CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
(Senate - March 21, 2003)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S4226-S4258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 23, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 23) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 
     2004 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal year 2003 and for fiscal years 2005 through 2013.

  Pending:

       Schumer amendment No. 299, to provide immediate assistance 
     to meet pressing homeland security needs by providing funding 
     in 2003 for first responders, port security, bioterrorism 
     preparedness and prevention, border security and transit 
     security, the FBI; to restore the elimination of funding of 
     the COPS program, firefighter equipment grants, Byrne Grants 
     and Local Law enforcement grants; to provide a sustained 
     commitment of resources for homeland security needs without 
     reducing funding to other key domestic law enforcement and 
     public safety priorities; and to reduce the deficit.
       Brownback amendment No. 282, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that a commission be established to review the 
     efficiency of Federal agencies.
       Conrad (for Feingold/Corzine) amendment No. 270, to set 
     aside a reserve fund for possible military action and 
     reconstruction in Iraq.
       Breaux Amendment No. 339, to reduce tax cuts by $375 
     billion and to reduce projected deficits by $464 billion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 9:45 will be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Conrad, we yield time to the Senator 
from New York.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 299

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the first vote will be on the amendment 
that I offered, along with many of my colleagues: Senator Clinton, 
Senator Daschle, Senator Byrd, and Senator Lieberman. It is the 
homeland security amendment that we debated. I remind my colleagues how 
important homeland security is, how we have to fight a good offense. 
Praise God, it seems as if that is going quite well in Iraq. It is also 
very important for us to fight defense and we have not been doing an 
adequate job.
  I believe Senator Cochran will offer an alternative version later on 
today, but I would make two points about the Schumer amendment as 
opposed to the Cochran amendment. One is that the Cochran amendment is 
not as generous, as I understand it. I have just received it. It is 
even in this fiscal year, the 2003 fiscal year, when our police 
officers, our firefighters are hurting from one end of the country to 
the other, when our port security is not what it should be, when our 
rail security is not what it should be, the Cochran amendment is 
considerably lower.
  I am sure if my colleagues go back and ask their police and fire 
departments which amendment they prefer, it is the Schumer amendment.
  Second and more important, we have close to a $700 billion tax cut. 
We also have programs on education, on health care, on transportation, 
the FBI and everything else. The alternative amendment cuts every one 
of those. Are my colleagues going to tell their police departments that 
they are going to take away Byrne grants and COPS money to give them 
this money? Are they going to take away fire money to give them this 
money? Are they going to cut road building? Are they going to cut the 
FBI? Are they going to cut everything that is in function 920 to do 
homeland security? Just as we should not be pitting the defense and the 
money needed for our soldiers overseas against domestic needs like 
education, health care and transportation, we should not be pitting 
homeland security against that. I ask my colleagues to think about 
it. We have a huge tax cut. This amendment takes a very small amount--
in a quick calculation--less than 1 or 2 percent of that tax cut.

  Where should the money come from? I don't believe we are actually 
going to cut education any further, no matter what this budget 
resolution does. I don't believe we will cut health care any further. I 
don't think we will cut road building any further. They are stretched 
to the bone because of the necessities of the budget.
  This amendment offers the real chance at homeland security. This is 
the amendment. To insist that every dollar of the tax cut must be 
sacrosanct while we sacrifice the rest of the Government--when your 
school boards come to you, when your hospitals come to you, when your 
construction companies come to you, and your Governors and mayors and, 
of course, your police chiefs and firefighters, are you going to say 
you let them down?
  I urge, I hope, I pray; this is a time when we need unity. There is 
no problem, none whatever, with taking a small amount, a total over 10 
years of $38 billion, a total of over $5 billion this fiscal year, 
2003, and next year, 2004, getting to $8 billion, out of that tax cut 
because that will fund homeland security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and stand up for 
their local police, their local firefighters, their local schools.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the two leaders have agreed the second vote 
should start at 10:30 and I ask unanimous consent that that be the 
case.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of our 
colleagues, we will have a vote to begin in a couple minutes on the 
Schumer amendment, and then the second vote will begin at 10:30 on the 
Cochran amendment that is also in relation to homeland security.
  I urge my colleagues, with great respect, to oppose the Schumer 
amendment. His amendment would add $88 billion over 10 years for a 
variety of homeland security programs, law enforcement assistance. I 
contacted the

[[Page S4227]]

Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Ridge, and asked for their position 
on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter from Secretary Ridge: ``The Administration opposes the 
pending Schumer amendment'' in the second paragraph.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary,
                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 2003.
     Hon. William Frist,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: I appreciate your leadership as 
     Congress deliberates the FY 2004 Budget Resolution. I am 
     writing to urge you and your colleagues to maintain an 
     appropriate balance between adequate funding provided for 
     homeland security programs, program levels that can be spent 
     responsibly, and fiscal discipline.
       The Administration opposes the pending Schumer amendment. 
     Substantial additional funding levels in the Budget 
     resolution could be diverted away from terrorism preparedness 
     and into activities that are traditionally funded by state 
     and local governments. Defending our homeland is not just 
     about spending more money. We need to ensure that funding 
     provided for ``homeland security'' is truly directed to 
     programs that help protect America against terrorism--the 
     President's FY 2004 Budget support these programs as does the 
     Senate Budget Resolution.
       The FY 2004 budget represents a doubling of funding for 
     non-defense homeland security since the September 11th 
     terrorist attacks. This year, the President is requesting 
     $3,558 billion in First Responder funding for terrorism 
     preparedness grants and training and assistance. The Budget 
     also includes $4.8 billion for the Transportation Security 
     Agency--this level will fund a complete airport screener 
     workforce, maintain nearly 10,000 pieces of TSA screening 
     equipment, ensure coverage on commercial aircraft with 
     additional Federal Air Marshals, and assess methods for 
     improved screening of air cargo on commercial flights. More 
     than $1.6 billion is requested for biodefense research. 
     Through this investment and the proposed BioShield 
     initiative, the President is moving as quickly as possible to 
     research, develop and procure bioterror countermeasures. The 
     Budget also provides $6.7 billion for DHS's Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection--this level will support the continued 
     development of the comprehensive Entry/Exit system, 
     infrastructure and technology investments including remotely 
     operated infrared cameras to monitor isolated border areas, 
     radiation detection and x-ray machines for inspecting cargo 
     containers, and $62 million for the Container Security 
     Initiative.
       As I indicated on Wednesday, the President intends to send 
     a supplemental appropriations request to Congress in the near 
     future to support the homeland security efforts of state and 
     local entities during this time of heightened threat.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Ridge.

  Mr. NICKLES. We have to decide, are we going to have individual 
Senators come here and say we know best, we ought to give the 
Secretary--this is a new Secretary, a new Department, where the funding 
for these items has more than doubled in the last 2 years--a very 
significant increase.
  The increase we have this year over last year is 18.4 percent. In 
addition to that, when we vote on the Cochran amendment, we will be 
increasing funds for this function for fiscal year 2003, the year we 
are in, an additional $3.5 billion. That is more than enough to make up 
for any deficiencies in first responders and also gives additional 
money for other necessary items in homeland security. Senator Cochran 
will explain that amendment when we vote at 10:30.
  I urge our colleagues to vote no on the Schumer amendment.
  This amendment will have a 15-minute vote, and possibly the next 
amendment will have 15 minutes, and then we will have a series of 
rollcall votes. We have 10 amendments in the queue, and today we will 
possibly vote on a lot of amendments. We urge colleagues, particularly 
on the second round, to stay on the floor and to be as attentive as 
possible because we will try to stay to the 10-minute timeframe to 
accommodate as many amendments as are necessary.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Senator Schumer that would provide $88 billion in 
desperately needed funding for homeland security efforts at the 
Federal, State, and local levels.
  In the State of Maryland and across the Nation, State, local, and 
regional authorities have been called upon to meet the mounting 
challenges we face in strengthening our domestic security. Many of our 
local officials have accepted this challenge with great resolve, and 
there have been many improvements in protecting the American people 
against the increased dangers with which we now live.
  Despite these efforts, homeland security enhancements remain woefully 
inadequate, and states, counties, and cities across the country are 
stretched to their financial limits. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and 
the National League of Cities estimate that over $3 billion has been 
spent by our cities toward terrorism preparedness. An editorial in 
today's Baltimore Sun highlights the serious costs incurred by the City 
of Baltimore, which are estimated at $12.5 million. Despite the City's 
best efforts, there remain serious concerns about its readiness for an 
attack. As the Sun asserts:

     [a]mong them are the inability of Baltimore County, Baltimore 
     City, and the Maryland State Police to communicate on a 
     single radio system. Also, many police departments lack 
     sufficient tools for coping with a disaster, such as 
     equipment to detect radiation.

  With the commencement of engagement by United States military forces 
in Iraq, we stand united as a country and will rally behind the men and 
women of our armed forces to give them the support they deserve. We 
must and will remain steadfast and resolute in our strong backing of 
the courageous men and women who are being sent into harm's way. As we 
demonstrate our support for our troops overseas, however, we must not 
relent in our support for the men and women who stand ready to protect 
us each and every day on our own shores.
  This past Monday evening, President Bush declared that ``[j]ust as we 
are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions 
to protect our homeland.'' In conjunction with the President's address 
to the nation, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced the 
administration's decision to raise our threat assessment again to Level 
Orange. This time, however, the rise in threat level was accompanied by 
a broad plan to increase security across the country, dubbed 
``Operation Liberty Shield.'' This call to our nation's domestic 
troops--our firefighters, policemen, and emergency medical personnel--
will not go unheeded. As the events of September 11 so horribly 
demonstrated, these brave men and women place themselves in harm's way 
each and every day, and will continue to face any danger to protect the 
freedoms and the lives of innocent Americans. In a very real sense, our 
troops abroad and our first responders at home stand together to 
provide for our common defense.
  Law enforcement agencies and fire departments across the nation have 
been stretched even further by Reserve call-ups. A study by the 
Department of Justice has estimated that 44 percent of law enforcement 
agencies have lost members to the war effort, and, according to 
estimates, 75 percent of the Nation's firehouses are home to 
reservists.
  As we continue to ask more of our first responders, the 
administration has repeatedly undermined the critical efforts of these 
brave men and women by consistently refusing to provide the resources 
they need to do their jobs. Just as we have made a commitment to 
supporting our troops abroad and providing them with the most advanced 
equipment, we must make a more concrete Federal commitment to our first 
responders.
  The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program has been a highly 
successful effort to get much-needed Federal support directly to the 
nation's firehouses. The Republican budget proposal directs only $500 
million to this critical program. This represents a $250 million cut 
from the amount enacted for the current fiscal year, and $400 million 
less than has been authorized by the Congress.
  The National Fire Protection Agency, NFPA, has found that a minimum 
of four firefighters are needed to safely attack an interior structure 
fire. The congressionally mandated ``Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire 
Service,'' published jointly by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
and NFPA this past December, has shown that this personnel target is 
met in far too few cases. I have cosponsored legislation, introduced by 
Senator Dodd, entitled the Staffing for Adequate Fire and

[[Page S4228]]

Emergency Response Act, or SAFER Act, which would create a grant 
program specifically for the hiring of new firefighters to address this 
need. Senator Schumer's amendment would provide $11 billion over ten 
years toward the FIRE and SAFER Acts.
  The Republican budget we have before us also cuts programs for state 
and local law enforcement by over $1 billion. The Administration has 
proposed eliminating the Byrne Grant program, zero funding the COPS 
hiring program, ending the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, 
canceling the COPS in Schools program, and slashing the COPS technology 
program. Senator Schumer's amendment would restore these unwise cuts.
  This budget does little to address the inadequate safeguards to our 
Nation's 361 seaports. One frightening estimate suggests that, of the 6 
million shipping containers that enter the country each year, only two 
percent are actually inspected. The Port of Baltimore, in my own State, 
is one of the busiest seaports in the nation, handling over 30 million 
tons of cargo each year.
  Last November we took a significant first step in improving port 
security by passing the Maritime Transportation Security Act by an 
overwhelming margin. I joined 94 of my Senate colleagues in supporting 
the passage of this measure, and the bill was signed into law by 
President Bush soon thereafter. However, while the Administration and 
my Republican colleagues supported the mandates offered in this 
legislation, they have again failed in providing the funding to fulfill 
these commitments. The U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that the cost to 
the private sector for port security improvements called for in the 
legislation would total $4.4 billion. This budget's entire allocation 
for port security is a meager $200 million.
  I want to turn for a moment to the security of our Nation's surface 
transportation systems. Roughly one-third of terrorist attacks 
worldwide target transportation systems. According to the Mineta 
Transportation Institute, surface transportation systems were the 
target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 to 2000. Clearly, 
there is an acute need to improve the security of our transportation 
infrastructure, and particularly our nation's transit systems--buses, 
subways, ferries and light rail--which carry 14 million Americans every 
workday. A recent GAO study identified significant security needs at 
our nation's transit agencies, where, according to the study, 
``insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making 
their transit systems as safe and secure as possible.'' In fact, at 
only eight of the transit agencies they visited, the GAO found over 
$700 million in identified security needs. And yet, the budget 
resolution demonstrates no commitment to helping transit systems become 
more secure. Despite the elevated risk levels we are currently 
experiencing, this budget provides only a minimal increase in Federal 
transit spending and dedicates no resources within the budget of the 
Transportation Security Administration for transit security. We owe it 
to our nation's transit riders to do more.
  This week, the administration again pledged its support for increased 
funding for state and local governments toward homeland security. We 
have heard many of these pledges over the past year, and, 
unfortunately, the administration has repeatedly fallen short on its 
promises. The rhetoric of support for our nation's first responders and 
upgrades to our homeland security will continue to ring hollow if not 
accompanied by the resources desperately needed for these critical 
efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Schumer's amendment. If the 
Congress and the administration are to enact legislation signaling our 
commitment to securing the homeland, we must provide the resources to 
provide even the most basic levels of protection. We must demonstrate 
steely resolve in our efforts to protect our citizens and critical 
infrastructure, and this will not be achieved if the resources 
committed to the task are inadequate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The question is on agreeing to 
the Schumer amendment No. 299.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Miller
       
       
  The amendment (No. 299) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Chafee.) The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. That is the first 
vote. We will probably have several votes. We have already entered 
consent that the next vote will begin at 10:30. For the information of 
my colleagues, that will be on the Cochran amendment.
  We allowed this amendment timeframe to extend. We are going to be 
much closer to enforcing the time limit of 10 minutes on the following 
votes. The next amendment will have a 15-minute time limit, but after 
that we expect to enforce the 10-minute time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, so we can alert colleagues to what we are 
faced with today, we have over 100 amendments that have been noticed to 
the managers. At three amendments an hour, maybe a little more than 
that, four amendments an hour would be 25 hours; three amendments an 
hour, 35 hours. So we will ask colleagues to call us and let us know if 
their amendments are that important to them or that they could wait for 
another day. I urge colleagues to talk with their staffs and alert us 
as to amendments that do not need to be offered today. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, when we get into this, we will need to do these votes 10 
minutes apiece, as the chairman has indicated. We will have to be very 
disciplined to do that. That is the only way we can get through these 
amendments in a way that will allow us to complete business on any 
reasonable schedule. We need to put colleagues on notice that that is 
the way the day will have to go if we are going to get done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.


Measures Placed on Calendar--H.R. 5, H.R. 975, H.R. 1047, and H.R. 1308

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand there are four bills at the 
desk which are due for a second reading.

[[Page S4229]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to read the titles of the bills en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will state the bills by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5) to improve patient access to health care 
     services and provide improved medical care by reducing the 
     excessive burden the liability system places on the health 
     care delivery system.
       A bill (H.R. 975) to amend title 11 of the United States 
     Code, and for other purposes.
       A bill (H.R. 1047) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of 
     duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, 
     and for other purposes.
       A bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax 
     relief and simplification, and for other purposes.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the measures en bloc and object to further proceeding en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bills will be 
placed on the calendar.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment in order is 
the Cochran amendment.
  I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 369

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 369.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $1,575,000,000.
       On page 23, line 20, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $525,000,000.
       On page 24, line 3, increase the amount by $350,000,000.
       On page 24, line 7, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $1,575,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $525,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $350,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,575,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $525,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by $350,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 46, line 20, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 46, line 21, increase the amount by $1,575,000,000.
       On page 47, line 6, increase the amount by $875,000,000.
       On page 47, line 15, increase the amount by $525,000,000.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment will increase the fiscal 
year 2003 totals in the budget resolution to provide an additional $3.5 
billion in funding for homeland security.
  Based on information about possible terrorist attacks against U.S. 
interests, the Secretary of Homeland Security earlier this week raised 
the national threat alert level to orange, indicating a higher risk of 
terrorist attack. We must support the actions being taken across our 
country to mobilize Federal response assets, strengthen the protection 
of our transportation systems, tighten security at our borders and 
ports, increase public health preparedness, and improve the 
capabilities of first responders.
  Secretary Ridge confirmed in a letter today that a supplemental 
appropriations request will be sent to Congress by the President in the 
near future to support homeland security efforts. This amendment will 
accommodate additional funding to meet these immediate homeland 
security needs, and I urge Senators to support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter I 
described addressed to the Honorable William Frist, Senate majority 
leader, from Tom Ridge be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 2003.
     Hon. William Frist,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: I appreciate your leadership as 
     Congress deliberates the FY 2004 Budget Resolution. I am 
     writing to urge you and your colleagues to maintain an 
     appropriate balance between adequate funding provided for 
     homeland security programs, program levels that can be spent 
     responsibly, and fiscal discipline.
       The Administration opposes the pending Schumer amendment. 
     Substantial additional funding levels in the Budget 
     resolution could be diverted away from terrorism preparedness 
     and into activities that are traditionally funded by state 
     and local governments. Defending our homeland is not just 
     about spending more money. We need to ensure that funding 
     provided for ``homeland security'' is truly directed to 
     programs that help protect America against terrorism--the 
     President's FY 2004 Budget supports these programs as does 
     the Senate Budget Resolution.
       The FY 2004 budget represents a doubling of funding for 
     non-defense homeland security since the September 11th 
     terrorist attacks. This year, the President is requesting 
     $3,558 billion in First Responder funding for terrorism 
     preparedness grants and training and assistance. The Budget 
     also includes $4.8 billion for the Transportation Security 
     Agency--this level will fund a complete airport screener 
     workforce, maintain nearly 10,000 pieces of TSA screening 
     equipment, ensure coverage on commercial aircraft of with 
     additional Federal Air Marshals, and assess methods for 
     improved screening of air cargo on commercial flights. More 
     than $1.6 billion is requested for biodefense research. 
     Through this investment and the proposed BioShield 
     initiative, the President is moving as quickly as possible to 
     research, develop and procure bioterror countermeasures. The 
     Budget also provides $6.7 billion for DHS's Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection--this level will support the continued 
     development of the comprehensive Entry/Exit system, 
     infrastructure and technology investments including remotely 
     operated infrared cameras to monitor isolated border areas, 
     radiation detection and x-ray machines for inspecting cargo 
     containers, and $62 million for the Container Security 
     Initiative.
       As I indicated on Wednesday, the President intends to send 
     a supplemental appropriations request to Congress in the near 
     future to support the homeland security efforts of state and 
     local entities during this time of heightened threat.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Ridge,
                                                        Secretary.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the two managers are listening, we do 
not yet have a unanimous consent agreement that there will be 1 minute 
for each side prior to a vote. I am going to ask unanimous consent that 
that be the case.
  Also, the two managers want to make sure the Chair enforces the 1-
minute rule. The only way that can be enforced is that the Chair, when 
the minute is up, stops the person from speaking; otherwise, it runs 
into a minute and a half, 2 minutes, and we waste a great deal of time.
  I ask unanimous consent that prior to each vote there be 1 minute on 
each side, and that be strictly enforced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to modify that. This consent agreement will be for this group of 
votes we now have planned.
  Mr. REID. Not this vote right now.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the 10 votes we have ordered, not necessarily for 
every vote we might have today. We will probably do that later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify his request?

