  I have a letter dated today from the National Association of Police 
Organizations.

       Dear Senator Harkin:
       On behalf of the National Association of Police 
     Organizations representing 220,000 rank-and-file police 
     officers from across the United States, I would like to bring 
     to your attention our wholehearted support for your amendment 
     to the Omnibus Appropriations bill currently before the 
     Senate.
       Under the proposed Omnibus bill, funding of the Byrne Grant 
     Program would be virtually eliminated. In a time when our 
     country is focused on the varied aspects of homeland 
     security, the loss of a key source of Federal funding to 
     State and local law enforcement initiatives would be 
     unacceptable. Your amendment will rightly restore to Fiscal 
     Year 2002 levels this necessary funding.
       NAPO is proud to stand in support of your efforts and we 
     thank you for your hard work on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                  William Johnson,
                                               Executive Director.

  I have another letter from the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police:

       I am writing to express our strong support for your efforts 
     to ensure that the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program is 
     fully funded in FY 2003. As you know, the IACP is the world's 
     oldest and largest association of police executives 
     representing more than 19,000 members in over 90 countries.
       Since its inception, the Byrne Grant Program has proven 
     itself an invaluable resource for cooperative Federal, State, 
     and local anti-crime policing strategies, such as multi-
     jurisdictional drug task forces and DARE training. In 
     addition, the close working relationship--

  I want to make this point very clear--

     between law enforcement agencies that is fostered by the 
     Byrne program is invaluable in law enforcement's efforts to 
     secure our communities and to combat terrorism.

  That letter is signed by Joseph Samuels, president of the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
  Now I have a letter here from the National Governors Association to 
both Senator Frist, the majority leader, and Senator Daschle, the 
minority leader. Basically, they say they would like to express their 
support for the following amendments. They mention the Harkin 
amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring current funding 
levels to the Edward Byrne block grant program for State and local law 
enforcement activities.
  It is signed by Gov. Paul Patton and Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, vice 
chairman, Governor Kempthorne having been a member of this Senate just 
a few years ago.
  I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      International Association of


                                             Chiefs of Police,

                                 Alexandria, VA, January 16, 2003.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to 
     express our strong support for your efforts to ensure that 
     the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program is fully funded in FY 
     2003. As you know, the IACP is the world's oldest and largest 
     association of police executives, representing more than 
     19,000 members in over 90 countries.
       Since its inception, the Byrne Grant Program has proven 
     itself an invaluable resource for cooperative federal, state 
     and local anti-crime policing strategies, such as 
     multijurisdictional drug task forces and DARE training. In 
     addition, the close working relationship between law 
     enforcement agencies that is fostered by the Byrne program is 
     invaluable in law enforcement's efforts to secure our 
     communities and combat terrorism.
       The IACP believes that at this crucial time in our history, 
     we cannot afford to reduce the effectiveness of our nation's 
     state and local law enforcement agencies. Over the last 
     decade, the funds provided by the Byrne Grant program have 
     dramatically increased the capabilities and effectiveness of 
     these agencies. It is imperative that departments continue to 
     receive this assistance. We have entered a new era for law 
     enforcement; we are faced with new and daunting challenges; 
     we are asking more of our officers; and our communities are 
     turning to us for protection. Only with federal assistance 
     funds that are specifically targeted for law enforcement and 
     its unique role can we hope to successfully meet this 
     challenge.
       Once again, the IACP strongly urges Congress to maintain 
     current funding levels for the Byrne Memorial grant program.
       Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                              Joseph Samuels, Jr.,
     President.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: On behalf of the 
     nation's Governors, we are writing to express our support for 
     several key provisions of the (FY) 2003 omnibus 
     appropriations bill affecting state programs. First, we 
     appreciate that the bill would maintain the FY 2003 highway 
     program investment level at $31.8 billion. With a sluggish 
     economy and many states facing budgetary difficulties, now is 
     not the time to cut federal highway investment. In addition, 
     Governors strongly support the $1.5 billion provided in the 
     bill to implement the new election reform law. We also 
     appreciate that the bill includes an extension of the 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant 
     and related programs through September 30, 3002. It is 
     critical that states have reliability of funds in order to 
     continue operating their welfare reform programs while 
     Congress considers TANF reauthorization.
       We would also like to express our support for the following 
     amendments:
       Dodd amendment. The Governors support Senator Dodd's 
     amendment calling for a $1.5 billion increase in state grants 
     for special education. We are committed to continuously 
     improving the academic performance of all students, including 
     students with disabilities. The nation's Governors support 
     this amendment and urge Congress to continue to work toward 
     enacting legislation that makes the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding a mandatory 
     expenditure with incremental increases towards meeting the 40 
     percent federal requirement;
       Murray amendment. The Governors support providing the 
     necessary funding for Amtrak to support the continuation of a 
     national passenger rail system as proposed by Senator Murray. 
     Amtrak must be provided a sufficient level of funding to 
     guarantee there will be no break or threat of a break in 
     service. We must be certain that Amtrak will not encounter 
     the rolling financial crises it experienced during the past 
     year;
       Chafee-Rockefeller amendment. The nation's Governors urge 
     your support for quick action on a bipartisan compromise to 
     protect resources in the State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program (S-CHIP). Preserving the S-CHIP funds that have 
     reverted to the federal treasury would keep $1.2 billion of 
     the FY 1998 and FY 1999 allocations within the program until 
     2004; and
       Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring 
     current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant 
     program for state and local law enforcement activities.
       Finally, while Governors appreciate the inclusion of $2 
     billion for first responder grants, we urge support for the 
     President's original request of providing $3.5 billion 
     coordinated through the states. Just as Congress and the 
     President have responded by acting on a far-reaching 
     reorganization and consolidation of federal agencies, so too 
     the President recognized the critical role of states--the 
     first line of defense and the first line of coordination of 
     response to any attack. Thus, this should be meaningful, new 
     resources that respect the diversity, responsibilities, and 
     capabilities of states and the

