[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7465-7479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
are making good progress. We only have a few amendments left. To give 
staff a chance to work out a couple of amendments--I thank my 
colleagues for working together with us on the amendments--I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 1:40.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 1:04 p.m., recessed until 
1:45 p.m., and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer (Mr. Hagel).
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 7466]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 403

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 403, offered by 
our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 403.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Friday, March 21, 2003, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is something we are all familiar 
with, except perhaps new Members. Back in the fifties, we had a program 
to replace some of the money that was taken away when land was taken 
off the tax rolls. It is called impact aid.
  Over the years, people started taking money out of this program. It 
is an easy place to grab money. It has gotten down to 40 percent 
funding. We are now up to 70 percent. The current legislation would 
leave it at 70 percent. This amendment will increase it by $112 
billion, bringing it up to $1.3 billion, 76 percent. That keeps us on 
track to have it fully funded 5 more years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, maybe my ears deceived me. I heard the 
Senator say $112 billion. My reading on the amendment is $112 million.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is what I said.
  Mr. CONRAD. I heard the Senator say $112 billion.
  Mr. INHOFE. We are used to using the B's around here. It is $112 
million.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. My further understanding is this is 
funded by an across-the-board cut in all other functions.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is right.
  Mr. CONRAD. So there are no new discretionary funds available through 
this amendment. With that understanding, there is no objection on this 
side to the Senator's amendment. He is quite correct that impact aid is 
underfunded, and it is important to virtually all our States and all 
our communities.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. I ask for the adoption of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I encourage our colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 403) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The senior assistant bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I believe the Senator from Alaska has 
an amendment to send to the desk.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, we have been negotiating for some time, 
trying to resolve two or three amendments. I think we have done that.
  I thank Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, Senator Durbin, and 
Senator Landrieu because I think they have cooperated. They came up 
with amendments I think all of us can be supportive of.
  I ask on this amendment, and this amendment alone, there be 4 minutes 
equally divided so all the principal players can have a moment to speak 
on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 429

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Warner, and Senator Chambliss, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Chambliss, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 429.

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

 (Purpose: Provide additional pay and benefits for active duty, guard, 
 and reserve forces, such as augmenting Imminent Danger Pay and Family 
Separation Allowance, and for modernization of equipment, weapons, and 
 technology needs of the National Guard and Reserves in recognition of 
 those currently involved in conflict operations and the need of their 
                      family members left behind)

       On page 8, line 23, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 8, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 46, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 46, line 21, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $3,000,000,000.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Stabenow and Senator Lincoln be added as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank my colleagues and particularly 
Senator Durbin for his work in working out this amendment. It is for 
the Guard and Reserve units that have been called up.
  This amendment is crucial. It is important that we adopt it for a 
number of reasons. No. 1, from 1945 to 1990, a period of 45 years, our 
Guard and Reserve units were called up four times. In the last 13 years 
they have been called up eight times. They represent a growing and 
necessary component of our force protection for our Nation, both abroad 
and at home.
  Unfortunately, our commitment to their budget has not kept up with 
the contributions they are making. This amendment attempts to begin to 
fill that gap.
  I submit for the Record, because this is a $1 billion amendment, a 
list of equipment needs that could be provided by this amendment. I 
suggest the $1 billion could be for this or something comparable to it. 
I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 7467]]



                                  STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT, WEAPONS, AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Service                                      System                                                      Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Reserve.................  WC-130J Radar--Upgrades Reserve Radar to              $50,000,000.
                                     specifications needed by Active forces.
Air Force Reserve.................  F-16 LITENING II AT Upgrade Modification--Provides    $16,200,000.
                                     Reserve Tactical Fighters with same radar upgrades
                                     as active forces; reserve fighters flying same
                                     missions.
Air Force Reserve.................  F-16 LITENING II AT Pod Procurement--Provides         $14,400,000.
                                     Reserve Tactical Fighters with same radar upgrades
                                     as active forces; reserve fighters flying same
                                     missions.
Air Force Reserve.................  A-10 TARGETING PODS--Provides Reserve Tactical        $48,000,000.
                                     Fighters with same radar upgrades as active forces;
                                     reserve fighters flying same missions.
Air Force Reserve.................  B-52 TARGETING PODS--Provides Reserve B-52s with      $4,800,000.
                                     same radar upgrades as active B-52s; performing
                                     same missions.
Air Force Reserve.................  TACTICAL RADIOS--Provides radio upgrades for          $14,900,000.
                                     interoperability with active forces.
Air Force Reserve.................  LAND MOBILE RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE....................  $12,000,000.
      Total.......................  ....................................................  $160,300,000.
Navy Reserve......................  VAW-78; EC-2 Squadron--Funding Prohibits              $10,160,000; Allen/Warner.
                                     decommissioning in FY05 of this currently deployed
                                     unit.
Navy Reserve......................  VFA-203; F/A-18 Squadron--Funding Prohibits           $20,110,000; Chambliss/Miller.
                                     decommissioning in FY04 of this currently deployed
                                     unit.
Navy Reserve......................  Littoral Surveillance System--Procures one            $14,500,000; Lott/Cochran/Specter/Santorum.
                                     additional system to upgrade port surveillance by
                                     Navy Reserve.
Navy Reserve......................  F/A 18 Advanced Targeting FLIR--Procures radars for   $14,700,000; Bond/Talent.
                                     5 squadrons to make compatible with Active Navy.
Navy Reserve......................  P-3 Aircraft Improvement Program (AIP)--Would         $29,700,000; Snowe/Collins.
                                     upgrade 28 of 42 Reserve P3s to have same
                                     capabilities as Actives; AIP allows P-3s to better
                                     operate against surface combatants and improve
                                     surveillance and targeting.
Navy Reserve......................  P-3 Block Modification Upgrade Program (BMUP)--       $33,000,000; Snowe/Collins.
                                     Brings all Reserve P-3s into compliance with each
                                     other, not Actives--gives all Reserve P-3s similar
                                     computers and acoustics sensors.
Navy Reserve......................  F/A 18 ECP 560 Precision Guided Munitions Upgrade--   $33,240,000; Kyl; McCain.
                                     Provides 1 Reserve F/A Squadron with precision
                                     guided munitions similar to Active F-18s.
Navy Reserve......................  CBR-D Equipment Storage and Logistics--Funds          $8,000,000.
                                     shortfall of 10,000 bio-chem suits for Navy
                                     Reservists.
      Total.......................  ....................................................  $163,410,000.
Army Reserve......................  High Frequency Radios (Interoperability for Special   $57,138,816.
                                     Ops Reservists).
Army Reserve......................  M-4 Rifles..........................................  $1,200,000.
Army Reserve......................  M-16 Rifles.........................................  $1,200,000.
Army Reserve......................  Tactical Electrical Power (5-60KW) TQG..............  $5,404,000.
Army Reserve......................  Tactical Electrical Power (3KW) TQG.................  $3,000,000.
Army Reserve......................  Truck Tractor Line Haul.............................  $12,420,000.
Army Reserve......................  Improved Ribbon Bridge..............................  $22,400,000.
Army Reserve......................  Truck Cargo PLS 10X10 M1075 (T40999)................  $6,936,000.
Army Reserve......................  Trailer PLS 8X20 M1075 (T93761).....................  $1,320,000.
Army Reserve......................  Spreader Bituminous Module PLS 2500 Gal. (S13546)...  $2,080,000.
Army Reserve......................  Mixer Concrete......................................  $1,375,000
Army Reserve......................  Dump Body Module....................................  $3,496,000
Army Reserve......................  Engineer Mission Module Water Distributor...........  $9,630,000
Army Reserve......................  Airborne/Air Assault Scraper (S30039)...............  $7,575,000
Army Reserve......................  Distributor Water Self-Propelled 2500 Gal...........  $2,970,000
Army Reserve......................  Truck Transporter Common Bridge (CBT) (T91308)......  $8,360,000
Army Reserve......................  Truck Dump 20 Ton...................................  $7,215,000
Army Reserve......................  Generator Smoke Mechanical..........................  $11,667,600
Army Reserve......................  Tent Expandable Modular (Surgical)..................  $729,000
      Total.......................  ....................................................  $166,116,416.
Army Nat'l Guard..................  Black Hawk Helicopters..............................  $223,200,000; Santorum, Specter, Chambliss, Ensign, Frist,
                                                                                           Alexander.
Army Nat'l Guard..................  SINCGARS (Radio Systems)............................  $34,900,000.
Air Nat'l Guard...................  F-16 Targeting Pods.................................  $35,100,000; Talent/Bond.
Air Nat'l Guard...................  A-10 Targeting Pods.................................  $70,200,000.
Air Nat'l Guard...................  C-130H2 AN/APN-241 Radar............................  $24,500,000.
Air Nat'l Guard...................  F-15 AIFF/IFF (Data Link Systems)...................  $31,300,000; Smith (OR), Talent, Bond.
Air Nat'l Guard...................  F-15 220E Engine Kits...............................  $98,000,000 Smith, Talent, Bond.
      Total.......................  ....................................................  $517,200,000.
Marine Corps Reserve..............  Reserve Training Center Vehicle Maintenance           $8,000,000; Sessions/Shelby.
                                     Facility, Mobile, AL.
Marine Corps Reserve..............  Reserve Tank Maintenance Facility, Columbia, South    $3,800,000; Graham (SC).
                                     Carolina.
Marine Corps Reserve..............  Reserve Training Center Vehicle Maintenance           $8,100,000; Dole.
                                     Facility, Camp Lejeune, NC.
Marine Corps Reserve..............  Uniform and Equipment needs.........................  $13,200,000.
Marine Corps Reserve..............  Weapons System Repairs..............................  $7,300,000.
      Total.......................  ....................................................  $40,400,000.
      Grand Total.................  ....................................................  $1,047,426,416.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. LANDRIEU. This amendment is supporting the Guard and Reserve for 
equipment, as well as for pay and compensation, and Senator Durbin will 
explain the second part of this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my cosponsors, Senators 
Mikulski, Dayton, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, and Feingold.
  What we are seeking to do here is to raise combat pay, the imminent 
danger pay for those who are serving overseas. It will be raised from 
$150 a month to at least $250 a month, and to increase the family 
separation allowance from currently $100 a month to at least $250 a 
month.
  Senator Warner was generous enough to talk about $3 billion here, 
which will accommodate the needs for the Guard and Reserve that Senator 
Landrieu has raised and also bring the combat pay and separation 
allowance figures up to where they should be. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished managers of the bill and our 
two colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think this is an 
amendment each Senator not only can but should vote for. I hope we get 
100 votes because it is a consensus across the aisle about the imminent 
needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces, indeed the Guard and 
Reserve which in historic numbers have rallied to the call to serve 
side by side with the Active Force in the conflict, not only in Iraq 
but also elsewhere in the world.
  I strongly support it and yield the remainder of my time to my 
colleague from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I, too, thank my colleagues, Senators 
Warner, Landrieu, and Durbin for their strong leadership on this issue. 
We now have a significant number of Guard and Reserve personnel who are 
in harm's way, protecting freedom and democracy. It is only right that 
we address some shortfalls in the way in which these folks are 
compensated.
  In addition to that, we have provided within this budget number for 
the ability of the authorizing committees to come back and purchase 
needed equipment from a hardware perspective, as well as to look after 
the families of our brave guardsmen and reservists.
  I think this is a good amendment. I echo what Senator Warner said. I 
hope we get 100 votes so we can send the right message to all our Guard 
and Reserve and Active duty personnel that we are concerned about them 
and we want to make sure we treat them fairly and equitably. This does 
so.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kennedy as an 
original cosponsor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 429.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.