[[Page S4230]]

  Mr. REID. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I believe the Senator from New York wants to speak on 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am surprised at and happy to support 
the Cochran amendment. Unlike what I had been told last night, it does 
not take the money out of 920. It rather adds the cap. It is $3.5 
billion of homeland security money which we very much need.
  I hasten to add, I do not think $3.5 billion is enough. Our amendment 
had over $5 billion, and it does not go into 2004 and the outyears. We 
have a long way to go on homeland security, but this is a good first 
step.
  I am delighted to support the amendment, and I thank the Senator from 
Mississippi for helping us raise the amount of homeland security money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, 
this will be a 15-minute vote. We plan on strictly enforcing this vote 
at 15 minutes. We plan on strictly enforcing the subsequent rollcall 
votes at 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Cochran 
amendment No. 369.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) 
and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     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
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Daschle
     Frist
     Miller
  The amendment (No. 369) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I inquire of the Parliamentarian how long 
that rollcall lasted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It lasted 21\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the information of colleagues, the majority leader 
and minority leader were cut off; in the next vote we are going to cut 
off a lot of people if they are not here and voting within 10 minutes. 
I forewarn our colleagues. I will be fair and bipartisan. We will cut 
off people if they are not here to vote. We will limit the votes to 10 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 270

  The next amendment in order is the Feingold amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. This amendment, which I offer with Senators Corzine, 
Durbin, Graham of Florida, and Hollings, would create a reserve fund to 
set aside $100 billion, an amount well within the range of available 
estimates, to fund military action and reconstruction in Iraq. We would 
pay for this by reducing the amount we would budget for tax cuts in the 
period covered by the budget resolution.
  No one is certain how much the war with Iraq will actually cost, but 
we can be certain such a war will not be free. The Center for Strategic 
and Budgetary Assessments estimates that the total cost could range 
from $129 billion to $683 billion. Today's Wall Street Journal reports 
a supplemental appropriations request is expected shortly that will ask 
for $80 billion and that will cover just the first 30 days of the war. 
The day before yesterday the President said the war may be longer and 
more difficult than some predict.
  Plainly, we are talking about a major enterprise and one for which we 
should budget. We are in a war. The budget must reflect it. This is no 
time for business as usual. We should prepare responsibly for that 
which is right before our eyes. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment. We asked CRS to do a study on how we funded wars in the 
past, and did we do it in advance. Based on the examination of previous 
reviews, fronting for wars and other major military operations, it 
appears that Presidents have not requested and Congress has not 
provided funding for wars in advance of the start of operations; 
rather, administrations have requested funding after operations have 
begun and Congress has subsequently appropriated money to meet 
specific, documented budget requirements.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The question is on agreeing to 
the Feingold amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     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
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Miller
       
  The amendment (No. 270) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the last 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.


                           Amendment No. 300

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S4231]]


       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself 
     and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 300.

  The amendment is as follows:

            (Purpose: To restore national security funding)

       At the end of Subtitle B of Title II, insert the following:

     ``SEC. ____. RESERVE FUND FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

       ``In the Senate, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may increase aggregates, functional totals, 
     allocations, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     by up to $103,500 billion in Budget Authority and $88,036 
     billion in Outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2013 for a 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     providing additional resources for defense or homeland 
     security.''
       On page 45, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $88,036,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $4,303,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $11,094,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $17,704,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $24,209,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $30,726,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $4,303,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $11,094,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $17,704,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $24,209,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $30,726,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $6,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $14,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $21,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $27,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $34,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $4,303,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $11,094,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $17,704,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, increase the amount by $24,209,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $30,726,000,000.
       On page 42, line 22, increase the amount by $6,500,000,000.
       On page 42, line 23, increase the amount by $4,303,000,000.
       On page 43, line 2, increase the amount by $14,500,000,000.
       On page 43, line 3, increase the amount by $11,094,010,000.
       On page 43, line 6, increase the amount by $21,000,000,000.
       On page 43, line 7, increase the amount by $17,704,000,000.
       On page 43, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $27,500,000,000.
       On page 43, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $24,209,000,000.
       On page 43, line 14, increase the amount by 
     $34,000,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, increase the amount by 
     $30,726,000,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my amendment establishes a reserve 
fund for national defense and homeland security. The amendment is 
necessary because the budget resolution actually cuts defense spending 
by $103 billion below the President's request over that 10-year window. 
That is according to CBO and SBC. From 2004 through 2008, the 
Republican budget assumes defense spending at the level requested by 
the President. But the last 5 years of the budget window, from 2009 
through 2013, the Republican budget resolution cuts $103 billion below 
the level CBO estimates.
  I ask that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle be very 
careful when they look at the Republican message. It says the 
Lautenberg amendment reduces the growth package by $103 billion in 
budget authority and $88 billion in outlays. They don't say that the 
budget comes from the tax cuts.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, as the hearts and minds of all 
Americans are with our brave men and women in uniform who are embarking 
on the most perilous of journeys, I rise to speak in support of Senator 
Lautenberg's amendment and fulfill what I see as one of the most 
important duties of any Senator.
  The Constitution of the United States invests the President with the 
authority of the Commander in Chief, but it also establishes the 
Congress as the guarantor of the quality and size of the Army, the 
Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines because it is the Congress that 
authorizes the expenditure of moneys to fund the military. As Senators 
we have a great responsibility to watch over those who man the walls of 
our Nation's defenses.
  Along the Iraq-Kuwait border the U.S. military is striking. Our Armed 
Forces are engaged the world over in a fight against terror. Our 
uniformed commanders have testified before us that not since the Second 
World War has the U.S. military been so dispersed; not since that 
conflict have our Armed Forces been engaged with the enemy in so many 
locales and climes. My colleagues and I on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee are aware of the difficulties our soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines and their families face as a result of these strenuous 
deployments. We have applauded the Department of Defense's efforts to 
address the quality of life of its troops. Following in the best 
traditions of this Chamber, we have worked together in a truly 
bipartisan fashion to increase military pay levels. We have addressed 
spousal benefits and we will, in the upcoming months of this Congress, 
debate, and I hope determine once and for all the issue of concurrent 
receipt. Year after year we strive to provide funding to equip our 
forces with the most advanced technology the world has ever seen.
  Therefore, Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, as a strong supporter of our Armed Forces, as one who 
recognizes the strain of current operations upon our force structure 
and the importance of maintaining funding levels for the Department 
presently and for the foreseeable future, I cannot agree with any 
proposal which will reverse the important gains that we have made.
  I believe we must oppose any attempt to decrease essential funding 
for our national defense in order to paper over the fiscal havoc that 
the President's proposed tax cuts cause. It is irresponsible to, when 
we are at war, when the challenges that our men and women in uniform 
face are so omnipresent, contemplate slashing the future funds that 
will make it possible for them to maintain their dominance into the 
next decade.
  I direct my colleagues' attention to the Senate Republican budget 
resolution, which cuts defense spending after 2009 by more than a $100 
billion--$100 billion.
  The resolution calls for a $6.5 billion drawdown in 2009 from the 
funding level that the Congressional Budget Office estimates as 
required for the maintenance of the 2008 spending levels. In 2010 that 
shortfall would be $15.5 billion. A year later it is a $21.0 billion 
shortfall. A year later it grows to $27.5 billion. By 2013 the amount 
is $34.0 billion.
  And why? To try to correct the fiscal damage the tax cuts have put us 
in. Now, I think we are all in agreement with Chairman Nickles that the 
record-setting deficits that will be the bitter fruit of the 
President's tax cuts need to be dealt with. But to deal with them by 
cutting moneys that will fuel our planes, feed our marines, steam our 
ships, and arm our weapons is unfortunate indeed. I challenge the 
proponents of this plan to go out into the Kuwaiti desert and stand in 
front of a U.S. platoon, and tell them that the future funding that is 
to secure them better communications gear or more money to fund 
training or better body armor is being cut. Cut because the Senate 
majority refuses to take the President to task for pursuing fiscally 
irresponsible tax cuts on the eve of a war, and in the midst of an 
international campaign against terror.
  The amendment that I rise in support of offers another way. Let's 
carve out a $103.5 billion fund from the $1.4 trillion tax cut and use 
it to create a designated fund for the defense of our Nation's 
security. In doing so we will serve to offset the proposed reductions 
in defense spending set forth in the Budget Resolution. By our actions 
we will prevent the diversion of cash from accounts that fund the 
defense of this country to an ill-considered, nonstimulative tax cut.
  We are at war. Our military, the most powerful professional armed 
force ever arrayed on the face of the earth is shouldering a heavy 
burden. To discuss cutting the very funding that will keep them the 
preeminent military force is more than poor politics--it is 
irresponsible. I like to think that what Lincoln called ``the better 
angels of our nature'' still, in these troubled times,

[[Page S4232]]

hold sway over our baser instincts. I urge you to support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. This 
is a good reason that maybe we should not have 10-year budgets. He 
assumes we should increase spending in some areas instead of defense, 
but there is not one line item that says 050. Nothing would increase 
money in defense under this resolution. It would increase taxes. It 
would increase spending, unspecified spending.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
300.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Miller
       
  The amendment (No. 300) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 265

                    (Purpose: To eliminate tax cuts)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment No. 265.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 265.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 printed in the Record of Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  There will be 2 minutes of debate evenly divided.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if you turn to page 6 of the budget, you 
will see that for the fiscal year we are projecting going into the red 
$484 billion; for 2004, $582 billion; for 2005, $556 billion. So for 
the 3-year period, that is $1.5 trillion going into the red. That is 
$1.5 trillion of stimulus.
  If anybody wants to talk growth, you know dividends and the estate 
tax are not going to stimulate anything. This is $l.5 trillion of 
stimulus. The only thing that grows in this budget is the debt. So for 
those who are responding to the needs of the country, trying to get us 
to sober up and get back on track and get ahold of ourselves and quit 
running these horrendous deficits and spending Social Security, vote 
aye; for those responding to the needs of the campaign, vote no.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment. This amendment says there will be no growth package. It 
implies a tax increase in 2011, 2012, and 2013. That means a 10-percent 
rate would go to 15 percent; the child credit that would be $1,000 will 
fall back to $500; the marriage penalty would be increased.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disagreement with 
the priorities set forth in the budget resolution we have been 
debating, and support for the amendments offered by my colleagues from 
South Carolina and New York, Senators Hollings and Schumer. With our 
Nation at war, we must do all we can to support our troops, ensure that 
our homeland is secure, and continue our emphasis on significant 
domestic priorities, such as education and health care. This is why I 
believe it would be unwise to enact further tax cuts that would pit 
these priorities against each other for limited Federal dollars and 
lead us further down the path to fiscal irresponsibility.
  We have commenced military operations against an enemy who has defied 
efforts at international diplomacy. Without a doubt, these efforts will 
come at substantial cost which is not reflected in this budget. 
Proponents must rely on budget tactics to show that we can allow 
additional tax cuts to be passed. I would like to associate my comments 
with those of my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, who 
rightfully attempted to enforce patriotic pause on this very point.
  This budget repudiates our commitment to fight the evil of terrorism 
within our own borders. It fails to adequately fund homeland security, 
which is why I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my friend 
from New York, Senator Schumer, who has requested that $88 billion be 
provided over 11 years for urgent homeland security needs, including 
immediate funding for those on the home front--first responders, 
firefighters, port, border and transportation security. I also applaud 
the provisions for bioterrorism preparedness and threat and critical 
infrastructure assessment. At a time when threats to U.S. civilians 
within our borders are very real, we must not abandon, for the sake of 
tax cuts, our resolve to ensure the peace of mind of families at home 
and individuals in their workplaces--many who are praying for loved 
ones fighting in our armed services abroad.
  This resolution calls for tax cuts that will do nothing to stimulate 
the economy, but would worsen the progressivity of the Tax Code. It 
would also rob our most important investment of required resources, and 
that is the investment in the education of America's children. We 
should be sending the message to our children that we will do all we 
can to give them the knowledge and tools to be able to meet future 
challenges that will face this country, when we in this body are long 
gone. Instead, if we pass additional tax cuts, we are saying that we 
will place political gain over a solid start in life for young 
Americans. This is why I voted for the amendment proposed by my 
colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, along with others, 
that would have provided an $8.9 billion increase in education funding, 
as well as $8.9 billion for deficit reduction out of funding designated 
for tax cuts. This funding increase sought to fully fund the No Child 
Left Behind Act. We only began to fulfill some of the promises we made 
in passing this sweeping education reform law through the fiscal year 
2003 appropriations process. We cannot let this investment waver in 
fiscal year 2004.
  Finally, I oppose efforts to decrease Federal revenues sorely needed 
to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries have access to the 
comprehensive prescription drug program that they deserve. Far too many 
seniors are currently unable to afford the costs of the prescription 
drugs that their doctors prescribe. Seniors must be able to obtain 
meaningful prescription drug coverage through the traditional Medicare 
Program. I supported the amendment sponsored by my colleagues, Senators 
Bob Graham, Dorgan, and Stabenow, which would have made sure that a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit is adequately funded, by increasing 
the Medicare reserve fund by approximately $220 billion. The amendment

[[Page S4233]]

would also have guaranteed that participants in traditional Medicare 
receive the same prescription drug benefit as beneficiaries that enroll 
in private Medicare health plans. The funding should be included in the 
budget resolution to adequately protect our Nation's seniors against 
the increasing costs of prescription drugs instead of to accommodate 
additional tax cuts. The Graham-Dorgan-Stabenow amendment would have 
reduced the size of the tax cuts in the budget resolution by 
approximately $400 billion and provided a clear choice between 
additional tax cuts or a meaningful prescription drug benefit.
  The time has come to face our fiscal responsibilities honestly. Tax 
cuts are not the answer at this point in our Nation's history. I join 
with Senator Hollings and other colleagues in opposition to the passage 
of additional tax cuts that would steal much needed revenues at a time 
of great need. I owe it to the people of Hawaii and we owe it to the 
people of America.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes

                                NAYS--77

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 265) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the next two amendments that are in order 
are the Sarbanes amendment and the Crapo amendment. I believe they have 
been able to work something out. I thank them for that. We will save 
considerable time. I yield to the Senator from Maryland for a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be very quick. Senator Crapo and 
I have been in discussions. We have reached an accord which will enable 
the managers to accept the amendment. This is directed to providing 
additional funding for the State revolving fund dealing with clean 
water and safe drinking water. There is an overwhelming need. The 
Federal involvement is a leveraging involvement for State and local 
governments to help address this important issue.
  I am pleased to work with Senator Crapo. We have come to a positive 
conclusion.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
Sarbanes amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Idaho for his 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 317

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I also appreciate Senator Sarbanes and the 
other Senators in the Chamber who are so involved in working on this 
critical issue. Our water infrastructure needs in this Nation are 
crying out for attention. This is one of those areas we have to address 
in the budget. We have the kind of need that requires us to be focused 
and unified.
  I am very pleased we were able to come together on an amendment today 
that will help us begin the process of addressing the crying need in 
our Nation's infrastructure for water systems.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am not sure we called up the Crapo 
amendment. We withdraw the Sarbanes amendment. I do not believe we 
called up the Crapo amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], for himself and Mr. 
     Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 317.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Crapo-
Sarbanes amendment be modified to include Senator Sarbanes as a 
cosponsor. I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for his 
leadership and willingness to work together. I am glad we can accept 
it, and I think we can have a voice vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we hear the reading of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Or reading can be dispensed with. We have not heard the 
reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 317.

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

    (Purpose: To increase funding for the EPA for Clean Water State 
    Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund)

       On page 16, line 11, increase the amount by $3,009,000,000.
       On page 16, line 12, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 16, line 16, increase the amount by $451,000,000.
       On page 16, line 20, increase the amount by $903,000,000.
       On page 16, line 24, increase the amount by $903,000,000.
       On page 17, line 3, increase the amount by $451,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, decrease the amount by $3,009,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $451,000,000.
       On page 42, line 11, decrease the amount by $903,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by $903,000,000.
       On page 42, line 19, decrease the amount by $451,000,000.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by the Senators from Maryland and the Senator from 
Florida.
  Today, we know that our Nation's waters are at risk. We have made 
progress since the days of the early 1970s when textile mills in 
Vermont turned river water the ``color of the day'' that was being used 
in the mill. It is almost unimaginable that wastewater would move 
directly from homes and businesses, untreated, into our rivers and 
streams.
  Our towns and cities, along with the Federal Government, have 
invested billions of dollars over the last 30 years to build the 
infrastructure to treat our wastewater and drinking water. However, 
even with those investments, we continue to fail to fully protect our 
waters from pollution.
  The EPA estimates that over 40 percent of our Nation's waters are 
impaired. That is close to half of our Nation's waters. Lingering 
problems such as combined sewer overflows and ongoing challenges such 
as nonpoint source pollution continue to require our attention.
  The progress we have made over the last 30 years stands on the brink 
of evaporation as the extensive water and wastewater infrastructure we 
have built is nears the end of its useful life. There are a number of 
estimates of the current funding gap in the areas of water and 
wastewater infrastructure.

