To create a reserve fund to finance an increase in the maximum Pell Grant that keeps pace with the rate of increase in public college tuition, extend Pell Grants to 500,000 new recipients, and close certain tax loopholes.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2005

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. Con Res. 95, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

Pending:

Corzine amendment No. 2777, to eliminate tax breaks for
those with incomes greater than $1 million and reserve the
savings to prevent future cuts in Social Security benefits.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have yet
to have a chance to review the amendment of the Senator from
California. I object at this point and I expect in the near future I
will be happy to accommodate our friend. She can begin her debate and
maybe that will help clarify the intention of her amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I am so sorry. I was
sure Senator Nickles had seen this amendment. I don't think there is
anything surprising. It is essentially a jobs amendment, initiatives
that have been introduced by other Senators. We packaged it in one
package.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from California seek time
from the manager on your side for proceeding?

[[Page S2592]]

Mrs. BOXER. I ask Senator Conrad if he wants me to take time by
discussing Senator Corzine's amendment and making other remarks or take
time off the managers' time? Either way he wants it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. How much time would the Senator need?
Mrs. BOXER. I was hopeful, when I spoke last night, that I could have
20 to 30 minutes for the entire amendment. That would be fine for me.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, might we agree to a time on her amendment
of 30 minutes equally divided?
Mrs. BOXER. No, no, 30 minutes on my side, or 20 minutes on my side.
Mr. CONRAD. Then 40 minutes equally divided? Is that what the Senator
is seeking?
Mrs. BOXER. No, 20 minutes a side.
Mr. CONRAD. Yes, 40 minutes equally divided.
Mr. NICKLES. I still haven't reviewed the amendment. I will do this:
I tell my colleague I am happy to enter into time agreements on a lot
of amendments but I will state I want to see the amendments first. I
know there is a whole package of amendments. I suggest we go under the
assumption it will be that. I will grant you that in just a moment.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from California at this
point, just for her side.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague very much. I have been looking
forward to offering this amendment. I hope at the appropriate moment in
time I will be able to send it to the desk.
Mr. President, if you were to go out all over this country and ask
most of our constituents from every State in the Union what is on their
minds, they are going to say it is the economy; it is jobs; it is their
security. In this particular budget we should do much more to ensure
that jobs are created and that our families are protected. So what we
do in this amendment, which we pay for, is a number of initiatives
which will help us create and retain jobs in this great country.
First of all, I want to give my colleagues a sense of why this is so
important. The amendment I am offering is cosponsored by Senators
Daschle, Sarbanes, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Durbin, Levin and
Dodd. I see Senator Kohl is here. I am hopeful he will want to make a
few comments as well.
Let me paint a picture of where we are. I think the best way to do it
is just show a series of charts, that are very clear:

Private sector jobs decline: Three million jobs lost since
January 2001.

We see the incredible graph that just shows, essentially, almost a
straight line down. We did see in February we had a little increase of
21,000 jobs, as I understand it, in the public sector. There is very
little in the private sector.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I will if I can reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have entered into a time agreement
where the total time consumed on the Boxer amendment will be 20 minutes
equally divided.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2783

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
Corzine amendment and send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and
Mr. Daschle, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Dodd,
proposes an amendment numbered 2783.

Mrs. BOXER. 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 create jobs, to discourage the shipping of jobs overseas,
and provide adjustment assistance for dislocated workers, by changing
the tax treatment of certain income from runaway plants and by reducing
tax breaks for individuals with incomes in excess of one million
dollars per year, without affecting middle-class taxpayers)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $16,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $16,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR JOB CREATION.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations,
discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels
and limits in this resolution by up to $24,000,000,000 over
the total of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for a bill, joint
resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report that
would provide resources for job creation, discourage
outsourcing of jobs, provide a tax credit for the creation of
new manufacturing jobs in the United States, provide small
businesses with a tax credit for health care coverage,
restore funding to the Manufacturing Extension Program and to
the Advanced Technology Partnership, increase spending on
federal science research activities, prohibit the use of tax
dollars to outsource non-defense and non-homeland security
government contracts abroad, require employers to provide
workers advance notice of any intention to move their jobs
offshore, and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance to include
service workers and improve access to affordable health care.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me continue with the story that is not
a very happy story about job loss. We have seen 3 million jobs lost in
the last 3\1/2\ years. We see unemployment for 27 weeks or longer. We
see that 1.9 million workers are unemployed for more than 6 months. We
have statistics that say although the unemployment rate looks to be 5.6
percent, in reality it is over 9 percent if you factor in the people
who have given up their search for jobs. We see the smallest share of
the population at work since 1994, with 62.2 percent of the population
unemployed. These are startling statistics.
Manufacturing jobs in America: From 1993 to 2000, 385,000
manufacturing jobs created; and from 2001 to 2003, 2.785 thousand jobs
lost. That is 75,270 jobs lost per month. For my people in California,
we have seen an enormous drop in manufacturing jobs.
I want to show my colleagues the context of this job loss if we look
back to other administrations. This is the average number of jobs
created or lost per month. Under Ronald Reagan, we had 165,000 jobs per
month; under George H. Bush, we had 47,604 jobs created every month;
under Bill Clinton, we had 236,625 jobs created per month; and under
George W. Bush, 58,815 jobs per month on average lost.
By any standard, this is a unique time. We have a chance to do
something about it with this budget resolution.
California jobs: From 1993 to 2000, under the Clinton administration,
25,644 jobs were created per month in my State of 35 million people.
Under George W. Bush, 284,900 jobs lost. That is 7,913 jobs lost per
month. Nearly 8,000 jobs are lost per month in my State. That is about
8,000 family members coming home to tell their families they are in big
trouble. We ought to do something about it. The good news is we can do
something about it with this amendment I offered.
I want to show one more chart.
President Bush promised a whole different story--promises, promises,
wishful thinking on jobs. The Bush administration has consistently
over-predicted job growth for 2002, 2003, and 2004.

[[Page S2593]]

Today, I read in the paper that the President is going to appoint a
manufacturing jobs czar. He came to a decision about the individual he
wants to appoint. We have learned that this particular individual built
a plant in China. Whether he will continue with that nomination, I do
not know, but clearly that sends a very mixed signal, to be polite
about it.
Let me talk for a moment about the amendment I am offering to protect
America's jobs.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 15 minutes 42 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
Our amendment creates a $24 billion job reserve fund for the
following purposes:
The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, $110 million cost;
Advanced Technology Program, $125 million cost; Federal science at $1
billion cost; new manufacturing jobs tax credit at $7 billion cost;
small business health insurance tax credit at $14 billion cost; stop
jobs from moving overseas and end the runaway plant tax break, which
saves $2 billion; the Dodd amendment with no Federal funds for
outsourcing, no cost; worker notification, which is Senator Daschle's
amendment in relation to jobs moving overseas, no cost; and worker
assistance and trade adjustment expansion for service workers and
expanded health insurance, $2 billion.

The way we pay for this amendment is the following: We end the
runaway plant tax break, which brings in $2 billion, and we reduce tax
breaks for millionaires, which brings in another $1 billion.
I want to spend just a moment explaining why I think that is fair. If
you earn over $1 million, under the Bush tax cut you are going to get a
refund of about $140,000 every single year.
Let me rephrase that. You are going to get a tax cut of $127,000
every single year. We reduce that refund to $85,000 for a very noble
purpose. That purpose is to get America back to work and to help our
middle-class families.
I think if you ask the average person in your State, just from what I
can tell by looking at polls and talking to people, they will say even
if they were in that millionaire category, we will have a stronger
economy and more people working by not giving millionaires $127,000 a
year from their taxes.
We reduce it to $85,000. Let us talk about that. They will now get
back $85,000. How much is that? That is 7.5 times the annual income of
a minimum-wage worker, just in the millionaire tax cut. We are, in
fact, cutting it to $85,000, but that is 7.5 times the annual income of
a minimum-wage worker. It is also two times the median household
income. If you are a millionaire and get back $85,000 a year instead of
$127,000, you are still getting back every year twice the median
household income and 7.5 times the annual income of a minimum-wage
worker.
I want to briefly tell you about each of these job creation plans.
Be providing a tax credit for creating new manufacturing jobs--this
is a tax credit that goes to businesses that create jobs in
manufacturing, originally sponsored by Senator John Kerry--the
manufacturing jobs tax credit gives the tax cut to companies that
create a new factory job in 2004, 2005 and 2006. This is a good thing
for business. It is a great thing for workers. It is a good way to deal
with this issue.
We increase the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
It sets aside $110 million of the reserve fund for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program. In 2003, this program helped create or
retain 35,000 jobs.
The administration only asks for $13 million in 2004, and it is
requesting only $39 million for 2005. They say they care about jobs,
but they ought to do more, and $110 million will create a lot more
jobs.
For the Advanced Technology Program, this amendment sets aside $140
million in the reserve fund. The administration proposes zeroing out
this ATP program. The ATP helps companies get to market and grow, and
that means jobs. Of the first 33 small companies to complete ATP
programs, 60 percent doubled in size, and 4 grew more than 1,000
percent. The ATP program bridges the gap between the research lab and
the marketplace. We need to see that go up to this $140 million level.
I might say, even with that, it is still less than we have spent in the
past on the program. George Bush, in 2005, requests zero for this
important program.

Then we have Federal research and development, which is so key, at
the National Science Foundation. It falls $1 billion short of what is
called for in the bill we passed 5 years ago. It is very important.
When President Bush says he increases Federal research by 5 percent,
the problem for our Nation's researchers and research institutions is
that increase is largely targeted for weapons development. However, we
have other things we need to do which will create jobs, as well. That
is the purpose of this amendment.
The health insurance tax credit for small business is clear. If
business pays health insurance for its people, we think they ought to
get a tax break. That is the kind of tax break we believe in on this
side of the aisle because it is to encourage businesses to help
employees with their health care.
We end tax subsidies to U.S. companies that send plants overseas.
This is a Dorgan-Mikulski idea. This amendment includes language
bringing to an end tax subsidies for employers that ship production of
goods abroad. This part brings $2 billion.
We prohibit Federal funds from being used for offshore jobs. This is
Senator Dodd's amendment that passed the Senate 70 to 26. When we give
State and local governments Federal funds and when we decide to issue
contracts, the jobs ought to stay here.
In my own State, the Defense Department wanted to buy rice for Iraq.
Instead of buying it from California, which has the best rice in the
world, they bought it from a foreign country. That is my farmers,
taxpayer dollars, and all my people's dollars going into the war
effort. We give a contract on rice to a foreign country when the sons
and daughters of our farmers and our people are going to war. I don't
get it.
This is an important amendment. We are improving the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program and extending it to service workers. That means help
for people who are pushed out of a job because of trade agreements.
I will save some time for colleagues. How much time remains?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 7 minutes 24 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Kohl.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Kohl is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. KOHL. I come to the Senate today as a cosponsor to the Boxer-Dodd
amendment.
I thank my colleague from California for pulling together this
package--and for including a provision I authored to restore the
funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program, MEP. I hope my
colleagues will join us in resounding, bipartisan vote for the
amendment. It remedies a serious failing of the budget before us.
A budget worthy of the Senate's support should have vision. It should
point the way to a better world for our workers, our families, and our
communities. Senator Boxer's amendment has a vision for bringing good
jobs back to our shores--and training a workforce able to fill and
create such jobs. Without the Boxer amendment, the budget will remain a
document whose only answer to the deterioration of the manufacturing
job base is upper income tax cuts cloaked in discredited trickle-down
economic theory.
I am particularly pleased that Senator Boxer's amendment provides the
resources to increase funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program
from the $39.6 million suggested in the President's budget to $100
million, fully funding the program for fiscal year 2005. I intended to
offer this as a free-standing amendment, but in the interest of time, I
will defer to my colleague from California. I commend her for allowing
the Senate to go on record on this vital program.
Manufacturing makes up 25 percent of Wisconsin's economy--making
Wisconsin the fourth largest manufacturing State in the Nation, tied
with Michigan. While that statistic may conjure up images of huge
businesses, in Wisconsin, 89 percent of our manufacturers have fewer
than 100 employees. These small- and medium-sized firms are consistent
forces for manufacturing job creation and are less likely than larger
firms to outsource jobs. Smaller manufacturers pay good wages and
contribute to the overall vitality of the local economy.

[[Page S2594]]

In Wisconsin, the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent, but these
figures hide the disappearance of the solid manufacturing jobs on which
Wisconsin's prosperity once rested. In January, the number of factory
jobs in Wisconsin fell to the lowest level in more than a decade--even
as unemployment fell. Since 2000, we have lost one out of every seven
manufacturing jobs--79,000 in total.
In Wisconsin, and across our Nation, MEP is one Federal program
actively and effectively combating this deterioration of the
manufacturing base. By helping small- and medium-sized manufacturers
streamline production, integrate new technologies, and improve
competitiveness, MEP has created or saved more than 35,000
manufacturing jobs nationwide during the last fiscal year. In
Wisconsin, the program is supported--and used--by scores of
manufacturers and the largest business association in my State:
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for the MEP from Jim
Haney, President of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Wisconsin Manufacturers

& Commerce,

Madison, WI, February 27, 2004.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kohl: It was a pleasure to tour Berntsen
International with you last week in Madison. This company is
just one example of many WMEP success stories that I have
personally witnessed in Wisconsin. I completely agree with
you that MEP is one of the best government investments
around, and it should be fully supported at the state and
federal level.
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce is an association
representing 4,300 members. As the largest business
association in Wisconsin, we are first and foremost concerned
about the business climate in the state. Our primary
priorities are to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on our
businesses. But we also recognize where smart and appropriate
investment of public dollars can produce results for business
in the state.
We need to prioritize our economic development initiatives
and judiciously place taxpayer dollars in those investments
that provide the best return for our state and our country.
There are many programs that should not make the cut.
However, MEP is one government investment that ranks at the
top when evaluated against criteria of national need,
effectiveness and results. We should not shortchange or
undercut this excellent program.
I understand the Senate Commerce, Justice, and State
Appropriations Committee will be reviewing manufacturing
support priorities with Secretary Evans this week. Please
urge Secretary Evans to do what he can to restore MEP funding
support to the FY03 level of $106 million.
Feel free to call me at 608-258-3400 to talk more about MEP
and its impact in Wisconsin.
Sincerely,
James Haney,
President.
Mr. KOHL. Let me quote from that letter:

We need to prioritize our economic development initiatives
and judiciously place taxpayer dollars in those investments
that provide the best return for our state and our country.
There are many programs that should not make the cut.
However, MEP is one government investment that ranks at the
top when evaluated against criteria of national need,
effectiveness and results. We should not shortchange or
undercut this excellent program.

I ask my colleagues, isn't MEP exactly the sort of program a budget
with vision would support, a program, as Mr. Haney says, that brings
real returns--jobs, economic growth, hope--from our scarce taxpayer
dollar, a program that has received strong bipartisan support at the
State and national level, a program that faces our challenges head on--
and taps the innovation and work ethic of American businesses to solve
them?
The Boxer amendment in so many ways adds vision to a budget that is
blind when it comes to the trials of the American manufacturing sector.
It adds courage to a budget frightened to acknowledge the serious
jeopardy our economy faces. And it adds common sense to a budget that
calls for short sighted cuts in programs, like MEP, that offer a
tenfold return on taxpayer dollars.
I urge my colleagues to support the Boxer amendment. I urge the
Senate to continue to work to amend this Budget resolution to turn it
into the plan that our Nation needs and deserves.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from California a
question. I have been reading in the business magazines and the
newspapers about the jobless recovery we are having and I wonder, if
the Senator from California feels so passionately about creating jobs
in this country, if she could give me a historical perspective about
what we are talking in job creation in the last 3 years.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for asking this question. I have
never known that we have offered such a comprehensive jobs amendment on
a budget resolution. These are not ordinary times.
My friend is right when he asked this question. If we go back over
time to Herbert Hoover in the Depression years in the 1930s, that is
the only time we have actually lost jobs. We have created jobs under
Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter,
Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and now we are down to this and we
have seen 3 million jobs lost. We need a jobs amendment.
Mr. PRYOR. If the Senator will yield for another question, I notice
in all the statistics, small business is the sector of the economy that
creates jobs and R&D is critical for creating jobs; also, the area we
are struggling in in this country is manufacturing jobs.
Again, the Senator from California is so passionate on this issue. I
would like to hear the Senator's perspective and how this amendment
will help those sectors.
Mrs. BOXER. Clearly, we give tax breaks in this amendment to small
businesses that pay or help pay for their employees' health benefits.
When we talk to people, they are scared about the cost of health
insurance. They are frightened. They are frightened that the costs are
going up, that they may lose it, not to mention their entanglements
with HMOs that want to walk away.
We say to employers, employees, we will help if, in fact, you pay for
your employees' health care, or at least part of it.
We also give a manufacturing jobs tax credit. And this is Senator
Kerry's idea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator's time has
expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, do I have a remaining minute on my time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time has been used.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield an additional 20 minutes off the
resolution to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. So I say to my friend from Arkansas--because I would like
to continue this give-and-take--what we are seeing is a devastating
change in what has been known as economic progress in America--a
devastating change--something we have not seen since Herbert Hoover.
This is serious business.
For our small businesses that are creating whatever jobs are being
created--although we still are not seeing a net increase in those
jobs--we need them to get help. So in this amendment not only do we
suggest a reserve fund to help our workers, but we suggest tax credits
and tax breaks to our businesses that create manufacturing jobs. For
every job they create, they get a tax credit, and also for those
businesses that pay for health care for workers.
So I think the question was right on the mark.
I would be glad if my friend has any other questions.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, will the Senator would yield for another
question?
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
Mr. PRYOR. So it seems you are providing tax relief for companies
that are trying to, in effect, stimulate the economy and trying to
create jobs in this country. Again, as I understand economic principles
and the reality of this economy, it is small businesses that create
jobs in this country. With all due respect to the top 500 or 1,000
companies--we love to have them, and I am proud of what they do--it is
the small

[[Page S2595]]

businesses, when you are talking about the bread-and-butter job
creation, that do that.
I know the Senator's amendment would help small businesses
considerably, not just in the manufacturing sector but in other areas.
I would just like you to comment on that.
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
This health care tax credit is very important as well.
In my State, my small businesses that do the right thing by their
employees are being hurt. We ought to recognize if you do the right
thing, you ought to get rewarded for it. So that is why we do this.
I say to my friend, he is right; this jobs amendment helps workers
and helps businesses. It is a balanced approach.
Here is how we encourage the creation of American jobs: We provide
tax credits to companies that create new jobs. We provide tax credits
to help small businesses pay for health insurance. We expand funding to
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology
Program, which really helps small businesses in an enormous way. What
we do with these programs is we help them go from the research part of
things to the marketing part of things. It has been a huge success.
Unfortunately, the President has zeroed out the ATP. I cannot
understand it. This is something our businesspeople really want.
Also, as to basic scientific research, we see it in the budget, but
it is mostly for defense weapons programs. We do not have it on the
civilian side.
Again, coming from a State--I am sure your State has them, as well--
with very entrepreneurial people, who really can take off from
scientific research, it is very important.
I say to my friend, we pay for this. We pay for this by ending--this
is Senator Dorgan's idea--we end the tax break for companies that move
offshore. Oh, yes, they are creating jobs, but they are creating jobs
offshore. And we pay for it by saying to the millionaires--people who
make over $1 million a year--we are saying to those folks: Instead of
getting $127,000 a year back, can you take $85,000 a year back? That is
still 7.5 times more than a worker at the minimum wage.
So this is a golden moment for this Senate to come together across
party lines on behalf of our small businesses, on behalf of our
workers, and create jobs.
I have already shown my colleague the historic proportions of this
moment in history in which we find ourselves: the worst record since
Herbert Hoover, the only Presidency since Herbert Hoover not to create
jobs. This is an extraordinary moment. We need to take a moment to
realize if a millionaire gets back $85,000 instead of $127,000, that is
not a great sacrifice to make for putting people to work, for giving a
lift to small business.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I just have one more observation to make,
and I will be glad to yield the floor. It seems to me our economy is
changing. As a Congress, we need to recognize that, we need to
understand that, and try to harness that change in a positive way for
our economy.
One area our economy has changed quite a bit in the last several
years is we have gone more and more to a service-oriented economy
rather than just purely a manufacturing economy. Back in the 1960s, the
Congress passed something called Trade Adjustment Assistance. What it
did is it provided sort of a package of various programs for workers
who had been dislocated--who had been downsized, in today's vernacular.
What I think we ought to do, and what this amendment does--and I
think it is very smart to do this and move in that direction--is it
gives workers in the service industries those same TAA benefits.
The reason I think that is important is because a much larger
percentage of our economy is now based on the service industries, and
what we are seeing is the trend that those service jobs are moving
offshore. We have heard about call centers and other things going
offshore. That is exactly what we are seeing.
So, here again, the Boxer amendment acknowledges the economic reality
today and tries to help people who need help most.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my friend because he is exactly
right. This outsourcing is a very tough issue. I say to my friend,
before he goes to his committee hearing, I met a young man in
California who had an excellent job as a computer program manager. He
is a newlywed and very excited about his life. He finds out he is being
fired, not because he is not a good employee--he is a great employee,
terrific--but because his job is being outsourced to another country.
And the person over there is going to get a quarter of what he makes.
Now, here is the real kicker. He is told he has to train his
replacement.
I have to say, this is what is happening all over America. If we
cannot take a stand in this budget which reflects all of our priorities
as a nation, if we cannot take a stand for America's workers and
America's small businesses, I do not know why we are here. What are we
here for?
I ask my friend again to look at this chart which shows that the
smallest share of the population is at work since 1994. This is not a
good chart when you translate it into real lives of real people--and we
know the stories in our States: a mother wakes up worried because her
company says it no longer will pay health care--that is why we give a
health care tax credit in this amendment--a gentleman, as I described,
is told by his boss: You are losing your job. It is being outsourced,
and you have to train your replacement. This is what is happening in
America.
I know some colleagues are here who would like to be heard on this
amendment, which I am very pleased about.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record this Washington Post article from today: ``Bush Choice for
Manufacturing Post in Question.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 11, 2004]

Bush Choice for Manufacturing Post in Question

(By Mike Allen and Jonathan Weissman)

Six months after promising to create an office to help the
nation's struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on
someone to head it, but the nomination was being reconsidered
last night after Democrats revealed that his candidate had
opened a factory in China.
Several officials said the nomination may be scrapped
because of the political risk but said that had not been
decided. Bush's opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass), has
made job losses his chief point of attack, and some
administration officials feared the nomination could hand him
fresh ammunition.
In late afternoon, the administration announced that the
new assistant secretary of commerce for manufacturing and
services would be named at a ceremony this morning. Industry
officials were told that the job would go to Anthony F.
Raimondo, chairman and chief executive of a Nebraska company
that makes metal buildings and grain silos.
But Kerry's campaign, tipped off about the impending
nomination several hours earlier, hastened to distribute news
reports that Raimondo's firm, Behlen Manufacturing Co. of
Columbus, Neb., had laid off 75 U.S. workers in 2002, four
months after announcing plans for a $3 million factory in
northwest Beijing.
Bush aides said Behlen, founded in 1936, has four U.S.
plants employing 1,000 people and a 150,000-square-foot plant
in China employing 180.
A senior administration official, who refused to be named
because Raimondo has not been nominated, said Behlen has
exported products to China since 1984 but was losing market
share to other U.S. firms. The official said that half the
equipment used to build the factory was made in the United
States.
``This is not a case of making goods more cheaply in China
to sell back in the U.S.,'' the official said.
Democrats contended, however, that Raimondo's record helps
illustrate why the nation has lost 2.2 million jobs, most of
them in factories, during the Bush presidency. The layoffs
have been concentrated in such swing states as Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Ohio.
Seventy-five minutes after the administration announced a
news conference with Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans to
name the official, an advisory went out saying the event had
been ``postponed due to scheduling conflicts.''
By last night, three senior administration officials said
Raimondo's nomination might be scuttled but said they did not
know for sure. Bush announced the new office with fanfare
on Labor Day, and Democrats had been saying for weeks that
the long delay in naming the new assistant secretary
reflected the low priority that Bush puts on preserving
jobs.
An aide close to Bush said last night the uncertainty about
the nomination had

[[Page S2596]]

``nothing to do with Senator Kerry or his baseless charges.''
This aide, who thought the nomination would go forward, said
the delay ``more has to do with congressional notification
issues and things like that than it does anything else.''
The congressional issues concerned one of the senators from
Raimondo's home state, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R). An aide said
last night that Hagel had no comment.
Bush's White House prides itself on orderliness but has
been on the defensive on economic issues. Last month, the
White House had to disavow its own estimate that 2.6 million
jobs would be created this year. The same economic report,
issued under Bush's signature, touted the economic
efficiencies of sending certain types of U.S. work overseas.
Business groups praised plans for the new position, which
quickly became known among industry officials as a
``manufacturing czar.''
Raimondo, who is chairman of the Omaha Branch Board of the
Kansas City Federal Reserve Board, contributed the maximum of
$2,000 toward Bush's reelection in June, a month after the
campaign opened for business.
Raimondo is a longtime board member of the National
Association of Manufacturers. Michael E. Baroody, the group's
executive vice president, called Raimondo ``a class act who
understands manufacturing and understands public policy.''
When Bush announced the new position Sept. 1, he noted that
the nation had ``lost thousands of jobs in manufacturing . .
. some of it because production moved overseas.'' He made the
announcement in Ohio, which last year suffered the second-
worst job losses of any state, mostly in manufacturing.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will only read the first paragraph,
and then I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey,
Senator Corzine.
Here is what it says:

Six months after promising to create an office to help the
nation's struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on
someone to head it, but the nomination was being reconsidered
last night after Democrats revealed that this candidate had
opened a factory in China.

Now, I ask you, what signal are we sending to the workers of America,
to the businesses of America, when the President's No. 1 choice for
manufacturing czar has opened a business in China?
So if you put together this fact with this fact, with the chart I
showed you that illustrates the worst problem in job creation since
Herbert Hoover, we have an explosive situation on our hands. The vote
on this amendment should not be about parties; it should be about our
people, whether they are in Alaska, Wyoming, New Jersey, Michigan, or
California.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and ask, after
yielding that time, how much time would be remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would have 4\1/2\ minutes on her
side.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield Senator Corzine 3 minutes and Senator Stabenow 4
minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to the Senator from California, I
would be happy to yield time off the resolution to the Senator from
Michigan so it would not come out of her time.
Mrs. BOXER. Excellent. So how much time will the Senator yield off
the resolution?
Mr. CONRAD. I could yield 10 minutes off the resolution to the
Senator from Michigan. How much time does the Senator from New Jersey
seek?
Mr. CORZINE. I would use 3 to 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the
Senator from New Jersey.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for
both raising the issue and addressing it with resources through this
budget resolution. There is hardly an issue in America that is more
important than that which has been very ably demonstrated by the series
of charts the Senator from California has provided.
We have before us the worst record of job creation in the last 70
years. It is one that is not getting better anytime. The only
observation I will add to the presentation of the Senator from
California is that not only are we losing jobs, but when we lose those
jobs it makes the competitive market for wages and real income for
Americans go down.
The reality is for those people who lose their jobs--and there have
been roughly 3 million in the private sector--their likelihood of
retaining another job that pays the same as the one they have lost or
the benefits they had in the job they have lost is virtually nil. You
see about 75 or 80 percent of the equivalency of the compensation for
individuals who lose their jobs.
The problem is, we are putting more people on the job market. The
normal economics of supply and demand are undermining the real wages of
the people who remain in the workforce. So not only are we getting more
unemployed and fewer people working in the overall workforce, but we
are seeing a reduction in real wages in the economy.
This is an extraordinarily negative cycle that is being set up. It is
absolutely important that we reverse it. That is why this amendment is
so important. It will encourage the creation of American jobs in a way
that begins creating greater demand which is going to raise the wage of
what we pay for the jobs we have.