[[Page 7468]]

  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 429) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, for the information of our colleagues, 
we are making good progress. I again thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation in working out the last two or three amendments.
  I now call upon the Senator from Alaska to introduce an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 430

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 430.

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

         On page 45, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $47,904,000,000.
         On page 46, line 1, increase the amount by 
     $18,768,000,000.

  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold for a moment.
  I think it would be wise for us to get in place an agreement on the 
amendment that would either be in the second degree or be side by side 
at this moment so that that is prepared at the end of the presentation 
of the Senator from Alaska. Otherwise, the second-degree amendment 
would be offered. I think it would be better if we did not do it that 
way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
disposition of the Murkowski amendment, Senator Conrad or his designee 
be allowed to introduce a sense of the Senate relative to the Murkowski 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the current budget resolution assumes 
the growth package will immediately raise the $600 child tax credit to 
$1,000. My amendment is going to require that the growth package extend 
that $1,000 child credit until the year 2013. The child credit is 
currently $600, and it is scheduled to go up to $1,000 in 2010. The 
problem we have with this, however, is that in the year 2011, you are 
going to have a child credit of $1,000. But the following year, that is 
going to drop in half to $500. In other words, families with two 
children will face a $1,000 tax increase in the year 2011. A family of 
three is going to face a tax increase of $1,500. I don't think any of 
us would suggest that is fair. This is to help the families, 
particularly in times when we have some economic difficulties. This is 
an amendment that will help America's families.
  I urge Members' support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me just say to my colleagues, the 
amendment of the Senator from Alaska has nothing to do with the child 
tax credit--zero. The amendment increases the tax cut by $47.9 billion 
and increases the instruction to the Finance Committee for outlays of 
$18.8 billion. It has nothing whatever to do with the child tax credit 
because the budget resolution does not make those decisions, as the 
chairman has indicated over and over.
  There will be a subsequent amendment by the Senator from Arkansas 
that will make clear there is plenty of room in the underlying tax cut 
to accommodate the child tax credit the Senator from Alaska is 
advocating. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this increase to the tax 
cut.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment 
and subsequent amendments be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 430.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 430) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe there is a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment that is going to be offered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas for the purpose of offering another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 431

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 431.

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

[[Page 7469]]



 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding extending the 
      $1,000 child credit for three additional years (2011-2013))

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE $1,000 CHILD CREDIT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that extending the $1,000 
     child credit for three additional years (2011-2013) can be 
     accommodated within the revenue totals and instructions of 
     this resolution.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Alaska 
for the intent of the previous amendment. Many of us in this body have 
children. We understand what it takes to raise our children. Across 
this country, we want to provide all families, all parents the ability 
to do as much as they possibly can for their children. I again 
compliment the Senator from Alaska for the intent of her amendment.
  My amendment expresses that it is the sense of the Senate that we 
should extend the refundable child credit for 3 years and that this can 
be accommodated within the revenue totals in the resolution as it 
currently exists.
  As the Senator from Oklahoma has said several times during this 
debate, we cannot write the tax cut on the budget resolution. The 
previous amendment was simply an attempt to increase the size of the 
tax cut, nothing more, nothing less.
  Although the intent of the amendment of the Senator from Alaska I 
think was good, I do think it is important that we make sure this tax 
cut actually goes in the child credit and we understand that the money 
already exists to do it. I ask for my colleagues' support of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate. 
It may provide political cover--I compliment my colleague from Alaska 
for her effort to help American families--but this is a sense of the 
Senate, so it does not change any revenue numbers. It may give 
political cover.
  I have no objection to this amendment. I hope we accept it by a voice 
vote. Almost all of the sense-of-the-Senate amendments have been 
accepted by voice vote. Regardless, I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment and provide ample political cover for our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 431. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Santorum
       
  The amendment (No. 431) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
are very close to finishing. I expect we will have a vote on final 
passage in probably about 10 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Michigan has a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 407

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 407.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr. 
     Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
     Kohl, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 407.

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

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the final budget 
conference agreement should not take or propose any actions that reduce 
    the level of funding provided for domestic nutrition assistance 
  programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture below current 
               baseline spending levels for the programs)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR DOMESTIC 
                   NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture--
       (A) have a long history of bipartisan support;
       (B) have an accomplished record of preventing health 
     problems for children and promoting the health, growth, and 
     development of children;
       (C) provide United States agricultural producers and food 
     manufacturers with important and substantial markets through 
     which they can obtain and sustain livelihoods; and
       (D) are due to be reauthorized and improved during the 
     108th Congress; and
       (2) the budget proposed by the President for fiscal year 
     2004--
       (A) maintains current levels of funding for child 
     nutrition;
       (B) extends and improves nutrition assistance programs, 
     including--
       (i) the school breakfast program established by section 4 
     of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773);
       (ii) the school lunch program established under the Richard 
     B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et 
     seq.); and
       (iii) the child and adult care food program established 
     under the section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National 
     School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766); and
       (C) renews and fully funds the special supplemental 
     nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
     established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 
     (42 U.S.C. 1786).
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the final budget conference agreement should not take or 
     propose any actions that reduce the level of funding provided 
     for domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture below current baseline spending 
     levels for the programs.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate 
declaring that there will be no cuts to important domestic nutrition 
programs in this year's budget. I am very pleased to have letters of 
support from the American School Food Services Association and a number 
of other nutrition organizations. This is a bipartisan amendment 
cosponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, Harkin, Leahy, Johnson, Murray, 
Dayton, Kohl, Corzine, Jack Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Dodd, and Wyden.
  Our concern is that the House budget resolution will cut child 
nutrition funding by an estimated $5.9 billion. These cuts would have a 
devastating impact on important child nutrition programs such as the 
School Lunch Program, breakfast programs, child and adult care feeding 
programs, and WIC.
  We, in the Senate, have a long tradition of working together in a 
bipartisan way on nutrition programs. I hope we can adopt this sense of 
the Senate and, once more, show that we are very supportive that 
reauthorization of child nutrition programs is one of the Agriculture 
Committee's top priorities this year.