[[Page S4234]]

  The EPA estimates a $535 billion gap between current spending and 
projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 
20 years if additional investments are not made.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the spending gap for 
clean water needs is estimated to be between $132 billion and $388 
billion over 20 years and the spending gap for drinking water needs at 
between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.
  It is not solely the Federal Government's responsibility to fill this 
gap.
  However, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to provide a 
reasonable investment in water infrastructure, given the size of the 
anticipated needs. The budget before us today fails to meet that 
responsibility. Those supporting the budget will say that it provides 
level funding for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRF.
  They will say that the President's budget had such a low request for 
the Clean Water SRF in particular--one-half of traditional funding 
levels--that the funding level in this budget is an accomplishment.
  The fact that the President failed to recognize our water 
infrastructure needs and requested such an inadequate amount of funding 
does not justify the same failure by the Congress.
  I know that many Members of the Senate share this view. In December 
2002, Senators Sarbanes and Voinovich and 38 Members of the Senate from 
both sides of the aisle sent a letter to the President asking him to 
provide $3.2 billion for the Clean Water SRF and $2 billion for the 
Drinking Water SRF.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 10, 2002.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you prepare your fiscal 2004 budget, 
     we urge you to make investment in clean water infrastructure 
     a top environmental and public health priority. Specifically, 
     we ask that you provide for at least a $3.1 billion increase 
     above the Fiscal 2003 request of $2.1 billion in the Clean 
     Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SFR) to 
     help states and local communities meet water quality 
     standards and restore the health and safety of our nation's 
     waters.
       This year marks the 30th Anniversary of the landmark Clean 
     Water Act. Despite important progress over the last three 
     decades, more than 40 percent of our nation's lakes, rivers 
     and streams are still too impaired for fishing or swimming. 
     Discharges from aging and failing sewerage systems, urban 
     storm water and other sources, continue to pose serious 
     threats to our nation's waters, endangering not only public 
     health, but fishing and recreation industries. Population 
     growth and development are placing additional stress on the 
     nation's water infrastructure and its ability to sustain 
     hard-won water quality gains. Today, maintaining clean, safe 
     water remains one of our greatest national and global 
     challenges.
       On September 30, 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) released a Clean Water and Drinking Water 
     Infrastructure Gap Analysis which found that there will be a 
     $535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs 
     for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 
     years if additional investments are not made. This figure 
     does not even account for investments necessary to meet water 
     quality goals in nutrient impaired waters. As Administrator 
     Whitman pointed out, ``(t)he magnitude of the challenge 
     America faces is clearly beyond the ability of any one entity 
     to address.''
       It is vital that the Federal government maintain a strong 
     partnership with states and local governments in averting 
     this massive projected funding gap and share in the burden of 
     maintaining and improving the nation's water infrastructure. 
     An increase in funding for the Clean Water SRF to $3.2 
     billion and for the Drinking Water SRF to $2 billion in 
     fiscal 2004 is the first step necessary to meet the Federal 
     government's longstanding commitment in this regard.
       Thank you for your consideration. The Administration's 
     leadership is needed to ensure that our communities' water 
     resources are kept clean and safe.
           Sincerely,
         Paul S. Sarbanes; Jack Reed; Jim Jeffords; Carl Levin; 
           John F. Kerry; George V. Voinovich; Susan Collins; Jeff 
           Bingaman; Barbara A. Mikulski; Arlen Specter.
         John Breaux; Debbie Stabenow; Tom Harkin; Jon S. Corzine; 
           Evan Bayh; Lincoln Chafee; Gordon Smith; Blanch L. 
           Lincoln; Ted Kennedy; Chris Dodd; Mike DeWine; Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton.
         Ron Wyden; John Rockefeller; Barbara Boxer; Joe Biden; 
           Maria Cantwell; J. Lieberman; Dick Durbin; Mark Dayton; 
           Dianne Feinstein; Olympia Snowe.
         Patrick Leahy; George Allen; Robert C. Byrd; Tom Daschle; 
           Chuck Schumer; Tom Carper.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the President ignored this request.
  On March 7, I joined Senators Sarbanes, Voinovich, and thirty-seven 
Members from both sides of the aisle in sending a letter to the Budget 
Committee asking for these same funding levels.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2003.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Chairman, Senate Budget Committee.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member, Senate Budget Committee.
       Dear Senators Nickles and Conrad: As you prepare the fiscal 
     year 2004 budget, we urge you to make clean water and 
     drinking water infrastructure a top environmental and health 
     priority. Specifically, we ask that you provide for at least 
     a $3.5 billion increase above the fiscal year 2004 request of 
     $1.7 billion for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 
     Revolving Funds (SRF) to help states and local communities 
     meet water quality standards and restore the health and 
     safety of our nation's waters.
       Despite important progress over the last three decades, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency reports that more than 40 
     percent of our nation's lakes, rivers, and streams are still 
     too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging 
     and failing sewage systems, urban storm water and other 
     sources continue to pose serious threats to our nation's 
     waters, endangering not only public health, but also fishing 
     and recreation industries. Population growth and development 
     are placing additional stress on the nation's water 
     infrastructure and its ability to sustain hard-won water 
     quality gains. Today, maintaining clean, safe water remains 
     one of our greatest national and global challenges.
       On September 30, 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and 
     Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis which found that 
     there will be a $535 billion gap between current spending and 
     projected needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over 
     the next 20 years if additional investments are not made. As 
     Administrator Whitman pointed out,'' . . . (t)he magnitude of 
     the challenge America faces is clearly beyond the ability of 
     any one entity to address.''
       In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a 
     report that estimated the spending gap for clean water needs 
     between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years and the 
     spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion 
     and $362 billion over 20 years.
       We are now writing to you asking that the Senate Budget 
     Committee take the first steps needed to demonstrate 
     leadership in helping our communities' keep our water 
     resources clean and safe by increasing the budget allocation 
     for Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs to $5.2 billion.
       It is vital that the Federal government maintains a strong 
     partnership with states and local governments in averting 
     this massive projected funding gap and share in the burden of 
     maintaining and improving the nation's water infrastructure. 
     An increase in funding for the Clean Water SRF to $3.2 
     billion and for the Drinking Water SRF to $2 billion in 
     fiscal year 2004 is the first step necessary to meet the 
     Federal government's longstanding commitment in this regard.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Jim Jeffords; George Voinovich; Tom Daschle; Ted Kennedy; 
           John F. Kerry; George Allen; Carl Levin; Paul Sarbanes; 
           Bob Graham; Lincoln Chafee; Olympia Snowe; Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton; Patrick Leahy; Mike DeWine.
         Jack Reed; Barbara A. Mikulski; John Breaux; Debbie 
           Stabenow; Arlen Specter; Max Baucus; Barbara Boxer; Joe 
           Biden; Daniel K. Akaka; Christopher Dodd; Charles 
           Schumer; Joseph Lieberman; John Rockefeller; Jeff 
           Bingaman; Blanche Lincoln; Dick Durbin; Susan Collins; 
           Harry Reid; John Warner; Maria Cantwell.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the committee responded and provided a 
slight increase over the President's request. I thank the committee for 
that.
  However, that slight increase comes nowhere close to meeting the huge 
water infrastructure funding gap. It comes nowhere close to meeting the 
funding levels that were endorsed twice by over one-third of the 
Senate.
  Now is the time to increase funding for water infrastructure, not 
decrease it. We have the opportunity today to make an investment in our 
Nation's water infrastructure that will protect the gains we have made 
in the last 30 years. Without this investment, we run the risk of 
actually increasing the number of polluted waters in the country.

[[Page S4235]]

  Before I close, I want to say a word about the economy. We must take 
action to prevent our economy from faltering. Investment in water 
infrastructure is estimated to create 40,000 jobs for every billion 
dollars invested. We are proposing to invest $5.2 billion in the State 
revolving funds. The States will provide a 20 percent match of just 
over $1 billion. This could create up over 200,000 jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment proposed by the Senator 
of Maryland.
  By voting aye on this amendment, we can take direct action to improve 
both the State of our Nation's waters and the state of our Nation's 
economy.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I support my friend's amendment to increase 
Federal funding to $5.2 billion next year to help local communities 
provide our families and businesses with safe drinking water and clean 
waste water.
  Our water pipes are aging and falling into disrepair. New regulations 
to treat stormwater are placing a huge burden on localities. Growth 
across the country, especially in the South and West, requires 
additional water funding.
  In my own State of Missouri, we have small communities such as 
Pickering of no more than 150 people that still lack sewer systems. 
Mid-size cities such as Lebanon have tripled water rates and still 
can't afford new EPA regulations. Even our large cities such as St. 
Louis face many of the problems our aging eastern urban areas face. A 
recent series of articles in the St. Louis Post Dispatch highlighted 
St. Louis still using sewer pipes more than 100 years old and made of 
wood.
  This crisis is too great for local communities to bear alone. Experts 
estimate the funding gap between what we as a Nation contribute and 
what is needed to clean and provide safe water at $500 billion over 20 
years.
  That's $25 billion per year. The Federal Government can't close that 
gap alone, but we must provide more than the current paltry $2.2 
billion per year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Crapo amendment to increase vital 
water funds without depriving our citizens of their much deserved tax 
relief to spur economic growth, create jobs, and indirectly increase 
revenue for Government at all levels.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 317.
  The amendment (No. 317) was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank both our colleagues. We just 
saved at least 30 minutes. I thank them both very much for their 
cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I, too, thank our colleagues. Maybe this 
serves as a good example of how we might proceed.


                           Amendment No. 376

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

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 376.

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

(Purpose: To provide full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities 
   Education Act (IDEA) part B grants over ten years by reducing tax 
                  breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,173,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $2,835,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $4,585,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $6,335,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $8,085,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $9,835,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $11,585,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $13,335,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $15,078,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $1,173,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $2,835,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $4,585,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $6,335,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $8,085,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $9,835,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $11,585,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $13,335,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $15,078,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,750,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $5,250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $8,750,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $10,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $12,250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $14,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $15,750,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $17,131,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $1,173,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $2,835,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $4,585,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $6,335,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $8,085,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $9,835,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $11,585,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, increase the amount by $13,335,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $15,078,000,000.
       On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $1,750,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 25, line 20, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by $1,173,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $5,250,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $2,835,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $4,585,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $8,750,000,000.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $6,335,000,000.
       On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $10,500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, increase the amount by $8,085,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by 
     $12,250,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $9,835,000,000.
       On page 26, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $14,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, increase the amount by 
     $11,585,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by 
     $15,750,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $13,335,000,000.
       On page 27, line 2, increase the amount by $17,131,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $15,078,000,000.
       Strike Section 211 and insert in its place the following:

     SEC. 211. RESERVE FUND FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall, in 
     consultation with the Members of the Committee on the Budget 
     and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the appropriate 
     committee, increase the allocations pursuant to section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate by up to $1,750,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $35,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $26,250,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $14,963,000,000 in outlays for 
     the total of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and 
     $95,881,000,000 in new budget authority and $72,880,000,000 
     in outlays for the total of fiscal years 2004 through 2013, 
     for a bill, amendment, or conference report that would 
     provide increased funding for part B grants, other than 
     section 619, under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (IDEA), with the goal that funding for these 
     grants, when

[[Page S4236]]

     taken together with amounts provided by the Committee on 
     Appropriations, provides 40 percent of the national average 
     per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities in the 
     tenth year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment moves to 
keep the promise on IDEA. When the Federal Government enacted this 
program, it promised the States and the local jurisdictions that it 
would fund 40 percent of the expense.
  We have never done that. We are at about half that amount. As a 
result, we have forced property tax increases all across America. This 
amendment says let's keep the promise on IDEA. We phase it in over 10 
years. It costs $73 billion in outlays. It is paid for by the 
nonreconciled tax cuts. Let me emphasize to my colleagues, the 
nonreconciled tax cuts.
  I hope my colleagues will give serious consideration to this 
amendment. Let's keep the promise on IDEA. Let's help those local 
jurisdictions at a time of enormous financial stress meet the need.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to pledge my continued support for 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Fully funding the 
Federal Government's share of special education costs is one of the 
most important investments we can make in our children and our schools. 
Funding IDEA to the full 40 percent will lift the burden of rising 
special education costs off the backs of our schools and enhance their 
ability to deliver a quality education to all students.
  I have consistently fought to make full funding of IDEA a reality, 
and I will continue to build on the progress we have made.
  But I am forced to vote against this 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, over the last 4 years, especially over the 
last 2 years President Bush has been in office, there has been a 
dramatic increase in IDEA funding. In fact, we have increased IDEA 
funding by almost 173 percent. Last year, we added $1 billion. This 
year, we added $1 billion. This budget will add $1 billion on top of 
that--$3 billion in 3 years. This has been a major commitment to IDEA. 
I will be following the amendment the Senator from North Dakota has 
proposed with another amendment which will add an additional $3.2 
billion into IDEA. It is inappropriate to take the course of action 
which the Senator from North Dakota has proposed. We believe we can do 
it in a much more thoughtful and appropriate way with the following 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
376.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     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
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     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
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Miller
       
       
  The amendment (No. 376) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. 377

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 377.

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

   (Purpose: To increase funding for Part B of the Individuals with 
  Disabilities Education Act by reducing spending on other government 
                   programs by a commensurate amount)

       On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $969,602,000.
       On page 25, line 20, increase the amount by $2,319,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $19,392,040.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by $657,229,260.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $1,751,850,600.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $744,180,100.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $115,950,000.

[[Page S4237]]

       On page 42, line 2, decrease the amount by $969,602,000.
       On page 42, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,319,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, decrease the amount by $19,392,040.
       On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $657,229,260.
       On page 42, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,751,850,600.
       On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by $744,180,100.
       On page 42, line 19, decrease the amount by $115,950,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will receive 2 minutes of debate 
evenly divided on each side.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment represents another 
significant increase in IDEA funding. It represents a $3.2 billion 
increase over the next 2 years, which will mean that the total increase 
in IDEA funding over the next 2 years will be approximately $6.7 
billion. That is a very dramatic increase that puts us clearly on a 
path toward full funding of the IDEA accounts, on which many have 
worked for a long time. I hope the membership supports the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield time to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is as phony as a $3 bill. 
It provides for 2 years of funding for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act and then you drop off the face of the Earth. 
And it gets the money from--where? It gets it from nowhere. It is play 
money.
  Later on, I will have an amendment that will really fund that. I have 
been working on an amendment with the Senator from Nebraska that will 
really put the money in there and get us fully funded for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by 2011. It will not be 
funny money, and it will not fall off the face of the Earth in 2 years 
like the Gregg amendment.
  I ask for defeat of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Gregg 
amendment No. 377.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     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

                                NAYS--10

     Akaka
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin

                             NOT VOTING--1

                                 Miller
                                     
                                     

  The amendment (no. 377) was agreed to.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 71, I voted nay. It 
was my intention to vote yea. I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
will soon be voting on the Mikulski amendment. This will complete the 
first batch of amendments and Senator Conrad and I will be working to 
put together a list of additional amendments. So I expect there will be 
some break, just for the information of our colleagues. We hope to 
begin--this vote will start in just a couple of minutes. I expect we 
will have another round of votes beginning probably close to 1:15.
  Mr. SARBANES. A lunch break.


                           Amendment No. 349

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the next amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) proposed an 
     amendment numbered 349.

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

  (Purpose: To revise the resolution to accommodate in reconciliation 
   legislation a partially refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 for 
eligible expenses for individuals with long term or chronic care needs 
of their family caregivers who pay these expenses; in which ``eligible 
  expenses'' shall include prescription drugs, medical bills, durable 
  medical equipment, home health care, custodial care, respite care, 
 adult day care, transportation to chronic care or medical facilities, 
specialized therapy (including occupational therapy, physical therapy, 
 or rehabilitational therapy), other specialized services for children 
 (including day care for children with special needs), and other long 
 term care related expenses as defined by the Secretary of Health and 
 Human Services; and in which ``individuals with long term or chronic 
 care needs'' shall mean individuals with multiple chronic conditions, 
 individuals unable to perform activities of daily living, individuals 
  with severe cognitive impairment, individuals with complex medical 
conditions, and other individuals with similar levels of disability or 
                             need for care)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $256,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $267,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $578,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $908,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $941,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $1,313,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $1,375,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,799,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $256,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $267,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $578,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $908,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $941,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,313,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,375,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $1,799,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $256,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $267,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $578,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $908,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $941,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,313,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,375,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $1,799,000,000.

[[Page S4238]]

       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $256,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $267,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $578,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $908,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $941,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $1,313,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, increase the amount by $1,375,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $1,799,000,000.
       On page 27, line 11, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 27, line 12, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
       On page 27, line 15, increase the amount by $256,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, increase the amount by $256,000,000.
       On page 27, line 19, increase the amount by $267,000,000.
       On page 27, line 20, increase the amount by $267,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, increase the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, increase the amount by $552,000,000.
       On page 28, line 2, increase the amount by $578,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, increase the amount by $578,000,000.
       On page 28, line 6, increase the amount by $908,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, increase the amount by $908,000,000.
       On page 28, line 10, increase the amount by $941,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, increase the amount by $941,000,000.
       On page 28, line 14, increase the amount by $1,313,000,000.
       On page 28, line 15, increase the amount by $1,313,000,000.
       On page 28, line 18, increase the amount by $1,375,000,000.
       On page 28, line 19, increase the amount by $1,375,000,000.
       On page 28, line 22, increase the amount by $1,799,000,000.
       On page 28, line 23, increase the amount by $1,799,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on each side. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment would give a tax credit up 
to $5,000 to family caregivers. My amendment would help a family 
dealing with juvenile diabetes, a spouse taking care of someone with 
Alzheimer's, a parent taking care of an adult son with Down's syndrome.
  My tax credit would pay for prescription drugs, home health care, 
durable medical equipment--things that give help to those families 
practicing self-help. These families face a tremendous financial and 
emotional burden. Families will deal with their own emotional burden, 
but I believe America should step up and help them with their financial 
burden as they deal with caregiving in the United States of America.
  Mr. President, 125 million Americans have chronic conditions; 18 
million of those are children. Family caregivers are often stretched to 
the limit, often working two jobs. This amendment costs $35 billion. We 
can afford it and we ought to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields time in 
opposition?
  Mr. NICKLES. Go ahead.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself time.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I obviously do 
not rise in opposition to the goals the Senator from Maryland seeks, 
because I, along with Senator Graham of Florida--the two of us are 
sponsors of an amendment that would provide a $3,000 tax credit for 
family caregiving. But what we are involved with here is taking money 
from the tax reduction fund to put into another program. What we need 
to do is keep the tax reduction fund very strong because it is a growth 
package, it is a job package. We want to create jobs. We want an 
economic environment so when our men and women come home from Iraq 
there are jobs for our men and women. There is no job creation now. We 
want to create jobs. It is going to take a tax cut to create jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Mikulski 
amendment No. 349.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     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
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Miller
       
       
  The amendment (No. 349) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the managers of the bill asked that I 
maintain the floor until they return at approximately 1:15. They ask 
that there be no amendments offered or debate on amendments.
  Senator Byrd is here. And he usually, each spring, gives us a speech 
on springtime.
  Is the Senator ready to speak?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West 
Virginia be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. And I thank my 
distinguished colleague, the Democratic whip, for his characteristic 
courtesy and attention to matters in the Senate, and his always 
readiness to help other Senators in getting recognition. I thank him 
very much.


                               Springtime

  Mr. President, this is my 85th year, but it is my 86th coming of 
spring. I am 85 years old--85 years young--but this is my 86th first 
day of spring.
  So, Mr. President, at long last spring has arrived. How sweet it is. 
How sweet it is. Spring has arrived.
  After a long gray winter made darker by the specter of war, and with 
that conflict now upon us, it is heartening to be reminded of the great 
rhythm of the seasons and the renewal of the earth and the life upon 
it.

