[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7071-7116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 23.


                     Amendment No. 288, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
evenly divided on the Kyl amendment No. 288, as modified. Who yields 
time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Kyl amendment would move up the time 
of making permanent the elimination of the estate tax by 1 year. That 
costs $46 billion. The Senator has proposed paying for it by cutting 
the Finance Committee jurisdiction. That means cutting Medicare, 
Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the State Health 
Improvement Program, and the earned-income tax credit.
  This is the wrong way to go. We ought to reform the estate tax, not 
repeal it. I hope my colleagues will resist the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what my distinguished colleague just told you 
is absolutely false. If it were true, then I would not support the 
amendment.
  Our amendment cuts from the discretionary funding across the board. 
There is no Medicare. There is no Medicaid. There is no Social 
Security. We would not do that. That would be foolish. It would not be 
prudent. We are not doing that.
  All this does is advance by 1 year the repeal of the death tax. We 
repealed it permanently in this body, starting with the year 2010. All 
this amendment does is start it in the year 2009. That is all it does. 
Since we have already adopted the permanent repeal, I hope my 
colleagues will support moving this up by 1 year.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator yesterday said he took it from 
the Finance Committee jurisdiction for mandatory spending. That is what 
the record shows. That is where it comes from.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota intruded into the time, let me reiterate, this funding is from 
function 920, across-the-board discretionary funding. That is the fact. 
There is no Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security offset, period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Regular order.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 288, as modified. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent due to a family medical matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Miller
       
  The amendment (No. 288), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 294

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided on the 
Graham of Florida amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are about to take the Medicare vote of 
the year 2003. Last year, the Senate cast 52 votes for the plan that 
this amendment would allow us to consider again. It failed with 52 
votes because we were operating under a budget resolution which 
required us to have 60 votes.
  This amendment will allow us to pass the same prescription drug plan 
that a majority of Senators wanted to do a year ago. The alternative, 
if we do not pass this amendment, is going to be to adopt the 
President's prescription drug plan which will require seniors to be in 
HMOs in order to have access to prescription drugs. I don't believe 
that is what this Senate wants to do.
  The amendment I offer will do two things. It will add $219 billion to 
the Medicare account; it will put $177 billion over the next 10 years 
toward deficit reduction. That is a responsible program that will 
secure a good Medicare prescription drug benefit and

[[Page 7072]]

make a significant contribution toward deficit reduction.
  I close by thanking my colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Stabenow 
for their great assistance.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment 
offered by Senators Graham, Dorgan, Stabenow, and others that would 
increase funding in the budget resolution by $220 billion for a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit, providing a total of $620 billion 
for a comprehensive benefit. This amendment would also reduce the tax 
cut by nearly $400 billion and reduce the deficit by $250 billion.
  According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 38 percent of 
seniors and disabled Americans have no prescription drug coverage 
whatsoever. Instead of finding ways to help these individuals and 
improve access to care for those with coverage, President Bush has 
proposed pushing Medicare beneficiaries into private health plans as a 
means of receiving drug coverage. And the level of coverage that could 
be provided under this scenario is questionable. Given the history of 
the Medicare+Choice program, many of my colleagues and I are skeptical 
that such a proposal would be successful. Many private insurers have 
withdrawn from the Medicare program or severely limited service areas 
in recent years. Of those who have remained, many plans have decreased 
prescription drug benefits and other benefits so much so that they 
offer little or no advantage over the traditional Medicare fee-for-
service program. It is unclear how the President's proposal will avoid 
similar problems.
  This amendment would increase funding in the budget resolution for a 
prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program that is available to 
all beneficiaries. In addition, it specifies that prescription drugs 
should be provided on an equal basis with respect to benefit level 
regardless of whether beneficiaries remain in the traditional Medicare 
fee-for-service program or enroll in a private plan like those proposed 
by the administration. This is consistent with the approach that the 
supporters of this amendment and I favor. We have been working toward 
legislation that would create an affordable, comprehensive, and 
voluntary Medicare drug benefit and lower costs for all Americans by 
increasing access to lower priced drugs.
  It is clear that even this additional funding would not completely 
meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. A recent Congressional Budget 
Office estimate suggests spending for prescription drugs by and on 
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries would total $1.84 trillion over the 
next 10-year period. However, this amendment moves us much closer to 
meeting the needs of Medicare beneficiaries while simultaneously 
reducing the deficit.
  Our Nation is facing serious challenges at home and abroad. And we 
know that challenging times often require sacrifice. We must ask 
ourselves who will bear the brunt of these sacrifices. Are we going to 
spread them evenly? Or will we force those who have worked hard to make 
the United States the great Nation that it is to carry an unnecessarily 
heavy load? I fail to see how it is appropriate, at this time, to pass 
a tax benefit that benefits the wealthiest Americans without providing 
adequate resources to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare 
beneficiaries. Our older Americans and the disabled individuals who 
rely on Medicare deserve more than this budget resolution provides. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the Graham-Dorgan-Stabenow 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, not 
because Medicare is not a very legitimate subject of discussion; it is. 
The difference between this year and last year, last year we did not 
have a budget resolution. The process this year is a very orderly 
process toward getting us a prescription drug program as part of 
Medicare. That very orderly process is, first of all, to have a budget 
resolution. It is a very orderly process. We are going to have a budget 
resolution this year. We are going to have $100 billion more for 
Medicare/prescription drugs than the last time we debated this.
  Most of the people on the other side of the aisle 2 years ago helped 
us get a $300 billion figure. We have a $400 billion figure. We have a 
Senate majority leader who is committed to the committee process 
working. Out of the Finance Committee in June, we will produce a good 
prescription drug program for the Senate to debate this summer.
  I urge Members to vote against the amendment. I move to table the 
amendment and 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), is 
necessarily absent, due to a family medical matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Miller
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the 
Rockefeller amendment.
  The majority leader.


                           Order Of Business

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will give everybody an outline of what we 
can expect over the next 24 hours before we begin what will be the last 
vote of the evening.
  Following this next vote, which will begin shortly, there will be 
approximately 5 hours remaining for consideration of the budget 
resolution. Our plans are that we will stay in session tonight. The 
chairman and ranking member will remain this evening to debate the 
amendments with others, and to participate in that debate until all 
time has expired.
  The plan will be to reconvene tomorrow at 9:30 in the morning. And it 
will be a long day. At 9:30 we will begin our rollcall votes, a series 
of rollcall votes. I know the two managers are committed to try to make 
this an orderly process as we complete the budget resolution. That, in 
part, means they need to have all amendments, and they will accomplish 
an ordering of those amendments so we can start right in at 9:30 and 
start clicking through the amendments at the appropriate speed 
tomorrow.
  I do ask Members to notify the managers if they intend to offer an 
amendment during the voting sequence tomorrow. Once the voting begins 
tomorrow, we will remain until the budget resolution is completed.
  I thank all Members for their real cooperation today. Again, it was a 
challenging day for all of us. And it has worked out almost perfectly, 
seamlessly in many ways, as we were

[[Page 7073]]

able to recognize the service of our military personnel and the 
President of the United States and at the same time continue the 
budgeting process.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  I know that before the agreement was reached regarding the resolution 
on our troops, we had made a promise that those who could not speak 
prior to the vote could have the opportunity to speak as soon as these 
votes have been completed.
  The majority leader did not mention that, but I assume that has not 
changed. I asked earlier whether we could ensure that those comments 
would be printed in the Record prior to the vote, as well. If that 
could be accommodated, that would be helpful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, indeed, those statements, written and oral 
statements, will appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  Also, we would encourage people tonight to take advantage of the fact 
that we are going to be here in session. We have agreed that that time 
will be on the budget, the 5 hours that are remaining. I think it is 5 
hours. And people are welcome to speak tonight.
  Again, I remind people they will have other opportunities to express 
themselves on support for the troops, as well.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I just request of the majority leader if we might start 
the votes at 9:45 instead of 9:30 to accommodate one of our Members. I 
also request of our colleagues, I know some people--Senator Conrad and 
I do not want vote-aramas. And I hate for anybody to come back and say: 
I have not had a chance to debate my amendment. We will be here tonight 
to discuss amendments, and we will work together to schedule amendments 
according to Senators' wishes. But we need to see copies of the 
amendments in advance, and then we will try to schedule the amendments. 
We will work energetically--as soon as we get copies of amendments--to 
work out some of these amendments, maybe accept some amendments if we 
have some advance notification. We are going to try to be as 
cooperative as possible.
  So my first request would be, hopefully, to move the first rollcall 
vote to 9:45. And then I just urge our colleagues, if they wish to 
debate their amendments tonight, please do so. And if not, I request 
that they submit us copies of the amendments as early as possible so we 
can do some work on those amendments tonight.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, with regard to the 9:45 start, the surgeon 
in me says we ought to start at 8 o'clock, but we will start at 9:45.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Was there a second request?
  Mr. NICKLES. No.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Do I understand correctly, from the exchange that just 
took place, immediately after this vote there will be an order to make 
statements with respect to the resolution that was passed just a short 
while ago?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is in order to do so. But I will turn to 
the two managers of the bill to respond to that. If statements are 
made, part of the 5 hours will be used up for the statements.
  Mr. CONRAD. If the majority leader will yield, let me attempt to make 
a clarification because I do not think we want a misunderstanding on 
this question.
  The majority side has yielded back all of their time. I have 
something like 4\1/2\ hours remaining on this side. But the way the 
rules work, there are three pending amendments, and the Republican side 
gets half on each of those amendments.
  My understanding is--and I think it is the appropriate inclusion 
here--that time on the war resolution from your side would come off 
your amendment time, not off my time.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
  I say to my colleagues on our side, if I may, please understand that 
when they say there is 4\1/2\ hours left, there is 4\1/2\ hours left in 
total. Even though they have given back all of their time, because 
there are three amendments pending, they get half of the time on each 
of those amendments. So we do not have 4\1/2\ hours. We have much less 
than that left potentially.
  We have significant amendments to debate. I know there are colleagues 
who would like to speak, still, on the war resolution. We will attempt 
to accommodate them. But my intention is to give them 2 minutes each 
because otherwise we are not going to have time to debate very 
consequential amendments with respect to reducing the size of the tax 
cut, with respect to the transportation infrastructure amendment that 
is very significant, with respect to other amendments that are pending, 
Senator Harkin's IDEA amendment, and others.
  So we are going to have to use a lot of discipline and forbearance 
for people to have an opportunity to debate very consequential items 
and discuss the war.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. I ask a question of the majority leader.
  In light of the statement Senator Conrad just made, would it not be 
possible to have, say, an hour, after this vote, for the making of 
statements on the resolution unrelated to taking time away from 
consideration of the budget?
  This is an important resolution. There are many Members who did not 
get a chance before the vote to make a statement. It seems to me a 
reasonable accommodation in light of what the ranking member of the 
committee has just stated.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. FRIST. I will yield in 1 second.
  A discussion with the Democratic leader and myself today was under 
the understanding--again, no unanimous consent agreement--under the 
understanding that if people were going to be talking about the Iraq 
resolution, time would be coming off the time on the budget.
  Let me also clarify the earlier statement. If our side is speaking on 
the Iraq resolution, it will come out of the 2 \1/2\ hours of our time. 
If your side is speaking on the Iraq resolution, it will come out of 
your time.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I wanted to make that clarification. For the information 
of our colleagues, I guess theoretically we could spend a lot of time 
talking about amendments pending and not allow time to be discussed on 
Iraq. That is not our intention. I will be happy to share time with my 
colleague from North Dakota and others who wish to speak on Iraq. We 
will be here until midnight. If people want to speak longer on 
amendments, I am happy to do that, too. I want to be as accommodating 
as possible but still try to complete this resolution by tomorrow 
night. I will be happy to yield some time if it would help some of our 
colleagues.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield on that point, we are, 
obviously, on a track to complete this budget resolution. As I 
understood it, the 3 hours of debate from 2 to 5 before the vote on the 
resolution did not come out of the time on the budget; is that correct?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. All I am suggesting is given there are some additional 
Members who wish to speak, that we have another hour after this vote 
unrelated to time on the budget resolution to discuss the support for 
our troops resolution.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to, out of the time we have in the 
bank, you might say, for the amendments, to allow Members to speak up 
to an hour on the Iraq resolution, if they so desire. I don't want to 
yield all of it, but I will be happy to do that. I don't think that is 
going to be necessary. I will be happy to work with our colleagues.
  Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me that this is a matter of such 
consequence.

[[Page 7074]]


  Mr. STEVENS. You should have been here this afternoon.
  Mr. SARBANES. I was here this afternoon, in response to my colleague 
who raised that point. There was a very long list of people wishing to 
speak. There wasn't time to speak within the time that was allotted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader controls the time.
  Mr. FRIST. Let's have regular order.


                           Amendment No. 275

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 275. Who yields time? The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 
Senators Landrieu, Specter, Johnson, and Dayton as cosponsors of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. This amendment is a simple sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment. That is all it is. It asks that there be no less than $30 
billion over the next 18 months of which half must be for Medicaid to 
be given to the States for fiscal relief within the stimulus package.
  Our States are broke. Quite frankly, the $98 billion that States 
spend on Medicaid today actually turns into $280 billion of fiscal 
stimulus. So it is fiscal stimulus. If we don't do this, 1,700,000 more 
people will lose their Medicaid, lose their health care. They are our 
most vulnerable citizens. I ask that our colleagues support this 
amendment offered by Senator Collins, Senator Nelson, and myself.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I want to say just a few words in support 
of the amendment, No. 275, offered by my friend Senator Rockefeller on 
behalf of Senators Collins, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Clinton, 
Senator Schumer, myself and others. This amendment is extraordinarily 
important for our homeland security, our families, and our entire 
economy.
  This amendment says that any economic growth package has got to 
include at least $30 billion for State fiscal relief. I think that is 
exactly right. I have offered a bill that would provide $50 billion in 
relief. At this time, in the context of the budget resolution, this 
amendment--at least $30 billion--is the most important thing we can do.
  With our troops at war today, their security is first on everybody's 
minds today. Our thoughts and prayers are with these men and women who 
are risking their lives for our freedom and safety even as we speak.
  At the same time, we are also thinking about security here at home. 
We know there is a real risk of an attack now that we are at war. Just 
as we must always make sure our troops on the frontlines abroad have 
what they need, we also need to make sure our troops on the frontlines 
at home have what they need. And the troops on the frontlines at home 
are our police and our firefighters. They need the best protective 
gear, the best bomb detection equipment, the best emergency training, 
and the best communications systems in the world.
  They aren't getting that right now. And one reason they aren't 
getting it is that States can't afford to provide aid because of their 
deficits. We are seeing the largest State fiscal crisis since World War 
II--deficits of over $100 billion. And with those shortfalls, States 
just cannot afford to hire more first responders or give them the 
training and equipment they need. And that is a huge mistake.
  So we need fiscal relief so States and local governments can provide 
for first responders. My bill would set aside $10 billion for that.
  But fiscal relief is about more than homeland security. It is about 
our entire economy.
  Virtually every American has felt this economic downturn. They have 
felt it from North Carolina to Nevada, from the biggest cities to the 
smallest towns. They have felt it in convenience stores, in factories, 
in hospitals--they have felt it everywhere. Two million jobs lost, 
wages down, stock market down--and the list goes on. All Americans 
deserve a better economy than we have got right now.
  Now, the state fiscal crisis is seriously hurting our economy. Here 
is what is happening. Let's say you are a governor, and you are facing 
a massive deficit. In North Carolina, we have a deficit of close to 
$1.7 billion. What do you do? You can't print money like a President 
can. You can't borrow like a President can. You have only two choices. 
You can raise taxes--property taxes or income taxes or sales taxes. Or 
else you can cut spending on priorities like homeland security, 
education, and health care. Or you can do a little of both.
  States are already calling for $14 billion in tax increases. 
Portland, OR, will likely cut 5 weeks from its school year. Hundreds of 
California nursing homes may go bankrupt. In Florida, 26,000 low-income 
people may lose medical coverage.
  So this economic downturn hurts our families. They pay more in taxes, 
or they get less from their schools, their hospitals, their police 
forces. Or both--they pay more and get less.
  At the same time, our whole economy gets hurt. At a time when we 
should be investing more, tax hikes and education cuts mean we end up 
investing less. According to the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, the state spending cuts and tax increases now likely will 
make our economy 1 percent smaller. That is 1 percent of our economy, 
gone because of the fiscal crisis. And according to the Center on 
Budget, ``The only way this blow to the economy can be mitigated is 
through federal fiscal relief for the states.''
  Now, it is unthinkable to offer nothing for the States right now. 
This fiscal crisis was caused by the current economic downturn, and now 
this fiscal crisis is making the current economic downturn even worse. 
The only way out is to stop the crisis with fiscal relief.
  As I have said before, I believe we can and must pay for this fiscal 
relief over the long term. It would be irresponsible not to do that. 
And the way to pay for it over the long run is to cut wasteful 
spending, close needless loopholes, and roll back some of the tax cuts 
for the very wealthiest Americans.
  This relief is hugely important, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it. I have actually offered a State fiscal relief package that provides 
$50 billion in aid to States, and I am hopeful that we can get some 
action on that package. Passing this amendment is the first and most 
important step we can take to ending a fiscal crisis that benefits 
nobody.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this bipartisan sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution would help ensure that any economic growth package includes 
$30 billion in desperately needed fiscal aid to the States. Half of the 
money would have to be used for the Medicaid Program which has been 
severely cut. Forty-nine States are facing budget shortfalls.
  This approach would have no impact on the deficit. It would not 
change the caps in this resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on 
the Rockefeller, Collins, Nelson, and Smith amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
275. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent due to a family medical matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee

[[Page 7075]]


     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Allard
     Allen
     Craig
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham (SC)
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Miller
       
  The amendment (No. 275) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 hours 52 minutes remaining on the 
resolution, with time controlled by the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me a few minutes?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am more than pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Senator 
from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that very much. In light of the discussion 
that was earlier held, my own view is that we should have allowed more 
time to talk about the resolution with respect to Iraq straight out, 
without mixing it into the budget resolution problem. It is obviously 
the issue facing the country. I think Members wanted to address it, and 
I do not believe it ought to be truncated. But I understand the 
difficult position in which the able Senator from North Dakota, who has 
done such an excellent job in terms of his efforts on the budget 
resolution, now finds himself. So I will try to limit my time in that 
regard. I thank the ranking member for his courtesy.
  (The remarks of Mr. Sarbanes are printed in today's Record in the 
debate on S. Res. 95.)
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  How much time is the Senator seeking?
  Mr. DODD. Four minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, who 
has been very patiently waiting.
  Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I could have 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague.
  (The remarks of Mr. Harkin are printed in today's Record in the 
debate on S. Res. 95.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join first of all with my colleague from 
Maryland in expressing some regret we have to ask unanimous consent to 
have remarks added to the Record here at a moment like this when 
300,000 Americans in uniform are presently engaged in conflict in the 
Middle East. I would have thought, like he, there would be a little 
more time for everyone to express our strong sense of support to these 
men and women rather than to find ourselves limited because of the 
budget debate; that more time would have been allocated. Given the 
seriousness of this situation, I would be hard pressed to think of 
another situation in recent times that is as serious as this. It would 
certainly command the attention and time of this institution.
  Having said that, I add my words of commendation for my friend and 
colleague from North Dakota. He has done a magnificent job and we are 
all extremely proud of the work he and his staff have done in trying to 
fashion together a budget debate that allows for a meaningful 
discussion of the important issues that are included in this budget 
discussion.
  I, like many, regret we have not had a chance to talk about and 
include in the budget debate, obviously, the issue of the cost of the 
conflict in the Middle East, the cost of reconstruction--not because we 
necessarily disagree with it at all; in fact, I supported the 
resolution last fall--but it ought to be part of the debate and 
discussion of the budget. Those matters have to be left for another day 
as we go through this budget resolution.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dodd are printed in today's Record in the debate 
on S. Res. 95.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I agree completely with the Senator from 
Connecticut. I deeply regret the decision was not made to spend this 
day discussing the war. I said this morning, I find it very difficult 
to understand, as much as I value the budget and the budget process, 
after spending my entire time in the Senate on the Budget Committee. 
That is not, frankly, the focus of the attention of the American people 
today. The war is the focus of the attention of the American people 
today and we should have spent this entire day on the war. We should 
have put off the budget discussion and the budget debate until later.
  The majority refused to do that. The majority insisted the budget was 
the priority and we would have limited time to discuss the war. That is 
a mistake. It is not right. That is where we are.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is seeking time, and I yield 3 minutes to 
the Senator from Wisconsin.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kohl are printed in today's Record in the debate 
on S. Res. 95.)
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I thank him very much 
for his patience. Again, I want to express my regret that we are forced 
into this circumstance of limiting time on such a consequential 
subject. But the rules unfortunately dictate the circumstance we are 
in, and the unwillingness of the other side to give us an extended time 
for discussion; instead to be locked into the budget discussion, which 
is regrettable.
  The Senator from Louisiana has also been extraordinarily patient, not 
just today but for several days. He has an amendment that is one of the 
most consequential to come before the body on this subject. So I 
apologize to the Senator from Louisiana. He has been, as always, a 
gentleman. How much time would the Senator seek?
  Mr. BREAUX. Can I have 10 minutes?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Louisiana. If he would like additional time, we will do that as well.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. I thank him 
not only for yielding and his nice comments about what we are 
attempting to do, but I also congratulate him on the very difficult job 
of serving as ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee. This is a 
very difficult job. He has handled it with a great deal of finesse and 
maturity and understanding about the intricacies of the budget process.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 339

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask it 
be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. BREAUX. I ask the amendment be set aside and ask the amendment at 
the desk be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Voinovich, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 339.

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

 (Purpose: To reduce tax cuts by $375 billion and to reduce projected 
                       deficits by $464 billion)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $10,433,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $33,015,000,000.

[[Page 7076]]

       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $27,962,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $22,167,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $16,893,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $16,183,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $15,879,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $15,992,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $52,874,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $79,512,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $84,090,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $10,433,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $33,015,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $27,962,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $22,167,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $16,893,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $16,183,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $15,879,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $15,992,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $52,874,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $79,512,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $84,090,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $899,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $2,687,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $4,364,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $5,762,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $7,003,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $8,294,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $9,640,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $12,035,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $16,276,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $21,605,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $899,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,687,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $4,364,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $5,762,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $7,003,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $8,294,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $9,640,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $12,035,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $16,276,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $21,605,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $10,511,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $33,914,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $30,648,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $26,532,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $22,654,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $23,186,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $24,173,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $23,632,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $64,909,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $95,788,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $105,696,000,000.
       On page 6, line 5, decrease the amount by $10,511,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $44,425,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $75,073,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $101,605,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $124,259,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $147,445,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $171,619,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $197,250,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $262,159,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $357,947,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $463,643,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $10,511,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $44,425,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $75,073,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $101,605,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $124,259,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $147,445,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $171,619,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $197,250,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $262,159,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $357,947,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $463,643,000,000.
       On page 40, line 2, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 40, line 3, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 40, line 6, decrease the amount by $899,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by $899,000,000.
       On page 40, line 10, decrease the amount by $2,687,000,000.
       On page 40, line 11, decrease the amount by $2,687,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by $4,364,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by $4,364,000,000.
       On page 40, line 18, decrease the amount by $5,762,000,000.
       On page 40, line 19, decrease the amount by $5,762,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by $7,003,000,000.
       On page 40, line 23, decrease the amount by $7,003,000,000.
       On page 41, line 2, decrease the amount by $8,294,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, decrease the amount by $8,294,000,000.
       On page 41, line 6, decrease the amount by $9,640,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by $9,640,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $12,035,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $12,035,000,000.
       On page 41, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $16,276,000,000.
       On page 41, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $16,276,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $21,605,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $21,605,000,000.
       On page 45, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $375,000,000,000.

  Mr. BREAUX. This amendment I have sent to the desk is on behalf of 
our colleague on the Republican side, Senator Snowe; on behalf of the 
ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus; and 
also on behalf of our Republican colleague, Senator Voinovich from 
Ohio.
  I remember that a great Chinese philosopher once said: May you live 
in interesting times.
  I would also add today that we are actually living in very confusing 
times.
  The bombs began to drop on the country of Iraq last night. We have 
over 200,000 men and women engaged in a war in a far off country. We 
have a country that is presently on orange alert, the second highest in 
our country's history. We have a war, and we do not know how long it is 
going to last, whether it be 4 days or 4 weeks or 4 months. We have a 
war and we have no concept of how much it is going to cost. We have 
estimates from $50 billion, $60 billion, $100 billion, depending on how 
long the conflict lasts.
  We have a financial situation in this country where we have a $300 
billion deficit that is now facing us in the short term. Yet we have a 
budget recommending that we now take the action of cutting revenues to 
pay for the cost of the war by about $1.36 trillion, of which the 
budget request adds $726 billion be protected by the process of budget 
reconciliation which would prevent any effort to filibuster that, on 
behalf of our Republican colleagues.
  In addition, we all know in this Congress we are faced with 
additional costs in health care, particularly in the Medicare Program 
where we are attempting to add a prescription drug benefit plan to a 
Medicare Program which is desperately in need of additional funds. We 
have all of our Governors and all of 50 States saying how they do not 
have enough revenues to adequately run their State Medicaid Program.

[[Page 7077]]

  Indeed, it is not only interesting times, it is very confusing times 
in the sense of trying to rationalize how we as a nation, with the 
pending demands we have on our society, financial demands that are 
legitimate and pressing, especially the conduct of a war in the country 
of Iraq, and at the same time we are asking to cut revenues by a total 
of $1.36 trillion.
  I remember back when we looked at the last major tax reduction and 
tax cut in this country, back in the year 2001. We passed and 
ultimately enacted a $1.35 trillion tax cut. Times were different. 
Times were not as confusing. In those days we had a $5.6 trillion 
surplus. We had $5.6 trillion more in the Federal Treasury than we 
needed to operate and serve the people of this country. When you have a 
surplus of that magnitude, it is appropriate that you give some of the 
money back to the taxpayers of this country. We had a surplus. We were 
not at war. Conditions were different. Times were different. They were 
not confusing. We knew what we were facing.
  Today that has changed, completely, totally, 180 degrees. We are at 
war, Medicare is on the verge of collapse, Medicaid is in fact 
collapsing, and we have a deficit, not a surplus. Yet we are faced 
today with a proposal that says in those conditions, one of the most 
important things we can do is cut revenues, and cut revenues not by an 
insignificant amount but, rather, by a total of $1.36 trillion over the 
next 10 years.
  I know of only a small number of people who say that makes common 
sense. What business that is in debt and losing money would declare a 
dividend? What government that is facing war, and in fact is in war, 
with a net deficit of over $300 billion in 1 year, would say we need 
less revenues to meet our demands when in fact just the opposite is 
true: That is the issue that is facing us.
  Some Members on the Republican side of the aisle think the number of 
the tax cut at $726 billion in this budget under reconciliation 
protection is just the right number. There are some on our side who 
think, no, we should have no tax cut until we know what the costs and 
demands are in our society. They would suggest we should have a zero 
tax cut until we know the cost of the war, and how much we are going to 
need for Medicare and prescription drugs and Medicaid, and how much we 
are going to have to pay for homeland security. They take the position 
that until we know those answers, we should not be reducing and cutting 
and slashing the revenues that we need to run Government.
  Tax cuts are popular, but they also have to be realistic. Tax cuts 
are not free. We do not just eliminate $726 billion in revenue and 
think it is going to come out of the sky. In fact, we have to pay for 
it. And to pay for provisions in this legislation is simply adding to 
the deficit of this country at a time of great demands and at a time 
when we do not know what the future holds.
  I think that is not good policy. I would prefer no tax cut at this 
time, but that is not politically possible. So what my colleagues and 
friends, in a bipartisan fashion, have tried to do is to say there must 
be some meeting of the minds, somewhere in the middle, between $726 
billion in tax cuts and zero in tax cuts. That is why two Democrats and 
two Republicans--who have worked weeks and weeks together to come up 
with this--are now presenting this amendment to our colleagues in the 
Senate.
  We have met with economists. We have met with tax experts. We have 
met with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, to get 
his ideas and to get his suggestions about what we need to do.
  What we have before the Senate now is a reflection of that. It is the 
only bipartisan amendment being offered that I think has a realistic 
chance of passing. It is clear in my mind, for those on my side of the 
aisle who would prefer zero in tax cuts, that if they do not vote for 
this amendment, with a $350 billion tax cut, they in effect are voting 
for a $726 billion tax cut. Because it is clear in my mind, and I think 
in the minds of others, that if our amendment does not pass, the tax 
cut that remains is $726 billion.
  I know for those who say, I don't want any, it is difficult for them 
to vote for $350 billion. But let me say to them, what they are doing, 
in doing that, is reducing the tax cut by a substantial amount and a 
significant amount. In fact, they would be reducing the tax cut by $375 
billion by voting for our amendment. They would be reducing the Federal 
deficit by $464 billion. That is not insignificant. It should be more, 
but this is what we have the potential, and the political reality, of 
accomplishing.
  So for those on my side, it is very important to understand, if this 
amendment does not pass, the likelihood of what passes is much larger 
and increases the deficit substantially. By voting for our amendment, 
you have a chance to reduce the Federal deficit by $464 billion over 
the next 10 years. That is real progress for people who believe in 
economic balanced budgets.
  It is, in fact, the conservative thing to do, I say to my Republican 
colleagues, because you don't spend money you don't have. Whether it is 
for a tax cut or whether it is for some spending program, they both 
have the same results. We have to pay for them.
  So I think what we offer today is an amendment that should, 
hopefully, find comfort and support from both sides of the aisle. That 
is what we have attempted to do. And that is what this amendment, in 
fact, does.
  I know some would like a much larger tax cut, but in looking at what 
we have offered, I think it does represent a tax cut, so that we in the 
Finance Committee, and later in the full body, will be able to craft 
something that has meaning, that really adds stimulus to the economy. 
And we would support that. That type of program can pass with a 
significant number of Democratic votes joining with our Republican 
colleagues in a bipartisan fashion.
  It should not be all or nothing. That is too risky. It is too 
irresponsible. So what my colleagues and I have offered together is a 
compromise, a bipartisan compromise, which I think makes a great deal 
of sense for everyone who is concerned about the future of this 
country.
  It is difficult in challenging times. These are confusing times. 
These are uncertain times. And in these times, I would suggest the 
right course of action is to be a little more conservative with how we 
spend our Nation's money, as we prepare to face obligations which no 
one can be certain how large or for how long they are going to 
continue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield time, on behalf of the ranking 
member, to the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, these obviously are very 
difficult times and, obviously, the point at which we find ourselves in 
trying to reconcile some of the more significant issues that are 
incorporated in this budget resolution.
  As the Senator from Louisiana indicated, several of us have been 
working across the political aisle--with the Senator from Montana and 
the Senator from Ohio--to reconcile some of the issues with respect to 
the central question in this budget resolution in terms of the extent 
to which we should have a growth package--what type, what size, and 
what should be included in that growth package.
  Obviously, the policy will not be determined in the budget 
resolution. But certainly we can determine the size that could dictate 
ultimately the policy in the days and weeks ahead.
  I appreciate our ability to work across the political aisle to help 
craft this amendment. As the Senator from Louisiana indicated, it is an 
amendment that will reduce the size of the tax cut from $726 billion to 
$350 billion. And the remaining $376 billion would be applied towards 
deficit reduction. Through this alone, we would achieve $86 billion 
savings in interest costs.
  I happen to believe this is a responsible, well balanced approach 
that will

[[Page 7078]]

both stimulate our economy in the short term and protect our economy 
from the effects of unnecessary deficits in the long term. That is 
particularly important because when we compound future deficits, we 
raise the likelihood we will drive up long-term interest rates.
  I understand the challenges of bringing forth a budget resolution. 
First, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, in his new 
position as chairman, for having the persistence and the determination, 
as well as the dedication, to bring this budget resolution before the 
Senate.
  I commend him for his tireless work in forging and producing the 
budget we have debated on the floor this week. As a former member of 
the Budget Committee, I know what goes into this process. I also know 
that Senator Nickles wants what we did not have last year, which was a 
budget resolution. It is critical because it imposes structure and 
discipline and defines the priorities in Federal expenditures.
  That is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. That is why it is 
so critical and instrumental to get it done, to pass a budget 
resolution, so we can advance the budget process that ultimately will 
determine the policy as well as the appropriations, so we do not have 
what we had this year. This year, the first month and a half was 
devoted to the unfinished business of the last Congress--half of the 
domestic budget--because we had failed to pass a budget resolution. So 
that is important.
  That is why I and the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from 
Montana, and the Senator from Ohio worked together, because we 
understood, in order to pass a bipartisan budget resolution, it was 
also important to focus on some of the issues that would divide us. One 
of those questions was, of course, on the size of the growth plan as 
proposed by the President.
  I commend the President for his leadership in initiating the debate 
on the necessity of stimulating our economy. I happen to share his 
belief that we should take steps to rejuvenate this sluggish economy, 
to try to do what we can in the short term to strengthen the economy.
  I also happen to believe that our budget resolution has to bear the 
stamp of the totality of the extraordinary historic events and times in 
which we live. In the last 2 years, it has been an extraordinary 
transformation for America, in the aftermath of the most horrific 
event, the devastating attack on American soil, the ongoing war on 
terrorism, the initiation of military action in Iraq and more than 
250,000 troops poised for potential war. We also have grave concerns 
about the nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula. All of these 
global uncertainties have cast a dark shadow over a domestic economy 
that was already on shaky ground even before September 11. The events 
of September 11 catapulted an already shaky economy into a recession.
  Indeed, over the past year our Nation's economy has only grown worse. 
The economy grew at an anemic .7 percent in the fourth quarter, the 
weakest quarterly gain since the end of the recession, and just last 
month 308,000 people joined the unemployment rolls, bringing our 
unemployment to an 8-year high. Since the recession began, we now have 
lost more than 2.3 million jobs in the private sector. Without 
question, we need to have a stimulus package to address the short-term, 
immediate economy.
  As Allen Sinai said, chief economist for Decision Economics, the 
fiscal stimulus is ``absolutely essential'' because the U.S. and world 
economies are struggling.
  In short, failing to act now by passing an immediate growth package 
in this budget is to risk contributing to a jobless recovery or 
incurring a double dip recession. We cannot afford to wait until our 
military action in Iraq is concluded.
  This is the right time. This is the right vehicle for action. We can 
always debate further issues later. But we will never be able to turn 
the clock back to jump-start the economy.
  When we were involved in deliberations about a stimulus package in 
2002, we had numerous discussions with Chairman Greenspan and other 
experts. The one thing we did hear was this: If you want to effect the 
short-term behavior of the economy, you have to do it as soon as 
possible to have the maximum impact on short-term behavior. So we 
cannot afford to lose time. I believe we should have a growth package 
in this budget. At the same time, given these unprecedented times and 
the confluence of circumstances on which they are defined, whether it 
is the economic uncertainties, the war in Iraq, the projection of 
higher and higher budget deficits, the domestic fiscal challenges that 
lurk on the horizon because of Social Security and Medicare, our 
responsibility to carefully evaluate the impact of any tax reduction 
and spending increases in this budget is that much greater.
  That is the context in which we must shape this budget. These are 
realities that we cannot afford to ignore. Indeed, our projected 
Federal deficit for this fiscal year is now estimated to be $246 
billion. That is an increase of 54 percent. That is without any new 
spending or tax cuts. There were only 3 other years in the last 32 
years in which we saw higher deficit levels in terms of real dollars. 
What is required in this budget resolution is careful calibration, if 
we are to produce short-term benefits for our economy without 
jeopardizing long-term fiscal responsibility and economic growth.
  Let there be no mistake, just as the need for short-term economic 
stimulus is compelling, so, too, is the need to return to balanced 
budgets and, indeed, surpluses as soon as possible.
  I have been in Congress, both the House and Senate, for 25 years. I 
have seen how difficult it is to achieve a balanced budget. After all, 
it took 18 years of my career before we saw the realization, the 
accomplishment of a balanced budget amendment. We all cheered on the 
success, that for the first time we were able to escape the chronic 
budget deficits that had characterized the budgetary process for 
decades. Then a year later we were able to have the first on-budget 
surplus. We have been able to have 4 years of surpluses from 1998 to 
2001. I don't want that to be an anomaly. I want deficits to be an 
anomaly.
  As I said, over the last two decades, I saw the progression of the 
deficits. I saw the progression of various procedures and how we were 
going to attack deficits, from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to every other 
mechanism. There were those who said we should not have a balanced 
budget because they said it was a gimmick. I said, if it was a gimmick, 
we would have passed it a long time ago. It wasn't a gimmick. It 
worked.
  We cannot risk the impact of undue deficits in the long term because 
those chronic deficits drive up interest rates. That is going to stymie 
our ability to do what we need to do for future generations. It will 
diminish our ability to address the problems associated with Social 
Security and Medicare.
  That is how I am approaching this economic growth question in the 
budget resolution. What will stimulate the economy today versus what 
will not? And for those measures in this package, and the funding 
measure that we are including in this budget resolution are not strong, 
immediate, and of limited duration, if they truly have merit in their 
own right, then they should be paid for as we go.
  We need to ask ourselves in this current circumstance, can we really 
afford to deficit finance nonstimulative proposals? Maybe we could do 
it in a different time or place, but not now.
  It all comes back to setting priorities. That is what we said time 
and again in all those years that we were fighting for a balanced 
budget that was accomplished right here in the Senate back in 1996. 
That is what we talked about, establishing priorities, getting our 
fiscal house in order. Now that is what we need to do in this budget 
resolution. We have to draw lines, and we have to draw distinctions.
  What I am saying tonight is, if those proposals that are 
nonstimulative to change our tax structure are part of a long-term 
economic growth plan or are part of tax reform, those proposals should 
be fully paid for so as to not exacerbate our future economic situation

[[Page 7079]]

and lead to greater problems down the road. That is not my view. It is 
the prevalent view among economists--Chairman Greenspan and so many 
others across the board--because we are dealing with so many challenges 
and crises simultaneously.
  How much can we afford to do now? How much? How much is too much? 
Should it be $726 billion? Should it be a trillion? Should it be $2 
trillion? We have to draw lines. That is why I am here tonight. That is 
why I reached across party lines, to work together so we can pass a 
bipartisan budget resolution that reaches a consensus on this key issue 
of whether or not we should have a growth plan, and, if so, how much 
can we afford to do now?
  I drew the line on what was stimulus versus nonstimulus. We need to 
have a carefully calibrated growth plan that is limited, of short 
duration, to have an immediate impact on the economy and that will not 
have a negative impact on long-term interest rates.
  I looked at the outyears because I wanted to get exactly a snapshot 
of where we are today and where we are going in 2013. All I can see 
down the road are deficits as far as the eye can see. We have deficits 
every year. We have deficits through 2013, the year in which we will 
also have the onset of 77 million baby boomers retiring. So we will 
have a convergence of not only that massive wave of retirement that 
will impact Social Security and Medicare, but we will also continue to 
have deficits.
  I looked at the projections by CBO. What I found were interesting 
facts. CBO projects a return to surpluses in 2008. But let it be clear, 
the assumptions do not account for real budget costs--the war in Iraq, 
tax cuts, prescription drugs, more spending on defense and homeland 
security, all national imperatives.
  In fact, CBO's baseline assumes real discretionary spending will 
remain constant. That certainly contravenes the recent trends of around 
8 percent growth in spending. According to the Brookings Institute, it 
said:

       Such assumption implies real outlays will fall by 9 percent 
     relative to population, and by 20 percent relative to gross 
     domestic product over the next decade.