[[Page 7470]]

  Frankly, Mr. President, we need more funding for child nutrition, not 
less. I ask for the Senate's support.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Ms. Stabenow and my 
other colleagues today in offering this amendment to express the sense 
of the Senate that the final conference agreement on the budget 
resolution should not reduce funding for domestic nutrition programs 
below the current baseline levels. The reconciliation instructions 
included in the House Budget Resolution to cut mandatory funding in the 
areas of domestic nutrition assistance would be devastating to the 
children and families who count on these programs to meet their daily 
food needs. In these difficult economic times, we must not put the 
basic needs of low-income Americans--particularly children--on the 
chopping block in order to make room for an ill-advised tax cut package 
this country cannot afford. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe we adequately take care of many 
of the functions that our colleague from Michigan mentioned in her 
statement. We have no objection to accepting her amendment by a voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 407) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the majority leader 
for comments about the former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
who did such a superb job over so many years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I take this opportunity, before we enter 
into the final vote on the resolution, to congratulate the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, first, on bringing before this 
Chamber a budget resolution, and for the last 7 days of his very 
diligent work. My thanks to him and his staff for the long hours of 
hard work and their dedication.
  I also thank the ranking member, Senator Kent Conrad, for his 
cooperation here on the floor, as well as that of the Democratic 
assistant minority leader and the minority leader. We have not agreed 
on many issues over the last several days, but it has, nonetheless, 
been a respectful debate. And I think the will of the Senate will have 
spoken in a sound way when we adopt this resolution today.
  I will have more to say about the resolution after adoption, but I 
did want to take just a few moments to pay tribute to the former 
chairman and former ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, 
Senator Pete Domenici.
  For many in this Chamber who have been through the budget wars over 
the last nearly three decades, it has been a little strange over the 
last 7 days not to see the senior Senator from New Mexico right here 
and down in the well managing this resolution. But I also know he 
trained his successor--and all of us--well, and we have all benefited 
from his counsel and guidance.
  With the start of this Congress, Senator Domenici stepped down as the 
longest serving chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I should note, 
under our conference rules, he could have served as chairman of the 
Budget Committee but chose, rather, to pursue another of his passions, 
energy policy. He gave up the chairmanship of Budget to take on another 
with the Energy Committee. I know he will devote his extensive talents 
and energies to help the country craft a sensible and reliable energy 
policy, as much as he devoted them to the process over the last 28 
years in the field of the budget. Both remain major challenges.
  Senator Domenici has been a member of the Budget Committee since 
1975--1 year after it was created with the enactment of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. History will also 
show that shortly after his first coming to this Chamber in 1972, he 
and a group of other Senators, including the very distinguished Senator 
Bob Byrd of West Virginia, saw a need to put some order into what was 
then an even more chaotic budget and appropriations process. Indeed, it 
was through this freshman Senator Pete Domenici's efforts and prodding 
that the Budget Act became a reality.
  Until Senator Nickles took over the reins in January, Senator 
Domenici had been the only Republican chairman in the committee's 
history, holding that position for 12\1/2\ years, and the ranking 
member position for 9 years. Over 21 years--three-quarters of the 
committee's history--Senator Domenici has been at the forefront of 
setting and guiding fiscal policy in this country.
  I am proud to say, in my first 8 years in this body, I had the honor 
to call Senator Domenici my chairman, as I served on that committee, 
learning the complexities of the Federal budget.
  Senator Domenici has always been known for his tireless devotion to 
the budget process, his ability to patch together coalitions, and even 
a moodiness on fiscal policy that led another majority leader from 
Tennessee, Howard Baker, to dub his good friend Senator Domenici as the 
``Hamlet of the Senate'' in the 1980s.
  What has been accomplished under his leadership? Over the period, 
Senator Domenici has participated in the adoption of 26 concurrent 
budget resolutions, 27 Senate-passed budget resolutions, 26 committee-
reported budget resolutions, and 17 major budget reconciliation bills. 
Conservatively, we estimate that he has taken over 1,000 votes on the 
Senate floor during the budget debates, and countless additional votes 
on motions to waive the Budget Act when enforcing the budgets he helped 
to craft.
  He has been at the center of all debates and legislation to modify 
the Budget Act over the years, with the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985, better known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 
Act. When differences between the Senate, House, and President seemed 
to doom the budget process, he took the Senate lead in putting it back 
on track with its major budget summits in 1987, 1990, and, of course, 
the 1997 historic bipartisan balanced budget agreement.
  Many of these agreements were not always popular, even with some of 
his fellow Republicans. But he has always--always--stood on principle 
and what he thought was best for the country at the time. Those 
principles and convictions to sound public policy have been evident in 
this debate on this resolution, specifically related to ANWR and the 
Federal energy policy in this country.
  Despite the impressive record on the budget, the one statistic no one 
will ever challenge in the Senate's entire history, and the one 
statistic he is probably most proud of, is the fact that in 1986, while 
serving as a Senator, Senator Domenici had seven children in college 
and graduate school at one time. This son of an Italian immigrant 
grocer has always been devoted to his family through the good and the 
tough times. His wife Nancy has been loving support and inspiration to 
her husband throughout their 45 years of marriage. But I also know that 
Nancy, in her own right, has been a dedicated public servant, working 
to improve health care throughout the country, and particularly in New 
Mexico.
  So, Mr. President, I did not want this occasion to pass, as we are 
about to complete another budget resolution, without paying tribute to 
the former chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee for his 
years of service and devotion to this process, to his family, to his 
State, and to his country.
  Thank you, Senator Domenici.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, momentarily we will be voting on final 
passage. We have a couple of additional things to do.
  I believe we are trying to work out a McConnell sense of the Senate. 
That will take just a moment. And then we will be voting in just a few 
minutes.
  I also wish to join the majority leader in complimenting Senator 
Domenici

[[Page 7471]]

for his many years of service, either as chairman or ranking member of 
this committee. I have a much greater appreciation for its challenges. 
He passed resolutions when we had a majority and minority, even when we 
were 50-50. My compliments to him. He is ``Mr. Budget'' as far as I am 
concerned. Plus, as evidenced in some of the debates, he proved that he 
knows this act unlike any other on the floor.
  So I thank our friend and colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 432

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
on behalf of Senator McConnell to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 432:

(Purpose: To provide for future consideration of a possible free trade 
                   agreement with the United Kingdom)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``It is the Sense of the Senate that the President should 
     negotiate a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been said that the United States 
and the United Kingdom are a common people separated by a common 
language. But we also share a unique cause for freedom, and to preserve 
that we should also share a common market.
  Today I am offering an amendment that ensures that our economies 
become as integrated as the other common causes that we share. The 
amendment will provide for a Free Trade Agreement to be negotiated 
between the United States and United Kingdom similar to the North 
America Free Trade Agreement.
  Specifically, this amendment will create room in the budget for 
Congress to consider, and the President to successfully negotiate with, 
the United Kingdom for a Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
  The world is witnessing once again the unique brotherhood of freedom 
and the special bond between America and United Kingdom. Those who know 
and enjoy the benefits of freedom are willing to join together and pay 
freedom's price. With so much at stake, America and United Kingdom 
should do all we can to ensure our common cause stays strong for the 
benefit of generations to come. With this United Kingdom--United States 
Free Trade amendment, our mutual bond will only become stronger.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will agree with 
this. We can agree with it by voice vote. It is a sense of the Senate 
that we should negotiate a free trade agreement with the United 
Kingdom. The United Kingdom has proved to be a very valuable ally, 
certainly in this latest conflict, but they have been for a long time. 
I compliment Prime Minister Blair and his leadership team and 
compliment Senator McConnell for his amendment and also thank the 
cooperation of the staff of the Finance Committee for working with us 
to make this an acceptable resolution. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 432) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I had to 
oppose Senator Corzine's amendment to increase funding for 
environmental and natural resource programs in the budget resolution.
  Let me be clear that I fully support the goals of Senator Corzine's 
amendment. While it is true that we are facing a tight budget 
situation, protecting our environment and the health and well-being of 
our citizens should remain a top priority. That includes setting aside 
adequate funding for programs such as the Superfund and Brownfields 
programs.
  But I was forced to vote against Senator Corzine's amendment because 
of another concern. My concern with mounting deficits. The budget 
resolution brought before us includes tax cuts that total $1.3 
trillion. The budget also proposes that $725 billion of these tax cuts 
be enacted immediately, under the reconciliation process.
  Two years ago, we passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut. I supported that 
tax cut. But those were different times. We had a surplus. We did not 
foresee the significant decline in revenues. Or the deficits that 
followed.
  This is not the time to reduce revenues by $725 billion. It would 
hurt our budget and our economy.
  Why is $725 billion in tax cuts inappropriate at this time? The most 
crucial problem is that it is not paid for. The budget resolution 
brought before us forecasts enormous deficits for almost the next 
decade. Reducing revenues by $725 billion adds to the already mounting 
deficits. In order to prevent the passage of tax cuts that would drive 
up the deficit and hurt our economy, I believe that we must reduce the 
size of this tax cut.
  I joined three of my colleagues in a letter that laid out these 
concerns--we pledged that we would not agree to tax cuts above $350 
billion. This is crucial. The Budget Committee approved $725 billion in 
tax cuts, and brought it to the Senate floor. Along with my colleagues, 
I promised to vote to bring this number down by $375 billion.
  In a narrowly divided Senate, it is important that both parties work 
together to come up with the appropriate spending and revenue targets 
for the budget. That is why I worked with both Democrats and 
Republicans. Together, we came up with a target of $350 billion for 
this tax cut, and we agreed that we would all stick to that number.
  As part of our commitment to try to reduce the size of the tax cut 
approved by the Budget Committee, we also agreed that we would not try 
to reduce the size of the tax cut below $350 billion. That means I am 
forced to make difficult decisions. In order to keep my commitment to a 
more responsible tax cut, I have to vote against funding priorities.
  During tough times, we must make tough choices. I chose to commit to 
a responsible tax cut. A tax cut that will prevent worsening deficits 
that would hurt our economy.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal 
year 2004 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 23.
  Although I believe this budget, as amended on the floor of the 
Senate, is better than the resolution passed by the Budget Committee, 
it is still fiscally irresponsible, and I cannot support it at this 
time.
  This budget, if passed, would increase the fiscal year 2004 budget 
deficit by $138 billion above the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
baseline, to $338 billion. This does not include the cost of the war or 
the reconstruction of Iraq, which is likely to push the budget deficit 
above $400 billion.
  The resolution contains a $350 billion tax cut which we cannot 
afford, and which would be financed entirely through deficit spending.
  The resolution does not adequately address numerous domestic spending 
priorities, such as education and homeland security.
  Despite having been amended to reduce the size of the tax cut from 
$726 billion to $350 billion, this budget would still add more than 
$1.3 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years when interest 
costs are included.
  Our budget deficit this year alone is likely to surpass $400 billion, 
even before the new tax cuts proposed in this budget go into effect. 
While the administration pushes for new tax cuts, our fiscal situation 
continues to deteriorate.
  Just last night, CBO released a report that indicates that even with 
no