       Now Nature hangs her mantle green
       On every blooming tree,
       And spreads her sheets o' daisies white
       Out o'er the grassy lea

  So wrote the poet Robert Burns.
  On the world stage, war plays a leading role, demanding our attention 
with the strident clangor of steel and the tramp of marching troops. 
But in the wings, subtly repainting the background sets, spring softens 
the scenery and gives us hope for the rebirth of peace. Bright crocuses 
blanket the ground in a confetti of color and the green ink of new 
growth stains the tawny fields of winter. The redbuds cover the 
hillsides in a rosy blush as bare forests rush to cover themselves in 
verdant blankets of new leaves. Banks of nodding daffodils cheer the 
anxious hearts of families worrying over loved ones in uniform far from 
home.

[[Page S4239]]

  Last year, a dry and mild winter caused spring bulbs to bloom in 
February. This year, as snowfall after snowfall piled up on lawns and 
roads, it seemed as if no flower could survive in the icy soil. Seed 
catalogs languished unread as we shoveled sidewalks and scraped 
windshields. We told ourselves that we needed the moisture and that the 
snow would replenish the groundwater, but these charitable thoughts 
faded as we faced another foot of new-fallen snow, another miserable 
commute, another slushy slog across parking lot melt. It was a long and 
wearing winter, and for those in the northern latitudes of the United 
States, it lingers on still. In Washington, and in West Virginia, 
however, we are emerging from our dens like bears--shaggy, lean, and 
hungry for spring.

       Sweet is the breath of morn, her rising
       Sweet
       With charm of earliest birds; pleasant
       The sun
       When first on this delightful land he
       Spreads
       His orient beams on herb, tree, fruit
       And flower.

  The poet John Milton wrote those words.
  I look forward to turning away from the incessant news coverage of 
war, and I look forward to spending a few precious moments outside 
listening instead to the spring peepers--those little frogs whose 
singing brings back boyhood memories of long ago, bubbling springs 
along Wolf Creek Hollow in Mercer County, WV. Their singing coincided 
with the arrival of warmer weather and with it, a welcome respite from 
those bitter early morning walks to school, cold hands wrapped around 
my lunch pail handle, coat collar turned up against the wind that 
transformed tender ears into red popsicles.
  As I tend to the simple routines of springtime--cleaning up the 
sticks and leaves strewn across the yard by the winter winds, preparing 
my small garden, of four or five or six or seven tomato plants weeding 
and fertilizing the lawn--I shall look upon the spring flowers in all 
their finery. The forsythia, the lilac, the hyacinth, all are undaunted 
by the code oranges and the code reds. They care nothing for al-Qaida 
terrorists or Tomahawk missiles, for M1-A1 tanks or F-117 bombers, for 
sandy battlefields or military strikes. In their benevolence, they show 
the same cheerful faces to Presidents and dictators, to soldiers and to 
the loved ones those soldiers leave behind. In their camps in Kuwait 
and in their bivouacs in the desert, our brave troops will not see a 
daffodil this spring. But God's daffodil are there for them, just as we 
are, our support as eternal and dependable as the arrival of spring. I 
hope that they can take comfort in knowing that the daffodils still 
bloom and that spring has come at last. With my prayers for their 
safety and quick success, I wish them the energy and purpose of spring. 
May they soon be restored to their loved ones, to us, to enjoy a 
beautiful springtime at home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, normally when there are speeches given not 
on the subject matter of the debate, we ask that they be put someplace 
else in the Record. I think this speech on springtime should stay just 
where it is. This has been a very difficult morning. It is going to be 
a much more difficult afternoon and evening. The speech on springtime 
should appear in the Record for all eternity to show that there are 
other things we do that have more meaning sometimes than the 
meaningless votes we take.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's wonderful statement about 
springtime stay where it is. As busy as we are here, sometimes we don't 
think about it, but because of the Senator from West Virginia, we are 
forced to--speeches he has given on Mother's Day and Father's Day, and 
other such speeches that I will long remember. This speech on 
springtime has caused me to focus on springtime that I would not have 
done otherwise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to be in a quorum call unless 
someone has a speech on a subject not related to the budget that they 
care to give. Senator Nickles and Senator Conrad asked that basically 
we be in a shutdown on the budget until they return, which should be in 
a matter of a few minutes. They wanted to come back around 1:15.
  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.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have tentatively agreed on an outline 
for amendments. I will read through these amendments. It is subject to 
change. I thank my colleague from North Dakota. We are working together 
and trying to accommodate Senators. Most of the amendment requests are 
coming from the minority side of the aisle, and that is the way it 
usually is on these resolutions. I understand that. We are going to try 
to move as expeditiously as possible. We are absolutely committed to 
finishing this bill. It is important we work together to try to 
complete it.
  Some people are outside trying to rewrite amendments or write new 
amendments. I really discourage that. It is this Senator's intention to 
finish the bill. We have only been on it all week, and to have people 
in the drafting stage to see what they can come up with is not a good 
way to finish. We will be here until we finish.
  I will not ask unanimous consent. I will list the order we expect 
just so Senators are notified and can be ready:
  Senator Clinton dealing with homeland security; Senator Dorgan 
dealing with veterans affairs; Senator Breaux and others dealing with 
the $350 billion growth package; Senator Kennedy dealing with Pell 
grants; Senator Gregg dealing with Pell grants; Senator Byrd dealing 
with Amtrak; possibly Senator McCain on Amtrak; Senator Biden dealing 
with COPS; Senator Hollings on port security; Senator Nickles on port 
security; Senator Bond on highways; and Senator Nickles on highways.
  That is our intention. It is not a unanimous consent request. It is 
just our intention, a list, an outline for our colleagues. This will be 
another 10 amendments. I suspect three or four of these amendments will 
drop.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the two managers of this bill have 
been fair in doing their best to list these amendments and have an 
orderly process to dispose of them. Not in this tranche, but maybe the 
next, I hope the two managers will consider having part of a unanimous 
consent agreement that--everyone has been here on time--if someone is 
not here to offer their amendment, I am not sure we should hang around 
and wait for them.
  Mr. NICKLES. I concur.
  We are ready to do business. I believe Senator Clinton has a 
modification of her amendment to send to the desk.


                           Amendment No. 381

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at 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 New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 381.

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

(Purpose: To raise the 2003 caps by $3.5 billion for homeland security 
 funding through a Domestic Defense Fund at the Department of Homeland 
Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness in FY 2003 and to reduce the 
size of newly proposed tax cuts in the amount of $7 billion to pay for 
this amendment and for the cost of previously passed homeland security 
                                funding)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $2,450,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $2,450,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $2,450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $2,450,000,000.

[[Page S4240]]

       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $3,491,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $575,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $128,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $174,500,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $197,500,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $211,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $238,500,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $251,500,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $265,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $281,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $1,216,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $1,167,500,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $572,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $175,500,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $197,500,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $211,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $238,500,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $251,500,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $265,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $281,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $1,234,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $1,282,500,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $828,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $524,500,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $197,500,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $211,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $238,500,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $251,500,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $265,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $281,000,000.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 23, line 20, increase the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 24, line 3, increase the amount by $350,000,000.
       On page 46, line 20, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 46, line 21, increase the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 47, line 6, increase the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 47, line 15, increase the amount by $700,000,000.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Earlier today, the Senate passed an amendment offered 
by Senator Cochran----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. There is no time for 
debate on the amendment.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for this list of amendments I have 
outlined, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided on each of these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate passed an 
amendment offered by Senator Cochran to increase homeland security 
funding by $3.5 million in the emergency supplemental bill we will 
consider in the coming weeks. This is an important first step, but it 
is not nearly enough and it should be paid for.
  Our cities have already invested $2.6 billion to protect the American 
homefront. This amendment adds $3.5 billion to Senator Cochran's 
amendment and takes the fiscally responsible approach of paying for the 
full $7 billion without reducing the reconciliation amount. I think we 
need to be much more vigorous in providing the funds that our police, 
our firefighters, and our cities need. This will help us move in that 
direction, and it will also be paid for, which is another important 
value that this budget should be trying to promote.
  I ask for its approval and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I do not know when we can say enough is 
enough. We have doubled the funding for homeland security in 2003 
compared to 2002. That is a result of 9/11, and appropriately so. The 
budget we have before us increases it another 18.4 percent. We have 
already increased homeland security an additional $3.5 billion as a 
result of passage of the Cochran amendment.
  Senator Clinton's amendment would just bump it up another $3.5 
billion. That would be an enormous percentage increase. Right now, we 
have funds for homeland security State by State that are not being 
spent, for whatever reason. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
381.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     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
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 381) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 385

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that I am next on the 
list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is I am next on the list to offer an 
amendment. If that is the case, I am prepared to send an amendment to 
the desk on behalf of myself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Sarbanes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), for himself, 
     Mr. Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 385.

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

(Purpose: To increase FY 2004 funding for the discretionary programs of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs by $1,019,000,000, so it matches the 
  level proposed by a coalition of veterans groups in the Independent 
  Budget; to decrease the deficit by a similar amount; and to use the 
                  unreconciled tax cut to pay for it)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,987,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $192,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $9,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $1,000,000.

[[Page S4241]]

       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $1,798,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $192,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $9,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,003,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $43,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $61,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $883,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $53,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $37,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $54,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $61,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $915,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $139,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $62,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $915,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,054,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $1,121,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $1,183,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,245,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,311,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,380,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,453,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,531,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,612,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $915,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,054,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $1,121,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by $1,183,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by $1,245,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,311,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by $1,380,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $1,453,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $1,531,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,612,000,000.
       On page 34, line 19, increase the amount by $1,019,000,000.
       On page 34, line 20, increase the amount by $899,000,000.
       On page 34, line 24, increase the amount by $96,000,000.
       On page 35, line 3, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 35, line 7, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 40, line 6, decrease the amount by $16,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by $16,000,000.
       On page 40, line 10, decrease the amount by $43,000,000.
       On page 40, line 11, decrease the amount by $43,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 40, line 18, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 40, line 19, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by $61,000,000.
       On page 40, line 23, decrease the amount by $61,000,000.
       On page 41, line 2, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 41, line 6, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 41, line 14, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 41, line 15, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 47, line 5, increase the amount by $1,019,000,000.
       On page 47, line 6, increase the amount by $899,000,000.
       On page 47, line 15, increase the amount by $96,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes will be provided for debate, 
equally divided on each side.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. This amendment adds $1.019 billion to the total amount in 
the bill for veterans discretionary programs. The amendment is paid for 
by a decrease in the tax cut in an equal amount, in addition to the 
additional spending on veterans programs that would be available to 
reduce the deficit.
  With respect to veterans programs, let me say to the chairman and 
ranking member, I think they did some good work with respect to 
veterans medical care. They did actually add some money for veterans 
health care, veterans medical care. We all commend them for that.
  We are still very short with respect to veterans programs dealing 
with research, with construction, with the administration that is 
needed in order to process the requests by veterans. There is a rather 
lengthy time lag in being able to process the request. The fact is, we 
need to provide sufficient moneys for this service.
  At a time when veterans are in the field prosecuting this war, we 
ought to say we will keep our promise to veterans.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am voting against Senator Dorgan's 
amendment, which proposes to add an additional $1 billion to VA 
discretionary accounts. I so vote because the budget resolution, as 
reported by the Budget committee, already makes significant additions 
in funding for veterans benefits. It is, I think, already a fair and 
just allocation of funding for veterans.
  It seems to be the case that no matter how much funding is made 
available in a budget resolution, someone will always propose 
additions. For veterans this year, the budget resolution, as reported, 
contains unprecedented increases in VA discretionary funding; it 
increases VA discretionary funding by $3.4 billion over fiscal year 
2003 levels, a 13 percent increase. The Budget Committee-reported 
resolution more than doubles the administration's proposed VA medical 
care funding increase of $1.5 billion, adding an additional $1.8 
billion to this most critical budget account, as urged by Senators 
Johnson and Ensign in the Budget Committee's markup. In fairness, it is 
accurate to conclude that funding levels approved by the Budget 
committee do not shortchange veterans.
  Senator Dorgan's amendment would add funds to non-medical care-
related accounts, such as construction, research, veterans cemetery 
administration, and veterans benefits processing. These are important 
accounts--and they have been increased significantly in recent years. 
Since 1997, Congress has provided funds to support a 40 percent 
increase in staffing for compensation claims processing. VA medical 
research funding has increased by 47 percent Veterans cemetery 
administration funding has increased by 71 percent. Funding for the VA 
inspector general's office has almost doubled. And over 2.5 billion 
dollars' worth of major and minor construction projects have been 
funded. The present resolution will improve on this record by providing 
a 13

[[Page S4242]]

percent increase above 2003 enacted levels for such accounts. 
Construction funding alone will increase by 62 percent over the 2003 
enacted levels.
  I would like to see even greater increases; it would always be nice 
to add more funding for various worthwhile purposes. But, in fairness, 
veterans benefits must be considered along with proposed increases in 
education, health care, environmental protection, and many other 
worthwhile Federal programs. Viewed in this context, I think the 
proposed budget allocation is fair and just.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Dorgan, to 
increase the amount of discretionary funding for veterans programs. I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment--one that will 
go a long way in ensuring that our Nation's veterans receive the 
benefits to which they are entitled.
  As you know, every year a coalition of our Nation's veterans advocacy 
groups comes together to compile the Independent Budget. This 
document--written by veterans for veterans--offers guidance to the 
Congress on the projected needs of our Nation's veterans in the coming 
fiscal year. I am pleased that during last week's markup of the Budget 
Resolution, the Senate Budget Committee, with my support, adopted an 
amendment to match the amount included in the Independent Budget to 
adequately provide medical care for the 6.5 million veterans enrolled 
in the VA health care system. This represented a nearly $2 billion 
increase over the funding level requested by the President.
  Senator Dorgan's amendment will build upon this success by helping to 
provide additional resources to appropriately fund other key functions 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Dorgan amendment adds $1.019 
billion to the total for veterans discretionary programs to match the 
amount identified as necessary by the Independent Budget. Among other 
things, these funds will be utilized to significantly boost VA medical 
and prosthetics research, improve the processing of veterans benefits, 
fund much needed construction, renovation and maintenance projects, and 
ensure that are veterans are buried with honor.
  Mr. President, our Nation's veterans, like the men and women in Iraq 
today, answered the call of their nation--marching into harm's way to 
preserve the ideals of liberty and democracy which we, as Americans, 
hold so dear. In my view, making sure that our veterans receive 
adequate and timely health care and the other benefits to which they 
are entitled is a small price to pay to express our continued gratitude 
for their unwavering service to our nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I 
think this is another case where I said no matter what we do in 
committee, no matter how much we add, someone is going to come up and 
say it is not enough. We increased the veterans budget altogether over 
12 percent, $3.4 billion. We did 10 percent over the President's 
request, about $3 billion. We did a 14.7 percent increase in veterans 
health care.
  This amendment not only has more increases but, in addition, it also 
reduces the tax cut. We are taking care of our veterans in this 
proposal with enormous percentage increases. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
385.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     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
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     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
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 385) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
Dorgan amendment No. 385.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                  Amendments Nos. 328 and 282, En Bloc

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and 
pass amendment No. 328, sponsored by Senators Wyden and Kyl, regarding 
the national fire plan; and amendment No. 282, by Senator Brownback, 
regarding a commission to review the efficiency of Federal agencies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mr. Wyden, for 
     himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Kerry, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 
     328.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase investments in implementation of the National 
     Fire Plan to benefit national forests, the environment, local 
                    communities and local economies)

       On page 16, line 11, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 16, line 12, increase the amount by $325,000,000.
       On page 16, line 16, increase the amount by $85,000,000.
       On page 16, line 20, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 16, line 24, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 17, line 3, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, decrease the amount by $325,000,000.
       On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $85,000,000.
       On page 42, line 11, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 42, line 19, decrease the amount by $15,000,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Very briefly, amendment No. 328 is a bipartisan amendment 
that Senator Kyl and I have cosponsored with Senator Domenici, Senator 
Bingaman, and others. It deals with the national fire plan. Suffice it 
to say, Senators know that the West over the last few summers has just 
been an inferno. We expect another very hot summer. This legislation is 
a bipartisan initiative which would allow us to set aside additional 
funds for forest restoration, hazardous fuels reduction and fire 
research, and real on-the-ground collaboration with States and 
localities to help them improve their environment and protect against 
catastrophic fire. It is backed by the timber industry and a host of 
environmental groups. I see my colleague from Arizona on the floor as 
well.
  It is a bipartisan amendment on which Western Senators cooperated. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Senator, let me add to the comments of my colleague from 
Oregon. I compliment him for the work he has done. This is a good 
example of bipartisanship in working to solve a

[[Page S4243]]

national problem. The people from the Appropriations Committee, the 
administration, and the Democratic and Republican Parties in the Senate 
have come together to restore some of these funds so we could help to 
create healthy forests for the benefit of all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendments Nos. 328 and 282 en 
bloc.
  The amendments (No. 328 and No. 282) were agreed to en bloc.


                     Amendment No. 339, as Modified

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the next amendment we will have will be 
by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux. There will be a 10-minute 
time limitation. It is a very large amendment. I ask that the Senator 
from Louisiana be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment and send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $10,433,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $23,015,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $17,962,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $12,167,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $6,893,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $6,183,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $5,879,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $5,992,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $42,874,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $69,512,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $74,090,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $10,433,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $23,015,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $17,962,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $12,167,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $6,893,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $6,183,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $5,879,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $5,992,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $42,874,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $69,512,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $74,090,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $718,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,974,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $3,035,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,789,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $4,376,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $4,974,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $5,588,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $7,219,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $10,657,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $15,140,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $718,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,974,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $3,035,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $3,789,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $4,376,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $4,974,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $5,588,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $7,219,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $10,657,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $15,140,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $10,511,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $23,733,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $19,935,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $15,203,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $10,681,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $10,559,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $10,853,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $11,580,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $50,093,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $80,169,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $89,231,000,000.
       On page 6, line 5, decrease the amount by $10,511,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $32,244,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $54,179,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $69,382,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $80,063,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $90,622,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $101,476,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $113,055,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $163,148,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $243,317,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $332,548,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $10,511,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $34,244,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $54,179,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $69,382,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by $80,063,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by $90,622,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $101,476,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $133,055,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $163,148,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $243,317,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $332,548,000,000.
       On page 40, line 2, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 40, line 3, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 40, line 6, decrease the amount by $718,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by $718,000,000.
       On page 40, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,974,000,000.
       On page 40, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,974,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by $3,035,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by $3,035,000,000.
       On page 40, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,789,000,000.
       On page 40, line 19, decrease the amount by $3,789,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by $4,376,000,000.
       On page 40, line 23, decrease the amount by $4,376,000,000.
       On page 41, line 2, decrease the amount by $4,974,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,974,000,000.
       On page 41, line 6, decrease the amount by $5,588,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by $5,588,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by $7,219,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by $7,219,000,000.
       On page 41, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $10,657,000,000.
       On page 41, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $10,657,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $15,140,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $15,140,000,000.
       On page 45, line 24, strike the amount and insert 
     ``$323,284,000,000.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have worked in a bipartisan fashion. 
This amendment is sponsored by myself, Senator Voinovich from Ohio, 
Senator Baucus, and also Senator Snowe. We have believed there ought to 
be a way of reaching an agreement on the size of the tax cut that is 
reasonable and more balanced than the $626 billion tax cut currently 
pending before the Senate.
  There are some who have suggested that we would like to have no tax 
cut whatsoever. That would probably be the better course of action, if 
we could find the votes to do that, because conditions are dramatically 
different from what they were the last time we considered a major tax 
cut.
  The last time we did a tax cut, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. We do 
not have that surplus. In fact, we have a $300 billion deficit facing 
us. There is no pot of money to which we can go to have a large tax cut 
of that magnitude.

