[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4001-4003]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it has been very interesting to me to 
review the budget document that is now before us that has the omnibus 
appropriations for 2003, which provides funding for all the 
discretionary programs and activities outside the Department of 
Defense.
  For months last year, our Republican colleagues prevented completion 
of the remaining 2003 appropriations bills, arguing that that level for 
appropriations was too high and the President would not accept 
appropriations bills that exceeded $750.5 billion in total.
  The President's veto threat persisted even with the Senate 
Appropriations Committee having voted out all 13 appropriations bills 
on unanimous 29-to-0 votes.
  After delaying the 2003 appropriations process for 5 months, and 
forcing most of the Federal Government to operate under a series of 
continuing resolutions, our Republican colleagues have produced a bill 
that, when combined with the already enacted defense and military 
construction bills, exceeds the President's level by more than $12 
billion.
  Republicans provide total discretionary budget authority for 2003 of 
$762.7 billion, and highway obligational authority of $31.8 billion, 
for a total of $794.5 billion.
  Last year, they railed against the Senate Budget Committee reported 
spending level of $797 billion.
  My friends, that is a difference of three-tenths of 1 percent, a $2.5 
billion difference. Five months of delay over a difference of three-
tenths of 1 percent. Levels they said were fiscally irresponsible they 
have now adopted.
  Most interesting--most interesting--when the bill was here on the 
floor, some of our colleagues on the other side ran up a debt meter on 
amendments offered by some Democrats that had a total cost over 10 
years of $37 billion.
  We are poised to vote now on their proposal which is $62 billion 
above what was offered on the floor at the time. So if they still have 
their debt meter chart, they had better get it out. And they ought to 
put another $25 billion on their tote board because they are running up 
the debt--and it is their spending. They are in charge, and all their 
talk about Democratic spending, and that that is the problem with 
fiscal responsibility, is shown for what it was. It was all talk.
  The reason we are in the deficit ditch is the tax cuts that were 
unaffordable that they have put in place and the additional tax cuts 
this President is seeking that are going to drive us deep into deficit 
and debt.
  Mr. President, the numbers do not lie. I have been waiting for this 
moment for 5 months, to see if the rhetoric matched the reality. And 
now we see. In just a few moments we are going to have a chance to 
vote, and then we are going to see who stands with their words, and who 
stands with their rhetoric, and who votes to spend the money.
  This has been a very interesting year, but this is just the 
beginning. Because we are going to see, in the coming months, who is 
serious about fiscal responsibility, who is serious about having 
budgets that add up, who is serious about paying down debt, who is 
serious about exploding deficits and debt--right on the eve of the 
retirement of the baby boom generation. I hope very much that the 
rhetoric matches the reality because we have not seen that in the last 
5 months.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of our fiscal 
year 2003

[[Page 4002]]