[[Page 7472]]

changes in tax law, the Government will take in $30 billion less in 
2003, and $60 billion less between 2004 and 2008.
  In the same report, CBO estimated that the President's tax cut 
package would have at most a small stimulative effect on economic 
growth, and might not increase growth at all.
  While the effect this budget will have on the economy is uncertain, 
we can be certain that it will increase our debt. In fact, net public 
debt will exceed $5 trillion by the end of the decade, and interest 
payments on the debt will double over the next 10 years, from $155 
billion this year to $310 billion in 2013.
  Only at the very end of the 10-year budget period, and under the most 
optimistic scenario, would we return to surplus.
  There is an urgent need to fund many priorities which are not dealt 
with in this budget, and those needs are not likely to disappear over 
the next decade.
  Those priorities include, among others: The war in Iraq and the 
subsequent reconstruction of Iraq, the President's No Child Left Behind 
education initiative, homeland security, and a full prescription drug 
benefit in Medicare.
  Thanks to the success of an amendment offered by Senator Feingold, 
the budget does include a $100 billion war reserve fund to be used to 
cover the cost of the war in Iraq. The reserve fund is not paid for, 
however, and will increase the deficit substantially in fiscal years 
2003 and 2004.
  Moreover, the ultimate costs of the war and postwar reconstruction 
are still unknown, and could be substantially higher than $100 billion.
  With regard to domestic spending, the limits set out in this budget 
are extremely low. The President's No Child Left Behind initiative 
would go largely unfunded, and funding for homeland security is not 
adequate to meet the security needs of cities, towns, and counties 
across the country.
  Many priorities that are important to Californians are either cut or 
eliminated altogether, most notably funding for the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program. If that program is eliminated, the burden of 
processing and incarcerating criminal aliens will fall entirely on 
thinly stretched State law enforcement budgets.
  I believe that bipartisan cooperation is crucial to the Federal 
budget process, and such cooperation requires both sides to forgo 
certain new spending initiatives and new tax cuts.
  In an attempt to bridge the gap, I cosponsored a bipartisan amendment 
offered with Senators Carper, Chafee, Lincoln, and Landrieu.
  Unlike the final resolution being voted on today, our substitute 
budget included significant tax relief for low- and middle-income 
families that is paid for over a 10-year period by freezing future tax 
cuts for taxpayers in the two highest income tax brackets.
  That budget would have balanced the budget in 2009, 3 years before 
the underlying resolution.
  That budget would have required tough choices with regard to 
discretionary spending, but it would have been entirely revenue neutral 
over the 10-year budget period and would not have added any new debt 
whatsoever.
  When faced with the choice between supporting a bad budget and no 
budget at all, I must choose the latter.
  I support a budget which faces our fiscal needs head on, even when an 
economic downturn forces us to make tough choices, and which resists 
the temptation to further increase the debt burden on future 
generations of taxpayers. Mr. President, this is not that budget.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the fiscal year 2004 budget 
resolution.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is sadly ironic that at the same time 
we are asking our young people to fight a war for our security, 
Republicans are passing a budget that will force those same young 
people to pay the bill for the reckless fiscal policies of this 
administration and the Republican Congress. Democrats are proud that we 
were able to make an irresponsible budget a little less irresponsible. 
But by showering the most privileged among us with hundreds of billions 
of dollars in tax breaks and running up more than a trillion dollars in 
debt, this amended budget still poses a serious threat to the long-term 
economic well-being of the Nation.
  Month after month, more American families are suffering from the 
failure of this administration's irresponsible economic strategy. With 
the economy hemorrhaging jobs from every sector, an increasing number 
of Americans are losing faith that they will ever find a job. With this 
budget, Republicans have turned their backs on the problems of American 
families. Instead of offering new ideas and fresh solutions, the 
administration continues to push a tired ideology that has turned our 
economy into a job-destroying machine. This budget will hang more than 
a trillion dollars of debt around the necks of our children and 
grandchildren. They will be paying for this mistake for decades to 
come. The President's own chief economist, in his academic writings, 
agrees that the chronic deficits perpetuated by this budget will raise 
interest rates and cut off economic growth for the future.
  And though all Americans' thoughts are with our armed forces today, I 
would ask that they take a moment to ask, why is this Republican 
Congress saddling our children with record-breaking deficits and 
massive debt? It's not to fund the war or the rebuilding of Iraq that 
will follow.
  It is not to honor our men and women in uniform. Republicans voted 
against funding for health care for reservists.
  It is not to strengthen our homeland defense. Republicans continue to 
shortchange the police and firefighters who need our help to prevent or 
respond to a terrorist attack in their own communities, and continue to 
oppose funding to better secure our borders, ports, and vulnerable 
infrastructure.
  It is not to get our economy moving again. Like the President's 
budget, the Republican resolution before us contains very little to 
stimulate the economy now.
  This budget is not about meeting the challenges of the moment or the 
future. Its focus is on more new tax breaks for the very wealthy at the 
expense of everyone else. At the expense of deep cuts in domestic 
priorities. At the expense of record deficits that will be imposed on 
our children and grandchildren.
  Democrats have been able to restore a small measure of sanity to this 
budget. And we are going to keep fighting to make sure that 
government's resources are used responsibly to meet the fundamental 
needs of our country. We are going to keep fighting to get our economy 
moving today with a broad-based tax cut that stimulates job creation; 
to fund homeland security; to provide a real Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, and to honor our commitment to our students and teachers. This 
is not a time to shrink from our responsibilities to one another.
  We need to meet the test of this demanding moment in our history. 
This Congress should be producing a fiscally responsible budget that 
reflects the very best of our Nation, the spirit that our soldiers 
exemplify, the spirit of honor, community and duty in the service of a 
better future for us all.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are now coming to an end in our debate 
on this year's budget resolution.
  I congratulate the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator 
Nickles for producing this resolution and reporting it from his 
committee in an expedited manner. We are doing the Nation's business on 
time.
  I know that this resolution has put extraordinary pressure on the 
committee and floor staff, and I want them to all know my appreciation 
for their long hours of work. We are not done, but we will take a major 
step forward with the passage of this resolution today.
  I also want to thank the ranking member, Senator Conrad, who, while 
certainly not supporting this resolution, did cooperate in the 
scheduling of this resolution both in the committee and here on the 
floor.
  Having been a member of the Budget Committee my first 8 years here in 
the Senate, I know how difficult it is to craft a budget resolution.
  These are challenging times for our great country--certainly 
challenging on the international front and equally

[[Page 7473]]

as challenging in setting a fiscal path for the future. Clearly how the 
war unfolds with Iraq can impact our economic outlook. But as we move 
forward on this budget resolution, we are also confronted with longer-
term challenges of slow economic growth and the increasing demands of 
an aging population.
  In the near term we will provide whatever resources are necessary to 
our troops in Iraq to bring that conflict to a quick, expeditious, and 
victorious end. I also believe that the completion of that conflict and 
the liberation of the Iraqi people from its dictator will not only 
provide freedom and economic growth for that country but also lift this 
cloud of uncertainty that has hung over our economy and depressed 
investment, growth, and job creation here at home.
  For the long term, economic growth remains the key to an expanding 
economy. Real economic growth will provide the resources necessary to 
address the demographic changes that confront us both in the Social 
Security and Medicare programs. We should never forget that for these 
two programs, it is not the size of their trust fund that matters, it 
is the size of the economy that matters.
  It is for this reason that the President's economic growth and job 
creation proposal is critical to setting a path toward future economic 
growth. I will continue to press for the largest growth package 
possible that will allow us to fully consider the growth legislation 
later this spring. But for now this is just the beginning, not the end 
of the process.
  S. Con. Res. 23, as amended, and before us today is a blueprint. It 
is the start of the process. Once adopted later today in the Senate and 
conferenced with the House, this budget blueprint will guide the fiscal 
policy for the remainder of this first session of the 108th Congress. 
Unfolding events over the next many months may require modifications to 
the resolution. I believe emergency provisions built into this 
resolution will allow it to be flexible and adjust to changing events.
  The failure of the last Congress to even consider here in the Senate 
chamber a budget resolution undermined the budget process and created 
significant problems. The failure to even consider a budget left the 
process in shambles and resulted in the failure to complete action on 
11 of 13 annual must-do appropriations bills.
  We all know the result. Less than 6 weeks ago, with one-quarter of 
this fiscal year already over, we finally passed an omnibus spending 
bill for FY 2003.
  We must not repeat that mistake of the last Congress. We must pass a 
budget resolution and then get on with the business of enacting 
legislation that follows the budget's outline.
  Beyond making it possible for considering an economic growth package 
later this spring, this resolution will provide resources requested by 
the President to win the war on terrorism, to protect the homeland, to 
modernize the Medicare program with a prescription drug benefit, 
increase funding for both IDEA and Title 1 education programs, increase 
veterans health funding, and provide over $450 million next year for 
global AIDS programs.
  Equally as important this resolution reinstates the tools we need 
here in the Senate to provide fiscal discipline. It establishes 
discretionary spending caps for this year and the next two. It puts a 
limit on the budgetary gimmick of advance funding. It extends the 
discipline of pay-go beyond its expiration date of April 15, and it 
reestablishes the supermajority points of order against spending that 
is not truly emergency spending.
  Once again I congratulate the Chairman and the members of the Budget 
Committee on all their work that has brought us to this point. We will 
pass a budget and the legislative, budget and appropriation process 
will go forth as it should.