  I do not think anybody seriously believes that is realistic. Putting 
these costs into the budget, we could have a deficit this year of over 
$300 billion and next year it could approach $400 billion. If we 
anticipate a supplemental of $100 billion or more in the short term, 
that will push our deficit near 4 percent of GDP, and that will be a 
historical high. I have heard time and again these deficits represent a 
minimal amount as a percentage of the GDP. I heard those arguments 
through the eighties. I heard them in the nineties. How much is too 
high? Today it is 2 percent. Tomorrow it will be 3 percent. With the 
supplemental next week, it could be 4 percent.
  Why are we not focusing on how we can return to a balanced budget as 
soon as possible? Are balanced budgets no longer part of the political 
and economic lexicon? We should be devoting our time to figuring out, 
given all these exigencies, extenuating circumstances which, without 
question, need to be funded, how much can we do now in terms of a tax 
cut? We had a tax cut in 2001. We had a tax cut in 2002, and in my 
entire career, I have supported tax cuts, but now we are looking at 
multiple challenges on the horizon that demand significant Federal 
expenditures.
  Therefore, I say, let's be prudent, let's be proportional, let's be 
practical, and target the growth plan to $350 billion that would be 
sufficient to have an effect on the short-term economy to turn this 
economy around.
  Some people say wait until after the conflict with Iraq is over. If 
you have a weak economy, we have no way of prognosticating the future 
in terms of what the economy will look like in the aftermath of Iraq. 
We may have fundamentals strong enough that we can rebound. Certainly 
Chairman Greenspan has indicated he thinks that will be the case. If 
not, we do not want to take the risk, particularly because it affects 
the well-being of the American people and particularly those who have 
lost their jobs. So let's put something in place now. Mr. President, 
$350 billion seems to me to be a right size approach to do that for the 
short term.
  Some people say that is just splitting the difference, 726, 350, it 
is half a loaf. It is splitting the difference. It is the moderate's 
approach to splitting it in half. It is not about splitting the 
difference, it is about making a distinction. It is making a 
distinction between what is a stimulus and what is not, what we can pay 
for now and what we can pay for in the future. That is the difference, 
and that happens to be a major difference.
  Finally, when I look to the future, I think we all share the concern 
about the fact that we now have reverted back to using the surplus of 
the Social Security trust fund to mask the size of the true deficit. As 
I said earlier, we broke that chronic pattern of bad fiscal behavior. 
We were able to finally realize that moment where we could say that we 
no longer use the surpluses from the Social Security trust fund.
  We know why we are in this situation today. No one questions that. 
The question is, how do we get back to where we were? That is my 
concern. When I look at the long-term projections, when I look at the 
fact that in the year 2013, we will be using $2.5 trillion in the 
Social Security trust fund surpluses to mask the true condition of the 
bottom line, that is of concern. That should be a concern to all of us, 
particularly at a time in which we will see as well the first wave of 
baby boomers retiring.
  These are serious times. We cannot afford to diminish our ability to 
strengthen Social Security and Medicare. We have looked to this next 
decade, the decade we are in, as a window of opportunity to return to 
surpluses to prepare us for the future challenges. But as we have seen 
over the last 18 months, we can see how projections dramatically change 
and opportunities have evaporated. We know we had a $5.6 trillion 
surplus just 2 years ago, but we also understand what happened on 
September 11 that transformed this country. We obviously had to address 
emergencies, homeland security, the war on terrorism, and 68 percent of 
the surpluses were evaporated as a result of the declining economy.
  So I do believe we need to have a growth plan, but we must exercise 
caution so that we do not aggravate the long-term picture and threaten 
our ability to address long-term priorities.
  We have to be cautious because when you have fluctuations, and as the 
ones that have been as dramatic as they have been over the last few 
years, it can increase or it can decrease the amount of revenues that 
are available for other programs and certainly can decrease the amount 
of revenues coming in to the Federal Treasury.
  Just a 1-percent fluctuation in the GDP can decrease tax receipts by 
$120 billion over 5 years and increase outlays by $52 billion over 5 
years--just a 1-percent change. Think of where we have been in terms of 
economic growth and the fluctuations that have occurred.
  That is why I think we have to be prudent. The President was right to 
offer a growth plan, but I think we cannot ignore the impact of all the 
challenges we face. If we step back and take the long view, I do 
believe we have to make a decision in terms of how much we can afford 
to do now, and what we need to do is to stimulate the short-term 
economy. What we cannot afford to do, without paying for it, without 
adding to the deficit, is advancing long-term economic growth plans, 
tax reform, nonstimulative proposals.
  I hope my colleagues will give this very serious consideration in 
support of this amendment. I do not offer this lightly. I have taken 
this responsibility very seriously. I happen to believe it is important 
to get a strong bipartisan budget resolution with the right size number 
for a stimulus plan, a figure that will help us get a budget on a 
timely basis, a number that will help us to stimulate the economy.
  I happen to believe the amendment we are offering today strikes the 
right balance. It represents the most effective way, I believe, that we 
can advance a growth plan that can achieve

[[Page 7080]]

the strongest possible support but, more importantly, have the maximum 
effect on our economy without affecting the long-term future. We know 
these are extraordinary times, but I hope we will not abandon our goals 
for fiscal discipline. I hope we will not compound the outlook, the 
chronic future budget deficits, and diminish our ability to address and 
finance our security in Medicare. We need to lift the economy but 
without adding to future deterioration.
  I hope we are not retreating in the notion that we can never return 
to balanced budgets. I hope we will concentrate on the goal of 
returning to balanced budgets as soon as it is possible. I hope we can 
begin now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Who yields time on the amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time is the Senator seeking?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I seek 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, before I address the merits of this 
amendment, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for his 
successful efforts to bring a budget resolution to the floor. I would 
like to particularly commend the chairman for including several 
important budget reform initiatives that will control spending and 
impact the soaring deficit: Extension of supermajority enforcement, 
reestablishment of discretionary spending limits in the Senate, 
reestablishment of restrictions on advance appropriations in the 
Senate, providing a clear definition of emergency legislation, 
reestablishment of the pay-as-you-go point of order in the Senate. 
Those are good things, but I must say I take issue with the 
reconciliation instructions contained in the budget resolution. As much 
as I oppose deficit spending, I also oppose deficit tax reduction, and 
these reconciliation instructions have the opposite effect of the 
budget reforms in the resolution.
  I say to my colleagues this evening that we are on the edge of a 
serious crisis in terms of our Federal budget. In the past decade, 
conservatives worked hard to return the Federal Government to a 
balanced budget. For a short time after hand-to-hand combat, we met our 
goal for 2 years in 1999 and 2000. We balanced the budget without 
raiding the Social Security surplus. We had an on-budget surplus. That 
means we did not use Social Security in 1999. In 2000, again we did not 
use Social Security and we had a true on-budget surplus of $87 billion. 
Ever since 2000, we have been increasing our budget deficit to the 
extent that if the budget deficit for 2003 is projected, it will be 
$408 billion, the largest budget deficit we have experienced in the 
Senate.
  Unfortunately, as I said, our balancing the budget was short lived. 
Today, instead of reducing our $6.2 trillion national debt, we are 
expanding it. In 2001, we suffered an on-budget deficit of $33 billion. 
In 2002, we suffered an on-budget deficit of $314 billion. CBO now 
projects that if Congress were to go home and not legislate any 
further--and that does not include costs associated with the economic 
stimulus, a drug benefit for Medicare, or the war--we would suffer an 
on-budget deficit, as I mentioned, of $408 billion. It is clear that 
increased discretionary spending has led to these exploding Federal 
deficits.
  This discretionary spending reached a post-cold-war low in 1995 of 
$502 billion. At the current rate of growth, discretionary spending 
will exceed $1 trillion in fiscal year 2008. In terms of deficits, the 
future does not look very good. CBO recently prepared an analysis of 
OMB's budget proposals and, according to this report, if these 
proposals are enacted, we can expect a whopping on-budget deficit of 
$452 billion in fiscal year 2003, which does not include costs 
associated with war, and $512 billion in fiscal year 2004. Again, that 
does not include the costs associated with the war.
  The fact of the matter is that in 2003 and 2004, if we include Social 
Security, we are going to be borrowing over half a trillion dollars to 
run our Government.
  Currently, as I said, we have a $6.2 trillion debt. The 
administration has recently asked Congress to again raise the debt 
ceiling. I am sure they are reluctant to come over here and ask us to 
raise the debt ceiling at the same time we are talking about a $726 
million reduction in taxes.
  The current Federal debt represents an obligation of more than 
$21,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States, including 
the Budget chairman's new grandson Nicholas and my new granddaughter 
Emily. Under CBO's baseline, again, assuming Congress goes home and 
does not legislate anymore for the next 10 years and spending grows at 
inflation, we will reach a total debt of $8.7 trillion by 2008 and $9.7 
trillion by 2012. However, under current policy assumptions, which 
include costs associated with economic stimulus and a drug benefit for 
Medicare, but not the war, OMB's budget projects Federal debt will 
exceed $9.3 trillion by 2008. The President's budget did not even 
include a projection for debt of 10 years.
  I say to my colleagues that debt does matter. Every dollar we add to 
the Federal debt today must be repaid in the future with interest, and 
there is no way around it.
  I am also concerned about the seemingly new message which minimizes 
the importance and effect of the debt. In contrast, Federal Reserve 
Chairman Greenspan has consistently stated that all things being equal, 
a declining level of Federal debt is desirable because it holds down 
long-term interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and 
elevating private investments.
  Even the proponents of using the debt-to-GDP ratio as a measure of 
fiscal responsibility must acknowledge our current situation is not 
good. As recently as 2000, we had a surplus-to-GDP ratio of 2.4 
percent. In 2001, when we passed the last stimulus package, the ratio 
of deficit to GDP was only 1.5 percent. Currently, CBO estimates the 
GDP ratio for 2003 will be 3 percent and could go higher. We have 
doubled that percentage in 1 year without including the cost of the 
war.
  In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described the 
effort to bring deficits under control and decisions needed to maintain 
fiscal discipline. He said: Achieving a satisfactory budget posture 
will depend on ensuring that the new initiatives are consistent with 
our longer run budgetary deficits. As you craft the budget strategy for 
the coming years, you may want to consider provisions that in some way 
would limit decreasing tax and spending initiatives if specified 
targets for the budget surplus and Federal debt were to be satisfied.
  In other words, in putting our budgets together, we have to look down 
the road to the day of reckoning when the baby boomers retire and we 
are in a position where we can take care of their retirements.
  Many foreign investors believe budget deficits demonstrate the 
relative strength of an economy. In addition, they believe this ratio 
gives a fair idea of Government policies and political aspects of the 
individual nation's monetary systems. Consequently, the Maastrich 
Treaty requires the EU countries not to exceed a debt-to-GDP ratio of 3 
percent. When the costs of the anticipated supplemental spending 
related to the war are added, the current budget deficit will exceed 3 
percent of GDP in 2004.
  The U.S. Federal budget would demonstrate less fiscal discipline than 
European nations are imposing on themselves. This change in perception 
would tend to increase interest costs for Federal borrowing since the 
United States finances a large portion of its debt held by the public 
through the sale of T-bills. And it will become progressively more 
difficult to finance continued deficits or pay future Social Security 
benefits.
  That being said, and despite my concerns regarding the expanding 
national debt, I think most agree that some economic stimulus is needed 
to provide a shot in the arm to our economy, although many economists, 
including Alan Greenspan, have said the problem is geopolitical, that 
after the cloud of a war is over our economy will move forward.

[[Page 7081]]

  Stimulus, I believe, is still needed. But not $700 billion worth of 
stimulus. Our amendment calls for $350 billion in stimulus. And 
realistically, tax cuts larger than $350 billion appear to have very 
little support on either side of the Hill. It might not be possible to 
pass any stimulus proposal if the pricetag is too large. The all or 
nothing approach could rob us of the opportunity to give business the 
stimulus it needs. That is unacceptable. We need to cooperate and enact 
a $350 billion stimulus package and get the economy moving as rapidly 
as possible.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, when I was Governor of Ohio, if I 
suggested a $700 billion package of tax reductions to the legislature 
and they came back to me and said on a bipartisan basis, we will give 
you $350 billion, I would have taken it and ran. We believe that $350 
billion will cover what is needed to help rev up the economy, 
especially given the fact we will be borrowing each and every dollar 
used for the tax cut.
  Reconciliation instructions at the $350 billion level provide the 
financing committee the ability to enact one large tax reform proposal, 
several small reforms, or a combination of medium and small reforms. It 
is reasonable to expect future economic growth within 10 years would 
begin to pay for the cost of tax reforms limited to $350 billion.
  It is also important to note our amendment does not preclude Congress 
from passing a larger economic stimulus package this year. It just says 
we need to pay for it.
  We should honor the principle embodied in pay-go. If people want more 
than $350 billion in tax reductions, pay for them with offsets. Even 
proponents of dynamic scoring can see it would take much longer than 10 
years for economic growth to begin to pay for tax reductions of more 
than $350 billion. Although many have agreed to vote for final passage 
of the budget resolution, I can guarantee we will not support a package 
larger than $350 billion.
  The Senate should also clearly recognize bipartisanship is the best 
stimulus we can provide the American people at this time. The Senate 
did not even consider a budget resolution on the floor last year. It 
led to partisan gridlock and failure to enact appropriations bills 
before the end of the 107th Congress. Major programs, including many 
related to homeland security, were left in limbo. We must not repeat 
this mistake. The Senate, the administration, and the American people 
are best served through bipartisan support for budgetary initiatives.
  The people are watching us. They want to see us work together. We are 
at a time of war. Given the current economic and geopolitical climate, 
we should avoid excessive partisanship which breeds uncertainty and 
discourages business investment. Enacting a budget resolution with only 
a one or two vote margin tells financial markets that Congress is 
likely to drag out the whole process, including reducing taxes and 
passing appropriations bills when they are needed. In contrast, 
enacting a budget resolution with strong bipartisan support will signal 
stability, tell financial markets that Congress is likely to manage 
Federal finances efficiently and effectively, and encourage business 
investment.
  Additionally, I think it is very important that we act in a unified 
manner, supporting the President due to the war. I disagree strongly 
with my Republican colleagues who maintain that not passing the 
President's larger package will look bad for him. I don't agree with 
that. Instead, I believe passing a $350 billion package with strong 
bipartisan support will be looked upon very favorably by the American 
public, that the Congress and the President can work together to move 
things ahead on a bipartisan basis.
  Let's send a signal to Wall Street, Main Street, and the rest of the 
world that during this time of crisis we are able to overcome our 
differences and unify behind fiscal policies with a broad base of 
support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
yielded to Senators Breaux, Snowe, and Voinovich be taken from the 
amendment time rather than the resolution time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Just to comment, first, I respect very much my 
colleagues, Senator Breaux, Senator Snowe, Senator Voinovich, and 
Senator Baucus for offering this amendment. They come from a centrist 
tradition of the Senate of which I was long a member before I got into 
this position, and it is really no longer appropriate for me to be part 
of that group. I have enormous respect for them. I thank them.
  The Senator from Montana is seeking 15 minutes off the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes remain.
  Mr. BENNETT. How much time would be available on the amendment for 
those who are opposed to the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak 
following the Senator from Montana in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I revise my request. There are only 7 minutes; we 
take 7 minutes off the amendment and give an additional 8 minutes off 
the resolution so the Senator from Montana would have 15 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues, 
Senators Breaux, Snowe and Voinovich, in support of this important 
amendment that works to reach a middle ground.
  This is a bipartisan amendment and will allow Congress to pass a 
responsible economic stimulus package, a package that will provide a 
real boost to the economy while not burdening our future generations 
with skyrocketing deficits.
  The budget resolution we are debating today includes a 
``reconciliation'' instruction for the Finance Committee to reduce 
revenues by up to $725 billion over 10 years.
  This is the same amount of the President's economic stimulus package. 
And while I support tax cuts and have worked closely with the President 
in the past to enact tax cuts, I am very concerned by the size of his 
current package.
  First, we are at war and the immediate and long term costs of the 
conflict and reconstruction are unknown. Our economy is sluggish and we 
face rising unemployment. This is not the time to enact a package of 
tax cuts as large as the President has suggested.
  I recognize that the economy needs a shot in the arm. So I have 
joined my fellow Senators in offering this amendment to keep a stimulus 
package at $350 billion. And ensure that the $375 billion which is 
saved goes toward deficit reducing measures.
  Our amendment does not dictate what tax cuts should be passed out of 
the Finance Committee. It simply reduces the size of the tax cut. And I 
believe if this amendment is not passed, the Federal budget and the 
U.S. economy will be hurt significantly.
  As my colleagues know well, ``reconciliation'' instructions ensure 
that any legislation that is reported out by a Committee pursuant to 
those instructions enjoys special privileges when it is brought to the 
Senate floor.
  That means that the legislation only needs a simple majority of 51 
votes to pass. In contrast, without reconciliation protection, 
legislation takes a supermajority of 60 votes to pass.
  Legislation under reconciliation instructions is also protected from 
non-germane amendments. Such amendments can create serious obstacles to 
the passage of legislation. But passage of a non-germane amendment to 
reconciliation legislation requires a supermajority of 60 votes. And 
this is usually difficult to achieve.

[[Page 7082]]

  What these special privileges really mean is that reconciliation 
legislation is more likely to pass the Senate.
  Unfortunately, passing legislation to reduce revenues by $725 billion 
would hurt our budget and our economy. I believe the budget resolution 
should not instruct the Finance Committee to make $725 billion of tax 
cuts.
  Why do I believe $725 billion of tax cuts is inappropriate? The most 
serious problem is that this enormous tax cut is not paid for. The 
Federal budget is facing huge annual deficits.
  This is happening at the worst possible time. In a few short years, 
the huge baby boom generation will begin to retire. The added costs for 
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will put a huge amount of 
additional stress on our budget. And on our economy too.
  With these budgetary and economic pressures looming, we should be 
running surpluses--not deficits--as soon as the economy returns to full 
employment in the near-term. We should be retiring debt, not creating 
it when the economy is at full employment.
  If this amendment does not pass, we are going to add an additional 
$375 billion in debt and deficits during the next ten years. This is 
during a period when the economy should be at full employment.
  What difference does it make if we run large deficits when the 
economy is at full employment?
  The answer is that large deficits eat up savings that would otherwise 
be used by businesses to invest in new plant and equipment. Without 
these investments, the economy will grow more slowly. And our future 
standard of living will be reduced. As well as the standard of living 
of our children and grandchildren.
  Once the economy is at full employment, large deficits will also 
cause long-term interest rates to go up. This will increase the cost of 
mortgages. And car loans. This will hurt the consumer. But it also will 
hurt the economy. Because people will buy fewer homes and cars.
  The simple truth is this. We cannot afford to increase Federal budget 
deficits by an additional $375 billion. If anything, we should reduce 
deficits, not add to them.
  With the concerns about the costs of a war and growing deficits, many 
of you may be asking why aren't we trying to eliminate the entire $725 
billion package?
  The answer is that right now, the economy is not at full employment. 
That means that we need to encourage more spending. More spending will 
stimulate more production. And that will increase employment and return 
economic growth to its full potential.
  The $350 billion of tax cuts that we are leaving intact, therefore, 
should be used for tax cuts and program initiatives that would increase 
spending right now.
  And, the incentives to encourage more spending must also be 
temporary. Once the economy returns to full employment, the decrease in 
savings that would result from the increase in consumption will reduce 
investment. And that will lower our standard of living in the long-run.
  Again, I want to emphasize that we do not dictate what the tax cuts 
should be--we simply say the amount should be lower. But I believe 
there are three specific areas we should consider to effectively 
stimulate the economy in the short-run.
  First, probably the best short-run stimulus is increasing aid to 
state governments on a one-time basis. The recession and subsequent 
weak economy has severely reduced state revenues. States are facing 
budget deficits in the upcoming fiscal year of $70 to $85 billion.
  Unlike the Federal Government, almost all states have annual balanced 
budget requirements. So even though the economy is weak, States must 
lay off workers, cut spending programs, and increase taxes in order to 
balance their budgets.
  These actions make the economy even weaker. They also reduce 
important services that state governments provide.
  There is a remedy, however. By increasing Federal aid to states, 
states can avoid layoffs. Avoid cutting programs. And avoid increasing 
taxes. In contrast, any attempts by Congress that lack a state relief 
component will ultimately fail to stimulate the economy. Because 
efforts to spur the economy will fail if, at the same time, states are 
forced to raise taxes, cut spending, and eliminate jobs.
  Increased aid to state governments should only be made on a temporary 
basis, however. Once the economy improves, the increased aid must stop.
  Second, cutting taxes on households who are likely to spend those tax 
cuts quickly effectively stimulates the economy. The President's plan 
includes an acceleration of many of the tax cuts that were enacted in 
2001.
  I fully support acceleration of some of the tax cuts that are 
primarily directed to those taxpayers who will spend most of the tax 
cuts they receive. Such as accelerating the reductions in the marriage 
penalty or the increases in the child tax credit.
  But, a portion of America's households will not receive any benefit 
at all under the President's plan. Therefore, I believe we also need to 
accelerate the reduction of marriage penalties for households receiving 
the earned income tax credit. And we also need to accelerate the 
refundable portion of the child tax credit from the 2001 tax cut.
  Acceleration of these tax cuts will give the economy a boost in the 
short run. But without increasing deficits in the long-run. Because the 
revenue losses are in the years when the acceleration takes place. 
There is no revenue loss in the years after that.
  Third, we can stimulate the economy by completely eliminating the 
income tax on the first $3,000 of wages. This proposal also puts money 
into the hands of taxpayers who will spend it. Especially if we make it 
refundable. Which will provide a tax cut to the 30 million Americans 
who are left out of the President's program.
  These are just three ways to stimulate the economy--aid to the 
states, acceleration of some tax cuts, and elimination of income tax on 
the first $3,000 of wages. Needless to say, there are other proposals 
that we should consider. Some of these other proposals include 
increased funding for highway construction, health insurance tax 
credits for businesses, and allowing small businesses to deduct more of 
their investments in plant and equipment.
  A reconciliation instruction of $350 billion of tax cuts to the 
Finance Committee can be used for several types of economic stimulus 
without increasing long-run deficits. But we cannot add to that a 
larger tax cut that will increase long-run deficits. That would weaken 
our economy. We cannot let that happen.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I also want to say that I will 
be proposing another amendment this evening, or tomorrow.
  My amendment is a very simple amendment. It would clarify the 
Medicare reserve fund language to say that beneficiaries who choose to 
remain in the current fee-for-service program which, I might add, is 89 
percent of all seniors right now should get the same drug benefit as 
those who choose to enroll in a private plan.
  Let's put aside the question of whether $400 billion is enough for an 
adequate drug benefit. Having spent a lot of time reviewing the cost of 
different benefit levels, I know that $400 billion buys a rather paltry 
benefit.
  But whatever benefit level we can afford with that amount, we should 
make sure that the same benefit is available to seniors who choose to 
stay in the fee-for-service program as those who enroll in an HMO, a 
PPO or any other sort of private plan in Medicare.
  I believe that is the commitment many of us have made to our seniors, 
and that is the commitment we ought to fulfill.
  Earlier this month, President Bush unveiled his vision for Medicare 
reform. I am pleased that he doubled the amount of money he is willing 
to spend on a prescription drug benefit over what he proposed last 
year.
  But I am concerned that the President's vision for reform is to 
privatize

[[Page 7083]]

the program. He would give a comprehensive drug benefit to seniors who 
enroll in private plans. But those who choose to stay where they are 
now, in the fee-for-service program, would get only a discount card and 
catastrophic coverage.
  That is not something I am willing to support. Let me explain why.
  First, we already know that private plans have had difficulties 
serving the Medicare population. Many of my colleagues may recall that 
the reason Medicare was created in the first place was because so many 
seniors were ill-served by the private market. About half of the 
elderly were uninsured in 1965. Because of Medicare, now nearly all 
elderly are covered.
  More recently, since Medicare+ Choice was created in 1997 to expand 
private plan options in Medicare, we have seen a dramatic drop in the 
number of HMOs participating in the program. And as a result, an 
estimated 2.4 million beneficiaries have lost their health plan.
  As you can see by this chart, only 875 counties across the country 
currently have a Medicare managed care plan. That is out of a total of 
3,200 counties. So more than 2,300 counties don't have access to 
managed care plans or PPOs.
  Looking at this map, I might add that the counties without these 
plans are predominantly rural.
  And it is not that plans are underpaid, as some might try to argue. 
The average payment to Medicare+Choice plans is currently 104 percent 
of local fee-for-service costs. That figure doesn't tell the whole 
story, but it does suggest that simply increasing payments will not 
draw private plans into rural areas.
  My own state of Montana is a good example. The floor payment for 
Medicare+Choice plans in Montana is 128 percent of local fee-for-
service costs. Yet, we don't have any HMOs or PPOs in my state.
  Let me repeat that: despite a payment rate that is 28 percent higher 
than traditional Medicare, private health plans are still not serving 
Montana seniors.
  All this leads me to the second reason I do not support the 
President's proposal it doesn't save any money. Moving beneficiaries 
into private plans will not save the program for the next generation 
and will do nothing to address Medicare solvency.
  We can all talk about coordination of care, disease management, and 
the potential efficiencies private plans might be able to achieve. But 
at the end of the day, private health plans are subject to the same 
cost pressures affecting the entire health care system. Just look at 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, FEHB. This plan serves 
federal employees, retirees, and their dependents and has been held up 
as a model for Medicare reform. Yet we find that FEHB premiums have 
increased, on average, by more than 10 percent each year in the last 5 
years. Far faster than Medicare's per capita costs.
  Third, and finally, I don't support a differential drug benefit, 
because it is just not fair to make beneficiaries move into a private 
plan to get a drug benefit. In Montana, virtually all beneficiaries are 
in traditional Medicare. That means, in order for them to get a drug 
benefit, they would need to drop their supplemental coverage and enroll 
in a private plan accepting all the restrictions, preferred networks, 
and coverage limitations that come along with the plan.
  For a senior who may be older, used to what she currently has, and to 
anyone with a chronic health condition, this is a frightening 
proposition.
  As the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Tauzin so 
aptly said recently, ``You couldn't move my own mother out of Medicare 
without a bulldozer. She trusts it, believes in it. It's served her 
well.''
  That is the case with millions of seniors around the country. They 
like what they have now, and they want to stay there. They need a drug 
benefit, they have been pressing Congress to act for months, years now, 
and they don't believe they should have to swallow such far-reaching 
reforms to get the help they need. And the more we delay, the more 
expensive it gets to provide this benefit.
  In the 4 years that Congress has been seriously debating Medicare 
prescription drugs, we have considered a range of options. And we've 
seen the CBO scores for these proposals go up and up as we've taken 
longer and longer to act.
  While there are differences in the bills we have debated, they all 
have one thing in common. They would offer all seniors the same level 
of drug benefit if they chose to enroll in the new benefit. Not just 
private plan or HMO enrollees, but all beneficiaries.
  In closing, I would like to point out that 90 Members of the Senate 
who are here today voted in favor of legislation last summer that would 
uphold this principle.
  I think we should keep the commitment we made last summer. I am happy 
to work with the administration and my colleagues across the aisle on 
ways to improve and increase private plan participation in Medicare. 
But we need to make sure that the benefit is provided in full to fee-
for-service beneficiaries as well as private plan enrollees.
  For the sake of America's seniors, particularly the oldest, the 
sickest, and the most frail, and for the sake of America's rural 
seniors, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Utah is to be recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have been very interested in the 
discussions we have had up until now. I think there are several things 
that need to be said. Even though they have been said before, they need 
to be stressed again.
  With respect to the projections that are made about the future, and 
the numbers we are looking at, the one thing we can be sure about, with 
respect to the projections, is they are wrong. What we cannot be sure 
of is whether they are wrong on the high side or the low side. But we 
can be sure they are wrong.
  We also can be sure they will be adjusted, revised, and issued with 
the same pronouncement of certainty a year from now. They will be 
different a year from now, but we will be told: These are the numbers.
  The second thing I think we need to understand as we enter this 
debate is the nature of the recession we have just gone through. I have 
referred it to as the first recession of the information age.
  The recession in 1990-1991, I believe, was the last recession of the 
industrial age. That is why this recession is so different from any 
others we have had.
  I want to make it very clear, we are not currently in a recession. 
The press talks as if we are. I have heard speeches on the floor 
saying: This is the worst economy in 50 years. This is not the worst 
economy in 50 years. This is not close to the worst economy that we 
have had in this last half century, in any way.
  It is different. It feels different. For some people, it feels 
terrible. For other people, these are booming times. If you are in the 
housing business right now, you say: What recession? Because housing 
has been booming all through the recession period.
  If you look at the unemployment rate--when I went to school, I was 
taught in economics that 6 percent unemployment was full employment, 
that you could not get below 6 percent unemployment without causing 
strains in the economy. We proved that wrong in the 1990s. We got down 
to the point where we thought 3 percent unemployment was normal.
  Well, we hit 6 percent unemployment as a result of the recent 
recession. We are now backing off from that number. The last number was 
5.7 percent.
  If we were to take the economic numbers that currently apply to the 
United States and transport them to Germany, the Germans would feel 
they were in the strongest recovery they could imagine, because 
unemployment there is double digits.
  Last year--a sluggish year, a year that Alan Greenspan referred to as 
a

[[Page 7084]]