Certainly, we need to stop this mad rush of sending jobs overseas
which is undermining also not only the number of jobs in America but,
as I say, is lowering the real cost of real wages, which is undermining
the quality of life for everyone, not only the people who are
unemployed but those who are working.
This is a dangerous phenomenon. The Senator from California has
absolutely focused on the right thing, making sure we are using our tax
system to generate jobs. It is one of those issues that is going to
resonate most strongly with the American people in 2004 because it
matters in people's lives more than anything else.
We have the worst job creation record in 75 years. Contrast that with
what went on in the previous 8 years up through 2000, where we created
22.5 million jobs with an entirely different tax structure. We were
focused on making sure we were increasing the real wages, increasing
the earning power of Americans. We did it by increasing the demand.
The Senator from California has focused on just the right issue.
Frankly, as the chart now before us illustrates, in job creation not
only for the 1990s but all the way back through President Bush 1 and
President Reagan as well, there was a serious effort to try to create
jobs. We have a series of economic policies right now that are
undermining not only job creation but the real wages of American
workers. It is time we all take steps to try to correct that.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question before his time
expires?
Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.
Mrs. BOXER. When my friend goes home to New Jersey and talks to
people, does he find what I find; that people are anxious, they are
insecure, they are concerned about retaining their job, retaining a
good job, retaining health benefits? What I find is, even if people
have good jobs, they are fearful of the cost of health insurance.
As the Senator knows, in our Democratic jobs alternative, we give a
tax credit to businesses that pay for all or part of health insurance.
I wondered if my friend has that same sense when he goes to talk to his
people at home?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has used 5
minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend if he will yield an additional minute to
the Senator.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey off the resolution.
Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
First, a week ago Friday in New Jersey, we closed our next to last
oil production facility. At the end of 2005, an industry that used to
have several hundred thousand workers in New Jersey, as recently as 10
years ago, will have zero autoworkers now. We closed a Ford plant a
week ago Friday. At the end of 2005, our final auto production facility
for GM will close.
We have seen the shrinkage of workers in the telecommunications
industry, Lucent, and AT&T, which have been truly remarkable. Over
100,000 telecommunications jobs have been lost over the last 4 years.
It is incredible the tension and the anxiety that people feel about
both their ability to work and to care for their families. But

[[Page S2597]]

then to think about the responsibility of health care and their
retirement security is overwhelmingly a part of the concerns that
middle-class Americans have. The kind of proposal the Senator from
California is putting forth addresses those real concerns. I
reemphasize, it is not only the people who lose their jobs; it is the
people who live next door to those folks who see their real wages being
depleted to low levels. We are undermining the economic health and
well-being of the Nation.
Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, he is so right. Consumer
confidence is almost everything in our economy, which is a consumer-
based economy.
I took economics, so I have an economics background from my college
years. But my friend practiced economics and did very well at it. What
he says is so important. If your next-door neighbor is suffering
because of a loss of jobs or downward pressure on job income, it has a
contagious impact. A lot of this lack of consumer confidence is what we
are seeing today.
I wish to ask my friend another question that has to do with the fact
we paid for this amendment. We paid for this in two ways. First, we
eliminate the tax loophole for companies that send their jobs overseas.
That brings in $2 billion to pay for this reserve fund for jobs. We
also say to millionaires, we know you are going to get back $127,000--
and people who earn more than that will get exponentially more--so
instead of getting back $127,000, you get $85,000. That difference is
more than a minimum-wage worker's salary for an entire year.
As my friend looks as his people in New Jersey and knows the median
income level there, do you think this is a fair thing we do here, ask
everybody to sacrifice?
To reiterate, we are saying to the millionaires of this country, we
are proud of you, that you got the American dream; and you worked for
it--most of them did, not all of them. Can't you make that sacrifice so
we can put people to work and turn around these numbers?
Look at this chart. We talked about this before, going back to Ronald
Reagan. We haven't seen this kind of deal since Herbert Hoover. Looking
at New Jersey and the people making over $1 million who would be
impacted, does my friend not believe we pay for this in a fair way?
Mr. CORZINE. I think the Senator from California is talking straight
common sense. I think even those who are doing very well in our society
can understand it.
First, the millionaires you are talking about are two-tenths of 1
percent of the total amount of the taxpayers who would be impacted--
two-tenths of 1 percent. What the Senator is talking about is moving
marginal tax rates back to the level where they were during the
nineties, at a time when 22.5 million jobs were created.
Think about it. Moving it back on two-tenths of 1 percent of the
population, to a point in time when economic growth was the highest and
the most sustained we had in the 20th century, the most expansionary
period we had in the 20th century.
What we are trying to do is turn around the economic performance of
the Nation so all will benefit as the performance of our economy
spreads out. I think it is fair. It is smart because it actually has
been exhibited by history that these kinds of rate structures are not
inhibiting to the economy; they were a part of the economy at the most
successful period in the 20th century.
Mrs. BOXER. I have one more question and that is it. First, I ask
unanimous consent that Senators Mikulski and Dorgan be added as
cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator make the Senator from New Jersey a
cosponsor?
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for that as well.
When we look at the promises made and the reality, I would like my
friend----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The initial time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I will wait on that. I thank my friend from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to speak in strong support of
this amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I, first, thank my
friend from California for her ongoing leadership, her eloquence, her
understanding of these issues, and also my friend from New Jersey, who
speaks with such common sense about what this is all about.
There are several pieces to this amendment that are critical for my
State. Frankly, there is nothing more important right now in Michigan
than creating a level playing field for our businesses and our workers,
helping them to lower the cost of their health care, helping and
supporting those efforts to invest in innovation and education, and the
ability to move forward with increased skills and productivity and
compete in the world economy.
I am very pleased that in this amendment is the type of manufacturing
tax credit I first introduced last fall and have been working with the
Finance Committee on to make sure we are rewarding those who are
creating manufacturing jobs in the United States of America. We need to
make sure they have a lower tax rate, and we need to make sure our tax
system does not encourage those who wish to take our jobs and export
them. We want to export products, not our jobs. That is what this
amendment does. It allows us to focus on those things that create jobs
in America, good-paying jobs, that focus on work, not wealth, in our
country.
It is very common sense to say, rather than another tax cut for the
privileged few, we want to invest in jobs and strong businesses in
America for everyone. That is what this amendment is all about.
In speaking about this, I want to, once again, raise concern that
after 6 months of the President talking about putting someone in the
Department of Commerce to focus specifically on manufacturing, we have
yet to see that person appointed.
My deep concern is that I read in the paper today the person now
being considered, after we have been encouraging this month after
month, is someone who actually has--I don't know this gentleman and
this is certainly not a personal attack. I certainly don't know him,
but I do know of my concern that his company, Behlen Manufacturing, of
Columbus, NE, laid off 75 workers in 2002, 4 months after announcing
plans for a $3 million factory in northwest Beijing. As Yogi Berra
said: It's deja vu all over again.
This is the kind of headline we get every day now in my State. I
don't want somebody heading up the manufacturing effort who is doing
that. I want to see someone who has made a commitment to America and
American jobs and to help American businesses stay here and be
productive. That means fighting for a level playing field on trade
policy, currency manipulation, and tackling health care issues. It also
means focusing on those issues that help our companies be more
competitive, more efficient.
Two of those programs, which I have been deeply involved in now for
over 7 years, in the House and now in the Senate, are the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a moment?
Ms. STABENOW. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. She was right on target about this manufacturing czar,
this potential nominee, who may be a very lovely gentleman;
nonetheless, what a poor choice. We should be rewarding people and
companies that create jobs for the American people.
You know, I wish the world well. I want Iraq to have democracy and
the Haitians to have democracy. I want the people of Afghanistan to
thrive. Lord knows, we spend enough money there to help them. What
about people at home? Isn't that our first responsibility?
I am telling you, when I have to hear stories from constituents who
say, Not only was I laid off and my job is going to be outsourced to a
foreign country but I have to train my replacement--I say somebody may
call that outsourcing; I call it painful. I call it wrong.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, regular order.
Mrs. BOXER. My friend from Nevada wants me to get to the question and
I will.

[[Page S2598]]

When this gentleman moves his jobs to China, does he not get a tax
advantage? And are we not closing that loophole--it is the Dorgan
idea--and does my friend support that, as well as the other items on
this list?
Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. This is an issue we have to address. We
have to make sure our tax policy rewards those who create jobs here.
As the Senator from California was speaking about individuals, I
would like to share for the record two of literally hundreds of letters
I have received from people in Michigan speaking about their personal
situation. This is not economic theory. These are real-life experiences
of businesses and individuals in Michigan who are desperately impacted
right now by our unwillingness to have policies that are good for
American businesses and jobs at home.
One example: A Michigan resident from Union City, MI, writes:

My wife and I own a small machine shop in Union City, MI.
At one time, we had seven employees. Now my wife, my son, and
myself are all that's left. Most of the time we don't even
have enough work for ourselves. I watched as many of my
friends and competitors have gone out of business and just
closed their doors or filed for bankruptcy. While we fight
the war on terrorism, if we are not careful, we will lose a
much bigger war to the rest of the world without firing a
shot.

This economic war, this need to fight for a level playing field for
our businesses and workers, is every bit as serious to our quality of
life as what is happening abroad.
One other part of a letter I will share, and this is from a resident
in Clyde, MI:

My husband, a 25-year mechanical engineer, designer of
automotive special machines, has been laid off seven months.
The company he worked for was bought by Fiat and within two
years, began outsourcing the engineering to countries such as
Bosnia where engineers will work for $6 hourly. Our workers
can't compete with that obviously. The engineering department
is now closed completely, everything outsourced. He is 55,
laid off 2\1/2\ weeks short of his retirement vesting at 100
percent, can't draw social security and has been unable to
find work. The market is flooded with engineers because
outsourcing is happening all over . . . .
If we want to maintain the quality of our environment and
keep our families fed, we need legislation to address the
inequities in manufacturing standards globally, balancing
tariffs, something. Our workers can't compete with the
salaries outsourcing provides from other countries . . . .

And maintain our standard of living. I hear this story every single
day in my State.
Before my time is up, I wish to address a couple of very important
provisions from which Michigan has greatly benefited, in addition to
the issues on tax policy and health care, and the other provisions.
The Advanced Technology Program is exactly the kind of program we
ought to be doing in this country and we have been doing, although we
have been fighting to keep it going. Now the President this year has
zero in his budget for this program, even though we hear from the
administration rather than tackling issues such as smart trade policies
and currency manipulation, they say we should focus on education and
innovation. Great. But when we have the innovative programs, such as
ATP, they have zero in the budget to fund them.

What does this do? It allows industries, such as the automotive
industry, to come together and partner with our universities on
programs and research projects that allow them to be more competitive.
It allows them to do activities such that got a headline yesterday in
the Detroit Free Press:

Detroit-based automakers can take pride in a report on the
latest issue of influential and assiduously objective
Consumer Reports magazine that they have surpassed the
Europeans in vehicle reliability.

I know some of the ways they do that have been to come together in
projects funded by the ATP to allow them to create greater reliability,
greater efficiencies, to compete in the world economy.
The Boxer amendment makes sure we continue this important
partnership. It is partly funded by the Federal Government and partly
funded by the businesses. It is critical.
Madam President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes from my esteemed
colleague on the Budget Committee.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am happy to yield an additional 5
minutes to the Senator from Michigan off the resolution.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
In Michigan, 154 different businesses have been involved with 68
completed and ongoing partnerships. They are joint ventures as well as
single business applicants. These are exactly what we hear from the
administration we ought to be doing: partnerships, public-private
sector, working with the universities, small investment, big results.
The other important part of this amendment that relates to moving
forward and being positive is the manufacturing extension partnership.
It is interesting; some of us have been involved with agriculture and
cooperative extension. This program is based on that model of bringing
together the best management practices, cutting-edge information, and
working with manufacturers to increase productivity and efficiency to
compete in a global economy. A very small amount of dollars is involved
in this particular program, and it yields tremendous results.
In Michigan, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership funding is
credited with more than $80 million in sales impact, more than $32
million in cost reductions, and through the regional offices they have
assisted over 250 companies in my State alone in achieving
certification to industry quality standards. This is important. It
helps our small and medium-size manufacturers.
It has had, in the past, strong bipartisan support. I was deeply
disappointed in the Budget Committee when I offered an amendment to
restore funding for MEP and ATP, and we did not have bipartisan
support. It was a party-line vote. We certainly can correct that today
because I know in the past there has been good bipartisan support for
this amendment.
I simply say to my colleagues this amendment gives us an opportunity
in a very broad sense to focus on what is the most critical issue
facing our families and our businesses today, and that is the ability
to compete in a global economy in a way that keeps jobs and our
standard of living in the United States.
There is not a business I talk with that does not say: Give us a
level playing field and we will do the rest. We know if, in fact, we
have the right kind of policies and the right kind of investments, we
can do that.
This budget is all about choices. It always is. We are asking for a
small change rather than investing, once again, in the success of those
privileged few who have been getting tax cuts and are set to get the
most tax cuts right on down the line; that we take a portion of that
and invest it back in the health of our U.S. economy and the strength
of the economy for the future and in the quality of life of every
American, and in those policies that will allow us to have the
strongest possible businesses, the best workers, and the most
successful workers in the world, because the Boxer amendment gives us
the ability to do what we need to do to put us on the right track for
the future and to continue the quality of life we all want for our
families.
I strongly support the Boxer amendment. I thank my colleague from
North Dakota for yielding me time. I am very hopeful we will see a
strong bipartisan vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I am going to have to oppose this
amendment offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and I
would like to take a moment to explain why.
The spending proposed by the amendment is for a good purpose. We can
and should find ways to fund this important goal.
But I do not believe that we need to roll back tax relief that
Congress enacted in 2001 to fund this amendment. I supported those 2001
tax cuts. Congress enacted them in a time of massive surpluses.
Returning some of those surpluses to the taxpayer was the right thing
to do.
We can find other offsets to pay for the spending in this amendment.
Offsets such as the closing of corporate tax shelters currently pending
in the JOBS bill come readily to mind. Before we start rolling back the
tax relief that we enacted in 2001, we should ensure that we have taken
all reasonable steps to obtain revenues through closing down abusive
tax shelters.
And so, I shall reluctantly oppose this amendment, as I did the
amendment offered by the Democratic leader,

[[Page S2599]]

Mr. Daschle, the day before yesterday increasing veterans' funding--and
for the same reason.
I shall look forward to working with my colleagues to find other
offsets for their amendments--offsets that as much as possible avoid
rolling back the tax relief that we enacted in 2001.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague from California. I urge all Senators to side
with working Americans and vote for this amendment.
There has been considerable media attention recently to the dire
employment situation in America, but this problem is so acute that I
think it bears repeating. Eight million Americans are currently looking
for work. Of these, nearly 2 million workers have already been
unemployed for more than 6 months.
The Labor Department told us last week that almost 400,000 Americans
are not even counted by the unemployment statistics because they have
simply given up and left the workforce. In the last 3 years, the Nation
has lost 2.5 million jobs--2.5 million.
This situation demands a response from the Nation's leaders that will
actually help create jobs. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is
failing this test. Instead of appreciating the crisis facing those who
have lost their jobs, this administration presses ahead with failed
economic policies.
The President continues to call for additional tax cuts tilted toward
the wealthiest Americans. He opposes extending unemployment benefits to
help families weather the difficult economy. And recently, his
administration actually endorsed the shipment of jobs overseas. The
budget resolution before us today makes the mistake of affirming the
President's failed policies.
The amendment offered by Senator Boxer offers a starkly different
direction. Her amendment includes a series of provisions that will
respond to the employment crisis facing America by helping American
companies stay here and add jobs.
First, this amendment creates a temporary tax break for businesses
that create jobs. In order to help employers feel more confident in
adding new workers to their payroll, this amendment would reduce the
cost of hiring during this uncertain time.
In addition, the amendment would require the Federal Government,
whenever possible, to hire American workers when spending taxpayers
dollars. This is the least that we owe workers who are struggling to
pay their taxes as they worry that their jobs will be shipped overseas.
The amendment also ensures that our Tax Code does not provide
incentives for companies to move their factories to other countries.
American businesses should not be allowed to avoid taxation on income
from production that it moves overseas only to ship the goods back to
the U.S. The amendment before us would eliminate this perverse
incentive in our Tax Code.
In cases where corporate executives have determined that it is in the
best interests of their companies to ship jobs overseas, this amendment
requires that the companies show some respect for their workers and
communities by providing sufficient notice before pulling up their
stakes.
The amendment also calls for increased investment in programs that we
know help our small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies benefit
from new science and technological developments. Both the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program help our
manufacturing companies globally. This amendment calls for adequate
funding for these important programs.
These are just a few of the important provisions of this amendment.
The message that this amendment sends is very simple: Congress
understands that Americans need good jobs and we are prepared to
support policies that will help create and maintain these jobs.
In my own State of West Virginia, hard-working people expect Congress
to understand how devastating it is when factories close their doors
and ship the jobs overseas. Since President Bush came to office, West
Virginia has lost nearly 10,000 good manufacturing jobs.
Manufacturing jobs have traditionally provided a path to the middle
class. They offer good wages, health care benefits, and pension plans.
Having worked for years to bring new jobs to my State, I know how
important it is to have public policies that will support job creation
and protect American workers. That is what this amendment would do, and
I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for
this very important amendment. It is becoming increasingly clear jobs
are very much an endangered species in this economy. It is the No. 1
subject. When I go home and go from town to town, the No. 1 subject is
economic opportunities, jobs, economic growth, and a deepening concern
that we are not seeing the kind of economic growth and job
opportunities all of us would like.
We saw yesterday in the very steep selloff in the stock market an
increasing concern that economic growth is already stalling out.
We have seen in the jobs reports that job growth is badly lagging
behind what all of us would like to see, and badly lagging behind what
we have seen in other recessions.
On March 9 in the New York Times, Paul Krugman, the noted economist,
had this headlined article: ``Promises, Promises.'' The subheadline was
``Wishful Thinking on Jobs.'' He went back and looked at the job
history from 1999 to 2004 and then looked at the forecasts of the
administration. He pointed out that back in 2002, the administration
said by this time, or January of 2005, we would have 138 million jobs.
Obviously we do not have 138 million jobs. We are at 130 million jobs
now.
Then in 2003 they refined that estimate and lowered it substantially
and said, Well, no, we will not have 138 million jobs; we will have 135
million jobs. Now this year they revised the estimate again and said,
Whoops, we were wrong again. We are not going to have 135 million jobs;
we are going to have 132.7 million jobs. As of the end of February, we
are nowhere close to that. We are at 130.2 million jobs.
I will go to this chart that shows what has happened in every
recession since World War II. In every one of these recessions, we have
seen on average, 17 months after the business cycle peaked, the job
recovery really took off. That has been the pattern of the nine
recessions since World War II.
Let's compare it to what is happening this time. That is the black
line. Here we are 36 months since the business cycle peaked and we
still see almost no jobs recovery. Something is wrong and it is
seriously wrong. We are now 5.4 million jobs short of the typical
recovery going all the way back to World War II. Look at nine previous
recessions. In those other recessions, the job market was soaring by
this time. Not now. Something is wrong.
Even when the administration dramatically altered and lowered their
projection of jobs by January of next year, they still said there would
be 2.6 million more jobs by the end of 2004 than 2003. If that forecast
is to come true, they will have to generate 520,000 jobs a month
between now and the end of the year. The most recent month was not
520,000 jobs; it was not 420,000 jobs; it was not 120,000 jobs; it was
21,000 jobs and every one of them was a Government job. There was no
growth in the private sector. Something is wrong.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. The quote stating that they expected 2.6 million more
jobs, was that by the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers?
Mr. CONRAD. That was Mr. Mankiw, the Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers.
Mr. SARBANES. Is that the same administration official, high economic
official, who told us in the annual report, the one President Bush
signed off on, that outsourcing jobs was a good thing for America?
Mr. CONRAD. He did say that. It is a rather remarkable statement. He
thought it was good for the country that jobs were outsourced overseas.

[[Page S2600]]

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. I think he has regretted that remark, but that is what he
said. He is the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the
President. He is the same person who said there were going to be 2.6
million more jobs in 2004 than the jobs we saw in 2003. We can see that
to achieve that goal, they would have to be generating 520,000 jobs a
month. In February, they had 21,000, and not a single one of them in
the private sector.
If we think about it, the President says his tax policies are
working. If his tax policies were working, the jobs that would be
generated would not be in the Government. The Government jobs are not
developed by his tax plan. One would expect he would be generating jobs
in the private sector, and yet if we look at February there were no new
jobs in the private sector. The only new jobs that were created were
Government jobs, and it was only 21,000.
By the way, they would have to add 128,000 jobs a month just to keep
pace with the new people coming into the job market, just to stay even.
In February there were only 21,000 new jobs, and none of them in the
private sector--all of them in Government. As I say, that is 500,000
jobs short of the necessary number of new jobs that would have to be
generated to meet the President's chief economic adviser's forecast.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a quick question before my
colleague continues? I find this give-and-take very helpful.
I read an economic report that said although the jobless rate is
officially at 5.6 percent, if one factors in the people who have given
up, it is well over 9 percent. I wonder if my friend could comment on
that, because he talked about how important it is to just keep up with
the people who are coming in. What about the people who have given up?
Mr. CONRAD. If we just think in our own lives who do we know who is
out of work, and I started thinking about my extended family and my
close friends, and you start adding up the number of people who are out
of work, in my own family there are people who are highly educated,
have had really excellent careers who now are approaching 60 years of
age, are out of work and finding it extraordinarily difficult to find
new work. These are people with advanced degrees who have had very
successful careers, and yet, because of outsourcing, because of this
job weakness, they are out of work and cannot find new jobs. Not only
do we see it in these statistics, but there is another statistic that
also tells us something is wrong, and that is the wage growth of
production workers is now starting to fall behind inflation. I think
that is why people feel under so much pressure.
The Senator from California mentioned the number of people who have
given up looking for work. Once one gets past a certain point, they are
no longer counted as unemployed because they have been unemployed so
long they are no longer included in the statistics. Being out of work
is not just a statistic; it is not just a number on a page; it is a
real person living a real life with a real family who has lost hope,
who has lost an opportunity, who has lost a chance. That is why I think
there is such growing concern about what is happening.
I had a gentleman who is an executive in the machine tool industry
who told me, Senator, at this stage of a recovery our order books ought
to be full. They are not. Something is happening that is structurally
different than previous recoveries. He said he believes the jobs are
being created, but the jobs are being created in China, in India, in
Mexico. They are not being created in America.
That is why I have to say I believe the amendment of the Senator from
California is important. We need to be much more aggressive and
proactive at creating job opportunity in this country.
The Senator from California is offering amendments to provide
incentives for businesses to create jobs in America. She is also paying
for it, which is the responsible thing to do, instead of just sticking
it onto the debt. I might remind my colleagues that the budget
resolution before us runs up the debt by almost $3 trillion over the
next 5 years, and at the worst possible time, right before the baby
boomers retire.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. I say to the very able Senator from California, who
earlier showed a chart about how the rate of people participating in
the workforce has dropped, what has happened is you have 4.4 million
workers today who are working part time for economic reasons. In other
words, they want to work full time but they are only working part time.
When you compute the unemployment rate, they are counted as employed,
not as unemployed, but really they are only partially employed.
Then you have another 4.6 million people who are discouraged and not
currently looking for work who want to work. So they have been knocked
out of the labor force as well.
Actually, there are 13.3 million Americans unemployed, and if you use
the broadest measure that the BLS prepares, they report an unemployment
rate of 10.3 percent. That is factoring in everybody. That is your
broadest measure and that is not usually the figure that is focused on.
Ordinarily, when the unemployment rate figure comes down, those other
figures shrink as well. But it is not all moving in the right
direction.
One of the reasons the unemployment rate figure has dropped just a
little bit is because people are dropping out of the workforce and they
are not looking for a job or they are being shifted from full-time to
part-time work. I think that is one of the reasons why, as the able
Senator from North Dakota points out, as he moves around his State, he
is encountering more and more people who are concerned about the
unemployment problem.
What the administration says is this particular rate is the
unemployment rate, but that only tells part of the story. That is only
part of the story. You have to, in effect, complete the story by
looking at those who are working part time but want a full-time job. Of
course, if they have been cut from full time to part time, that makes
it more difficult to support their family.
Then there are the people who want a job but they are so discouraged
and pessimistic that they have dropped out of the effort to find a job.
They don't get counted in that unemployment rate.
Mr. CONRAD. I would say in response to the inquiry of the Senator, in
terms of what I found at home, North Dakota has one of the lowest
unemployment rates in the Nation. We have a very low rate of
unemployment in our State. Yet job anxiety is growing there. Why? It is
not because the unemployment rate is high; it is because good jobs are
not available. It is because people who are more highly educated, more
highly trained, are not able to get jobs commensurate with their
training and education, and this is creating a whole level of people
who are what we would call underemployed--underemployed based on their
previous job experiences, underemployed in terms of their education and
training.
I say to my colleagues, there was a cartoon in the New Yorker
magazine that my wife drew to my attention the other day. The cartoon
was two guys who kind of looked like deadbeat guys.
One guy says to the other: You know, you are out of work, aren't you?
He said to the gentleman: I have quit looking. I understand that's
good for the economy.
No, it is not good for the economy. That I think is what is
increasingly of concern to people. These are middle-class people,
people with good education, with good training, who had good jobs.
I have a relative who was very advanced in a major corporation and
his entire division was laid off. These are very highly skilled people,
very highly trained, very highly paid. They found all of their jobs
were being shipped to India. To add insult to injury, they were asked
to go to India to train the people to take their jobs.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point? The President was
in Ohio a day or two ago. Of course, Ohio has been badly hit. They have
lost manufacturing jobs and they are being hard hit by, in effect, the
flow of jobs overseas.