            local health emergency reimbursement act of 2003

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to briefly 
address a health care issue of great importance to Arizona, all other 
southwest border States, and numerous other States. Hospitals in 
Arizona and throughout the country incur uncompensated costs of over 
$1.5 billion annually to provide federally mandated emergency health 
treatment to undocumented immigrants.
  MTG Corporation, a Texas-based firm, and the Border Counties 
Coalition, through a congressionally directed study, determined that 
the 24 counties along the Southwest border alone incur unreimbursed 
costs of over $200 million per year to provide emergency health 
treatment to undocumented aliens. Based on these estimates, MTG 
Corporation has concluded that nationwide hospitals, ambulances and 
other providers incur costs of over $1.5 billion per year.
  Arizona, as an example, is indicative of the problems that all States 
and their providers are facing. The cost to Arizona and its providers 
for providing these services might well be close to $200 million. These 
unreimbursed costs, and other health-related issues, have put hospitals 
around the country in a state of dire fiscal emergency. As a result of 
these costs, many doctors are simply choosing to practice medicine in 
such a way that they do not have to provide emergency room treatment--
in Phoenix, AZ, depending on the time of day, if you have a specific 
emergency a specialty doctor might not be available to treat you. Some 
emergency rooms have closed, or are in danger of having to close, their 
emergency rooms either temporarily or permanently because of these 
costs.
  I have introduced legislation, along with Senators McCain, Feinstein, 
Domenici, Cornyn, Hutchison, Clinton, and Schumer to provide $1.45 
billion in funding annually to reimburse providers for these federally 
mandated, but uncompensated, costs.
  It is my understanding that there are resources in the budget for the 
Finance Committee to consider a measure to provide reimbursement 
funding for health providers that currently provide federally mandated, 
but uncompensated, emergency medical treatment to undocumented aliens, 
be it in the Finance Committee allocation, its reserve fund for the 
uninsured, or any other appropriate funding stream.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct. I appreciate the important information 
that Senator Kyl has brought to the attention of the Senate, and I will 
work with Senator Kyl and other interested Members to address this 
issue.
  Mr. KYL. I would ask the Finance Committee, in its consideration of 
legislation dealing with welfare reform, Medicaid, and issues regarding 
uncompensated care, to work with me to provide for consideration of 
legislation to provide for this reimbursement funding.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will work with both Senators and other interested 
Members to provide for consideration of legislation to provide 
reimbursement to health providers who provide federally required, but 
uncompensated, emergency health treatment to undocumented aliens.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator for taking the time to help me clarify 
this important issue.


                          payment limitations

  Mr. COCHRAN. Can the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee 
offer me assurance that budget resolution agreement will leave policy 
decisions regarding payment limitations to be resolved by the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. NICKLES. I provide that assurance.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his cooperation.


                               superfund

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am in support of Senator Lautenberg's 
amendment to replenish the superfund trust fund, by reinstating the 
superfund taxes that expired in 1995. The trust fund is running 
dangerously low, and that is just not acceptable.
  As I've stated before, I remember very clearly when Congress debated 
the original superfund law, and I remember thinking what an incredible 
legacy Congress could leave the Nation by enacting that historic 
legislation.
  Seeing how successful superfund has been over the last 25 years, 
particularly in Libby, MT, reinforces my belief that we did the right 
thing for the people of this country when we created the superfund 
program.

[[Page 7474]]

  The superfund program brought millions of dollars to Montana for 
clean up activities, to protect the health and well being of Montana's 
citizens and create good paying jobs in the local communities left with 
a contaminated site. For example, more than $34 million has been spent 
in Libby alone in an effort to remove asbestos contamination caused by 
the now defunct WR Grace vermiculite mine, as well as to provide health 
screenings for Libby residents. Hundreds of millions have been spent in 
the Clark Fork basin to remedy decades of industrial pollution. 
Millions more will be spent to clean up the Berkeley Pit and other 
sites in the State.
  Some of this money will come from an identifiable, solvent 
responsible party, but much of it will not, as companies go out of 
business or declare bankruptcy. And, Montana is not alone. That is why 
maintaining the integrity of the superfund trust fund is so important.
  I'm extremely concerned that the more we fall behind in securing the 
funding necessary for clean-up activities at sites in Montana and 
around the country, the worse off we're going to be in future years. 
This has serious implications for the future stability of the superfund 
program.
  I don't believe it's fair to solve this problem by forcing the 
average taxpayer to pick up the tab for the clean up of toxic sites 
that were created by private entities, and which threaten our health 
and our children's health. That's why I strongly support reinstating 
the superfund tax, and why I support Senator Lautenberg's amendment.
  A Superfund designation is not a trivial event for the communities 
involved--it invokes real fear and uncertainty in people about the 
future, about the future economic health of their community, and about 
the future effects of any contamination on their health or their 
children's health. These communities cannot shoulder the immense burden 
of cleaning up highly contaminated sites by themselves, or forcing a 
responsible party to pay for the clean-up. The Federal Government is a 
necessary and important partner in this effort through the Superfund 
program.
  Superfund is a success; we should build on that success, not allow it 
to fall apart.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I express my strong opposition to a 
provision in the budget resolution that proposes to shift $1.4 billion 
in mandatory spending over the next 10 years from agricultural 
programs, budget function 350, to the Conservation Security Program, 
budget function 300, compared to projected mandatory spending under the 
Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction under current law. I am pleased 
that the budget resolution does not require the Agriculture Committee 
to report legislation reducing mandatory spending pursuant to a budget 
reconciliation instruction, nonetheless this proposal amounts to a 
policy recommendation that the Agriculture Committee shift spending 
away from agricultural programs and towards the Conservation Security 
Program.
  More importantly, as I understand it, the $1.4 billion in 
agricultural program savings is to be achieved by reducing farm support 
program payment limitations below those that were agreed to as part of 
the 2002 farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
FSRIA. Specifically, the proposal would reduce statutory payment 
limitations for farm program payments to producers of covered crops--
wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, and rice--from $40,000 to $20,000 
for direct payments and from $65,000 to $30,000 for counter-cyclical 
payments. In addition, the proposal would include certificate 
transactions and loan forfeitures under the marketing loan program's 
payment limitation.
  I oppose this proposal for a number of reasons. First, the FSRIA, 
enacted less than a year ago, has already reduced farm program payment 
limits compared to the 1995 farm bill. Second, the FSRIA, established a 
Commission on Application of Payment Limitations which is to analyze 
and make recommendations related to this issue to the President and to 
the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in a report that is due on 
or before May 13, 2003. Clearly, the Senate should consider the 
Commission's findings before it endorses a further policy change in 
this area. Third, the budget resolution should provide us with a broad 
plan for Federal revenues and expenditures but leave policy decisions 
within that budget framework to the Appropriations Committee, in the 
case of discretionary spending, and to the various authorizing 
committees such as the Agriculture Committee, in the case of mandatory 
spending. This proposal violates that principle by attempting to 
dictate policy to the Agriculture Committee without having any impact 
on the overall level of Federal expenditures. Fourth, because their 
crops cost more to produce, southern cotton and rice farms tend to be 
larger, on average, than wheat, corn, and soybean farms in other 
regions. The payment limit proposal would reduce Government payments to 
larger farms, hurting southern cotton and rice producers the most. It 
is unclear, at best, what the proposal's changes to the marketing loan 
program would mean for our farmers. This is a program that has been 
highly successful in helping our farmers remain internationally 
competitive without undue Government involvement in the marketplace.
  Taken together, the proposal's payment limitation changes could 
seriously undercut the farm safety net that was a principal goal of the 
FSRIA, particularly for southern producers of cotton and rice. I 
strongly oppose this provision.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, our Nation is at war. Our Federal budget 
faces unprecedented deficits. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, counting the cost of that war, the deficit will be $587 billion 
this year alone. And we are on the threshold of a crisis in the funding 
of our Social Security system as the baby boom generation begins to 
retire in the next decade.
  Yet this budget resolution calls for fully $850 billion in tax cuts, 
all of which will be borrowed from that Social Security system. In my 
30 year career in the Senate, I cannot recall a more reckless or 
irresponsible proposal.
  Instead of a careful, conservative approach to our finances, instead 
of caution and a sense of responsibility in these dangerous times, this 
budget throws caution to the wind and simply dumps the bill for our 
actions today on our children and grandchildren.
  These are no ordinary times. We are now fully engaged in a war in 
Iraq, a war that will not be truly over until the reconstruction of 
that nation is accomplished. The $75 billion that the President has 
just requested is just the first installment on that commitment. We 
cannot know the full costs of that undertaking, which could take many 
years to complete. At the same time, the global war on terrorism must 
be fought here at home as well as in the farthest corners of the globe. 
The costs of that commitment will be substantial and could well 
represent a permanent change in the way we do business.
  This budget simply ignores those new realities and treats the Social 
Security system like a broken piggy bank, grabbing the savings the 
system will soon need for its own obligations to paper over the costs 
not only of our new security responsibilities, but hundreds and 
hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts as well. But those bills 
will come due, as the baby boom generation retires, and this budget 
plants a time bomb in a Social Security system that already faces a 
serious future imbalance.
  Beyond those profound problems, the massive loss of revenues called 
for in this budget means that we do not have the funds available for 
such fundamental priorities as homeland defense, health care, or 
education.
  I was glad to see that we fixed some of the problems in this 
resolution. Senator Feingold's amendment rescued $100 billion from 
those tax cuts to set aside to pay for the war now being fought in 
Iraq. That will be just the beginning of the resources we will need to 
fully cover the cost of that conflict and the massive reconstruction 
that will follow.