``soft patch''--we grew at 2.7 percent of GDP. The Germans are not 
growing. The Japanese are not growing. The French are not growing. They 
would be delighted to have our numbers. And they are clearly not nearly 
as bad as people are talking about them. But they are a soft patch. And 
the soft patch is too soft, and it is going on too long. And we need to 
address the question of what we do about it.
  I have said, this is the first recession of the information age. It 
is not a recession driven by inventory imbalances which usually has 
signaled a recession in the industrial age. This recession was created 
by overinvestment, something that in the industrial age we never saw. 
And, indeed, as an investment recession, it has to be dealt with with 
an investment solution.
  We saw the excitement, almost to the point of ``tulip time,'' that 
occurred in the late 1990s. I say ``tulip time'' to refer to the great 
tulip mania of the Dutch in the Middle Ages, where the price of a tulip 
bulb rose so high, as people thought tulips would always continue to 
increase in value, that families would mortgage their farms, sell 
everything they had, to buy a single bulb, in the hope they could sell 
that bulb to somebody else for more money later on. When the tulip 
mania burst, the economy of Holland was damaged for close to a century, 
as they had to deal with it.
  Well, that is an overstatement of what we went through in the late 
1990s, but we went through a fascination with dot-coms and with high-
tech companies and IPOs, where we had an investment bubble. And the 
bubble burst. When it burst, we had a tremendous decrease in what 
economists refer to as ``the wealth effect,'' as Wall Street saw a 
correction to that overenthusiasm of the time. It was not brought about 
by a traditional business cycle. It was brought about by a new kind of 
overexuberance in the business cycle.
  The Wall Street numbers were inflated improperly. They had to come 
down. But when they came down, the confidence was lost, the wealth 
effect was gone, and people who had overinvested then decided they were 
going to stop investing.
  So we had an investment-led recession for the first time. As that 
recession was coming, but before it hit, we had the projection of a 
$5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. That was given to us by 
the same models that now talk about deficits as far as the eye can see. 
They were not bad people who made those decisions. The models worked 
themselves out. The problem was, the assumptions that went into the 
models, seemingly logical at the time they were made, produced that 
kind of a situation.
  What happened to the surplus? We have heard a lot of rhetoric about 
who is responsible for destroying the surplus. Some of the rhetoric has 
been quite political. Let's just look at the same numbers for the $5.6 
trillion surplus and say, all right, as we feed in current numbers, 
what happened to the surplus?
  This in dark blue is the Bush tax cut. Yes, that was done 
deliberately on the grounds that the surplus could afford it. The 
surplus said we should bring taxes down. I will talk about that in a 
moment.
  The gray over here, light blue, depending on what you see it as, 45 
percent of the loss of the $5.6 trillion surplus is the weak economy 
and changes in the estimates. In other words, these estimates were made 
before we realized where we were in the excesses of the 1990s. And as 
the economy contracted and people changed the estimates, obviously, 
while the tax cut represented 25 percent of the surplus, and that was 
done deliberately, this hit us because we didn't make the right 
calculations. To be sure and to be fair to the people who made the 
calculations, they did not anticipate September 11. They did not 
anticipate all of the shock waves that came out of that situation. They 
did not anticipate what would happen when the economy hit the 
investment recession to which I referred.
  The red represents increased spending, increased spending at 28 
percent. We have spent more than the tax cut. Some of that, again, we 
did not anticipate. We did not anticipate we would have to spend $40 
billion to rebuild New York. We did not anticipate we were going to 
have to spend the amount of money that we have spent in homeland 
security. We did not anticipate all of the other. But a lot of that 
spending came out of the mentality that, gee, we have a $5.6 trillion 
surplus; we can spend a little more here and we can spend a little more 
there. And a little more here and a little more there turned out to be 
a lot more when added to the problems. And this is what we get.
  Now let's put it in 2004 because we have had a lot of rhetoric about 
this particular fiscal year and the budget we are facing. Here are the 
same numbers with respect to the projections that were made for the 
surplus for fiscal year 2004. The Bush tax cut for that original 
projection of the surplus: 19 percent. It is a smaller percentage of 
the deficit for 2004 than it is for the 10-year. The weak economy: 51 
percent. It is a bigger number affecting 2004 than it does the 10-year 
picture. Increased spending, 24 percent; and then other tax relief 
becomes a bigger issue.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to.
  Mr. CONRAD. On the previous chart, if you could go back to that for a 
moment, might I just ask, is the President's additional proposed tax 
increase included in that chart?
  Mr. BENNETT. No. This is the tax increase that was enacted.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is the tax increase already passed and implemented?
  Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I could inquire of the Senator, if the additional 
proposed tax increase by the President were added to that chart, can 
the Senator tell us then what one would see in terms of the calculation 
of the disappearance of the surplus and what is the primary culprit?
  Mr. BENNETT. I happen to have another chart. I will get to that if 
the Senator will be patient. I appreciate his willingness to listen.
  Back to 2004, we see once again the impact of the soft patch. We see 
that if we are going to look at this and say, what can we do to get 
this money back, the first thing we can do, the best thing we can do, 
is get rid of this. Fifty-one percent of the whole comes from the weak 
economy. Another good thing we can do is hold down this: 24 percent 
comes from increased spending.
  For those who said, we will solve our deficit problem if we just 
repeal the tax cut--and we have heard that rhetoric on the floor--no, 
that is the least effective way to get this back where it belongs. I am 
glad people who have said let's repeal the tax cut are backing away 
from that position.
  Here is another way of demonstrating how the projections went wrong 
and the impact of the spending. These were the revenues in that boom 
time. And then we began to see the revenues start to slack off just as 
outlays that were increasing at one level began to increase very 
sharply. Here again is the responsibility of where we are.
  Here is the chart answering the question about the impact of the 
President's growth plan. This shows the total taxes that will be paid 
in the next 11 years, $29.3 trillion. And the President's growth plan 
says we will have $725 billion, or 2.4 percent of that amount, that 
will come out of the overall pie. If you add the $725 billion to the 
$29.3 trillion that will still be paid, you come up with $30 trillion. 
It is obvious that the $30 trillion is a nice round figure, which will 
be wrong. It will once again be wrong on the high side or wrong on the 
low side, but no one with any certainty can look out 11 years and add 
up the exact amount of tax revenue that will come in. It is simply not 
humanly possible.
  The best estimate that can be made says: Well, it will be, and it is 
rounded off, at $30 trillion. So you take $30 trillion, and we are 
talking about 2.4 percent of that.
  The net effect of this over the next 11 years is, if I might use a 
phrase we are all familiar with, within the margin of error. It is 
clear that the estimate of what this will be cannot be that close,

[[Page 7085]]

to a 2.4 percent accuracy. It is within the margin of error. We are not 
talking about a major impact. Seven hundred twenty-four billion sounds 
like a huge amount of money, and of course it is. But when it is 
stretched out over 11 years and when it is compared to $30 trillion, 
then you put it in perspective.
  Many people say: Why should we be cutting taxes at all? Let's err on 
the prudent side and get that money in.
  The fact is, of course, that we cannot assume that if we set the tax 
burden at a certain level, the economy will yield that kind of tax 
revenue.
  I was in Ireland with a group of my colleagues last summer, and the 
Irish economy was booming, growing more rapidly than any other economy 
in Europe. We said to the Prime Minister of Ireland: To what do you 
attribute your growth? He said: We attribute it to the fact we cut our 
corporate tax rate to 10 percent, and we immediately started booming.
  I will concede immediately that is a simplistic answer and there must 
have been other reasons involved, but I will not concede that the 
decision to cut the corporate tax rate to 10 percent was a trivial one 
or that it did not have a major impact on seeing that the Irish economy 
became the strongest economy in Europe.
  I think it is not an accident that they have the lowest tax rates and 
the highest rate of growth. I think there is some correlation between 
those two, while conceding that there are other aspects.
  Let's look at the historic tax burden we have had in the United 
States measured in the only way that really makes any sense; that is, 
as a percentage of the economy. For those who say: Oh, no, that does 
not matter, let me repeat again a personal experience that I think 
demonstrates it does matter.
  As I have said before, before I came to the Senate, I ran a business. 
When I was hired as the CEO of that business, the total debt of the 
business was $75,000. When I stepped down as the CEO of that business 
prior to running for the Senate, the total debt of that business was 
$7.5 million. If you are going to measure my stewardship by the size of 
the debt, you can say Bennett was a lousy steward and we are good to 
get rid of him because he took a little tiny debt of $75,000 and ran it 
up to $7.5 million, and now we have to pay off that debt and he left us 
in this terrible hole.
  Let me add a few more facts. When I took over as the CEO of the 
company, they were doing about $300,000 a year in total business; 
$75,000 in debt represented 25 percent of the sales and, indeed, 
threatened the survival of the business because the business could not 
service a $75,000 debt on $300,000 in sales. Indeed, the business was 
losing money at $300,000 a year in sales and could not survive unless 
we did something.
  When I stepped down as the CEO of the business, we were doing over 
$75 million in sales, and the $7.5 million in debt represented 10 
percent of the sales instead of 25 percent of the sales. Furthermore, 
we were earning enough money, our margins were strong enough that we 
had over $7 million in the bank.
  You say: Why didn't you pay off the debt? Because the debt 
represented primarily mortgages on real estate that had prepayment 
penalties on them. We had borrowed the money to build the facility. We 
needed to run the business, and it was cheaper for us to earn interest 
on the money in the bank than it was to pay the prepayment penalty on 
the mortgage.
  I frankly think I did a pretty good job at that company. I think my 
stewardship was proper, if you measure it solely on the basis of the 
debt, though I took a $75,000 debt and ran it up to $7.5 million. If 
you take the total value of the company, it was failing, and at the 
point of extinction with a $75,000 debt, it had a market cap of $200 
million or $300 million with the $7.5 million debt.
  Applying that same principle, and I think it is legitimate to do so, 
we should look at our debt now not in terms of how big is it in 
numbers, but how big is it with respect to the size of the economy, and 
it is now at a level with respect to the size of the economy less than 
it was at the time of the Eisenhower administration.
  The highest point of our debt as a percentage of gross national 
product was in 1945 at the end of the Second World War. We were running 
a total debt of close to 1\1/2\ times the size of the economy. Adding 
in the Social Security trust funds and all of the rest of it, it is 
about 60 percent. We are way below a level that at one time in our 
history we demonstrated we could survive with.
  Putting that same calculation to the issue of taxation, here is a 
demonstration of taxes as a percentage of GDP. We have drawn a line at 
20 percent of GDP. When did taxes get higher than 20 percent in our 
history? Once back in 1945, again responding to the Second World War 
when we had a debt that was three times GDP, and we immediately brought 
the taxes down to 15 percent and started to see the economy growing in 
such a fashion that the debt started coming down in dramatic fashion as 
a percentage of GDP.
  With the tremendous surge of tax revenue that came primarily as a 
function of the high-tech run up in the late nineties and the 
realization from capital gains when, in this Chamber, we cut the 
capital gains tax rate so people started cashing in their dot-com 
stocks and paying enormous capital gains revenues to the Treasury, even 
though the rate went down, the rate went down but the realizations went 
up. We saw, once again, for the first time since the Second World War 
the total tax take as a percentage of GDP go above 20 percent.
  To me that was the more compelling argument than the one that even 
the President made when he said: We are taking too much of your money; 
we need to give it back to you. I said how does it fit overall in the 
economic pattern?
  Historically, when the tax take begins to get up to this 20-percent 
line, it is a signal that you have too much burden on the economy and 
you need to bring the tax take down below 20 percent. That is why I 
supported the President's decision and supported the President's 
position in the Tax Code that said: OK, let's bring it down.
  You always see tax revenues drop in a time of recession. We had the 
tax cut, and then it was followed by the recession. This is the 
estimate of what will happen under current law if we do not do 
something about making the tax cut permanent. We will be in a historic 
area until the tax cut expires and goes back up, at which point we will 
bounce back over 20 percent of GDP.
  I want GDP to grow more rapidly than Government expenditures. If GDP 
grows more rapidly than Government expenditures, we have no need to 
worry about the future. But if it does not, we cannot tax our way to 
prosperity. We cannot tax our way to a balanced budget.
  There have been a lot of quotations of Alan Greenspan around here. I 
happen to be a great Greenspan supporter. Sometimes I am a little 
surprised to think I can understand him. I have been in the Senate now 
10 years and on the Banking Committee, and he has appeared before us 
every year. I am on the Joint Economic Committee, and he appears there 
every year. For the first few years, I did not break the code, but I 
think I am now beginning to understand Greenspan speak.
  This is a point he made to a group of us that I think is essential to 
this debate: You can set expenditures at almost any level you want. You 
cannot set revenues at any level you want. Revenues are a function of 
the economy, and if you do something wrong in fiscal policy that causes 
the economy to fail, you are not going to get the revenues you may 
project.
  One can, on the spending side, commit themselves to long-term, built-
in obligations that they cannot then cover if the revenues are not 
there. This is the ominous number on this chart. If we can get the 
revenues back up by getting the economy back up, back to the first 
chart--get this part of it solved, the weakness in the economy--then we 
will be just fine.
  Now we come to the amendment. After all of the presentation, we come 
to the question of how big should the growth package be? Should it cost 
$724

[[Page 7086]]

billion over 11 years or can we get rid of this part of the softness 
for only $350 billion over the next 11 years? I think that is the wrong 
question to ask because it is a mathematical question to which there is 
no correct answer.
  As I said at the beginning, all of these projections are wrong. All 
of them will be revised. No one can, with certainty, make a prediction 
of what is going to happen in 11 years in this economy and be anywhere 
near close. So the question to ask is, Will the proposals the President 
has made actually produce a structural change within the economy that 
has a chance of dealing with the softness in the economy?
  I go back to the other thing I said, which is this particular 
recession was an investment recession. So the fundamental question to 
ask is, Will the proposals the President has made address the 
investment side of the soft patch we are in?
  Well, we had a tax cut. Part of it addressed the consumer side and we 
thought: that is going to stimulate the economy. We sent out checks, 
300 bucks for everybody who had filed a tax return. We discovered that 
it was not stimulative. Why not? Because it was aimed at the consumer 
side. It was not aimed at the investment side. And it did not produce 
any major structural change to give us the kind of growth we needed. It 
did not even hit the consumer side to the point that we projected 
because many consumers we now know did not spend it. They used it to 
pay down personal debt, which is a very logical thing for many people 
to do. But it upset all of the projections we made of what would 
happen.
  So as I see it, the President's proposal has two big groups. The 
first group is a collection of tax cuts: the marriage tax penalty, the 
elimination of the death tax, the child credit. That is about half of 
the $720 billion that we are talking about. I think those are all 
salutary. I think those will all help, and I am prepared to vote for 
them.
  Then we come to the other half, which is the elimination of the 
double taxation on dividends. If we pass this amendment, the 
conventional wisdom is that the elimination of double taxation on 
dividends is dead, that it will never come out of the Finance 
Committee.
  Let me focus on why the passage of the President's proposal with 
respect to the elimination of double taxation on dividends will go 
directly to the heart of the softness on this chart and why it is the 
investment solution to deal with an investment recession.
  If we go back to the excesses of the late 1990s and look at them now 
historically, we find that one of the things that drove the excesses on 
the stock market, and indeed got us into trouble as far as corporate 
management is concerned, was the tremendous desire to drive up stock 
prices. Stock prices were driven up by driving up earnings estimates. 
Enron, WorldCom, and the rest of these companies did everything they 
could to create the notion that they had tremendous earnings. They 
drove it up partly by leverage. Leverage, by definition, means 
borrowing, and they were borrowing because they could deduct the 
interest. They could get the money, they could deduct the interest, 
they could produce the leverage, and in the case of Enron they could 
lie about it. Make no mistake, there was tremendous greed and chicanery 
going on, but the whole system was geared towards debt as the primary 
source of capital.
  If you go to the equity market and try to entice people to give you 
sound equity investments, you have to say to them, we cannot pay you a 
return on your investment because dividends are taxed at an effective 
60-percent rate, so your only return on investment will be if you can 
sell your shares to somebody else at a higher price than you bought 
them. Sound like tulips? Yes, there is some similarity. The greater 
fool theory--the bigger fool theory: I buy this stock hoping that there 
is a bigger fool than me out there who I can sell it to at a higher 
price.
  That is not really the way the stock market works, but that is the 
way it seemed to work in the late 1990s. Remember when Alan Greenspan 
warned us against irrational exuberance in the stock market? The Dow 
was at 6,000. Today, it is over 8,000, and we are saying it is the 
worst economy in 50 years. It got to 12,000 before tulip time finally 
hit and it backed down.
  If we change the situation so a company can go to the equity market 
and say, if you give us equity capital instead of going to the debt 
market to get debt capital, we can give you a return on your equity 
capital that will only be taxed once, we can give you a return that 
will make it logical for you to hang in with us over the long term, 
even if the stock does not go up immediately in the short term, you can 
hold the investment because you are going to get your dividends and 
your dividends are only going to be taxed once. This is a structural 
change that the economy badly needs. This is a structural change, once 
again to quote the guru that has been talked about, that Alan Greenspan 
has endorsed as good for the economy. This is a structural change that 
can begin to address the question of the weaknesses in the economy that 
can have long-term consequences. And this is a structural change that 
will make us more competitive with the rest of the world because the 
rest of the world does not tax dividends at the same rate we do.
  That is what this debate really should be about. It should not be 
about numbers: Is 350 too little or is 350 too much? Is 724 too big or 
is 724 too little? It should be about whether these proposals work. I 
believe they will.
  If we have identified that they will work, then the question is, How 
much money do we need to put in the budget to allow them to go forward?
  So the number comes after the decision of whether the program makes 
sense rather than the number driving the program. In my opinion, this 
is a gamble well worth taking.
  Back to the total tax take that we are talking about, where the 2.4 
percent of the estimate is within the margin of error, this is not a 
serious gamble. In my opinion, if one were to say, OK, we are going to 
cut this in half at 350 so the 2.4 percent goes down to 1.2 percent, 
that is really what we are talking about, 1.2 percent of a $30 trillion 
pie when the evidence is overwhelming, in my view, that the dividend 
thing will work.
  How does it have to work in order to pay for itself? It has to make 
the economy 1.2-percent more efficient. The studies out of the business 
roundtable from the econometric model down at the University of 
Maryland say this will add 2 points to GDP growth. What will happen to 
this $30 trillion pie if it grows at 2 points higher than the present 
estimate? It is a gamble worth taking. That is why I oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, the reason I inquired of the Senator what his chart 
depicted was that he has only shown the tax cut advocated by the 
President that has already been implemented. He did not show the 
additional effect of the tax cut the President has proposed, which is 
even larger than the one that has already been implemented.
  He showed on his chart that 25 percent of the $5.6 trillion surplus 
went to the President's first tax cut. He does not talk about the 
additional tax cut that costs $1.9 trillion when you add the associated 
interest costs.
  Second point: On the Senator's chart he attributes the additional 
interest cost of the tax cut to spending. Any fair allocation of the 
additional interest costs from the tax cut has to be attributed to the 
tax cut, not to spending.
  Those two things change the picture quite dramatically. What we see 
is, over the decade, if you take the President's tax cuts already 
implemented and the tax cuts proposed, and attribute the interest costs 
of the tax cuts to the tax cuts, the biggest culprit in the 
disappearance of the surplus, and in fact, moving to deficit, is the 
tax cuts.
  The Senator makes a very important point on what will work. The 
Senator believes the additional tax cuts the President has proposed 
will help grow the economy. I don't believe it. Not only don't I 
believe it, but a whole group of economists do not believe it.
  This chart is the work of Macroeconomic Advisors. These folks are

[[Page 7087]]

under contract to the White House, they are under contract to the 
Congressional Budget Office to do macroeconomic analysis. What they 
have concluded is the President's plan will give a short boost--this is 
the green line--if you do nothing; the black line is if you do the 
President's policy. After 2004, they say the President's plan will 
actually reduce growth from what we would have if we did nothing. Why? 
Because they say, as Chairman Greenspan has said, you will get a 
crowding out effect because the President's tax cuts are not financed 
by cutting spending, they are financed by borrowing the money.
  You cannot borrow your way to prosperity. What happens when you 
borrow the money is you reduce the pool of societal savings; you reduce 
the amount of money available for investment; you reduce economic 
growth.
  Let's talk about real world tests of that theory. In the 1980s, we 
had a real world test of the notion of running deficits and having tax 
cuts and that would spur the economy.
  Let me finish, and I will be more than happy to yield.
  Mr. BENNETT. I just want to talk about your chart.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me complete this thought, and I will be happy to talk 
about this chart or your chart or other charts.
  In the 1980s, we tried the big tax cut, the big deficits. In the 
1990s, we tried the alternative, which was to eliminate deficits and to 
have restraint, to reduce spending, actually increase revenues.
  I have a chart that shows the long-term spending revenue. This is a 
very important debate to have. The red line shows spending from 1981 
projected out to 2018. The red line is spending as a percentage of GDP, 
which the Senator from Utah indicated is an appropriate way to judge 
these things. I agree entirely. The blue line is the revenue line.
  In the 1980s, we had an enormous gap with big budget deficits. 
Spending went up to over 23 percent of gross domestic product. In 1993, 
we passed a plan to bring down spending and to raise revenue. We did 
them both. The economy was weak. When we did that plan, we were told by 
the other side it would crater the economy. We were told: You are going 
to increase deficits; you are going to decrease economic growth. I can 
remember the debate in the Senate so well, being told it would crater 
the economy.
  They were wrong. We raised revenue, we cut spending, and we helped a 
surge of economic growth unprecedented in our history, the longest 
period of sustained economic growth in U.S. history, the lowest 
unemployment in 30 years, the lowest inflation in 30 years. We turned 
deficits into surpluses, and we did it the old-fashioned way; we got 
revenue above expenditures.
  Now look at what happened. Our friends are showing the chart. It is 
true, revenue collapsed. Part of that is the tax cuts. It is true that 
spending has gone up. Why has spending gone up? Where did the spending 
go? In 2001, 73 percent of the increase in spending went to national 
defense. We all supported it. Fifteen percent of the increased spending 
went to homeland security. We all supported it. And 7 percent went to 
New York City relief. We had to rebuild New York. We all supported it.
  In 2002, 55 percent of the increase went to national defense, 21 
percent to homeland security, 19 percent to rebuilding New York; 95 
percent of the spending increase in those 2 years was national defense, 
homeland security, rebuilding New York.
  In 2003, 73 percent is defense, 15 percent is homeland security, and 
88 percent of the spending increase went for the purposes of homeland 
defense and national defense.
  That is where the money has gone. We all supported it. The question 
is, How are we going to pay for it? What my colleagues are proposing is 
to keep the revenue line down below the spending line for the entire 
rest of this decade.
  The reason that is so dangerous, in this Senator's opinion, is this 
decade is like no other in our economic history. What is coming is not 
a projection. What is coming is the retirement of the baby boom 
generation that is going to double the number of people eligible for 
Social Security and Medicare. It will explode the cost to the Federal 
Government of those two programs.
  Those programs right now are throwing off big cash surpluses in their 
trust funds, but in the next decade they start to go cash negative. 
When they do, that is the very time the President's tax cut, which is 
the red bar--the trust fund is green, and blue is Medicare-Social 
Security surplus, the red is the President's tax cut--the very time the 
costs explode, the costs of tax cuts explode, leading to deficits 
totally unsustainable.
  We just got released today the results of the Federal Open Market 
Committee meeting of January 28 and 29. There is a lag before the 
releasing of the results of the meeting. Here is what the report says: 
A number of members expressed the hope that the legislation would not 
encompass provisions that would lead to permanently large Federal 
deficits with negative consequences for the economy over the longer 
term.
  That is precisely what is wrong with the President's plan and wrong 
with the budget plan from the committee. It is going to lead to large 
budget deficits over time. That is going to hurt economic growth. Don't 
take my word for it. The deficits in the budget resolution are right 
here. They are large and continuing. The President's own documents go 
out to 2050 and they show these are the good times. Even though they 
are record budget deficits now, his own documents, page 43 of 
``analytical perspectives,'' show the deficits now are the good times 
because, as you go forward and adopt the President's policy, the cost 
of the tax cuts explodes at the very time the cost of the retirement of 
the baby boomers explodes and you have deficits of such enormous size: 
10 percent, 11 percent of GDP, 2 \1/2\ times what they are today. That 
is totally unsustainable.
  The conclusion of many economists is those tax cuts will actually 
hurt economic growth. It is the dead weight of those deficits and debt 
that will hurt economic growth. The fundamental reason is the 
President's tax cuts are not offset by spending reductions. He is not 
proposing offsetting them by spending reductions. He is proposing 
increases in spending. I do not fault him for that. He is talking about 
increasing defense--we have to do it; increasing homeland security--we 
have to do it. But we have to pay for it. If we do not, on the eve of 
the retirement of the baby boom generation we will saddle this country 
with so much deficit and so much debt that it will serve as a dead 
weight on this economy and it will inhibit, it will limit, it will 
reduce the pool of societal savings, and it will reduce the amount of 
money available for investment.
  I am not going to take longer. I could go on, on this subject, for a 
long time. But I am happy to respond to an inquiry from my colleague.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if the Senator will put back the one 
chart, I would like to address that chart. The one which the Senator 
quotes as coming from the President.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes--no, this is not from the President. This is from 
Macroeconomic Advisers, which is under contract to the White House and 
under contract to CBO.
  Mr. BENNETT. Under contract to the White House.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. BENNETT. First, let me say, in another time and place, and I know 
others wish to speak, I think the Senator and I could explore this at 
some greater depth. I agree with him absolutely that the problem is 
ahead in the retirement years of the baby boomers. The place where we 
differ is whether this proposal the President has put before us will 
prepare us for a more efficient economy in that period and thereby give 
us the strength we need or whether it will do damage. The Senator 
obviously believes this proposal will damage the economy. I, obviously, 
believe it will better the economy.
  As long as we are quoting economists back and forth, I once again say 
that Alan Greenspan has endorsed the dividend thing as a logical long-
term structural change.

[[Page 7088]]


  Mr. CONRAD. Could I just say on that point, you have to read very 
carefully what Chairman Greenspan said. He said the dividend proposal, 
as long as it is revenue neutral--not financed by borrowing--is good 
for the economy. If it is financed by borrowing, it is not good for the 
economy.
  Mr. BENNETT. When Mr. Greenspan comes before the Joint Economic 
Committee, I will explore that with him in depth, so we can get it 
nailed down.
  The point I want to make off the Senator's chart, where he has the 
black line demonstrating the impact of the President's policy and the 
green line representing the base, he shows the President's policy would 
indeed produce a significant beneficial change in 2004.
  The question, of course, is whether or not the projections beyond 
that are reliable. Once again, my experience in this body is that 
everything gets changed year to year, as you go forward. To get us out 
of this soft patch we are in, it would be very nice to have that kind 
of a spike in 2004.
  But even if we accept the chart exactly as it is presented, is it not 
true that the black line ends up, long-term, above the green line? That 
in the years out there, it shows the long-term impact of the 
President's proposed policy is a better economic result than the 
baseline, and that, if it is true, is the argument I am making that the 
long-term structural change of the President's proposal will give us, 
long term, a healthier economy, and long term is where the Senator and 
I both agree the problem lies.
  With that, I do not want to prolong this. I have taken up too much of 
the Senate's time on it and I appreciate the indulgence of my 
colleagues as I have gone on. I appreciate the openness and candor and 
expertise of the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have enjoyed this debate. Let me just say to my 
colleague, I wish I had--I am asking my staff to get it, but I do not 
want to interrupt the discussion any further.
  Let me just say the text of the analysis from Macroeconomic Advisers 
makes clear they believe the long-term impact is negative. Because of 
the crowding-out effect, because it is borrowed money, it is because 
that reduces the pool of societal savings. I have loads of other 
economic analysis that concludes the same thing. It is what I believe. 
I think it is a mistake. That is where we differ.
  I am not going to interfere any further in this other discussion we 
promised people they could have. How much time is the Senator seeking?
  Mr. BOND. I ask for 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me express my sincere thanks to my good 
friend from the Dakotas, and thank him for the work he has done on the 
Budget Committee as the ranking member. I thank my friend from 
Oklahoma, the chairman of the Budget Committee, as we are seeing that 
being on the Budget Committee is one of the most thankless jobs around. 
You have to read economic analysis, tons and tons of pages, and 50-year 
economic analyses. Then you come out with a bill that is a series of 
numbers. It is all supposed to work out. Then people like me come along 
and try to change it. It is with some experience on the Budget 
Committee that I express my appreciation for the work that has been 
done.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 358

  Mr. BOND. Today, along with a number of my colleagues, I want to 
address an amendment which is at the desk, amendment No. 358 to the 
Senate budget resolution. I am very pleased to be joined in this by 
Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords--all three 
from the EPW committee--as well as Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, Warner, 
Murray, Murkowski, Byrd, Chafee, Feinstein, Collins, Specter, Levin, 
Lott, Reed of Rhode Island, and Brownback.
  This amendment would increase the budget allocations to $255 billion 
for highway infrastructure, and $56.5 billion for mass transit needs 
over the 6-year period fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009.
  Before these numbers startle some of my colleagues and good friends, 
like my friends on the Budget Committee, let me remind my colleagues we 
are not abandoning the ``user pays'' concept of the Highway Trust Fund. 
In fact, over the past several years, a great deal of money has been 
stolen or diverted out of the Highway Trust Fund, paid in by highway 
users, that rightfully should have gone for road improvements.
  For example, highway users started paying a 2.5 cent tax in 1990 with 
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that never went to road 
improvements. It went to the general fund instead. The tax even grew to 
as high as 6.8 cents in 1994 and 1995, and over the years, highway 
users have paid well over $40 billion--that is a conservative 
estimate--$40 billion which never went into the highway trust fund.
  In addition, the highway trust fund lost revenues as a result of 
alternative fuel vehicles. I support alternative fuel vehicles, whether 
they run on hydrogen or electricity or some other form of energy. But 
we also must remember that these alternatively fueled vehicles travel 
on the roads. They use the roads. They crowd the roads. They are, in 
fact, burdens on the roads. And they must somehow pay some share, just 
as those vehicles fueled by gas or diesel pay for a share.
  Some very significant constituents have spoken out about the needs 
for the highway trust fund. I have letters of support, that I will 
offer later, from affiliated labor unions engaged in transportation, 
construction, and the broader Transportation Construction Coalition, 
the Highway Users Alliance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Governors Association, and others.
  I daresay we have all heard from our respective State transportation 
officials, our metropolitan planning organizations, from our labor 
unions, our friends in the transportation industries, and others about 
the needs. But perhaps more importantly, we have all seen the 
congestion, the potholes covered with steel plates, the bridges down to 
one lane.
  If any of you who have done what I have done, and had an open meeting 
in a townhall forum in the last several months as we came up on the 
reauthorization of TEA-21, you have heard that our citizens are 
concerned about inadequate transportation. They are really chafing at 
the bit because in too many areas our country is strangling.
  Now, we have all waited in traffic, hoped our car's alignment would 
not be permanently damaged, and looked down through a bridge to see the 
water below.
  We have also comforted far too many friends and families who have 
lost loved ones because of unsafe roads or bridges. I still correspond 
with families who have made getting decent highways their cause to 
remember a loved one who was killed because of an inadequate highway 
system with too much traffic on it.
  Our Nation has some needs. This little chart shows in red what the 
President proposed in his budget. What the Budget Committee has come 
out with is shown in green. And what this Bond-Reid amendment would do 
is shown in blue. As you can see, these start going up a little bit.
  You may ask, what is this big yellow line way up here above all of 
them, even well above the blue line? Well, it is simply this 
administration's own estimate of the cost simply to maintain the 
current system; that is, not to get it any better. Just to keep it as 
it is, we should be spending this much, as shown in yellow. Right now, 
this budget has us spending what is shown in the green. We really need 
to get up at least to this high, as shown in the blue, so we can begin 
to try to keep up with the needs.
  We know our Nation's transportation needs are staggering and our 
constrained transportation system is costing our country a whole lot of 
time and money. We know it is time to do something about it.
  The transportation system is a lifeline of our country and our 
economy. I was a student of American history. The economic history of 
America really began when railroads tied together this

[[Page 7089]]