[[Page S2601]]

This morning's paper says we ran a record trade deficit last month of
$43 billion. That monthly rate translates into well over a $500 billion
annual trade deficit--a $\1/2\ trillion trade deficit. Of course,
people say we are exporting goods and that is true. But we are
importing far more than we are exporting, so much so, that we have set
a record monthly trade deficit figure. That only again reflects the
flow of jobs out of this country, overseas, exactly the point the
Senator is making. In particular, it is the flow of some very good-
paying jobs.
The manufacturing sector has been very hard hit. The Administration
set up this post of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. They
waited 6 months, they didn't nominate anyone, and now it looks as if
the person they are nominating they are not going to go through with
because it turns out he was establishing a factory over in China and
cutting back on jobs in this country. Can you imagine that?
I thank the Senator from California for her amendment. She is right
on target. This is an extremely important amendment. The package she
has put together is a very sensible package to try to address this
problem.
Mr. CONRAD. I want to pick up on a point the Senator was asking
about; that is, what are the implications of these massive deficits,
both budget and trade?
The Senator mentioned yesterday we just got the latest month's trade
deficit, $43 billion. Over a year, obviously, that would be a trade
deficit of over $500 billion. At the same time we are running a budget
deficit of nearly $500 billion.
This article from the Washington Post of January 26 caught my eye
about the long-term effects of these massive deficits, both budget and
trade. I think these are warning signals to us all. We are on a
dangerous course with these massive deficits. This is what the article
said: Currency Traders Fretting Over That Dependency.
The dependency they are talking about is these massive deficits, the
trade deficit the Senator from Maryland referenced and the budget
deficit.
The currency traders, those who trade currency for their living, are
concerned over that dependency, the dependency on borrowing--

They have been selling dollars fast and buying euros
[that's the European currency] furiously. The fear is that
foreigners will tire of financing America's appetites.
Foreign investors will dump U.S. assets, especially stocks
and bonds, sending financial markets plummeting. Interest
rates will shoot up to entice them back. Heavily invested
Americans will not be able to keep up with rising interest
payments. Inflation, bankruptcies, and economic malaise will
follow.

If we look at what has happened to the value of the dollar against
the euro in the last 2 years, it ought to sober us up about these
deficits. The dollar has declined more than 30 percent in value against
the European currency in just the last 2 years.
I note Warren Buffett, who, as I understand it, is the second
wealthiest man in the world, second wealthiest American as well, worth
tens of billions of dollars, has now placed a major bet against the
value of the U.S. dollar.
He has made a $12 billion bet against the value of the dollar in part
because of the economic weakness of our country reflected in these
massive budget and trade deficits.
I believe deeply we have to get serious about the budget deficit and
the trade deficit. Why is it the Comptroller General of the United
States is warning us these deficits are too large? Why is it the
International Monetary Fund is warning us of the danger of these
deficits, that they will put upward pressure on interest rates, which
will choke off economic growth, which will choke off job creation, and
leave us in an even weaker position?
Again, I say this is why I believe the amendment of the Senator from
California is so important. It is an insurance policy to prepare for
the economic weakness we are already seeing, the job losses we are
already experiencing, and to help us prepare for what might yet come.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Sarbanes and Senator Conrad for their
enormous contribution in support of this amendment, which is really an
amendment that is made up by the contribution of various members of the
Democratic caucus, including Senator Dodd, who has just come to the
floor. An important amendment ensuring Federal contracts should not be
outsourced passed this Chamber with flying colors. It is important. As
a matter of fact, I met with my local elected officials and I asked, Do
you have any idea whether any of your department jobs are outsourced?
They looked at me, and said, I don't know. I will go back and make sure
tax dollars aren't being used to create jobs overseas.
I thank my friend for his contribution to this amendment. I want to
ask my friend a question. It has to do with this whole notion of the
anxiety in this country. I think anyone watching this debate
understands there are many reasons for people to feel anxious. They
feel anxious when there are deficits as far as the eye can see. It is
stunning to think back to 3\1/2\ years ago. There were surpluses as far
as the eye could see. What mismanagement.
I say to my friend the shocking part is--and when I was an economics
major a long time ago we thought when there were big deficits it would
create a lot of jobs. Here we have a circumstance where you have
runaway deficits, runaway debt, and no job creation whatsoever. In
fact, there is a net job loss.
I want to say to my friend from North Dakota, when he talks about the
budget deficit, the trade deficit, the twin deficits, there is also the
job deficit. Now you have the tripling. I think my friend made a good
point when he talked about people being laid off and then having to
train their replacement workers. I met such a gentleman who was a
newlywed. He had a job as a computer program manager and he had to
train his replacement. I cannot tell you the look on this man's face.
He is leaving my State. He thought for sure this could never happen in
the Golden State. As we know, it is happening in California and all
over this country.
This is a stunning moment in history. That is why this amendment is
so important.

The budget document is in fact the priority of the country. If we
turn our back on the people of this country who need to work for a
living, we shouldn't be here, to be honest, because that has to be an
essential part of what we do to protect the country, from the
standpoint of defense, protect workers and make sure they have jobs.
I want to ask my colleague this point about the anxiety in the land.
I think what is feeding it is when your next-door neighbor loses a job,
or someone in your family loses a job, you begin to feel anxious. When
your next-door neighbor loses his health insurance or pension, you
begin to get anxious yourself. Then when you pick up the papers--I put
a lot of this together last night, and you can read this. ``Analysts
Gloomy Over Job Creation''; ``Growth In Jobs Is Still Sluggish''; ``Job
Growth Falls Short of Forecast''; ``Jobs Slump''; ``Fewer Small
Businesses Plan To Hire''.
I am saying to my friend I think all of this is creating an anxiety
in the land.
I will ask this question: Given everything we said--it is not
rhetoric; it is reality; we have shown the numbers. They are real. We
have talked about real families. We have seen what is happening. I ask
my friend, is not this the time, if there was ever a time, we should
say to the American people whom we care about and their families, their
ability to have a quality of life, their ability to educate their
children and send them to college, and their ability to look at the
future with hope and optimism--wouldn't it be the moment we should be
united as Republicans and Democrats and Independents here today in
passing the amendment we put forward which not only will stimulate jobs
directly but will stimulate small businesses by giving them the tax
credits they deserve, so they can pay for health care insurance or
create jobs? I ask my friend, is this not the moment in time to make
this a priority for this Senate across party lines?
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I think it is undeniably the case.
Something is very wrong with the economic strategy we are pursuing as a
Nation. We see the evidence in the job market as clearly as it can be
seen. The fact is we are now 5 million jobs behind what we would
normally see in a recovery.

[[Page S2602]]

Looking at the nine recessions since World War II--I will put that
chart back up--this should tell us something is off the track. This is
the average job recovery of the nine recessions since World War II that
you can see 17 months after the peak of the business cycle peak. We see
that, for the average for every one of the 9 major recessions since
World War II, the job recovery started soaring 17 months after the
business cycle peaked. In this case, we are 36 months past the business
cycle peak, and we still do not see job recovery occurring.
At this point, we are now 5.4 million jobs short of the typical
recovery for all of the recessions since World War II. If that doesn't
tell us something is wrong--and the President's forecasts over and over
have had to be revised on jobs. Again, this just appeared in the New
York Times on Tuesday. In 2002, the President said by the end of this
year there would be 138 million jobs in the country. He revised that in
2003 and said, Whoops, we were wrong in 2002. There will only be 135
million jobs by the end of 2004. At the beginning of this year, they
revised their estimates again, and said, Whoops, we were wrong again.
There are only going to be 132.7 million jobs by the end of the year,
and even now we see we are nowhere close to that forecast. They have
been wrong in 2002, wrong in 2003, and it looks like they are going to
be wrong again. Their forecast, looking at this year, would have to add
500,000 jobs a month, and in February only 21,000 new jobs were
created, a half million behind their forecast for that month, and not a
single one of the new jobs is in the private sector. Every one of them
was a Government job.

The strategy is not working. I don't know what could be more clear. I
think it should tell us it is time for a new game plan.
I think what the Senator from California has offered is entirely
constructive and it is the beginning of a plan. What this country needs
is a plan. We need a program to go forward.
I thank my colleagues.
At this point, I will yield the floor. I have a colleague who has
been very patiently waiting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes off the amendment.
It should not take me longer than that to debunk the rhetoric I have
heard on the budget for the last hour or the last hour and 45 minutes.
It actually hasn't been on the budget. It has been an attempt to say
they care more about jobs than the Republicans do. That is not true.
There isn't anything that would bear that out. I have to get this in
the Record because I am afraid the college students might read this
stuff or may have been listening. If they use some of the information
they heard, they could fail economics class. I don't want that to
happen.

It has been very depressing listening this hour and 45 minutes. This
is a 20-minute amendment. That is a long time on a 20-minute amendment.
But it is the way this process works. It was 50 hours of time, equally
divided, and each side can spend it however they want. We will probably
yield ours back, portions of it, to be able to get to some final votes
and get this completed.
This has been depressing and wrong. The budget document is a few
assumptions that we use. Granted, it is based on a pile of documents,
probably 20 pounds worth of paper. There are all kinds of ways to work
the assumptions, but when it comes down to it, we set up a few targets.
The specific committees get to arrange the bull's eye in that target
for the priorities. Then, finally, the Appropriations Committee, if we
ever get to that point, will be able to shoot the real bullets at the
target, spend the real money.
This is not spending the money. This is coming up with some
assumptions or some real numbers based on assumptions. You can use any
assumptions you want, obviously, if you have been listening to the
discussion.
If you listen to the discussion and what I have said about
assumptions, you might think what they are trying to do is rearrange
the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is not the real operation of the
ship. What we are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the deck of
the finest cruise ship in the world.
I want to be a lot more positive about what the possibility is for
this country and the people of this country and what they can do.
First, I want to know how we pay for it. Then I will go into the jobs
part. We need to know how most of these amendments work, where they
tell us how to pay. The way they will pay is a tax increase. They can
say this is going to be a tax increase just on the rich. From the
discussions I have heard around here, the Democrat definition of
``rich'' is anyone who makes enough money to pay taxes. If you pay
taxes, worry about it; you are part of the rich.
They will say it is those who make over $1 million. It would not be
the first time we did something against those who make more than $1
million. Congress once passed a law--this fascinates me--that said a
CEO could not make more than $1 million in cash compensation. How could
anybody possibly do that? If the American dream is to make money--I
really hope that is not the American dream--but to make enough to
provide for their family, to buy a home, and to contribute to their
community, until we get this country going down that road, we have
problems. Right now the emphasis is on how much you make. We try to
limit that severely. We have done it with laws.
Now we are saying if you get rich, we will take part of your money,
and we will put it into the economy where we think it will do the most
good. It does not matter what you think. It does not matter that you
have been investing and creating jobs. That does not count. The
Government will do it for you. By golly, we have some great programs.
These programs will create jobs. Yes, they do create jobs because we
hire a bunch of people to run the programs, who tell the successful
businessmen how to do it better, and a lot of it goes into regulation.
I will talk more about regulation in a bit.

In order to do a tax increase, the Finance Committee has to do it.
The only thing we have allowed so far are things that deal with the
family. What we would be directing them to do is take away any family
benefits.
Who are these rich? Some of them are the small businessmen. Every
dime of revenue that is net revenue for a small businessman becomes
part of their bottom line taxes for that particular year. They have to
pay taxes on that. When they pay taxes on it, they are pulling out a
third. Some would like it to be a half; some would like it to be three-
fourths. What do they do with what is left? It does not go in their
pocket. If their business is growing, it goes right back into the
business. If we did not tax them as much, they would put more back into
the business. When they put more back into the business, that grows
jobs.
Do not tell me you will increase the economy by ripping money away
from people who are creating jobs already.
Who cares about jobs the most? Who wants outsourcing? None of us want
outsourcing. Why does outsourcing happen? Part of it will be because of
a lack of confidence we create in the Senate. We have been talking for
2 hours now about the rotten economy and how jobs are being outsourced.
We are creating an impression among every businessman out there that if
he is not outsourcing his jobs, he is cheating his investors. Did
anyone hear a message different than that? That is not right. That is
absolutely not right. We do not have to have the jobs go overseas.
When we keep talking about a bad economy, we help create a bad
economy. I am reminded of the 1960s ad that used to run on television
that I think was partly responsible for pulling us out of a recession.
It was a story about a guy who had a hot dog stand. People loved his
hot dogs. So he added on to his hot dog stand. Pretty quickly he had
more hot dog stands.
Then his son came home from college and said: Dad, don't you realize
we are in the middle of a depression? How can you be expanding? He quit
expanding and he laid people off and pretty soon he was out of
business.
If we keep telling people they should not hire because it is tenuous,
save your money, put it in the mattress, we will have a little problem
in this country. We expect to be paid the highest wages in the world,
and we expect to buy everything for the lowest prices. Where do you
think you are going to buy those things from? I hope everyone out there
does a quick inventory on

[[Page S2603]]

what they are wearing and where it was made; what they are driving and
where it was made; what they are listening to and where it was made.
You have a responsibility, as well. Government does not solve these
problems. You solve these problems. You buy what is made in America,
the jobs come back to America, and our people get paid more.
Make a law. Right, we can make a law that says you cannot send the
jobs overseas.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ENZI. I listened for almost 2 hours to the other side ask a bunch
of questions. I would like to get my statement completed in 15 minutes
so we can move on to the vote. There should have been more fairness on
give-and-take at the time. There was not. So I will reserve my time to
finish my comments.
Another reason the jobs go overseas is regulation. What do we
specialize in? Regulation. We pile on regulations that make it
extremely difficult for businesses in the United States to do work in
the United States.
Lastly, one of the reasons we lose jobs overseas is skills. There are
jobs out there that are not being filled because American people do not
have the skills to take those. The ones who do are already employed in
that field.
I want to tell about a little company in Powell, WY. This is what I
am hoping for the world. This little company in Powell, WY, makes
tachometers, highly specialized ones for race cars, and very durable
ones for heavy equipment that vibrates. The guy who designed these and
originally made them had the parts manufactured in Taiwan and the
construction of them, the manufacturing of them, in Taiwan.
He said: Now, wait a minute. Maybe I can reduce the error rate
putting these things together and make more money if I use American
labor and those great people in Powell, WY. He tried that, and he was
right. Then what does he say? He said: Let's see, I am having to
manufacture them over there, but they have an error rate. Maybe I could
manufacture them here. And he is going to do that. Wyoming--the United
States--is going to steal a job from Taiwan. That is the creative
capability of the people in this country. That is what we can do if we
give the people a chance.

On a more basic level, how can we give them the chance? We passed the
Workforce Investment Act. We got it out of the Labor Committee, which
is usually very contentious, unanimously. We passed it on the floor
unanimously. Where is that now? Well, the House has already passed one,
too, but we cannot do a conference committee on it. This would be
training for 900,000 jobs a year, better jobs, more skilled jobs, the
skilled jobs people overseas are getting because we cannot fill them.
What is happening to that bill? We are letting it languish because we
will not appoint a conference committee. So what are the reasons given
for not appointing a conference committee? Well, we don't trust the
Republicans to invite us to the conference committee.
I want to tell you, I worked with the Senator from Washington State
and the Senator from Massachusetts in putting together a bill that
passed the committee unanimously. I worked with them to get it through
this floor unanimously. You do not do that without some degree of
trust. I have to believe they would trust me to do a conference
committee and include them in the conference committee, and anything
else is bunk. You do not have to do every bill, but I cannot believe we
will talk about who cares about jobs the most in this country and not
get a conference committee on the Workforce Investment Act that will
train 900,000 people a year for better jobs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time would the Senator from
Connecticut like?
Mr. DODD. Three minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague. I know
there are other Members who want to be heard on these matters. I will
try to be brief.
Mr. President, I will show you a chart. I have great respect for my
friend from Wyoming. He is a knowledgeable and good Member of this
institution, and he cares deeply about these issues.
I cannot help but note, of course, out of all the States--if I am
wrong maybe someone will correct me--one of the single lowest job loss
of the 50 States has been the State of Wyoming, according to the
analysis we have on job losses in manufacturing.
Mr. President, 1,200 jobs have been lost in Wyoming. I am sorry about
those losses, but when you compare that to States of similar size--
neighboring States--Utah has lost 15,000, Colorado has lost 38,000,
Texas has lost 156,000, Maine has lost 15,000. I am not even mentioning
large States. Iowa has lost 26,000, Missouri has lost 40,000, Arkansas
has lost 29,000, Oklahoma has lost 26,000.
The point is, we are watching a hemorrhaging on jobs. No one likes to
recite all the bad news, but reality says you have to know the facts if
you are going to set policy.
Unfortunately, no matter what the conditions are in this country, the
administration has one answer: cut taxes for the wealthy. When we had a
surplus: cut taxes. When we are in a recession: we need to cut taxes.
Job growth is weak: we need to cut taxes. It is a Johnny-one-note, no
matter what the economic circumstances are.
All of us who are involved in supporting Senator Boxer's amendment
are pointing out that this is maybe the critical issue at this hour.
People across the country are worried deeply about job creation. They
are worried about jobs leaving the country. They are worried about
companies making that decision, and doing so either through tax
incentives, where we actually encourage, through the Tax Code, to
outsource, or actually using Federal taxpayer money.
I express my appreciation to 75 of my colleagues in this Chamber who,
last week--Democrats and Republicans--joined on the amendment I offered
that would prohibit the use of Federal taxpayer money to subsidize the
outsourcing of jobs.
If a private company, with their money, wants to outsource, I cannot
do much about that. But I do not believe you ought to incentivize that
decision by offering someone a tax break to do it or providing direct
Federal subsidies to do it. We think we ought to be doing everything we
can to encourage job growth at home. That does not make you an
isolationist. That does not make you a protectionist. It just indicates
to us how serious we think this potential problem is.
It is not just us who say this. I would take note that a few days
ago, in the Washington Post, in a front-page article was the story of
Clintwood, VA, and the loss of 270 jobs. Does anyone think a year or 2
or 5 years ago the loss of 270 jobs in Clintwood, VA, would have
merited a front-page story in the leading newspaper in this city or
area? I doubt it. Yet the Washington Post, obviously, has some
sensibilities about what people care about in this area. And the loss
of 270 jobs in one small town in Virginia, that got sent overseas by
Travelocity, is yet one more piece of evidence that people are worried
about what is going on in this country, particularly when it is
occurring because we encourage it through our Tax Code or through
direct subsidies.
I am glad the President finally decided to suggest we have a
manufacturing czar. But to fail to check to find out if the person you
are apparently going to nominate is involved in exporting jobs to a
facility in China indicates a lack of sensitivity about this issue. In
fact, the other day I read where the administration now is going to do
everything it can to fight the efforts some of us are making to slow
down the outsourcing of jobs in the country, particularly when
outsourcing occurs through Federal subsidies and through tax
incentives.
We do not think the Federal Government ought to be in the business of
promoting job exportation to another country or suggesting that somehow
it is all the same, that it does not make a difference if you have the
loss of a product being produced here or a service being performed here
and it is now

[[Page S2604]]

going overseas, watching someone's job go overseas.
You cannot stop it in every case. We are realists. We understand
that. But Senator Boxer has put together a very good amendment which,
in part, highlights the outsourcing issue. She goes into other areas as
well.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is being cut by 63
percent. I listened to the President the other day say: I am against
outsourcing. What we need to be doing is investing----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just would note that the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program is a significant program that helps U.S.
manufacturers, small manufacturers with everything from plant
modernization to employee training. This cut means that 11,000 small
manufacturers are not going to receive services, and 28,000 employees
will either be laid off or not hired.
So even if you agree with the President that we ought to not be
talking about outsourcing, not be talking about manufacturing job loss,
that we ought to be investing in small businesses, what is he doing
when he cuts 63 percent of the budget for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program? That is a complete reversal of his rhetoric on
these issues.
He also tries to eliminate entirely the Advanced Technology Program,
which spurs cutting-edge research in solving manufacturing problems and
increasing competitiveness. Here we are eliminating that program
altogether and slashing by more than 50 percent the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program.
That is what we do not understand. He is opposed to doing anything
about outsourcing. He is opposed to doing anything to provide tax
relief for small manufacturers who need help. And he is going to cut
the budget in the two areas that can make a significant difference to
our manufacturers.
I applaud the Senator from California for offering her amendment, and
I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas such
time as he desires on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about the
Boxer amendment, which would raise taxes by $24 billion, and to say why
I think this amendment is a miscalculation. Unless, of course, the
intent of this amendment is to try to convince the American people that
the American economy is in the tank and offers no opportunity, no
hope--something this economy has always provided to American workers,
and I believe still does today.
If, in fact, our colleagues across the aisle believe the economy is
doing so badly, I wonder why it is that home-ownership is at an all-
time high in this country. Interest rates are low. Productivity is
booming. The gross domestic product is growing by leaps and bounds.
If the economy was really doing badly, which it is not, the last
thing you would want to do with a slow economy would be to raise taxes
to make it harder for the job creators in this society to create new
jobs. I would just ask all of my colleagues to consider what is being
proposed here. I believe it is simply the wrong answer to the
challenges that confront us when it comes to encouraging further job
creation and an economy which continues to be the envy of the free
world.
The amendment we are discussing would do exactly the wrong thing. It
conflicts with every free market principle this country stands for. We
know that entrepreneurs, the risk takers, those who invest their money
to try to create a profit for themselves and their families, are the
ones who create jobs. When they have more money to invest in their
businesses, they create those jobs.
Once again, this amendment is the best indicator that there are still
those who believe government really does know best, who want to raise
taxes on the American people by $24 billion and throw it around at
government's whim and then expect new jobs to somehow miraculously
appear.
Let's just step back for a moment and see what the whole picture
reveals. Sometimes it seems the world is moving faster every day. New
technological advancements have given citizens of the 21st century
access to instant information; on-demand services are available
everywhere. We have an ability to communicate faster and more
comprehensively than ever before in the history of the world. Yet with
these technological advancements and enhanced abilities, many companies
have come to the conclusion that when it comes to manufacturing and
customer assistance and many other areas, location no longer matters.
There is not a day that goes by that there isn't another article,
another report about a company outsourcing some facet of what they do
to another country, to another part of the globe.
Sometimes these changes are noticeable to every consumer, and
sometimes not in a positive way. Indeed, what we see with this
amendment, and the comments made in the Chamber, demonstrates the
backlash that sometimes occurs when jobs leave our shores and go to
other countries.
The fact is, there is a real and discernible benefit to consumers
from the lower prices that come from efficiencies in labor costs. The
dollars American consumers spend on products and services buy them a
lot more than ever before.
Yet sometimes these changes are hardly noticeable at all. If a small
part of the newest computer is now made in India instead of Abilene,
TX, what does it matter to the consumer? It may not matter to them, but
it matters to Abilene and it matters to the people who live and work
there.
Yet even as outsourcing continues to be a subject of discussion, even
as some of my colleagues in this body throw it out as a trend that is
bad for America, we all seem to have forgotten that it also runs the
other way.
I am proud to say that Texas is one of the leading beneficiaries of
in-sourcing, which is just a fancy way of saying ``out-sourcing by
foreign companies on American soil.'' According to the Texas Department
of Economic Development, Texas benefits from more than $110 billion in
foreign direct investment in the state. There are 430,000 Texans on the
payrolls of foreign corporations. There is approximately $5,000 in
foreign investment in our state economy per Texan. That is a good
thing. That helps create jobs for hard- working citizens of my state.
But I believe we are missing something important in terms of the
overall context of the debate. The economy is clearly on the right
track back to recovery. The latest numbers bear that out no matter how
much some would try to disparage the booming economy and what is
reflected in those numbers. That recovery of the economy will take care
of the joblessness concerns we all share, regardless of partisanship,
regardless of any other issue. Yet we are facing another problem in
this recovery, and this recovery is an opportunity for us to face the
problem head on: The real motivation behind outsourcing, behind the
desire of a manufacturer of a product or a service to find efficiencies
in the way they operate so they can grow and continue to prosper and
hire more people here in America has to do with the labor force.
Given our advanced technological capabilities, why would a business
pay someone in America to do a job when they can go to another country
where there is no minimum wage or labor laws or other restrictions on
what they do? The conventional wisdom is that no business will choose
America merely out of loyalty, that instead they will study the numbers
and realize it makes more economic sense to run their telephone banks
in Malaysia, for example, instead.
In response, some in this body and elsewhere have concluded that the
answer is more job training and funding for education and advanced
learning programs. Statistics suggest more and more people are taking
advantage of these educational and work-related resources.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently commented:

[[Page S2605]]

Generic capabilities in mathematics, writing, and verbal
skills are the key to the ability to learn and to apply new
skills and thus to earn higher real wages over time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator such time as he
may consume from the resolution to complete his statement.
Mr. CORNYN: I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Alan Greenspan said:

Generic capabilities in mathematics, writing, and verbal
skills are key to the ability to learn and to apply new
skills and thus to earn higher real wages overtime. The
avenues to acquiring those skills are many, and one effective
tool we have developed to facilitate the transition to a new
job or profession has been our community colleges. These two-
year institutions have been in the forefront of teaching the
types of skills that build on workers' previous experiences
to create new job skills. Currently almost one in three of
their enrollees are age thirty or older, a statistic that
suggests that these individuals have previous job experience.

I support the job training and community college initiatives the
President has endorsed in his State of the Union Message and which Alan
Greenspan just referred to. They are a good and positive thing. They
provide much of the answer to the global competitiveness we now find
with globalization. I believe much of the instruction they provide
ought to have been given at the lower levels, but we can't go back and
change that. As it is, these programs give many Americans the
opportunity to change their job track midstream and to pursue greater
dreams and more fulfilling careers.
But that is not enough. If we in Government fail to acknowledge what
the outsourcing crisis truly means, if we think more job training alone
is a sufficient answer to the problem, we are just fooling ourselves,
and we haven't addressed the real problem.
As Ronald Reagan once said:

We've gone astray from first principles. We've lost sight
of the rule that individual freedom and ingenuity are at the
very core of everything we've accomplished. Government's
first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

In America today, we are seeing that all too clearly.
All too many of our states have reached the point where they are
simply no longer friendly toward the free market. Why should a business
choose to stay in America where they will have to deal with ever
expanding red tape and regulation, where they face exponential legal
risks in states without real commonsense tort reform and class action
reform, where they are virtually guaranteed to pay higher and higher
taxes every year?
No, raising taxes won't solve this problem. Job training and
educational programs alone won't solve the problem either. The knee-
jerk response of many in government, to take more money from the
taxpayers so we can throw it around, doesn't work.
The only way we will solve the problem is when we in the Federal
Government work in concert with those in the states to effect
fundamental change in our government's attitude toward business and the
free market--not just for the benefit of business or indeed for an
abstract free market, but for the benefit of everybody in this country
who wants to work and wants to find a job. We must once again value the
principles of free trade and competition. We must encourage success and
innovation, and not punish it. We must renew that old American
conviction that protecting freedom, not restricting it, is the highest
goal of government.
The vision of America as a free market paradise is a very real one,
not just the stuff of the so-called overexuberant economists. I
strongly believe we have the best workforce in the world, the most
dedicated people you can find. We have in this country innovators and
thinkers, we have doctors and scientists, and we have all the resources
they need. We have people who started businesses in their garage and
now create things that change the very way we live and communicate. We
have young people who are ready to follow in their footsteps. That is,
simply stated, the foundation for a thriving free market economy. It is
all right here.
We still hear the voices of those who say the bureaucrats really know
best, and government will take care of you if you will give us more and
more of your tax dollars. But the truth is the people across this land
know that government doesn't know best, and they know government cannot
create prosperity; that instead prosperity is created by the
entrepreneurs and risk takers, and the people who work hard every day
to provide for their families.
The truth is, instead of raising taxes, we ought to reduce the tax
burden on the American people by eliminating the tax increases that
come with the expiration of the tax cuts this Congress previously
passed. There are people, some of whom are in this very body, who still
honestly believe we can sue, tax, and regulate our way to economic
growth and prosperity.
Finally, I want to say I realize we are in an election season, and
there are some who have pinned their political prospects on America
doing badly, on unemployment remaining high. When they see that the
facts are against the trend they want, that the economy is actually
doing better, their only hope for their political prospects is to talk
about a ``jobless recovery.'' Well, the economy is recovering; it is
creating jobs. But it will not continue to do so if we reverse the
policies that have brought us to where we are today. We must ensure
that the taxpayers keep more of the money they earn, so they can save
it or invest it in a small business--which is a great job-creating
engine in this country--the small businesses that proliferate in this
Nation, which provide jobs by huge numbers to the American people.