[[Page 7475]]

  I am glad that we were able to reduce by half the size of the tax 
cuts that will be protected by a special budget fast-track procedure. 
We need to stimulate our sagging economy and restore the growth and job 
creation we have lost in the past 2 years. But at $350 billion, half 
the original amount that was protected by budget rules, that tax cut is 
still far too large given the other obligations that we face.
  But on top of the $350 billion in tax cuts protected by special 
budget rules, this resolution still contains an additional $500 billion 
in other tax cuts, for a total of $850 billion in revenue losses. 
Counting the additional interest we will have to pay on the debt we 
will pile up, that is another trillion dollars that will not be 
available for our national security and homeland security obligations, 
not available for health care, for education, for law enforcement. Nor 
will it be there when we need to restore balance to Social Security.
  We have made some progress during this debate to restore funding in 
some of those areas, but not enough to meet the needs and priorities of 
the vast majority of Americans. This budget resolution is the first 
step in our consideration of priorities this year, and it is a big step 
in the wrong direction, one that I fear we will regret.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this resolution. We 
can and must do better. We can hardly do worse.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support this budget resolution. In 
my judgment, this budget, like the President's budget which it 
reflects, represents the wrong priorities. A close look reveals too 
many ill-advised cuts in too many critical areas in order to help pay 
for a tax cut which is too large, too inequitable, and which will 
worsen our fiscal situation without providing our economy the jump-
start it needs.
  The proposed budget cuts in education are particularly troubling. 
While I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment I introduced 
that increased education funding by over $2 billion by proposing to 
close down two egregious tax haven loopholes, that increase doesn't 
come close to making up for the shortfalls.
  Other priorities are similarly underfunded. The transportation 
request is less than what was allotted in 2002 and 2003. This year 
Congress plans to reauthorize TEA-21, the highway reauthorization bill, 
yet the budget resolution as proposed would limit our ability to 
increase the program to meet our Nation's transportation needs. The 
budget would provide inadequate funding for State sewer and water 
programs, and would cut funding to the Community Oriented Policing 
Services, COPS, Pprogram, which has helped fund more than 3,300 police 
officers in Michigan. The proposal provides no funding for the 
community access program, which improves health care coordination for 
the uninsured, or for extending unemployment benefits for those whose 
benefits have expired, even though the number of unemployed in our 
country has increased by about 40 percent since January 2001.
  While I am pleased that we were able to reduce the President's 
fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal, the tax cut package in the 
existing budget resolution is still too large, and likely will increase 
in conference committee with the President's party in charge of both 
Houses.
  In January 2001, the Office of Management and Budget was projecting a 
10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now we are back into a huge deficit 
ditch and will be for the foreseeable future. In fact, the President's 
proposed budget and tax cuts would lead to more than a trillion dollars 
in deficits over the next 5 years, including record deficits of over 
$300 billion this year and next. The right type of tax cuts could 
stimulate the economy by being effective in the short term and going to 
working families and small businesses that will spend the money now 
instead of mainly going to the wealthiest among us who don't need tax 
cuts. But tax cuts that drastically worsen our long-term fiscal 
situation, that won't help out in the short term, and that would 
require cuts to many other priorities are not what our economy needs.
  Surely, simple equity as well as economic stimulus needs suggest that 
if we are going to have tax cuts they should be broad-based tax cuts, 
providing, for instance, every working family of four with an immediate 
tax cut of $1,200. And we should also extend unemployment benefits for 
those whose benefits have expired and weren't previously extended, 
provide short-term incentives for businesses to invest immediately, and 
provide some assistance to our struggling States for education, 
homeland security, Medicaid, and highway and other infrastructure 
improvements.
  These measures would be better for our economy today, our fiscal 
situation in future years, and the many other challenges that lay 
ahead. They also would address today's problems today without passing 
the bills onto future generations.
  In addition, the Senate is asked by the majority to pass a budget 
without including any estimated costs of the war in Iraq and its 
aftermath, even though such estimates exist. Yesterday the President 
sent a $75 billion funding request regarding Iraq to Congress in the 
form of an emergency supplemental. That request is not included in the 
current 2004 budget resolution before us. There is no reason that the 
costs of the war and its aftermath after September 30, 2003, should be 
omitted. While there is no question that we will fully fund our troops, 
we are asked to approve massive tax cuts and huge deficits while 
totally ignoring the large additional expenditures which will be 
required by the war in Iraq. In my view, it is both reckless and 
irresponsible to intentionally keep those costs out of this budget 
resolution.
  This budget emphasizes the wrong priorities, burrows us deeper into 
the deficit ditch, continues our reliance on the Social Security 
surplus, and fails to provide the stimulus needed to improve our 
sputtering economy. I cannot support it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the administration's budget was wrong for 
the Nation when the President proposed it in February. It is even worse 
for the Nation now that we are at war. I will oppose it, and I hope 
that reason and common sense will prevail in the remaining steps of the 
budget process to prevent this package from doing lasting damage to the 
economy and to our communities.
  As incredible as it might seem, this budget plan would worsen the 
fiscal and economic harm done by the administration's 2001 economic 
package, which, in one fell swoop squandered the hard-won budget 
surpluses and converted them to ever-deepening deficits and debt. 
Making matters all the worse, this budget would compound this 
squandering while the Nation is at war.
  Can anyone seriously argue, just for instance, that it makes fiscal 
or economic sense to borrow money to pay for a tax cut package which 
itself is steeply tilted to the wealthiest individuals?
  This budget plan is misguided in its priorities. It severely 
underfunds essential health, education and employment training 
programs; it contains an enormous government giveaway to wealthy 
corporations and the wealthiest individuals that will skyrocket our 
Nation's debt; and it is wholly inadequate to meet the domestic 
security needs of the first-responder agencies that are our first line 
of defense against terrorism.
  Even before the war, when the President unveiled his budget proposal 
in February, his priorities were sharply out of kilter with the 
Nation's needs. By severely underfunding education and other domestic 
needs, and by making a nearly $700 billion tax package the focus of his 
budget, the President compounds the irresponsible polices of the last 2 
years that have traded record surpluses for record deficits.
  Let me cite just a few examples of how bad the President's budget is 
for Vermont: The $6.7 million cut in afterschool programs that will 
leave 9,566 children in my State without afterschool activities; the 
$2,405,259 cut in Clean Water Act funding, at a time when Vermont has 
nine toxic waste

[[Page 7476]]

sites on the National Priorities List; the $524,673 cut in the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that helps Vermonters 
who need assistance with the electricity and heating bills; the 
$793,220 cut in the Community Services Block Grant that provides local 
organizations in Vermont with funds to help reduce poverty, revitalize 
low-income communities, and offer families the help they need to become 
fully self-sufficient; and the elimination of the COPS police-hiring 
program that has put 245 officers on our streets. And I could go on and 
on.
  In 2001, I voted against the Bush tax package because it was too 
skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and it was fiscally 
irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to red 
ink, and the economy is still floundering. Leading economists have 
repeatedly made clear that the elimination of taxes on dividends paid 
to investors, the centerpiece of the President's tax-cut proposal, will 
do little if anything to spur economic growth or to reduce the Nation's 
jobless rate.
  As Congress shapes an economic package, fiscal responsibility needs 
to be a priority. We need to be smart about how we proceed, and we need 
to be fair about it. The tax cuts the President has proposed not only 
will worsen our Federal deficit, but it will also eliminate $16 million 
in revenue from the State of Vermont. Congress now has the 
responsibility to bring stability and sensible fiscal policies back 
into the budget process. We must work to reestablish a balanced budget 
and to restore our country's economic health.
  Our Nation is at war. We have nearly a quarter of a million troops in 
the Middle East. We have five carrier battle groups in the region. And 
we have National Guard units being called up all across the country. 
Yet the President has only recently submitted an estimate to Congress 
about the cost of this war. The $75 billion he requested on Monday does 
not adequately address our country's homeland security needs and is 
likely just a start in funding all of the United States operations in 
Iraq.
  I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt my amendment to 
boost funding for first responders. We are in a two-front war, overseas 
and here at home, and we need to fund both. First responders are on the 
front lines in defending against and preparing for terrorist attacks. 
The White House has refused to adequately fund homeland security, and 
these added responsibilities have become unfunded Federal mandates that 
are severely straining our police, fire and rescue agencies. Every time 
the alert level is raised, it costs our communities and states millions 
more. Everyone recognizes the vital role of first responders, but the 
White House is overdue in acting accordingly. The sooner we help first 
responders help us in the war on terrorism, the better.
  In his State of the Union Message, the President was right when he 
said we should not pass on our problems to other Congresses, other 
Presidents and future generations. Unfortunately, that is exactly what 
this budget plan would do. The White House's own documents predict the 
deficit will hit highs of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in 
2004. Over the next 5 years, deficits would total $1.08 trillion. Even 
these staggering numbers are short of the real mark because the 
administration will surely need hundreds of billions of dollars more in 
Iraq-related spending that is not counted here.
  This administration has been in a rush to war, but it has been in no 
hurry to substantively deal with the poor economy that millions of 
Americans are coping with today.
  This budget was a bad plan for the Nation before the war began. It is 
an even worse plan now.
  I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Emerson Lynn that 
appeared in the March 21 edition of the St. Albans Messenger be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            It's Wrong To Tie Patriotism to Massive Tax Cut