Nation and brought it as a whole economic unit. Railroads were the tie 
that bound us together in the 19th century. In the 20th century, it 
became the highway system. The highway system provides mobility. It 
provides transportation for economic activities. It, in essence, brings 
jobs.
  I can tell you, in the years I spent as Governor of Missouri, I spent 
an awful lot of time working on economic development. It was one of my 
top priorities. And I could see, economic development was going by 
where the roads went. If you build a good four-lane road, jobs will go 
there.
  Jobs and economic opportunity require good transportation. Not all 
jobs. We have e-mail and telecommunications. But distribution requires 
a good transportation system.
  I can tell you, for the 21st century, it is not only good railroads, 
it is not only good roads and highways, it is good transportation 
systems, it is good air transportation, it is good water 
transportation, and it is good mass transportation that is going to be 
essential for our growth.
  Looking at the road side of it, in my home State of Missouri the 
problems are diverse and complex. To highlight just a few of the 
glaring examples: Commercial truck traffic is expected to increase 89 
percent by the year 2020. The cities of St. Louis and Kansas City spend 
over $1 billion each year on costs associated with traffic congestion. 
Fatalities on Missouri highways are considerably higher than the 
national average--nearly 7,000 people were killed between 1995 and 2000 
on our highways.
  How will this broad range of problems be adequately and appropriately 
addressed? The answer simply is investment--investment in the future of 
our Nation's surface transportation to promote safety, to increase 
employment, to decrease congestion, and to enhance security.
  In order to meet these needs, Federal, State, and local government 
investment will have to be significantly increased. Our amendment we 
offer today will allow it to do so at a very modest rate compared to 
the true needs, but without raising gas taxes and diesel taxes at this 
time.
  I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this transportation 
responsibility is a duty of the Federal Government. Road building is 
one activity that the Government should administer but in coordination 
with the private sector and other levels of government. If we do not 
want the responsibility at the national level, or if we are unwilling 
to fund it, then let's quit calling our I-70s, our I-80s, our I-5s, our 
I-95s, and our other interstates by those names.
  When President Dwight Eisenhower first proposed the interstate 
highways, if I remember correctly--I was a youngster at the time--our 
Nation's defense was the primary focus, the national defense highway 
system.
  Now terrorism threatening our homeland requires an adequate defense 
network to get the people, the law enforcement, the military, to 
prevent actions, to bring in responders where there is an action, to 
give people a means away from an area of danger. These all require good 
roads and highways.
  To demonstrate the enormity of this crucial task of relieving 
congestion and building highway infrastructure, we have to examine the 
costs involved. A report by the Nation's State transportation officials 
found that $92 billion will be needed on an annual basis just to 
maintain the current conditions of highways and to keep traffic from 
getting worse.
  However, if our goal were to be as I think it should be--to improve 
significantly the overall condition of U.S. highways, enhancing safety 
standards, reducing traffic congestion; a goal that I think is critical 
to the protection of American lives as well as our economy, the study 
showed that more would be needed, a total of $125 billion annually.
  Now, those figures do not even include the additional $19 billion in 
capital investments required each year to maintain existing road 
conditions and service levels. Clearly, this will be a massive and 
expensive effort.
  Increased funding for transportation will also have other beneficial 
effects. It creates jobs at a time when many businesses around the 
country are heading in the reverse and are contracting. The added 
investment for transportation will serve to directly stimulate the 
economy. Every billion dollars of investment is 47,000 jobs.
  Naturally, this will contribute to the prosperity of American 
communities by bringing a wide variety of benefits to people in every 
State and every location across the country. The increased investments 
in roads will help satisfy many of our needs currently and for the 
future.
  Unfortunately, the administration's 2004 budget provides allocations 
that remain wholly inadequate for conquering the ever-growing needs of 
the people who use our Nation's transportation infrastructure. It is 
the status quo funding.
  Again, our amendment will increase spending authority on highways to 
$255 billion and on mass transit to $56.5 billion over the 6-year life 
of the TEA-21 reauthorization bill. As my colleagues know, a budget 
resolution amendment is all about numbers and not about specific 
requirements. However, I will offer some ideas and thoughts because 
there is a menu of sources and options, so you can understand where 
that money comes from.
  Let me go over a few of the aspects. The $255 billion increase over 
the budget, where does that come from: 5.2 cents on the ethanol tax 
incentive fix, something the Finance Committee is going to work on; 
spending down the trust fund balances. This was proposed by the 
President in his budget, and it is proposed in the Budget Committee's 
markup that we extend that. We provide interest credit on the balances, 
and we restore a lost $8 billion in TEA-21; $8 billion just disappeared 
from the trust fund. We put that back. We maintain the historic 
relationship between contract authority and obligation limitations. I 
will forgo a description of the contract authority and obligation 
limits. I don't think it is necessary to add further confusion at this 
point. But let me say we straighten out the problem that the underlying 
budget amendment has.
  Then we ought to have fair share funding for alternative fuel 
vehicles--electric hybrids, natural gas, recognizing the loss to the 
fund for these vehicles which pay little or nothing into the trust fund 
but cause the same damage to roadways. This is vitally important, as is 
cracking down on tax evasion and compliance initiatives, dealing with 
those who avoid the taxes or otherwise have been excluded from paying 
for their use of our roads and highways.
  This increased investment authorized by our amendment will decrease 
congestion, enhance security, help to create jobs, stimulate the 
economy, and, most importantly, will save American lives by improving 
safety on the highways.
  These are the highway-related fatalities in thousands, beginning with 
39.3 thousand in 1992, reaching as high as 42.1 thousand in 1996, and 
again in 2001, over 40,000 people killed in each of these years, too 
many of them because of inadequate highways. It is not an option to 
stand idle in the wake of these conditions.
  I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent to print letters of endorsement for this proposal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 18, 2003.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate begins debate on the Fiscal 
     Year (FY) 2004 Budget Resolution, the 28 national 
     associations and labor unions working together in the 
     Transportation Construction Coalition urge inclusion of the 
     highest level possible for investment in highway and public 
     transportation infrastructure programs. This is particularly 
     critical, as later this year the Congress must work to 
     reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (TEA-21).
       Unlike many federal initiatives, investment in improved 
     transportation infrastructure provides tangible benefits that 
     impact the safety and quality of life for every American on a 
     daily basis. An efficient transportation infrastructure 
     system is also a key component of national security and 
     emergency response activities.
       The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) surface 
     transportation Conditions

[[Page 7090]]

     and Performance Report just sent to Congress provides data 
     clearly showing that a $375 billion federal investment in the 
     federal-aid highway and public transportation network is 
     necessary over FY 2004-2009. This federal share is the amount 
     necessary to begin the process reducing highway deaths and 
     injuries, and the traffic congestion that is costing the 
     nation $67 billion per year in lost productivity and wasted 
     motor fuel.
       The USDOT report shows that a $50 billion per year federal 
     highway investment is necessary to simply maintain the 
     current physical conditions and system performance of the 
     nation's highways and bridges. A $12 to $14 billion annual 
     investment in public transportation, the report suggests, is 
     necessary to meet our pubic transportation needs. To actually 
     improve these vital facilities, greater levels of investments 
     are necessary.
       The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee (EPW)--and perhaps other senators--
     will offer amendments to increase transportation funding in 
     the FY 2004 Budget Resolution. We urge you to support the 
     Senate EPW amendment, which would provide a very significant 
     step forward toward meeting the needs identified by the USDOT 
     through the TEA-21 reauthorization process.
           Sincerely,
     The Transportation Construction Coalition.
                                  ____

                                                    National Heavy


                                           & Highway Alliance,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
       Dear Senator: During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2004 
     budget resolution, there is likely to be an amendment offered 
     by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee. The purpose of the amendment will be 
     to increase spending for the federal-aid highway program from 
     FY 2004 to 2009 to a $255 billion investment level. In 
     addition, the amendment will also increase federal transit 
     spending to the $55 billion level over the same time period.
       Given the recent US Department of Transportation's 
     Conditions and Performance Report, the proposed amendment 
     seriously begins to address our country's surface 
     transportation needs. The funding level contained in the 
     Senate Budget Committee's resolution is completely inadequate 
     to either maintain or improve our highway and transit 
     infrastructure systems as reflected in the DOT Report. We 
     commend the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public 
     Works Committee for realistically addressing the critical 
     surface transportation needs in our country.
       We strongly urge you to support the higher investment 
     levels in the proposed amendment to help stimulate our 
     economy and to create jobs.
           Sincerely,
                                               Raymond J. Poupore,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: As you debate the 
     fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget resolution, the nation's 
     Governors would like to reiterate the importance of adequate 
     transportation funding levels. The nation's Governors support 
     growth in Highway Trust Fund revenues and an increased 
     federal funding commitment to transportation to enable states 
     to maintain safe, secure, and reliable highway and transit 
     systems. Decisions made during consideration of the pending 
     FY 2004 budget resolution will have irreversible impacts on 
     our nation's transportation infrastructure as Congress moves 
     to consideration of the transportation reauthorization 
     legislation later this year.
       Transportation infrastructure is the engine that powers our 
     economy. Investments in surface transportation and highway 
     projects provide greater returns than any other area of 
     government spending. In fact, for every $1 billion of federal 
     highway investment, 42,000 jobs are generated. The 
     transportation industry accounts for 11 percent of the 
     nation's economic activity, and accounts for one out of every 
     five dollars of total household spending.
       TEA-21 significantly increased investment in our nation's 
     transportation system by increasing funding levels to help 
     meet our transportation needs. Historically, however, 
     investment levels in surface transportation have been 
     insufficient to meet the growing transportation needs of our 
     country. In order to maintain the transportation system now 
     in place and address myriad pressing needs, revenues invested 
     in surface transportation must be increased.
       On behalf of the nation's Governors, we thank you for your 
     leadership and attention to the transportation needs of our 
     country.
           Sincerely,
     Paul E. Patton,
     Dirk Kempthorne,
       Governors.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: As the Senate debates the Fiscal Year 
     2004 budget resolution, the Associated General Contractors of 
     America (AGC) urges you to support the Bond-Reid-Inhofe-
     Jeffords amendment to increase highway and transit funding in 
     the legislation. The amendment would allow highway funding to 
     be increased to $255 billion and transit funding to $56 
     billion over the six years in the upcoming reauthorization of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
       The importance of substantially increasing funding for our 
     surface transportation programs is well documented. A report 
     by the American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Officials (AASHTO) found that the current $65 
     billioin annual level of highway investment by all levels of 
     government will have to increase by 42 percent, to $92 
     billion annually, to keep highways in their current 
     condition, including keeping traffic congestion from getting 
     worse.
       The AASHTO report found that it would take nearly doubling 
     current highway investments, to $125 billion annually, to 
     imporove significantly overall conditions of the nation's 
     highways, including improvements in safety and reduction in 
     traffic congestion.
       To begin addressing these documented needs we must boost 
     investment in the highway and transit programs. The Bond-
     Reid-Inhofe-Jeffords amendment will help address the 
     investment shortfall. AGC urges you to suppoort this 
     amendment, which will enable us to address the needs and 
     improve our highway and transit systems.
           Sincerely,

                                            Peter J. Loughlin,

                                               Executive Director,
     Governmental Affairs & Federal Markets.
                                  ____

                                    American Road & Transportation


                                         Builders Association,

                                                   March 19, 2003.
       Dear Senator: Thursday, March 20, the U.S. Senate will 
     start debate and then cast votes that will determine the 
     level of surface transportation program funding that will be 
     included in the FY 2004 Budget Resolution. This will be the 
     first important vote in Congress this year on future highway 
     and transit investment. The funding levels adopted in the 
     Budget Resolution will likely frame the parameters for the 
     Senate TEA-21 reauthorization bill that will authorize annual 
     federal highway and transit investment levels through 2009.
       The bipartisan leadership of the Senate Environment & 
     Public Works Committee and other transportation supporters 
     will offer an amendment during the Thursday morning debate 
     that would boost the Budget Committee's recommended highway 
     funding contract authority level by at least $49 billion over 
     six years. The Bond-Reid-Inhofe-Jeffords Amendment would set 
     total highway investment over FY 2004-FY 2009 at $255 
     billion--an average $42.5 billion annually. The amendment 
     would set transit investment over the period at $56.3 
     billion--or an average of 9.4 billion annually. This 
     amendment would go a long way toward closing the $13 billion 
     per year ``maintain existing conditions and performance'' 
     federal highway investment gap and transit needs detailed in 
     the U.S. Department of Transportation's 2002 report to 
     Congress.
       The federal highway and transit program should be 
     considered one of the nation's most important weapons in the 
     fight to improve public health and safety. Forty-two thousand 
     Americans die each year on America's roads. Over 3 million 
     Americans are injured annually in motor vehicle crashes. 
     Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death of Americans 
     6 to 28 years of age and result in more permanently disabling 
     injuries to young Americans than to any other type of 
     accident.
       These grim statistics should be an outrage to every 
     American. Particularly when poor roadway conditions or 
     outdated alignments are a factor in nearly one-third, or 
     14,000, of those deaths annually, according to the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation. This unacceptable safety 
     performance can be addressed by upgrading the overall 
     conditions of our highway system, by increasing overall 
     surface transportation capacity, building more forgiving 
     roads, and targeting road and bridge improvements that have 
     documented positive cost-benefit ratios.
       Motor vehicle crashes cost American society more than $230 
     billion each year, according to the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration. That's more than six times what the 
     federal government is investing in highway and public 
     transportation improvements this year.
       Without surface transportation capability additions, 
     traffic congestions will also continue to increase in all 
     major U.S. urban communities, according to the Texas 
     Transportation Institute's 2002 Urban Mobility Report. The 
     economic cost to the nation in lost productivity and wasted 
     motor fuel caused by traffic gridlock will grow from $67.5 
     billion in 2000, to almost $100 billion by 2009.

[[Page 7091]]

       Please vote for American jobs, safety and mobility by 
     increasing transportation investment in the FY 2004 Budget 
     Resolution. We urge you to co-sponsor and vote for the 
     bipartisan Bond-Reid-Inhofe-Jeffords Amendment to the FY 2004 
     Budget Resolution. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                           ------.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues 
to support the Bond-Reid amendment to S. Con. Res. 23 which increases 
funding for highways to $255 billion and increases funding for transit 
to $56.5 billion. The amendment does not assume a tax increase. Nor do 
I take lightly that I am asking my colleagues to increase spending. Let 
me be very clear on this next point. This amendment does not have to 
mean deficit spending. There are choices we as a body can make to 
offset the increased spending. I share the same reservations that many 
of my colleagues do about deficit spending.
  Normally, I would be down here urging you to vote against any such 
amendment. I would like you to consider the following before you make 
up your mind on this amendment.
  The primary purposes of federal spending are to support a strong 
national defense and to invest in and maintain a strong national 
infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, we are coming out of an extended period in which we 
neglected defense spending and we are now having to play catch up. 
During the Clinton administration, 1993-2001, defense spending was $407 
billion under the rate of inflation. Yet during that same period, 
government spending increased. This increased spending went to domestic 
programs. I personally believe that, given this wartime environment, 
those domestic programs should now shoulder an across the board cut. I 
am not here to make that argument today, but rather to discuss the 
importance of increased transportation spending.
  Projected highway trust fund receipts do not support the level of 
spending in the amendment. However, we need to be honest in our 
analysis and recognize that the lag in trust fund receipts is temporary 
because of a slow economy and a sharp increase in the cost of fuel. 
Once the economy recovers and gas prices stabilize, receipt will 
increase above the current projections. Additionally, we need to get 
the revenue currently lost to the trust fund from users of the system 
who do not pay their fair share.
  As much as it pains me to say this, this budget resolution fails to 
provide sufficient funding to maintain our nation's infrastructure, 
much less improve it. The Federal Highway Administration's, FHWA, 
recent 2002 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 
Conditions and Performance report states the following:

       . . . maintaining the overall conditions and performance of 
     highways and bridges at current levels would require 
     significantly more investment by all levels of government. . 
     . . the average annual investment [needs] to be . . . 17.5 
     percent larger.

  The resolution before us sets spending at $30.5 billion in FY04, 
increases it to $35.1 billion in FY05 and then flat lines it at that 
level through FY09, for an average investment of $34.3 billion per 
year. This represents a significant shortfall of over $80 billion from 
2004 to 2009 to simply maintain the existing system.
  Again, quoting from the Conditions and Performance report:

       Despite the historic investments in highway infrastructure 
     and improving conditions on many roads and bridges, 
     operational performance--the use of that infrastructure--has 
     steadily deteriorated over the past decade. In 1987, for 
     example, a trip that would take 20 minutes during non-
     congested periods required, on average, 25.8 minutes under 
     congested conditions. By 2000, the same trip under congested 
     conditions required 30.2 minutes, or an additional 4.4 
     minutes.

  Colleagues, this resolution simply does not adequately address the 
needs. The Bond-Reid amendment sets a reasonable spending level of 
$39.2 billion in FY04 and moves us in a direction that at least 
maintains existing infrastructure.
  My colleagues on the Budget Committee will argue that this amendment 
breaks the link between user fees and highway spending because it does 
not assume an increase in gas taxes. That is not correct. We can pay 
for this increased spending as I will outline. In the final analysis, 
the relevant Committees and this body will determine the best ways to 
pay for this amendment if we choose to do so.
  I will now talk about how we can increase spending on transportation 
and pay for it without increasing the deficit.
  First, the trust fund needs to be reimbursed the $8 billion in 
highway user fees that were transferred to the general fund during the 
drafting of TEA21. Those were dollars paid by highway users and should 
be used on highway infrastructure. This is a moral issue. When the 
motorist pays the gas tax at the pump, they rightly expect that the 
dollars they pay in taxes will be used for transportation 
infrastructure. We broke faith with them when we allowed the $8 billion 
transfer to the general fund.
  Furthermore, we as a nation have made some policy choices to 
encourage the use of certain fuels that cost the highway trust money. 
Most of us understand that the 5.2 cent tax incentive for ethanol use 
comes directly from the highway trust fund because ethanol users do not 
pay the full 18.4 cents per gallon. I believe most would agree that the 
highway trust fund should be compensated for this amount which is 
estimated to be over $9 billion. A vehicle that uses an alternative 
fuel creates the same wear and tear on the system as a gasoline powered 
vehicle.
  Additionally, there is a national policy to encourage the purchase of 
hybrid and electric vehicles. While these vehicles address an important 
policy goal of promoting clean burning transportation, they also cost 
the highway trust fund money. They either pay a limited amount of fuel 
taxes because their vehicles are hybrids, or in the case of electric 
vehicles they do not use gasoline at all and thus do not pay anything 
into the highway trust fund. Yet the highway trust fund is expected to 
pay for the infrastructure for their use. Currently there are 640,000 
hybrid vehicles on the road. It is estimated that by 2009 there will be 
5 million. This is going to be a real problem in the future in terms of 
how we fund transportation infrastructure. It is irresponsible to not 
address this before it becomes a crisis. We need to work now on coming 
up with a fair mechanism whereby the highway trust fund is compensated 
for these vehicles using the highway system. I believe that could 
result in up to $10 billion of new revenue into the trust fund.
  Indexing the current gas tax to inflation would result in about a 
one-half cent increase per year and yield $17 billion from 2004-2009.
  Additional options include:
  Interest on the trust fund cash balance--$3 billion plus;
  Fuel Tax Evasion Measures--$6 billion;
  Lost interest on the $8.1 billion transfer--$2 billion;
  Retroactive Interest on TEA-21 cash balance, 1991-2003, $4.5 billion;
  Bonding--$30 billion, American Association of State Highway 
Officials;
  Clinton Gas Tax Increase Paid into General Fund--over $40 billion.
  On this last option, I realize it is not feasible, but that does not 
take away the fact that this money belongs to the highway trust fund.
  Added together, these ideas generate more than enough to offset the 
increased spending proposed by this amendment.
  Again, I oppose deficit spending and will not ask my colleagues to do 
so. If I did not believe that there was a way to get this spending 
without increasing the deficit, I would not be down here today asking 
you to vote for it. Personally, I support across the board cuts to pay 
for the amendment, but again, I recognize others do not share my 
feelings on this and so I have given several very viable options from 
which to choose.
  Finally, I realize that in times of economic downturn and the war, 
Senators are hesitant to further increase spending. I don't think my 
reputation around here is that of someone who goes out of his way to 
increase government spending. I would hope that most

[[Page 7092]]

recognize that I am a strong advocate of slowing down the rate of 
government spending and in most cases I favor cutting spending. In this 
instance, I believe it is the right thing to increase spending because 
we cannot strengthen our economy unless we have an efficient 
transportation system. In order to improve our transportation system we 
need to invest significantly more than is assumed by this budget 
resolution.
  Today's vote is the first step in drafting a bill that will govern 
how and where our transportation dollars are spent. If we short change 
ourselves today we won't get a bill that improves transportation or 
adds to the national economy. I ask you give the Environment and Public 
Works Committee the head room we need to write a bill.
  Support the Bond-Reid amendment and know that it can be done without 
increasing the deficit by using some of the above mentioned options.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Bond which I am pleased to cosponsor along with a number of 
my colleagues. This bipartisan amendment would increase highway 
spending to $255 billion and transit spending to $56.5 billion over the 
next 6 years.
  This amendment is essential to provide for continued growth in the 
Federal investment in mass transit and highway infrastructure across 
the country. Together, these increases will ensure that much needed 
resources are in place to help meet our Nation's staggering surface 
transportation needs.
  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, expires 
on September 30, 2003, and as we move forward, it is important that we 
maintain our commitment to improving the nation's transportation 
systems. I believe it is critical that we invest significantly in 
transportation funding in order to address the growing demand for new 
and safer roads and new and better transit systems for all communities. 
Our transportation systems connect America.
  Continued investment in these areas helps to relieve congestion, 
stimulate the economy, improve productivity and generally enhance the 
quality and safety of our highways and transit systems.
  Federal, State and local investment in our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure is vitally important to a growing economy. The U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce has estimated that each $1 billion invested in 
transportation creates 47,500 jobs.
  Additionally, the Federal investment that we are proposing today will 
leverage State and local dollars, as well as generate significant 
private investment in local communities all over this country.
  This amendment provides additional resources necessary to maintain 
the gains that have been made in mass transportation and highway 
infrastructure development. Recognizing these benefits, since 1982, 
transit has been allocated 20 percent of all new surface transportation 
funding. This amendment will assure that this balance in funding 
between highways and mass transit is continued.
  Under this amendment, in fiscal year 2009, transit would be allocated 
20 percent of total amount of highway and transit funding. This is 
particularly important because we have seen evidence that improvements 
in mass transit have stimulated economic growth and enhanced the 
quality of life for millions of Americans.
  This amendment provides funding to assure that the highway and 
transit infrastructure is in place to allow our economy to continue to 
grow. I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with several of my 
colleagues to offer an amendment to boost transportation funding for 
the 6-year period to be covered by the next highway bill.
  The enactment of a new surface transportation bill will be a mammoth 
task for the 108th Congress. No group of Senators is more familiar with 
the depth of this challenge than the principal cosponsors of this 
amendment.
  In my more than 56 years in elected office, I have always served in a 
legislative body. I served in the West Virginia House of Delegates and 
the West Virginia Senate. I served three terms in the U.S. House of 
Representatives before joining the Senate roughly 45 years ago. Over 
all those years, I have been called on to vote on thousands of 
amendments. As such, I learned a long time ago to take careful note, 
not just of the substance of each amendment, but also who is offering 
it.
  As such, I ask all Senators to take careful note of the principal 
cosponsors of this amendment. They include the chairman and ranking 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee; the chairman and 
ranking member of that committee's Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation; the chairman and ranking member of the Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee; and, the chairman and ranking member of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.
  What unites all these Senators is an acute knowledge of the 
challenges that stand in front of us as we seek to reauthorize the TEA-
21 law. What also unites us is an acute knowledge of the true needs of 
our transportation system, whether it is the need to renew our aging 
highway infrastructure or expand the capacity of our mass transit 
systems. While we are required to reauthorize every 6 years, many of us 
face these issues every year. Indeed, both Senators Bond and Reid, in 
addition to their authorizing responsibilities, serve with me on 
Senator Shelby's and Senator Murray's Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee. Just last month, we all worked together to reject the 
Bush administration's attempt to cut highway spending by some $8.6 
billion. We were successful in restoring almost every penny of that 
cut.
  But when we assess the current conditions of our highway system and 
the growing demands our society places on that system, each one of us 
knows that holding steady at the current level of funding is simply not 
adequate. And that is what brings this bipartisan group of Senators to 
the floor today. Together, we are offering an amendment to 
substantially boost our level of investment in both highways and mass 
transit. And we ask all Senators to join with us in this effort.
  In a just a few weeks time, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and the Banking Committee will begin in earnest to draft 
their portions of the surface transportation bill. During that time, I 
expect that each of my fellow Senators will be approaching the chairman 
and ranking member of these committees to articulate the most critical 
transportation needs for their states. For some Senators, their focus 
will be deteriorating highway bridges; for others it will be 
alternative fuel buses, or the widening of existing highways or the 
construction of new highways. Some Senators will be focused on the need 
to provide seismic retrofits of bridges near earthquake faults while 
other Senators will be looking for new commuter rail lines or even 
ferry terminals.
  No matter what the transportation needs are in their State, I implore 
each and every Senator to reflect seriously on these needs before they 
come to the floor and vote against this amendment.
  Much has been said over the last week about the need for this budget 
resolution to be based on the true budgetary realities that we face as 
a nation. We need to focus on the real world cost of the war. We need 
to focus on the real costs of a meaningful prescription drug benefit 
for our Medicare recipients.
  Here are some other real world facts that we must attend to:
  Approximately 30 percent of the bridges along our Nation's highway 
system are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
  It would require $42 billion more in annual investment to actually 
make progress to improve the conditions of our Nation's highways. Put 
another way, if we continue as a nation to provide only inflationary 
increases in the current rate of highway spending, the condition of our 
Nation's highways will just continue to deteriorate.

[[Page 7093]]

  These are not the observations of Robert C. Byrd--they are the 
observations of the Bush administration's own report on the Condition 
and Performance of our National Transportation System.
  We must face these realities head on as we draft the next surface 
transportation bill. And to do so, we are going to need more 
resources--far more resources than are called for under the budget 
resolution we are currently debating.
  So I urge all Senators to join with me and the leadership of both the 
transportation authorizing committees and the transportation 
appropriations subcommittee in setting us on a path where we can make 
meaningful improvements to our highway and transit systems. I commend 
the bipartisan leadership of the transportation authorizing committees 
and I intend to stand with them as we seek to advance the cause of our 
Nation's mobility and prosperity.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support for the 
Bond-Reid amendment to ensure that we invest in our transportation 
infrastructure.
  Time and again, in our daily lives and in the news we hear and see 
that our Nation's roads and transit systems are crowded. On our way to 
work or on our way to visit family, we spend countless hours stuck in 
traffic or waiting for a bus.
  But this congestion is more than just a personal inconvenience. 
Indeed, we know from studies by the Texas Transportation Institute and 
others that traffic congestion costs our economy $67.5 billion every 
year. That's billions in lost productivity.
  Sadly, the budget resolution before us fails to provide the resources 
needed to meet these demands. It even fails to meet the level of 
funding that the administration's own Department of Transportation 
believes is necessary if one reads the DoT's report on the conditions 
and performance of our Nation's highways and transit systems.
  Fortunately, the bipartisan amendment offered by the Senate's leaders 
on transportation policy would ensure that we have the resources to 
maintain and modernize our roads, bridges, and transit systems.
  By providing a total of $255 billion for highways and $56.5 billion 
for transit, this amendment makes sure we have the resources to repair 
aging bridges and improve transit service.
  Last year, as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
our Nation's transit programs, we heard repeatedly from witnesses who 
represented transit systems of all sizes from all over the country 
about the success of TEA-21. When I asked why TEA-21 was successful, 
every witness had the same answer: resources. It was the resources that 
brought fast, environmentally sound transit to growing cities like 
Denver and helped transit attain the highest growth rate of any mode of 
transportation. This amendment will ensure that we continue this 
success.
  In addition, during a time of economic uncertainty, this amendment 
means jobs and a great stimulus to our economy. Indeed, an estimated 
47,000 well-paying jobs are created for each $1 billion we invest in 
transportation.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Bond, Reid, Shelby, and 
Sarbanes, for their leadership on this amendment. I look forward to its 
passage and preservation in conference with the House.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a few days ago I spoke about the serious 
concerns I had with the budget resolution that was proposed by the new 
majority. One of the areas where the resolution before us falls 
woefully short is transportation funding. We have an opportunity before 
us to increase funding for Federal highway and transit programs by 
adopting the Bond/Reid amendment.
  As all Senators know, this year the Congress is scheduled to 
reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century also 
known as the TEA-21. This bill includes resources not just for 
highways, but for highway safety and mass transit. This will be an 
enormous task for four separate Senate authorizing committees and will 
require a great deal of resources if we are to be able to develop a 
consensus package that will get on and off the Senate floor.
  What we do in this budget resolution will set the stage for TEA-21 
reauthorization and demonstrate to the American people just how 
committed we are to investing in our nation's transportation 
infrastructure; to reducing congestion and improving the environment in 
our cities; to making our transportation system safer; and to putting 
people back to work. Simply put, the budget resolution as currently 
written simply doesn't do enough.
  The amendment before us would increase the highway program to $255 
billion and the transit program to $56.5 billion over the next 6 years. 
The Federal Highway Administration's own ``Conditions and Performance 
Report'' states that in order to improve our aging transportation 
infrastructure we should be investing an additional $42 billion in 
highways and bridges and $20 billion in mass transit each year.
  The benefits of increasing transportation funding are multifaceted. 
First and most importantly, increased transportation investment will 
help stimulate our struggling economy since every billion dollars of 
highway funding generates 47,500 jobs and every dollar in transit 
investment generates $6 more in economic returns. I don't know about 
your State, but in my home State of Washington, we can use every bit of 
economic stimulus that we can get because Washington State was ranked 
either first or second in the Nation's unemployment rate for much of 
the last two years and we have lost a staggering 74,000 jobs in the 
last 18 months.
  Second, improving our nation's highways and transit systems will also 
mean that Americans will spend less time in traffic and more time with 
their families and loved ones. And the people of Washington State--
particularly in the Everett to Seattle corridor--know something about 
congestion and the toll it takes on family life and the pocketbook 
since this area is ranked third in the nation in congestion. 
Nationwide, the value of travel delay and wasted fuel that occurs in 
congested traffic is estimated at over $67 billion annually.
  And finally, every year over 40,000 Americans die on our Nation's 
roads and highways--we need to continue to invest in transportation to 
make sure our infrastructure is safe; that trucks and vehicles meet 
safety standards; and that Americans drive responsibly by wearing their 
seatbelts and without the influence of drugs or alcohol.
  We have much work ahead of us as we move forward with TEA-21 
reauthorization. We have an opportunity to help our economy by creating 
good transportation jobs and to improve the quality of life for 
millions of Americans by ensuring that we have a transportation system 
that is safe and efficient. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond-
Reid amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ben Nelson be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont is seeking time. 
I propose that he take 15 minutes off the amendment of the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont off of which 
amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Bond amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bond amendment is not pending.
  Mr. CONRAD. I don't think it makes much difference. Does it make a 
difference to you, Mr. Chairman? I took Senator Bond's time off the 
resolution. I am not sure it makes much difference, whichever one is 
top on your list there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond-Reid 
transportation amendment. This is probably the most important amendment 
we will vote on in the next few days, as far as really doing something 
meaningful to our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bipartisan Bond-Reid 
amendment on transportation offered by the

[[Page 7094]]

chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee--Senator Bond--and the 
ranking member, Senator Harry Reid and myself.
  I appreciate the strong leadership in this effort provided on the 
Republican side by Senators Inhofe, Bond, Shelby and many others.
  On the Democrat side, Senator, Harry Reid has done a tremendous job. 
I want to note that Senator Sarbanes has taken the lead on transit with 
Senator Shelby.
  The Bond-Reid amendment will allow the Congress to write a strong 
transportation bill which, in part, can address many of the 
administration's ideas for enhancing the mobility and security of our 
transportation modes.
  The chairman of the full EPW Committee, Chairman Inhofe, supports 
this effort, as do I as ranking member of the EPW Committee.
  The chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senators 
Shelby and Sarbanes, with jurisdiction over transit issues, also 
support this amendment.
  This amendment allows us to enhance the security of our vital 
transportation networks, to better protect against the unexpected, and 
to enhance the mobility of our citizens and commerce.
  This amendment will also create hundreds of thousands of jobs and 
allow Congress to fund important transportation components--such as 
intelligent transportation systems--to better monitor and move people 
during rush hours, and during emergencies. This is real economic 
stimulus. More than anything else we are doing.
  These funds can also be used to facilitate secure and efficient 
international border crossings and fund administration security 
proposals.
  This will be important for States sharing borders with Canada or 
Mexico, such as my home State of Vermont.
  President Eisenhower saw our highways as important to the national 
defense--and the economy--and it appears that this Administration will 
recommend provisions to the Congress which they see as critical.
  A report by the Nation's State transportation official found that 
Federal, State, and local governments must significantly increase 
investment in highways and bridges to improve safety, enhance security, 
relieve congestion, and protect bridges and harbors.
  According to that national study, we must invest $92 billion annually 
to just to maintain current conditions, and improving the system's 
conditions and performance would cost $125 billion annually.
  This bipartisan amendment will increase the highway program to $255 
billion over the next 6 years and will proportionately increase transit 
investments to $56.5 billion.
  This amendment will thus significantly increase the number of well-
paying construction jobs and improve the safety and security of our 
citizens.
  This amendment is the first step toward a strong bipartisan effort to 
revitalize our Nation's economy through investments in transportation.
  The spending that we authorize today will help Vermont and all our 
States, keep pace with road and bridge repair, transit demand and 
improved safety and security needs. We will supplement this spending by 
attracting private capital to expand freight capacity and relieve 
congestion.
  I hope we can pass this amendment with the support of all of my 
colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate 
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which was jurisdiction 
over the Federal transit program, I am pleased to join in this effort 
with Chairman Shelby and Senator Jack Reed, ranking member of the 
Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, as well as my colleagues on 
the Enviroment and Public Works Committee, Senators Bond, Reid, Inhofe, 
and Jeffords, and my other colleagues who support this important 
amendment.
  As has already been noted, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, known as TEA-21, will expire on September 30 of this year. 
This Congress will have the opportunity to craft legislation that will 
shape America's surface transportation system for the next decade and 
beyond. The decisions we make will be critically important to our 
Nation's future economic strength, the quality of our environment, and 
our national security. Therefore, as we consider this budget 
resolution, and engage in the debate about how best to use our limited 
Federal resources, I believe it is appropriate to take a few moments to 
consider what is contained in this budget resolution, what this 
amendment seeks to accomplish, and the importance of our surface 
transportation system for America's future.
  Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does not come close to 
making the necessary investment in surface transportation. Instead, the 
budget as written would actually cut the highway program next year, 
grow funding somewhat the following year, and then flat-line the 
program for the remainder of the authorization period. The budget's 
numbers for transit call for annual increases below the President's 
projected rate of inflation, not to mention the projected ridership 
growth. This budget calls for only $206 billion for highways and $46 
billion for transit over the next 6 years, far less than what is 
needed. I am deeply concerned that this budget would move us backward, 
not forward, in our efforts to meet the mobility needs of the Nation.
  This amendment would grow these programs by $49 billion and $10.5 
billion respectively over what is included in the budget resolution, 
increasing investment in our highway program to $255 billion over the 
next 6 years, and our transit program to $56.5 billion. By growing our 
investment, we will not only help to preserve and maintain the systems 
that we have in place, we will begin to make progress toward 
improvement. Further, by the end of the next reauthorization cycle, 
surface transportation investment will reach its goal of a 4 to 1 
balance between highways and transit. This goal was established in TEA-
21, and this amendment reaffirms that decision.
  The transportation needs of this Nation are significant, as more and 
more communities find themselves confronting the problems of traffic 
congestion and delay. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, 
in the year 2000, Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours 
stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the nation of $67.5 billion 
in lost time and wasted fuel. As these figures show, congestion has a 
real economic cost to the nation, in addition to the psychological and 
social costs of spending hours each day sitting in traffic. It is clear 
that we must increase the capacity of our transportation infrastructure 
to handle the growing demands for mobility of both people and goods to 
keep our economy moving.
  Investment in our transportation infrastructure has other economic 
benefits as well. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, each $1 
billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. 
At a time when our economy is struggling, investing in transportation 
is one of the smartest actions that government can take. Increased 
investment creates jobs today and leads to economic growth tomorrow.
  Let me take a few moments to focus on the transit program, which I 
have a particular interest in as the ranking member of the Banking 
Committee. During the last Congress, that Committee, along with the 
Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, chaired by my colleague 
Senator Reed, held a series of eight hearings to begin laying the 
groundwork for the reauthorization. What those hearings clearly 
demonstrated is that investing in transportation, particularly public 
transportation, pays off in terms of economic, environmental, and 
mobility benefits for our nation.
  TEA-21's increased investment in transit stimulated a surge in 
transit ridership. As Federal Transit Administrator Jennifer Dorn 
testified last April: ``Transit has experienced the highest percentage 
of ridership growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing 
over 28 percent between 1993 and 2001.''