[[Page 1301]]

     immediate need for resources for national defense. Therefore, 
     we encourage you to add an additional $1.5 billion in first 
     responder grant funds to the $2 billion, so that we meet the 
     President's recognition of the need to be prepared to respond 
     to and recover from any terrorist attacks.
       We greatly appreciate your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Paul E. Patton,
       Chairman.
     Governor Dirk Kempthorne,
       Vice Chairman.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                    Police Organizations, Inc.

                                 Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Police Organizations (NAPO), representing 220,000 rank-
     and-file police officers from across the United States, I 
     would like to bring to your attention our wholehearted 
     support for your amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations 
     bill, currently before the Senate.
       Under the proposed Omnibus bill, funding of the Byrne Grant 
     program would be virtually eliminated. In a time when our 
     country is focused on the varied aspects of homeland 
     security, the loss of a key source of federal funding to 
     state and local law enforcement initiatives would be 
     unacceptable. Your amendment will rightly restore to Fiscal 
     Year 2002 levels, this necessary funding.
       NAPO is proud to stand in support of your efforts and we 
     thank you for your hard work on this important funding issue.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Johnson,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Byrne grant program has been a great 
success in rural America. In Iowa, in 2000, we found over 641 
methamphetamine laboratories. In 2002, we found over 800. Without the 
25 task forces that I talked about, these laboratories wouldn't be 
found by law enforcement. But they could have been found by children 
playing in rural areas around abandoned sheds, barns, and farms.
  Again, that is the Byrne Grant Program that does this. It goes to the 
States. It is for law enforcement and also for prevention activities.
  This program was started under President Reagan, named for Edward 
Byrne, who was a police officer, I am told, in New York City, who was 
gunned down and killed while he was actively pursuing drug traffickers 
in the city of New York.
  At a time when our States are having serious budget problems, at a 
time when we are making great inroads and strides in the fight against 
especially methamphetamine, at a time when we need our local law 
enforcement agencies--the sheriffs, the police departments, our DEAs, 
our narcotics law enforcement officers--we need them all working 
together, both for combating the scourge of drugs but also, as was 
mentioned in the letter, I believe, from the Police Chiefs Association, 
for making our communities safe from the threats of terrorism. And to 
combat terrorism we need coordination and communication among small 
towns and communities in rural areas. It is vital for tracking and for 
surveillance.
  I find it kind of odd that our national drug czar, Mr. John Walters, 
with Federal money, with taxpayer money, is running ads all over 
America--and those ads are tying drug traffickers and the drug trade to 
the funneling of money to terrorists; making the point, in these ads, 
that we have to go after the drug traffickers to keep them from 
funneling money to terrorists--I find it odd they are running those ads 
and, at the same time, the omnibus bill before us would cut out all 
funding for the Byrne program, which is the basic funding for local law 
enforcement for combating drug trafficking.
  I have made this a battle of mine now for going on almost 10 years, 
to make sure we fund the Byrne Grant Program, and, I might add, both 
through Democratic administrations and Republican administrations.
  As I have traveled around the country, I have found local law 
enforcement so grateful for the fact that they are able to get this 
money. And it goes down without strings attached. It is not a mandate. 
What they have used that money for, as I said, is to combat drug 
trafficking, with coordination, surveillance, and now for 
counterterrorism activities.
  It has been a long battle. We have been successful in keeping the 
funding up on both sides of the aisle. I might say, this has not been a 
partisan battle at all. We have had great support from both sides of 
the aisle in continuing the Byrne Grant Program. I am hopeful we will 
find that same kind of support now. As I said, it is $500 million to 
put back in, just to get it up to the fiscal year 2002 level. At least 
if we have that, we can continue the program. So I hope we will have a 
successful vote on both sides of the aisle.
  I might just add that if we are not successful on this amendment, it 
will not go away. I will be back again and again and again because I am 
not going to let this issue drop. It is too important in a matter of 
minutes, or in a late evening or 1-day rush to judgment on an 
appropriations bill, to just throw out. It is one of the most important 
law enforcement programs we have had over the last nearly 20 years in 
this country.
  So, again, I guess the vote will be in the morning at 9:30. I will 
sum up my arguments again at that time. But I am hopeful we can have a 
good, strong vote to reassure our local law enforcement officials 
around the United States that the Senate stands behind them, that we 
are not going to pull the rug out from underneath them, and we are 
going to make sure the Byrne Grant Program is fully funded.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. If anybody wants 
to engage in a colloquy or debate, I am prepared to do so. If not, I 
will yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, does the Senator wish to have any further 
comments tonight? It would be my intention to yield back the time on 
our side because there is a 2\1/2\-minute comment period in the morning 
when we take up this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of his time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
York is to be recognized.