       There is the distinct sense that the American people cannot 
     do two things at once, that we cannot separate our thoughts 
     of the war with our thoughts of how the government spends and 
     collects our taxpayer dollars. Worse, there is the conviction 
     that one should be labeled unpatriotic if the attempt is made 
     to draw the distinction.
       This contradiction was played out yesterday in the House of 
     Representatives which passed largely along party lines the 
     president's proposed budget, including his budget busting tax 
     cuts. The cuts were thought to be in jeopardy a month ago, 
     particularly with the Congressional Budget Office's 
     assessment of unending budget deficits as far as the eye can 
     see.
       Why the miraculous turnaround? Because, as partisan 
     Republicans said, it would be wrong to embarrass the 
     president just as war is being waged in Iraq. In other words, 
     one's budget sense should be placed at the mercy of the 
     president's polling numbers.
       Hmmm. If there is a sense of discomfort in having the 
     budget resolution being debated while war is being waged, 
     then why not delay discussion of the budget? If the 
     president's experts are to be believed, the war will be over 
     in less than a week or so. Why the hurry?
       Was the pressure applied because the Republican leadership 
     (and the White House) are concerned about conflicting 
     messages of domestic support, or is it because they saw the 
     opening moments of the war as the most propitious time to 
     push the president's $726 billion in tax cuts, a proposal 
     most Republicans a month ago thought would be beyond their 
     reach?
       Guess.
       Today, the same arm-twisting efforts will be applied in the 
     U.S. Senate. Again, it was thought only a week or so ago that 
     the entire tax cut proposal had no chance of being approved, 
     particularly with several moderate Republicans proposing a 
     plan to shave the tax cut in half. The ground has shifted, 
     Senate insiders now believe the president has a good chance 
     of winning it all. Again, it's the war and the pushed thought 
     that a good American supports whatever the president wants 
     right now. We must stand together.
       Dear Mr. President: We are smart enough to distinguish 
     between a necessary war and an unnecessary tax cut. Too, our 
     patriotism remains intact; in fact, it is with ease that we 
     can argue that being opposed to the $726 billion in tax cuts 
     is utterly patriotic. How else to avoid an endless string of 
     swollen budget deficits? How else to protect the integrity of 
     legislative branch's responsibility to be acting on behalf of 
     its constituents?
       We find it incredible that we have a president who lost the 
     popular vote and today rules as if it was his divine right, 
     as did the kings in Shakespeare's time. And, yet, we are 
     impressed. Highly impressed. In terms of sheer 
     accomplishment, he has achieved more in two years than Bill 
     Clinton did in eight. An it was thought that the balance of 
     power between the Democrats and the Republicans would largely 
     result in legislative stalemate. The Democrats could only 
     wish.
       What is most upsetting, however, is understanding how 
     completely backwards the argument before congress is. The 
     primary focus is on the war and stalwart Republicans are 
     using the emotion of the moment to wash away all other 
     thoughts. In truth, what happens in Iraq, while terribly 
     important, pales in comparison to the long-term effects of 
     the president's decision to essentially strip this Congress 
     and all future Congresses of the resources needed to address 
     essential issues such as health care, Social Security, 
     Medicaid and Medicare. The war will not last long, and even 
     the rebuilding efforts after-wards will be short in duration 
     when compared to huge tax cuts that keep on taking, and 
     taking, and taking.
       So you say, just elect a Democrat as president. A year from 
     now the primaries will be in full swing. We could have a 
     change in leadership within 24 months.
       Think again.
       Politically, it is almost impossible for Congress to raise 
     taxes. Our representatives can oppose the cuts to begin with, 
     which is what we hope happens, but once they are in place, 
     good luck turning back the clock.
       That's why today's vote in the United States Senate is so 
     important. Although it is a budget resolution and does not 
     have the effect of law, it does pave the way for acceptance 
     later. Let's hope common sense prevails and that our 
     legislators act as if they are capable of distinguishing 
     between what needs to happen in Iraq and what needs to happen 
     here.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to day to discuss several issues 
related to agriculture funding in the budget resolution proposed by the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.
  While there are no specific reconciliation instructions for 
agriculture in this proposal, the summary documents issued by the 
committee indicate an assumed savings of $80 million from the crop 
insurance program.
  I have been one of the strongest defenders of this program in the 
Congress, and I have fought hard to improve the program for producers 
throughout the country.

[[Page 7477]]

  Simply put, cutting $80 million from this program is exactly the 
wrong thing to do at this time. As budgets continue to tighten, both 
the administration and Members of this congress have said that 
producers must do more to rely on crop insurance as their primary risk 
management tool and decrease reliance on emergency disaster assistance 
programs.
  Last fall we also saw the collapse of the largest seller of crop 
insurance in the country. This was the result of several factors, but 
the significant drought we have suffered took its toll as indemnity 
payments to producers added up. And, several other companies are not in 
strong financial positions for the same reason.
  Finally, the entire insurance industry has struggled with reinsurance 
since 9/11. This is also true in the crop insurance industry, and the 
difficulties of obtaining reinsurance have been compounded by the 
drought.
  The bottom line is this: We have worked hard to make crop insurance 
the primary risk management tool for producers. But, crop insurance is 
struggling along with the entire insurance industry, and this cut many 
be something it can not recover from. It could put several of the 
smaller companies out of business and lead to further consolidation in 
the industry and concentration in agriculture.
  I urge the chairman to omit this specific cut in any reconciliation 
instructions that may come out of the conference with the House.
  Finally, I understand that an amendment was offered during committee 
discussion of the resolution that shifted funds from commodity programs 
to the conservation budget. I am not going to discuss the merits of the 
proposal that accomplished this shift. I think that is a discussion 
best conducted within the Agriculture Committee.
  However, if we are going to shift funds to the conservation program, 
I believe they should go to our well-established programs that benefit 
producers throughout the United States. These include the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the 
Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
  I do not think these funds should go to the Conservation Security 
Program--a program that will divert the largest portion of the funds to 
only a couple States that can undertake farming practices that simply 
do not work in regions of the country where the land is not on the 
river bottom and the rain comes down sideways with a 50-mile-per-hour 
wind.
  Lets put the money where it will actually work and achieve real 
conservation benefits.
  I thank my colleagues for listening to my views on these issues, and 
I hope they will continue to consider them as this process toward a 
final budget agreement progresses.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it does not seem like all that long ago 
that efforts were under way to reauthorize the 1996 farm bill. Many of 
you know that we spent over 2 years listening to ideas and formulating 
the model for this legislation. I am pleased that I was able to be a 
part of yet another farm bill that provides planting flexibility, price 
stability, and allows producers to receive a decent return on their 
investments.
  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is a balanced 6-
year farm bill which met specified budget requirements and was adopted 
by Congress. The farm bill provides an adequate financial safety net in 
times when prices are depressed. This safety net allows crops to be 
priced competitively in the domestic and world markets.
  The farm bill is less than 1 year old. The United States Department 
of Agriculture, USDA, is still working to fully implement some of the 
remaining provisions. However, the actions taken by the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa during the markup of this budget resolution was an 
effort to unravel this carefully drafted legislation. I am referring to 
a provision that was adopted in the Senate Budget Committee which 
shifts the Senate Agriculture Committee's mandatory spending, totaling 
$1.4 billion, from agriculture programs, budget function 350, to the 
Conservation Security Program, budget function 300.
  I want to express my strong opposition to this provision as it 
negates the carefully crafted payment provision during the farm bill. 
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 contains specific 
limitations on program benefits and adds an adjusted gross income test 
that makes participants with substantial nonfarm income ineligible for 
program benefits. In addition, program participants are required to 
meet detailed eligibility requirements regarding contributions of 
management and/or labor requirements. My colleague's further efforts to 
make these limitations even more restrictive only adds additional 
transitional costs which producers must absorb and creates additional 
administrative costs for USDA.
  As a result of this provision, my distinguished colleague ultimately 
discriminates against southern crops which are more expensive to 
produce. Farms in the South tend to be larger than those in the Midwest 
and other areas of the country where the cost of production is much 
less. Further restrictions on payment limitations only hurt southern 
commodity producers.
  The farm bill has been debated in the Senate Agriculture Committee, 
passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President of the United 
States. This provision reopens the farm bill--the farm bill should not 
be reopened during the budget process--that results in bad farm policy. 
And it should not be reopened during the appropriations process--that 
results in bad farm policy. Therefore, I strongly oppose this provision 
in the Senate budget resolution.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the 
importance of the family farmer to our Nation and the need to provide 
an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, 
assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.
  Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms 
reap most of the benefits of these payments. What's more, farm payments 
that were originally designed to benefit small- and medium-sized family 
farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments 
have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to 
overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers 
off the farm.
  Last year, the Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to 
a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to 
target Federal assistance to small-and medium-sized family farmers. The 
amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to 
$75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to 
$150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this 
limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of 
$275,000.
  That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa and indeed 
farmers across the Nation. I feel strongly the farm bill failed Iowa 
and failed all of our farmers when it failed to effectively address the 
issue of payment limitations.
  A solid majority in the Budget Committee voted last week in favor of 
a payment limitation provision to limit total payments of all kinds to 
a combined limit of $300,000. This is more than I think is necessary. 
It is $25,000 more than the limit that won over two-thirds of the 
Senate. But in the interests of compromise it seems like a fair 
approach. The most important thing is that loopholes in the payment 
limitation law be closed so that the limitation at whatever level is 
actually the real, effective level.
  The Budget Committee voted to apply the savings from this reasonable 
payment limit proposal against the reductions suffered by the 
Conservation Security Program, CSP, during consideration of the 
agricultural disaster package in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  This new conservation initiative from the 2002 farm bill will reward 
farmers and ranchers who voluntarily