[[Page 7095]]

  Of course, the benefits of TEA-21's investment are broader than 
increased ridership. The economic development impact of transit is 
becoming more and more apparent as new systems have come into service 
under TEA-21. For example, the Banking Committee heard testimony that 
over $1 billion has been invested in private development along Dallas's 
existing and future light rail lines, raising nearby property values 
and supporting thousands of jobs. We learned that BellSouth relocated 
almost ten thousand employees from scattered sites in suburban Atlanta 
to three downtown buildings near MARTA rail stations, in part because, 
in the words of BellSouth Vice President Herschel Abbott, commuting by 
transit ``saves employees time. It saves employees money. It saves wear 
and tear on the employees' spirit.'' And that has real returns for 
their employer.
  Transit is about more than our economic life; it is also about our 
quality of life. During the Committee's hearings, we heard a great deal 
about the importance of transit to our senior citizens, young people, 
the disabled, and others who rely on transit for their daily mobility 
needs. Several of our witnesses observed that the increased investment 
in transit and paratransit services under TEA-21 has provided the 
crucial link between home and a job, a school, or a doctor's office, 
for millions of people who might otherwise have been unable to 
participate fully in the life of their communities.
  And transit can be a lifetime in other ways as well, as we discovered 
on September 11, 2001. We heard testimony during our hearings about the 
efforts made by transit operators on that day to move thousands of 
people quickly and safely out of city centers. As more and more 
Americans are using public transportation, it is clear that transit 
must be a vital component of any city's evacuation plan.
  While September 11 showed the importance of transit in responding to 
an emergency, it also raised our awareness of the unique challenges 
transit faces in the safety and security area, as several witnesses 
discussed. Transit agencies are taking great pains to improve the 
security of their systems, but these efforts are not without cost.
  It is clear to me that we will have to greatly increase Federal 
support for transportation to help local communities make the 
investments in infrastructure and system preservation that will be 
required to move America into the 21st century. The Department of 
Transportation has identified $14 billion per year in capital needs 
simply to maintain the conditions and performance of our transit 
systems--$20 billion is needed to improve conditions and performance. 
Other estimates show an even greater need. A report by the Nation's 
State transportation officials estimated that an annual investment of 
$19 billion is needed just to maintain our transit systems at their 
current levels, and $44 billion would be needed to improve conditions 
and performance. According to the same study, almost $100 billion is 
needed annually just to maintain the current condition of our nation's 
roads and bridges. Failure to make the needed investment will result in 
the continued deterioration of our existing infrastructure.
  As we debate the priorities of this Nation in the context of this 
Budget Resolution, I urge my colleagues to be mindful of a comment that 
Dr. Beverly Scott, then General Manager of the Rhode Island Public 
Transportation Authority, made before the Banking Committee on April 
25, 2002, regarding the reauthorization of TEA-21. Dr. Scott said: ``As 
Americans, mobility is one of the greatest and most precious freedoms 
that we enjoy. This basic cornerstone of American life--who can or 
cannot get from place to place, how we plan and conduct our daily 
lives, the choices we make about what we do, and even more importantly, 
what we can do--are hanging in the balance.'' That is what is at stake 
here. This Congress will shape the future of transportation in America, 
which will have a very real impact on every one of our citizens. 
Passage of this amendment is essential if we are to keep America 
moving. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment to 
increase highway and transit spending levels in the budget resolution.
  Increasing transportation spending is an important objective. Highway 
investments create jobs, increase the productivity of our economy, and 
improve the quality of life for all Americans. In Montana, its our 
lifeblood. We count on highway money for our economic development and 
we count on transit money to give our rural areas access to goods and 
services and people.
  In 1998 Congress passed one of the most successful and bipartisan 
bills in recent memory--the ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century'', better known as ``TEA-21.'' I am honored to have been an 
author of that piece of legislation and I look forward to working on 
the next reauthorization act.
  TEA-21 passed overwhelmingly in 1997 because there was a 40 percent 
increase, on average, in funding. So, even if some states got a lower 
percentage of funds than their neighbor, everyone brought home more 
dollars than under ISTEA. That 40 percent increase was primarily 
derived by the transfer of the 4.3 cent gas tax from the general fund 
to the Highway Trust Fund, the new budgetary treatment for highways and 
the ``protected'' status of the Highway Trust Fund.
  We are hoping to build on the success of TEA-21 by ensuring that our 
Budget Resolution can accommodate higher levels of spending for 
highways and transit. These higher levels of spending will enable the 
successor to TEA-21 to become law.
  In order to pass a TEA-21 reauthorization bill, we will need more 
money. Increasing funds into the Highway Trust Fund is the sole 
responsibility of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Grassley and I 
have been working very hard to find ways to increase funding for both 
highways and transit. We are absolutely committed to growing the 
programs without raising taxes.
  I can't emphasize enough that the single principal feature of any new 
highway reauthorization bill has to be its increased funding for the 
program, something that will help all States and all citizens. Our 
first step is this blueprint for our budget.
  The Finance Committee believes that the levels included in this 
amendment to the Budget Resolution can be reached. $255 billion for 
Highways and $56.5 billion for transit over 6 years can be achieved 
without raising taxes. I know this because over the past 3 months 
finding this money has been a priority for myself and my chairman, 
Senator Grassley.
  Let me sum up by saying that the Senate Finance Committee has the 
responsibility to figure out how to grow the highway and transit 
programs. We believe that we can come up with increased funding for 
both highways and transit. We can do it without raising taxes. This 
amendment gives us the room to achieve that.
  I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes for 
increased investment in infrastructure. I say both sides of the aisle 
because, as I've said in the past, there are no Democratic roads or 
Republican bridges. We will all benefit from this investment. We should 
all support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, being authorized by the ranking member of 
the committee, I will speak on the amendment that is almost pending, we 
thought it was pending, whatever.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. The Bond amendment.
  This is a really fantastic proposal of the Senator from Missouri. It 
is sponsored by the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe; the 
ranking member, Senator Jeffords; the chairman of the subcommittee on 
transportation, Senator Bond; the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
the Senator from Nevada; the chairman of the full Banking Committee 
which handles transit matters, Senator Shelby; the ranking member of 
the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes; and many others.
  I thank my friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, for his work on this

[[Page 7096]]

amendment. He has shown great leadership. I am pleased to join him in 
sponsoring this bipartisan highway and transit amendment.
  This amendment represents an important step in the reauthorization of 
the country's surface transportation system. We made significant gains 
over the life of TEA-21, and we must keep this momentum as we move 
forward. Despite these gains in TEA-21, there is much that remains to 
be done.
  This budget debate is about choices, and I understand that. I also 
understand that we need to prioritize given these perilous times. I 
firmly believe that a well-maintained transportation infrastructure is 
a foundation for a healthy, vibrant national economy.
  Our Nation's surface transportation system is critical to the free 
flow of citizens and the free flow of commerce.
  This amendment adds an additional $50 billion for highways and $10 
billion for transit over the next 6 years. The Federal Highway 
Administration's 2002 Conditions and Performance Report estimates that 
the annual Federal investment in roads must increase by 17 percent per 
year simply to maintain the Nation's existing highway and bridge 
system.
  I will not take a lot of time, but the Senator from Louisiana, who is 
on the floor, has brought to my office on two separate occasions people 
from Louisiana who have desperate needs for transportation improvement. 
It is critical that we get more money for programs that can meet the 
demands of the folks from Louisiana and the folks from Nevada. It can 
only be done if this amendment is adopted. I hope it does.
  Improving the system will cost more than the report of the estimates 
of Federal investment of roads needing to be increased by 17 percent. 
This administration calculates current Federal investment must increase 
by as much as 65 percent to basically improve our Federal 
infrastructure as it relates to highway.
  As the Senator from Missouri has indicated with his charts, safety is 
still a serious problem. When 45,000 people a year are being killed on 
the roads, I think that says it all. In addition to the people who are 
killed, we have people who are paraplegic, quadriplegic, people who are 
hurt in many different ways in automobile accidents that are caused 
because of unsafe highways.
  According to the Department of Transportation, our Nation's fatality 
rate per million vehicle miles traveled has decreased, but the number 
of fatalities has increased, with the disproportionate share of these 
occurring on rural roads. We really do not give any attention to speak 
of to rural roads.
  In addition to the personal tragedy associated with traffic 
accidents, accidents cost an estimated $137 billion per year in 
property losses, losses in productivity, and medical costs.
  System maintenance costs do not include the cost to improve the 
system's access and mobility to allow for the efficient and timely flow 
of citizens and commerce throughout the country.
  America's congestion problems continue to get worse. The Texas 
Transportation Institute estimates this year residents in the top 75 
metropolitan areas will lose more than 3.6 billion hours due to traffic 
congestion and $67 billion in wasted time and fuel.
  The problems in Washington, DC, are legendary, but as a result of the 
man with the tractor in the reflecting pool, it took one of my friends 
traveling from over the bridge in Virginia 2\1/2\ hours to get to work 
because of the added congestion because of the tractor in the 
reflecting pool. Traffic in Washington, DC, and the rest of the country 
is in deep trouble.
  The Governor of the State of Nevada, a friend of mine by the name of 
Kenny Guinn, has written a letter dated yesterday. He is a Republican 
Governor. He supports this amendment. It is important because the 
population of the State of Nevada has increased during the past 10 
years by 64 percent, and this problem is going to continue to grow.
  We in Nevada are not depending on the Federal Government alone to 
satisfy the needs of highways. In fact, the State of Nevada spends more 
by some $40 million than the Federal Government. This is very rare. The 
Governor of the State of Nevada fully endorses this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated March 19 from Gov. 
Kenny Guinn, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                    Las Vegas, NV, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Assistant Minority Leader, S-321, The Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to express my support for 
     your efforts to increase funding for the federal highway and 
     transit program to $255 billion and $55 billion over the next 
     five years. The amendment you along with a bipartisan group 
     of eight senators have proposed to the Senate Budget 
     Resolution is critical to Nevada's continued economic 
     vitality.
       As you know, our state has experienced the largest growth 
     rate in the nation. The population of Nevada is currently 
     estimated to grow to 2.44 million residents by 2005, a 64% 
     increase from 1994. These new residents have put 
     unprecedented demands on Nevada's transportation 
     infrastructure.
       The federal highway and transit programs have been critical 
     in our ability to meet these demands. While we could not have 
     kept pace with our transportation needs without the federal 
     program, Nevada has not shirked its responsibilities either. 
     Nevada's revenue derived from our own citizens has risen from 
     $279.5 million to $365.7 million in 2002. This 31% increase 
     in revenue from state sources is in addition to the $234.7 
     million Nevada received in federal funds in 2002. Nevada's 
     local jurisdictions have stepped up to the plate with self-
     imposed taxes to supplement the state and federal 
     contribution, as well. Just this past year Washoe and Clark 
     County voters approved increased local taxes to pay for 
     transportation needs.
       Under TEA-21 Nevada has experienced a steady increase in 
     federal funds that has kept pace with our own contributions. 
     Without similar expansion under the coming reauthorization 
     bill we will fall behind, endangering our economic future 
     with clogged highways, compromised traffic safety, and 
     decreased air quality.
       Thank you again for your support of Nevada's transportation 
     needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kenny C. Guinn,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I indicated that the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, Senator Shelby, and the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, 
have also approved this legislation. The reason they do so is because 
they are responsible for the transit aspect of the highway bill.
  In years past, we divided the money we get on highways; 20 percent of 
it basically goes to transit. Why? For every person who is riding on a 
train, that is that much less traffic congestion and burden on our 
highways. It has worked well for decades. We need to continue that.
  This amendment recognizes additional highway capacity alone will not 
solve the problems of congestion; therefore, we should provide 
Americans with other transportation options such as transit. It is part 
of important congestion relief. It is also a lifeline for millions of 
Americans to health care, to jobs, and to schools.
  Nevada is an example. Ten years ago, for us to talk about needing 
transit money would have been unheard of. But now we are badly in need 
of it. We are building the only commercial monorail that will go from 
the airport up and down the strip which will save millions of hours in 
travel time and make it a much easier trip from the airport to the many 
vacation spots along the Las Vegas strip and downtown.
  We have duty to every American to invest in a balanced transportation 
system. That is what this amendment is about. I ask for the support of 
the Senate. This is a bipartisan measure, and I hope it has a strong 
bipartisan vote tomorrow. I appreciate very much the Senator from North 
Dakota yielding me the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak on both the economic 
package and the highway bill, but I see my friend and colleague from 
Louisiana. Does she wish to speak?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to offer an amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. We will be happy to have you discuss it, but prefer you 
not send it to the desk immediately.
  I yield to my friend and colleague before speaking.

[[Page 7097]]


  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a moment so I can thank the 
Senator for his courtesy in doing that? That is a gracious act, 
especially at this time of night. I appreciate it very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Louisiana?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an 
amendment I plan to offer. First, I thank the leadership, particularly 
the Senator from Oklahoma for his gracious yielding because the time is 
getting very late tonight and there are other colleagues on the floor 
who wish to speak briefly on some amendments about which they feel 
strongly. As we try to offer these amendments and state our case, we 
realize these votes will take place tomorrow. I thank my colleague from 
Oklahoma for his leadership and my colleague from North Dakota.
  First, I have somewhat mixed feelings about offering this amendment 
or any amendment tonight. I was in the minority of Senators who 
believed we should have taken a break from this discussion at least for 
the next couple of days as this war is raging in Iraq. Literally, as we 
speak, all, I would venture to say, of the television sets in this 
Nation and many around the world and radios and Internet communication 
are focused on this extraordinary undertaking that is underway as we 
speak and 250,000 of our finest citizens are mobilized and en route--
land forces, air forces--in the battle. I was hoping we could take some 
time and come back to this early next week when we had a better sense. 
But as the Senate, in its will, decided to move forward, I wanted to 
come forward and at least offer one amendment, not that all the others 
are not significant and relevant and most certainly part of this 
debate, but this particular amendment actually affects the lives, 
safety, equipment, and strategy of the war we are fighting.
  The amendment I hope to have voted on tomorrow and will discuss just 
briefly is very simple. It will add $1 billion to the underlying budget 
resolution providing an extra billion dollars of the $400 billion that 
is in the budget for defense. So it is a minor increase in the scheme 
of things but very important to the beneficiaries of this amendment.
  Those beneficiaries, of course, are all the citizens of the United 
States, the citizens of Iraq, and the citizens of our coalition, as 
well as the people it directly affects, which are the Guard and 
Reserve, Guard and Reserve members who have been called up to stand 
alongside the Active Duty.
  I ask unanimous consent to have several letters printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Skelton: In response to your letter of 29 
     January 2003, we are providing a combined Navy and Marine 
     Corps list of our unfunded ``Naval'' programs to which 
     additional funding could be applied. While we are grateful 
     for and have benefited from the increased resources recently 
     provided by the President and the Congress, there still 
     remain additional shortfalls that are detailed herein.
       The Department's FY 2004 Budget continues to focus on our 
     new defense strategy and emergent challenges of the 21st 
     Century. The resources contained in this budget go far in 
     helping both services to maintain heightened readiness in 
     uncertain times, to provide further investment in 
     transformational programs, and to take care of our Sailors, 
     Marines and their families. However, the road to attaining 
     our shipbuilding and aircraft procurement program goals 
     remains exceptionally challenging. Additionally, the Global 
     War on Terrorism and current operations incident to the Iraqi 
     question continue to stretch our resources in many areas.
       For FY 2004, Naval unfunded programs total $6.5 billion. 
     These unfunded items are listed under Enclosure (1) for Navy 
     programs and Enclosure (2) for Marine Corps programs. As you 
     know, the items identified on these lists are important to 
     the long-term efficacy of our Navy/Marine corps Team.
       If we may be of any further assistance, please let us know.
           Sincerely,
     Vern Clark,
       Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations.
     Michael w. Hagee,
       General, U.S. Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
                                  ____


                           Executive Summary

       The Army National Guard (ARNG) plays a key role in the 
     defense of our Nation. Whether responding to Combatant 
     Commander's requirements worldwide, answering our Nation's 
     Homeland Security requirements, or helping communities 
     respond to natural disasters, the Army National Guard remains 
     an integral part of our Nation's defense strategy. Citizen-
     soldiers of the ARNG are trained, experienced, and motivated. 
     Within our ranks are some of the finest Americans the country 
     has to offer. In order to keep them trained and ready they 
     require Full Time Support (FTS), modernized equipment that is 
     compatible with the active Army, up-to-date facilities to 
     maintain equipment and train at, and additional training time 
     and resources to remain relevant as a viable force in the 
     full Spectrum of Operations. Readiness is our focus as we 
     stretch every dollar to maximize efficiency and 
     effectiveness.
       The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request supports peacetime 
     operational levels and provides $5.514B to train, educate, 
     and prepare military personnel (MPA Budget Activity 8); 
     $4.211B in operations and training support; and $168M for 
     construction acquisition, and rehabilitation of facilities. 
     This request represents a program (above cost and price 
     increases) of $102.2M or 1.9% in the MPA BA 8 appropriation; 
     a program decrease of $125M or -3.0% in the Operations and 
     Maintenance Army National Guard (OMNG) appropriation; and a 
     program decrease of $73M or -30% in the Military Construction 
     Army National Guard (MCNG) appropriation.
       The Department has focused resources on Operations & 
     Maintenance, Collective Training and Sustainment Restoration 
     Maintenance (SRM) and has taken risk in Base Operations. 
     Within Pay and Allowances the budget provides for the 
     statutory requirements for Inactive Duty Training and Annual 
     Training, continued progress towards the goal of 85% Duty 
     MOSQ, and Special Training to bring ARNG capabilities in 
     support of the Combatant Commanders.
       The Army National Guard has received recent increases in 
     our Total Obligation Authority. We are grateful to the 
     Congress and to the Army for these increases, proving that we 
     are all part of the same team. However, much remains to be 
     done. There are several specific requirements that must be 
     met in order to continue to keep our soldiers ready as the 
     Global War on Terrorism continues. Attached are lists of our 
     top personnel, readiness and transformation shortfalls and 
     our top twenty-five equipment needs.
       The nation asks a grant deal of its citizen-soldiers. 
     Before we put them in harm's way, it is our responsibility to 
     ensure that our soldiers receive the best possible training, 
     are maneuvering in the most current aircraft and armored 
     combat vehicles, and are armed with the most lethal weapons 
     systems. Our ability to be ready when called upon by the 
     American people is, and will always be, our top priority and 
     our bottom line.

                                             Roger C. Schultz,

                                               Lieutenant General,
     Director, Army National Guard.
                                  ____



                                   Secretary of the Air Force,

                                    Washington, February 21, 2003.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department's FY04 budget reflects an 
     efficient and effective investment of resources designed to 
     sustain our forces and enhance our capabilities for the 
     future. The budget will help fight and win the war against 
     terrorism, continue transforming the service to meet the 
     challenges of this century, and provide for recruiting and 
     retaining of a quality fighting force to meet the commitments 
     of this nation. We need your support for these objectives and 
     for the budget we have proposed to achieve these goals. The 
     Unfunded Priority List (UPL) that I forward today complements 
     these objectives, but in no sense is an alternative to the 
     fundamental priorities of our President's Budget request. We 
     ask that, as you consider the list, you remain mindful of the 
     context in which it is presented.
       Our list emphasizes programs already planned that can be 
     brought forward plus a number of areas where additional 
     investment can be helpful. In any budget there is a need to 
     balance investment and thus to balance risk, so there will 
     always be areas where additional funding can be effectively 
     applied. With this in mind, we have been careful to assure 
     that the list consists of proposals that can be executed in a 
     timely manner and that will not disrupt the program we have 
     laid out in the President's Budget or the Future Years 
     Defense Plan. For the military construction entry, we have 
     included an additional list which provides the project 
     detail. However, we do not address unbudgeted costs related 
     to Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, or 
     other emerging costs of the Global War on Terrorism, 
     recognizing that a supplemental request which brings together 
     a Department-wide estimate is the

[[Page 7098]]

     more appropriate vehicle for presenting these requirements. 
     Finally, we have included two items that address the need we 
     have to recapitalize our aging tanker force. We are in the 
     process of working issues associated with a potential lease 
     of tankers and will inform the Congress of that outcome as 
     soon as it is decided. The list reflects the costs required 
     to implement that lease and an alternative, if the lease is 
     not approved, that brings forward dollars to accelerate a buy 
     of new tanker aircraft.
       We thank you for the opportunity to provide you our UPL. 
     Our Armed Forces are winning the war on terrorism and through 
     your diligence and assistance we eagerly look forward to 
     launching into the 2nd century of powered air and space 
     flight.
       A similar letter has been sent to the Ranking Minority 
     Member of your Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James G. Roche.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. It is shocking what has come to my attention as a 
former member of the Armed Services Committee and now as a member of 
the Appropriations Committee: The lack of equipment, the lack of money 
in this budget to fund their current operations.
  This amendment asks to take a billion dollars away from a tax cut 
that I think could give an extra billion dollars and transfer that room 
in this budget to add a billion dollars for the Guard and the Reserves.
  I have a couple of facts that might help people understand why this 
is so critical and why I really believe we should--and hope we can do 
this in a bipartisan way--take this positive step. In 1990, there were 
2.5 million men and women in the Active Forces of the United States. 
Today, there are only 1.4 million. The Reserve and Guard make up a 
larger portion of our fighting force than ever before in the history of 
the world. There are 860,000 men and women in the Guard and Reserve. 
They are from the States of my colleagues, as well as my own State. We 
all know and have people on our staffs, in our families, our neighbors, 
who signed up basically to be weekend soldiers and weekend warriors, 
but they have ended up being regular warriors because of the 
transformation that is occurring. The transformation is that the Active 
and Reserve units of this Nation are playing a vital role in our 
protection, not just on the weekends, not just in training but in the 
real-life battles. They are as much a part of this war that is underway 
tonight as our actives.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am mindful that we are 
going through a great transformation in our military. It is something 
that is supported in a bipartisan way and that this country supports. 
It is like trying to turn a large aircraft carrier around. It cannot be 
done right away. It cannot be done quickly, but if directions need to 
be changed, that directional change needs to be ratcheted so you can go 
in a different direction. We are trying to move our forces in a 
different direction because we are no longer fighting World War II. We 
have done that. We have been there. We did it and we won. We are now 
fighting an international war on terrorism and it takes quick mobility, 
lethal action, smart bombs, strategic guidance missile systems, 
stealth, unmanned vehicles. It takes a different makeup of our Armed 
Forces.
  When we fought World War II, we had months to get ready to fight. We 
had months to build up. Today, we do not know where the attack is going 
to come. It came to New York City on September 11. It might come to 
Washington, DC, tomorrow morning. It might come to San Francisco next 
week. We have to move immediately. So we do not have the luxury of 
building up for 12 months or 18 months as we did in New Orleans when 
for 2 years we built the best boats that were built that won World War 
II, the Higgins boats. We do not have that luxury.
  So we are restructuring our force in a wise and smart way, which is 
to say that we will count on our Reserve units. They are not in the 
Active, so it is a cost-effective way to keep our strength up. We have 
to give them helmets and rifles. We have to give them helicopters that 
fly. We have to give them training dollars.
  We are underfunding our Guard and Reserve. In fact, there are two 
units that are actually in transit tonight, a Virginia unit and a 
Georgia unit, and I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT, WEAPONS, AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD
               AND RESERVE SERVING IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Service--System                           Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Reserve.........................
    WC-130J Radar--Upgrades Reserve Radar                    $50,000,000
     to specifications needed by Active
     forces...............................
    F-16 LITENING II AT Upgrade                               16,200,000
     Modification--Provides Reserve
     Tactical Fighters with same radar
     upgrades as active forces; reserve
     fighters flying same missions........
    F-16 LITENING II AT Pod Procurement--                     14,400,000
     Provides Reserve Tactical Fighters
     with same radar upgrades as active
     forces; reserve fighters flying same
     missions.............................
    A-10 TARGETING PODS--Provides Reserve                     48,000,000
     Tactical Fighters with same radar
     upgrades as active forces; reserve
     fighters flying same missions........
    B-52 TARGETING PODS--Provides Reserve                      4,800,000
     B-52s with same radar upgrades as
     active B-52s; performing same
     missions.............................
    TACTICAL RADIOS--Provides radio                           14,900,000
     upgrades for interoperability with
     active forces........................
    Land Mobile Radio Infrastructure......                    12,000,000
                                           -----------------------------
        Total.............................                   160,300,000
                                           =============================
Navy Reserve:
    VAW-78--EC-2 Squadron--Funding                            10,160,000
     Prohibits decommissioning in FY05 of
     this currently deployed unit.........
    VFA-203--F/A-18 Squadron--Funding                         20,110,000
     Prohibits decommissioning in FY04 of
     this currently deployed unit.........
    Littoral Surveillance System--Procures                    14,500,000
     one additional system to upgrade port
     surveillance by Navy Reserve.........
    F/A-18 Advanced Targeting FLIR--                          14,700,000
     Procures radars for 5 squadrons to
     make compatible with Active Navy.....
    P-3 Aircraft Improvement Program                          29,700,000
     (AIP)--Would upgrade 28 of 42 Reserve
     P-3s to have same capabilities as
     Actives; AIP allows P-3s to better
     operate against surface combatants
     and improve surveillance and
     targeting............................
    P-3 Block Modification Upgrade Program                    33,000,000
     (BMUP)--Brings all Reserve P-3s into
     compliance with each other, not
     Actives--gives all Reserve P-3s
     similar computers and acoustics
     sensors..............................
    F/A-18 ECP 560 Precision Guided                           33,240,000
     Munitions Upgrade--Provides 1 Reserve
     F/A Squadron with precision guided
     munitions similar to Active F-18.....
    CBR-D Equipment Storage and Logistics--                    8,000,000
     Funds shortfall of 10,000 bio-chem
     suits for Navy Reservists............
                                           -----------------------------
        Total.............................                   163,410,000
                                           =============================
Army Reserve:
    High Frequency Radios                                     57,138,816
     (Interoperability for Special Ops
     Reservists)..........................
    M-4 Rifles............................                     1,200,000
    M-16 Rifles...........................                     1,200,000
    Tactical Electrical Power (5-60KW)TQG.                     5,404,000
    Tactical Electrical Power (3KW)TQG....                     3,000,000
    Truck Tractor Line Haul...............                    12,420,000
    Improved Ribbon Bridge................                    22,400,000
    Truck Cargo PLS 10X10 M1075 (T40999)..                     6,936,000
    Trailer PLS 8X20 M1075 (T93761).......                     1,320,000
    Spreader Bituminous Module PLS 2500                        2,080,000
     Gal. (S13546)........................
    Mixer Concrete........................                     1,375,000
    Dump Body Module......................                     3,496,000
    Engineer Mission Module Water                              9,630,000
     Distributor..........................
    Airborne/Air Assault Scraper (S30039).                     7,575,000
    Distributor Water Self-Propelled 2500                      2,970,000
     Gal..................................
    Truck Transporter Common Bridge (CBT)                      8,360,000
     (T91308).............................
    Truck Dump 20 Ton.....................                     7,215,000
    Generator Smoke Mechanical............                    11,667,600
    Tent Expandable Modular (Surgical)....                       729,000
                                           -----------------------------
        Total.............................                   166,116,416
                                           =============================

[[Page 7099]]

 
Army National Guard:
    Black Hawk Helicopters................                   223,200,000
    SINCGARS (Radio Systems)..............                    34,900,000
Air National Guard:
    F-16 Targeting Pods...................                    35,100,000
    A-10 Targeting Pods...................                    70,200,000
    C-130H2 AN/APN-241 Radar..............                    24,500,000
    F-15 AIFF/IFF (Data Link Systems).....                    31,300,000
    F-15 220E Engine Kits.................                    98,000,000
                                           -----------------------------
        Total.............................                   517,200,000
                                           =============================
Marine Corps Reserve:
    Reserve Training Center Vehicle                            8,000,000
     Maintenance Facility, Mobile, AL.....
    Reserve Tank Maintenance Facility,                         3,800,000
     Columbia, South Carolina.............
    Reserve Training Center Vehicle                            8,100,000
     Maintenance Facility, Camp Lejeune,
     NC...................................
    Uniform and Equipment needs...........                    13,200,000
    Weapons System Repairs................                     7,300,000
                                           -----------------------------
        Total.............................                    40,400,000
                                           =============================
            Grand total...................                 1,047,426,416
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. LANDRIEU. There is an EC-2 squadron out of Virginia that is in 
transit, and an F-18 squadron out of Georgia in transit. In the current 
budget, they have been decommissioned because there is no money in the 
current budget for these troops that are en route to fight the battle 
that is being waged.
  There is something wrong, and what is wrong is we are underfunding 
our Guard and Reserve. Perhaps we are putting too much of an emphasis 
on tax cuts and not enough of an emphasis on the strength that this 
country needs at this time, and sharing those resources with the Guard 
and Reserve and plussing them up.
  In addition, when the Guard and Reserve members go, they leave their 
jobs behind, they take a cut in pay, and unfortunately they do not get 
the same benefits that many of our Active do. This has to change if we 
are going to ask them to serve not just on the weekends, not just once 
every couple of years, these units have been out there--some of them 
are on their fourth rotation.
  I just want to discuss my amendment, to vote on it at the appropriate 
time, whenever the leadership thinks we can take a few minutes. I hope 
we can take quite a long time to discuss this, but I know there are 
other important amendments. I do not know what could be more important 
than trying to make a few tweaks to this major budget resolution that 
might send not only a positive signal, but it would actually back up in 
real meaningful terms the resolution that we voted on 99 to 0 a few 
hours ago that said we love our troops, we support our troops, our 
prayers are with our troops. Then let us send some money to our troops, 
particularly to our Guard and Reserve. This billion dollars would go a 
long way.
  We went through the unfunded list. This is a list that the Guard and 
Reserve say, look, we desperately need this money. We have listed it in 
a priority. This is not luxury. These are things we actually need. To 
upgrade the Air Force Reserve, let me give an example. This is a $48 
million item to provide the Reserve tactical fight territories, the 
fighters that we see in the battle as we are watching the televisions, 
they need the same radar upgrades as the Active Forces. The fighter 
planes for Active have one kind of radar, and then the Reserve fighters 
do not have the same radar. So when we say let's keep our troops out of 
harm's way, one thing that would help is to have the same sophisticated 
radar that our Reserve and our National Guardsmen are using as are the 
Actives. That would be one smart way to keep them out of harm's way.
  If we were talking about $100 billion, if we were talking about $50 
billion, if we were talking about a lot of money, I would say maybe we 
do not have it. But, most certainly, if we are talking about trillions 
of dollars of tax cuts, we could find $1 billion to make a slight 
adjustment to pay and put some money up for our Guard and Reserve.
  I know the leadership is probably going to come back and say we have 
plans, we are going to put this money in the supplemental. I realize 
there are other times that we could potentially do this, but I would 
make two arguments: One, in the past, the rule has been that we do not 
put new items in the supplemental. This is sort of ongoing items that 
are funded. You run out of them so you are sort of supplementing it 
because you are not going to make it through the end of the year. While 
we anticipate a very large supplemental, I think it would be very 
meaningful if we would think about making an adjustment right now for 
the thousands of Guard and Reserve that need this help and support.
  I finish by asking my colleagues to look at this chart. These are two 
of our young men. In this list I am holding up of things that are 
unfunded, some of our units need helmets. Some of our units need 
biological and chemical covering. Because of the way we have designed a 
lot of these suits, if they are used once they have to be thrown away. 
Then they need a new one.
  If they get attacked and one is contaminated, they are going to have 
to come home because we cannot leave them out there without suits. So 
this is not only about doing what is right and fair, this is about 
keeping our strength in the battlefield, funding the items that help 
protect them and keep our forces safe and being true to the amendments 
that we speak about on the floor.
  For too long, the Guard and Reserve have received hand-me-downs from 
the Active component. Maybe there was a time that was appropriate 
because they served as supplemental, but now they are carrying a big 
weight, and they are doing it magnificently and at great personal 
sacrifice to their businesses, to their communities, and to their 
families, because in many instances their pay goes down.
  Let us invest in our Guard and Reserves and make sure we are giving 
them what they need and to honor our commitment to them and to win 
future battles. We need the Guard and Reserve. Let's give them their 
rifles, their helmets, and their tactical equipment so we can, as we 
know we will, win this war.
  Let's remember that when the fighting is over in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the Guard and Reserve will be there for us, protecting us. 
Let's give them the tools they need to succeed.
  Before I yield the floor, let me spend 1 minute supporting my 
colleague who will be coming up next, the Senator from Delaware, who is 
about to offer what I think might be the best amendment of all in terms 
of balancing the needs to boost our economy, to restrain spending, as 
well as to give the people of this Nation the tax relief that will help 
get this economy moving again. The Senator from Delaware will offer an 
amendment. I am proud to add my name as a cosponsor. The Concord 
Coalition has looked at all the proposals--the President's proposal, 
this proposal, that proposal, the leadership proposal--and today they 
came out and supported Senator Carper's amendment. I think he should be 
very proud

[[Page 7100]]

of that. They said this would put us on the path back to economic 
development, restraint on spending, fiscal discipline, and hopefully 
prosper, giving us the strength we need to win the wars ahead.
  This may not be the only one we have to fight and win in the next few 
months and years ahead. We should reserve our financial strength to be 
able to make sure we win the war first and then do that which is 
necessary to protect our freedoms and give us strength.
  I yield the floor and I add my name as a cosponsor to the next 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself such time on the Breaux 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Most agree we need to do something to grow the economy. 
There are different ideas, and I compliment my colleagues for some of 
the ideas. We have some very good ideas on both sides. Maybe we can 
come up with some of the best. I wish to talk about our plan a little 
bit and also make a couple of comments on the highway bill, as well.
  We are dealing with a budget. We have a deficit, and a lot of people 
ask, why do we have a deficit? Revenues have declined, and declined 
substantially. In the year 2000 revenues were over $2 trillion, and 
last year they were $1.85 trillion. That is a reduction of $175 
billion. If you look at the history of the United States, almost every 
year there has been some increase. Hardly ever have we seen a decrease 
2 years in a row. That is a decrease together of 9 percent. That is a 
reason we have a deficit, coupled with the fact expenditures are up. 
Revenues went down 9 percent and expenditures went up by 12 percent. I 
am not casting blame. That is the situation and where we are today.
  Right now we spend more than we take in. That is a $160 billion 
difference and the projection is worse for this year.
  How do we get this number to grow? This is a real reduction. What 
caused that? We look at gross domestic production and the economy 
really declined. It started declining in the year 2000. We had robust 
economic growth through the mid-1990s. In 1997, when we reduced the 
capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, that created an 
economic explosion that helped the stock market and helped the economy 
grow. More companies were paying more bonuses and the economy had a 
robust growth.
  Chairman Greenspan said it is irrational exuberance because the 
market climbed precipitously. It started falling in the year 2000 and 
we had negative three quarters which is called a recession, the last 
part of 2000; it fell down in the first three quarters of 2001. It was 
negative so we had recession. It bounced up in 2002, but still very 
soft.
  If you look at what happened in the stock market, there was a lot of 
reduction of wealth in NASDAQ which was up to 5,000 in March of 2000, 
and by December of 2000 it was half that amount, less than 3,000; 2,800 
I believe. NASDAQ fell about half in the last 9 months of 2000.
  Again I am not faulting anyone, but there was a precipitous decline 
in wealth, precipitous decline in market value and, to some extent, 
that continued in the year 2001, particularly after September 11.
  Add those things together and the market falls, revenues fall, we 
have a big deficit. 2001 caused a lot of increase in expenditures, 
helping those people who needed help and rebuilding our cities and the 
Pentagon, and so on, the war on terrorism. A lot happened to cause 
enormous deficits.
  Most of us ask, what can we do to improve this? How can we turn the 
economy around? I mentioned in 1997 we reduced the capital gains rate, 
we had a very positive increase of revenues to the Government even when 
we reduced taxes. So we are trying to think, what can we do now to help 
the economy? That certainly worked in 1997. I don't think anyone 
disputes that. What can we do in the year 2003 that might help the 
economy?
  I think we should eliminate the double taxation of dividends. People 
sometimes who maybe do not follow the economic markets, tax policy, and 
so on, are shocked when I say, did you know we tax dividends twice? We 
tax dividends higher in the United States than any other country in the 
world but Japan, and Japan and the United States are taxed about the 
same. Higher than anyone. The effective rate is about 70 percent. The 
corporate rate is 35 percent. Individual rates could be 38.6 or 35 
percent or 27 percent, but the combined rate, if it is 35 percent and 
the individual rate is 30 percent, is 65 percent. That is two-thirds of 
the money going to Government. So if a corporation makes money and they 
want to distribute to their owners, the Government gets two-thirds and 
the owners get one-third. That is not a big deal. That discourages 
investment. Who wants to invest in a company if that is what they get 
back? I owned and operated a company. It does not make sense to 
distribute earnings in the form of dividends. The Government would be 
the primary beneficiary, the owner would be the secondary beneficiary. 
That did not make good sense.
  The President is proposing eliminating double taxation of dividends. 
That is exactly right. We would be closer to other countries. It is 
embarrassing to me to see we tax dividends at a rate greater than the 
French, greater than Hungary, greater than the Czech Republic, greater 
than Greece. It is time for a change.
  People whom I respect, what do they say? Charles Schwab says:

       I can't think of any other tax policy that would, at one 
     stroke, be more beneficial to ordinary investors. The impact 
     [of dividend relief] would be enormous.