[[Page S4244]]

In addition to that, we are at war. We are not at peace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is my belief that if this amendment 
passed, we would take the growth out of the growth package. I call upon 
my colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has claimed the 1 
minute in opposition. The Senator from Oklahoma has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I make a point of order. I understood that 
the Budget chairman asked that we have 10 minutes on this because of 
the importance of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was for 10 minutes on the vote. 
Amendments have been given 2 minutes on each side, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 5 
minutes on each side for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the distinguished chairman. I apologize for the 
misunderstanding. I will ask the cosponsors if they would like to make 
a comment.
  The point is that we are at war. Turn on the television. Our men and 
women are fighting in the deserts of Iraq right now. We are being asked 
to cut tax revenues by $626 billion to pay for those functions. It 
would be one thing if we had a surplus out of which to take it. We do 
not. We are taking it out of a deficit. We are cutting taxes at a time 
of uncertainty while we are in the middle of a war. If we do need a tax 
cut of that magnitude, I would suggest we do it after the conflict is 
over, after we know how much it has cost, after we know how much we 
need to spend on programs such as Medicare and prescription drugs which 
are not included in this budget whatsoever.
  The better course of action would be to adopt our amendment. It 
presents a $350 billion tax cut, which is half of what is pending right 
now, and it uses the remainder of those savings, which would be $275 
billion, for deficit reduction.
  Some may say, ``That is not what I would like to do,'' but I think 
this is something that is politically possible to accomplish. We can 
always come back and increase the tax cut. That will be easy to do, if 
we know how much money we have to deal with. We simply do not know that 
now.
  The wiser course of action would be to do what this amendment would 
do. I ask for a favorable vote for the bipartisan amendment.
  I reserve any time I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the remainder of his 
time.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our amendment is straightforward, 
responsible and practical. It reflects the reality of the confluence of 
circumstances we face--a war on terrorism and in Iraq, a struggling 
economy, increased homeland security needs, and increased Federal 
deficits, with this year's projected deficit already having increased 
by more than 54 percent.
  The amendment is a carefully calibrated, balanced approach to respond 
to two compelling needs--first, to provide immediate, short-term 
stimulus to an economy that has lost 2.3 million jobs and, second, to 
avoid driving up deficits over the long term which, in turn, lead to 
increased long-term interest rates that would stagnate our economy.
  Our approach is simple--we differentiate between those aspects of the 
growth package that truly provide quick, short-term economic stimulus 
and those that do not. For those that don't, let's debate them later, 
and if they have merit, let's pay for them as we go, not with deficit 
spending that threatens our economy in the future as well as our 
ability to address pressing national priorities such as strengthening 
Social Security and Medicare as baby boomers begin to retire in 2008.
  Mr. President, our measure provides a ``right-sized'' stimulus of 
$350 billion while committing $376 billion to deficit reduction. It 
deserves strong bipartisan support, and I hope my colleagues will vote 
for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Breaux 
amendment to S. Con. Res. 23, the budget resolution. This amendment 
directs the Finance Committee to limit the amount of tax cuts that 
could be passed through the fast track reconciliation procedure to $350 
billion over 11 years. The budget before us includes over twice that 
much in its so-called must pass economic stimulus package.
  It is astounding to me that, on the eve of war, we are seriously 
contemplating $725 billion in tax cuts in the same budget that does not 
include a dime for the war or its associated costs. Our budget is a 
statement of priorities. Do we really mean to say that giving a tax 
break primarily to upper income taxpayers is 725 billion times more 
important than adequately fighting the war, rebuilding Iraq, and 
protecting our communities for relatiatory terrorist attacks?
  Of course not. No one thinks that. But I do believe that some are 
using the diversion of war to rush through a tax cut that is fiscally 
irresponsible. No one wants to return to the days of deficit as far as 
the eye can see and debt capable of dragging our country down for 
decades. but that is what we'll get when we add a $725 billion tax cut 
to the necessary and massive costs of the war.
  The Breaux amendment brings the fast-tract tax cut down to $350 
billion. I would prefer it to go much lower than that. In fact, I would 
prefer delaying all tax cuts and spending increases until we can put 
together an honest budget that looks at what we can afford to do in 
light of what we must do. But if the choice is between $725 billion for 
an ill-timed, ill-conceived idea and $350 billion for an ill-timed, 
ill-conceived idea, I will pick the latter and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
reject the Breaux amendment to the budget resolution that would reduce 
the size of the President's growth and jobs plan to $350 billion. I 
think my colleagues all recognize that such a drastic reduction in the 
size of the growth package would make it most difficult for the Finance 
Committee to include the Bush proposal to eliminate the taxation on 
corporate dividends.
  I know that a number of my colleagues have their doubts about the 
President's proposal to eliminate the double tax on dividends, and I 
would like to take a few moments to try to persuade them to support the 
President's proposal. Today, I will address two aspects of this 
important issue--how ending this double tax will help today's seniors, 
and how ending the double tax will impact our Nation's economic future.
  First, let us talk about how the double taxation of dividends affects 
older Americans.
  Our Nation's seniors have spent decades working long, hard hours, 
scrimping and saving for a well-deserved retirement, only to find that 
no matter how old they get, the tax man still has them in his sights. 
Age brings wisdom, but not tax relief.
  Fifteen or 20 years ago, it was common tax-planning wisdom to defer 
one's income until the retirement years. Why? Because the tax rate 
faced by seniors was almost always lower then the tax rate paid during 
one's working years. Unfortunately, this is generally no longer the 
case. Millions of senior citizens are now paying taxes at as high or 
higher a rate in retirement than they did during their working years.
  This year, I want to help President Bush change all that. The 
President has a plan for cutting taxes for seniors, and I intend to 
work with him to put his plan into law. We want to dramatically reduce 
the marriage penalty for seniors, we want to expand the 10-percent 
income tax bracket, and we want to speed up all of the rate cuts that 
are scheduled to be phased in over the next few years.
  And on top of all that we want to eliminate the double tax on the 
dividends that seniors receive. This is the right plan for America's 
seniors.
  All of the items in the President's plan are good ideas, but as I 
mentioned, today I would like to put particular focus on ending the 
double tax on dividends.

[[Page S4245]]

  Over half of all income tax filers over 65 years of age pay tax on 
dividends, and over one-third of all filers between 55 and 64 have 
taxable dividends. People saving for retirement, and people close to 
retirement or working for an early retirement are paying a double tax.
  Why do we call this tax on dividends a double tax? This is because 
under current law, a corporation hands over more than a third of its 
profits to the Federal Government in taxes, and then when investors get 
their share of those profits in the form of dividends, we demand that 
investors have to pay regular income tax on those very same dividends.
  As President Bush keeps reminding us, taking income once is fair, but 
taxing it twice is not.
  By the time State taxes are factored in, the combined Federal and 
State tax rate can exceed 71 percent. This is wrong, and it distorts 
the economy and correcting it will give many benefits to taxpayers and 
to the Nation as a whole.
  We need to remember that this is not a question of rich versus poor. 
Older Americans with modest incomes receive substantial stock 
dividends. In fact, more than half of tax filers over the age of 65 
earning between $30,000 and $40,000 per year receive taxable dividend 
income: 50.9 percent, to be exact. And because our Nation's senior 
citizens have been so thrifty during their lives, these dividend 
payments are very often sizable.
  Elderly Americans who receive dividends and earn between $30,000 and 
$40,000 per year in total income receive an average of $2,008 every 
year of that income as taxable dividends. Even retirees who earn 
$15,000 to $30,000 per year receive substantial dividends. Forth-four 
percent of the elderly in this category receive dividends, and these 
Americans have to pay a double tax on over $1,400 a year in dividends.
  Older Americans across the income spectrum pay a double tax on their 
dividends, and it is time to end it. This will be a great boon to our 
Nation's elderly who have worked and saved throughout their lives for 
their retirement.
  Now, I would like to turn to our Nation's economic future. A few 
weeks ago, Chairman Greespan came up to Capitol Hill and told us that 
ending the double tax dividends was good tax policy, but he wanted us 
to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. Now, think it is fiscally 
responsible to end the double tax on dividends. I have no doubt that 
the static revenue estimate for the President's proposal is far too 
high.

  Over my 27 years in the Senate, I have seen time and time again that 
tax cuts turned out to cost a lot less than the official estimates. We 
saw it on the capital gains tax cut and we have seen it in other tax 
cuts too. And with a policy that is as good for the economy's long-run 
health as ending the double tax, I am confident that the official 
revenue estimates are going to be far worse than usual. This tax cut is 
going to change the way America does business, and it will increase 
savings and capital formation.
  This is not just my opinion. The Heritage Foundation has used a 
mainstream economic model to look at how ending the double tax is 
likely to help the economy. They conclude that ending the double tax 
will be revenue-neutral by year 9. So even if Congress lets spending 
grow at the projected rate, this proposal is an 8-year investment in 
our economy's longrun health, and then it starts to pay for itself.
  Now I would like to see spending grow slower than the projected rate, 
so that we can balance the budget faster and so we can increase the 
size of the private sector, but even if Congress fails to slow down 
spending, this is still good longrun tax policy. If people think that 
ending the double tax on dividends will blow a permanent hole in the 
budget, they are living in a world of pure static-model fantasy.
  In addition, I should point out that the Heritage economic model 
completely ignored the long-term structural reforms that this tax cut 
will bring about, reforms that will reduce the risk of future corporate 
bankruptcies. I am going to discuss those reforms in just a moment. So 
I believe that those 9-year-break-even estimates should be treated as a 
worst case scenario.
  That is why I believe that ending the double tax on dividends is 
fiscally responsible. I have already addressed how this will help 
middle-income retirees. Now I would like to delve into why I am 
convinced this is good for our economy's future. On this issue, I would 
like to quote Chairman Greenspan. This is what the Federal Reserve 
Chairman said a few weeks ago:

       I have always supported the elimination of the double 
     taxation of dividends because I think it is a major factor 
     restraining flexibility in our economy . . . and moving in 
     the direction of improving flexibility has very large long-
     term payoffs.

  Flexibility is an issue that Mr. Greenspan has emphasized a lot 
lately. He has reminded us, again and again, that our Government should 
do everything it can to make our economy as flexible as possible. Why 
does he want a flexible economy?
  This is what he said, and I quote: ``The more flexible an economy, 
the greater its ability to self-correct in response to inevitable . . . 
disturbances, thus reducing the size'' of recessions. In plain English, 
he believes that if our economy is more flexible, then we will have 
smaller recessions, and less unemployment.
  Further, Chairman Greenspan believes that Congress can do something 
about this. Congress can make the economy more flexible if we enact 
good policies, and we can make the economy less flexible if we enact 
bad policies. He said, and I quote, ``We should be placing special 
emphasis on searching for policies that will engineer still greater 
economic flexibility and [we should be] dismantling policies that 
contribute to unnecessary rigidity.''
  And as the Chairman said, the double tax on dividends is a source of 
rigidity.
  You might ask: How is cutting taxes supposed to make our economy more 
flexible?
  Ending the double tax on dividends helps in two major ways: It cuts 
the risk of bankruptcy and it helps to make sure that investment funds 
flow to the right companies. Let me address these in order.
  Why is it America's corporations load up on debt financing, despite 
the fact that high debt levels increase the risk of bankruptcy? Because 
our Nation's tax laws have always given them massive financial 
incentives to do just that.
  The reason is simple. When a corporation pays interest to 
bondholders, that payment is taxed once--at the shareholder level. But 
when it pays dividends to stockholders, that payment is taxed twice--to 
both the corporation and the shareholder.
  As leading finance scholars Richard Brealey and Stewart Myers write: 
``[T]he . . . United States tax system clearly favors debt over equity 
financing.'' If you tax stock payments twice but you only tax debt 
payments once, it is clear what companies are going to do--they will 
finance most of their business by borrowing.
  By loading up on tax deductible bonds and bank loans rather than 
issuing new shares of stock, corporations, increase their chance of 
going bankrupt. We have seen this play out with WorldCom, with US Air, 
and most recently United Airlines. The media's refrain is always the 
same: ``Today, a Fortune 500 company, burdened with debt, filed for 
protection from its creditors.''
  Our Tax Code should not encourage this behavior.
  When corporations load up on debt, they commit too much of their cash 
flow to making interest payments, and the threat of bankruptcy becomes 
all too real. Once we change this policy, businesses will find that 
they have people lined up out the door to buy stocks that pay 
dividends. When companies see the clamor for dividend-paying stocks, 
they will have a much stronger incentive to pay for new projects and 
new factories by issuing new shares of stock rather than running to the 
bank for a loan.

  And then if times get tough, businesses will not be as likely to 
declare bankruptcy and head to Federal court for a painful 
reorganization. Instead, many companies will be able to cut their 
dividend to shareholders, and continue business more or less as usual. 
Lower dividends are bad news for shareholders, to be sure; but it will 
spare society the pain of bankruptcy.
  Ending the double tax on dividends will not end the business cycle, 
but it will make it easier to recover from a recession. Bankruptcies 
spread the

[[Page S4246]]

pain of recession over months and years, and it can destroy sound 
companies that made the mistake of overpromising to banks and 
bondholders. This will not end bankruptcy, but it will prevent a few 
big ones now and then.
  And this is not some untested pie-in-the-sky theory. All but two of 
our major trading partners give some kind of relief from the double tax 
on dividends. And the two countries that do not give relief--Ireland 
and Switzerland--already have much lower corporate tax rates than we 
do, so their double tax problem is not as bad as ours.
  The mere fact that other countries are doing something does not prove 
that it is the right thing for the United States. What we want to know 
is, will our Nation get real, widespread benefits when we get rid of 
the double tax? Here we have to look at history.
  New Zealand used to have a double tax on dividends, but they got rid 
of it in 1988. And what happened when they did that? When New Zealand 
completely eliminated the double tax on dividends, corporate debt 
levels fell, just as you would expect. Ending the double tax on 
dividends cut corporate debt levels in New Zealand, and ending the 
double tax on dividends will cut debt levels here, too. And our economy 
will be safer for it.
  The Bush proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends will 
have a very positive effect on the economy, on seniors, on the tax 
system, and on taxpayers in general. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
Breaux amendment on the budget resolution, so that the Finance 
Committee can accommodate the dividends proposal in the tax bill we 
will be putting together in a few weeks.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment offered by 
my good friend from Louisiana, Senator Breaux. The amendment, which was 
No. 339 and has been described as the moderates tax amendment, would 
have reduced the size of the tax cut in the budget resolution from more 
than $700 billion to $350 billion. I would like the record to reflect 
exactly why it is that I voted for this amendment.
  I voted for the amendment offered by Senator Breaux because it 
presented our best chance to cut the size of the irresponsible tax cut 
in this budget. Let me be clear, Mr. President, I do not support a $350 
billion tax cut as part of this budget. Had the Breaux amendment 
passed, I would have sought further reductions in the tax cut.
  Today, America is at war in Iraq. We have troops in Afghanistan and 
the Philippines. We are fighting to keep our homeland safe from 
terrorism. We have pressing needs in health care, education, and other 
areas. The Nation is running deficits. State and local governments are 
in fiscal crisis. The economy is slumping. For these reasons, a $350 
billion tax cut, just like a $700 billion tax cut, is wrong. Both 
proposals will dump debt on our children. And the President's plan is 
not only too big, but it unfairly favors the wealthiest among us over 
working families.
  I have filed at the desk an amendment to this budget that I believe 
charts the right course. Consumer confidence is at its lowest level in 
10 years. Some 300,000 Americans lost their jobs in February. State and 
local governments are in trouble. Families and businesses are hurting. 
We are running huge deficits, and we are at war.
  Our economy needs help. Working families need help. But we shouldn't 
be burdening future generations with more debt. My amendment provides 
for a $150 billion tax cut for all Americans this year and next and it 
is paid for in the outyears. It will stimulate our economy without 
sticking our kids with the bill.
  Without taking a dime out of Social Security or Medicare, we can give 
every American worker a one-time payroll tax holiday of more than $750 
that is far more than President Bush's tax plan. We could pass a 
temporary job creation tax credit and help small businesses, all 
without adding to the ``debt tax'' on future generations.
  It we pass the budget now before us--if we pass the President's 
plan--we will be spending our kids' money--and that is wrong. We need a 
tax cut that goes to working people who will spend the money--and we 
need a tax cut that is paid for. Let's do what is right and pass a real 
stimulus package, and let us do what average Americans do: Let's pay 
for it.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Finance 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, obviously we need to be very bold in our 
response to the flagging economy. It is our obligation to the folks who 
sent us here. We need to respond. Both sides agree on that need, as do 
the centrists led by Senators Breaux and Snowe. The question is a 
difference of the size of the tax cut. I say be bold. We want American 
businesses, small and large, to grow. We want every American who wants 
a job to be able to get a job. We don't want to take any chances.
  I understand the concerns of my friends from the centrist coalition. 
They are worried about long-term deficits. I am as well. I am more 
worried, though, about the spending side of the ledger. Senators Breaux 
and Snowe have a long history of trying to secure bipartisan consensus. 
We need more than $350 billion in tax relief to do the job the right 
way.
  Don't get me wrong. If $350 billion is the number, that is the number 
that, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I will work with. 
The Finance Committee will develop the best package we can. My point 
is, the Finance Committee can do more growth incentives with a number 
above $350 billion.
  There is a war going on. When those men and women come home from the 
battlefield, we want a growing economy so that those folks will have 
jobs.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues the 
fact that the budget deficit for 2003 and 2004, including Social 
Security and the cost of the war, is going to be over $500 billion. 
Again, in 2003 and 2004, including Social Security, it will be a half 
trillion dollars.
  This amendment basically says the tax package will be at $350 
billion. It also says if this Congress decides to go over $350 billion, 
we ought to offset it either by cutting expenses or, in the 
alternative, increasing other taxes that are less stimulative to the 
economy, and paying for a tax reduction that is more stimulative to the 
economy. It makes sense.
  We are on the edge of a fiscal crisis in this country if we keep 
going the way we are, particularly with the war that is hanging over us 
today.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 18 seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment. I have great respect for my colleagues from Louisiana and 
Ohio, and the others who have sponsored the amendment. But it would 
basically gut the President's growth package, cut it in half. The 
actual tax cut would be $323 billion. We have an economy that is over 
$10 trillion or $11 trillion per year. Estimated revenues over this 
period of time are going to be $27 billion. If you want to make some 
changes that really stimulate and grow the economy and create jobs, I 
think the President has the proposal to do so. I am afraid that the 
proposal that would have $323 billion just would not do it. When we 
reduced the capital gains tax in 1997 from 28 to 20 percent, we created 
a lot of growth. That was a positive thing to do.
  The President has a good proposal to grow the economy as well. I urge 
my colleagues to support the President and a real growth package that 
would really create jobs.
  Then, on the concern for deficit reduction, I heard some people say 
it, but I don't see the votes showing the same conviction on deficit 
reduction with all the add-ons that we have been looking at in the last 
couple of days.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? There are 2 minutes 20 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will conclude my comments on this 
amendment by saying I think those who are concerned about fiscal 
discipline should be concerned about the state of the economy of this 
country. We are at war. We are not at peace.