I simply believe we should not let ourselves lose confidence in what
has brought us here today. There are those who think they will benefit
politically from trash-talking the American economy, from causing a
loss of confidence by the American people, from saying that we are no
longer the land of opportunity and freedom. But the truth is there are
people who are dying to come into this country because they see this
nation as their only hope and only opportunity. There are not people
knocking down the doors to try to leave this country, because the truth
is people are voting with their feet. They understand America remains
the last, best hope of freedom-loving people everywhere.
For those who want an opportunity to achieve part of the American
dream in the free market system we have in this country--not a
government command-and-control system, but a free market system is one
that best allows them to achieve those hopes and dreams--they recognize
that system is what we need to preserve, not defeat. The effect of
passing this amendment and others that would raise taxes on the
American people would defeat that system.
I hope we don't listen to the nay-sayers, that we don't believe those
who would have us lose confidence in our economic system, because I
think that provides the best opportunity for a bright future for all
the American people.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I love everybody in this Senate, but I
want to finish this bill this week. My guess is we have a few
amendments in the pipeline and we have considered one amendment today
and we are not quite finished with it. That is not the kind of
discipline we need to finish it. I ask, how much time remains on the
resolution on both sides?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six hours 50 minutes for the Senator from
Oklahoma, and 5 hours 39 minutes for the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. NICKLES. I plan on yielding back some time, as I have said.
Unfortunately, we started this amendment at 9:30 and we have been on it
now for a couple of hours. It is an interesting amendment, but it is
not that interesting. I am troubled. I have 6 hours and 50 minutes. Mr.
President, I yield back 4 hours off of our time on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. That time is
yielded back.
Mr. NICKLES. I plan on yielding back additional time. I came in today
thinking we should have 10 minutes on each side on every amendment
today. I don't want to cut people off from being able to debate their
amendments. My colleague from North Dakota is correctly wanting to have
time agreements on a multitude of amendments. I am willing to enter
into those, but I am insisting on being able to see the

[[Page S2606]]

amendment. I know my colleague from North Dakota is trying to get them.
A lot of people say I want a time agreement, but they are rewriting the
amendment as we speak. That is not fair. We need to have both sides be
able to analyze the amendments so we will know what we are debating,
especially if we are going to be in a very truncated timeframe. If I am
debating an amendment and I say it increases taxes by $24 billion, I
want to be accurate. I actually insist on accuracy. It bothers me if we
are not accurate.
Mr. President, I am going to speak on the Boxer amendment for a
moment. We had a time limit of 20 minutes on each side on the Boxer
amendment. It was breached very significantly primarily on the Democrat
side, and maybe a little bit on our side. This is an amendment that
says we want to do some things to create jobs domestically, but in
effect it says we want to sock it to the people creating jobs by
increasing their taxes.
Then it says we will give tax credits if you do such and such. It is
a tax-spend amendment, $24 billion of increased taxes. Incidentally,
the taxes we are assuming for next year--and this has an $8 billion tax
increase for 2005. What we are assuming in the budget for 2005 is $2.6
billion for child credit and $5.4 billion on marriage penalty. So this
could eliminate the child credit and the marriage penalty. I find it to
be a very flawed concept.
Also, I can't help but think the repercussions they would have if we
actually did some of what is contemplated in this amendment. We are
going to sock it to companies that have runaway plants. I wonder if
``runaway plants'' is defined by Microsoft or by Intel or General
Electric or some of our great multinationals we have in this country.
If we are going to tax them at rates that are greatly to the
disadvantage to their competitors, this amendment is more or less
saying we would like your headquarters, Intel, to be in China, or maybe
we should have Microsoft's headquarters in Japan. Our Tax Code actually
encouraged the location of Chrysler to be in Germany, and this
amendment would make it worse: Let's export jobs and headquarters
overseas. This may be well intended, it may be a political amendment,
but its economic consequence would be a disaster.
The Finance Committee is working on a FSC/ETI bill that has broad
bipartisan support. The essence of it is to be WTO compliant and also
to assist manufacturers. I do not happen to agree with preferential
corporate rates for manufacturers vis-a-vis other corporations, but it
has a lot of positive provisions to help make us competitive with
particularly our European allies. That bill has bipartisan support. We
ought to pass it.
I think the proposal that has been discussed for the last 3 hours
would be very detrimental. It is a big tax increase, and since the only
tax change we are contemplating is keeping the tax laws as they are for
American families, I am afraid this will be a big hit on American
families.
At the appropriate time, I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the
amendment.
Mr. President, the next order of business is the Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent
that we set the Boxer amendment aside and consider the amendment of
Senator Sarbanes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. Not on my time.
Mr. SARBANES. I was going to try to get a time limitation because the
Senator seemed anxious to do that. I am happy to try to cooperate in
that effort. Would 30 minutes equally divided be acceptable, 15 minutes
on a side?
Mr. NICKLES. That will be more than acceptable. I ask unanimous
consent that there be 30 minutes equally divided on the Sarbanes
amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Might we also lock in the Dorgan amendment? We have a
copy of that amendment, and we have gotten an agreement on our side to
have 20 minutes equally divided on that amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. I will agree with that, Mr. President. I amend my
request to include the Dorgan amendment to be 20 minutes equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The pending amendment is set aside, and the Senator from Maryland is
recognized.

Amendment No. 2789

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

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], for himself, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Biden, Mr. Levin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Rockefeller,
proposes an amendment numbered 2789.

Mr. SARBANES. 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 fully fund the FIRE and SAFER Acts and reduce the debt by
reducing the tax breaks for the top one percent of income earners)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,430,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $858,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $143,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $1,430,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $858,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $143,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,430,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $858,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $143,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,859,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $2,717,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,860,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,860,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,859,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $2,717,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $2,860,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,860,000,000.

SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR FIRE ACT AND SAFER ACT PROGRAMS.

The Chairman of the committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations
to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels
and limits in this resolution by up to $1,430,000,000 in
budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of
outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a
bill, amendment, motion, or conference report that provides
additional fiscal year 2005 discretionary appropriations, in
excess of the levels provided in this resolution for
firefighter assistance grant programs such as those
authorized by Title XVII of the FY 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398) and by Section 1057 of the
FY 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) and
are administered by the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I offer an amendment today to fully fund
the Assistance to Firefighters grant program, and to fully fund the
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act, which,
of course, provides for additional staffing.
As a Co-Chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am
pleased to offer this amendment. I certainly underscore and recognize
the significant role which my colleague, Senator Dodd of Connecticut,
has played on both the firefighter grant program and the SAFER Act.
In his budget for 2005, the President requested only $500 million for
the FIRE grant program. This is a cut of close to $250 million, a third
of the

[[Page S2607]]

funding for this program from the levels established by the Congress
over the past two fiscal years. The fully authorized amount for the
current fiscal year is $900 million, and this amendment would seek to
take the program to that level.
The FIRE grant program is a competitive grant process that funds
firefighting equipment, firefighting vehicles, fire prevention, and
safety programs. Unlike many other programs directed toward first
responders, these funds go directly to local communities and fire
departments and do not pass through the States.
The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act, the SAFER
Act, would provide 4-year grants to career and volunteer fire
departments for firefighter hiring. The Congress authorized this
program in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act at a level of
$1.03 billion, and this amendment seeks to fund that program at the
authorized level.
Regrettably, the budget the President sent to the Congress, despite
the fact he signed the legislation contending the authorization of the
SAFER Act, contained no money; indeed, no mention of it, as I indicated
before, while the budget he sent to the Congress with respect to the
firefighter grant program reduces that program from the previously
appropriated amounts in two successive fiscal years of approximately
$750 million to $500 million.
The need for both of these programs is very strong; indeed, I would
say overwhelming. In December of 2002, FEMA and the National Fire
Protection Association jointly released the congressionally authorized
Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service. The results of this report
were startling. Among its findings, the report noted that an estimated
57,000 firefighters lacked protective clothing; half of all fire
engines are at least 15 years old; and approximately one-third of
firefighters are not equipped with essential self-contained breathing
apparatus, one of the most important and basic safety devices for any
firefighter.
The need for the SAFER program is equally evident. OSHA has set a
standard that dictates that four firefighters are needed to respond to
any structural fire, two inside the structure and two outside. The
FEMA-National Fire Protection Association Needs Assessment estimates
that, on average, close to half of all fire departments in communities
of less than 1 million people are forced to respond to emergencies with
fewer than the four firefighters mandated by these standards.
The SAFER Act would go a long way in ameliorating this severe
staffing shortage and would provide funding for 75,000 new firefighters
over the next 7 years.
This amendment, which provides the full funding for both the
Assistance to Firefighters grant program and the SAFER Act, will go a
long way in preparing our Nation's firefighters for the hazards that
face them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, it is all well and good to run
ads on the television that show our firefighters meeting their duty,
carrying out their heroic responsibilities. But if we really want to
honor our firefighters we need to fund these programs, both to give
them the staffing and to provide them the equipment they so desperately
need.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator
from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in response to the suggestion of the
Senator from Maryland, I point out that this amendment not only
increases spending but it raises taxes. It is a specific assumption
that tax levels will be increased and spending will be directed with
those funds to a homeland security function involving first responders,
firefighters.
The budget resolution submitted by the President to the Congress asks
for $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2005 for first responders. During the
appropriations process, the Congress is going to determine the exact
level of funding for each program within that general broad category in
the budget resolution, but this resolution before the Senate approves
and suggests the President's requested level is appropriate and that
ought to be the level the Senate approves.
Since the events of 9/11, Congress has responded with significant and
generous support for our Nation's firefighters and other first
responders. Over $1 billion has been specifically appropriated for
direct assistance to firefighters since fiscal year 2002. In addition
to specific Federal assistance, States and local communities can use
the funds available through the Office of Domestic Preparedness to
support the needs of firefighters at the local level. Over $5.7 billion
has been appropriated to the State and local grant program through the
Office of Domestic Preparedness since fiscal year 2002.
For our most threatened communities, the funds available through the
high-threat, high-density urban grant program can also be used to
assist firefighters. Over $1.4 billion has been appropriated to this
account since fiscal year 2003.
I do not think Congress has ignored the interests of the first
responders, nor has this administration. I know of numerous
announcements that have been made in my State, as there have been in
many other States, of specific grant allocations throughout the States
to the local communities that have applied for funds, that have tried
to upgrade equipment, and improve training opportunities. This is all
for the purpose of making sure our homeland will be protected in the
best possible way by those who are on the front lines; that they will
have what they need to do their jobs, and that they will have the
training to do it safely.
This is a very important matter, and I think not only has the
Appropriations Committee responded through the new Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, but so have the authorizing
committees that have made available these new programs, specifically
authorizing them for the benefit of those at the local level who are
firefighters and who are called upon to be the first person on the
scene in the case of a disaster, whether it is a natural disaster or
whether it is a disaster that is occasioned by the attack of
terrorists.

Like all programs, we are going to continue to listen to those who
have the obligation of meeting these responsibilities to be sure they
have what they need to do their jobs and to carry out their mission
successfully. We are working hard to assist them to the best of our
ability.
Any Senator has the opportunity to offer an amendment to a budget
resolution to increase spending for any popular program, but at some
point we have to recognize that the committee of jurisdiction has a
responsibility, too. That is the responsibility to make the tough
decision that it is going to be $1 billion for this program, or $2
billion for that program.
These are not easy decisions. But this committee has gone through the
process of reviewing the request from the administration, listening to
all of the suggestions made in the committee, weighing our
responsibilities to provide the moneys we would like to provide and
then providing the moneys available to us through the tax process that
we can expect to be available for allocation.
This is a tough job. It is not a fun job. I respect the work that has
been done by the Budget Committee. As chairman of the subcommittee that
has jurisdiction over the funding of the activities of the Department
of Homeland Security, we try to bring to the process the same kind of
diligence and sensitivity to the needs of those who will receive the
funds but also to the budget process and to the integrity of the
process so we do not undermine our capacity to get our economy moving
again and to continue to grow.
Working within the current fiscal constraints and trying to exercise
good judgment, we must set priorities. I urge the Senate to reject this
amendment and make the choice to support the Budget Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 5 minutes.

[[Page S2608]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the budget submitted by the President
reduces funding for grants to local police, fire and emergency medical
agencies from $4.2 billion in the current fiscal year to $3.5 billion
in fiscal year 2005, a very substantial cut.
This cut comes despite a June 2003 report entitled ``Emergency
Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' issued by
a commission headed by our former colleague, Senator Warren Rudman of
New Hampshire. The title of that report, again, is ``Emergency
Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.''
The President's budget for the firefighter grant program, which
provides this badly needed equipment, asks for $500 million. We
appropriated $750 million in this year's budget and in the previous
year's budget. Yet the President is cutting that figure by one-third.
The President's budget provides no funding for the SAFER Act, which
this Congress passed last fall, and which provides State, local, and
regional agencies with funds to hire firefighters, paramedics,
emergency medical technicians, rescue workers, ambulance personnel, and
hazardous material workers for local fire departments.
These fire departments desperately need these funds. The question is
then, as the Senator pointed out, how will they be paid for? Well, the
tax cuts that have been received by the top 1 percent are $45 billion
annually. A small percentage of that in the single numbers shifted from
that purpose to this purpose would enable us to fund these firefighter
programs at the fully authorized level.
These are questions of choice, and the choice very directly put by
this amendment is whether a portion of these outsized tax reductions
for the top 1 percent of the population ought not to be shifted to
enable our first responders to get the equipment and staffing, and get
the training which they need in order to handle the situations that
face them. It is not a sufficient tribute to firefighters, in my
judgment, to show them on TV ads carrying out their heroic
responsibilities and then to fail to provide them with the resources
they so clearly need in order to be able to do the job.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 9 minutes on the majority side
and 4 minutes 18 seconds on the minority side.
Mr. COCHRAN. One other point I should have made when I was responding
to the remarks of my good friend from Maryland was he suggested the
administration has somehow failed to fund the so-called SAFER Act. This
is legislation that was adopted and signed into law last year, at the
end of the year, almost, November 25, 2003, by the President. The
budget process for fiscal year 2005 had already begun. The budget
submissions were on their way, in fact, through the pipeline. Given
there will be an opportunity to review the new authorization that was
contained in the SAFER Act, which was actually a part of the Defense
authorization bill, it will be reviewed as we go through the next
budget cycle and it may be reflected as a specific request for funding
next year. I don't want to make the presumption as to what the
administration's decision will be regarding specific amounts for this
purpose. It was simply premature, I think, to suggest the
administration has failed to fund the SAFER Act. That is the point.
I mentioned all the other authorizations the Congress has approved
and the requests for funding the administration has made for additional
programs. I don't think anyone who has been reading the papers or
following the progress of the financial commitments that have been made
by the Federal Government to State and local communities for first
responders can ignore the fact that there has been a gigantic infusion
of funding for these purposes. Local volunteer fire departments,
communities that have training facilities and those who do not, have
been able to get money to send people for specialized training. Some
communities have been able to obtain equipment they had never had an
opportunity to purchase, and wouldn't, under the tax structures of
these towns and cities, have a chance to obtain. The response has been
enormous.

You can say: Well, more needs to be done.
My answer is: More will be done. We are continuing to look for ways
to support the activities that are important at the local level to
equip our first responders. Firefighters are certainly included. I am
proud of the aggressive way the administration has moved to respond and
to act in a generous way, and to provide the requests and the support
for these training and equipment activities. We have special funds
allocated to high-threat urban areas. I mentioned that over $1.4
billion that has been appropriated to that grant program since fiscal
year 2003.
I am hopeful we can continue to see the Government respond in a
thoughtful way to make sure we continue to set the priorities that need
to be set and support those who are responding to save lives and
protect the citizens of this country. I am proud of the work we are
doing, too, here in the Congress to support these efforts. There is not
enough money to satisfy some people, and there never will be. But
working together with local communities and State governments to
identify the highest priorities, to make sure we allocate the funds in
a fair and reasonable way is our obligation. I think the Budget
Committee has done a good job sorting through all the requests and the
suggestions that have been made by the Senate for this resolution. I
think we should applaud them.
I support the committee and hope the Senate will reject this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I again underscore the tremendous need
for these resources in order for our firefighters to be able to carry
out their responsibilities. In June of last year, not even a year ago,
the Rudman Commission, headed by our former colleague Warren Rudman,
issued a report entitled ``Emergency Responders Drastically
Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' that found budget shortfalls in
the tens of billions of dollars. We need to address this issue.
The history of the administration on this matter is regrettably a
sorry tale. When we created the Fire Grant Program in 2000, the Bush
Administration, when it came in, moved to eliminate the program in its
preliminary budgetary vision for fiscal 2002. We had to fight the
administration to put the program back in its budget request for that
year. In the end, it proposed flat funding the program.
After the attacks of 9/11--and as I noted earlier, we are now seeing
television spots showing our firefighters carrying out their heroic
responsibilities--Congress appropriated an additional $210 million in
emergency spending for the program, recognizing its significance. The
administration refused to spend the money initially, and eventually and
reluctantly did so after an outcry from the Congress.
In the fiscal year 2003 budget they proposed rolling this Fire Grant
Program into the general first responder account. There was great
concern in the Congress about dismantling the specific program. We
appropriated almost $750 million to the program in its own account.
Last year the President sought to cut it by a third. Last year the
Congress--and I give credit to my colleagues for this--restored the
funding to close to $750 million.
This year the budget submitted to us again cuts it to $500 million
and there is no money for the SAFER Program, even though it had been
authorized back in November.
We need these resources. The Rudman Commission has told us in their
report, emergency responders are drastically underfunded and
dangerously unprepared. We need to change that equation and we can
begin the process of doing so by providing the resources to fund these
two programs at their authorized level, paying the firefighters the
tribute they deserve by giving them the protective tools and the
staffing with which to do their job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S2609]]

Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 4 minutes 20 seconds for the
majority, 34 seconds for the minority.
Mr. NICKLES. Does the Senator from Mississippi mind if I make a
couple of additional comments and I will be happy to yield him
additional time if he wishes.
I know some people think we never do enough anywhere. Basically they
will want to increase spending everywhere. In this particular area we
are increasing spending a lot.
The Department of Homeland Security has a 15-percent increase,
according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is counting
bioshield. That is kind of hard to compute. Take bioshield out. It is a
10-percent increase--a 10-percent increase. Secretary Ridge wants to
reallocate some of it into higher threat areas. I know some people want
to use homeland security as basically revenue sharing and give more
money to every city in the area, or every county in the area, maybe
every police department or fire department and say this is for homeland
security. Secretary Ridge said we should reallocate some of these
moneys. It is still a big increase. Actually, it is the largest
percentage increase of any of our major departments, and we should
direct this toward the high critical threat area. I compliment him for
that.
I also say this is money wasted. A lot of money is being wasted.
Maybe a little tightening might be in order.
The District of Columbia used this to outfit leather jackets on the
police side; in Maryland, money is used to buy the Prince George's
County prosecutor's office a security system.
This is homeland security, but this is all in one pot. We can try to
pretend this is going to this or that, but, frankly, we are giving so
much money to the appropriators. But we are expecting at least a 10-
percent increase going to homeland security.
In Virginia, a small volunteer fire department spent $350,000 on a
custom-made fire boat. The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments used some of the money for janitorial services. The
District of Columbia Hospital Association shows a formula that
guaranteed every city hospital a share of an $8 million grant. Prince
George's homeland security funds, instead of buying protective gear for
police officers, they chose to purchase a half-million-dollar digital
camera system used for mug shots. The District of Columbia, Leslie
Hotaling, director of the District's Department of Public Works said,
``If we can tie it to 9/11 and build capacity into our core
functioning, let's do it.'' Her agency spent more than $55,000 on basic
training courses such as map reading and handling problem employees.
My point is that Secertary Ridge requested--and he has a very
difficult and challenging job--10 percent more money for the Department
of Homeland Security, and we have provided it for them. He wants to
reallocate some of it to higher priority areas. I think we are trying
to give that to him to fulfill that function. Senator Cochran manages
this appropriations bill, and he does it very well.
I urge our colleagues to vote no on the Sarbanes amendment.
Also, I failed to add this amendment raises taxes by $2.9 billion. It
is another big tax increase.
The only taxes we are really assuming in the next couple of years are
family-friendly tax cuts. Maybe that means the 20-percent tax credit
won't continue to be as broad as it is. Maybe it means the child credit
won't be extended.
I urge our colleagues not to support this amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise in support of this amendment to help
the Nation's firefighters safely do their jobs.
Specifically, this amendment does three things. First, it restores
funding to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which I
authored in 2000 with Senators DeWine, Levin, and Warner. This law
stands as the first federal grant program explicitly designed to help
firefighters throughout America obtain better equipment, improved
training, and needed personnel.
Second, this amendment provides funding for the implementation of the
SAFER Act. This law, which I authored with Senator Warner and was
enacted last November, authorizes a federal grant program to hire an
expected 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years.
Finally, this amendment allocates much-needed funding for deficit
reduction. The Senate budget resolution, which largely reflects
President Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies, adds a staggering $2.86
trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years.
Mr. President, $2.86 trillion dollars! These numbers are totally
mind-boggling. The Republicans have always claimed that they are the
party of fiscal responsibility. Under their Senate Budget resolution,
however, $612 billion will be added to the gross debt from 2004 to
2005; the next year $569 billion will be added; the next year $553
billion; the next year $553 billion; the next year $563 billion; and
the next year $564 billion will be added to the debt. Despite the
claims of President Bush and the Budget Committee majority, I see no
significant progress being made at reducing the increases to the debt.
In fact, we've gone from record surpluses to record deficits in only 3
years!
The offset we are proposing to pay for this amendment is a reduction
in the tax cuts benefiting individuals with annual incomes over $1
million. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the
Senate budget resolution calls for tax cuts which are extremely
beneficial to the wealthiest Americans such as accelerating the repeal
of the estate tax by 1 year, and making permanent the capital gains and
dividend tax cuts. With the deficit exploding, the country still
vulnerable to terrorist attack, and our Nation's firefighters in need
of the resources necessary to respond to emergencies and to save lives,
it is only right that the top one-tenth of one percent of the
wealthiest Americans pay their fair share for homeland security.
In fact, Mr. President, homeland security is exactly what this
amendment is all about. The defenders on our home front are not dressed
in combat fatigues. They do not drive tanks on the streets of the
Nation's cities. They wear firefighter uniforms, and they drive fire
engines. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops
overseas, and I for one appreciate their efforts greatly.
I know that the fire service has men and women who are willing to do
whatever it takes to get their jobs done. We have first-rate
firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded,
understaffed, undertrained, and underequiped to deal with many
emergencies that may arise.
The responsibilities of America's firefighters have changed. They
have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial
America, where two rows of people would stretch from the town well to
the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was
extinguished.
Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional
responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical
services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. Now the fire
service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding
to biological and radiological agents.
The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply
do not have the resources--financial as well as personnel--needed to
single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the
fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for
any extended period of time.
According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire
Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the
necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks
and large-scale emergencies. The study found that:
Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle
a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a
building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments
consider such an incident beyond their scope.
Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle
a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological
agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to
direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation.

[[Page S2610]]

An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in
hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most
of them serving smaller communities.
Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not
have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time
guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with
sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a
structural fire.
These statistics are startling. The risks that firefighters are
expected to respond to have far outgrown the ability of city
governments to equip firefighters to do what we are asking them to do.
This situation demands immediate action by the Senate to address these
concerns.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration is talking out of both sides
of its mouth when it comes to helping firefighters. Secretary Ridge of
the Department of Homeland Security talks about training and equipping
first responders yet the President's Budget and the Senate budget
resolution cuts the FIRE Act grant program by $250 million. This
amendment will restore these funds to their authorized level of $900
million for fiscal year 2005.
Mr. President, the FIRE Act grant program has been one of the most
successful initiatives in recent years. I am currently working closely
with Senator DeWine to reauthorize this program for the future. The
need is certainly out there in all regions of the country urban and
rural, large cities and small communities, North and South, East and
West--for these competitive, merit-based grants that assist fire
departments with their heaviest burdens. For Fiscal Year 2003, the
program received approximately 19,950 applications from fire
departments across the nation, totaling $2.5 billion in grant requests,
while only $750 million in federal funding was available for such
grants.
A January 31, 2003 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found
that 99 percent of program participants were satisfied with the
program's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition,
97 percent of the participants reported that the program had ``a
positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related
incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our
survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and
capabilities of firefighters across the nation.'' The FIRE Act grant
program is truly a success story, and it deserves the Senate's full
support.
It is surprising to me then that President Bush and the Senate budget
resolution would slash $250 million from this very successful program.
It is also surprising to me that President Bush would show images of
firefighters in a campaign advertisement when his budget, as well as
the Senate budget resolution, provides not one cent for the SAFER Act,
which would fund 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years. It
makes no sense.
The need for additional firefighters on our Nation's streets is
great. According to National Fire Protection Association standards, a
minimum of four firefighters is required to initiate an interior attack
on a house fire. And 73 percent of departments serving populations
between 10,000 and 25,000 lack such personnel.
For fire departments serving populations between 25,000 and 50,000,
the number climbs to 82 percent.
For fire departments serving populations between 50,000 and 100,000,
76 percent lack the minimum of four firefighters.
And 56 percent of fire departments protecting 100,000 and 250,000
people also do not have the necessary four firefighters.
Then it is 41 percent for departments serving 250,000 and 500,000
people, 40 percent for departments protecting populations between
500,000 and one million people, and 0 percent for departments
protecting at least one million people.
Just as the FIRE Act provides the equipment and training resources
for firefighters to do their job, the SAFER Act complements it by also
providing the human resources to meet the challenge of an extended war
against terrorism. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a
percentage of the nation's workforce has steadily declined. Today in
the United States there is one firefighter for every 280 citizens. We
have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers.
We need to turn the trend around now more than ever. Understaffing is
dangerous for the public and for firefighters. Chronic understaffing
means that many firefighters do not have the backup and on-the-ground
support they need to do their jobs safely. The sad consequence is that
about every three days we lose a firefighter in the line of duty. On
some days, the losses are unimaginably high. Firefighters need
reinforcements, and the Congress should be prepared to give them all
the help they need. This amendment therefore provides funding for the
SAFER Act at its FY2005 authorized level of $1.03 billion.
In closing, it is important to recall the important role that
firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days.
In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most
illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first
volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington
himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in
Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from
England in 1765.
Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire
Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save
thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played
by those firefighters who lived and died in the line of duty on that
tragic day made the Nation proud.
On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and
the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of
others. They stare danger in the face because they know that they have
a duty to fulfill.
The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well. We must ensure
that there is full funding for the FIRE Act and the SAFER Act, so I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to point out that the examples
the chairman of the committee used for the supposed waste of money,
other than one, did not involve firefighters. You can drag all these
cats and dogs in from anywhere you want. The only firefighter example
that was used was a purchase of a firefighting boat. On the face of it,
that may well have been a good expenditure.
In any event, these are competitive grants and the judgment on who
gets the grants and for what purpose is made by the administration. To
the extent you can site something, the ultimate responsibility for it
comes back on the administration.
Furthermore--will the Senator give me 2 minutes?
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland off the
resolution.
Mr. SARBANES. Furthermore, the Senator says if we are going to get
this money, $2.8 billion, you would have to--then he mentions all kinds
of possibilities on the tax side. Obviously, we can't direct specific
instructions to the tax committee, but we can point out what the
opportunities are. The top 1 percent is getting that billion-dollar tax
credit. The cost of the Bush tax cut for those making over $337,000 in
2005--the top 1 percent, over a $337,000 income--$45 billion.
We are suggesting very simply that a small portion of that be shifted
in order to help address the challenges that confront our firefighters.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will speak on time off the resolution.
My colleague keeps coming back saying we want to sock it to the
wealthy. You don't do that in a budget resolution. You tell the
committee to raise more taxes. I will tell you that all we are assuming
the committee is going to do is extend present law. This would make it
so you can't do that. That means low-income people are going to see a
tax increase, if we don't extend present law. That is what we are
assuming we are going to do.
I know my colleagues would like to raise the 35-percent rate. That is
what corporations pay. A lot of us really do not think individuals will
pay more

[[Page S2611]]

than Exxon. How about a little fairness?
I tell my colleagues that this idea of tax and spend, we are always
going to tax that person behind the tree, it is going to be that
multimillionaire, that is not the way the Budget Committee works and
that is not the way the Finance Committee works.
We have defeated these amendments. I hope we will continue to defeat
the amendments that sock it to them by raising taxes and increasing
spending.
I hope our colleagues will realize it is not going anywhere, and then
maybe we can eliminate a lot of these amendments so we can get some
business done.
I am trying to cooperate with my colleague from North Dakota. But we
are making very little progress. I know there are a lot of amendments.
I am trying to be fair to all colleagues if they wish to debate their
amendments. But this idea of spending 3 hours on 2 amendments is not
very productive. I hope we will be more successful in moving a little
more quickly through amendments, especially ones that are so close to
being repetitive.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use
off the resolution.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from
Maryland. The amendment of the Senator from Maryland does two things:
It restores the cuts to firefighters that have been made in this
budget, and it reduces the deficit. It reduces the deficit. We have
record deficits. The amendment of the Senator from Maryland is a
twofer. He restores the cuts to firefighters, the first responders. We
know from the disaster of September 11 that one of the biggest failings
was our first responders, including our firefighters, who could not
communicate with each other. They had units from different
jurisdictions and they couldn't communicate. That has to be fixed. That
costs money.
The Senator from Maryland has offered an amendment to restore the
cuts to firefighters. That makes sense.
Second, he reduces the deficit. To pay for it, he takes a tiny
fraction of the tax cut going to the wealthiest 1 percent in this
country, those earning over $337,000 a year. The total cost of the tax
cuts for that group in 2005 is $45 billion. The Senator from Maryland
reduces the deficit and restores the cuts to firefighters by using 1.6
percent of that money over four years.
This amendment is a serious amendment and it deserves support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized to
offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 2793

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

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2793.