  I think he is right. I don't think he was doing that for personal 
interest.
  Here is the analysis by several analysts in their projection of what 
they think, by eliminating double taxation of dividends, how much the 
market might rise. A lot of well-respected individuals--Lehman 
Brothers--say anywhere from 5 percent to about 15 percent. Most said it 
would be a positive benefit to the market.
  Alan Greenspan testified:

       In my judgment, the elimination of the double taxation of 
     dividends will be helpful to everybody. There is no question 
     that this particular program will be, net, a benefit to 
     virtually everybody over the long run, and that is one of the 
     reasons I strongly support it.

  That was in his testimony before the House on February 12 of this 
year.
  So I just make those comments. I hate to see a proposal that is 
before us--I should not say that. I welcome the alternatives that are 
offered by my friends and colleagues, that are supporting the so-called 
$350 billion proposal. The tax reduction in the 350 proposal is really 
$323.3 billion. The balance of that is additional refundable tax 
credits; in other words, the Government is writing a check.
  I am afraid, if that amendment is agreed to, and we will be voting on 
it tomorrow--I have great respect for my colleagues, Senators Breaux, 
Voinovich, Snowe, who offered this amendment, Senator Baucus. I have 
great respect for them and served with them for many years in my Senate 
career and have the pleasure of serving with them on the Finance 
Committee. The Finance Committee will take whatever number we give them 
out of the budget, and they will fashion together a growth package.
  I am afraid if we went with a growth package that is limited to tax 
reduction of $323 billion, we will not be able to do this dividend 
proposal, we will not be able to follow the advice of Mr. Greenspan and 
Mr. Schwab and many others who really think this would help grow the 
economy. I don't want to take the growth out of the growth package. I 
do want us to be innovative enough to say, wait a minute, if we can 
change tax policy and grow the economy, let's do it. If you find 
effective tax rates anywhere above 60 percent, that is very suffocating 
to economic growth. It dampens it to such an extent, a lot of people 
say, why make the investment? Why would people invest, if they are 
primarily interested in dividends, if they realize the complicated and 
very heavy burden of taxation that is in the present law? Especially 
when you can invest in other countries and the taxation rate is not 
nearly as high.

[[Page 7101]]

  Now we have such an international investment system, with the home 
PC, you can invest anywhere in the world any time of the day you want. 
It is wonderful, the opportunities we have in the United States. You 
don't have to invest in the United States.
  What has really happened as a result, people realize the economic 
consequences of investing in companies that pay large portions of their 
proceeds in dividends, so they shy away from those companies, in many 
cases, and go towards what we would call growth stocks, stocks that do 
not pay dividends but they have greater growing potential. They may be 
more volatile, may be a little more risky, but the taxation rate on 
those companies--not on distribution of dividends, it is on capital 
gains--taxed at 20 percent. It is not double taxed. Capital gains would 
be capped at 20 percent, about half the rate of dividends. So you have 
a real encouragement. Frankly, you have had an explosion in growth of 
those companies vis-a-vis the companies that pay dividends.
  Why should we disadvantage companies that distribute the benefits of 
their earnings to their owners through the form of cash?
  I think the administration is right on target. I think they have come 
up with a good proposal that would benefit, not just investors, not 
just the people who own a lot of stock, they would benefit the fireman, 
benefit the policeman, the teacher, the civil servant, they would 
benefit anybody who happened to have money in a retirement fund that 
happens to invest in stocks. And most all retirement funds do.
  So, let's do something to help the teachers and the firemen and let's 
do something that would help government employees and other people, 
individuals, to help grow the economy. When we do that, we will see the 
stock market grow and we will see capital gains being paid again; we 
will see more revenues coming into the Government; we will see more 
investment, more jobs created.
  It is estimated that this proposal on dividends alone would create 
well over a million jobs--I think 1.4 million jobs just in the first 
year.
  Also, on family relief, there are a couple of packages we have. We 
have the investment proposal, and I want to talk about that primarily. 
Also, the package we have that the administration proposed and that we 
are hopeful will be reported out of the Finance Committee--again, we 
don't write the bill on the floor. I think some people think we do that 
in the budget. We do not, unless Senator Conrad and I can come up with 
an amendment and change the way we do business. We just give the 
Finance Committee an instruction. But the instruction we are hoping to 
give would allow them to eliminate double taxation of dividends and 
also provide what I would call small business and family relief. We 
would do, I think, some wonderful, long overdue things that would help 
grow the economy. We would tax individuals no more than we tax 
corporations.
  Why in the world would we tax individuals at a rate about 10 percent 
higher than we tax corporations? We do that today. We will not if we 
are able to pass this package.
  Why in the world would we have heavy taxes on families? The proposal 
we have before us would provide tax relief to 92 million taxpayers. It 
is very profamily.
  We would have marriage penalty relief that would benefit 42 million 
couples. Marriage penalty relief--somebody says, what are you doing? We 
are taking the individual tax rate of 15 percent--and individuals who 
have taxable income of $28,000 pay 15 percent. Above that, they pay 27 
percent. We are saying, why don't we double that for a couple. The 
present law doesn't do that. So we expand the 15 percent bracket for 
couples from about $46,000 to $56,800. What is the impact of that? That 
means that for a couple, a married couple, if they have a combined 
income up to $56,800, their tax rate is 15 percent. That will save them 
about $1,222.
  Think about that. I heard somebody say about the tax proposal, I know 
the bulk of this goes for the wealthy. That is not correct. That is 
very significant tax relief for a lot of married couples today, $1,200, 
if they have combined income up to $56,000. If they have two kids, they 
get an additional tax credit per child. The present law is $600; we 
would accelerate that to $1,000 per child.
  My daughter just gave birth to a new son, my grandson Nicholas. They 
will be able to get a $1,000 tax credit for Nicholas and that's true 
for every child in America--$1,000. That is significant. If you have 
four kids, that is $4,000 somebody wouldn't be paying taxes on. They 
will be able to use that money for their education, for their health 
care, for taking care of them. This is very family friendly. I think it 
is also very friendly for growing the economy.
  We also provide expensing for small business. I used to own and 
operate a small business. I had a janitorial service with my wife, and 
that was a small business. We would be able to expense things, not 
amortize them. That is a positive thing. That means you get to recoup 
your investment over a very short period of time--actually, 
immediately. Up to $75,000 you get to expense it, not write it off over 
years. It makes sense to write it off in the year you write the check, 
rather than spread it over several years. It makes you more likely to 
make the investment, which means you would make more investments and 
create more jobs. It is a very positive, progrowth, probusiness change.
  If you look at several of these provisions in the President's 
package, I think they would help the economy, help the stock market, 
help small businesses, help American families. They would help 
taxpayers.
  If we cut it in half, I am afraid we will not be able to do the 
things either for the family or do the things for investment. We will 
not be able to grow the economy. We won't be able to create jobs. I am 
afraid if we cut the package in half, we would basically be taking the 
growth out of the growth package. It might be some tax relief, but the 
net result would be, I am afraid, you wouldn't get much growth.
  You say: Why is that, $350 billion sounds like a lot of money. Over 
this 10-year period--and that is what we are talking about--the Federal 
Government is estimated to take in $28 trillion. So if you talk about 
$350 billion over $28 trillion, that is a very small percentage. We are 
proposing you need to have a little more if you are really going to 
have an impact on the economy.
  Is it too much? Is 725? Well, $725 billion is really not the tax cut. 
The real tax cut portion is $698 billion--again, spread out over 10.
  Somebody will say, Wait a minute, your budget proposal is more. The 
President had $1.5 trillion; you have $1.3 trillion. What we are 
reconciling is this $698 billion. By reconciling, for those who are not 
familiar with Senate language, that means we are telling the Finance 
Committee: Report out a bill that would do such-and-such. We didn't say 
put the entire package over the next 10 years, this $1.3 trillion in 
the package. We are telling the Finance Committee, take about half of 
it and make it law this year because we want to grow the economy this 
year; we want to do it now. Part of the tax cut could be done anytime 
up to the year 2010. Because we are basically just extending present 
law.
  We have several years to do that. This needs to be done now. This 
needs to be done now because we need to create jobs now.
  So I just mention that. I have the greatest respect for my 
colleagues, some of whom are sincere deficit hawks, and they believe 
maybe if we did this, we might not be good for the deficit. I think we 
need to do something more aggressive to help grow the economy.
  We have a legitimate difference of opinion. I have great respect for 
their opinion. I have great respect for colleagues who have different 
ideas. We have had proposals that will be considered tomorrow, or we 
have already had them on the floor, from $100 billion, to more than 
that, $350 billion, $700 billion--you name it. There may be someone who 
has it for more.
  I think the President has a pretty good balance. I encourage my 
colleagues to not vote for the amendment

[[Page 7102]]

which would cut the growth package in half.


                           Amendment No. 358

  Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of other comments.
  My friend and colleague, Senator Bond, discussed an amendment dealing 
with transportation. He talked about highways. Frankly, every Member of 
Congress--probably every elected official in any elected capacity--
happens to be a friend of highways.
  If you are in a city council, someone is talking to you about roads; 
if you are the mayor of Minneapolis or St. Paul, people are talking to 
you about roads. If you are in State government, you spend half your 
time talking about highways.
  I used to be in the State senate. They ran me off. But everybody is 
concerned about highways. Everybody is concerned about infrastructure. 
And they are right. And particularly after a harsh winter, roads are 
particularly bad.
  We are all concerned about bad roads. Somebody was talking about the 
commutes take too long. Part of it is because of the bad roads. There 
is a lot of truth in everything that is said. We have a lot of 
compelling infrastructure needs.
  But I have some reservations about the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Missouri, and, frankly, my colleague from Oklahoma, for 
whom I have the greatest respect, and other people who are supporting 
this. I think they are as well intended as anybody you will find. But I 
am concerned about what I am afraid the amendment would do.
  It would move us away from the idea of user taxes to pay for roads. 
That is a tradition that we have had certainly since Eisenhower, since 
we started building the Interstate System. Since we have had a Federal 
highway program, we have had gasoline taxes pay for highways. And then 
we take off a percentage of gasoline taxes to pay for mass transit. But 
basically it is the user fees that pay for the expansion of the 
program.
  And looking back, I remember debating, in 1982 or 1983--I think there 
was a nickel-a-gallon gasoline tax, and we had a filibuster that lasted 
right before Christmas. It was over whether or not there would be a 
nickel-a-gallon gasoline tax increase. I was opposing it at that time, 
thinking the States should have to have the right if they wanted to do 
it, the State should have the option, not a Federal mandate. I lost 
that debate, but it was a long and interesting debate. But I can see 
the demand by people who want to have more highways built, and maybe a 
Federal gasoline tax, and so on.
  I am a lot more sympathetic now to listening to the demands. People 
say: We want more for highways. I certainly want to listen to them, but 
I think they should be paid by gasoline taxes.
  Some people are proposing that we now have a significant infusion of 
general revenue funds to pay for highways. You might say: Why are you 
opposed to that? Because there is no limit as to how much that would 
cost the Federal Government. There is no limit to the demand for more 
money for highways, absolutely no limit, no limit whatsoever.
  You could take any program before us, and you could multiply it by 
five, and somebody could legitimately say that is not enough--
legitimately because there are a lot of demands. You can take these 
figures and multiply them. There are a lot of demands for more 
highways.
  But, to me, it is a serious mistake and maybe a budget breach. If you 
say we are going to use general revenues to pay for highways, then a 
lot of people think, if it comes from the Federal Government, it 
doesn't cost anything. It doesn't cost you anything because it is from 
the Federal Government--especially if you have a highway formula that 
says 80 percent of it comes from the Federal Government and only 20 
percent comes from the State.
  So the States may decide: let's raise gasoline prices because we want 
to get four times as much from the Federal Government. You think about 
that. We have not done that in the past.
  Now, we made some changes. I look back. In 1990--guess what--the 
Federal program for highways was $10 billion. Today, it is over $30 
billion. This is 12 years later, and we are spending three times what 
we spent in 1990.
  In 1997, we were spending less than $20 billion, $18.7 billion. 
Today, we are spending over $30 billion. That was just about 5, 6 years 
ago that we were spending $18.7 billion. Now we are spending over $30 
billion.
  Congress even changed the formula when we had gasoline revenues going 
up. We did, and the economy was really going well. Frankly, when the 
economy is going well, you have more highway usage, and you have more 
money coming into the trust funds. So the fund formulas were altered to 
allow the highways to get more of that money more immediately. I 
supported that. It seemed good. More money was coming in, so let them 
have it. It is a user fee. Let the user fee apply.
  But the formula also said, if the highway funds decline, they will be 
reduced. That was agreed to. That is part of law. That was part of the 
agreement. Well, guess what? Revenues declined, and then everybody 
said: No. Whoa. We can't take a decline. And so, in the last year's 
appropriations bill--actually this year; we just passed it in January--
it said, instead of going down, according to law, what, to $24 billion, 
it came in at $31.6 billion. It was supposed to go down to $24 billion. 
Congress said: No, no, no. We don't want to have a reduction of that 
percentage even though we agreed to it. We decided to put more money in 
more quickly, but we were supposed to reduce it if it started falling.
  Highway revenues started falling because of different reasons, maybe 
because of terrorism or gasoline prices, but the total money coming 
into the fund went down. But Congress said: No. Let's spend more money. 
So we went from $31.3 billion.
  The administration requested $29.3 billion in 2004. And I will tell 
you, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, we squeezed every way we 
could. We came up with: Can we squeeze the trust fund down quicker? Can 
we move some money into the trust fund that should have been in there? 
Yes, we found some gasohol money going into general revenue funds. We 
put that in. That was about $700 million per year. We did some other 
things.
  If it is a legitimate user fee concept, I am willing to consider it. 
I think there are vehicles driving around today that are tax exempt, 
that do not pay taxes, and, by golly, they ought to pay a tax. They are 
tearing up the road like everybody else. Some of them Senator Bond 
alluded to that I agree with. Some have new technology and maybe 
Congress tried to encourage that by saying they will be tax exempt. But 
I don't think they should be, if they are tearing up the road.
  We have some cases where maybe even some groups do not pay highway 
taxes and they are on the highway. Let's stop that. They are using the 
highways. They should pay for them. Some people in my State will not 
like me saying that because we have a lot of individuals who are doing 
that today. So let's close whatever loopholes we can and get whatever 
money could come into the highway fund as a result.
  But the proposal that is before us now, that we will be voting on--
and it may well pass; I can count votes around here probably as good as 
some--would increase that $31 billion program. The President's request 
was $29 billion. We were able to scrape it around and come out with, 
what, $32.1 billion. That is about the best we can do out of the money 
that is coming into the fund.
  I am open to ideas. If we can do better, I am happy to consider that. 
We put in language that says, if we in the Finance Committee raise more 
money one way or another through a user fee, whatever they would do, 
great, they get the money. Power to them. If they raise gasoline 
prices, they index gasoline prices, they put on an excise tax on tires, 
whatever the committee might do, if they close the loophole because 
they find out certain groups are on tax-exempt vehicles that ought to 
be paying taxes, power to them. Whatever they can get, they should come 
in.

[[Page 7103]]

And maybe we have underestimated it. The Finance Committee does a great 
job or the Ways and Means Committee. If they can find more ways of 
closing loopholes, power to them; they get 100 percent of the money.
  But the proposal we have before us now just basically let's you 
increase that by about $8 billion. Let's take that $32 billion and make 
it a $40 billion program. It increases costs over what we have proposed 
in the first 6 years of our budget, about almost $60 billion for 6 
years. Our budget is a 10-year budget. But for the first 6 years, it is 
about $10 billion a year.
  Now, that is a big increase: $10 billion a year being highways and 
mass transit. That is a big increase. And it is not paid for by 
gasoline taxes. It is basically paid for by an increase in the deficit. 
And maybe even worse than that, it breaks this tradition of paying for 
roads and highways through user fees.
  I will say again, the reason why I am speaking very strongly about 
this is that I think that is a terrible precedent to set. If we are 
going to be general funding highways, we are opening ourselves up to 
unlimited demands on Federal money, especially if you stay with the 80-
to-20 ratio. The 80-to-20 ratio is 80 percent the Federal Government 
and 20 percent States. And there is no limit to the demands at that 
kind of ratio.
  If we are going to be paying 80 percent of the cost, you are going to 
do general revenue funds, I will tell you right now, Congress will be 
besieged with more requests and put in more general revenue funds.
  I understand the highway lobby is powerful. I understand they are out 
in the Halls. I understand they have lots of cosponsors. I understand 
they are making phone calls: We need this to get our road; we need this 
to get a better ratio for our State, our State has been a donor State 
for years.
  I want to see that corrected. Some people see this as a solution for 
correcting it. If you go general revenue funds, we will regret it. At 
least if you have a user fee concept, it is limiting the growth of the 
program because there is a negative on raising gasoline taxes. People 
can see it, and they are having a hard time paying their gasoline 
prices right now, with gas line prices at $1.75 and $2, in some cases.
  Maybe the war in Iraq will go well and can be over soon. I hope and 
pray that it does. God bless our troops and our leaders. They are doing 
a fantastic job. If that happens, my guess is oil prices will come 
tumbling down as will gasoline prices, and maybe then it will be more 
palatable to be raising gasoline taxes.
  If my colleagues vote for a gasoline tax increase, power to them. I 
hope every dime of it goes into highways. But to get something started 
where you end up having about 25 percent of highways being built with 
general revenue funds, I think would be a mistake. I also don't think 
the President will sign the bill. So I mention these things. It is 
important for us to pass a highway bill and to get it passed.
  I make a commitment to work with my friends and colleagues, Senator 
Inhofe and Senator Bond, others who have a very strong interest in 
this. I want to work with them. I want a good highway bill to be signed 
by the President, and I would like to think that we would put one on 
his desk that would be responsible as well.
  I am afraid that the bill we have before us, going from basically $10 
billion in 1990 to $18 billion in 1997 and now we are at $31, $32 
billion, to try to jump that up immediately at 40 with general revenue 
funds is wrong. If we do it through some other type of a user fee, that 
might be more palatable.
  I encourage my colleagues. I don't think this is really sustainable, 
if we don't do something different. I know there is some flexibility 
among some of the proponents. I commit that I will work with them to 
try to come up with something that will be agreeable, sustainable, and 
something that can be signed.
  I mention those reservations with the greatest respect to the 
proponents. I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment 
tomorrow.
  I apologize to my colleague from Delaware because he has been waiting 
for a few minutes. I didn't mean to speak at that length, but I thank 
the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes. I 
apologize for this, but it is important for the Record that we address 
the famous chart my colleague has shown over and over on the comparison 
of corporate tax rates. We have seen several references to this chart 
that is entitled ``United States, Second Highest in the World Combined 
Corporate and Dividend Taxes.''
  The chart says that the U.S. has a tax rate of 70 percent, second 
only to Japan. My colleague and my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, 
has referred to this chart so often that I decided to go off and do a 
little independent research on that chart.
  Let me tell you what I found. First, let's look at corporate taxes 
alone. When we look at corporate taxes alone this is for 2000 as a 
percentage of GDP, which Senator Bennett said is the appropriate way of 
looking at it--a much different picture emerges about where we fit in.
  This is from OECD, the international scorekeeper. What they have 
found is the United States ranks 22nd out of 29 in effective corporate 
tax rates. The Senator from Oklahoma shows nominal tax rates, the tax 
rate that appears in the Tax Code. We all know that is not what people 
actually pay. When you look at what they actually pay, you see a much 
different picture: 22nd out of 29 in effective corporate tax rates as a 
percentage of gross domestic product. We are down here, 22nd out of 29.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is percentage of GDP. We have a much bigger percent 
of GDP, but a tax rate is a tax rate.
  I ran a corporation. When I made profits, I paid that rate. Maybe 
somebody was able to figure out some Enron-type schemes and things. 
This corporation didn't. Most corporations, a lot of corporations do 
not. I wanted to make sure, the percentage GDP, because we have the 
largest GDP in the world, I don't think is the relevant type of 
analysis to use.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, I respect my colleague's view. Let me just say, 
this is how OECD does the scorekeeping on effective tax rate 
comparisons, what people are actually paying. This is their conclusion 
about where the United States fits in.
  Let me continue because the Senator raises an important point. There 
is an implication that we have a competitive problem because our tax 
rate is so high.
  The fact is, as this chart shows, over 40 years, corporate taxes have 
fallen as a share of our economy but risen for other industrial 
economies. This line shows the United States. We have gone from an 
effective rate as a percentage of GDP of 4 percent, which is a way of 
giving an accurate comparison between countries with different levels 
of GDP. Ours has gone down dramatically. Other OECD countries have gone 
up over the 40 years.
  The Senator from Oklahoma's chart and the arguments he made suggest 
that all corporate income is taxed at the maximum corporate and 
individual tax rates. This goes to the Senator's question. I hope the 
chairman will listen to this. At least a quarter of corporate profits 
are not taxed at all because of various tax preferences. That 
translates into a zero-percent effective tax rate. Another half of 
corporate income is taxed once at the corporate level, but not taxed 
again because it goes to pension funds and other stockholders who do 
not pay individual income taxes. That again lowers it. The Senator is 
showing nominal tax rates, not effective tax rates.
  Finally, the chart being used assumes that all corporate income goes 
to individuals in the top individual tax bracket at the Federal, State, 
and local level. In recent years, corporations have used stock buybacks 
to convert their profits into individual capital gains which have an 
effective tax rate of less than 10 percent.
  How can it be at 10 percent when the capital gains rate we all know 
is double

[[Page 7104]]

that? The reason for that is the deferral that is inherent in capital 
gains which gives you a much lower effective tax rate than the nominal 
tax rate.
  I say this because it is important to have in the Record that this 
notion that we have a 70-percent rate on corporate profits is not 
accurate. That is not the effective tax rate. It is nowhere near that. 
And if one compares corporate taxes in this country to other countries 
on a fair comparison basis, we are not a high tax jurisdiction. We just 
are not. I offer that for the Record.
  The Senator from Delaware has been extraordinarily patient. How much 
time would he like?
  Mr. CARPER. Two hours? Ten minutes would be just fine.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago Senator Blanche 
Lincoln of Arkansas invited several of us Democratic Senators to a 
briefing in her office on Capitol Hill. She also invited several 
Members of the House of Representatives who are Democrats. There were 
several of them in the room. They call themselves Blue Dog Democrats.
  The Blue Dog Democrats, for those who have not heard that term 
before, tend to be budget hawks. They believe balanced budgets do 
matter, and the idea of running chronic budget deficits year after year 
is not good for this country. In fact, it is very troublesome for this 
country. Blue Dogs are willing to take tough votes on defense spending, 
nondefense spending, entitlement spending, and taxes as well to get us 
closer to a balanced budget.
  I served for 10 years in the House of Representatives and as Governor 
of Delaware. I guess I was a Blue Dog before we had Blue Dogs. I 
believe I am today.
  Tomorrow a number of us, including a Republican, Senator Lincoln 
Chafee, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and I will 
offer a budget alternative that is modeled after the approach offered 
by the Blue Dog Democrats in the House of Representatives which was 
voted on earlier this evening and I understand received about 170, 175 
votes. It fell short, but it was a respectable showing. I want to talk 
about the provisions of that approach and why I think it makes sense.
  A number of my colleagues talked tonight about the need to stimulate 
the economy and the need to do so in part with tax policy. In the 
alternative we will propose tomorrow, we do just that. Those who want 
to effect the 10-percent rate cut to accelerate it, we do that, in 
fact, this year. Those who want to accelerate the 27-percent tax 
bracket cut, we accelerate that this year. Those who want to expand and 
increase the child credit, we do that this year.
  To those people who would like to allow small businesses to expense 
not just $25,000 in investments they make but $75,000, we let them do 
that this year to encourage that kind of investment.
  To those who want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty--we did that 
in Delaware when I was Governor--we would do that immediately under the 
proposal that will be before us.
  We raise the exclusion for the estate tax to $6 million for a couple, 
and we do that this year, effective immediately, and leave it at that 
rate.
  Those are some of the provisions we do right now. It would have an 
immediate impact, and I think a very positive impact on the economy at 
this time.
  For those people who happen to be in the 10-percent bracket, they 
would realize some tax savings, but so would those people whose income 
is not just $15,000 or $20,000 but $150,000. They would realize a 
savings, too, by accelerating the tax cut for those in the 27-percent 
bracket. We are not just helping people in the middle-income portion of 
the spectrum, but it also helps people at the top of the income 
spectrum.
  What we do not do in our approach is reduce further the 35-percent 
rates and the rate to the 38.6 rate, the top two rates. We defer those 
cuts until two things happen: One, we pay for the war in Iraq; and, 
two, until we have actually balanced the budget. That is what we do on 
the taxing side. That is what was offered in the House of 
Representatives this evening as well.
  On the spending side, what we have done is to essentially embrace the 
discretionary spending numbers proposed by the President. In the House 
of Representatives, the Blue Dogs took the President's defense 
discretionary numbers and put that in their proposal. In the Senate, we 
elected in our version of our budget alternative to take the defense 
numbers proposed by the Budget Committee. They are a bit less than the 
President's proposal, I think, by about $85 billion over a 10-year 
period of time. But we embrace the numbers from the committee itself.
  We then take that roughly $85 billion and use those moneys to add to 
the domestic discretionary spending side to help pay for No Child Left 
Behind, to help meet some of the health care needs in this country, and 
to help meet some of the agricultural needs in this country. It is 
roughly $80 billion to $85 billion. It would shift from the defense 
side to the nondefense discretionary side.
  Even at the end of that, we would still be spending above the 
baseline of more than the rate of inflation over the next 10 years for 
defense and a little less than the baseline in our domestic 
discretionary spending. But I like the balance a little bit better than 
what was debated and voted on in the House earlier tonight.
  The third piece we address is budget controls. I will focus on one, 
but there are actually several others that are included in the measure 
we will offer tomorrow.
  Pay-go: The concept is if a Senator or a House Member wants to cut 
taxes, or a Senator or House Member wants to raise spending in a way 
that makes the deficit larger, they have to figure out a way to pay for 
that so it is budget neutral starting now, not starting next week or 
not starting next month but starting now.
  In our alternative, in our substitute, pay-go provisions become 
effective now. They are reinstated now. If anyone wants to increase 
spending, they are free to have at it. If they do, they have to offset 
it by cutting spending somewhere else, or if they cut taxes in one 
area, they have to raise taxes in another area or do something on the 
spending side to offset that.
  We have budget controls that address issues of emergency spending and 
other provisions as well. I will not go into all those tonight because 
it is late. That is an important component of what we are trying to do.
  Let me sum up. We reduce taxes, we do a number of things that have an 
effect immediately this year, but we pay for them. The overall effect 
of the tax reduction over 10 years is roughly $100 billion, $115 
billion. Most of that is loaded in the first year or two.
  We provide real spending restraint both on the defense side and on 
the nondefense discretionary side, and we put in place budget controls, 
some of which have been allowed to lapse. We put them back into effect 
to strengthen in the way they ought to be effective.
  Today it is March 20. The day is almost over. During the course of 
this day, we will pay as a nation in interest on the national debt 
roughly $1 billion. That is not principal; that is interest on our 
debt, $1 billion. We will pay that tomorrow, the next day, and the next 
day after that.
  We are a nation marching off to war. Tonight we have tens of 
thousands of young men and women on the march in a war I hope is 
mercifully brief for both sides. There is a great irony here as we are 
sending tens of thousands of our young people marching off to war. We 
are actually talking about reducing the revenues available to finance 
that war, to mobilize the troops, the cost of the war, the postwar 
occupation, and instead of raising the revenue and the means of 
financing the war, we are taking away those resources, which sits logic 
on its head, at least for me.
  As we send those tens of thousands of young men and women marching 
off to war, their parents and grandparents are on a different kind of 
march, but a march nonetheless, with a different destination. It is 
called retirement, and the baby boomers, which I am one, are

[[Page 7105]]

on the march and starting at roughly the end of this decade and 
throughout the course of the next decade.
  The impact that is going to have on Social Security, Medicare, and 
other spending is the boomers, as they march off into their golden 
years, will create a financial burden that we are not even a little bit 
prepared to address.
  My fear is if we take the course that has been proposed by the 
administration and is incorporated in this budget resolution, we will 
have not really been consistent with what the President said in his 
State of the Union Message.
  I think one of the finest statements he said in his State of the 
Union Message is when he said the American people, our Government, 
should not pass on the problems of today to the next President, to the 
next Congress, or to the next generation.
  I am afraid this is exactly what we are prepared to do with respect 
to the way we spend our money and the way we meet our financial 
obligations. We do not have to do that. We can do the right thing.
  I have been looking for months for an approach that I could believe 
in and say let's do this because it is the right thing to do. This is 
the right thing to do.
  I thank those who join me in offering this substitute tomorrow. I 
especially thank the Concord Coalition for embracing it today and the 
Blue Dog Democrats for giving us the inspiration in the first place. I 
yield back my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of a bipartisan, 
fiscally responsible budget amendment, which I have sponsored with 
Senators Tom Carper and Lincoln Chafee.
  Our amendment would provide immediate tax relief to every taxpayer in 
this country, while balancing the budget 4 years earlier than the 
resolution currently being considered.
  Instead of driving the Nation further into debt, our budget would 
cost $50 billion over 10 years--a fraction of the $1.7 trillion the 
underlying resolution would add to the deficit over the next decade.
  Our budget corrects for the Budget Committee's low discretionary 
spending limits after 2008 by recognizing the need, at a minimum, to 
increase domestic discretionary spending with inflation. In contrast, 
the Budget Committee's mark would increase those limits by an average 
of only 1.5 percent after 2008, a rate of increase which is simply 
unrealistic.
  Were it not for that needed adjustment to discretionary spending, our 
budget would actually increase revenue due to a 10-year net surplus on 
the tax side.
  Many members of this Chamber have expressed concerns about pursuing a 
$726 billion tax cut at a time of massive projected budget deficits and 
rising uncertainty about the cost of the war with Iraq.
  In fact, neither the administration's budget, nor the one currently 
being considered, nor our budget for that matter, includes funding to 
cover the cost of a war with Iraq, despite estimates that range from 
$60 billion to $100 billion or more.
  The added cost of this conflict could push our budget deficit this 
year to over $500 billion, if the surplus in the Social Security Trust 
Fund is not included. Although no proposed budget accounts for the cost 
of the war in Iraq, our budget proposal faces the reality of 
significant new costs head-on by bringing us back to balance quickly.
  I share the concerns of many of my colleagues, and I believe our 
primary responsibility is to pass a budget that meets our nation's 
long-term needs. And this is what our amendment seeks to do.
  Why do I support this amendment? Our budget accepts the discretionary 
spending limits laid out in President Bush's budget proposal. Despite 
concerns about the impact of those limits on many critical priorities, 
I have agreed to those spending limits in an effort to support a 
realistic compromise which addresses our fiscal needs conservatively.
  I believe that without real bipartisan compromise, it will prove 
impossible to return to a balanced budget.
  Therefore, I join with Senators Carper and Chafee today, because we 
all value fiscal responsibility and recognize the need for balanced 
budgets.
  I must state clearly, however, that this budget does include a $10 
billion reserve fund for homeland security in fiscal year 2004, and 
does not commit to the specific programmatic cuts detailed in the 
President's Budget.
  The Carper/Chafee/Feinstein budget keeps those elements of the 
President's proposed tax cut that would benefit all Americans and 
stimulate the economy. It would:

  Immediately expand the 10 percent income tax bracket from $6,000 to 
$7,000; Accelerate cuts to the 27 percent tax bracket from 2004 to 
2003; Increase the child tax credit from $600 to $700; and Accelerate 
marriage penalty relief from 2005 to 2003.
  Our budget also includes:
  Immediately increase the individual estate tax exemption to $3 
million per individual and $6 million per couple--something not 
included in the budget which was reported out of Committee. This would 
exempt all but one percent of estates from any tax liability 
whatsoever.
  Increase small business expensing limits from $25,000 to $75,000, 
allowing them to make needed capital improvements and expand their 
operations.
  All of those cuts are retroactive to January 1, 2003, and would 
immediately put money in every taxpayer's pocket.
  This budget amendment would pay for these tax cuts in part by 
freezing planned reductions to the top two tax rates--the rates that 
apply to adjusted gross incomes above $143,500 for individuals.
  Yet even those who pay taxes at this rate would receive tax relief--
from the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, marriage penalty 
reduction, a larger child tax credit, and a cut to the 27 percent 
bracket.
  This budget does not increase taxes for any American, but instead is 
a balanced blueprint designed to promote fiscal responsibility.
  When I came to the Senate in 1992, we faced a record budget deficit 
of $290 billion, a record which we will almost certainly surpass this 
year.
  After securing commitments from Senate moderates in the Centrist 
Coalition, we were able to hold the line on new spending and further 
tax cuts. Those efforts paid off in 1998, when the Federal Government 
returned to surplus for the first time since the Johnson 
Administration.
  It was no coincidence that the path back to surplus, and the 
following three years of consecutive surpluses, coincided with the 
greatest period of economic expansion in American history.
  The single biggest impediment to returning to similar rates of 
economic growth, however, is the tremendous uncertainty facing the 
United States.
  While we now face a war in Iraq and ongoing stand-off in North Korea, 
we can do a better job in managing our domestic economy.
  Pushing through a $726 billion tax cut now would only increase 
deficits and uncertainty, and would lead to a spike in long-term 
interest rates as we take on trillions in new debt.
  I urge my colleagues to support this budget. It is a compromise which 
makes sense.
  By adopting this budget amendment, we can bring the budget back into 
balance in six years, stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund in 
ten, and forego nearly $2 trillion in new debt by 2013.
  The alternative, which does not recognize our current fiscal crisis, 
will only make future compromises all the more difficult.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. I yield myself up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I had a statement earlier today, but I 
would like to briefly say that I am pleased my colleagues passed the 
supporting resolution today for our troops. We need a strong and 
unequivocal expression of support for the courageous men and women who 
are fighting for our values and defending America tonight in the 
Persian Gulf. It is important to

[[Page 7106]]

say that this is an expression that is far more than just a personal 
expression. It is an expression of feelings that the people of New 
Jersey--I see my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, is in 
the Chamber as well, and I know both of us feel powerfully for the 
mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the spouses all of 
those who have loved ones in harm's way, that we strongly stand with 
them, and the people across this country do as well.
  The gist of my statement is that no matter how we may have felt and 
debated and deliberated these issues, our united view is unshakable as 
we go forward.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I would like to 
bring up tomorrow. It would increase funding for environmental 
protection and natural resource conservation, reduce pollution, and 
improve America's quality of life.
  If I had my druthers, we would all be dealing with a ``patriotic 
pause,'' as far as I am concerned, until we were able to get a better 
handle on some of the costs. It seems incongruous to me that as our men 
and women are sacrificing on the ground in the Middle East, we are 
unwilling to think about and factor in those costs in this budget 
process as we go forward. I think it is particularly unusual to 
understand that maybe as soon as next week we will get a supplemental 
that covers this, and it may be literally hundreds of billions of 
dollars of expenditures that are not considered in the context of a 
budget that is already estimated at $300 billion on a unified basis, on 
an on-budget basis, and on an off-budget basis $400 billion.
  It is hard for me to understand, but I am a realist. It is a quarter 
of 11 at night, and we will be debating amendments that make a real 
expression about what our budget is about, our priorities. I think it 
is absolutely essential that the budget process be about difficult 
choices and an expression of those choices.
  For millions of Americans, and certainly for myself, I strongly 
believe we cannot neglect the environment and our natural resources, 
and our budget should reflect that importance. I ask my colleagues to 
consider in that vein that the President's fiscal year 2004 budget 
request increases discretionary spending at an average rate of 4 
percent for all discretionary spending. But with respect to his 
requests with regard to the environment and conservation issues, the 
President's budget actually cuts spending on the environment.
  By the way, in the House budget resolution--that is where we will be 
negotiating when we go to conference--that is a cut of $1.3 billion 
relative to the enacted levels in fiscal year 2003.
  Fortunately, the Senate resolution does restore some of that, but in 
my view we could do a lot better, and we should do a lot better. My 
amendment is a simple 1-year amendment to improve that, to meet that 4 
percent discretionary standard that might be how we are looking at 
other spending.
  In dollar terms, my amendment would increase our investment in 
environmental protection and resource conservation by up to $30.4 
billion. That is $2.4 billion above what the President has asked for 
and $1.1 billion over the Senate resolution. The spending is offset by 
a corresponding reduction in the size of the tax cut.
  By adopting this amendment, the Senate would make a strong statement 
that even in these difficult times we have not lost the desire, the 
faith, the will, to provide for environmental protection and natural 
resource conservation. They are really continuing important priorities 
of the American people.
  By adopting this amendment, the Senate would make it possible to fund 
a number of very vital environmental programs. I will itemize a couple. 
The amendment funds clean water and drinking water State revolving 
funds--something that is important for economic expansion--at a 
combined level of $3 billion. It is only about $800 million over the 
level that is asked for in the budget resolution. This money flows 
directly to the State loan funds and will be used to build sewage 
treatment plants and water purification facilities, an important part 
of our infrastructure.
  Forty percent of our Nation's lakes and rivers still do not meet the 
goal of the Clean Water Act of being fishable and swimmable. It is 
about 80 percent in New Jersey.
  While my amendment will not get us all the way there, it goes a long 
way to close the gap between where people estimate we should be over 
the next 25 years and the $535 billion expenditure it will take to get 
us there.
  Second, my amendment will also fully fund efforts to enforce 
environmental laws, clean up toxic waste dumps, and redevelop abandoned 
brownfield sites. Superfund is critical to my home State. My colleague 
from New Jersey has been one of the most articulate advocates in making 
sure we fully fund Superfund. He was one of the original authors of 
building this law in our Nation. We have 111 Superfund sites in New 
Jersey, most of any in the Nation. Forty-nine States have Superfund 
sites. One in four Americans lives within a mile of a Superfund site. 
That is a real health issue, a quality of life issue, and it is one 
that needs to be addressed.
  There are lots of ways to go. We are cutting down the number of 
cleanup sites. Two years ago, we had 87 Superfund cleanups in a year. 
It has dropped below 40 now. We need to do better. We need to work at 
this now.
  Of course, there are brownfield sites in every State in the Nation. 
We were all very proud that we passed the Brownfields Revitalization 
and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, but getting around to 
funding that at authorized levels has not happened. My amendment would 
make this possible in fiscal year 2004. The amendment would fund 
important natural resource conservation programs, conservation programs 
that fight sprawl, protect open space, and improve quality of life for 
all Americans.
  We have a long tradition of valuing and fighting to protect parks, 
wildlands, wildlife, open spaces, recreation resources, and cultural 
treasures. This is important to the heart and soul of this country, 
special places that need to be addressed.
  Several years ago, as we entered the 21st century, we started the 
Conservation Trust Fund that would fund land and water conservation 
programs in a way that the toolbox would be available across the 
country to work on these issues--the sprawl, taking in parklands, and 
protecting our shorelines. It is unfortunate that we are not adequately 
dealing with this issue that will impact every American's life.
  So I hope we can consider this amendment. It is funded, as I 
suggested, out of the tax cuts, and we can do a lot to really improve 
our society with relatively minimal expenditures in such an 
overwhelmingly large budget.
  By adopting my amendment, the Senate will boost vital environmental 
protection and natural resource conservation programs. It will mean 
cleaner water, more Superfund sites and brownfields cleaned up, and 
more acres of open space and wildlife habitat protected. I hope the 
Senate will affirm this commitment to the environment as an important 
funding priority in our budget. I look forward to bringing up this 
amendment for debate tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, probably less than 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I 
be given that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise to talk now about an amendment I intend to 
offer with Senators Boxer, Corzine, Reed of Rhode Island, Sarbanes, and 
Murray as cosponsors. This amendment would add funding that is critical 
to the Superfund program. My colleague and friend, Senator Corzine, 
just talked about his intention to offer an amendment that is going to 
help us maintain a quality of environment that he and I feel is 
necessary for America.
  I appreciate one part of that because this budget falls short of 
protecting Americans from deadly toxins in their

[[Page 7107]]

communities. Too many communities in this country live near toxins left 
behind by polluting industries. Each day we delay cleanups is another 
day we expose families to poisonous chemicals. The numbers are 
alarming: 70 million people in this country live within 4 miles of a 
Superfund site and 10 million of the people exposed to the chemicals at 
those sites are children, the most defenseless among us. Ten million 
children who must eat their meals, brush their teeth and sleep within a 
few miles of harmful poisons that will persist in their soil and ground 
water for decades and longer. Children are the most vulnerable among us 
to arsenic and DDT and brain-damaging heavy metals such as lead and 
mercury found at the contaminated sites.
  On March 3, just 2 weeks ago, the EPA announced the latest scientific 
data that show small children have a tenfold higher risk of developing 
cancer when exposed to chemicals than do adults. Across the Nation, 
each site cleanup--and we have successfully cleaned up over 800 so 
far--reduces those threats to our children: threats of cancer, learning 
disabilities, and other chronic and painful health problems.
  This amendment enables the equivalent of 28 additional sites a year 
to be cleaned up, allowing thousands more families to get out from 
underneath the shadow of living next to a toxic dump. An extra 25 sites 
may not sound like a lot unless you and your family live next door to 
an empty lot laced with arsenic and dioxin.
  This amendment would eventually close the gap between the program's 
need and what has been budgeted. This amendment assumes reinstatement 
of the original structure and guiding principle of Superfund and 
assumes the restoration of minimal taxes to get that job done. For 
example, in the case of the oil industry, the tax would be less than 10 
cents a barrel for every 42 gallons of oil. This is a small investment 
for the large dividends it would pay. The end result would be measured 
in thousands of happier and healthier children and families.
  The amendment will permit the addition of $300 million to the 
Superfund reserve each year for 10 years. That is less than the 
approximately $350 million the Congressional Research Service estimates 
the budget will fall short of when it tries to meet next year's 
projected needs for Superfund cleanup, but it is close.
  At the same time, by making the polluter pay, this amendment 
increases total Federal revenues by well over $1 billion a year for the 
next 10 years, contributing to the deficit reduction and helping to 
lower the public debt.
  The Superfund needs new life injected into it because this 
administration has significantly slowed the pace of cleanups, cutting 
the rates in half. It is time Congress and the administration stopped 
refusing to force polluters to pay. They are the ones who ought to pay 
for it. They did it. They spoiled the Earth and the area, and they 
ought to pay for this.
  No other American President, Democrat or Republican, has ever said 
that taxpayers, not polluters, should pay to clean up their toxic mess, 
and neither should this one. President Ronald Reagan understood the 
importance of the Superfund trust fund in making the polluter pay. In 
1986, not only did he reauthorize the original Superfund tax, he 
approved two in Superfund taxes, a tax on imported chemical 
derivatives, and corporate income tax of .12 percent on taxable income 
above $2 million.
  Reinstating the polluter-pays principle is fair, it has a proven 
record of working, and I would urge my colleagues to support this good 
governance amendment.
  I have one more short amendment to discuss, an amendment I will offer 
on behalf of myself and Senator Robert Byrd to adequately fund our 
national passenger rail system, Amtrak, at $1.8 billion.
  As it stands now, the budget before the Senate assumes that funding 
level of only $900 million for Amtrak. That is about half of what the 
railroad needs. That would be a devastating cut. The funding in this 
fiscal year 2004 budget is nearly 22 percent lower than this year's 
level. Without question, it would result in the bankruptcy of our 
national passenger railroad system halfway through the fiscal year 
2004.
  This Senate cannot stand idly by and allow this budget to bankrupt 
Amtrak. Amtrak is critical to our Nation's transportation system. We 
have a new president, an impressive fellow, CEO at Amtrak, David Gunn. 
David Gunn has demonstrated his ability to find commonsense solutions 
to tough problems, particularly around rail and transit. We should give 
Mr. Gunn the tools he needs to put Amtrak back on the track. Everyone 
feels confident he has the capability of doing that if we give him the 
tools.
  In many areas across the Nation, rail is as important to the 
transportation system as aviation. Amtrak is critical to business and 
the economy in many communities and improves the quality of life for 
many Americans who use rail as an alternative to traffic jams on 
highways and the headaches we find now at the airport.
  In the days following the September 11 attacks, our entire aviation 
system was shut down. The unbelievable took place. It was never 
conceived something could happen in our aviation system that would shut 
the whole thing down across the country. But it did. Rail served as a 
critical alternative for those who otherwise would have been stranded.
  Now, many passengers have shifted to rail on a more permanent basis. 
In fact, more people take the train to New York from Washington than 
catch a flight each day. September 11, 2001, showed us we need to 
maintain an intermodal transportation system. We cannot put all our 
resources into aviation, and we cannot put all of our resources into 
highways. If we want a 21st century transportation system, we must 
invest in Amtrak and passenger rail. My amendment would provide Amtrak 
with the $1.8 billion that has been requested by the Amtrak board of 
directors. This is the funding level that will ensure the trains run in 
2004 and beyond. This is also the funding sorely needed for capital 
investments to improve infrastructure and improve the system's 
reliability. These capital investments are also needed to help Amtrak 
lower its operating costs. We cannot continue to let them run a 
railroad held together by duct tape. Without Amtrak, congestion on the 
roads and in the skies would be substantially worse. Amtrak helps to 
remove 18,000 cars a day from the congested Northeast corridor between 
Philadelphia and New York, and 27,000 cars a day between New York and 
Boston. Everyone knows if there were that many more cars on the road, 
it would be impossible to travel on these highways.
  But Amtrak does more than alleviate congestion in densely populated 
highway and air corridors. In many cases, Amtrak also provides 
residents of small rural towns with their only form of intercity 
transportation. Each year, some 22 million passengers depend on Amtrak 
for transportation between urban centers and rural locations. Amtrak 
provides service in 45 of the 50 States. This country of ours, this 
most advanced Nation in the world, needs a world-class passenger rail 
service. We can already board a high-speed train from New York's Penn 
Station and arrive in Washington in less than 3 hours. That is city to 
city. It is without the hassle and the problems one takes going to the 
airports these days.
  But we should also be able to take a high-speed train from Atlanta to 
Charlotte or Miami. We should be able to travel from Los Angeles to San 
Francisco or St. Louis to Chicago by high-speed rail.
  September 11 and the lingering terrorist threat shows us that we need 
a viable alternative to aviation for intercity travel. But the budget 
before us would cripple our Nation's passenger rail system.
  Once again, I look to my colleagues to think the problem through 
thoroughly, to recognize even if Amtrak is not a primary mode of 
transportation in their State, that it is part of the national network 
that we have to have in a society as advanced and as crowded as ours 
has gotten to be.
  I hope we will have the support for passenger rail and support for 
Amtrak.
  I thank the President, the occupant of the chair, for his indulgence 
of this

[[Page 7108]]

wee hour of the night. I thank my colleague from Washington, also, for 
permitting me to talk about my amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise at this late hour to address an 
amendment that will be offered tomorrow dealing with the issue of 
workforce training. I applaud both of my colleagues from New Jersey for 
being here at this late hour to articulate a variety of needs in 
Superfund cleanup and infrastructure.
  I would like to address an issue about our human infrastructure and 
our investment in job training and education at a time when we have in 
the Northwest are experiencing some of the highest unemployment in the 
country, over 7 percent in the States of Washington, Oregon, and 
Alaska, and a very high average national unemployment rate.
  The question we are debating on the floor this week is how do we move 
forward with a budget resolution and what should our priorities be? I 
am here tonight to advocate that our priorities should be about a 
program that will help put people back to work by making sure they have 
the skills that are necessary in today's economy.
  While we hear a lot about the high unemployment, we also know from 
employers that they can't find the skill level that they are looking 
for in the workplace among the employees out there today. Why do they 
say that? We know for a fact that there are thousands of jobs in our 
State in the health care field that cannot be filled. There are 
thousands of jobs in the Information Technology field, but people can't 
be hired because the skill level just isn't there. Yet we have 110,000 
dislocated workers in my State of Washington who would love to have 
those jobs.
  It is about matching those unemployed workers with job opportunities 
that employers would like to give them. The missing ingredient is 
funding, as we have in the past, adequate levels of job training 
dollars to train workers to meet the skills gap.
  People consider this issue and think: Isn't this about whether we 
help an individual worker? And it is. It is about retooling the 
American workforce. It is about retooling our workforce in an 
information age economy. But it is also about helping our national 
economy. Think of it for a second. What happens when you help re-train 
somebody and they upgrade their skills, as we have done in Washington 
State?
  I know a woman who was working, employed in the timber industry. She 
went back to a community college, was re-trained, got an Information 
Technology job, and made twice as much money. That was good for her but 
what was also good was that firm that hired her found a needed employee 
to help improve the productivity and bottom line of that company. That 
bottom line productivity and improvement in that company also helped 
our local economy. It produced a better output and a better general 
economy for the State. So by investing in workforce training we are 
actually helping our entire national economy.
  Why at a time with high unemployment, why at a time when our economy 
is transitioning and we are trying to come up with a budget that will 
stimulate growth for the future, would we cut such an economic 
development tool as job training? I know there will be some people 
tomorrow who will say we are not really cutting programs, instead we 
are actually just moving the dollars around.
  Earlier in this year we also heard that there were carryover funds to 
fund these job training program. However, my State has spent those 
dollars. They have actually committed those dollars to retrain people 
and upgrade their skills. We will hear tomorrow that, no, the money is 
there. But, what is really happening is that we are actually decreasing 
the money to fund important programs like the dislocated worker program 
or adult training program by as much as $678 million dollars. The 
President FY 04 budget proposal simply transfers dollars from other 
existing job training accounts and consolidates them into one adult 
training account under the Workforce Investment Act and calls that an 
increase. We are really robbing Peter to pay Paul. What I would like to 
be advocating is that those job training dollars need to be increased 
beyond prior years. What we should be talking about is, not the 2002 
level, but a much higher level in 2004, if we want to reap the benefits 
of having a fully employed workforce. That should be our goal.
  I would even advocate we ought to be looking at the GI bill for job 
training and education this year as we reauthorize WIA and the Higher 
Education Act. That is the best way for us to keep our competitive edge 
in a global economy.
  Think about it. What is going to happen? I have been in the private 
sector. I hired lots of people for a high-tech firm. What is going to 
happen when you as an employer can't find the workforce because they 
are not skilled? You don't stop looking. You can't. You have to ship 
products. You have to develop your services. You go find the workforce 
wherever they exist. In this case they might be foreign workers.
  What we are really saying tomorrow is this: By cutting the workforce 
dollars by this budget proposal, we are really saying we would rather 
have foreign skilled workers in nursing, in Information Technology and 
other professions. Let foreign workers take these jobs rather than 
helping American workers to fill these jobs.
  I don't think that is what we want. We want to put the best foot 
forward in an economy that is changing, where companies have to compete 
in a global environment. Any company will tell you that their workforce 
has to be robust. By robust they mean well educated and ready to shift 
to new products and services as they meet the competition from other 
companies in a world that is changing much more rapidly.
  Even in the best of economic times, I would say we should be greatly 
increasing our investment in the workforce. In bad economic times, we 
ought to be filling that gap in an even much more aggressive fashion, 
to make sure we do not fall behind and that more of these jobs do not 
go, either overseas internationally because the skill level isn't here, 
or to foreign workers who are coming into our country on green cards 
and filling these jobs because they are the skilled workers.
  Tomorrow we have an important opportunity, with this workforce 
development amendment I will be offering, to say to people in this 
country that it is not just a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans that 
will get our economy growing. I disagree with that. But even if you do 
make some of those tax cuts to those brackets, you have to be saying to 
Americans who are unemployed and unable to find work at a time when 
employers are saying I can't find the workers either, when the health 
care industry is saying there are thousands of nursing jobs to be 
filled or there are thousands of Information Technology jobs, just give 
me the skills and we will hire them. We need to be making that 
investment.
  So I hope that my colleagues will join me tomorrow in supporting this 
very important amendment, to make the right priorities and the right 
decisions about where our workforce, our economy needs to go in the 
future.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a sense-of-the 
Senate amendment regarding the uninsured. Last week was Cover the 
Uninsured Week, a week dedicated to focusing attention on the plight of 
the millions of uninsured Americans. This week, I want to continue the 
momentum from this historic event by talking about the uninsured in the 
context of the Federal budget.
  We have all heard the statistics: more than 41 million Americans do 
not have health insurance. Forty-one million people. We have heard the 
number so many times that it seems to have lost its impact. But let's 
look at that number more closely. Forty-one million people--that is 
about one in six nonelderly Americans from every conceivable walk of 
life: children, pregnant women, parents, single adults, full time 
workers, self-employed individuals, and students.

[[Page 7109]]

  These 41 million people include those who have lost their jobs as the 
economy has worsened. It includes people who work hard for small 
companies that can't afford to offer health benefits to employees. It 
includes people who work for companies that offer health benefits, but 
who can't afford their share of the premium. I think most Americans 
would be surprised to know that more than 80 percent of all uninsured 
children and adults live in families where there is at least one 
working adult. Most of the uninsured--two thirds of them--go without 
health insurance for more than 6 months.
  I learned another sobering statistic last week: almost 75 million 
Americans were insured for at least some time over the past 2 years. 
That is almost one of every three Americans under age 65.
  I don't know about what all this means to you, but to me, this spells 
crisis. Our health care system is in crisis, and it is up to us to fix 
it.
  Last month, Senator Clinton and I called on our colleagues on the 
Budget Committee to provide real dollars to cover the uninsured. While 
in the end the Senate Budget Committee did set aside a reserve fund of 
$50 billion to cover the uninsured over the next 10 years, I just don't 
think this is enough to make a sizeable dent in a problem of this 
magnitude.
  The sense of the Senate before you today asks the Senate to make it a 
priority to expand access to health care coverage in the United States. 
It asks that, to the extent that additional funds are made available, a 
significant portion of these funds should be dedicated to expanding 
access to health care coverage so that fewer Americans have to live 
without health care coverage, and the safety net is protected and 
strengthened.
  Americans are losing their jobs as the economic downturn continues, 
without the benefit of any economic stimulus legislation from us in 
Congress. There can be no doubt what will happen this year--it has 
already begun. Through no fault of their own, many employers will have 
to raise copayments and premiums, while reducing benefits . . . if they 
are able to continue to offer insurance to their employees at all. The 
bottom line is that this year, more people will lose their health 
insurance.
  These facts and figures should disturb all who see them. But behind 
every single one of those 41 million people is a face and a story. And 
as I travel around Oregon for townhalls with my friend and colleague 
Ron Wyden, we look into the faces of the uninsured, and we hear their 
stories, and we see their pain.
  While the stories are always different--and many of them are tragic--
the circumstances that have brought them to these places are often 
similar. The loss of a job. An increase in insurance premiums. A 
serious illness. Unavoidable circumstances that could happen to any one 
of us.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and ask you to join 
the growing coalition as we struggle to cover the uninsured.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment 
offered by the Senator from South Carolina to increase funding to our 
Nation's ports.
  This amendment will provide more funding to help all ports prevent a 
future terrorist attack. It will provide $1 billion annually for the 
next 2 years--an increase of $2 billion total.
  We all know U.S. seaports are a gaping hole in our Nation's system of 
defense against terrorism. We have beefed up security at our airports, 
but as our Nation fights a war in Iraq, we are not doing enough to 
increase the security of our seaports.
  Last year, Congress approved legislation, the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act, sponsored by Senators Fritz Hollings, Bob Graham, and 
others designed to increase security at our ports.
  In my view, this legislation was a good first step, but our ports 
remain extremely vulnerable to attack. One reason our ports are still 
vulnerable is that the Federal Government has not provided them with 
enough money to enable them to increase security.
  For example, the Coast Guard has estimated that the present value 
cost of complying with existing and upcoming international and national 
security requirements will be about $6 billion over 10 years. The 10-
year present value cost for facility security will be $4.4 billion and 
the cost to comply with section 102 of the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act alone will be $477 million.
  These figures do not account for the funds that will be needed to pay 
for additional security measures that can and should be taken to 
protect against a terrorist attack at or through our ports.
  Thus, I am very concerned that, apart from some specific projects and 
earmarks, Congress has appropriated less than $400 million for seaport 
security grants since September 11, 2001. I was disappointed to see 
that President Bush has not requested a single dime for seaport 
security grants in his fiscal year 2004 budget.
  We also need to provide greater support to the Federal agencies 
enforcing our border security laws. Coast Guard, Customs, and TSA need 
additional funds for port security vessels, new screening and detection 
equipments, and cargo security programs, and to implement an 
identification card program.
  Port security is a crucial national security issue--like immigration 
and other border security functions. We need to ensure that more of the 
money to protect our borders is used to safeguard our ports. We simply 
cannot leave the Nation's ports in the lurch, forced to pay the bill to 
protect our citizens from terrorism.
  I am particularly concerned that California's ports are not getting 
enough funds to help prevent a terrorist attack.
  For example, California ports have received about $16.405 million 
from the seaport security grant program established by Congress after 
the September 11 terrorist attack--about 18 percent of the money 
available. However, according to the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics, California ports handle almost 50 percent of maritime 
container imports.
  In other words, if international terrorists overseas put a ``dirty 
bomb'' in a container, the odds are 50-50 that this container would 
pass through a California port. Mr. President, $16 million is simply 
not enough to stop such an attack--especially now when we are on the 
brink of war.
  I hope the Department of Homeland Security will ensure that 
California ports receive their fair share of port security grants in 
future allocations. However, this Congress can and must do more.
  I will soon be introducing legislation that takes a comprehensive 
approach to port security and focuses our limited resources where they 
are needed most. Among other things, the bill would do the following:
  Update our criminal code to ensure that terrorists who strike at us 
at or through our seaports can be appropriately prosecuted and 
punished;
  Create a container profiling plan that would concentrate on 
identifying high-risk cargo early in the shipping process; and
  Secure the international supply chain by requiring the government to 
come up with a plan to inspect containers overseas, before they arrive 
in the United States--once a weapon of mass destruction in a container 
reaches the United States, it is too late.
  Mr. President, I visited two ports last year, Hong Kong and Los 
Angeles/Long Beach, and I learned firsthand how difficult it is to 
protect our Nation from an attack through a seaport.
  According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 13 
million containers, 20-foot equivalent units, came into U.S. ports in 
2002. However, only about 2 or 3 percent of these containers are 
inspected. This translates into millions of tons of cargo moving 
through our ports with no real scrutiny, any one of which could contain 
an explosive or weapon of mass destruction.
  If attacked, casualties at our ports and surrounding cities could run 
in the thousands and our Nation's economy could be brought to a 
standstill. Just

[[Page 7110]]

imagine if a container holding up to 60,000 pounds of explosives slips 
undetected into a harbor and is detonated--blowing up a ship, a bridge, 
or even an entire seaport.
  Or worse, picture a nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb''--no 
bigger than a suitcase--installed in a container, shipped to the United 
States, and exploded at a port or somewhere within the interior of our 
country.
  Beyond the human toll, such an attack would mean that every container 
in the system would have to be inspected to ensure that there wasn't 
another bomb out there--grinding our economy to a halt. One estimate 
suggests that it would take 6 months to screen all of the containers in 
the system on any given day. So we must do everything in our power to 
prevent an attack from happening in the first place.
  Simply put, more funding is of critical importance when you consider 
the October 2002 report by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. 
The followup Hart-Rudman report points out, ``Only the tiniest 
percentage of containers, ships, trucks, and trains that enter the 
United States each day are subject to examination--and a weapon of mass 
destruction could well be hidden among this cargo.''
  The report recommends revising transportation security because ``the 
vulnerabilities are greater and the stakes are higher in the sea and 
land modes than in commercial aviation. Systems such as those used in 
the aviation sector, which start from the assumption that every 
passenger and every bag of luggage poses an equal risk, must give way 
to more intelligence-driven and layered security approaches that 
emphasize prescreening and monitoring based on risk-criteria.''
  The bottom line: We must do a better job of profiling and inspecting 
cargo that could put our Nation and our citizens at risk. This will 
take time, money, and cooperation from industry--but it is a necessary 
and critical part of our homeland security effort.
  A year and a half has passed since our Nation was struck by 
terrorists from the sky. We can't afford to wait for a similar--or 
potentially greater--tragedy to provide adequate funds for port 
security.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I start by congratulating the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, on his fine work.
  One of the reasons for the problems of last session was the absence, 
for the first time in a generation, of a budget resolution. Chairman 
Nickles has carried the President's budget to the floor and been a 
loyal lieutenant for our Commander in Chief. It looks as if much of the 
President's budget may remain intact, but it is also true that the 
budget will change somewhat.
  Let me make it clear. I support the President's budget, including the 
tax cut number and the growth package.
  I believe we need a bold response to the flagging economy. It is our 
obligation to the folks that sent us here. We need to respond. Both 
sides agree on that need, as do the centrists, led by Senators Breaux 
and Snowe. Where the Democratic caucus, the Republican caucus, and the 
centrists differ is on the number we allocate for growth proposals.
  The debate we have this afternoon is about that number. Really, 
though, the debate is about whether we should be bold, cautious, or 
timid. The President and most of the Republican caucus want to be bold. 
We want American businesses, small and large, to grow. We want every 
American who wants a job to be able to get a job. We don't want to take 
any chances.
  The Democratic leadership's proposed growth package yields a net tax 
increase of $11.7 billion. That package also contains new spending of 
$118.7 billion. I call that a timid response to the flagging economy.
  Now, let's turn to the Breaux-Snowe-Baucus-Voinovich amendment. I 
understand the concerns of my friends from the Centrist Coalition. They 
are worried about long-term deficits. I am too.
  I am more worried about the spending side of the ledger. The 
Centrists are focusing on the tax cut side only. It is important that 
the Centrists' amendment does place the tax cut reduction into deficit 
reduction. There is, however, no guarantee that the $375 billion will 
not be spent in subsequent amendments on this resolution.
  Senators Breaux and Snowe have a long history of trying to secure 
bipartisan consensus. In 2001, they, along with Senator Baucus, were 
critical supporters of the bipartisan tax relief package. They are 
widely known for their efforts to find bipartisan consensus on 
Medicare. I will be looking to this group when we take up Medicare 
legislation later this year.
  Senators Breaux and Snowe suggest that the middle ground is splitting 
the difference between the President's number of $726 billion and the 
Democratic leadership's position.
  I am opposed to this amendment because we need more than $350 billion 
to do the job the right way. Don't get me wrong. If $350 billion is the 
number, that is the number the Finance Committee will work with. The 
Finance Committee will develop the best package we can.
  My point is that the Finance Committee can do more growth incentives 
with a number above $350 billion.
  Now, some view the net $350 billion as a vote against the President's 
proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends.
  I support the President's proposal to eliminate the double taxation 
of dividends. It is good tax policy and it is good economic policy.
  This vote is not about the dividends proposal. The Finance Committee, 
in its bipartisan way, will decide the composition of the growth 
package.
  To my moderate friends, let me say something in conclusion. No matter 
where the number ends up, I expect Senator Baucus and I will produce a 
bipartisan growth package.
  The Breaux-Snowe amendment, while well intentioned, does not provide 
the Finance Committee with the tools necessary to do the job of 
delivering a bold growth package to the American people.


                           Amendment No. 363

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the 
Senate the critical shortfall in funding for the Indian Health Service, 
IHS--a shortfall addressed by an amendment I intend to offer tomorrow.
  Through treaties and Federal statute, the Federal Government has 
promised to provide health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. 
In the Indian health amendments of 1992, Congress specifically pledged 
to ``assure the highest possible health status for Indians and urban 
Indians and to provide all resources necessary to effect that policy.''
  Sadly, we haven't even come close to honoring this commitment. The 
IHS is the only source of health care for many Indians, and is required 
to provide it, yet funding has never been adequate. The chronic 
underfunding has only grown worse in recent years, as appropriations 
have failed to keep up with the steep rise in private health care 
spending.
  The results are startling and disturbing. While per capita health 
care spending for the general U.S. population is about $4,400, the 
Indian Health Service spends only about $1,800 per person on individual 
health care services. The Government also spends considerably less on 
health care for Indians than it spends for Medicare beneficiaries, 
Medicaid recipients, and veterans.
  This level of funding is woefully inadequate to meet the health care 
needs of Native Americans--who have a lower life expectancy than other 
Americans, and disproportionately suffer from a number of serious 
medical problems. Indians have higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, 
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and tuberculosis. There is also a 
great need for substance abuse and mental health services.
  More funds are needed if the IHS is to provide necessary health care 
services to Indians. The current shortage of funds is having serious 
consequences. Native Americans are often denied care that most of us 
take for granted and, in many cases, would consider essential. They can 
be required to endure long waits before seeing a doctor and

[[Page 7111]]

may be unable to obtain a referral to see a specialist. Sometimes lack 
of funds means care is postponed until Indians are literally at risk of 
losing their lives or their limbs. Other Indians receive no care at 
all.
  This rationing of care means that all too often Indians are forced to 
wait until their medical conditions become more serious--and more 
difficult to treat--before they may access health care. This is a 
situation none of us would find acceptable, yet this is the reality in 
Indian country.
  Last year, Gregg Bourland and Harold Frazier, then the chairman and 
vice chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, sent a 
letter to the IHS. This is how they described the situation in Eagle 
Butte:

       In January and February 2002, the Eagle Butte Service Unit 
     on the Cheyenne River Sioux reservation has been swamped with 
     children with Influenza A, RSV [Respiratory Syntactical 
     Virus], and one fatal case of meningitis. There are only 
     three doctors on duty, one Physician Assistant, and one Nurse 
     Practitioner. The only pediatrician is the Clinical Director 
     who will not see any patients, even though there is a serious 
     need for the services of a pediatrician. Several of these 
     children have presented with breathing problems, high fever, 
     and severe vomiting. The average waiting time at the clinic 
     has been four and six hours. The average time at the 
     emergency room is similar. Most babies have been sent home 
     without any testing to determine what they have and with 
     nothing but cough syrup and Tylenol. In at least three cases, 
     the baby was sent home after these long waits two or more 
     times with cough syrup, only to be life-flighted soon 
     thereafter because the child could not breathe. The children 
     were all diagnosed by the non-IHS hospital with RSV 
     [Respiratory Syntactical Virus]. No babies have died yet, but 
     the Tribe sees no justification for waiting until this 
     happens when these viruses are completely diagnosable and 
     treatable.