[[Page S4247]]

  We do not have a surplus of $5.6 trillion as we had the last time we 
did a major tax cut. We have no surplus at all. We are in deficit and 
we are increasing the deficit by a huge amount of money at a time of 
war and uncertainty in this country.
  I think the conservative thing to do is be more careful with tax 
cuts. They are great things politically, but they are not free; we have 
to pay for them. We would be paying for it out of the deficit, and I 
think that is a serious mistake. We need to be responsible, and this 
amendment brings about a degree of responsibility that we all should be 
able to support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma has 
2 minutes and the Senator from Louisiana has--
  Mr. BREAUX. I will not yield my time back. I have 2 other cosponsors 
who would like to be heard.
  I yield to the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I want to make a couple of points. This amendment is 
straightforward, practical, prudent, proportional; it is a carefully 
calibrated approach in terms of whether we can afford a certain size 
growth plan. That is why we made the decision.
  It wasn't a question of splitting the difference; it was a question 
of making a distinction in terms of what constitutes a stimulus, what 
we can afford to pay for, and what we cannot afford to pay for. That is 
how I approached this amendment.
  I think it is important that we think carefully if we want to provide 
deficit financing for nonstimulative proposals. Finally, I should make 
the point that we see deficits way into the future, until the year 
2013, at a time in which we have to address Social Security and 
Medicare. We cannot diminish our ability to address those critical 
programs and the challenges they face.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have two additional points: One, we have 
never reduced taxes in a time of war. That is not the American way. We 
do not reduce taxes in a time of war. I ask you to just look at the TV 
screens. We are going to be over there for quite a while, in one way or 
another.
  Two, there are many ways to stimulate the economy, not only through 
tax reductions. It is also by spending. We are spending dollars on 
homeland security. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, most individuals in this body support 
some size of growth package. A few were at zero, a few at $140 billion, 
some $350 billion, and some are with the President's package, which is 
$696 billion--$725 billion if you add refundables.
  I yield time to Senator Allard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. He put together a very responsible budget that includes a 
sizable tax cut--much more than the $350 billion that this amendment 
talks about. He eliminates the deficit within the 10-year period. It 
was a hard decision to make, but we need to cut taxes in order to 
stimulate the economy, if we really want to have the revenues as we 
move out in order to help pay for the war. We know that it is static 
scoring.

  The President has come up with a plan that will truly stimulate the 
economy. I think the chairman of the Finance Committee has come up with 
an equally effective plan. We need to support the tax cut.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time is that, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 40 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. First, I believe we have an 
excellent budget. Frankly, we are charged with a lot of things that we 
are going to try to do. Most important, we have to find something that 
will stimulate this economy. I, frankly, believe the President has come 
up with something very innovative, exciting, and it is apt to work; 
that is, to change the longstanding double taxation of dividends.
  Frankly, I am not sure we know how to stimulate this economy with 
reference to tax cuts, but I do believe we know how to make this 
economy work far better if we change that part of our Tax Code. I think 
we should leave the tax numbers as they are and vote the amendment 
down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


          Amendment No. 386 to Amendment No. 339, As Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 386 to amendment number 339, as modified.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 reduce the reconciliation instruction by $375 billion, 
  reduce the size of tax cuts allowed by $980 billion, and to reduce 
                       deficits by $1.1 Trillion)

       Strike all of the words after the words ``On Page 3,'' on 
     page 1, line 1 of the amendment and insert the following:
       On Page 3, line 9, increase the number by $10,433,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 10, increase the number by $23,015,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 11, increase the number by $17,962,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 12, increase the number by $19,206,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 13, increase the number by $20,586,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 14, increase the number by $23,299,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 15, increase the number by $27,640,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 16, increase the number by $34,036,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 17, increase the number by 
     $169,271,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 18, increase the number by 
     $264,611,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 19, increase the number by 
     $290,654,000,000.
       On Page 3, line 23, increase the number by $10,433,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 1, increase the number by $23,015,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 2, increase the number by $17,962,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 3, increase the number by $19,206,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 4, increase the number by $20,586,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 5, increase the number by $23,299,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 6, increase the number by $27,640,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 7, increase the number by $34,036,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 8, increase the number by $169,271,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 9, increase the number by $264,611,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 10, increase the number by 
     $280,654,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 14, decrease the number by $77,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 15, decrease the number by $718,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 16, decrease the number by $1,974,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 17, decrease the number by $3,226,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 18, decrease the number by $4,552,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 19, decrease the number by $6,016,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 20, decrease the number by $8,757,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 21, decrease the number by $9,871,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 22, decrease the number by $15,921,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 23, decrease the number by $29,249,000,000.
       On Page 4, line 24, decrease the number by $44,298,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 4, decrease the number by $77,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 5, decrease the number by $718,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 6, decrease the number by $1,974,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 7, decrease the number by $3,226,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 8, decrease the number by $4,552,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 9, decrease the number by $6,016,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 10, decrease the number by $8,757,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 11, decrease the number by $9,871,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 12, decrease the number by $15,921,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 13, decrease the number by $29,249,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 14, decrease the number by $44,298,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 17, increase the number by $10,511,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 18, increase the number by $23,733,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 19, increase the number by $19,935,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 20, increase the number by $22,432,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 21, increase the number by $25,138,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 22, increase the number by $29,675,000,000.

[[Page S4248]]

       On Page 5, line 23, increase the number by $35,397,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 24, increase the number by $43,907,000,000.
       On Page 5, line 25, increase the number by 
     $185,184,000,000.
       On Page 6, line 1, increase the number by $283,057,000,000.
       On Page 6, line 2, increase the number by $335,542,000,000.
       On Page 6, line 5, decrease the number by $10,511,000,000.
       On Page 6, line 6, decrease the number by $34,344,000,000.
       On Page 6, line 7, decrease the number by $55,179,000,000.
       On Page 6, line 8, decrease the number by $76,661,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $101,849,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $131,064,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $131,069,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $166,641,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $210,368,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $395,559,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $788,716,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $1,014,358,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $10,511,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $34,244,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $54,179,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $76,611,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $101,749,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $131,064,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $176,461,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $210,368,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $395,589,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $739,316,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by 
     $1,014,258,000,000.
       On page 40, line 2, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 40, line 3, decrease the amount by $77,000,000.
       On page 40, line 6, decrease the amount by $718,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by $718,000,000.
       On page 40, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,974,000,000.
       On page 40, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,974,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by $3,226,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by $3,226,000,000.
       On page 40, line 18, decrease the amount by $4,552,000,000.
       On page 40, line 19, decrease the amount by $4,552,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by $6,016,000,000.
       On page 40, line 23, decrease the amount by $6,016,000,000.
       On page 41, line 2, decrease the amount by $7,757,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, decrease the amount by $7,757,000,000.
       On page 41, line 6, decrease the amount by $9,871,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by $9,871,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $15,921,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $15,921,000,000.
       On page 41, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $28,546,000,000.
       On page 41, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $28,546,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $44,888,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $44,888,000,000.
       On page 45, line 24, strike the amount and insert 
     $373,284,000,000.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my amendment simply holds the size of the 
tax cut to $350 billion. Any tax cuts beyond $350 billion would have to 
be offset under my amendment or they would face a budget point of order 
requiring 60 votes. Many colleagues may say, wait a minute, I thought 
that was what the underlying amendment does. The underlying amendment 
still allows for $940 billion in tax cuts in the future. It does reduce 
down to $350 billion the amount of tax cut under reconciliation, but it 
still allows for $600 billion more in tax cuts.
  My amendment says $350 billion, and cap it at that. No more. Any tax 
breaks beyond that would either have to be offset or it would require 
60 votes to overcome a point of order. It is very simple. It is a cap 
of $350 billion on tax cuts.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute in opposition to the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
have had great cooperation on this bill. We have not had second-degree 
amendments. We have tried to avoid them and be expeditious.
  We have not seen this amendment. I do know the effect of this 
amendment would be in the outyears we would be taking a 10-percent rate 
and making it 15 percent. I do know in the outyears we would eliminate 
the marriage penalty relief. I do know the effect of it would be reduce 
the child tax credit from $1,000 to $500.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of a motion to table the Harkin 
amendment. I make that motion.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. NICKLES. I make the motion to table the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion has been made to table.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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 the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     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
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
339, as modified.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kyl

[[Page S4249]]


     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 339), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in our list of amendments that we are 
working on, Senator Kennedy is next. I believe we will be able to work 
that amendment out so we will not have to have a Gregg amendment as 
well. We will pass on both of those and probably accept Senator 
Kennedy's amendment as modified in just a moment.
  The next amendment on our list will be an amendment by the Senator 
from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  Mr. President, can we have Senator Byrd's Amtrak amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not yet been sent to the desk.
  Mr. NICKLES. Does the Senator from West Virginia have the amendment? 
If not, we will find a copy of it.
  Mr. BYRD. 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.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 387

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

       The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 387.

(Purpose: To provide adequate funds for the National Railroad Passenger 
                         Corporation (Amtrak))

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
       On page 21, line 23, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
       On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
       On page 47, line 5, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
       On page 47, line 6, increase the amount by $912,000,000.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized for 1 minute on his 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the budget resolution currently before the 
Senate cuts funding for Amtrak by almost 22 percent. There is no 
question that this funding level will put Amtrak into bankruptcy during 
the next fiscal year. We must not let that happen. The bipartisan 
Amtrak board of directors has stated that Amtrak needs $1.8 billion 
next year to operate all its trains and make a minimum level of capital 
investment. That board includes several Republicans.
  This amendment that I offer with Senator Lautenberg would fund Amtrak 
at that $1.8 billion level. It is paid for by reducing the tax cut by 
just $900 million for 1 year. We need to stop having our national 
passenger railroad service just survive from one financial crisis to 
the next. We need to allow the next president of Amtrak to continue to 
reform Amtrak, rather than oversee its liquidation.
  I encourage all Senators to save rail service in this country and 
support this amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Byrd 
amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution to increase 
Amtrak's budget in fiscal year 2004 from $900 million to $1.8 billion 
because this level of funding is critical for Amtrak's continued 
operations next year. Without this additional funding, Amtrak would be 
forced to entirely shut down its operations.
  This amendment does not take funding from the President's $726 
billion growth package. This additional $900 million is offset from the 
$600 billion in tax cuts over the 10 years just as the $1.8 billion, 
accepted by Senator Nickles, on the Kennedy amendment to add to the 
Pell Grants.
  I am committed to the specified tax cuts over the next 10 years and 
there will be ample time to reallocate the $900 million for Amtrak as 
well as the $1.8 billion for the Pell Grants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment. I have the greatest respect for Senator Byrd and his support 
of Amtrak. I happen to be a supporter of Amtrak. But the net essence of 
this amendment would be to double the amount of money we have for 
Amtrak. We proposed $900 million. That happens to be what the 
Department of Transportation has requested. I remind our colleagues, a 
few years ago we were going to say that Amtrak would not need subsidies 
by this year.
  If you look, this would more than double the amount of money. The 
largest subsidy it has ever received was last year and that was because 
of the supplemental, so to go from $490 million to 1.8 is more than 
doubling the Federal subsidies to Amtrak. Right now the cost in some 
cases from city to city exceeds that of air passenger service. I urge 
my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
387.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     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
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     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
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 387) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                     Amendment No. 311, As Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 311. I send a 
modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself 
     and Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Cantwell, and Ms. Collins, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 311, as modified.

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

[[Page S4250]]

(Purpose: To increase the maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 to $4,500 at a 
 cost of $1.8 billion and reduce the public debt by an additional $1.8 
  billion, both paid for by a reduction in the non-reconciliation tax 
                                  cut)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,404,000,000.
       On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $1,404,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,800,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $1,404,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $1,800,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by $1,404,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 47, line 5, increase the amount by $1,800,000,000.
       On page 47, line 6, increase the amount by $360,000,000.
       On page 47, line 15, increase the amount by $1,404,000,000.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senators Dodd, Daschle, Feingold, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, 
Cantwell, and Collins. This amendment increases the maximum Pell grant 
by $500 at a total cost of $1.8 billion. It pays for those changes by 
reducing the nonreconciliation tax cut by $1.8 billion. If we do not 
accept this amendment, there will be 110,000 young people who are 
attending colleges who will lose their Pell grants. With the acceptance 
of this amendment, there will be more than 200,000 new Pell grant 
recipients, and it will help immeasurably the 4.9 million Pell grant 
recipients who come from families who average $15,000 in income.
       Among the education community and students, there is broad-
     based support for increasing the maximum Pell grant. The 
     following groups have stated their support:
       American Council on Education.
       National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities.
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
       American Association of Community Colleges.
       United Negro College Fund.
       Coalition of Higher Education Organizations.
       Unites States Public Interest Research Group.
       United States Students' Association.
       The National Association of State Universities and Land 
     Grant Colleges.
       National Association of Community College Trustees.
       Student Aid Alliance--an umbrella group of over 60 higher 
     education organizations which includes the groups I just 
     mentioned, as well as: American Association of Colleges of 
     Nursing, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, 
     American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 
     American Association of College Registrars and Admissions 
     Officers, American Association for Higher Education, American 
     Association of University Professors, American College 
     Personnel Association, American College Testing, American 
     Dental Education Association, American Indian Higher 
     Education Consortium, American Jewish Congress, American 
     Psychological Association, American Society for Engineering 
     Education, American Student Association of Community 
     Colleges, APPA: The Association of Higher Education 
     Facilities Officers, Association of Academic Health Centers, 
     Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, 
     Association of American Law Schools, Association of American 
     Medical Colleges, Association of Governing Boards of 
     Universities and Colleges, Association of Jesuit Colleges and 
     Universities, Career College Association, Citizen's 
     Scholarship Foundation of America, Coalition of Higher 
     Education Assistance Organizations, College and University 
     Personnel Association for Human Resources, College Board, 
     College Parents of America, Council for Advancement and 
     Support of Education, Council for Christian Colleges and 
     Universities, Council on Government Relations, Council of 
     Graduate Schools, Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 
     Council of Independent Colleges, Council for Opportunity in 
     Education, Educational Testing Service, Hispanic Association 
     of Colleges and Universities, Lutheran Educational Conference 
     of North America, NAFSA: Association of International 
     Educators, National Association for College Admission 
     Counseling, National Association of College and University 
     Business Officers, National Association for Equal Opportunity 
     in Higher Education, National Association of Graduate and 
     Professional Students, National Association of State Student 
     Grant and Aid Programs, National Association of Student 
     Financial Aid Administrators, National Association of Student 
     Personnel Administrators, National College Access Network, 
     National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Council of 
     University Research Administrators, National Education 
     Association, NAWE: Advancing Women in Higher Education, 
     University Continuing Education Association, and the Women's 
     College Coalition.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some of the letters from 
these organizations in support of this amendment and in support of 
increasing the maximum Pell grant be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Committee for


                                            Education Funding,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Member,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The Committee for Education Funding, a 
     nonpartisan coalition of 110 organizations reflecting the 
     broad spectrum of the education community, strongly urges you 
     to vote against passage of the House FY04 Budget Resolution, 
     H. Con. Res. 95, reported out by the Budget Committee on 
     March 12, 2003 and support amendments that restore cuts and 
     increase education investment substantially. The Budget 
     Resolution assumes a cut of 3 percent below the President's 
     already low request for discretionary spending for education 
     and related programs in Function 500, which includes vital 
     funding for No Child Left Behind, students with disabilities, 
     higher education, research, Head Start, and adult, vocational 
     and technical education, and libraries. It also assumes 
     terminating 46 important education programs totaling $1.6 
     billion. Moreover, it calls for a draconian cut of $9.7 
     billion over ten years for mandatory education spending on 
     critical programs such as school lunch and student loans.
       The budget resolution is especially objectionable in light 
     of the urgent fiscal crisis in education resources at the 
     state level; the escalating costs of federal standards and 
     accountability requirements on elementary and secondary 
     schools; and the explosion of enrollments of low-income 
     postsecondary students. The federal commitment to education 
     is now more crucial than ever to carry out school reform and 
     ensure access to higher education for millions of students.
       Again, we urge you to vote against the House Budget 
     Resolution and support amendments that restore education cuts 
     and make substantial increased education investments to move 
     education from the current 2.8 cents on the federal budget 
     dollar toward at least five cents and strengthen our economic 
     and national security and the quality of education for all of 
     America's students. Finally, we ask you to oppose amendments 
     that increase funding for one education program by cutting 
     another education program. Thank you for your support of 
     education.
           Sincerely,
     Dan Fuller,
       President.
     Edward R. Kealy,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                         Student Aid Alliance,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Re: support Kennedy-Dodd amendment on Pell grants.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Student Aid Alliance--a 
     coalition of over 60 higher education organizations 
     representing students, parents, college presidents, financial 
     aid administrators and others--we write to urge you to 
     support an amendment to the FY 2004 Budget Resolution that 
     will increase the Federal Pell Grant maximum grant by $450 to 
     $4,500.
       Should the funding of the Pell Grants increase by $1.8 
     billion, as proposed in the amendment, more low-income and 
     first-generation students can pursue their higher education 
     dreams. Many of these students are consumed with worry that 
     the poor performance of the economy has seriously jeopardized 
     their hope of college attendance. They are right to worry. 
     Their concerns have a documented basis in fact: data from the 
     Department of Education show that qualified low-income 
     students are still only half as likely to enroll in a four-
     year institution.
       The federal government's investment in student financial 
     aid is less than one percent of federal spending, but as 
     states continue to pull away from providing resources to the 
     needy students, and as more students choose to pursue a 
     college education, federal funding becomes even more 
     essential.
       Finally, the consequences of the Pell Grant amendment on 
     the federal budget are negligible, but its consequences for 
     the students in your state are significant. For them, it may 
     mean the difference between going to college or not, or 
     staying in college or not.
       We strongly urge you to vote in favor of this important 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
     David Ward,
       Co-Chair.
     David Warren,
       Co-Chair.