omnibus appropriations conference report.
  Let me begin by, first of all, commending Senator Stevens and Senator 
Byrd. Conferencing these bills is no easy task. Each of us has pieces 
of these bills that we care about deeply. And the Chair and Ranking 
Member have the awesome responsibility of trying to pull all of this 
together.
  Although I am disappointed by many parts of the conference report, I 
also want to begin by paying tribute to the chairman and the ranking 
member and their staffs for the tremendous effort they put into this 
bill and to try to accommodate the many requests they received and the 
tremendous demands made of them.
  Certainly, in many respects this bill is an improvement over the 
budget that was submitted to us by the President. Unfortunately, that 
is not a very high standard, by this Senator's calculation.
  The standard that we must meet in each year's appropriations is to 
address the needs of the American people. Unfortunately, this bill 
neither reflects the priorities of the American people, nor does it do 
nearly enough to address our national needs.
  I will begin by discussing education. There are many other parts to 
this bill, but education is a particular priority and source of debate 
and contention for the American public. Regardless of where you live, 
any constituency will tell you that one of their major concerns is the 
quality of our public education at the elementary, secondary, and 
higher education levels. It is critically important when you consider 
how significant this is to the American public that this bill should 
reflect to the greatest extent possible the interests of the American 
people in improving the quality of education.
  I thank the committee for something they did in the bill on 
education, instead of just sounding like a critic on everything. We 
exempted under this bill, thanks to the leadership of Senator Stevens 
and others, Head Start from the across-the-board cuts. I am grateful to 
them for that. That is going to make a difference to a lot of kids in 
the country who count on Head Start. I thank him and his staff for 
doing that for these young people. That would have lost somewhere 
around 12- to 22,000 kids, had we applied the across-the-board cut to 
the existing funds on Head Start. We serve thousands more than that, 
about 800,000, but 22,000 kids being dropped off the rolls of Head 
Start would have been a great tragedy. I thank them for that.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Alaska on special education. He 
managed to work out a way with me, at least coming out of this Chamber, 
to put an additional $1.5 billion into special education, which would 
have been a major step forward. It would not have gotten us to the 40 
percent that ultimately we will have to reach, but it would have taken 
us a substantial part of the way down that road.
  The Senator from Alaska can't win every battle, but I would be remiss 
if I did not report to my colleagues that in this conference report, 
instead of coming back with that $1.5 billion, we are coming back with 
$400 million. We lost $1.1 billion when the House and the conferees 
from this body met to work out the differences.
  This is such a priority. I don't care where you go in the country. 
For every county, every community, this is a major issue. It is a major 
fiscal responsibility. Local governments don't get to do the things we 
do at the national level or the State level. They have to meet these 
responsibilities. We have mandated it; we have required it. So whether 
you live in the great State of Colorado, as the Presiding Officer does, 
or the State of Connecticut, I will guarantee you, if you were to ask 
local people what are some of the priorities you have, this is one that 
would always come up.
  I am very disappointed, despite the efforts of Senator Stevens and 
others, that apparently the House leadership did not see the wisdom of 
maintaining the $1.5 billion. They cut it by $1.1 billion so we get a 
$400 million increase over the President's budget. You could argue that 
is certainly an improvement but still far short of what I had hoped we 
would be able to do.
  I wish to address the issue of title I. That was a source of lengthy 
debate in this Chamber during consideration of the legislation. Senator 
Kennedy of Massachusetts offered an amendment to try to make up the 
shortfall between what the President's budget submitted on title I 
funding and what would have been needed in order to meet the promise 
the President and the Congress made last year when the President signed 
the No Child Left Behind Act. How many times have you heard people talk 
about this bill, the importance of title I, getting resources to these 
children and their families, those who are in the poorest conditions in 
both rural and urban communities?
  We all signed on to the bill, which, by the way, if you are troubled 
by special education because of a mandate from the Federal Government, 
brace yourselves because the No Child Left Behind Act has significant 
mandates in it. We require localities to do many things under title I. 
It is going to be costly to do them, including mandatory testing. But 
instead of providing the resources in the first year of this new 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the President actually came 
back and sought to reduce the funding dedicated to meet those 
commitments.
  The difference in the conference report between the promise and the 
reality is $4.25 billion rather than $4.65 billion. So coming back from 
conference the disparity is not quite as bad as it was, but the fact 
is, $4.3 billion was still missing for title I. I am terribly saddened 
by that.
  I know how hard the conferees have to work, but you can't mandate 
things on local governments and not be willing to come up with the 
resources. If you are going to vote as we did overwhelmingly for the No 
Child Left Behind Act and then within the same calendar year refuse to 
provide funding for it, well, you get some sense of why there is so 
much outrage at the local level. You are seeing it in special 
education. Now you will see it in title I. That is regrettable. But, 
again, I thank the Members for their efforts and what they have done in 
this area.
  Lastly, on higher education, when the bill left the Senate, it had 
increased Pell grants by $100 a student. Since the purchasing power of 
Pell grants has been cut in half since 1975 and in most cases the 
average student loan indebtedness has tripled since 1987, I didn't 
think that was nearly enough. Our Republican colleagues defeated an 
amendment to increase the grant by $400, but we sent over at least 
$100. Now it is coming back with an increase of $50. I don't need to 
tell you wherever you go, whether it is special education, title I, or 
college education, the idea that a $50 increase in a Pell grant is 
going to make much of a difference for these low-to-moderate income 
families who are trying to meet the cost of higher education, just 
doesn't make sense.
  Again, I understand that conferees must establish priorities. But I 
am deeply saddened that we couldn't do better and hold at least to the 
$100 that we had in the Senate bill and try to at least relieve a small 
amount of that additional burden that these families are going to face.
  Just to put this all in perspective, I know there is divided opinion 
on these issues, but these are about priorities. The President has 
placed a very high priority obviously on the $674 billion tax cut; $320 
billion of which will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. 
Think of that. Here you have a tax cut for the top 5 percent that is 
going to be some 75 times larger than the cost of meeting the promise 
to low-income schools, and apparently the President values that tax cut 
about 230 times more than increasing Pell grants for low-income 
students by $400.
  Those are choices. I understand people make them. But the American 
public has a right to know that when the choice came to doing something 
about Pell grants for struggling families, working families, doing 
something about special education needs for our local communities, or 
doing something about title I funds which are critically important to 
improve the quality of