  I couldn't agree more. It is absolutely unacceptable to put the lives 
of these children at risk. And we can do something to help. On more 
than one occasion, I have heard horror stories of pregnant mothers 
delivering children in circumstances that no expectant mother or child 
should have to endure.
  For example, right now the Service Unit at Eagle Butte in South 
Dakota does not have an obstetrician. The Eagle Butte Service Unit is 
funded at 44 percent of the need calculated by the Indian Health 
Service. The facility has a birthing room and 22 beds, but there are 
only two to three doctors to staff the clinic, hospital and emergency 
room. Naturally, as a result, many children and expecting mothers do 
not receive the care they need and deserve. Due to budget constraints, 
the IHS policy is to allow only one ultrasound per pregnancy. The 
visiting obstetrician is available only every couple of weeks.
  The story of Brayden Robert Thompson points out how dangerous this 
situation is. On March 3, 2002, Brayden's mother was in labor with a 
full-term, perfectly healthy baby. Brayden's umbilical cord was wrapped 
around his neck, but, without ultrasound, that went undetected. The 
available medical staff didn't know what to do about his lowered 
heartbeat, abnormal urinalysis or the fact that his mother was not 
feeling well. Despite the symptoms, IHS refused to provide an 
ultrasound or to send her to Pierre to see an obstetrician. Brayden was 
stillborn. This tragic death was completely preventable, but tough 
choices are being made every day at IHS facilities throughout the 
country because there simply isn't enough money to provide the care 
that every American deserves.
  The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in my State of South Dakota built a 
beautiful new hospital and health care center. In many ways, they are 
equipped to provide state-of-the-art, coordinated care. But they cannot 
retain health care professionals because of low payment schedules and 
inadequate training opportunities for local people. Their shiny new 
labor and delivery rooms, surgery rooms and even dental chairs stand 
empty, and individuals on the reservation are forced to travel long 
distances to receive these vital services. This also is the case on the 
neighboring Rosebud Indian Reservation.
  This is not solely an Indian issue. This is a community issue. It 
affects surrounding rural community hospitals, ambulance services, and 
other health care providers who work with IHS. For example, the Lake 
Andes-Wagner ambulance district in south-eastern South Dakota is facing 
financial disaster, in part because they have not been reimbursed 
properly by the Indian Health Service. This ambulance service offers 
emergency transport for citizens of Charles Mix County and Yankton 
Sioux tribal members, since the Wagner IHS hospital cannot afford to 
operate its own service. If this ambulance service shuts down, what 
will these residents--Indian and non-Indian--do when they face an 
emergency?
  Bennett County hospital in the southwestern part of the South Dakota 
is located between the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Indian Reservations, and 
suffers similar IHS reimbursement problems, as do other non-IHS 
providers in South Dakota and throughout rural America. From 1998 to 
2001, the most recent year for which IHS has data, IHS contract denials 
have increased 75 percent.
  In his budget request for the next fiscal year, the President 
requested only $1.99 billion for clinical services for Indians. This 
represents only a small increase over what the President requested for 
fiscal year 2003, and virtually no increase over what was finally 
included in the omnibus appropriations bill. We can and must do better.
  The amendment I am proposing would increase funding for clinical 
services by $2.9 billion over the President's request for fiscal year 
2004. It is the minimal amount that is necessary to provide basic 
health care to the current IHS user population. The full cost over the 
next 10 years would be $38.7 billion. The amendment also devotes an 
equal amount to deficit reduction, all offset by a corresponding 
decrease in the top tax rate reduction.
  The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Inouye, Bingaman, Dorgan, 
Murray, Wyden, Johnson, Leahy, Cantwell, Reid, and Kennedy. It is also 
supported by a wide range of health organizations, native and non-
native.
  This budget resolution is a test of this Nation's priorities. Some 
will say that it doesn't matter, that it is purely symbolic. But the 
whole point of the budget resolution is to establish an enforceable 
fiscal framework and make room in our budget for needs that we believe 
are worthy of our national attention.
  I know there are some in this body who honestly believe that it is 
more important to eliminate the taxation of stock dividends--or 
accelerate huge tax cuts for our Nation's wealthiest citizens than to 
provide Native Americans the health care they have been promised but 
denied. Some defend that position by saying that someday, somehow, 
these Native Americans will benefit from the tax cuts extended to 
others, that the benefit will ``trickle down'' to them. It is their 
right to take that position, but they could not be more wrong.
  A woman going into labor cannot wait for economic benefits to trickle 
down to her. A child in respiratory distress cannot wait, either. How 
is it possible that we can afford to delve deeper into debt to fund 
additional tax cuts for those doing relatively well in this country, 
but we cannot afford to dedicate a small fraction of that amount to 
fund the most basic health care services for some of the poorest people 
in America who have been guaranteed that care?
  We must not tolerate this situation any longer.
  The problem is real; the solution is simple. Give the Indian Health 
Service the funds it needs to provide Native Americans the health 
benefits they were promised. Yes, it will require a slight decrease in 
the reduction of the top tax rate. But those top-bracket taxpayers will 
still get the benefit of every other rate reduction and every other tax 
break available to them, and almost 2 million Native Americans will 
have health care coverage.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Indian Health 
Board and Friends of Indian Health be printed in the Record at the 
close of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 7112]]




                                 national Indian Health Board,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
       Dear Senate Member: On behalf of the National Indian Health 
     Board, we are writing to urge your support of a floor 
     amendment providing a $2.9 billion increase over the 
     President's FY 2004 funding request to enhance the Indian 
     Health Service (IHS) clinical services budget. Further, we 
     urge you to participate in the floor discussion and join 
     other American Indian and Alaska Native health advocates on 
     both sides of the aisle as we work together to educate other 
     Senate members about the health needs in Indian Country and 
     how the $2.9 billion increase to IHS clinical services would 
     save many lives.
       While we understand the difficult decisions the United 
     States government is facing regarding the FY 2004 budget due 
     to military action in Iraq, a sluggish economy and the war on 
     terrorism, it is equally important that the federal 
     government honor its trust responsibility to American Indians 
     and Alaska Natives by ensuring that IHS has adequate funding 
     to meet basic health care needs. Adoption of an increase in 
     the clinical services budget of the Indian Health Service of 
     $2.9 billion for FY 2004 will move us one critical step 
     closer to that goal.
       Medical care for American Indians and Alaska Natives is 
     currently rationed, which has created a health care crisis. 
     Patients are faced with a ``life or limb'' test that dictates 
     whether they may or may not receive IHS health services. In 
     most situations, unless their lives are immediately 
     threatened or they risk the loss of a limb, their treatment 
     is deferred for higher priority cases.
       Additionally, local health care providers outside of the 
     IHS system feel the consequences of this lack of funding. 
     Because IHS is so under-funded and is often unable to offer 
     the full range of necessary care, the agency contracts with 
     local hospitals and other health care facilities and often is 
     unable to reimburse these non-IHS facilities for the services 
     they provide, resulting in serious budget shortfalls for the 
     contract facilities.
       Once again, we urge you to join members on both sides of 
     the aisle in supporting this $2.9 billion increase as we work 
     towards eliminating the health disparities plaguing Indian 
     Country. I hope I can count on your support, and should you 
     require further information, please contact J.T. Petherick, 
     National Indian Health Board Deputy Director of Legislative 
     Affairs at (202) 742-4262 or by e-mail at 
     [email protected]. We look forward to working with you to 
     address the health challenges facing American Indian and 
     Alaska Native communities.
           Sincerely,
                                              Julia Davis-Wheeler,
                        Chairperson, National Indian Health Board.

     
                                  ____
                                     Friends of Indian Health,

                                                   March 20, 2003.
       Dear Senator: Our organizations are writing to urge you to 
     support the Daschle budget amendment to S. Con. Res. 23 that 
     calls for increasing funding for FY 04 for Indian Health 
     Services clinical services.
       The state of Indian health is at a crisis level and appears 
     to be worsening compared to all other races in the nation. 
     According to mortality data collected by the IHS, between FY 
     1997-1999, death rates for American Indians/Alaska Natives 
     (AI/AN) from diabetes, cancer, suicide and injuries rose 
     significantly. These increases have resulted in an overall 
     increase in the death rate for AI/ANs while rates for all 
     other Americans have been dropping. This health disparity gap 
     will likely continue unless access to treatment and 
     preventive services are significantly improved.
       An increase of $2.9 billion would allow the IHS to restore 
     lost services. Since 1992, due to budget shortfalls, the IHS 
     has experienced an almost 20% loss of spending power. 
     Repeated failures to fund mandatory costs for population 
     growth and inflation, have resulted in the tribes, urban 
     Indian programs and the IHS absorbing close to three-quarters 
     of $1 billion in program costs. As a result our organizations 
     have seen decreases in important primary care services 
     including:
       A 37% decline in well child services between FY 1992-97
       A 35% decline in physical exams between FY 1994-97 and,
       A 26% reduction in people receiving dental services between 
     FY 1992-99.
       We believe that in order to meet the health care needs of 
     the AI/AN population, the FY 2004 budget resolution must 
     include realistic funding levels to restore clinical and 
     preventive services and attract a viable workforce of health 
     care providers.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter of vital 
     importance to America's Indians. We hope we can count on your 
     support, and please let us know if we may assist your 
     efforts. If you have any questions or need more information 
     on this issue please contact Judy Sherman at [email protected] 
     or (202) 789-5164.
           Sincerely,
       American Academy of Ophthalmology; American Academy of 
     Pediatrics; American Association of Colleges of Nursing; 
     American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; American 
     College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Dental 
     Association; American Dental Education Association; American 
     Diabetes Association; American Optometric Association; 
     American Podiatric Medical Association; American Psychiatric 
     Association; American Psychological Association; American 
     Public Health Association; Association on American Indian 
     Affairs, National Kidney Foundation.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
proposed by my leader, the Senator from South Dakota.
  I think it is important to review briefly the history that brought us 
to this point today.
  A few hundred years ago, before the first Europeans landed on the 
shores of what is now the United States, the Indian nations exercised 
dominion and control over 550 million acres of the land which became 
America.
  By the time of the Revolutionary War, relations with the Indian 
tribes were well established, and it was the Native people of this land 
who provided food to General George Washington and his troops that 
sustained them throughout the harsh winter at Valley Forge.
  Native warriors fought beside the revolutionary soldiers, and their 
valuable contributions to the success of the war for independence was 
widely chronicled.
  Later, as our Founding Fathers undertook the task of developing a 
constitution for a new Nation, it was the governmental structure of the 
Iroquois Confederacy that they chose as the model for our democracy and 
the foundation of our government.
  In contemporary times, more Indian men and women, on a per capita 
basis, have put on the uniform of our country and placed themselves in 
harm's way in defense of our country than any other ethnic group.
  This dedication to a nation that has many sad and sorry chapters in 
its history of relations with the Native people of this land is 
remarkable.
  Nonetheless, Indian people have served in the Armed Forces of the 
United States in greater numbers than any other segment of the 
population, on a per capita basis, in World War II, the Korean War, the 
Vietnam War, the Gulf War and Desert Storm, and in every military 
action in which our country has been engaged in modern times.
  These are the people whose ancestors ceded 500 million acres of land 
to America, in exchange for certain fundamental commitments on the part 
of the United States, including the provision of health care.
  So, as has been observed more than once in this Chamber, the Native 
people of the United States has paid their dues.
  They have sacrificed their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, 
uncles and aunts in the defense of our Nation.
  And through their treaties with the United States, and their cession 
of millions of acres of land to the United States, the Native people of 
this land purchased the first prepaid health plan in America.
  The question that we are confronted with today is: What promises did 
the United States make to the Native people of America in treaties and 
what responsibilities did the United States undertake in subsequently 
enacted Federal laws, and how do those commitments measure up to what 
is provided to other Americans today in the arena of health care 
services?
  I believe that the reason my colleague from South Dakota has come 
forward today with his amendment is that he sees in his home State of 
South Dakota the same dynamic that we see across Indian country--a 
health care system that is woefully underfunded and alarmingly 
understaffed, with facilities that are in such a state of disrepair 
that many of them have been condemned.
  As a veteran and as ranking member of the Defense Appropriations 
subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to compare the investments our 
Nation makes in the health care provided to our veterans, to our men 
and women in active duty service and their dependent, and to our 
Federal employees.
  I think these comparative expenditures should interest our 
colleagues--for they tell the story and paint a dramatic picture of 
disparities that are so large and frankly, so shocking, that we

[[Page 7113]]

would be negligent and irresponsible were we to fail to address them.
  Let's look at veterans. The Veterans' Administration expended $5,214 
for medical care for each eligible veteran in 2001. In 1999, Medicare 
expended $5,915 per eligible Medicare enrollee.
  The average medical expenditure in the United States on a per capita 
basis in 1999 was $5,065 per patient.
  For Medicaid enrollees, $3,879 was expended for each eligible 
Medicaid patient in 1998.
  For inmates in Federal prisons, $3,803 were expended for health care 
services provided to each inmate in 1999.
  Just a little less--$3,725--was provided to Federal employees in 1999 
for health care services under an eligible Federal health care plan.
  Compare all of these figures with that provided to patients of the 
Indian Health Service in 2002--a shocking $1,914 per patient for 
medical care and $619 for nonmedical care such as preventive health 
care services.
  So if you are an Indian person and you are in need of health care 
services, you would have twice as much provided for your health care as 
a Federal prison inmate than you would as a law-abiding Native citizen 
of the United States.
  If you were a veteran, 60 percent more would be dedicated to 
providing health care to you, and if you were eligible for Medicare, 
the percentage would be even higher.
  This is the relative nature of the manner in which we carry out our 
commitments to the Native people of this land.
  Now let's look at some health statistics of the Native American 
population. If you are an Indian or an Alaska Native, the likelihood 
that you will die from diabetes is 390 percent higher than for other 
Americans.
  As a Native person, your chances of dying from tuberculosis are 500 
percent higher than other Americans.
  And if you are a newborn or an infant Native child, your mortality 
rate is 25 percent higher than other infants.
  Rates of cardiovascular disease are twice those for the general 
public and they continue to increase while the incidence of 
cardiovascular disease is going down amongst the general population.
  To complete this picture, we also need to look at the health care 
system that is designed to serve the needs of Native people.
  Health care in Native America is provided through the Indian Health 
Service system of hospitals and clinics, through tribally operated 
hospitals and clinics, through urban Indian health care programs, and 
through government contracts with private hospitals and health care 
providers.
  In some of the most heavily populated areas of Indian country, 
particularly California, Oregon, and Washington State, there are no 
Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics, so Native people in those 
states must rely on either a tribal health care system or on contract 
health care services.
  But because of the severe constraints that have been imposed on funds 
available for the purchase of contract health care services, those who 
must seek care outside the Indian Health Service system have to prove 
that their condition is either life-threatening or that they may lose a 
limb in the absence of treatment.
  So if you have severe diabetes and resultant kidney damage, for 
example, as a Native person you wouldn't be eligible for kidney 
dialysis until you were at death's door. Physicians would instruct us 
that by that time, it is often too late to save the life of a patient.
  In this category alone, there is a shortfall of $20.6 million of what 
is needed for contract health care services.
  To bring the 55 most poorly funded tribal health care systems up to 
40 percent of the identified health care needs, it would require $34 
million.
  And to bring tribal communities across the Nation up to just 60 
percent of the identified health care needs, it would require $388 
million.
  The Indian Health Service is also charged with providing safe water 
and sanitation facilities for Indian communities, but there is a $1.753 
billion backlog in sanitation facilities.
  For basic primary health care services--services which most Americans 
take for granted because their access is unlimited--for Native people 
the need that is unmet is $6.336 billion.
  For Indian people suffering from cancer, the health care service need 
that is currently unmet is $294 million.
  For those Native patients with heart disease, the unmet need for 
health care services is $369 million.
  Native Americans with diabetes have an unmet need for health care 
treatment of $452 million.
  I could go on and on with such tragic statistics--and if they were 
just numbers it might be a different matter--but each of these 
statistics represents thousands of Native people who are going without 
the most fundamental health care.
  These are the people who have given this country their land so that 
we could build a new nation.
  These are the people who have sacrificed their lives in the defense 
of our country.
  These are the people who have given the most and who are in turn, 
provided the least.
  Most of the Indian Health Service hospitals are over 30 years old. 
They are so badly in need of repair and replacement that the minimum 
unmet need is $610 million.
  Year after year, the costs associated with providing care--salaries 
of doctors and nurses and other health care professionals serving 
Indian country--fail to keep pace with those employed in the Department 
of Defense and Veterans' Administration health care systems, or with 
medical inflation rates.
  Not surprisingly, these valued professionals leave Indian country for 
more pay, better working conditions, and as caring people--for the 
promise that the patients they see on a daily basis won't have to wait 
until their lives are hanging in the balance before they can receive 
care.
  If treaties mean anything--and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly 
held that treaties are the highest laws of the land--then this Nation 
has not only a moral duty but a legal obligation to fulfill its treaty 
commitments to the Native people of this land.
  And I think that these numbers make it abundantly clear why the 
amendment proposed by my friend from South Dakota is conservative.
  It won't meet all of the health care needs in Indian country, but it 
would be a good beginning in addressing conditions that are devastating 
and tragic by any measure--conditions which portray a shameful picture 
that a benevolent and prosperous nation appears to care so little about 
its First Americans.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Daschle's 
amendment to increase funds for the Indian Health Service's clinical 
services by $2.9 billion. I believe access to good health care services 
is a basic human right. This is especially true for Native Americans, 
for whom the Federal Government has the trust responsibility to deliver 
health care services. But statistics tell us that when it comes to 
ensuring good health for Native Americans, we are failing.
  The Indian Health Care Improvement Act, S. 212, which I cosponsored 
last year, includes some sobering statistics. The bill reads, ``In 
death rates for example, Indian people suffer a death rate for diabetes 
mellitus that is 249 percent higher than the death rate for all races 
in the United States, a pneumonia and influenza death rate that is 71 
percent higher, a tuberculosis death rate that is 533 percent higher, 
and a death rate from alcoholism that is 627 percent higher.'' This is 
unacceptable.
  When I meet with tribes from Washington State and around the country, 
improving access to health care for underserved populations--from neo-
natal care for pregnant women to care for elders--almost always comes 
up. I understand that narrowing the health gap that exists between 
Native Americans and non-natives is a complex challenge. Good health 
care for Native Americans depends in part on decreasing poverty and 
unemployment, improving education, strengthening economic development, 
and overcoming physical and cultural barriers to accessing good health 
care.

[[Page 7114]]

  But it also depends on adequate resources, and I believe we must do 
more in this area. In 2003, medical inflation exceeded 12 percent in 
the Pacific Northwest. With medical inflation in the double digits and 
growing Native American populations, we cannot accept cuts to the 
Indian Health Service. Nor can we accept only minimal increases in 
funding for IHS programs year after year.
  But that is what this Budget Committee has proposed, in keeping with 
President Bush's 2004 budget request. This Budget Resolution assumes no 
discretionary increases in funding for IHS. The Bush Administration has 
asked for an increase of only 2 percent for IHS clinical services. This 
is woefully inadequate.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to increase funding to 
ensure good health care for Native Americans. This amendment to the 
budget resolution will provide an increase of $2.9 billion for IHS 
clinical services in fiscal year 2004 and a $40 billion increase over 
the next ten years. The cost of these increases for the Indian Health 
Service is paid for by a decrease in the proposed tax cut.
  The Daschle amendment provides a crucial first step towards securing 
increased appropriations for Indian health care. Over 90,000 Indian 
people in the Northwest, and more than 1.5 million Native Americans 
nationwide, depend on IHS funds and services. We can no longer let down 
American Indians by continuing to under-fund vital health care 
services. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
budget resolution.
  First I would like to say that it is nice to actually have a budget 
on the floor in the Senate. We didn't ever get to vote on one last 
year, and I would like to compliment Chairman Nickles on moving this 
resolution swiftly through the budget committee and to the Senate 
floor.
  We have to remember that part of our responsibility to our 
constituents is not to just listen to and be their voice in Washington.
  We also have to respect and follow the traditions, rules and 
processes of our duties that have been entrusted to us.
  Whether it is following the committee process to get a bill to the 
floor, or allowing an up or down vote on a president's judicial 
nominee, we have to remember that the Senate is only as great as those 
who serve in it.
  I think the Senate suffered last year when for the first time in 
nearly three decades we did not even consider a budget resolution.
  It then took us almost a full year to get all of our work done. We 
didn't pass last year's appropriations bills until just 2 months ago.
  Last year we failed and we have to improve. The result was a broken 
process that limped along for months and months. This year we have to 
do better and I believe we will.
  We face a tough budget for 2004. While I am happy the budget 
resolution before us balances the budget within 10 years, we do face 
some large deficits in the near term.
  These large deficits primarily occur because we have had a steep 
decline in revenue.
  Contrary to what some of my colleagues try to argue, our revenue 
problems are caused by a weak economy and not tax cuts.
  The evidence is overwhelming that tax cuts stimulate the economy. 
They create jobs, and increase economic activity, that leads to more 
revenue.
  And that is why we need tax cuts now--to get the economy out of a rut 
and to help improve the budget forecast.
  If American businesses are not generating profits, if American 
workers are not working, the result is a lot less money coming into the 
Federal Government through various taxes.
  Decreased tax receipts do not mean taxes are too low; they mean the 
economy is too slow. We cannot make these budget numbers look better in 
the long term without a strong economy.
  Many of my friends argue against tax cuts and at the same time 
complain about falling revenues.
  If they really want to increase federal receipts and provide more 
funding for their favorite programs, tax cuts are the answer.
  Our budget committee, under the leadership of chairman Nickles, has 
crafted a strong budget.
  Besides this budget outlining our federal spending priorities, it 
also addresses one of the most important challenges facing our country 
today--strengthening the economy.
  At its core, this budget recognizes that we must grow our economy. 
That is why the budget committee chose to include a jobs and growth 
package at the very core of this budget and to include that package in 
reconciliation.
  We have a fundamental responsibility to the American people to make 
this economy stronger and to return it to a growth pattern we have 
enjoyed in the past.
  Many here have expressed concerns for our men and women who are 
fighting for our freedoms and to liberate the people of Iraq.
  We all pray for their safety and their quick return home to their 
loved ones. But in addition to our responsibility to do what we can to 
insure their safety overseas, we must also focus upon our 
responsibilities to them when they return.
  While we continue to pray for a quick and decisive end to this war, 
we have to think about what our soldiers and sailors will have to come 
home to.
  An economy with an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent is not good 
enough. An economy that's barely growing is not good enough.
  We have to do better. We have to make sure they have choices and 
opportunities in the American job market that will allow them to 
support themselves and their families.
  It is not going to do us any good to win the war and lose the 
economy. We have to do both at the same time.
  We have to get this economy moving and Americans working. And the 
jobs and growth package included in this budget resolution is the 
answer to our economic troubles.
  The council of economic advisors estimates that this economic growth 
plan will create 510,000 new jobs in 2003 and another 891,000 new jobs 
by the end of 2004.
  The business roundtable estimates that around 3.5 million jobs will 
be created over that same time frame.
  Between these two estimates, that is 1.5 million to 3.5 million 
Americans that will not be working over the next two years if we 
eliminate the President's growth package from this budget.
  The majority of the Budget Committee believe strongly in the wisdom 
of this jobs and growth package. And that is why we provided for the 
package under the special procedures of reconciliation.
  Through the accelerated procedures provided by reconciliation, we 
will be able to enact changes to help our economy sooner rather than 
later. The faster we can implement these policies, the better it will 
be for all of us.
  While the details of any growth package will be determined by the 
Senate Finance Committee, I hope that any bill that comes out of that 
committee, on which I serve, will include many, if not all, of the 
proposals that have been put forward by President Bush.
  High on the list are the acceleration of a number of proposals we 
passed in 2001 which are scheduled to totally phase-in and become 
effective in later years.
  The President's plan will immediately increase the child tax credit 
to $1000. This will benefit over 25 million American families--342,000 
of them in Kentucky.
  The President's plan will accelerate the expansion of the 10 percent 
tax bracket--which benefits all American taxpayers. Over 69 million 
taxpayers will benefit from this provision, including 879,000 
Kentuckians.
  Over 35 million married couples--almost 500,000 of them in Kentucky--
will benefit from the President's acceleration of marriage penalty 
relief.
  We also accelerate the reduction of the marginal tax rates. It is 
estimated this will provide 28 million taxpayers with a tax cut--
including the 85 percent of America's small businesses

[[Page 7115]]

which pay personal income taxes rather than corporate taxes.
  Approximately 79 percent of the tax relief provided by accelerating 
the reduction in the top bracket to 35 percent would go to small 
business owners. As my colleagues are aware, it is the entrepreneurs 
and small business owners which create two-thirds of the new jobs in 
the United States.
  Another component of the President's jobs and growth package is the 
elimination of the double taxation of dividends.
  This could be the most effective provision of all of the President's 
proposals contained in the President's budget. But because of the usual 
class warfare mantra from its opponents, it may be the toughest to 
sell.
  Half of all households in America own stock and 50 percent of all 
dividend income goes to our country's seniors. So a reduction in the 
tax rate that dividends face--currently in the range of a 60 to 70 
percent marginal rate--could have a real impact on our economy by 
allowing more dollars to be spent by consumers.
  This reduction in the double taxation of dividends not only assists 
current dividend recipients, but it assists all who own stock.
  Some private-sector estimates indicate that market increases from 
this proposal could be up to 20 percent. This would be welcome news to 
Americans who have been hard hit by the loss of about $7 trillion in 
the value of U.S. stocks since March 2000.
  An added bonus to eliminating the double taxation is the change it 
will have on the debt-to-equity ratios of American businesses.
  Treasury Secretary Snow estimates we could see changes in the debt-
to-equity ratios in the range of 5 to 8 percent. This movement of 
corporations toward the use of more equity and less debt would leave 
them less vulnerable to economic downturns.
  And before we hear the usual cries from the opponent's of the 
President's tax relief package--who say we are raiding the Social 
Security Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts for the rich--let me set the 
record straight.
  As the law requires, we invest social security funds in government 
bonds which are the safest and most reliable investment out there.
  These bonds are kept in a secure facility in Clarksburg, WV. And no 
one has shown up there to grab these bonds and hand them out to the 
rich. That is just a bogus claim.
  The President's growth package is just that--an economic growth 
package. We recently passed an extension of unemployment benefits and 
President Bush signed that into law. While this may provide a quick--
yet short--stimulus to the economy, what we really need is a long-term 
jobs and economic growth plan.
  We cannot spend our way into prosperity. We have seen governments try 
this and fail. It may make some of us feel good to write check after 
check from the government, that is simply the wrong approach.
  Governments don't create jobs and wealth. Free individuals with an 
idea and a source of capital create jobs and wealth.
  We can grow ourselves into prosperity. We have done it before. The 
fundamental question is: Who knows better what is good for Americans--
the Federal Government or the American people?
  The strength of the American economy is not from the government and 
more Federal programs. It is the American people--the workers, 
entrepreneurs, investors, and risk takers--who keep the American dream 
alive.
  It is better to allow Americans to keep more of their money to make 
spending, savings and investment decisions. We cannot decide here what 
job skills different people need, or what new equipment companies 
should purchase, or how to organize a small business' growth plan.
  The Federal Government cannot make these investments for them. Big 
brother does not know best. We in Congress do not know what investments 
will best suit the particular interests of American families, 
entrepreneurs and business owners.
  But what we can do is allow Americans to have access to more of the 
money they work for and earn. And then we have to trust them to make 
the necessary decisions within the economy to invest and create more 
jobs.
  But to do this, we need to pass this budget resolution with its jobs 
and economic growth package in tact. And therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution as it was passed by the Budget 
Committee.
  Finally, I want to say a few words about the Medicare prescription 
drug benefit provision in the resolution.
  We all agree that Medicare is an important program. It provides 
health coverage to 41 million Americans, including almost 630,000 
Kentuckians.
  When Medicare was created back in 1966, it ensured that seniors would 
be able to receive health care coverage. However, medicine has advanced 
so rapidly and prescription drugs play a major role in the health care 
of many. For years, Congress has debated various proposals for adding a 
drug benefit to Medicare. So far, we haven't gotten the job done. I am 
hopeful this year will be different for several reasons.
  First, our seniors need our help now more than ever. They shouldn't 
have to make tough decisions about which prescriptions they can afford 
to fill each month, or whether or not they should divide pills or skip 
meals.
  This is one of the biggest issues we hear about from our 
constituents. There are a lot of Kentuckians who would benefit. Almost 
144,000 seniors in Kentucky are below 200 percent of poverty, and 
almost 58,000 are below the poverty level.
  Second, this budget resolution sets aside $400 billion over the next 
10 years to create a medicare drug program. This is a great increase 
over what the President proposed before and shows his dedication to 
this issue.
  In fact, the President proposed $153 billion for Medicare 
prescription drugs in his fiscal year 2002 budget.
  For fiscal year 2003, this number increased to $190 billion.
  And for fiscal year 2004, President Bush has more than doubled last 
year's amount to $400 billion.
  For Congress's part, this $400 billion figure is also a substantial 
increase.
  In the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, we set aside $40 billion 
over five years for a Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  In the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution, Congress allocated $300 
billion over 10 years.
  Of course, last year, we didn't pass a budget. And, this year, we 
have set aside $400 billion over 10 years.
  Third, the finance committee will be allowed to consider and report a 
bill to the floor this year. And I am hopeful we can avoid many of the 
problems we encountered last year.
  Last year we voted on four prescription drug proposals. But because 
the bill didn't come from the finance committee as it should have, all 
these proposals required 60 votes to pass. Needless to say, none came 
close.
  Also, these four proposals ranged widely in price from as low as $295 
billion to over $600 billion. The tri-partisan plan, which I and many 
of my colleagues voted for, was estimated to cost $370 billion over 10 
years.
  We have a real chance for a bipartisan effort this year. An 
overwhelming majority in this body have indicated their support for a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. It will create jobs 
if we can pass it with the President's job and tax package in tact. And 
the Medicare prescription drug benefit package it includes is what 
seniors not only need, but what they deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague from North Dakota.
  We have now completed the debate and discussion time for 
consideration of the budget resolution. The statute

[[Page 7116]]

calls for 50 hours. We have yielded back a few hours, but for the most 
part we have probably spent some 40-odd hours on the floor of the 
Senate debating and discussing various amendments. It has been a very 
high level debate. We considered several amendments. We have adopted 
amendments. We have agreed to adopt additional amendments.
  Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in budget resolutions, when we 
conclude the scheduled time for debate, the 50 hours, we have not dealt 
with all the pending amendments. We still have many amendments. 
Sometimes that leads to a lot of votes. So tomorrow we will begin that. 
We will begin it at 9:45.
  I urge all my colleagues to be here and, for the most part, to stay 
on the floor. We will work with all of our colleagues who have 
amendments filed or pending or feel that they are compelled to offer 
amendments. We encourage them not to. But knowing a little history, I 
would expect a lot of rollcall votes tomorrow. I will say on behalf of 
colleagues on my side and others, we will be happy to work with 
colleagues. I would hope that maybe we could get some amendments 
accepted by voice vote, or maybe the sponsors of the amendment might 
decide it might be a better time to offer their amendment at another 
date for which we would give them great credit and applause. 
Regardless, I expect that we would have a lot of votes beginning at 
9:45 tomorrow morning.
  I expect the time for the votes will be limited to 10 minutes for the 
information of our colleagues. We will provide periodic breaks for 
individuals so they can have maybe some chance for us to regroup and 
reconsider the order and priority of amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 9:45 the Senate proceed 
to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order 
mentioned: Schumer amendment No. 299; Cochran on homeland security; 
Feingold on war reserve; Lautenberg on defense; Hollings on no tax cut; 
Sarbanes on a water related amendment; Crapo on a water related 
amendment; Conrad on IDEA, Gregg on IDEA; and Senator Mikulski on long-
term care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague, Senator Conrad. He has been a 
pleasure to work with through the first several days of this 
resolution. I expect that we might have a long day tomorrow. I hope 
not. But we will be in as long as necessary to complete this 
resolution, and I encourage all of our colleagues, tomorrow is a good 
day to attend if you want to improve your voting record. It is not a 
good day to miss if you want to have a good voting record for the year.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague, the chairman of 
the committee. He has been gracious throughout this process and a 
gentleman. I have very much enjoyed working with him.
  The fact is, now we have over 90 amendments pending at the desk--I 
think 93. At 10 minutes apiece, that is over 15 hours of voting, and 
that is if we voted every 10 minutes. We all know that won't occur. So 
we would be talking about a very long day tomorrow.
  I will just send a message out to any of our colleagues or any of 
their staffs who are listening, to those who have amendments pending: 
If this is something that you think is a good idea but you really don't 
need to do now, that you could offer on an appropriations bill or some 
other vehicle, we encourage you to do that.
  This is a very difficult process. I think the record is 34 votes in a 
day. I remember that day. I think the chairman remembers that day. It 
was not pretty. I don't look forward to a replication. But that is what 
the rules are. That is where we are. The only way it is going to be 
better is if we use restraint. I just hope colleagues and staffs are 
listening and that tomorrow restraint is demonstrated. We don't need to 
vote on every one of these 93 amendments.
  The chairman and I will work diligently to try to clear amendments, 
to get agreement on amendments, to work through amendments that could 
be accepted. We ask our colleagues, we implore them to work with us 
tomorrow, to avoid this being an unpleasant and unproductive 
experience.
  Again, I thank the chairman and our colleagues who have worked 
cooperatively today to make progress.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee. He is exactly right. There are 
90-some amendments. I would hope most of them would not be called up, 
and I hope the balance will be voice voted, and maybe we will have a 
couple rollcall votes and finish at decent hour.
  I would like the Senate to conduct itself in a way that we would be 
proud. In years past that has not always been the case, when we are 
doing these rapid fire amendments.

                          ____________________