Mr. DORGAN. 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 COPS, Byrne grants, and Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants, and reduce the debt by reducing the
President's tax breaks for taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1
million a year)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $344,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $632,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $510,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $610,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $104,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $344,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $632,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $510,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $610,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $104,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $344,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $632,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $510,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $610,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $104,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $344,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $976,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,486,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,096,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,200,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $344,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $976,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,486,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $2,096,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,200,000,000.

SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR COPS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT
GRANT PROGRAMS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations
to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels
and limits in this resolution by up to $1,100,000,000 in
budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of
outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a
bill, amendment, motion, or conference report that provides
additional fiscal year 2005 discretionary appropriations, in
excess of the levels provided in this resolution for the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, the
Edward Byrne formula grant program, and the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant program at the Department of Justice.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have agreed to a rather short time limit
for a debate on my amendment. I know we are facing a lot of votes in
the later hours of today and perhaps even tomorrow. So I have agreed to
10 minutes on each side.
This budget that is brought to the Senate deals with choices. We make
choices. I have great respect for people who have a differing view than
mine on the choices of where to spend money and where to save money.
They have every right to share views. I respect their views. There are
times with respect to this budget document where we disagree. This is
one of them.
My amendment deals with law enforcement. The budget that is before
the Senate, consistent with the Administration's wishes, proposes to
cut $1.6 billion of proven, critically important domestic law
enforcement programs; then it would restore about $500 million in
funding, leaving the budget $1.1 billion short for law enforcement
programs. This includes the COPS Program. We know that works, but it
would be eviscerated by this budget. The Byrne grant program, that is
the most important program to help local law enforcement agencies
around this country, would be eliminated. The local law enforcement
block grant program would be eliminated. We will be $1.1 billion short
for these critical law enforcement needs.
My amendment restores that money, and, in addition, reduces the
Federal budget deficit by $1 billion. We simply restrict, just
restrict, a very small amount of the tax cut that goes to the folks in
this country earning more than $1 million a year.
This is just a choice that we have to make, one that says a lot about
our priorities.
Last month I held a meeting in North Dakota, as I have on previous
occasions. I had county sheriffs, the highway patrol, local police
officers there. We were talking about the scourge of methamphetamine.
What a devastating scourge to this country. Methamphetamine is
destroying lives. Anyone can buy the ingredients for methamphetamine at
the local stores. Then you can cook it up in a trunk or abandoned
farmhouse. It is literally like a prairie fire out in rural America. It
is an enormous challenge to local law enforcement officers. The
equipment, the communications opportunities, the manpower, needed to
fight this new meth scourge is very substantial. This is the wrong time
to be cutting the law enforcement assistance to the states that we have
given previously. So I suggest we restore this money and provide the
funding from the tax cut that has been given to those earning over $1
million a year.
This choice that we have to make is also about terrorism. We talk a
lot about the terrorist threat in this country. The first responders to
the next terrorist attack will not come out of the Centers for Disease
Control or the

[[Page S2612]]

FBI or the Secret Service. The first responders are going to be the
local police officers on the scene, the firefighters on the scene. The
question is, Do they have the training? Do they have the equipment? Do
they have the capability, the manpower to deal with these issues? The
Edward Byrne grants and the COPS Programs and the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grants go a long way in making sure that our first responders are
ready.
Now we discover the priority of the majority and also the
administration is to cut that funding. That is, in my judgment, a very
significant mistake.
You know, I was here months ago leading the fight to try to stop
sending $20 billion of the taxpayers' money to reconstruct Iraq. Why
did I feel that way? Because Iraq has the money to reconstruct itself.
The Iraqi people can pump Iraqi oil and reconstruct Iraq. The American
taxpayer does not need to spend $20 billion for that.
I lost that vote. This money is on its way to Iraq. And we have all
these law enforcement programs now in Iraq. So the American taxpayer is
going to pay for law enforcement programs for Iraq, which Iraqis could
pay for themselves, and we will cut law enforcement programs in this
country. What kind of priority is that?
There are some who take a look at those in politics and say: America
first; that is pretty selfish.
It is not selfish, in my judgment, to ensure that we protect the
American public, that we head off future terrorist threats, that we
support local law enforcement and respond to the scourge of
methamphetamine and other issues. If we do not have the funds for that
but we have the funds to invest in local law enforcement in Iraq, which
the Iraqis could have paid for themselves, there is something wrong
with our priorities. Our priorities need to be changed.

I have talked about the three programs that the budget would cut. The
proposal is to cut a substantial amount of money from the COPS Program,
$698 million, $696 million from the Edward Byrne grant program, and
$224 million from the local law enforcement block grant. After cutting
$1.6 billion, they create a new program of $500 million, roughly, so
you are about $1.1 billion short.
Maybe those who say, let's do this, maybe they really think that tax
cuts for people who make over $1 million are more important than the
Byrne grant. But if you just held meetings with law enforcement
officials in your State and understand what they face, the challenge
they face every single day, you understand that is a bad choice to be
cutting these programs.
I recall that days after the devastating attack on September 11, I
went to Ground Zero with my colleagues. I recall looking into the eyes
of the law enforcement officers and the firefighters who lost brothers
and sisters, who were moving up those buildings as the buildings were
coming down. They were not punching a timecard. They were not asking
whether they were being paid overtime. They were not talking about
anything other than their job. They ran right into the face of danger.
Many of them lost their lives trying to save people. That is what law
enforcement does in this country. This country takes them for granted
every day and every night. We go to bed at night feeling safe because
law enforcement is on our streets. This country takes it for granted.
We ought to say thank-you to the men and women who wear the badge and
keep the peace and keep our streets safe.
It is the wrong way to cut the Byrne grant program, the COPS Program,
and the things that are essential and are needed by local law
enforcement, and to do that in order to preserve a tax cut for those
who make over $1 million a year. It is a bad choice for the country.
And, in my judgment, it is a bad political choice for those who have
done it, as well.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will make a couple of comments and
maybe Senator Gregg may want to speak. He is more knowledgeable about
this program than I am.
What is very clear to me to see is that this amendment is another one
of these amendments on which we had the pleasure of voting. This will
increase spending, yes, and it will also increase taxes. We have had
that debate several times. I guess we will have it several more times.
I am happy to debate it.
Some think individuals should pay more than corporations. I don't. I
think that is bad tax policy. I think the power to tax is the power to
destroy. If you have to work more than half the time for the
Government, then you lose your personal freedom.
Looking at the COPS Program, I remember the objective of the COPS
Program was to have 100,000 new cops on the street. According to the
figures I was just handed, we have 118,000 as a result of the COPS
Program, a program that started with an enormous Federal subsidy, I
believe. I have to refresh my memory, but I believe the Federal
Government pays 75 percent of the costs of the first year and then
something like 50 percent the next year and maybe 25 percent the third
year. Then it is on the community.
In other words, local police are supposed to be paid by local
communities. But we said we would give them an additional incentive to
hire additional police officers basically by a big subsidy, but that
subsidy would curtail and it would be the responsibility of the
community, certainly entirely by the fourth year.
Some want to keep it forever. As Will Rogers once said: All Federal
programs have something in common: a beginning, a middle, and no
ending.
We accomplished the objective, I guess, but yet some people want to
continue it. I have no doubt there are lots of cities that would say,
Hey, we would love for you to pay three-fourths of the cost of a new
police officer, because they have people retiring, they have people
leaving, and so on. So, yes, we would love to have the Federal
Government come in and pay three-fourths of it.
I question, How long are we supposed to do that? I do not think that
is really the Federal Government's responsibility. Maybe it was a
little easier to do when we had enormous surpluses. We do not have
those surpluses today. And this really is not the Federal Government's
responsibility to be putting police officers in every city.
I know we had a city in Oklahoma--I am trying to remember the name of
the city--that had no police officers. Yet when the COPS Program came
in, they thought: We need to have a police officer. We are going to
have the Federal Government pay three-fourths of the cost of our police
officer for the first year. Oh, we have to get him a car--and on and
on. It was almost comical because they never had a police officer in
this town. It probably had a population of 65 or something.
But my point is, we have significant increases for the Department of
Justice. We have significant increases to help the FBI, to help law
enforcement. I do not think this is that high of a priority for us to
try to be subsidizing police departments all across the country. Nor do
I think it is good economics to say, oh, well, we are going to have the
upper whatever percent. Everybody knows. I guess I will repeat this
every time. All this amendment does is raise taxes. And all we have on
the assumption in the budget resolution is that middle-income taxpayers
are going to get to keep present law. Now, if that goes away because of
a tax increase, the middle-income taxpayers better look out because
their taxes are going up by this multitude of amendments.
Incidentally, if it makes any difference, we are counting how many
tax-and-spend amendments are being offered. And we assume it is going
to be the millionaires. That is not the way it works. You tell the
Finance Committee: raise more money, and the Finance Committee is going
to raise taxes. And you know with this President we are not going to be
raising marginal rates. The marginal top rate is 35 percent. When Bill
Clinton was elected, it was 31 percent. He took it up to 39.6 percent.
It took us this long to get it at 35 percent.
Who benefits from that? Entrepreneurs, people who are growing,
building, and expanding their businesses. When they expand, they create
jobs. Let's not stifle economic growth by some of these ridiculous
expansions to try to grow Government.
I think these amendments are getting a little redundant, maybe a
little bit repetitive. If our colleagues want to finish, I do not know
why we have to have so many of them.

[[Page S2613]]

But I urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself time off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I heard my colleague, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, say that this would increase taxes on those who earn
over $1 million a year. The cost of the tax cuts, in 2005, to those
earning over $1 million a year, is $27 billion.
I point out to my colleague that when it is a question of job
creation, it is an interesting fact. It is true that during the Clinton
administration the top marginal rate was increased from 31 percent to
39.6 percent. And guess what happened to economic activity and job
creation. We had 22 million jobs created in this country with the 39.6-
percent rate. Now we are down to 35 percent, and under this President 3
million jobs have been lost.
If we go back to the Clinton years, the fact is, he put increased
revenue into place, cut spending; and we went from 22.6 percent of GDP
down to 19 percent of GDP on spending, and raised revenue, because
President Clinton inherited from the previous President Bush the same
mess this President Bush is creating: record budget deficits. The
previous record, before this President, was in his father's
administration.
When President Clinton came in, he faced a $290 billion budget
deficit. He put in place a 5-year plan that cut spending, raised
revenue, balanced the budget, stopped the raid on Social Security. And
guess what. We had 22 million jobs created, with the longest economic
expansion in the Nation's history, the lowest unemployment in 30 years,
and the lowest inflation in 30 years.
Now we have this alternative plan, which is to run the biggest
deficits in history, run up the debt, and lose 3 million jobs. I would
take the Clinton economic years over the economic years of this
administration.
I want to say, my office was visited this week by State and local
officials from back home. They told us the proposed levels in the
Republican budget resolution for law enforcement and for the COPS
Program is going to do serious damage to law enforcement in our State.
That was the message they delivered.
The President's budget cuts the COPS Program 94 percent. It is the
COPS Program that has put 100,000 police officers on the streets of
America, including several hundred in my home State. Why we would cut
the COPS Program when we face a terrorist threat eludes me.
I think the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota deserves our
support.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, last year right about this time I stood in
the Senate chamber questioning why an administration that talks so much
about the importance of homeland security and first responders would
submit a budget that so drastically shortchanges their needs. I find
myself 1 year later still asking the same questions but hearing no good
answers.
Specifically as it pertains to community policing and other law
enforcement programs, this budget shortchanges smaller communities and
grossly under funds programs that have put more police officers on the
street, reduced crime in rural areas, curbed drug abuse and put at-risk
youth back on the right track.
Instead of strengthening these programs--programs that we know work--
we are pulling the rug right out from under our communities' feet.
Under the budget proposal, the COPS program would see a reduction from
$756 million to $44 million--a staggering 94 percent cut.
Let me be clear: Taking away COPS funding will mean less police
officers on our streets; it will mean less resource officers in our
schools preventing violence and drug abuse; It will also mean longer
response times and higher crime rates. This is tradeoff we should never
even consider, yet alone go through with.
Since 1994, my State received $88.4 million in COPS grants, which has
funded 1,289 additional police officers and sheriff deputies, 112
school resource officers and more than $11 million in crime-fighting
technologies. Arkansas is not alone; I ask if there is a Senator among
us that would contest that their State has benefited from the COPS
program.
We can't be serious about law enforcement by paring this successful
program to $44 million. Texas alone received nearly $30 million from
the COPS program last year. How are we going to fund the entire
country's COPS needs using the budget of what just one State received
last year?
When I was the Attorney General of my State, I worked closely with
law enforcement to make Arkansas a safer place to live and raise a
family. One thing I know for sure, these police officers operate under
tight budgets with smaller staffs than most of their urban
counterparts. Nevertheless, they put their lives on the line every day
and we need to make sure they have adequate resources to do their jobs
properly.
I recently talked with several Arkansas police chiefs about the
proposed cuts to the COPS program. They told me how important this
program was in their continuing battle to stop the production of
methamphetamine throughout Arkansas.
Chief James Allen of the Bentonville Police department said the COPS
program has been the biggest single factor in helping his region fight
the environmental and social problems created by methamphetamine use.
Last year alone, Arkansas police shut down 1,208 meth labs, but more
are popping up each day.
Methamphetamine spreads so easily because it is cheap and easy to
produce. It is also extremely addictive and it is tearing rural
communities apart. Law enforcement officials have told me that if
Congress reduces COPS funding by 94 percent, we would effectively
decimate their ability to battle this deadly drug.
These law enforcement officers are making a huge difference in our
communities and on top of that, they play the integral part in our
homeland defense as first responders.
COPS grants have played a critical role in providing additional
manpower, technology and training--all of which are necessary to
enhance community security and contribute to the overall goal of
national domestic preparedness. The Chief of Police in Pine Bluff, AR
Daniel Moses characterized his Homeland Security Overtime grant as a
godsend.
September 11 made us acutely aware of the need of genuine
partnerships that involve all segments of our communities and all
levels of government--we all have a role in keeping our community safe.
Our local law enforcement must be able to respond to whatever may
confront them in the future, but how can they properly respond, when
they are given a budget that cuts deep into their existence?
I would also like to note that in my State, a number of police
officers on the front lines of crime prevention are also fighting on
the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are pulling double duty
for our country in the Reserves and National Guard. But at the same
time, their absence has spread our police forces even thinner.
We need to build on what we know works. These law enforcement
programs work. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of Attorney
General John Ashcroft who said not two years ago:

Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with
citizens through community policing we've seen significant
drops in crime rates.

Mr. President, our communities, the people we represent have truly
benefited from these programs and taking away its funding would be a
major step backwards in our efforts to fight crime.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I forgot to mention at the start that
Senator Daschle joins me as a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. President, it has been suggested that my amendment amounts to a
tax increase. That is just nonsense. The question before us is this:
next year, shall we give a $26 billion tax cut to those who receive $1
million or more in income and at the same time restore the funding for
law enforcement officials around the country--funding we know works to
fight crime? Or shall we instead cut funding for law enforcement
officials so we can give a $27 billion tax cut to those whose income is
over $1 million a year?

[[Page S2614]]

This is not about tax increases. I am sorry. My friend from Oklahoma,
I am sure, is familiar with Will Rogers, because Will Rogers is from
Oklahoma. What a wonderful man. Will Rogers once said: When there's no
place left to spit, you either swallow your tobacco juice or you change
with the times.
Well, there is no place left to spit with respect to these choices.
Do you want to cut local law enforcement funding, the Byrne Grant that
helps those folks out there today who are keeping this country safe,
who are chasing those people who are producing methamphetamine and
addicting our children? Do you want to invest in law enforcement? Do
you want to chase the criminals? Do you want to apprehend them and get
them? Or do you want to decide we cannot afford to do that? Let's cut
back on law enforcement efforts so those who make $1 million a year can
get an extra $1 billion--from $26 billion to $27 billion--next year in
tax cuts.
One hundred years from now, we will all be dead--everybody in this
Chamber is likely to be dead--and the only thing they will know about
us is to look at this budget. And they will say: Here were their
values. Here is what they held dear. Here is what they felt was
important for this country.
Someone once asked: If you didn't know someone, never met someone,
and had to write their obituary, and you only had their check register
with which to write an obituary, what would you say about them? You
would be able to tell something about their value system. The same is
true with the Government. The same is true with choices made in this
budget. What is our value system? What do we hold most dear? What do we
think makes our country strong?
The question for us is, Will this Congress stand up for the men and
women who wear the uniform on the street who keep this country safe?
We talk a lot about national security and the threat of terrorism.
Once again, let me say, the first responder, in the event of a
terrorist attack, is going to be a man or woman out there in the local
sheriff's office, the local police force, the highway patrol. They
benefit and their programs benefit from these grant programs that are
being proposed to be cut now by $1 billion. I propose to restore it
because I think it is the right choice for this country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, could the Chair update us in terms of the
time status on the Dorgan amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for Senator Dorgan has expired.
Senator Nickles has 5 minutes 9 seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. I don't know if the chairman seeks to use time now on
that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I will be very brief. I was looking at some additional
information about the COPS Program. The grant programs administered
through the COPS Program were 100 percent earmarked in 2004
appropriations bills. The administration feels the earmarking has
gotten out of hand and seeks to eliminate funding in favor of a new
grant program located in another account. This new account consolidates
almost all State and local law enforcement grant programs and
activities. Rather than have the programs spread out over a half dozen
accounts, it assumes consolidation in one account called justice
assistance. A lot of the old COPS Program is included in the new
Justice Assistance Program. Maybe it won't be quite so directed by
Congress. Maybe it will be more appropriate.
I don't know if it is the Federal Government's responsibility to hire
hundreds more police officers in North Dakota or Oklahoma. I happen to
be one who says: We all have to do our fair share. I just don't know
that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to be putting police
officers in every little town in America.
We have accomplished our objective in hiring and training 118,000
police officers. We should say a job well done and not continue this
program forever.
Mr. DORGAN. Might I ask for one minute off the resolution?
Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional minute off the resolution.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me say my colleague from Oklahoma talked about the
COPS Program--which, incidentally, has been a remarkable program. It
has worked very well to reduce crime. He did not mention, for example,
the Byrne grant program which today is aiding law enforcement in
tracking drug dealers, dealing with this methamphetamine scourge.
My colleague from Oklahoma described a new grant program that the
Administration is proposing, but this new grant program my colleague
described is going to cut funding for local law enforcement officials
by $1.1 billion. That is why I felt constrained to come and offer the
amendment.
It is about choices. If one feels the assistance we have given local
law enforcement through the Byrne grant program and other programs has
not been effective, then one would want to oppose this amendment. But
if you meet with our law enforcement officers at the state and local
level, they will tell you to a person how incredibly effective these
programs have been in bringing them up to speed with training and
equipment and helping them pursue drug dealers and reduce crime on the
streets. If one believes that is important, then one must vote for this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe we have an agreement to next
consider an amendment by our colleague and friend from New Jersey,
Senator Lautenberg. We are almost ready to enter into a time
limitation, but I need to consult with the chairman of the committee,
Senator Inhofe. At this point we will not, but I understand there has
been a general agreement for 20 minutes equally divided or 20 minutes a
side. Is the Senator from New Jersey willing to have a time agreement?
I cannot enter into it at this moment, but is he looking for 20 minutes
each or 20 minutes a side?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. We would like to
have 20 minutes on each side.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I won't make the request now. I am
telling our colleagues, the Senator from North Dakota has about 5
hours, maybe a little less now.
I ask the Chair, how many hours remain?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hours remaining are 1 hour 50 minutes for
the majority; 4 hours 46 minutes for the minority.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am trying to be fair to everybody, but
if colleagues keep coming down and taking 40 minutes or an hour on
their amendments, that means a lot of people are going to get zero
debate on their amendments. I don't want them to be mad at me, nor do I
want them to be mad at my colleague from North Dakota. People will have
to be restrained in their request or else people later in the queue
will have very little debate time. I will leave it at that. I cannot
enter into a time agreement. I will be happy to talk to Senator Inhofe.
He may be more than happy to do that.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think it is important to note at this
time the situation we face. It is important for our colleagues to
understand. Senator Nickles could yield back all the rest of his time.
I would then have 4 hours 46 minutes left. But he would have a right to
half of that time. So it is important for colleagues to understand,
when we say there are 4 hours 46 minutes left on our side, no, there
really are not in a functional way. The chairman would verify that.
I understand he is unable to enter into a time agreement at this
moment on this amendment because he has to communicate with the
committee chairman, but I am saying to other colleagues who are
listening, please understand, we are rapidly approaching the time when
we have far more requests for time than we have time. The dislocation
that occurs here is people hear I have 4 hours 46 minutes left. All the
chairman has to do is give back his remaining hour 50 minutes, and then
he has rights to half of my time. So instead of 4 hours 46 minutes, I
would then have 2 hours 23 minutes. I now have pending requests for 4
hours of time. It doesn't fit together.
We have to ask restraint on the part of our colleagues. I understand
we can't enter into a time agreement on this amendment. Senator
Lautenberg

[[Page S2615]]

has been very gracious in saying he will live with whatever time
agreement we can produce. Perhaps the best we can do now is to have
Senator Lautenberg proceed and at the earliest possible convenience of
the chairman, if we can enter into a time agreement on this one and
subsequent amendments that are pending, I think we could make real
progress.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I concur with everything my colleague and
friend Senator Conrad said. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment and take up the Lautenberg amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
I want to offer an amendment for myself, Senator Boxer, Senator
Jeffords, and Senator Corzine.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold for one moment? I would ask the
Senator not to send his amendment up. I want to make sure we don't do
that. I listened to what the chairman said. I will yield to the Senator
time off the resolution. I yield the Senator 20 minutes off the
resolution and ask he not send the amendment to the desk at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for up to 20
minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota
for the generous offer he has made to let me have time to describe this
very important amendment.
As I said, I will offer this amendment for myself and Senators Boxer,
Jeffords, and Corzine. Other cosponsors include Senators Lieberman,
Biden, Durbin, Clinton, Leahy, Cantwell, Feingold, and Kennedy.
My amendment would readjust the budget resolution so we can
reauthorize the Superfund corporate fee. There are many reasons why
this is an urgent matter and the right thing to do.
When Congress created Superfund, the operating principle was the
polluter should pay.
I ask that the Chair remind me when 10 minutes of my time have been
used, please.
The Superfund program was created because of a number of blighted
toxic sites that were located in cities and towns across the country,
places in Montana and Nebraska and Maine and New Jersey. New Jersey had
over 100 sites listed on the Superfund list. Today 900 sites have been
cleaned up, turned over to practical use in these communities where
often land is precious. To be able to get space that was occupied by
nothing but toxic materials can create quite a difference in the health
and the well-being of a community.
We started off by saying the people who polluted the area should pay
for its cleanup. It was reviewed in the courts and it was challenged
and debated all over the place. The fact is, it worked. In 1980,
Superfund was authorized. In 1986, we reauthorized the collection of
corporate fees paid by polluters that would be placed in the Superfund
trust fund to pay for the cleanup of these so-called orphan or
abandoned sites. These are the sites for which an actual polluter can
be found. That way, all the taxpayers would not be stuck with the bill
for a mess caused by corporate polluters.
Editorials and polls nationwide repeatedly showed that Americans want
the polluting corporations, not the taxpayers, to pay for the cleanup
of properties contaminated with dangerous chemicals. In a March 9
editorial, this week, the Philadelphia Inquirer said:

The Senate should put the burden back where it belongs: on
polluters.