[[Page S4251]]

     
                                  ____
                                             Association of Jesuit


                                      Colleges & Universities,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Association of 
     Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) and the twenty-eight 
     institutions of higher education that we represent, I write 
     in support of the Kennedy-Dodd Budget Amendment to increase 
     the Pell grant maximum from $4,050 to $4,500 in FY04.
       All of our Jesuit colleges and universities have been hard-
     pressed to meet the critical increase of over 25% in Pell 
     eligible students over the past two years. Within one year, 
     our 28 institutions had to increase the amount of 
     institutional aid given to needy students by 10% to 
     accommodate declining federal dollars. Institutional aid 
     ranks as the highest funding category for our students at 47% 
     on average, and federal aid dollars including Pell grants and 
     campus-based aid programs totals 44%, while only 9% of aid 
     originates from the states. Some of our institutions have 
     been quite dependent upon state aid, but, because of the 
     burgeoning state budget crisis, students have lost aid. For 
     example, $1 million was cut in grant aid from the Illinois 
     Grant Aid program for Loyola Chicago University students. 
     Given the combination of state budget crisis and limited 
     federal dollars, students are increasing loan debts, while 
     institutions are increasing institutional aid. For many small 
     and medium-sized institutions these institutional increases 
     are straining the very financial fiber and well being of 
     these colleges.
       The economy has played another factor not only in 
     diminishing college and university endowments, but, also in 
     trying to raise endowment funding. Parents are really hard 
     pressed because their savings have declined and their 
     contributions have diminished substantially. Thus, the 
     recession not only has impacted federal and state budgets, 
     but also college and university budgets and in particular, 
     parent's and student's budgets.
       The Pell grant program remains the foundation program for 
     providing more access for more students of need to secure a 
     postsecondary education. Pell grants serve the neediest 
     students across the country and open doors for many first 
     generation students to pursue their dreams. Given the complex 
     times that we live in, our primary purpose should always be 
     to educate the best-educated populace in the world. An 
     America that offers equal opportunity to those who are less 
     affluent than others and who desperately want to contribute 
     back to society. Thank you for your leadership in introducing 
     this critical amendment. Our students are counting on your 
     continued advocacy.
                                            Charles L. Currie, SJ,
                                                        President.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I have talked to the floor manager of the bill, and I 
hope he will be willing to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the modification that my 
friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, made to this amendment. We have 
no objection to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 311, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 311), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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.
  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.
  Mr. NICKLES. I believe under the order that was established, Senator 
Biden is next up to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. I have a modified version of amendment No. 278 that I will 
send to the desk with a list of cosponsors.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I don't know that I have seen 
that modification. We are trying to clear these first.
  Mr. BIDEN. I believe the modification has been cleared by staff. I 
may be mistaken.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator, is it No. 278 
or No. 273?
  Mr. BIDEN. Amendment No. 278.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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.
  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.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Delaware has 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry: Is my modification at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.


                     Amendment No. 278, As Modified

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

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Nelson of 
     Nebraska, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Graham of Florida, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 278, as modified.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $560,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $560,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $998,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $46,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $62,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $76,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $118,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $267,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $222,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $304,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $62,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 54, line 13, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $76,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $122,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $293,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $278,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $396,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $62,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $76,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $122,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $415,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $693,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $1,089,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $1,148,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,210,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,275,000,000.

[[Page S4252]]

       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,344,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,416,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,493,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $122,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $415,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by $693,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by $1,089,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by $1,148,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,210,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by $1,275,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $1,344,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $1,416,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,493,000,000.
       On page 36, line 15, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 36, line 16, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 36, line 20, increase the amount by $280,000,000.
       On page 36, line 24, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 37, line 3, increase the amount by $350,000,000.
       On page 40, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 40, line 10, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 40, line 11, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 40, line 18, decrease the amount by $46,000,000.
       On page 40, line 19, decrease the amount by $46,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 40, line 23, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 41, line 2, decrease the amount by $62,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, decrease the amount by $62,000,000.
       On page 41, line 6, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by $65,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by $69,000,000.
       On page 41, line 14, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 41, line 15, decrease the amount by $73,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by $76,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by $76,000,000.
       On page 47, line 5, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 47, line 6, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 47, line 15, increase the amount by $280,000,000.
       On page 79, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 308. FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY 
                   ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) State and local law enforcement officers provide 
     essential services that preserve and protect our freedom and 
     safety;
       (2) with the support of the Community Oriented Policing 
     Services program (referred to in this section as the ``COPS 
     program''), State and local law enforcement officers have 
     succeeded in dramatically reducing violent crime;
       (3) the COPS program is the only program in the Federal 
     government that provides homeland security resources directly 
     to law enforcement first responders;
       (4) on July 15, 2002, the Attorney General stated, ``Since 
     law enforcement agencies began partnering with citizens 
     through community policing, we've seen significant drops in 
     crime rates. COPS provides resources that reflect our 
     national priority of terrorism prevention.'';
       (5) On February 26, 2002, the Attorney General stated, 
     ``The COPS program has been a miraculous sort of success. 
     It's one of those things that Congress hopes will happen when 
     it sets up a program.'';
       (6) the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Assistant 
     Director for the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination has 
     stated, ``The FBI fully understands that our success in the 
     fight against terrorism is directly related to the strength 
     of our relationship with our State and local partners.'';
       (7) as a result of the COPS program, State and local law 
     enforcement agencies have received funds for more than 
     117,000 officers, 87,300 of whom are on the beat, fighting 
     crime, and improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods 
     and schools;
       (8) the COPS program has assisted in advancing community 
     policing nationwide;
       (9) 86 percent of the Nation is served by a law enforcement 
     agency that has full-time officers engaged in community 
     policing activities;
       (10) the continuation and full funding of the COPS program 
     through fiscal year 2009 is supported by several major law 
     enforcement organizations, including--
       (A) the International Association of Chiefs of Police;
       (B) the International Brotherhood of Police Officers;
       (C) the Fraternal Order of Police;
       (D) the National Sheriffs' Association;
       (E) the National Troopers Coalition;
       (F) the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association;
       (G) the National Association of Police Organizations;
       (H) the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
     Executives;
       (I) the Police Executive Research Forum; and
       (J) the Major Cities Chiefs;
       (11) several studies have concluded that the implementation 
     of community policing as a law enforcement strategy is an 
     important factor in the reduction of crime in our 
     communities;
       (12) Congress appropriated $1,050,000,000 for the COPS 
     program for fiscal year 2002 and $928,900,000 for fiscal 
     2003; and
       (13) the President requested $164,000,000 for the COPS 
     program for fiscal year 2004, $886,000,000 less than the 
     amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that an increase of 
     $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 for the Department of 
     Justice's community oriented policing program will be 
     provided without reduction and consistent with previous 
     appropriated and authorized levels.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes equally divided on 
each side. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the COPS Program: $163 million. This 
amendment will take it up to what it has historically been for the last 
8 or 9 years, about $1.16 billion. At the time we are cutting back FBI 
agents, we have cut the violent crime task forces, FBI agents no longer 
do interstate bank robbery, car thefts, et cetera. All local 
municipalities are in a hole. Everyone is in trouble. Deficits are 
high. We are worried about terrorism. The first guy who is going to run 
across a Bin Laden-type figure is not one wearing night vision goggles 
with the Special Forces. It could be a cop.
  We are cutting back on homeland defense, local law enforcement. There 
has been an 83-percent cut from the COPS level we just approved in the 
omnibus bill just weeks ago. This will provide for 4,400 more cops at 
the very time--think about this--the entire FBI is 11,000 FBI agents. 
We are talking about adding 4,400 cops.
  The COPS Program has worked. No one has a cogent argument as to why 
it has not worked. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time in opposition? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in function 750, which includes a lot of 
programs for local law enforcement, we have a 29-percent increase. The 
Senator's amendment would add an additional $1 billion on top of that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield to the Senator from New 
Hampshire the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the COPS Program was designed to put 
100,000 new police officers on the street. We have, in fact, put 
110,000 new police officers on the street.
  In addition, the program has been replaced in large part by the huge 
amount of increases that are going into the First Responder Program, 
into the Byrne grant, into the LEA grant, and into the local law 
enforcement effort overall. We are dramatically increasing money in 
these accounts.
  To continue a program that was supposed to fade out is totally 
inappropriate when we are already expanding the spending in these 
accounts by significant amounts.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator have time to answer a question?
  Mr. GREGG. I have no idea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New 
Hampshire be permitted to answer one question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, if I can have equal time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S4253]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Have the budget rules changed? Is there some way that 
the Senator from New Hampshire can offer an amendment that will, in 
fact, increase the budget so the COPS Program will be paid for?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator knows the budget rules much better than I do. 
I think his answer is rhetorical, and the answer is no.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. This amendment would not add to COPS. 
It will add to the budget.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 20 
seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this takes $2 billion out of the tax cut. 
It provides $1 billion for COPS, and $1 billion for reduction of the 
deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
278, as modified.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     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
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 278), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are making progress. I inform our 
colleagues, Senator Conrad and I have had members inquiring how much 
longer are we going to stay. We are staying until we complete the bill. 
I urge Members not to generate amendments. We are trying to deal with 
them and we are trying to accommodate Members as much as we can. 
Sometimes we have had three or four amendments on one subject matter. I 
hope that does not continue.
  The next amendment to be considered is the amendment from the Senator 
from South Carolina, the Hollings amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                     Amendment No. 343, as Modified

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for 
     himself, and Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
     Graham of Florida, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Corzine, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 343, as modified.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 343), as modified, as is follows:
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $314,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $634,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $535,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $153,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $31,000,000.
       On page 21, line 23, increase the amount by $850,000,000.
       On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $201,000,000.
       On page 22, line 2, increase the amount by $850,000,000.
       On page 22, line 3, increase the amount by $484,000,000.
       On page 22, line 7, increase the amount by $497,000,000.
       On page 22, line 11, increase the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 22, line 15, increase the amount by $153,000,000.
       On page 22, line 19, increase the amount by $31,000,000.
       On page 36, line 15, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 36, line 16, increase the amount by $113,000,000.
       On page 36, line 19, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 36, line 20, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 36, line 24, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, decrease the amount by $.314,000,000
       On page 42, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $684,000,000.
       On page 42, line 11, decrease the amount by $535,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 42, line 19, decrease the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 42, line 23, decrease the amount by $31,000,000.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. On behalf of Senators Graham of Florida and South 
Carolina, Senators Byrd, Lieberman, Corzine, Schumer, Murray, Biden, 
and others, this amendment is to fund the port security provisions that 
we passed unanimously through the Senate. We had funding at that time. 
The House would not agree and the law is there. The responsibility and 
the unfunded mandate is there upon the States. Now they have no 
emergency dollars and it is an emergency situation.
  We have to have $1 billion this year and $1 billion next year. I 
wanted to first take the money from the tax cuts. That was not going to 
work, and then I was going to remove the caps and I retreated to the 
920 offset. We are in a desperate situation. We have to have the money.
  Last Congress, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 
2002. This landmark bill reflects the first time that the federal 
government has imposed security requirements on U.S. ports since World 
War II.
  People do not ordinarily think about what happens at our ports. They 
take for granted that goods from all over the world are transported 
through our ports at minimal cost. However, this system is in jeopardy 
because security has never been part of the equation, and for the first 
time, we are requiring shipments to not only be efficient, but 
efficient and secure. The current situation leaves us in jeopardy, 
because Al Qaeda could use one of the millions of marine containers 
that are shipped into the U.S. to carry a dirty bomb, they could also 
take over an oil tanker and use it as a weapon to attack our coastal 
cities.
  The bill we passed last year, the Maritime Transportation Security 
Act, sets the stage for protecting our nation, and for protecting our 
homeland. Last year, when we were considering this measure, Senate 
conferees insisted that we needed a commitment to fund the important 
requirements and mandates of this act. But until now we have not agreed 
on how to fund this measure. We implored the administration to come up 
with their own plan to help us address the vital need to secure our 
ports and points inland from maritime attack, but they sat on the 
sidelines.
  Faced with that inaction, we pushed our colleagues in the House to 
require user fees on cargo shippers, and on ships, in order to provide 
funds for security equipment and programs, and to help our first 
responders plan how they might counteract any attacks. But our friends 
in the House, primarily those at the Ways and Means Committee, said 
that it was not a user fee. When we convinced them that it was, they 
then said that revenues had to originate in the House. After that we 
said okay, you pass the bill on the House side, and then we will pass 
your bill in the Senate. Yet the goal post moved further away once 
again, when the house said that they couldn't agree on any user

[[Page S4254]]

fee at all, and that the federal government should pay for port 
security in the budget. In the end, it was more important to pass the 
maritime security bill, and to impose the security mandates, so we 
required the Administration to submit their plans for funding port 
security to Congress within 6 months. Well, this years' budget proposes 
not one penny for port security!
  As required by the MTSA, the Coast Guard has begun to survey security 
at U.S. ports, and preliminary estimates are that we will need 4.8 
billion dollars to comply with the mandates. According to a ``Maritime 
Security Notice'' in the Federal Register of December 30, 2002, the 
total costs of implementing security in our seaports will reach $6 
billion over the next ten years. The first year cost will be $1.4 
billion. The costs are broken down by USCG as follows:
  Vessel security: $1.1 billion over ten years,
  Facility security: $4.4 billion over ten years,
  Port Security Plans and Committees: $477 million over ten years.
  This funding is crucial to the security of our homeland. A recent 
port security terrorism simulation was conducted by federal, state, and 
private sector experts to examine the consequences of a seaport attack. 
Their conclusions were stunning. The simulation indicated that within 
twenty days of an attack through U.S. seaports, the New York Stock 
Exchange would halt trading on the Exchange because of restated 
earnings estimates and shareholder panic. Retailers and manufacturers 
would be crippled by our inability to reopen U.S. ports so that their 
inventories could be replenished.
  Last year, U.S. ports on the west coast were temporarily closed 
because of labor strikes, economists estimate that this closure cost 
our economy over two billion dollars a day. And, while we are spending 
billions of dollars each year to figure out how to shoot missiles out 
of the sky, we are spending practically nothing to protect against a 
weapon simply being put into a marine container, and shipped to the 
United States at a cost of less than three thousand dollars.
  The economic impact of the closure of just the west coast ports pales 
in comparison to the economic devastation that would be the reaction to 
a dirty bomb imported in a container through the Port of Charleston or 
Philadelphia, or an intentional ship collision with an oil facility 
along the Houston ship channel, or the scuttling of a vessel blocking 
the Mississippi River maritime highway. Many Members are from States 
that would be directly impacted by a maritime terrorist event, and all 
will be effected by the economic fallout. As demonstrated by the port 
security simulation, a terrorist event will force the closure of every 
port in the country, potentially causing the destruction of our 
economic system before the ports could be cleared and reopened. 
Currently, we are only inspecting two percent of containers entering 
the U.S. We need to do better. The consequences are just to great to 
not provide the badly needed funds to upgrade port security.
  For example, Tuesday, with the existing military situation and 
homeland security threat level at ``high,'' the State of South Carolina 
has been forced to supplement the existing security at the Port of 
Charleston, and at nuclear power plants, by deputizing and reassigning 
400 probation and parole officers. This extra security should be 
available from security professionals trained in transportation 
security, but these professionals are not available because we are not 
doing what is needed to secure our ports.
  A failure in securing our ports from attack, will result in a 
catastrophic attack on our economy, and ultimately on the strength of 
our nation. We currently do not have an adequate security system at our 
ports, and there has not been any sign from the Administration that 
they will secure our seaports in the future. The Coast Guard, Customs 
and Transportation Security Administration are doing their best, but 
unless they are given the tools and the funding to help our ports and 
cities employ the security that we need, we will be defenseless from a 
catastrophic attack. In order to provide this critical funding I am 
proposing an amendment to the Senate budget resolution.
  The amendment would add $1 billion annually, for seaport security 
needs, over the next two years. In order to pay for the amendment, the 
tax cut would be reduced by $2 billion. The one billion, per year, 
could be spent consistent with the Maritime Transportation Security Act 
of 2002, as follows: Maritime Administration, $610 million; $450 
million, for grants to ports and waterfront facilities to help ensure 
compliance with federally approved security plans; $150 million; for 
grants to states, local municipalities and other entities to help 
comply with federal area security plans and to provide grants to 
responders for port security contingency response; $10 million, to be 
used in conjunction with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to 
help develop a seaport security training curriculum to provide training 
to federal and state law enforcement personnel, and to certify private 
security personnel working at seaports.
  Coast Guard, $160 million; $50 million, for port security 
assessments; $50 million, for the establishment and operation of multi-
agency task force to coordinate and evaluate maritime information in 
order to identify and respond to security threats; $40 million, to help 
implement the Automated Identification System, AIS, and other tracking 
systems designed to actively track and monitor vessels operating in 
U.S. waters; $20 million, for additional Coast Guard port security 
vessels.
  The Border and Transportation Security Directorate, $230 million, 
$100 million, to Customs for the installation of screening equipment, 
and to be used to help develop new technologies to help develop and 
prototype screening and detection equipment at U.S. ports; $100 
million, to TSA and Customs; $50 million each, to evaluate and 
implement cargo security programs; $30 million, for the Transportation 
Security Administration, TSA, to develop and implement the 
Transportation Worker ID Card, and to conduct criminal background 
checks of transportation workers who work in secure areas or who work 
with sensitive cargo or information.
  I thank the distinguished chairman for his agreement. We could voice-
vote to save time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Hollings and 
Senator Graham of South Carolina, for their willingness to work with us 
to modify the amendment. We are happy to accept the amendment. That 
will eliminate two rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
343, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 343), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 358

  Mr. NICKLES. I believe the next amendment will be offered by the 
Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 358.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, and Mr. 
     Reid, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
     Byrd, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Warner, Mr. Specter, Ms. 
     Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Feinstein, 
     Mr. Levin, and Mr. Brownback, proposed an amendment numbered 
     358.