                            Amendment No. 31

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 31.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 31.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide funds for research and development grants to 
               increase security for United States ports)

       On page 723, strike lines 16 through 23, and insert the 
     following:

     ``$72,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used 
     for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from 
     State and local governments, other public authorities, 
     private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred 
     for research, development, testing, and evaluation: Provided, 
     further, That, of the total amount appropriated under this 
     paragraph, $50,000,000 shall be available for the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to award grants to national 
     laboratories, private nonprofit organizations, institutions 
     of higher education, and other entities for the support of 
     research and development of technologies that can be used to 
     secure the ports of the United States: Provided, further, 
     That, the proceeds of grants made under the preceding proviso 
     may be used to develop technologies such as equipment that 
     accurately detects explosives or chemical and biological 
     agents that could be used to commit terrorist acts in the 
     United States, equipment that accurately detects nuclear 
     materials (including scintillation-based detection equipment 
     capable of attachment to spreaders to signal the presence of 
     nuclear materials during the unloading of containers), 
     improved tags and seals designed for use on shipping 
     containers to track the transportation of the merchandise in 
     such containers (including ``smart sensors'' that are able to 
     track a container throughout its entire supply chain, detect 
     hazardous and radioactive materials within that container, 
     and transmit such information to the appropriate authorities 
     at a remote location), and tools to mitigate the consequences 
     of a terrorist act at a port of the United States (including 
     a network of sensors to predict the dispersion

[[Page 1302]]

     of radiological, chemical, or biological agents that might be 
     intentionally or accidentally released): Provided, further, 
     That the proceeds of grants made under such preceding proviso 
     may also be used to develop pilot projects that could be 
     implemented within 12 months at the Port of New York and New 
     Jersey, the port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, 
     and the port of Virginia to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
     a system of radiation detection monitors located throughout 
     the port to detect nuclear or radiological material: 
     Provided, further, That each entity desiring a grant under 
     such preceding proviso shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.''.