Unfortunately, now the trust fund is flat broke and our citizens are
feeling the impact. They are discouraged by the fact these toxic sites
are going to continue to be in the middle of their communities and
unusable for any productive purpose. Some sites, which should be
cleaned up in 3 or 4 years, are instead now taking 9 or 10 years
because the funding isn't there. That means youngsters living next to a
toxic wastesite could be graduated from high school by the time the
site is decontaminated. There are children and families in America
living around the corner from toxic dump sites all over the place. It
is inexcusable.
As my colleagues know, such exposure to toxic chemicals cannot be
undone. EPA scientists report that small children are 10 times more
likely than adults to develop cancer when exposed to chemicals. Our
children are the most vulnerable among us. They are especially
susceptible to dioxin, arsenic, DDT, and brain-damaging heavy metals
such as lead and mercury, which are often found in the soil and ground
water at these Superfund sites. Across the country, each site we clean
up--and so far, we successfully cleaned up more than 900 sites--reduces
the health risks to our children and families. Parents don't want to
raise their kids under the shadow of a toxic waste site, only to worry
about the high risk for cancer, birth defects, and other diseases.
The Superfund Program needs additional revenues now. Just as our
mounting debt is slowing the economy, our failure to adequately fund
Superfund is slowing toxic cleanups to a crawl. The administration
claims that it supports the ``polluter-pays'' principle and
``aggressively'' cleans up Superfund sites, but the facts speak
otherwise.
This year taxpayers will be asked to bear virtually the entire cost
of cleaning up abandoned Superfund sites. In the President's fiscal
year 2005 budget, the Superfund trust fund column shows a zero--the
tank is empty. As we look at the timeframe, we can see from 1996, when
we had over $3 billion available in the Superfund treasury, almost $4
billion, now, because we have not replenished it, we have used it,
slowed the process of cleanups, finally in 2003 the fund is down to
zero.
If the people in the communities want those sites cleaned up, they
are going to have to pay for it. All the taxpayers will have to pay.
Superfund is not even a fund anymore. There is nothing in it.
It is shameful what the President and this Congress have done to the
Superfund. They have emptied it and told polluters: Don't worry, we
will make everyone else pay for the mess our friendly contributors and
political allies created. In 1986, taxpayers paid only a small portion,
8 percent, of orphan site cleanups. In 1995, only 17 percent of these
costs came from general revenues. Today, the number is almost 100
percent. All taxpayers have taken on the burden of paying for what
polluters should be paying.

The GAO recently reported that funding for the Superfund Program has
fallen by 35 percent in the last decade. It was underfunded by at least
$175 million in 2003. What does that say? It says that whatever work is
not going on, because it is underfunded, the taxpayers are going to pay
for it.
It is outrageous to suggest that the taxpayers ought to pay for the
misdeeds of the corporations that polluted the area. If they pollute
it, they ought to clean it up and pay for it. What we are talking about
is a fee that spreads across business lines, where chemicals are
manufactured, and oil and gasoline products are handled.
Yet one of four Americans, and 10 million children, still live within
4 miles of a Superfund site. That statistic does not include the 40,000
hazardous waste sites which have not made it onto the Nation's priority
list. The National Priorities List has something like 1,300 listings.
These are the especially toxic and dangerous sites--large sites
typically.
Fewer sites are being listed, and many of those listed are not
receiving sufficient funding. One Superfund manager in my State of New
Jersey said this: EPA is strangling the program.
Here are the facts: The rate of site cleanup has fallen by 50 percent
under this administration. In other words, they allowed, deliberately,
these sites to rot where they are and that threatens the people who
live in the nearby vicinities.
The listing of new sites on the National Priorities List has fallen
by 23 percent. There is no action there. We cannot pay our bills. A lot
of the people who are with the EPA doing that kind of work have seen
the end of their jobs in sight and they don't want to stay there. They
want to look to see what else is a prospect for them and their family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I say to my colleague, since I am
on the floor, I will allot myself another

[[Page S2616]]

3 or 4 minutes before I turn the microphone over to the Senator from
Vermont.
Even when a site finally makes it onto the NPL, it will take 11
years, on average, to actually decontaminate this site.
My State, unfortunately, has the second highest number of Superfund
sites, second only to California. We have 113 Superfund sites, and more
sites are waiting to be listed. My amendment would be the first step
toward a solution. It would also reduce the budget deficit by $8.3
billion over 5 years. If you spread the cost around, it becomes
infinitesimally small. It has been calculated that two-tenths of a cent
on a gallon of gas would be the cost to taxpayers generally. It is a
small, but appropriate, step for us to take for fiscal sanity.
Reinstating the polluter-pays principle is fair. It has a proven track
record.

I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
This is a very important amendment. Inscribed on a wall in a side
room of the Capitol is a wonderful statement of Theodore Roosevelt
reminding us that:

The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources
as assets which it must turn over to the next generation
increased and not impaired in value.

The Bush administration is ignoring this sage advice and is turning
back on the Superfund Program. This program has successfully removed
PCBs, arsenic, lead, and other toxic waste from almost 900 communities.
Yet this administration refuses to reauthorize the expired Superfund
polluter-pays fees that were supported by President Reagan, the other
President Bush, and President Clinton.
As a result, the Superfund trust fund that once contained $3.6
billion is now essentially bankrupt. The taxpayers are forced to pay
for the cleanup of abandoned toxic dumps, instead of the waste-
generating chemical and petroleum industries.
The impact of the resulting funding shortfall is illustrated by two
sites in Vermont. The Elizabeth Mine site in Strafford has been denied
funds for the second year in a row to clean up acid mine drainage that
is leaching into the Connecticut River which flows down to several
States. The delay has forced EPA to spend millions of dollars in
emergency funds to stabilize this site, while still failing to pay for
actual cleanup.
Only a few miles away lies another abandoned Superfund site, the Ely
Mine site. It was added to the National Priorities List in 2001, but
the Bush administration has yet to fund the investigation to discover
the full extent of the contamination, let alone begin cleanup.
These examples illustrate how the Bush administration's refusal to
support reauthorization of the polluter-pays fees chokes off funds for
sites at all stages in the cleanup process.
Not surprisingly, the pace of cleanups completed annually during the
Bush administration has plummeted by more than 50 percent. I,
therefore, support the effort to reinstate the Superfund fees because
every community deserves clean soil and water without delay.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg amendment. I thank the
Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains of the time that was given to
me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes forty-five seconds remain.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what we are looking at is a way to
relieve the taxpayers of having to come up with $8.3 billion, relieving
pressure on the budget to the extent of the $8.3 billion.
We have so many sites in so many places, as I earlier discussed, in
States such as Montana, Nebraska, and Maine. Some of these sites are
huge. We see the same situation in Utah. I cannot believe that in this
body at this time we would not say the communities across the country
are being burdened by all kinds of discontinued programs, by all kinds
of reductions in grants that went to the communities. A lot of the
programs have been absorbed into grants, single grants, and let the
communities use whatever they can for whatever they choose to but
always at a diminished rate. This is a chance to set the record
straight and let the public know this administration does not really
care about what happens in these communities; that this administration
would rather say to their friends, the polluters, many of which are
listed on the contributors list for the campaign: Listen, we excuse you
big companies from the dirt and the mess you made in these communities;
we forgive you, but we will not pay it any other way except through the
taxpayers' pockets.
This is a chance to set the record straight. I submit that every
Senator who casts a vote against this amendment is saying to the people
in his or her State: It is too bad you have those polluted sites. So
what. Our friends, the companies that created this pollution, are
closer to us than you, the citizens, the constituents in our States and
in our country.
It is time we face up to the reality. We had a program that was
excellent. It began in 1980. I came to the Senate in 1982. I followed
it very closely and worked very hard on its reauthorization, which took
place a couple of times. The program was going well. Cleanups were
being done faster. People felt more secure about their jobs, those who
worked to effect these cleanups, because they could see something ahead
of them in terms of their own family security and their own needs.
When these people leave, it will be very hard to find the skills and
the specialities that are required to continue this work. They will go,
and I do not blame them for going. I am sure if it came to my own
family and I had to support them through my job in my profession, I
would say that is my first obligation. It is not to take care of the
cleanup of the polluted sites. The President does not care about it.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle do not care about it. One
wonders how cynical people have become about voting, about putting
their trust in politicians, their trust diminishes considerably, except
now when people are beginning to feel the pressure of job scarcity, of
termination of health plans, and retirement plans at risk. It is a
whole different world.
I submit that when the vote finally comes on this amendment, the
people who are going to vote against it have to examine their
conscience very closely to make sure they are doing the right thing for
their communities and for their States.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of
Senator Lautenberg's amendment to provide additional resources for the
Superfund trust fund. I think my colleagues would all agree on the
success of the Superfund Program. Since its inception in 1980, we have
cleaned up 890 of the most hazardous toxic waste sites in communities
around the country, including 44 in my home State of Washington. The
Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the ``polluter-pays
principle'' has helped clean up these sites.
Unfortunately, since the Superfund fees expired in 1995, American
taxpayers have picked up an increasingly large share of cleanup costs
and today are bearing almost the entire burden of paying for sites
abandoned by polluting corporations. That is why the amendment before
us is really about fairness--it holds polluting industries accountable
and protects public health and safety. I believe a recent editorial in
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer makes the point well:

Washington taxpayers paid only $7 million in 1995 for
Superfund program costs. Next year, we will pay between $25
million and $30 million. Americans are now paying for the
worst toxic waste sites in the country with our health and
our tax dollars.

This amendment will also help stem the ongoing erosion of funding for
the Superfund Program. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office,
the overall Superfund appropriations have dropped 35 percent in real
terms since 1993, even while highly contaminated hazardous waste sites
continue to be added to the National Priorities List, the Environmental
Protection Agency's list of the Nation's most contaminated sites. In
fact, at the end of fiscal year 2002, the National Priorities List

[[Page S2617]]

had 1,233 sites in various stages of cleanup.
The Environmental Protection Agency's own Inspector General reported
in January 2003 that the agency is facing Superfund shortfalls
exceeding $174 million. That means the Bunker Hill site on the border
of Washington and Idaho is only receiving $15 million this year, even
though the Environmental Protection Agency estimated a need for $37.8
million. To put that in personal terms, I quote directly from the
Inspector General's report:

The impact of reduced funds for the Bunker Hill site is
associated with risk to human health, particularly for young
children and pregnant women, from lead contamination in a
residential area.

I think this quote, directly from the Environmental Protection
Agency, tells us all how critical it is we support this amendment.
Reinstating the fees means that we can shift costs away from
overburdened taxpayers, protect Americans from exposure to dangerous
toxic chemicals, and revitalize properties that blight our nation and
often inhibit urban redevelopment.
Waste sites still threaten more than 65 million Americans who live
within 4 miles of a Superfund toxic waste site. And there are 40,000
other sites of concern that have not yet been listed on the National
Priorities List. There was a very good reason for initiating a
Superfund fee 23 years ago, and, until the remaining Superfund sites
are cleaned up, we should reinstate and maintain this important
environmental fee. I urge my colleagues to support this critical
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for a moment 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are going to try to not let time be
wasted in quorum calls because time is such a precious commodity at
this point. I will take a moment to talk about the budget resolution
before us and what I think are the deficiencies of that resolution.
Let me put up this first chart that shows the operating deficits
under the budget resolution that is before us. The hard reality is, the
budget resolution before us will add nearly $3 trillion to the debt in
just the next 5 years. Already we have record budget deficits. This
year the Congressional Budget Office is saying the deficit will be
nearly $500 billion. But that does not tell the whole story.
Actually, on an operating basis the deficit is even larger because
nearly $160 billion of Social Security money is being used for other
purposes as well. So if one looked at an operating basis, the true
deficit would be the $477 billion plus another $160 billion. That is
approaching $650 billion on a $2.3 trillion budget. That is a big
budget deficit by any objective measure.
Here it is, $638 billion. As we see it, under the resolution that is
before us, this operating deficit never gets below $500 billion as far
as the eye can see.
Some are saying this budget resolution will cut the deficit in half
in 3 years. Well, that is a certain definition of deficit that does not
reveal the full story. It does not talk about how much is actually
being added to the debt. The reason for the difference is one includes
Social Security trust funds and one does not.
Right now the Social Security trust funds are running very large and
growing surpluses. Under the budget resolution before us, all of that
Social Security money is being taken over the next 5 years to pay for
other things.
When the chairman of the committee talks about cutting the deficit in
half in the next 3 years and cutting it in an even larger way by the
fifth year, here is what his assumptions are: He says in the fifth year
the deficit will be down to $202 billion. Here are the things he is
leaving out: Under his resolution, he is also going to take $235
billion from Social Security, every penny of which has to be paid back
and there is no plan to do it. He is taking $22 billion out of the
Medicare trust fund, every penny of which has to be paid back and he
has no plan to do that.
In addition, it would cost $55 billion to fix the alternative minimum
tax in that year. The alternative minimum tax is the old millionaires'
tax that is rapidly becoming a middle-class tax trap.
Why do I say that? Well, right now only 3 million people are affected
by the alternative minimum tax. By the end of this 10-year budget
period, there are going to be 40 million people. Those people who
thought they were going to get a tax cut are in for a rude surprise.
On top of that, he leaves out the residual war cost in that fifth
year which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be $30
billion. So instead of adding to the debt by $202 billion, which one
might conclude when he says he is going to run a deficit of that amount
for that year, we see he is actually going to be adding to the debt by
$545 billion.
Still lots of things are left out. For example, on war costs, in the
President's budget he has no funding for the war in Iraq, no funding
for the war in Afghanistan, no funding for the war on terror past
September 30 of this year. To the chairman's credit, he has put in $30
billion, although interestingly enough he does not add it to his
deficit totals. So it is magic money. It is money that is on paper,
says it is available, but he does not count it.
Look at what the Congressional Budget Office tells us ought to be the
money set aside for war costs. They say $280 billion is what it is
going to cost over this next period of time. The chairman has $30
billion in his budget resolution, although he does not really provide
the money, he does not count it in his deficit calculations. It is, as
I say, magic money: Now you see it, now you don't. The President has no
money.
So I go back to this calculation of what this budget resolution adds
to the debt and what kind of operating deficits it runs, and they are
much larger than is being revealed. Here is what I mean. From 2004 to
2005, it will add $612 billion to the debt. The next year, $569 billion
is added to the debt. These are not my numbers. This is from the
chairman's own mark. These are from his documents. The third year it
adds $552 billion to the debt. The fourth year, $563 billion to the
debt; the fifth year another $563 billion to the debt. That is a
cumulative total of nearly $3 trillion to the debt, and all at the
worst possible time, right before the baby boomers retire.
I know my colleague from Idaho is waiting so I am going to wrap this
up, and I know Senator Nelson is seeking time as well. This is a final
point I think is important to understand: The deficit on a unified
basis, when Social Security is included and other things are left out,
is going down. That is misleading us as to our true fiscal condition
because the additions to the debt are basically stable, but if I
examine the chairman's proposal he is actually adding to the deficit
beyond what would occur if we did nothing in this Chamber.
I hope my colleagues are listening. The chairman's budget adds to the
deficit in each of the next 5 years by $177 billion over and above what
would happen if we did nothing. If we just put the Government on
automatic pilot, we would have $177 billion less in deficit over the
next 5 years than if we passed this budget resolution.
I hope my colleagues study this document very carefully because I
think it conceals much of the true financial condition of our country.
I yield the floor, because I know colleagues are seeking time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Lautenberg
amendment and also to speak generally about S. Con. Res. 95, which is,
of course, the underlying budget resolution. I also come from a State
that has a very large Superfund site, so one would think I would be in
support of the Lautenberg amendment to fund that site, but I am not,
and here is the reason why, and why I think it is important we all
understand a tax is a tax is a tax, and what the Senator proposes on
Superfund is really a tax on a lot of businesses that are having
difficulty at this moment.
In fiscal year 2005, the request for Superfund is $1.38 billion, and
that is an increase of about $124 million over

[[Page S2618]]

fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year 2005 budget includes a $150 million
increase in Superfund cleanups, and that $150 million not only funds
the cleanup work already underway in Idaho and the program we have
planned out there, but it also includes 15 new construction projects,
or cleanup projects, involved under Superfund law.
Democrats will argue to reinstate the Superfund tax so that, in their
words, the polluter pays for the cost of the cleanup. Well, the fact is
the polluter already pays under current law. Where there is an
identifiable and viable polluter, consistent with the law, they are
held liable. Congress has exempted a few small businesses, but in most
cases, again, where there is an identifiable polluter which has a
viable company that can obviously be held responsible, they are asked
to pay, and by law they will pay.
That was certainly true in the Superfund area of Idaho, which was an
old mining area. While some of those mining companies and smelting
companies participated in paying, there is also a tap on the Superfund
itself for that kind of pay. In 2003, potential responsible parties, or
PRPs, paid about 87 percent of the cost of new construction.
Certainly a great deal of money is coming out of the business sector
to pay for cleanup under the Superfund law. Historically, PRPs--again,
responsible parties--have paid more than 70 percent of the cleanup
itself. So the law itself is a tax imposed on those companies when they
are found responsible for the pollution and are by law required to
clean up the pollutants.
Superfund taxes were always unfair. The tax goes where the money is
and not where the responsibility lies. What we are doing now is
directing it toward the responsible parties. This is not a tax on
polluters. It is an indiscriminate tax on business, as proposed by
Senator Lautenberg. The Superfund tax was levied against a broad range
of businesses.
It is interesting there is no correlation between the dollars in the
Superfund and the level of funding that goes to Superfund cleanup.
There is no delay in cleanups due to a lack of the Superfund tax.
As we work to stimulate this economy and get it back on line and get
companies in the business of growing and expanding so they can create
new jobs and hire the unemployed, this tax goes, in a broad-based way,
right at those companies, once again potentially dragging them down.
I am on the floor today also to strongly support S. Con. Res. 95
which the Budget Committee has worked so hard to produce. This is not
the kind of budget resolution I wish I was voting on. That is not the
fault of the chairman of the Budget Committee or the majority of the
committee, and it is not the fault of the President of the United
States, and it is not the fault of the tax relief this Congress enacted
in 2001 through 2003.
Where does the fault lie? There has been a lot of fingerpointing by
all of the amendments that have been brought out here in a great rush
on the part of my Democrat colleagues to crank all these taxes back up
and stunt the growth that is starting.
Where does the fault lie? With an economic cycle that, despite the
collective denial of politicians, bequeaths our Nation with a recession
at least about once every decade. Certainly in my time here in the
Congress I have watched that cycle go forth. Somehow in the late 1990s
we thought the cycle would never come, but it did come. It came in the
latter years of the Clinton administration. We were trying to pull it
out and then along came 9/11. We all know what happened at that time
when terrorists attacked innocent civilians in this country and really
threw this country into a phenomenal, quick slowdown. Some will argue
it took over $1 trillion out of the economy at that time.
Where does the fault lie? With the international terrorist movement
and the foreign regimes who supported it. We saw what happened,
tragically, in Spain today. No country is immune. Certainly we have had
to invest mightily to begin to develop a level of protection for the
civilian population in this country we really had never had before.
With that difficult, perfect combination of things happening, and I
think obviously understood by all, what are we dealing with? We are
dealing with a very difficult time. We, as a Congress, have worked
mightily to work our way out of that. These circumstances, most of them
forced upon us, have really been a body blow to our economy, to
American jobs, and to the current fiscal situation.
Something else is also happening. The American people have said, in
reality, you have spent about as much as you need to spend. We have
deficits growing. It is time we get those deficits under control. The
chairman of the Budget Committee has worked mightily to do that.

We are in the aftermath of a market slump and an economic slowdown
that truly began in 2000, before this President took office. Nobody
denies that today, although some would like to point a finger in a
rather odd direction, at this current President. We are still working
our way out of this recession in all respects. It is not smooth
sailing, but clearly the wind is now to our back and it appears the
economy is slowly but progressively coming on line.
We fought a shooting war against terrorism on two fronts and continue
to fight terrorism at home and abroad.
Unfortunately, in a business world in which most folks play by the
rules and follow the law, something else has happened: A significant
handful of scandals and a legacy of some of the excesses of the 1990s
that shook the confidence of the stock market and further depressed the
economic downturn. That cyclical downturn already was inevitable. I
think I can well remember what Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said when he
warned us of an overvalued market and an irrationally exuberant
attitude, long before the market slumped. So the combination of the 9/
11 and bad actors out there in the market along with the reality of
cyclical movements in our country have brought us to where we are today
and brought the budget to where it is, trying to be fiscally
responsible and fund the needed and necessary services of our
Government and at the same time saying we are controlling our spending
here and we are not going to overtax America's workforce.
Quite another message comes from the other side at this moment.
Somehow they have an insatiable appetite to continually increase taxes
on working men and women. They will argue they would like to direct it
at the millionaires of this country. They never really quite define it.
We know the vast majority of the taxes paid in this country are paid by
average working men and women because they make up by far the vast
majority of the cumulative wealth and generated wealth of our country.
Given all the circumstances, I believe this is a very good budget
resolution. I believe we ought to work hard to support it and to refine
it where we can throughout the process and get on with the business of
doing what is responsible here and that is causing our Government to
function in the appropriate fashion.
It is a political year. We all know that. It would be a nice surprise
if the Congress of the United States, at least on budgetary matters,
and at least through the appropriation process, could show the American
people we are going to be responsible, we are going to finish the
budget on time, we are going to get our appropriations out on time.
Then we can get at the business of politics, of deciding who is going
to run the next Congress and who the next President of this country
will be. But it would be amazingly refreshing if we could show the
American people we can work together.
It doesn't appear that is going to happen and that is a real sadness
of mine. We are working hard to put a budget resolution together and
yet we see this insatiable appetite on the part of my Democrat
colleagues to continually raise the spectrum of more taxes, more taxes,
more taxes.
I congratulate Senator Nickles, chairman of the Budget Committee.
This resolution represents a truly heroic effort of responsible
management of our budget during a time of trial and challenge in our
country. It is a tough time. We all know that. It is understandable. It
is unfortunate that several years of international and economic shocks
and jolts have produced today's record budget deficits. Our
constituents today know it. They understand history. But they also
understand responsibility and they have

[[Page S2619]]

handed us that responsibility and they are suggesting we treat it with
due respect.

The American people, especially after 9/11, showed tremendous
resilience. They met the challenge. They expect us to meet the
challenge. They demand it of us. They demand it of our President. In
nearly all instances that simply has happened. The President and
Congress did the right thing in 2001 and 2003. Without tax relief,
where would we be today? We would probably have fewer jobs. Our senior
citizens' nest eggs would be lower in value and less secure. Millions
of low- and moderate-income families would probably have less freedom
and financial empowerment today than they would without the tax
reduction. Small business startups and growth would have been stunted.
Without the leadership and the effectiveness of this President and
Congress on matters of defense and homeland security and the economy,
we would still be in a recession. We are not in that recession now. We
are clearly in a recovery mode. This country is struggling along, but
always upward, building its job base and bringing people back into the
job market in a very progressive way.
Lots of challenges remain. None of us will argue the difference
because challenges are there. But is the challenge simply to go out and
burden the economy again by major tax increases? They would suggest
that we not extend the current taxes. That is not going to be a tax
increase? You ask the average working man or woman, ask the average
family of four, if doing that doesn't constitute a tax increase because
it takes money away from their spendable bottom line. You darned bet it
is a tax increase. The very least we can do is assure that we maintain
the child tax credit and the marriage penalty relief and the 10-percent
tax rate which is going to be critical to the working men and women of
modest means in this country. That is what this Congress ought to be
about.
If I have heard the rhetoric once, I have heard it a good number of
times in my years here in Congress. Somehow Government can do it best;
somehow an expenditure of the Government dollar is going to cause our
lives to be better. In instances that is true, such as in areas of
health care and in Social Security. But in instances of good-paying
jobs, Government doesn't create them. It is the private sector that
creates them. We ought to be incentivizing in every way we possibly can
the very job creator we know about--small business, medium-size
business, and large business in this country.
I strongly support what the Budget Committee has brought forward. I
think it is responsible. I am glad we are defeating most of these
amendments that would simply send us into a tax-and-spend spiral, the
kind we have seen before that more often drove us into a recession than
drove us out of a recession. To tighten our belt, to bring the deficit
down, and to begin to show a pattern of moving us toward a balanced
budget again is the right thing. The chairman of the Budget Committee
is doing just that.
The President asked that we begin to tighten our belt and curtail our
spending in a variety of areas that are less essential to the
fundamental responsibilities of our Government. That is exactly what we
are doing. It is a tough budget. It is not an easy budget. But it is a
budget worth voting for. It is a budget worth finalizing so we can get
on with the appropriating process.
I hope at the end of the year when we adjourn sine die we can say our
job was complete; that while it was a very partisan year and a highly
politicized year, the Congress came together, got their appropriations
bills finished, and did their homework. There will be only one way that
won't happen--if the other side, in an obstructionist way, decides it
won't happen; if they decide every appropriations bill that comes up
has to have 50, 60, 90, or 100 amendments and we have to labor day
after day after we have worked in a bipartisan way to craft the
appropriations bills, as we always do.
That is our challenge. Let us get our budget resolution complete. Let
us get reconciliation, the tools that move us forward toward the
appropriating process so we can complete the year as the American
taxpayer and the voter would expect us to do. That is the challenge.
The chairman of the Budget Committee and the Budget Committee are
meeting that challenge, and I hope we are worthy of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska is seeking time.
How much time would he desire?
I yield five minutes off the resolution to the distinguished Senator
from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my
colleague from North Dakota and commend him for all the work he has
done on the budget.
I say to my friend from Idaho I think we recognize across the aisle
it is important for us to work on a bipartisan basis. I agree with him.
I might take issue with him when he would suggest that any, or all, or
always, or never with respect to your friends on this side of the
aisle. I think we are here to work together. I hope we can, without
classifying ourselves one way or the other, except to say we are here
as Americans representing the folks back home by working together and
getting something accomplished. I know that is the goal of the Senator
from Idaho. I think a lot of us share that goal.

Tony Raimondo

I rise today to come to the defense of a great friend, and more
importantly, a great Nebraskan, Tony Raimondo. As many are aware, Tony
Raimondo was to be nominated this morning as the Bush administration's
new manufacturing czar. Late yesterday the announcement was canceled,
citing scheduling conflicts.
I realize there have been speeches in this Chamber that have been
critical of Tony's record as a businessman. I am here to say
``nonsense.'' We all know politics runs the days around here. It is a
very political time with the Presidential election. Much is at stake.
Yesterday was no exception to that, and today is not either.
I am not going to address what was said earlier. Everyone has a right
to an opinion. No matter who the Bush administration decided to appoint
to this position, he or she is going to be run through the ringer. But
I am here to tell you this Nebraskan isn't going to watch another
Nebraskan get treated like this.
Tony Raimondo is a friend of mine, a former business partner of mine,
and he is not the antijobs CEO he is painted to be.
Sure, he has a company in China. He expanded there last year. In
fact, I had the pleasure to be at the ribbon cutting of his factory
there. Next week I will be in Columbus, NE, the headquarters of Tony's
business, Behlen Manufacturing. I will see many Nebraskans who are
employed at Behlen, or are related to somebody employed at Behlen, or
at least know someone employed by Behlen.
Tony is a respected member of the Columbus business community. He is
a Nebraska business leader. He has represented Nebraska business
interests around the world and here at home as a prominent member of
the National Association of Manufacturers, and he is a good employer.