[[Page 4003]]

education at the elementary school level, we made the choice to provide 
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
  I represent the most affluent State in te country. I probably have a 
larger percentage of constituents who would benefit from this tax cut 
proposal than most other States. Yet I can tell you, there are very few 
who believe these kinds of priorities are their priorities. Most of 
them, in fact, based on what I have heard from them, believe we should 
be making these critical investments in the quality of education in our 
country--special education, title I funding, and Pell grants.
  I am glad the conference report retained the language from my 
amendment approved on the Senate floor to exempt Head Start from any 
across the board cut contained in the bill. Head Start reaches only 60 
percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-olds and only 3 percent of eligible 
infants and toddlers. The conference report provides a modest increase 
for Head Start that will barely cover inflation. While it is good that 
Head Start was not subject to an across the board cut and was allowed a 
modest increase, we should be fully funding the program. If we truly 
want to leave no child behind, then we need to ensure that every child 
starts school ready to learn. This would have been a good opportunity 
to expand Head Start, but instead, we are just holding it harmless. 
That's not good enough.
  And, while the omnibus legislation continues to provide funding for a 
range of programs critical to the public health of our Nation, it falls 
far short of meeting the true healthcare needs of American citizens. 
When this bill was before the Senate, I was pleased to support 
amendments offered by Senator Murray and Mikulski that were adopted and 
will support care for the uninsured and nurse training. I am pleased 
that the conference agreement supports lifesaving research conducted by 
the National Institutes of Health and removes a scheduled reimbursement 
reduction for physicians that treat elderly Medicare beneficiaries. 
However, I am disappointed that this agreement fails to sufficiently 
broaden further many of the health provisions contained within the 
original bill. Amendments regrettably rejected by the Senate during 
consideration of this measure include an amendment offered by Senator 
Kennedy that would have provided more than $500 million to public 
health programs that serve minority communities and an amendment 
offered by Senator Clinton that would have bolstered funding to 
Medicare providers serving elderly Americans by more than $4 billion.
  Because more than 130 million Americans continue to breathe unhealthy 
air, I believe the President's proposal to eliminate protections that 
control pollution from powerplants and other industries is unwise. I 
supported Senator Edwards' amendment during Senate debate called for an 
independent, scientific analysis of the regulations before they go into 
effect. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated. Language was added 
in conference to allow more logging for commercial purposes and prevent 
legal challenges to the 1997 Tongass forest management plan.
  Further, at a time when energy markets are so volatile, when heating 
oil inventories in the Northeast are 35 percent below the 10-year 
average, when crude oil is at $35 per barrel, and when the Northeast is 
experiencing an unusually cold winter, this bill cuts funding for the 
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve from $8 million to $6 million.
  Under the cuts imposed by the administration and the majority here in 
Congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will provide 
housing services to fewer families and communities will suffer. These 
cuts come on top of HUD's recently announced plans to cut its operating 
support for public housing authorities by as much as 30 percent. In 
letters to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I have urged 
the administration to work with Congress to meet the Nation's housing 
priorities. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill is simply not 
adequate.
  I am also disappointed that this legislation cuts funding for the 
Federal FIRE grant initiative from $900 million in the previously 
approved Senate bill to $750 million in this final bill. FIRE grants 
provide local firefighters with absolutely essential equipment and 
training. I firmly believe the FIRE grant program should have been 
fully funded. Now more than ever, the Federal Government should be 
striving to be an effective partner with cities and towns across the 
country.
  Unfortunately, this final bill reduced funding not only for the FIRE 
grants, but for a myriad of other homeland security activities. In 
total, this final omnibus bill cuts nearly $4.5 billion in homeland 
security spending from the fiscal year 2003 bills written by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee last year. Homeland security spending was cut 
in order to stay within the President's spending limits--limits that 
were imposed not because domestic spending is out of control, but 
because we have cut tax revenue irresponsibly. At a time when the 
Federal Government is running record deficits, we are being asked to 
economize on the safety of local law enforcement, firefighters, 
emergency medical technicians, and the public.
  This bill also fails to provide adequate funding to help state and 
local governments improve their election and balloting systems. The 
conference report provides $1.5 billion for election and balloting 
modernization. This is a significant first step, but it is 
substantially below the amount authorized in the Help America Vote Act. 
I am concerned that state and local governments will not have the 
resources they need to prepare for the upcoming election and ensure 
that we do not have a repeat of the 2000 Presidential election fiasco. 
I am hopeful that we will find the additional resources necessary to 
make sure that every vote is accurately counted. I hope we will find 
the additional resources at the earliest opportunity.
  In the end, I believe this bill reflects a very troubling attitude 
that seems to be taking hold here in Washington, which is to talk about 
helping working families, improving healthcare and education, keeping 
our homeland safe, and other priorities, but not to do enough follow-
through. The American people deserve better than that.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Alaska. He fought hard on some of 
these issues. Unfortunately, we were not able to prevail as 
successfully as I hoped we could. But, I thank him publicly for his 
efforts, and I regret deeply we could not have held onto the Senate 
provisions during the conference negotiations.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for 
his nice comments. I can only say I regret deeply that I will not have 
the privilege he will have tonight, to go home to that beautiful young 
child. We know he protects children because of his great interest in 
children at this time.
  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.

                          ____________________