                     Amendment No. 31, As Modified

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, I have not seen the 
amendment yet.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I believe the majority was given a copy of the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. It may have gone to the leader, but I didn't get it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The only change I am changing, I inform my friend from 
Alaska, is on the second page where it says ``$50 million,'' it should 
say ``$150 million.''
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object again, 
wouldn't it be necessary to amend this amendment in more than one place 
in order to accommodate that change?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I believe it would, yes. I believe it would.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding it would have to insert a figure 
``1'' before the ``7'' in the third line.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator from Alaska is correct. That is in the 
modified amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. As I understand it, that was a mistake in drafting the 
amendment. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 723, strike lines 16 through 23, and insert the 
     following:

     ``$172,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used 
     for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from 
     State and local governments, other public authorities, 
     private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred 
     for research, development, testing, and evaluation: Provided, 
     further, That, of the total amount appropriated under this 
     paragraph, $150,000,000 shall be available for the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to award grants to national 
     laboratories, private nonprofit organizations, institutions 
     of higher education, and other entities for the support of 
     research and development of technologies that can be used to 
     secure the ports of the United States: Provided, further, 
     That, the proceeds of grants made under the preceding proviso 
     may be used to develop technologies such as equipment that 
     accurately detects explosives or chemical and biological 
     agents that could be used to commit terrorist acts in the 
     United States, equipment that accurately detects nuclear 
     materials (including scintillation-based detection equipment 
     capable of attachment to spreaders to signal the presence of 
     nuclear materials during the unloading of containers), 
     improved tags and seals designed for use on shipping 
     containers to track the transportation of the merchandise in 
     such containers (including ``smart sensors'' that are able to 
     track a container throughout its entire supply chain, detect 
     hazardous and radioactive materials within that container, 
     and transmit such information to the appropriate authorities 
     at a remote location), and tools to mitigate the consequences 
     of a terrorist act at a port of the United States (including 
     a network of sensors to predict the dispersion of 
     radiological, chemical, or biological agents that might be 
     intentionally or accidentally released): Provided, further, 
     That the proceeds of grants made under such preceding proviso 
     may also be used to develop pilot projects that could be 
     implemented within 12 months at the Port of New York and New 
     Jersey, the port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, 
     and the port of Virginia to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
     a system of radiation detection monitors located throughout 
     the port to detect nuclear or radiological material: 
     Provided, further, That each entity desiring a grant under 
     such preceding proviso shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Alaska. I will try to be brief 
on this amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment deals with port security, particularly 
port security research and development. And it increases the funding by 
$150 million. I believe this is a bare minimum of what we should be 
passing. First, let me make a point that we have lax security at our 
ports. And that has created a terrorist threat that jeopardizes not 
only the ports themselves but cities near the ports and any city in 
America because so much can be brought in through the ports and then be 
trucked elsewhere and cause untold damage.
  The statistics are chilling. Mr. President, 95 percent of U.S. 
overseas trade is conducted at our Nation's 361 ports. The Port of New 
York and New Jersey, for my home State, in part, is the largest on the 
east coast. Yet in that port less than 3 percent of the total cargo is 
scanned or inspected. Despite the risk we face, despite the threat that 
hangs over our head, ports are receiving an extremely small amount of 
Federal funding--basically nothing. We need to do more.
  Let me explain to my colleagues what the problem is.
  What is the greatest danger that we could face here in America? It is 
very simple. A terrorist group could--it could be a country; it could 
be a group--smuggle a nuclear weapon into one of the large containers 
that comes to our ports by the tens of thousands every month.
  They can put that container on a ship. They can put the container on 
a truck as it drives over the Canadian and Mexican borders. If that 
nuclear weapon is successfully smuggled into this country and 
detonated, as bad as 9/11 was, the damage would be much worse.
  Right now we have no way to check whether such a nuclear weapon could 
be smuggled into our country. I have been worried about this. So I did 
some research. Here is what I found. I talked to scientists at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and at Argonne National 
Laboratory in Illinois. Those are two energy labs that don't produce 
weapons. I asked: What can we do to prevent a nuclear weapon from being 
smuggled into our ports?
  They said: There is good news and bad news. The good news is that 
every radioactive device emits gamma rays which can pass through 
anything except lead and tungsten and some very thick metals. The bad 
news is, the only way to detect these devices right now in a practical 
way is a Geiger counter, and it has to be held about 3 feet in front of 
the nuclear source of the radioactive device.
  You can't go on every container, each of which contains scores of 
these crates, put a Geiger counter by each one, and hope that you could 
detect any nuclear weapon that might be smuggled in because that would 
bring commerce to a standstill. They said: However, in that cyclotron 
in their laboratories, the scientists can detect radiation 50, 60, 70, 
80 feet away, but the devices that detect nuclear radiation are big and 
delicate. They can't be bounced around.
  The main purpose of this proposal is to make those devices practical, 
to make them smaller and more robust, and then they could be put on 
every crane that loads or unloads containers of ships, on every toll 
booth as the container goes through the toll booth, and any nuclear 
weapon smuggled into this country could be detected.
  Our money here is for research and development. Such a device could 
probably be developed within a short period of time, as little as a 
year or two. And I find it totally anomalous that we are willing to go 
to war in Iraq, a war in which I have supported the President, to make 
sure they don't have nuclear weapons, when our whole foreign policy 
establishment is focused on North Korea, but when it comes to detection 
devices for al-Qaida or any other terrorist group that might smuggle 
those weapons in, we say we don't have the dollars.
  The amendment I originally offered was with my good friend, Senator 
Warner. We were able to get it in the homeland security bill, through 
the