[[Page 7478]]

implement effective conservation on their working lands. Farmers and 
ranchers will receive public support as they provide public benefits to 
the Nation's natural resources and environment. This program allows 
family farmers to solve critical resource problems, with graduated 
rewards for increasing efforts. The CSP is an innovative new program in 
the Federal agricultural conservation toolbox and its full funding 
should be restored as soon as possible.
  The Budget Committee endorsed payment limitation reform including a 
combined maximum cap of $300,000 and endorsed restoring funds to the 
Conservation Security Program. Payment limitation reform is long 
overdue, a fact reflected in the vote of the Budget Committee. If cuts 
should be ordered in the final budget resolution emerging from 
conference, payment limitations would be the most logical place to look 
for savings. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this 
important issue.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 
minutes equally divided between myself and the ranking member for 
closing debate on the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of 
the resolution. I thank all of our colleagues. We have conducted a 
number of rollcall votes. By the time we have final passage, there will 
have been 51 rollcall votes; we will have had 29 voice votes, for a 
total of 80 votes on this resolution. That may be an all-time high, one 
I hope we don't repeat next year.
  The budget process, in my opinion, is somewhat flawed. It is not easy 
to pass a budget. That is one of the reasons I wanted to compliment my 
friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, because he did it year after 
year. It is not easy to do. I understand we didn't get it done last 
year. I don't want to be too critical, but we didn't pass a budget last 
year. And because we didn't pass a budget, we didn't get appropriations 
bills done. We didn't do a prescription drug bill, a Medicare bill. We 
didn't do anything to help grow the economy. The budget does lay the 
blueprint for the next Congress, certainly for the rest of the year. So 
we need to pass a budget. I have told my colleagues, we need to pass a 
budget regardless of the size of the growth package.
  I readily admit this growth package is not what I wanted. It is about 
half a loaf. That is better than none.
  We could have done better. We didn't; we tried. We let the 
legislative process work. With 80 votes, the legislative process did 
work. The Senate did speak.
  I thank my colleagues for their participation. I happen to believe 
the level of debate was good. I think it was a healthy debate. I thank 
colleagues on all sides for their cooperation in making that happen.
  I also especially thank my friend and colleague, Senator Conrad, and 
his staff. They have been a pleasure to work with in a very challenging 
environment, particularly on Friday evening. Also, I thank our staff as 
well, Hazen Marshall and Stacey Hughes and our entire staff. They 
worked very hard to put together a budget process that will work, a 
budget that will lead us to a balanced budget, a budget that will have 
deficits declining, substantially declining in the next couple of 
years, the percentage of GDP substantially.
  We need to be in balance. We will work to do that. That is not easily 
done since we have inherited a situation where revenues have declined 
substantially in the last 2 years. We need to figure out ways to grow 
the economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try to 
make that happen. I appreciate very much their cooperation and support 
throughout the challenging last several days. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first let me thank the outstanding staffs 
on both sides. Hazen Marshall, staff director for Senator Nickles, and 
his able staff, thank you for the really good attitude that you all 
brought to this task and challenge. I thank also on our side my staff 
director, Mary Naylor, who has done such a superb job holding us all 
together. I think part of the reason this was well organized was 
because of Mary's talents. And to Jim Horney and Sue Nelson and Lisa 
Konwinski and all of the other staff members of the Budget Committee, 
thank you.
  Special thanks to the chairman of our committee. Thank you for the 
effort to organize these votes in a way that was comprehensive and that 
was understandable to people. Thanks, too, for the attitude and the 
tone you brought to the debate because we have had significant 
differences. But I think we have conducted ourselves in the way that 
our forefathers intended the Senate to be conducted--real debate on 
real differences without personal rancor of any kind.
  While this budget resolution has been substantially improved, we have 
now reduced the President's proposed tax cut of $1.6 trillion to $850 
billion. Still I believe it is fatally flawed. I don't believe we can 
afford $850 billion of tax cuts that will add in this budget resolution 
over a trillion dollars of deficit to our country when we are already 
in record deficit and when we are right on the brink of the retirement 
of the baby boom generation.
  That does not make sense to me. I believe it threatens the long-term 
economic security of our country. I don't believe it will grow the 
economy. That view is buttressed by the report of the Congressional 
Budget Office today. They applied dynamic scoring and what they said 
is, the one thing that is going to grow under this budget is the 
deficits and the debt of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator's time has expired. All 
time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution, as amended. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 23), as amended, was agreed 
to, as follows:
  (The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank all of our colleagues for 
their cooperation. We did finish the budget resolution by 4 p.m. on 
Wednesday, as we committed to do. That would not have happened if it 
had not been for the cooperation certainly of Senator Conrad and his 
staff.
  I wish to thank Mary Naylor and their entire team, as well as Hazen 
Marshall, Stacey Hughes, Beth Felder, and our team. The staffs had to 
work extremely hard over the weekend. This

[[Page 7479]]

lasted about 2 or 3 days longer than is usual for the budget process. I 
hope maybe we can streamline it next year a little bit more.
  I thank all the staff for their hard work. They put in a lot of 
hours. We produced a product that is not perfect but it is a 
significant improvement over no budget. Again, I thank my colleagues 
for their cooperation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of staff Democrats and 
Republicans be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Senate Budget Committee

       Amy Angelier; Lauren Baylor; Dan Brandt, Economist; Cara 
     Duckworth; Beth Smerko Felder; Ron Floyd; Megan Hauck; Jim 
     Hearn; Jody Hernandez; Stacey Hughes; Rachel Jones; Don Kent; 
     Hazen Marshall; David Myers; Maureen O'Neill; and David 
     Ortega.
       Gayle Osterberg; Anne Oswalt; David Pappone; Roy Phillips; 
     Cheri Reidy; Margaret Stewart; Bob Taylor; Jennifer Winkler; 
     Lee Greenwood; Letitia Fletcher; Tim Nolan; Lynne Seymour; 
     George Woodall; Shelley Amdur; Steve Bailey; and Rock Cheung, 
     Jr.
       Jim Esquea; Tim Galvin; Lawrence Hershon; Jim Horney; Mike 
     Jones; Erin Keogh; Lisa Konwinski; Sarah Kuehl; Jessie 
     LaVine; Stu Nagurka; Mary Naylor; Kobye Noel; Steve Posner; 
     Lee Price; John Righter; Dakota Rudesill; and Barry Strumpf.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first, I congratulate the chairman of our 
committee on successfully passing a budget resolution. As strongly as I 
disagree with the contents of this resolution, I feel equally as 
strongly about the way this process was conducted, and the chairman's 
leadership both in the committee and on the floor in terms of the tone 
that he set and in terms of the attitude he brought to the job. It 
makes a big difference, and we appreciate it.
  I will now take a moment to thank staff: Mary Naylor, my staff 
director; Jim Horney and Sue Nelson, my deputy staff directors; Lisa 
Konwinski, my counsel; Shelley Amdur, who handles education and 
appropriations; along with John Righter, who is our chief numbers man 
and handles appropriations as well; Steve Bailey, who does taxes; Sarah 
Kuehl, who handles Social Security and transportation; Jim Esquea, who 
handles Medicaid, welfare, and veterans; Tim Galvin, who handles 
agriculture; Mike Jones, homeland security and energy issues; Dakota 
Rudesill, who handles defense; Rock Cheung, international affairs; Lee 
Price, our chief economist; Kobye Noel, our chart master--as my 
colleagues know, we produced a lot of charts--and Stu Nagurka and Steve 
Posner, in charge of communications for me; and Jessie Lavine, Erin 
Keogh, and Lawrence Hershon, our staff assistants. We appreciate very 
much their hard work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 95; all after the 
resolving clause is stricken and the text of S. Con. Res. 23 is 
inserted in lieu thereof, the resolution is adopted, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House, and the 
Chair appoints conferees.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Enzi) appointed Mr. Nickles, Mr. Domenici, 
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Sarbanes, 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95), as amended, was agreed 
to.

                          ____________________