Sure, his business has struggled in recent years. It is hard to find
one that hasn't. But he didn't do what others have done. He is fighting
to keep his business alive and well in Nebraska and in the other States
where it is located. He is fighting to save those jobs. He is fighting
to not let his employees down, his community, his State, or his
country.
He expanded his business to China. He didn't close it and move it to
China. With his experience, I think he can show others how to keep jobs
here at home and how to expand and diversify their businesses--saving
jobs in America. Tony Raimondo should be held up as an example, not
derided as a pirate.
I am not sure what is happening with the nomination at this point.
Obviously, there is a predictable partisan opposition. But what I am
not hearing is any alternative. Should we leave this important position
empty and watch manufacturing jobs continue to decline or should we get
someone in place to at least try to preserve those jobs, those good-
paying jobs here in America?
I came here to get things done and to do what is right for Nebraska.
I say let

[[Page S2620]]

us try. Tony Raimondo is not only a good choice for this position but,
in my opinion, he is the best choice.
I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from the State
of North Dakota for the time.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for
taking the time. I also thank him very much for being flexible about
when to come so we can keep the business flowing and not have dead
time. I appreciate very much his accommodating the managers.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also want to compliment my colleague
from Nebraska. I very much appreciate his comments concerning having
partisan work on the budget. I have had the pleasure of working with
the Senator from Nebraska. We are very good friends. I hope his
basketball team goes in defeat today against the University of
Oklahoma. I wanted to make sure he is aware that could happen. You
never know.
Senator Inhofe, I believe, wants to speak on the Superfund amendment
offered by our colleague from New Jersey. In a moment, I will ask to
set this amendment aside, and we will take up an additional amendment.
But let me make a couple of comments.
This is a tax increase. We have had a lot of tax increases. This
assumes it is going to be reauthorized. I hope and expect it will be
authorized. But the taxes shouldn't be increased until it is
reauthorized. That should be done by the authorizers. Chairman Inhofe
is chairman of that committee. I want to protect his rights. When he
returns to the Senate Chamber, I will give him ample time on whatever
amendment we are considering to fully debate the Lautenberg amendment.
I am willing to consider additional amendments.
I tell our colleagues again we have spent a lot of time debating. We
need to be moving more amendments or else other people are going to be
squeezed on time.
I believe the Senator from Iowa has an amendment. It is all right
with me if we go to that amendment.
The Senator from Connecticut, I believe, has an amendment. We are
happy to consider that amendment.
I want to notify our colleagues time is running and we are going to
have a very late night tonight and, unfortunately, maybe tomorrow. I
happen to think it is possible to finish this tonight, but it will take
people not offering amendments. It will take people not making long
speeches. I don't want to stifle debate. I enjoy debate. But it is
important to get our work done. I see a fairly lengthy list of
amendments yet to be handled.

I am willing to set aside the Lautenberg amendment for the amendment
of the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator Lautenberg never sent the amendment up.
Mr. NICKLES. I guess I will not set it aside. I asked unanimous
consent to set aside the Dorgan amendment to consider the Lautenberg
amendment but it was not sent to the desk. We will save a spot for
Senator Lautenberg to introduce the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. If I might clarify, I can understand why this may be
surprising. We were not able to arrive at a time agreement because you
needed to talk to the chairman. We thought it would be more appropriate
to withhold sending the amendment to the desk until you had a chance to
consult with your chairman.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that.
Mr. CONRAD. We thought that would be more fair to you.
If we could enter into a time agreement on the Harkin amendment, that
would help substantially.
Mr. NICKLES. If my colleague will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think it would be most appropriate if
the Senator from New Jersey did not offer his amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. We have a lot of amendments that the chairman might feel
that way about.
Mr. NICKLES. I will compliment my colleague from New Jersey for his
amendment if he does not offer it. I will oppose it strenuously if it
is sent to the desk. I urge my colleague to withhold, if he can.
Our colleague from Kentucky wants to be heard on the amendment from
our friend from Iowa. I need to consult with him before we enter into a
time agreement. I am perfectly willing to enter into a time agreement
on several amendments.
Mr. CONRAD. Could we get a general understanding of what it is we
will try to achieve in terms of a time agreement on this amendment so
the Senator from Iowa has some understanding of what we would be
talking about, 20 minutes equally divided, as we discussed earlier?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. As I understand the Senator from Iowa, he raises taxes
only $80 billion over this period of time, so if we give a minute per
billions, this would be 40 minutes a side. I am not sure. I would be
willing to do 15 minutes a side, but I need to consult with a couple of
colleagues. I am not positive what this amendment does, if it has a
reserve fund or if it just is a direct tax increase and assumes
spending.
Mr. CONRAD. Could we say initially that in terms of the advice for
our colleagues that we try to make this 30 minutes equally divided,
with an understanding that it may be altered somewhat when you have a
chance to consult? It would just help those who are managing the
amendment to divide up the time in a way that might make things go
faster.
Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the suggestion by my colleague from North
Dakota. I would like to have an assumption that no amendment gets over
10 minutes on each side. I mentioned that would be my desire at the
beginning of the day. That is still my desire. That would be ample time
for discussion. That would be my hope. I hope the standard amendment
does not receive more than 10 minutes a side. That would be my thought.
Maybe we can do that for the amendment of the Senator from Iowa.
I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside and to
consider an amendment to be offered by our colleague from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield to the Senator from Iowa 15 minutes off the
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Amendment No. 2799

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

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, and Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bingaman, Ms.
Landrieu, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered
2799.

Mr. HARKIN. 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 for increased resources for medical research,
disease control, wellness, tobacco cessation and preventative health
efforts including substance abuse and mental health services,
establishing a fund for this purpose, offset by an increase in the
cigarette tax to $1 and proportional increases in other tobacco excise
taxes and deficit reduction)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $15,600,000,000.

[[Page S2621]]

On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $23,400,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $31,200,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $39,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $7,800,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $15,600,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $23,400,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $31,200,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $39,000,000,000.
At the end of Title III, insert the following:

SEC.   . FUND FOR HEALTH.

If the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate reports
legislation with a level of appropriations for function 550
discretionary programs without the use of this Fund that at
least appropriates the sum appropriated for function 550
discretionary programs in fiscal year 2004, the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise
aggregates, function totals and increase the allocations to
the Committee on Appropriations up to $6,000,000,000 in new
budget authority and $6,000,000,000 in new budget outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $30,500,000,000 in new budget authority
and $30,500,000,000 in budget outlays in fiscal years 2005
through 2009.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of
myself and the major cosponsor is Senator Feinstein; also Senators
Durbin, Lautenberg, Bingaman, Landrieu, and Lieberman.
The Nation's health system is in crisis. There are nearly 44 million
uninsured individuals. Skyrocketing health costs are leaving more and
more people without insurance. We have shortages of health
professionals all across rural America. Everywhere, health providers
are stretched to the limit. Finally, as the Centers for Disease Control
pointed out just this week, obesity will soon match tobacco use as
America's No. 1 preventable killer.
This is not the time to cut Federal investments in health care. We
stand on the brink of fantastic discoveries and breakthroughs in
medical research. This is not the time to cut short this vital
research, denying hope to tens of millions of Americans with chronic
diseases. This is the time to increase our efforts not only to treat
and cure illnesses, but also to dramatically increase our efforts to
prevent illnesses. We need major new efforts to promote wellness in our
health care system.
And yet, the President has proposed slashing function 550, the health
care function in this budget. This is taking America in exactly the
wrong direction.
Accordingly, I am offering an amendment that would increase function
550 funding by $6 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $30 billion over 5
years.
This new funding would go to medical research disease control,
wellness, tobacco cessation, and preventive health efforts. It would
help to recruit and retain our incredibly talented health professionals
in this country--especially in rural areas. It boosts research into new
medical treatments and cures. It includes funding for mental health and
substance abuse programs. It includes funding for the prevention of
chronic diseases, which account for 75 percent of our Nation's $1
trillion in health care costs.
The Harkin-Feinstein amendment fully offsets this new funding by
levying a tobacco user fee of 61 cents per pack. That would bring the
Federal total to $1 per pack.
This user fee will raise enough revenue both to fund the increase in
function 550 and to reduce the deficit--steps that will be good for the
physical health of the American people and the fiscal health of the
federal government.
Bear in mind that tobacco use costs this country billions of dollars
and millions of lives every year. Tobacco use is the leading cause of
preventable death in the United States, causing 440,000 deaths each
year and resulting in more than $75 billion in direct medical costs.
Smoking causes chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and
stroke, as will as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth, and
bladder. In addition, smoking contributes to cancer of the cervix,
pancreas, and kidneys.
This creates an enormous financial burden for the federal government.
Smoking-caused Medicaid expenditures amount to a whopping $23.5 billion
annually. Smoking-caused Medicare-expenditures are $20 billion per
year. Reducing tobacco use in this country could save American
taxpayers billions of dollars annually, while freeing up resources to
invest in the country's public health system.
Study after study tells us that increases in the price on tobacco
products have significant positive public health effects--especially
with children. With a $1 user fee on tobacco products, we can decrease
youth smoking by 18 percent. We can keep 105,000 young people from
starting smoking in the first place.
Despite our efforts in the 1990's to curtail manipulative marketing
targeted at children, the tobacco industry currently spends more than
$11 billion a year to promote its deadly products--that is $30 million
per day. We should be curbing this threat, this epidemic. And this
amendment will do exactly that.
Prevention is the key. Today, Americans are plagued with more and
more chronic diseases that are largely preventable. As I said, 75
percent of the $1 trillion we spend on health care in the United States
goes to the treatment of these largely preventable chronic diseases.
Without question, giving Americans an incentive to reduce or quit using
tobacco products would be an urgent step in the right direction.
This amendment offers us a trifecta of benefits: It increases funding
for health care services, medical research and prevention. It reduces
the deadly pandemic of tobacco use in America. And it makes a solid
contribution to reducing the budget deficits that are destroying our
government's fiscal health.
Lastly, let me say that our amendment does not contain any provision
dealing with the tobacco quota buyout and FDA regulation of tobacco. I
believe we need to do both; both must be done together. This is one
Senator who will stand here and do everything I can in my power, along
with others, to make sure there will not be a tobacco buyout without
FDA regulation of tobacco.
I believe we have to do both because I believe we need to help our
tobacco farmers, those who are struggling to feed their families in
small, rural areas all over the South and sometimes even to the
Midwest. They need the tobacco buyout. But we also need to make sure we
have meaningful oversight of tobacco use and promotion by the Food and
Drug Administration.
With that, Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from California.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I just checked with Senator McConnell,
who I think might be involved in leading the opposition, and he has no
objection. So I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted for the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa be 30 minutes, equally divided--the
time allotted from the beginning of the debate on the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just for our understanding, the time used
so far would be charged to the amendment?
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time does this side have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes remain.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his
leadership on this issue, and I join him wholeheartedly.
Funding for public health programs has never been more critical. The
President's budget, for the first time in 10 years, includes a decrease
in Function 550. This is the portion of the budget that covers cancer
research, AIDS treatments and new discoveries, potential health
threats, including anthrax or other biological or chemical attacks--all
through the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease
Control, the Indian Health Service, and others. If we do not adopt this
amendment, all of those programs are threatened with cuts. Let me speak
about how this amendment works. It increases the budget for
discretionary public health programs for fiscal year 2005 by $6
billion. That is a 12-percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 level.
Now, a 12-percent increase in Function 550 is supported by more than
400

[[Page S2622]]

health groups. And, this increase is also paid for. It is paid for by a
61-cent increase in the federal tax on tobacco, which will bring in
about $8 billion per year. Mr. President, $6 billion of the $8 billion
covers the cost of increasing funding for public health, and the
remaining $2 billion goes for deficit reduction. It is a prudent step
to take at this point in time.
Now, you might say, why? We know tobacco kills. And we know that
prevention saves lives. For the first time in my State--California--we
have had a drop in lung cancer incidences and death among women because
of the tobacco prevention programs that are taking place. So I think an
increase in the tobacco tax is an appropriate means to support a 12-
percent increase in cancer research.
Let me speak to that for just a moment. We now have seen the mapping
of the human genome. This holds tremendous promise for finding cures
for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and cancer, by
attacking their genetic roots.
We have seen advances in genomics, in molecular biology, which have
made the development of new, targeted cancer therapies such as Gleevec,
for chronic myeloid leukemia; Herceptin, for breast cancer; and, most
recently, Avastin, for colon cancer.
We now have drugs that are so advanced that they can target just the
bad cancer cells and not harm the good cells. These drugs are amazingly
effective and are less toxic for the patient.
I have been vice chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer, now called
C-Change, for 4 years, and co-chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition for
even longer than that. If there ever is a time to continue the march to
solve major health problems before this Nation, this is that time.
This amendment allows that to be done, with a 12-percent increase for
public health programs. And it is fully offset. It would be funded from
an increase in the tobacco tax, a tax that I think is an appropriate
measure--about $2 billion for deficit reduction and $6 billion to fund
this amendment.
I urge the Senate's approval of this increase in basic health
functions across the board.
Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
How much time is remaining in support of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and a half minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will not use that amount of time, just
perhaps 1 minute, if the Senator will yield it. I will just use 1
minute.
Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and ask unanimous
consent to be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is an extraordinarily important
amendment. It should be strongly bipartisan. Is there a person
listening to this debate who believes there is a Republican or a
Democratic approach to research, finding cures for the diseases that
are affecting America? There has been a strong, bipartisan commitment
by Democratic and Republican Presidents to invest in research. The
Senator from Iowa and the Senator from California have the courage to
stand up today and say: We will not allow this effort to end; it will
go forward; and we will fund it in an honest fashion, by raising the
Federal cigarette tax by 61 cents. They will generate the billions of
dollars that we need to put back into health care and health research
so families across America have peace of mind that we are doing
everything in our power to spare their children and their loved ones
from diseases that are threatening them.
The second part, that is equally if not more important, is, as you
increase the cost of tobacco products, fewer people buy them,
particularly children. A 61-cent increase in the price of a pack of
cigarettes or tobacco is going to discourage children from taking up
the habit, becoming addicted, and, ultimately, losing their lives to
this deadly addiction.
I commend this amendment. I hope my colleagues will rise to the
occasion, on a bipartisan basis, to endorse this real investment in
health care and research for America.
I thank the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from California for
allowing me to speak.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time does this side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself a couple minutes.
A lot of people might say: My gosh, Senator Harkin and Senator
Feinstein and Senator Durbin, a dollar a pack is a lot of Federal tax
on a pack of cigarettes. But this chart shows the history of the
Federal excise tax on cigarettes going back to 1950.
Shown on this side of the chart would be for 1950. At that time, the
Federal excise tax was 49 percent of the average wholesale price for a
pack of cigarettes--49 percent. Today, it is 14 percent.
So those who say that a dollar a pack on that is too much, I point
out it only brings it up to 30 percent of the average wholesale price
of a pack of cigarettes. That would be 30 percent; and that would be
less than what it has been many times in the past.
So it is not out of line with what we have had as a Federal excise
tax on cigarettes, as I said, going clear back to 1950. Then all the
way up until about 1983 it was more than 30 percent of the average
wholesale price. So this is not out of line.
But what we get for this, as has been pointed out, is we get $30
billion over 5 years to invest in health research, wellness, prevention
programs, anti-obesity programs, smoking cessation programs, and
keeping our people more healthy. Plus, we also get out of this
amendment about $9 billion in deficit reduction.
So this amendment does two things: It raises the Federal excise tax
on a pack of cigarettes from 39 cents to $1, which would bring it up to
about 30 percent of the wholesale price, and it takes that money and
puts it in the health function so we can invest in the health of our
people in this country. That is all this amendment does. It does
nothing else.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I yield for a question.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is it not also true, with the success of this amendment,
there will be a dramatic reduction in teenage smoking?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely right. We know with this
amendment there will be a dramatic reduction. It is estimated youth
smoking would go down by at least 18 percent with this amendment.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support and for
pointing that out.
I reserve whatever time we may have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think I may have a colleague who wants
to speak on this; I believe Senator McConnell. I am looking at the
amendment. I can read the purpose, but I will tell my colleagues, you
can put whatever purpose you want, but the net essence of the amendment
is to increase taxes by $39 billion. I appreciate the assumption. I
don't know if that scores correctly. I have no idea.
I don't know what the tax raises today and I don't know how much
money would be raised if it was increased today $1 a pack. I do know a
lot of States have been doing this. My Governor in my State of Oklahoma
is in the process of trying to increase tobacco taxes as we speak. This
would conflict with that to some extent because a lot of States have
been doing that. I believe New York and a lot of other States have very
hefty taxes. This has been primarily an area where the States have
maybe the heavier tax between the Federal and the State.
This amendment also purports to say it will increase spending. Just
reading the language, it says, ``If the Committee on Appropriations
reports the legislation'' such-and-such, then the chairman of the
Budget Committee may revise aggregates up to. So it doesn't actually
directly increase spending. It does directly increase taxes to the tune
of $39 billion over the first few years. It assumes there would be a
lot of new spending. I want to make that clear. Some people are
assuming it is a direct increase in some functions.

[[Page S2623]]

Again, to repeat, my colleague from North Dakota and I have done this
repeatedly. The purpose does not really mean the Finance Committee is
going to get an instruction to increase taxes, decrease taxes, keep
present law, have tax increases. This is a tax increase. I have been on
the Finance Committee for a long time. I don't remember ever voting on
an amendment to increase cigarette taxes. I guess it has floated
around, but I don't remember a serious debate on increasing the
cigarette tax and should this be a function to be reserved for the
States or for the Federal Government.
I will reserve the balance of our time for Members who may be more
knowledgeable. I didn't know what the excise tax on a pack of
cigarettes was until my colleague said it is 31 cents. I don't know
what the wholesale price of a pack of cigarettes is. I don't know what
the retail price is. I don't know, don't care too much. So maybe this
is a fight for other people.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Harkin
Amendment. I'm against raising taxes. And that is exactly what this
amendment is--a tax increase and a large one. Moreover, it is very
regressive. It raises taxes on many people who can't afford it.
However, I share the overall goal of reducing tobacco use. Smoking is
still the number one killer in America, though obesity is now a close
second, a should be addressed by Congress. As a heart and lung
transplant surgeon, I know very well the results of this deadly habit,
and I have consistently supported reasonable FDA regulation of tobacco
which focuses on youth consumption.
I hope that we can eventually reach agreement on a package that will
give FDA reasonable authority to regulate tobacco and provide a buy-out
for our tobacco farmers. I encourage my colleagues who support this
amendment to work to accomplish that worthy public health goal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia is seeking
time. How much time would the Senator want?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Five or six minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from
West Virginia. For the information of the chairman, the Senator has
agreed to talk about an amendment but not offer it. That is why we are
asking at this time that he be given 5 minutes to discuss his concern.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the extremely distinguished
Presiding Officer, Senator Conrad, and Senator Nickles.
Last year we had a very interesting scene on this floor in which 75
Senators, working with Senator Collins, Senator Nelson from Nebraska,
and Senator Smith from Oregon and I, and others, passed a $20 billion
fiscal relief bill for the States. Half of that was devoted to
Medicaid. It became an extraordinarily important part of what States
did to be able to survive.
We are once again in a dire fiscal situation. States face the
prospect of having to cut benefits to kids, particularly poor kids,
needy families, and seniors in nursing homes, something which 75
Senators voted not to do last year. It passed the House. The President
signed it.
Forty-two States last year were in a budget deficit situation with
respect to Medicaid. It was and is their largest problem. Sluggish job
growth continues to add to that problem. Last month our economy gained
21,000 new jobs. There are 8 million people out of work, so that is
only one job for every 380 unemployed workers. The majority of
Americans get their health care through their job, particularly
manufacturing jobs, so employment is tremendously important.
Manufacturing has been going down, as the Presiding Officer knows.
Even more depressing, about 400,000 Americans have dropped out of the
workforce altogether, which to me is the saddest thing that can happen,
where people just kind of give up. The Presiding Officer and I have
seen that in our States and across America.
But instead of working to further ease the budgetary strain on
States, Congress has actually made life tougher for States fiscally.
The new Medicare law includes at least $1.2 billion in net costs to
States in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. We should be providing
States the resources they need to work with Medicare, not enacting
legislation that assumes cuts.
My amendment, which I will not offer formally, would allow Congress
to enact legislation simply to extend the enhanced Medicaid match we
passed last year beyond June 30 of this year. It is not a prescriptive
policy, but rather a placeholder that will allow us to help an awful
lot of people down the road.
Some in this body will argue we did this just to be temporary. The
economic situation has not stabilized. To the extent we can say the
problem is there and there is something we can do to help States, it
will make an enormous difference to lots of people. It is interesting
and sad that 30 States are projecting budget deficits for the fiscal
year coming up. Estimates indicate those deficits could total as much
as $41 billion. In eight States--and I won't name them--the budget
shortfalls are so large for Medicaid that they exceed 10 percent of the
entire budget of the State.

I put this concept, which I believe is tremendously important, before
the Senate. It simply allows fiscal relief beyond June 30. It allows an
extension of what we passed by an enormous amount last year. I hope my
colleagues will look upon it favorably.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Of course.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I might have the attention of the floor manager for a
minute, does he have 2 minutes for an inquiry available?
Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from West Virginia have any time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. I am delighted to yield the Senator 2 minutes off the
resolution.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, isn't it true that under this resolution
we are now considering, there will be no expansion of health care
coverage under the existing program; and if the proposal of the Senator
from West Virginia isn't accepted, then what we are going to see are
hundreds of thousands, even millions of the poorest of the children,
poorest of the elderly, frailest of our seniors, dropped from any kind
of health care coverage?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from Massachusetts is precisely correct.
The fact is there is not a nickel's increase from what it was we passed
so unanimously a year ago, not a nickel's increase.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator agree with me that one of the great
concerns across the country is there has been increasing numbers of the
uninsured, costs have gone up 43 percent? And now without the inclusion
of the proposal of the Senator from West Virginia, we are putting at
risk the poorest of the poor, poor children, frail, elderly people,
those in the nursing homes of this country. I commend the Senator from
West Virginia. This makes absolute sense and I think it is an absolute
necessity. I hope we will have the opportunity to make sure it is part
of the budget.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator and I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself time off of the resolution.
I want to say to my colleagues that we are rapidly approaching a
defining moment of this year's budget resolution. We have just a few
hours left, and we have requests for much more time than there is
available. I remind colleagues of the way this works. Even though I
have 4 hours remaining--how much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four hours three minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I have 4 hours 3 minutes. Senator Nickles has an hour and
30, something like that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator Nickles can yield back all of his time and that
means we functionally have 2 hours left on our side. That is the
reality.
No. 2, we have 50 amendments pending on our side. That is after we
started with 98. We have reduced it to 50. I have never done this
before, but I am going to do it this time. At some point in the very
near future, I am going to

[[Page S2624]]

start voting against amendments offered on either side that spend more
money. I don't think, in light of the massive deficits and debt that we
have, even if the amendments are paid for, we should be offering dozens
of amendments, other than those of extremely high priority.
We have had amendments thus far today that have been of an extremely
high priority. I don't believe it is in the interest of this country or
of this body to have dozens and dozens of amendments, even if they are
paid for, that add to the spending base, given the level of deficits
and debt that we have.
I have been approached by many members on our side who have asked me
to deliver this message. I do so at this time. We have lined up, in
addition to the amendment from Senator Harkin and Senator Feinstein,
one from Senator Byrd, an amendment from Senator Lieberman, an
amendment from Senator Lincoln, and there may be a few more I am not
yet aware of. But I hope that the message goes out loudly and clearly
that we are going to show restraint and dramatically reduce the number
of pending amendments.
Fifty amendments would take us 17 hours of voting. We still haven't
gotten to the point of beginning the voting. Please, colleagues, I ask
you to show some restraint. There is no need for us to come out here
and offer 50 amendments. This is the time. I hope the phone starts
ringing off the hook in the cloakroom from colleagues who say they have
8 amendments to offer and they call back and say, I will reduce that to
the one that is really a priority.
Please, let us not go through another vote-a-rama that takes 17
hours. Please let's not do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have not
seen the amendment and we cannot agree to any amendments going to the
desk that have not been presented to the ranking member and chairman,
those managing the bill. I am constrained to object until we see the
amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment from myself and
Senators Kyl, Bingaman, Hutchison, Kennedy, Cornyn, Boxer, Domenici,
Clinton, McCain, Schumer, Graham, Lautenberg, Cantwell, Corzine,
Feingold, and Edwards. It has to do with the State criminal assistance
program for illegal aliens. We have tried to get floor time and have
been unable to do so.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the advice of my colleagues, we have
an order here. We have to follow that order. Senators have to come to
the managers and present their amendments and get into the queue. The
next amendment we have committed to considering is one from Senator
Byrd, also, Senator Lincoln.
If Senator Lincoln is ready, we could go to her at this point. I ask
the Senator not to send her amendment to the desk, but to seek
recognition to present the amendment. Then we will go to Senator Byrd,
and then we go to Senator Lieberman. That is the order that we have. Is
Senator Lincoln ready to go?
Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Off the resolution, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator. I
ask her not to send the amendment to the desk.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object. Is the Senator saying
I have no right to introduce my amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. I am saying I am not going to give the Senator time to
introduce her amendment at this point. We have an order that has been
agreed to. We have made commitments to people as to when to present
amendments. We have not seen the Senator's amendment. Until we have
seen it and gotten it into the queue, other Senators who had
commitments made to them are the only ones that we will give time to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For the record, it is my understanding that the
amendment had been presented to your staff yesterday. We have sought
time. I recognize this amendment may not be one of your priorities. It
is a huge amendment for many States that have very high costs, and I
have presented it in the past. It has been unanimously adopted by this
body in the budget bill. I offered a separate amendment which was an
authorization for $850 million, which passed the Senate and is now in
the House. There is no number from the President in the budget. That is
why I am submitting it at this time.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I hope the point is clear. The Senator has
every right to offer her amendment. The Senator will have a chance to
offer her amendment. The point is this: We have an order. We have an
agreement. We are working through those amendments where Senators have
been put in the queue. I am not going to yield time to other Senators
who break the line. We have made commitments to Senators for an order
of recognition. I intend to keep those commitments.
Again, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas 10 minutes off the
resolution.

Amendment No. 2803

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I thank all of my
colleagues. This is such an important issue as we look at the budget in
the confines of the budget of this country, really in the context of
priorities. We have a lot of choices and we have a lot of priorities in
this country. Each of us as Americans, here in the Senate, our
constituents who depend on us tremendously to make sure that the
priorities of this country are recognized--each of us in our own homes
and families has to set priorities within the confines of our own
family budgets. We have to look at the year, the circumstances, and we
have to figure out what is important to us as a family, important to us
as part of a community, and what is important in terms of long range
goals that we have for ourselves, our families, our communities and, in
this instance, our Nation.
We also have to recognize that the priorities and choices that we
make regarding those priorities have consequences. They have immediate
consequences on our families, communities, and our country. They also
have long-term consequences on the things that we want to achieve as
individuals and collectively as a group. That is why I rise today to
offer an amendment to the budget resolution to provide $60 billion over
5 years to reduce the growing number of uninsured Americans and to
reduce the high cost of health care.

I do not know about the other Members of this body, but I do know,
almost to the individuals who come into my office, whether they
represent corporate America, whether they represent their families,
whether they represent the interest of their community and the small
businesses that make up that community, but to a person, almost every
one of them mentions the cost of health care in this country, its
escalation, and the concern it brings to them as an individual and to
their families, to their businesses, and to their communities.
What are we going to do about it? How much of a priority are we going
to make this issue in terms of the high cost of health care in this
country?
One of the most incredible contributors to this high cost of health
care is the number of Americans who are uninsured, those who are
unprepared for what may happen to them or to their family members. It
affects them, it affects their families, it affects their jobs, their
employers, their communities, their health care providers--it affects
absolutely everyone.
This amendment I offer today will dedicate funding to address this
critical issue and to do so in a way that is fiscally responsible.
Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us does not specify either
an amount to promote expanding health insurance coverage or a way to
pay for it, which leads me to believe it simply is not a priority, and
I am here today to make it one.
The fact is, the number of uninsured in our country is alarming and
should be a national priority. Based on the statements of HHS Secretary
Tommy Thompson last week, it is clear President Bush's administration
does not recognize the severity of this crisis. Secretary Thompson was
quoted as saying:

Even if you do not have health insurance in America, you
get taken care of. That could be defined as universal health
care.