[[Page 1303]]

support of former Senator Thompson, Senator Lieberman, as well as 
Senator Hollings and Senator McCain. When it came to the end of the 
day, we were told the administration wanted no spending in the homeland 
security bill. So our amendment didn't have the dollars, although it 
was authorized by Senator Hollings in the port security bill.
  This is a relatively small amount of money that could save us from 
the worst catastrophe possible. One hundred fifty million dollars to 
develop such detection devices that could prevent any nuclear weapon 
from being smuggled in through our ports is something every one of us 
should support. Unfortunately, it is not in the bill. I understand 
there are lots of needs. I am hoping that my colleague from Alaska 
would examine this amendment and support it and accept it. The ports 
everywhere in America are vulnerable, and this is not just money at a 
random purpose. It is not pork. It is designed simply to deal with 
nuclear weapons that might be smuggled into our country.
  We can't do it unless we have such devices. We are not going to be 
able to stop each container and inspect each one. As I said, we inspect 
3 percent. Just as we can have X-ray machines at our airports that can 
detect explosives, we can have such devices at our ports and at our 
border crossings that detect an even worse danger--nuclear weapons.
  In the Hollings port security bill, there was authorizing language. 
So this appropriation is authorized. It is, again, a small amount of 
money that would stop a nuclear weapon from being smuggled into this 
country. The shame of it is, this is not a very difficult thing to do. 
The science is there. The experts say we can create such a device. The 
danger is enormous. I don't know a single argument against doing this.
  As I say, it is a bipartisan proposal. The original bill was by 
Senator Warner and myself. It was supported by both Democratic and 
Republican members of the Homeland Security Committee, but because the 
administration didn't want any spending in the homeland security bill, 
we are here.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues will look at this amendment and 
support it because the safety of our country depends on it. If a 
nuclear weapon were smuggled in a container, put on a truck and 
exploded, whether it be in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or St. 
Louis or any inland city because they can be put on that truck and 
driven there, we would rue the day we didn't develop such detection 
devices. The terrorists know our weaknesses. They know we have done a 
pretty good job on airport security. They know our ports are wide open. 
If they should get hold of a nuclear device right now, we would be 
naked to them. We can stop that. But we can stop it in a year or two 
for a small amount of money.
  I am hopeful my colleagues will support this amendment.
  With that, I don't know if my colleague has any questions or any 
comments, but I don't have anything more to say. I will only yield any 
time I might need to answer any of his questions or respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the hour is late, but we have in the 
amendment that contains the 11 bills a total of $24.7 billion for 
homeland security. That is better than $3 billion a month to be spent 
for homeland security.
  There is nothing that prevents the homeland security agencies from 
pursuing this task that the Senator's amendment would fund. What this 
does, however, is add another $150 million to the total of this bill 
and makes it subject to a veto by the President. We have no more room 
for amendments. We have just used up the balance of the offset that we 
had available.
  This amendment, as worthy as it may seem, in my judgment is 
unnecessary because there is plenty of money in this bill. There is an 
overwhelming amount of money. I really stake my reputation on the fact 
that some of that money will carry over to the next fiscal year. It 
just cannot be spent as fast as people want to spend it.
  The $20 billion we put up for New York in 2001 has not been spent 
yet. The $20 billion we gave to the President of the United States to 
pursue al-Qaida and to prepare our homeland security defenses has not 
totally been spent yet. Why should we continue adding amounts to this 
bill because people want to assure that their project is going to be 
built before the homeland security agency is even established?
  I don't want to debate at length here. I do believe it is a matter of 
discipline. We do not have a budget resolution. If we had a budget 
resolution, this would be subject to a point of order. But each one of 
these amendments that is going to come at us now is going to add a 
little bit more.
  This subject was covered in the Byrd amendment which we defeated. 
Senator Byrd wanted to add more money to the $24.7 billion. One of them 
was this port security project. Now we have this little amendment 
coming in, $150 million. It has been here too long. One hundred fifty 
million dollars is a lot of money, and to add it to this bill is going 
to make it subject to a veto. Tomorrow morning, I shall oppose this 
amendment and show that this amount was in the Byrd amendments--both of 
them--which have been defeated. This is part of it.
  I predict, if this one is passed, we are going to see 50 small 
amendments and we will have put the $5 billion back in the bill. So I 
am not prepared to do that. Maybe the Senate is willing to do that. I 
told somebody else that it is hard for a person to eat a pound of 
cheese unless he takes it a half ounce at a time. That is what we are 
going to be looking at--50 amendments to put $5 billion back into this 
bill and make it subject to a veto. Now I am not going to permit that 
without a fight.
  We have reserved the right to table, and I shall make a motion to 
table this at the appropriate time tomorrow because it is the same 
subject once again.
  The money is there. We just don't need redundant money. We do not 
need redundant money for homeland security. It forces us to go into a 
concept of how big the deficit is and yet we won't spend the money.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I understand this is a large bill. I just ask my 
colleague, from what section of the bill could this be funded?
  Mr. STEVENS. In the homeland security portions of the bill we have 
$24.7 billion, and it is subject to immense discretion as to how the 
money is spread. It is spread throughout the bill--$24.7 billion--for 
homeland security.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If I might, I understand there is a lot of money for 
homeland security, and I understand there are huge needs. I appreciate 
that my colleague said this is an important subject and probably needs 
to be done, but he has been around here much longer than I have. I have 
been in the House 18 years and now in the Senate 4. But in my 
experience, something like this that has no lobby behind it, has no 
interest pushing for it, no State or city is going to lobby, no group 
is going to lobby, no company is going to lobby, no union is going to 
lobby--in my experience, unless you earmark a certain amount of money--
and I am not out to increase the budget. If my friend from Alaska would 
be willing to take a part of that $24 billion and earmark $150 million 
for this subject, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. I don't 
want to increase the budget.
  My worry is, even though we say we have a lot of money in homeland 
security, in the scheme of things, this may not be funded. I am 
obsessed with this issue. I think this is the greatest danger we can 
face in the country, and I am worried we will not do it. I would wait 
until tomorrow morning, but if the Senator could show me a way to take 
it out of some existing pool of money and earmark it so it would not be 
caught in the political vicissitudes, I would support that. I don't 
want to add any more money, but I know there is a huge pot of money, 
and this is out there. The odds are that it is not going to be funded, 
as important as it is.