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are stark needs for highways and 
transportation systems. The red column the President recommended, the 
green column across the chart shows what this budget proposes, and the 
budget before us proposes essentially flat funding for the next 6 
years. The administration itself said the needs just to maintain 
highways are at this yellow line, which is way above.
  Our amendment simply raises spending for highways over the 6 years to 
$255 billion and mass transit to $56.5,

[[Page S4255]]

using dollars previously paid into the highway trust fund by highway 
users, and other items that have been identified by the President and 
the Budget Committee, such as transferring 2.5 cents for ethanol into 
the highway user funds.
  Investing in highways and transportation is the best immediate 
stimulus we can have to the economy, creating jobs, and lowering 
highway deaths. I urge the support of my colleagues.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their 
leadership on this bipartisan amendment to increase the level of 
Federal investment in transportation by over 40 percent in the next 6 
years.
  This amendment will enable the Environment and Public Works Committee 
and the Banking Committee to write their Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st century, TEA-21, reauthorization proposals with adequate 
funding, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Maintaining an integrated, efficient, and safe transportation system 
is one of the most important things we can do to get this faltering 
economy moving again. It is essential for maintaining the strength of 
our cities, and for promoting the growth of commerce and trade.
  Of all the economic growth proposals that we will consider this year, 
few will produce a greater bang for the buck than increased Federal 
investment in the Nation's transit and highway system. According to the 
Department of Transportation, every $1 billion in surface 
transportation investment creates 47,500 jobs. With an economy losing 
300,000 jobs each month, we cannot afford to ignore the job-creating 
power of transportation investments and the other benefits that they 
bring.
  According to a report by the American Public Transportation 
Association, Americans took 9.5 billion trips on mass transit in 2001--
the highest number in over 40 years, and a figure 22 percent increase 
since 1996. Of those trips, 54 percent were work related. I cannot 
imagine what would happen in cities like Washington, Chicago, New York, 
and Boston if these commuters rushing to and from their jobs were to 
lose public transportation as a viable option.
  Perhaps such a scenario is too grim to consider, but we do have some 
idea just what those commuters would confront if they got off the 
trains and buses and back into their cars. In 2000, the average highway 
traveler spent 62 hours mired in rush hour traffic--a 38-percent 
increase over 1994. In fact, it is estimated that traffic congestion 
now costs Americans $67 billion each year--the cost of 3.67 billion 
hours in lost productivity and 5.7 billion gallons of wasted gasoline--
wasted gasoline.
  Unless we continue to build on the impressive investments made under 
ISTEA and TEA-21, I expect those congestion costs will rapidly 
multiply. How much they will increase is not known, but the Federal 
Transit Administration estimates that public transportation now saves 
the Nation $19.4 billion in congestion costs each year.
  Unfortunately, this budget resolution does not provide room for 
building upon those two landmark transportation bills, and assumes a 
relatively flat level of funding for the next several years. These 
figures fall far short of what is needed simply to keep pace with the 
demands or exerted on our National Transportation System.
  According to the American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials, just to maintain the current conditions of 
our roads and bridges the Nation will need to invest approximately $92 
billion each year for the next 6 years, and $19 billion for our transit 
systems. To actually improve these systems, the requirements are $125 
billion for highways and $44 billion for transit respectively. Yet this 
budget provides only $32 billion for highways and $7.2 billion for 
transit this year.
  By the end of the next 6-year reauthorization cycle, over 65 percent 
of the Nation's public transportation bus fleet and 54 percent of the 
country's subway cars, commuter rail cars, and light rail cars will be 
passed their useful lives, according to FTA.
  If we don't replace the oldest vehicles in the fleet now, and repair 
those that can remain in revenue service for the foreseeable future, we 
will only be kicking our problems down the road. Ignoring these needs 
will only increase their expense, add additional financial burdens to 
State and local governments, and undermine the safety, security, and 
efficiency of our current transportation system.
  It is also imperative that we boost funding for transportation 
investment now because of the new, post-September 11 security costs 
that States are facing to protect their bridges, tunnels, and subway 
stations.
  A report by the Transportation Research Board, suggests that of the 
Nation's 600,000 bridges and tunnels, over 500 have been identified as 
critical links based on their size, traffic capacity, and strategic 
importance. If ever one of these bridges or tunnels should be 
compromised, the effect on commerce and trade in whole States and 
regions would be profound.
  That same study, which was conducted with the input of the FTA and 
Federal Highway Administration, suggests that the cost of protecting 
these highway structures is approximately $6.8 billion over the next 6 
years, with an additional $578 million required for ongoing security 
operations.
  On the transit side, the security upgrades are expected to cost about 
$6.2 billion over 6 years, with an additional $500 million required for 
operating expenses.
  Who is going to pay for these security requirements? The existing 
budget, which calls for essentially flat funding, does not anticipate a 
strong Federal role. At the same time, the States are in the midst of 
the worst fiscal crisis in nearly 50 years, and cannot afford these 
additional responsibilities.
  Ultimately, the States will not be able to avoid this burden for the 
simple reason that they must protect their citizens. But with no 
additional revenues to pay for these costs, they will be forced to raid 
their long-term transportation budgets to pay for these new security 
responsibilities.
  They are the ones who will have to finance additional State police 
details, construct physical barriers around the bases of bridges, 
install ventilation systems in tunnels, and create coordinated traffic 
monitoring and management computer systems. They will have no choice 
but to rob fund their immediate security needs at the expense of their 
long-term transportation improvement needs. And the cost of this may 
well be the long-term deterioration of their roads, bridges, tunnels, 
and public transportation services.
  One final point I would like to make is that the terrorists of 9/11 
closed our airports, and very nearly crippled the aviation industry 
permanently. However, because we had made critical investments in all 
modes of transportation during the past decade, intercity trains, the 
interstate system, and public transportation were able to fill the gap 
during those initial days following the tragedy. America did not stop 
moving.
  We hope and pray that there will never be another major terrorist 
attack on our country, but cannot pretend that our bridges, tunnels, 
and train stations are not inviting targets.
  Its essential, therefore, to provide the resources in this budget 
resolution to maintain a strong multimodal National Transportation 
System. With this amendment, which provides $255 billion for highways 
and $56.5 for transit over 6 years, we are taking a large step in the 
right direction.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to get a substantial 
reauthorization bill passed this year, as well as fully funding Amtrak 
and providing for increased aviation funding. We must meet all of these 
challenges, and meet them now.
  Today's bipartisan highways and transit funding amendment is a 
critical step in that process. I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleagues 
from Missouri and Oklahoma and others who sponsor this amendment, but 
it is irresponsible to basically say 30 percent of highway funds will 
be funded out of general revenues. Highways have been built and paid 
for by and large by user fees, primarily gasoline taxes. This amendment 
says we have an increase in the deficit of about $63 billion over the 
next 6 years, meaning funded by general revenue financing. That is a 
mistake.

[[Page S4256]]

  The Federal Government pays 80 percent of the cost of these highways. 
If you have general fund financing of them, there is no limit on the 
demands where people are saying we want you to pay for our roads.
  This is over a 30 percent increase in the highway program, and 
basically it is unfunded. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 358.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

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

                                NAYS--21

     Allard
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 358) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all of our 
colleagues, we will now vote on the sense of the Senate offered by 
Senator Stevens and myself, and then Senator Conrad and I will work on 
an additional list of amendments. It is very much our intention to 
finish this bill tonight.
  I urge our colleagues to be a little more disciplined as far as 
sending amendments to Senator Conrad. I appreciate the cooperation of 
our colleagues.


                           Amendment No. 391

  Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens and myself, I send--is 
the amendment at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that the sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 391:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING HIGHWAY SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Highway construction funding should increase over 
     current levels.
       (2) The Senate Budget Committee-passed Resolution increases 
     Highway funding above the President's request.
       (3) All vehicles, whether they are operated by gasoline, 
     gasohol, or electricity, do damage to our highways.
       (4) As set out in TEA-21, the direct relationship between 
     excise taxes and highway spending makes sense and should be 
     maintained.
       (5) Highways should be funded through user fees such as 
     excise taxes and not through the General Fund of the 
     Treasury.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate should only consider legislation that 
     increases highway spending if such legislation changes 
     highway user fees to pay for such increased spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, embedded in this amendment is a provision 
that really intends to lift the cap so that the outlays under this 
concept of increased highway spending will not be charged back against 
the discretionary spending.
  It is the intent of this sense-of-the-Senate to state that it is the 
Senate's position, that we support this increase only on the basis that 
it will not be charged against outlays to the discretionary spending 
and therefore reduce the amount of money available to the 
Appropriations Committee under this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am assured by the staff, who are experts 
in this area, that will not reduce the money available for 
appropriations. I agree with most of the whereases in this amendment 
because it says that highways should be paid for by highway users. And, 
frankly, this returns to the highway trust fund almost $50 billion that 
has been paid in by highway users over the last decade. It also lays 
out other areas where there should be additional funds that the Finance 
Committee has already agreed we should pay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All debate time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Bond amendment, I 
recommend that we accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 391) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the two managers are going to work to come 
up with another list of amendments that we will work on. The chairman 
and ranking member said it will take about another 15 minutes for them 
to come up with another list. During the time they are gone, if 
somebody has some issue they want to talk about, Senator Nickles and 
Senator Conrad said they would have no objection to that--they can talk 
about anything they want.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say to Members on our side who have 
amendments pending, we had over 105 amendments noticed. Not all of 
those have been filed at the desk. We are asking Senators, if you have 
provided notice of an amendment but it could be put off to another day, 
please come to us now and advise us of that. We need to reduce the 
number of amendments.
  We know that typically amendments Members have indicated an interest 
in sometimes fall away. Many times many of the amendments fall away. 
That would be helpful. With that said, I also want to advise Members, I 
do not see any way that this bill gets completed tonight. There are 
simply too many amendments Members have indicated they are serious 
about taking to a vote.
  That does not mean we should not bend every effort to reduce the 
number of amendments outstanding so we could complete this as nearly as 
possible today, and finish up at a reasonable time tomorrow.
  So this is going to be a challenge to all of us. If we do not do 
this, let me just say, there are still 85 amendments pending here. We 
have been doing about three an hour. If we continue on this pace, we 
are going to be here for another several days.
  So I implore my colleagues, if you have given notice of an amendment, 
but you really do not need a vote on it, please advise the staff of 
that so we can whittle down this list.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the two managers of this bill have worked 
very hard. Recognizing how hard they have

[[Page S4257]]

worked, the staff has worked even harder. I have relayed to the 
majority leader that in addition to the fact that it is Friday, and we 
have all had a hard week, we have to keep in proper perspective, 
whether people want to acknowledge it or not, that we have had a number 
of Senators who have recently had surgery and have been ill. Not a 
single one of those Senators has come to me asking that we cut them 
some slack. But we know that we should do that. Some of them came back 
to work earlier than they should have. They have violated doctors' 
instructions to be here.
  Senator Byrd has talked to us. We recognize that his wife is very 
ill. Senator Byrd is doing everything he can to keep a watchful eye on 
his wife.
  I hope we have proven during this week--we, the minority--that we are 
not trying to do anything to slow up this important piece of 
legislation. I have trouble understanding what is the magic of 
finishing this bill today. If there is magic there, it would take magic 
to complete it because we cannot complete the bill today. It would be 
my recommendation that we work for a reasonable time this evening. If 
the leader wants to come back tomorrow, come back sometime at a 
reasonable time tomorrow, do that. But I have to say we would be better 
served by completing our work early this evening and coming back next 
week and finishing this bill. It would give us all time to work to 
winnow down this list of amendments. I will bet if we had the weekend 
to do it, we could work it out so there would not be a lot of 
amendments. Our being pushed into saying you have to finish this bill 
today or tomorrow is not logical.
  I know there is pressure from a lot of places to finish the bill, but 
it is not the Democrats preventing the legislation from passing. We are 
doing everything we can to cooperate. I know there are people here who 
have had far more experience than I. This, to me, would be logical and 
sensible.
  Senator Byrd asked me today how long we are going. I would like him 
to express to the Senate how he feels about this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there may be men and women dying right now 
in the Arabian desert. Here we are talking about a budget resolution 
which is required by law to be passed by April 15. The administration 
has not added one penny in this budget for the war. They have not added 
anything in this budget for the war.
  If we were debating a war budget today, it might be different. But we 
are not debating a war budget. There is no money in this budget by the 
administration for the war. Yet we are fighting a war. Why the hurry, 
when the deadline is April 15? Why the hurry?
  We have asked the administration, I have asked the administration and 
representatives of the administration what is the cost of the war. How 
much is it going to cost. What is the cost of this war. The Secretary 
of Defense has answered it is not knowable. Here we are, the elected 
representatives of the people who want to know something about the cost 
of the war. The administration has said: It is not knowable. The 
administration has said, in essence, wait until you see the 
supplemental. We will send you the supplemental.
  The answer to our questions have been rather contemptuous, in saying: 
Well, we don't know the cost. We will let you know when we send up the 
bill.
  Why don't we wait and see what the supplemental is going to ask for? 
Why don't we wait and see what the administration asks for in the 
supplemental before we proceed with the budget? I cannot understand the 
hurry. We have at least two Members who have had serious operations. I 
don't mind staying a little while longer, but I have a responsibility 
also at home. If it were absolutely necessary that we complete this 
budget tonight, I would stay as long as I could, and if I had to go 
home, I would go home and let the Senate finish it. But this resolution 
doesn't have to be done tonight. This is not a war budget. The 
administration has nothing in this budget for the war. The 
administration has stiff-armed, as far as I am concerned, the Congress, 
those of us who have wanted to know something about what are the costs 
of this war. The administration has given us the back of their hand.
  Here we are; we are being asked to rush through a budget that is not 
a war budget, no money in this budget for the war, and yet there is a 
war going on right now. Go look at your television sets and see the 
destruction that is being rained upon a capital city of a state that 
has not attacked the United States. Why can't we wait until we find out 
what the administration is going to request in a supplemental and then 
deal with the budget?
  There is absolutely no necessity for dealing with this budget 
tonight. Suppose you lose a man here in the Senate because we continue 
to press for action on this budget tonight? You could lose a man. You 
could lose two. We have had plenty of time. We have had plenty of time. 
The administration should have told us how much they need in the 
supplemental. I have a feeling we are going to be asked for $65 to $80 
billion, maybe $100 billion for the war in that supplemental. Why not 
wait and see what the administration is asking for in the supplemental 
before we proceed with this budget?
  We have a huge tax cut in this budget, $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. So 
we want to pass the tax cuts before we find out how much the 
administration is going to request in a supplemental for fighting the 
war.
  Men and women are dying. We ought not be on this budget today. We 
ought to at least show some respect for our own men and women. We are 
sending our own men and women across the sea to a foreign land where 
they may die and their families here today are worrying and crying and 
praying about their loved ones. That is saying nothing about the Iraqi 
men and women, old women, young women, old men, young men, sick people, 
children, babies.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no debate in order at this time.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been around here long enough to know 
what the regular order is. I also have been around here long enough to 
know that we are being asked to stay here and spend the rest of the 
evening. We may send some old men to their deaths by doing this. I have 
a sick wife. Sixty-nine days from now, if the Lord lets both of us 
live, we will celebrate our 66th wedding anniversary. My first duty is 
to her. There will be enough Senators left here to pass this bill if we 
want to stay that long. But I think it is unreasonable.
  If there were a reason to stay here, I would say, let's stay here and 
do our duty. But there is no reason for that, except to get this 
resolution passed before we know what the administration is going to 
request in a supplemental to fight this war.
  Now, call for the regular order if you want to. Mr. President, I say 
it is time that we agree on a few more amendments, act on a few more, 
and go over to next week. The administration, I understand, is going to 
fight me down at the White House to tell me about the supplemental next 
Tuesday as a ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Let them 
tell us that first, and then let's complete action on this massive tax 
cut.
  Mr. President, I hope reason will prevail today. There is time to 
pass this bill later. It doesn't have to be done today. Let's go home, 
at least out of respect for the men and the women who are being sent. 
They didn't ask to go to foreign lands, possibly to fight and die.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  Mr. BYRD. Out of respect for those, Mr. President----
  Mr. SANTORUM. I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Further debate would require unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Can we not at least respect the people who are being sent 
overseas to fight and die, possibly? Can't we, out of respect, at least 
shut down the Senate for today and go home? Why do we have to debate 
this while they are giving of their all? Remember, we are raining 
destruction

[[Page S4258]]

upon a city of a state that has not attacked this country. There are 
men and women, old people and young people, sick and dying people 
there. At least we should have enough respect to quit now. We have done 
a good day's work. We passed 15, 16, 17 amendments by rollcall votes. 
Why do we have to continue? We don't have to--not for the political 
reason of getting action completed on this resolution before we find 
out what the administration is going to ask for in the supplemental.
  I hope Senators will insist on our going over to next week. Our 
staffs haven't had a chance to read the amendments. Senators don't know 
what is in these amendments. I don't.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Let's take the weekend and have our clerks read them so 
they can better advise us next week. I ask Senators to think about 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns raised by my 
friend and colleague from West Virginia, who just doubled the subsidy 
for Amtrak over my opposition. The majority leader has asked me to 
finish this bill, and we are going to finish the bill. I regret it. I 
will tell you, I have been here 23 years. We usually spend 1 week on a 
budget. Undoubtedly, on that last day of the budget, we have a lot of 
votes. We didn't do a budget last year and we should have. Maybe I 
should have worked more with the chairman at that time to make that 
happen. The Congress didn't function because it didn't get the budget 
done. We are going to finish this budget this week--tonight or 
tomorrow.
  I know there are a lot of amendments, but most of them are 
repetitive. We have dealt with almost every subject area in the budget. 
The budget is not an appropriations bill. The budget is not a tax bill. 
We have had people offer amendments as though this is going to 
micromanage section 750. We don't do that in the budget. We don't write 
tax bills in the budget. We have had umpteen amendments. Oh, this will 
finance this, or it will be that portion of a tax bill. That is not 
what a budget does. A budget says basically how much we are going to 
spend and how much we are going to take in.

  We have a budget and we need to finish our work. I know it is 
unpleasant and painful, and I know people would rather be home with 
their families, but we have to finish. Two years ago, we had 34 votes--
tons of votes. We eventually passed a budget. I congratulated Senator 
Domenici because it wasn't easy or pretty. That is the way we are right 
now.
  I tell my colleague from North Dakota, we knew this was coming a 
couple of days ago. I know it will not be pleasant, and we are going to 
ask people, and some people have to catch planes, and that is 
unfortunate, but we are going to finish the budget.
  All these amendments that are pending, for the most part, don't need 
to be offered. They can be offered if you want--we are going to set an 
amount for appropriations. Most of those amendments can be dealt with 
on an appropriations bill or on a tax bill. We are going to have both 
this year. So I urge my colleagues to show some restraint. I will work 
with my colleagues, and I think I have considered every amendment 
fairly. We have not postponed anybody's amendments. I think we have 
been as fair as possible to everybody. I might mention that 90 percent 
of the amendments offered on the other side--well, I will be happy to 
work with my colleagues, but I think it is important to finish our 
work, whether it is midnight tonight or tomorrow night. It is very much 
my intention to finish. I urge our colleagues to work together to 
complete our work.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just say the chairman and I have 
worked together closely to try to move this agenda, to have amendments 
and do it in an efficient way. But I must say I don't see any earthly 
reason this bill has to be done today. The requirement is April 15. I 
think we are getting over the edge into unreasonableness. When one side 
gets unreasonable, that creates a reaction on the other side. I have 
tried to be reasonable, but I say to my colleagues, at some point it is 
going to be hard to feel that there is some rational reason for this 
press.
  We can get this bill done, and get it done in a timely way, without 
going endlessly into the night. We went until midnight last night, the 
same the night before. I will tell you, I think we should press ahead, 
do additional amendments for a time, but I think we need to fold our 
tent and recognize that we need to come back tomorrow or Tuesday 
morning and finish.
  I just ask my colleagues to think about that and, in the meantime, we 
can try to get an agreement on another traunche of amendments to work 
on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I tell my colleague from North Dakota 
that I will let him know of this request.
  I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments that be allowed to 
be considered be those filed and presently at the desk.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________