[[Page 1304]]


  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator makes a valid request. The staff with whom I 
have to confer are gone now. We might pursue that. I will be pleased to 
report to him in the morning precisely if we can do that.
  I recall the subject, however, because this system has not been 
deployed yet. If the Senator read his hometown paper the other day, 
they have accused me of taking this money out, that it was never in 
specifically. However, the money was in the bill to do it if the 
Homeland Security Department decided to do it. It may be possible for 
us to earmark a portion of that money to pursue the experiment that the 
Senator wishes. Whether we would earmark the money specifically for 
these specific reports, again, I don't know.
  The Senator's amendment would, in fact, deal with pilot projects for 
the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Port of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach, and the Port of Virginia, and there is a ``may'' in there.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator would yield, I am not out to specifically 
do it for any one port. I rather want the research done to develop the 
devices. Once the devices were developed, we would have to deploy them 
at all our ports.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the specific question I asked after I read the 
article. I was told there is money to pursue the development and 
testing of the system to which I believe you are referring.
  Let us finish this tonight now, and I will report back to him before 
the vote tomorrow as to whether or not it is possible to achieve the 
Senator's result without adopting this amendment. I agree. We have a 
lot of ports on the coast of Alaska. We have 25 percent of the domestic 
oil coming out of those ports. So I understand port security. I am 
willing to work with the Senator from New York on port security. It may 
be possible to earmark money to see to it that this pilot project is 
pursued.
  If the Senator wishes to respond, OK. Otherwise, I am prepared to 
yield back the remainder of my time tonight. We have 2 \1/2\ minutes on 
each side tomorrow. I hope we can reach a conclusion that we can adopt 
the Senator's proposal.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

                          ____________________