[[Page S2625]]

With all due respect to Secretary Thompson, I do not know where he is
getting his information. Just look at these simple facts: 20 percent of
the working-age adults in Arkansas are uninsured. Nationwide an
estimated 44 million Americans do not have health insurance.
Uninsured families have less access to important screenings, state-
of-the-art technology, and prescription drugs.
Uninsured adults have a 25-percent greater mortality risk than adults
with health insurance coverage. An estimated 18,000 deaths among people
younger than 65 are attributed to lack of health insurance coverage
every single year.
Uninsured adults with chronic conditions, such as diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, HIV infection, and mental illness, have less
access to preventive care and have worse clinical outcomes than insured
patients.
Uninsured adults negatively affect our health care providers and the
local economy, too. A community's high rate of uninsured can adversely
affect the overall health status of the entire community, the financial
stability of its health care institutions and providers, and access to
emergency departments and trauma centers.
My hospitals in Arkansas will tell you how expensive uncompensated
care can be. These facts make it clear. People without health insurance
do not get taken care of, as Secretary Thompson said. Those who lack
health insurance do not get access to timely and appropriate health
care.

The fact is Americans without health insurance--children and adults--
suffer worse health and they die sooner than those who do have health
insurance.
The fact is people who lack health insurance are sicker and they die
sooner. You do not get taken care of if you have no health insurance.
You simply fend for yourself.
Working families need help with this problem. In Arkansas, the No. 1
cause of bankruptcy is high medical bills. If what we want to do is put
our economy back on track, let us work to provide small businesses and
industry the ability to access health insurance and health care for
their workers. We know that works.
Last week, I introduced legislation with Senator Durbin and Senator
Carper to help small businesses gain access to affordable health
insurance for their employees. Small businesses are the No. 1 source of
jobs in Arkansas. Small employers say offering health insurance has a
positive impact on recruitment and retention, employee moral, their
performance, and the overall success of their business, their ability
to succeed and to grow the jobs that will help make this economy
strong.
What better way to get our economy going again than to help small
businesses to succeed? More than half of the workers in firms under 100
people make less than $25,000. I ask my colleagues, How in the world
can someone afford health insurance in the open marketplace on an
income at that level? Firms with a high proportion of low-wage workers
are much less likely to offer insurance, and the fact health insurance
for individuals, low-income working families to afford it on their own
does not exist.
This budget resolution does not prioritize this growing problem. It
fails working families because it does not put any money aside.
In President Bush's budget, he suggested he wants to work with
Congress on an offset for this proposed plan. Guess what, Mr.
President. I have one. Let's eliminate the abusive tax loopholes
corporations have taken advantage of for years. How long do we have to
wait, anyway?
This amendment is about priorities. Are we going to choose to help
working families afford health insurance? Are we going to continue to
allow corporations to get away with these abuses? We have investigated
Enron's tax shelters activities, but we have done nothing. We have done
nothing in those circumstances.
We must make the growing number of uninsured in our country a
priority. It is clear working families are not getting the health care
they need. No one can argue with that point. I challenge any one of my
colleagues. If they are not hearing the same concerns in their offices,
I would be surprised.
There are a number of bipartisan proposals introduced in the Senate
to address the high number of uninsured. Let's come together and do
something good for the hard-working folks in this country who cannot
afford health insurance, those who cannot get access to the most basic
of preventive medicine. Congress needs to address this issue.
The high cost of health care in the United States is giving other
developed countries an advantage in keeping and attracting jobs. If we
want to talk about losing jobs, look at one of the highest costs to
industry and to small businesses. It is providing quality health care
and health insurance that is going to allow them to keep those workers
and provide them what they need to be good workers and good family
members.

For each car they build, DaimlerChrysler AG pays out $1,300 in
employee health care costs. When they make that car in Canada, they pay
hardly anything. They depend on a government program to provide that
health care. That is why the big three automakers actually lobbied the
Canadian Government to maintain their national health care system. If
we want to keep jobs in America, let's make it worth their while. Let's
make their quality of life comparable in those instances.
At a time when jobs are leaving our country, at a time when health
insurance premiums are rising by leaps and bounds and working families
are losing their jobs and what health insurance they may have, Congress
must do something.
I do not claim my amendment will address every health care need in
our Nation. Some want to do more, and some think we should do less. I
believe my amendment is a balanced, commonsense approach that will
advance this important cause in a meaningful way. I ask my colleagues
for their support.
We cannot assume people are getting the health care they need,
because they are not. All we have to do is listen to corporate America,
listen to small business, listen to our health care providers, most
importantly, listen to our constituents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, we cannot continue to turn a blind eye.
Let's get it done. I urge all Senators to vote for my amendment and
vote on behalf of quality health care for all Americans.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am a cosponsor on this amendment, and I ask for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I would be glad to yield 2 minutes off the resolution on
this amendment to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Might I ask the chairman if we could get a time agreement on this
amendment so we can get that amendment sent to the desk. We will try to
keep this queue as orderly as possible.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the Lincoln
amendment be limited to 20 minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I yield 2 minutes off the resolution
to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I congratulate and commend the
Senator from Arkansas. She is basically challenging the Senate, saying
that when we are considering a $2.4 trillion budget we ought to make a
commitment in this budget to a downpayment on health insurance for
working Americans. Eighty percent of those who do not have health
insurance are from working families. Working families play by the
rules, work hard, provide for their children, and they are effectively
without this coverage.
In the past, the Budget Committee has had a reserve fund that has
been funded on this. In the last budget, $50 billion came out of
conference for health insurance. It was $89 billion the year before,
but it is zero effectively in this budget.
The Senator from Arkansas is reminding us of our responsibility. The
problem has not gotten less; it has gotten worse, and she is
challenging this body to meet its responsibilities, to say to the 43
million Americans, including

[[Page S2626]]

the children who are out there, we are committed to making a
downpayment. We are not going to have all the answers but we insist, as
a matter of national priority, that we give focus and attention to the
uninsured. That is what the Lincoln amendment is all about.
Goodness knows, of the 43 million Americans, there is not a single
Member of the Senate who does not have health insurance. There is not a
single Member of the House of Representatives who does not have health
insurance. Let's meet our responsibility and begin to treat our fellow
Americans the way we treat ourselves.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending
amendment, and I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pryor,
Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment
numbered 2803.

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

(Purpose: To provide $60 billion over five years for greater health
security for working Americans and their families through a combination
of public and private efforts to expand quality, affordable health
insurance coverage and cut health care costs by eliminating abusive tax
loopholes)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 12, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 16, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 17, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 20, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 24, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 16, line 25, increase the amount by
$12,000,000,000.
On page 17, line 3, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.
On page 17, line 4, increase the amount by $12,000,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have great respect and esteem for my
neighbor from Arkansas, but this is an amendment that would increase
taxes by $60 billion. I think we want to send out a clarion call to
taxpayers: Look out. Our good friends on the Democrat side of the aisle
are after you. They are coming. They are coming after your pocketbooks.
We just considered an amendment from our colleague from Iowa for $39
billion. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, offered an amendment
for $24 billion, and there are a lot of other tax increases in a lot of
other amendments that I guess we will discuss. The $60 billion tax
increase that Senator Lincoln is offering proposes to close loopholes.
My colleague from Arkansas is on the Finance Committee. We mark up
tax bills all the time. The Senator should introduce her amendment to
close the loopholes. As soon as I found out about the leasing
provision, I started talking about we need to repeal it.
The chairman of the Finance Committee put that in the FSC/ETI bill.
We had that bill on the Senate floor, and it will be back in a week. We
can make that law. There are other loopholes that need to be closed,
many of which the chairman of the Finance Committee has in that bill,
supported by Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and many of us on the
committee, most of those in a very bipartisan way.
Now a lot of that is used to pay for the JOBS bill that Senator
Grassley and Senator Baucus are trying to pass. The idea of being able
to lower manufacturing rates, and so on, there are a lot of these
``loopholes.'' If my colleague has more loopholes, let's talk about
them.
I asked the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Snow, if he has some
ideas about some loopholes that need to be closed to give me a list. I
like to close loopholes. I do not like it when there are real
inequities and there are people cheating who are not paying their fair
share. There are a lot of unreported taxes, for example. So I am
willing to do it, but this amendment just basically increases taxes.
We can suggest closing loopholes but this raises taxes. In the first
year, it raises $12 billion in taxes. It just so happens in the first
year we are assuming continuation of present law and that will cost us
$12 billion. In other words, we continue present law for primarily low-
and middle-income people, and that will be $12 billion. So this will
totally offset that.
The net result, if these two amendments are put together, the budget
resolution and this amendment, it will say zero tax relief in 2005;
i.e., it will say a tax increase for every family in America, for every
couple in America, for everybody who has a child in America. That is
what this amendment is.
I want taxpayers to look out. There are a lot of people looking after
your checkbook and they are looking to get in your checkbook. Some of
us are not going to let that happen. I urge our colleagues to vote no
on the amendment at the appropriate time.
I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the Lincoln amendment and
now take up consideration of the amendment of Senator Byrd and that the
amendment have 40 minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 2804

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the
bill. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 2804.

Mr. BYRD. 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 responsible restraints on discretionary funding
while providing adequate resources for education, veterans, homeland
security, and other critical domestic priorities and fully offsetting
the cost by closing corporate tax loopholes, improving tax enforcement,
and reducing tax breaks for the top 1 percent without affecting middle-
class taxpayers)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $13,365,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $3,596,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $13,365,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $3,596,000,000.

[[Page S2627]]

On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $7,361,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $13,365,000,000.
On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $3,596,000,000.
On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $5,656,000,000.
On page 23, line 9, increase the amount by $7,361,000,000.
On page 23, line 10, increase the amount by
$13,365,000,000.
On page 23, line 14, increase the amount by $3,596,000,000.
On page 23, line 18, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
On page 23, line 22, increase the amount by $429,000,000.
On page 40, line 1, increase the amount by $7,361,000,000.
On page 40, line 2, increase the amount by $13,365,000,000.
At the end of Title III, insert the following:

SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR EDUCATION, VETERANS' MEDICAL CARE,
GLOBAL HIV/AIDS, AMTRAK, HIGHWAYS, MASS
TRANSIT, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, FIRST
RESPONDER GRANTS AND OTHER DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAMS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations
to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels
and limits in this resolution by up to $11,223,000,000 in
budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of
outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years for a
bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference
report that provides additional fiscal year 2005
discretionary appropriations, in excess of levels provided in
fiscal year 2004, for Department of Education programs in the
No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110), Veterans' medical
care programs, the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative, Amtrak,
Federal-Aid Highways, Mass Transit Capital Investment Grants,
the National Institutes of Health, and first responders
(including High-Threat/High-Density Urban Area Grants, State
Basic Formula Grants, Firefighter Assistance Grants, COPS,
and State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance) and other
Department of Homeland Security programs.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has an obligation to approve a
budget resolution that addresses the massive deficits and debt that now
lie before us. Such a balanced resolution should rely on responsible
restraint, on all three elements of the budget: revenues, mandatory
spending, and discretionary spending.
The Senate has an obligation to approve a budget resolution that will
permit the Congress to enact 13 fiscally responsible appropriations
bills. This budget resolution utterly fails to meet those tests.
Instead, the resolution puts the Congress on a course toward long-term
deficits, higher debt, and an appropriations process that will
inevitably produce gimmicks and delays.
The budget resolution puts us on a course that will prevent us from
meeting the needs of the Nation. Rather than confront record deficits
with responsible limits on mandatory and discretionary spending and
reassessment of the revenue losses produced by the tax cut legislation
of 2001 and 2003, the Budget Committee produced a myopic budget
resolution that pretends to address the deficits with ridiculously low
limits on domestic discretionary spending.
It is not the spending side of the budget that has put the Federal
budget back into the deficit ditch. Rather than restoring some sanity
to our revenue base, the budget resolution that is before us includes
$144 billion in new tax cuts. According to the House Budget Committee,
the tax cuts enacted since 2001 have or will increase our deficits by
$2.6 trillion for the period from 2001 to 2013.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, taxes in 2004 are,
as a percentage of gross domestic product, the lowest they have been
since 1950. Every year, the IRS fails to collect hundreds of billions
of dollars from delinquent taxpayers and corporations. In 2001, IRS
data showed $49 billion in lost revenues from delinquent employment
taxes, penalties, and interest owed to the Federal Government. The
Joint Tax Committee estimates that the cost of tax preferences
increased by twice the rate of spending during the last 10 years, from
$488 billion a year to $730 billion a year, and none of it--none--is
required to be reviewed annually by the Congress.
Yet there is nothing in the budget resolution to increase tax
enforcement or to close tax loopholes. Instead, this budget resolution
heaps more tax cuts on top of the huge back-loaded tax cuts already
enacted. This budget resolution pretends to reduce deficits by focusing
cuts on one very small piece of the budget pie, domestic discretionary
spending. Unlike the Tax Code or mandatory programs, discretionary
spending is the only piece of the Federal budget required to be
reviewed every year by the Congress, and it is the only part of the
budget that is squeezed routinely for savings, even though there is an
abundance of potential savings from excesses in the other areas of the
budget.
Here are the facts. Domestic discretionary spending comprises less
than 17 percent of the Federal budget. No one should believe cutting
domestic discretionary spending by itself can produce balanced budgets.
I remind Senators that according to the White House's own budget
documents, if we were to eliminate every penny of nondefense spending
in fiscal year 2004, we would still run a deficit of $65 billion.
The mathematics in this resolution just do not work. The budget
resolution cuts discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2005 by
$1.9 billion and outlays by $12.1 billion below the request of the
President. For nondefense, non-homeland security programs, the
resolution cuts budget authority for fiscal year 2005 by $11.2 billion
below the level necessary to keep pace with inflation. Outlays for
nondefense programs face even deeper, unsustainable cuts; that is,
$11.2 billion in cuts in education, health care, veterans medical care,
job training, transportation, and other critical priorities. Such cuts
do not have the support of the American people or their Representatives
in Congress.
Just 2 weeks ago, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee called upon
the House Budget Committee to increase veterans spending by $2.4
billion. Recently, the Senate passed a bill increasing funding above
the President's request for highway and mass transit programs. The
Senate Finance Committee has requested more funds for tax enforcement.
The Senate Small Business Committee called for increases in small
business loans. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee called for
increases for the Coast Guard. None of these increases are included in
this resolution. Yet we engage in this charade, framed by the Bush
administration, about how discretionary spending is bloated and how
funding cuts are the absolute one and only way to reduce the deficit.
Under the President's budget, by 2009, education and training
programs will be cut 7 percent below levels necessary to keep pace with
inflation. Environmental programs will be cut by 20 percent, law
enforcement programs by 16 percent, veterans medical care by 17
percent. The President tells us that we are in the midst of an energy
crisis, but his budget cuts energy programs by 27 percent in 2009.

Remember No Child Left Behind? In 2009, the title I program will be
cut by $260 million below levels approved for 2004, adjusted for
inflation. Overall, domestic programs would be cut by 12 percent in
2009.
Does this budget resolution restore those cuts? No. No. No. Instead,
this budget makes it next to impossible for the Federal Government to
meet its obligations to children, to seniors, and to veterans. It digs
a deep hole for funding education; a deep hole for funding health care;
a deep hole for funding environmental programs, such as clean and safe
drinking water. This budget puts the President's political priorities

[[Page S2628]]

first and it puts the American people last. This budget resolution will
force cuts to domestic discretionary programs by almost $1 billion
below the President's totally inadequate request for fiscal year 2005.
It is a slash-and-burn program. Ignore the consequences. We must cut,
cut, cut.
The resolution is $11.2 billion below the amount necessary to keep
pace with inflation. During the next 5 years, the budget resolution
cuts domestic programs such as veterans, education, and transportation
by $107 billion below the amount necessary to keep pace with inflation.
What is going on here?
This Nation is suffering from neglect--neglect. Our schools are
breaking apart; our health care system is in disarray; Social Security
and Medicare face bankruptcy; America's veterans have to wait for weeks
upon weeks for basic medical care; our homeland security network is
riddled with massive gaps. Even though terrorists struck our Nation
2\1/2\ years ago, this very day protections at home are little improved
from that fateful day.
Why? Why do we face such major crises in so many critical areas? The
answer is simple. The Bush White House and this Congress have failed to
live up to the promises made to the American people.
Today, the President is scheduled to participate in the
groundbreaking for the 9/11 memorial in New York City. It was 2\1/2\
years ago today that those planes struck the two towers, the Pentagon,
and the field in Pennsylvania. But are we safer? Hardly. The security
of this Nation is on thin ice. The Bush administration has held back
support for critical investments in homeland security, in police
officers, in firefighters, in border, airport and seaport security. As
a result of this White House's foot dragging, America is woefully
unprepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack.
Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics throughout this country
have sent a clear message to this Capitol; namely, they need more
Federal help to best do their job. Law enforcement grants are proposed
to be cut by $1 billion.
The President, in his budget, puts first responders last in line for
Federal funding. The President's budget proposes to cut grants that
equip and train police, fire, and emergency medical services personnel
by $733 million. Fire grants alone are to be reduced by 33 percent.

These cuts come despite continued warnings--from think tanks, from
commissions, and from first responders themselves--that our Nation is
not adequately prepared to respond to another act of terrorism.
Congress has a responsibility to protect the Nation. It must focus on
the country's many serious vulnerabilities and invest dollars where
they are most needed. But it seems as though the only time this
Congress is willing to increase funding is for our defense forces
overseas. Defenses here at home are left to scramble and scrape.
My amendment would increase the levels of the 2-year caps on
discretionary spending contained in the resolution to sustainable
levels. These levels would allow Congress to responsibly move forward
on the appropriations process.
This amendment provides sufficient resources, including $11.2 billion
in fiscal year 2005 and $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2006 to make sure
that the level of activity for domestic programs that the Congress
approved and the President signed into law for 2004, can be maintained
in 2005 and 2006, after adjusting for inflation.
We will hear during the debate that spending is out of control. It
really is not. We have seen an increase in the 3 years since President
Bush took office, but what programs have received those increases? The
increases have been for defense, homeland security, and the response to
the September 11 attack. In fact, 91 percent of the spending increases
since 2001 have been in those three categories. According to staff
analysis, increases for domestic programs, excluding homeland security,
have barely kept pace with inflation over the last 2 years.
If you think the Congress should restore the President's proposed
cuts of $1 billion in State and local law enforcement grants, you
should be for this amendment. If you voted for the Senate highway bill,
you should be for this amendment. If you think that veterans should not
have to pay special charges and membership fees for health care, if you
think that veterans already paid their dues at Iwo Jima, Pork Chop
Hill, and the Mekong Delta, then you should be for this amendment.
Anyone who wants to characterize this amendment as excessive spending
is not paying attention to the needs of their constituents. Nor are
they paying attention to the bottom line. This amendment would reduce
the deficits below the levels assumed in the budget resolution. The
amendment assumes additional revenues from the elimination of waste in
tax expenditures, through increased tax enforcement and compliance, and
through the partial repeal of the excessive tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans enacted in recent years.
This Senate must not continue to tell the American people that we are
enacting legislation to better educate our children and to provide
adequate care for military veterans--- those men and women who are
enduring service in the powder keg called Iraq and will need care--
because we are not providing the money. We do not pay for our promises
and that is nothing short of flim-flam and fraud pulled on the American
people. To starve basic domestic needs and feed the country only feel-
good rhetoric is the worst kind of posturing. Let us stop misleading
the taxpayer and deliver what we promise.
This amendment is balanced. It is fair. It is responsible. We should
not ignore the needs of our constituents. I urge the adoption of my
amendment.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to again send a message out to our
colleagues just as strongly and as clearly as I can. We are very close,
I believe, to having presented our major amendments. I believe very
strongly that this year less is more. I hope colleagues will refrain
from offering additional amendments unless they are just
extraordinarily important and they are able to convince the managers
and the leadership they simply must be offered.
We are now on the fourth day of deliberations on the budget
resolution. We have had an opportunity to debate this in a full and
virtually complete way. We are on the brink of having been able to
complete the offering of all our major priority amendments.
I am asking my colleagues, please refrain from offering additional
amendments. I hope very much we will have a meeting on our side to
discuss how we proceed from this point.
I thank all of our colleagues who have debated. I thank all of our
colleagues who have offered these key amendments. I want to especially
thank Senator Byrd for his courtesy and his willingness to accept the
limitation on time.
The next Member in our order is Senator Lieberman.
I see the chairman has returned.
Again, I am asking all of our colleagues who have pending amendments
on our side, please review them with a fine-tooth comb. Unless they are
absolutely essential, I ask you, I urge you not to offer the amendment.
And for the first time I have ever done this on a budget resolution, I
am very close to the point where I will begin opposing amendments
because I feel so strongly we should not offer substantially more
amendments than we already have. I am very close to the point of taking
the position that I will oppose amendments. We have had a good
opportunity to debate. We have had a good opportunity to consider major
amendments. We can have some additional high priority amendments. But
50 additional amendments, no. That is not reasonable. It is not fair to
our colleagues. Please, let us show some restraint.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to echo everything my colleague
from North Dakota said.
I know I have complained to Senator Byrd in the past about
deliberations on the budget process. I said I dislike vote-aramas. In
the past, management of budget bills has many times stacked the votes.
Well, there won't be any votes and people would have long debates, and,
therefore, not really consider very many amendments until late

[[Page S2629]]

Thursday night. We haven't done that, frankly in large part because of
my relationship and respect for Senator Conrad. We said we wanted to
avoid the vote-arama. Last year was probably the worst vote-arama in
Senate history. To me, it is very demeaning to the Senate. We cast 51
rollcall votes, most of which were jammed together, most of which had 1
minute of debate each, and no one knew what they were voting on. It was
not a pretty picture. It wasn't good for the Senate. I want to do what
is right for the Senate. I have heard Senator Byrd say that. I happen
to agree with him.
I appreciate his amendment. I don't support his amendment, but I
appreciate it. It is a substantive amendment. As Senator Conrad said,
we are willing to take substantive amendments and debate them and
discuss them and give Members ample time to consider them. But we do
not need to have repetitive amendments. We do not need to have endless
amendments. We do not need to have sense of the Senates. And we do not
need to have people staying here until 1 o'clock in the morning voting,
where they are like zombies and don't really recognize what they are
voting on.

I want to make a couple comments on the amendment before the Senate
right now, the amendment by my colleague and friend, Senator Byrd. This
amendment would increase taxes by $24.5 billion. It increases spending
by about $18 billion. I urge our colleagues to defeat it.
We have had a lot of amendments that will increase taxes and increase
spending. We are going to be voting on that several times--maybe even
more times. I hope we don't continue voting on it. I think people are
making their points. I understand a lot of people want to tax more and
spend more. That is understood. I do not know how many times we would
have to vote on it.
The tax assumption we have in the bill before us for 2005 is $12.3
billion in tax reduction. But in reality we are assuming present law
will be extended. If you extend present law--no tax cut, but basically
extend present law--that costs us about $12.3 billion.
This bill increases taxes by about $11.2 billion. In other words, you
could not extend present law. It nets out. It would tell the Finance
Committee, don't do it. The net result would be a lot of families in
Oklahoma and in other places around the country--if they have four
kids, it would be a tax increase of $2,200, if they have taxable income
of $58,000. These are not necessarily wealthy individuals.
I know the top line of this says: We want to reduce tax breaks for
the upper 1 percent. I urge colleagues, if you know of some tax breaks
that need to be closed, Chairman Grassley is going to have a bill on
the floor when we return from this recess week after next. Offer those
amendments to close the tax breaks, and if they are legitimate, I may
well support you. That is the time to do it. But I think a lot of these
so-called closing tax breaks are not there or Senator Grassley and
Senator Baucus already have them in their bill or they are planning on
putting them in the bill. I am all for closing them. And I could
mention other provisions. I am for closing them. But let's do it on the
tax bill.
This is basically saying, let's have a tax increase of $24 billion
and increasing spending by $18 billion.
I urge our colleagues to vote against the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, the chairman,
Senator Bingaman is in the Chamber. He would be willing to take 5
minutes to describe an amendment, and I am wondering if we could give
him that time. My intention would be to give him 5 minutes off the
resolution.
I would ask him, because we have just given the amendment to the
other side, not to send his amendment to the desk at this moment but to
describe it. I would give him 5 minutes off the resolution. If the
Senator needs more time, I would add time. We need unanimous consent to
allow him to speak on his amendment without sending it to the desk and
set aside Senator Byrd's amendment for the moment.
I ask the Senator, would that be acceptable?
Mr. BYRD. When may I briefly respond to Mr. Nickles?
Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator prefer to do that at this moment?
Mr. BYRD. Just briefly, if I may.
Mr. CONRAD. An entirely reasonable request.
Thank you, I say to Senator Byrd.
Mr. BYRD. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may resume and take a bit more of my
time.
It is not spending that has put us back into the deficit ditch.
Spending for 2005 is estimated to be about 20 percent of the gross
domestic product. That is significantly less than during the Reagan
administration or during the administration of President Bush's father.
On the other hand, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product
are the lowest since 1950.
This amendment produces just enough spending to cover the levels
approved by this Congress and signed by the President for fiscal year
2004, adjusted for inflation. This is a disciplined amendment that sets
reasonable limits. This amendment is not about increasing taxes.
In July 2003, at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on waste,
fraud, and improved uses for taxpayer funds, GAO Comptroller David
Walker testified that tax compliance and collection activity declines
are a ``high risk'' concern for the GAO.
As of September 2001, IRS data showed that employers owed $49 billion
in delinquent taxes. IRS and Federal payment records indicate that 1
million taxpayers owed about $26 billion in delinquent taxes as of
February 2002 and were still receiving some type of Federal payment.
Our own budget chairman, at a hearing this year with Treasury
Secretary Snow, expressed his concerns about tax compliance and its
effect on the revenue side of the budget.
The Senate should at least make some effort to ensure we are
enforcing our current tax laws and that delinquent taxpayers are paying
their fair share before we cut education, health care, and veterans
programs for citizens who actually pay their taxes.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I now yield to Senator Lautenberg for the
purpose of sending forward his amendment that we earlier discussed I
will give him a minute off the resolution to send his amendment to the
desk, and then go to Senator Bingaman for 5 minutes to discuss his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
pending amendment is laid aside.

Amendment No. 2703

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call my amendment up, which was
debated earlier. It is amendment No. 2703.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Feingold, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered
2703.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 reduce debt and require the industries respondible for
producing products that contaminate toxic waste sites and industries
who are exempt from liability for such contamination, to help pay for
the cleanup by reinstating the Superfund polluter pays fees, and to
reduce the deficit)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $1,501,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,629,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,696,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,735,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,754,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $1,501,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $1,629,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,696,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $1,735,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $1,754,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,501,000,000.

[[Page S2630]]

On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,629,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,696,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,735,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $1,754,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,501,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $3,130,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $4,826,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $6,561,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $8,315,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,501,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,130,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $4,826,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $6,561,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $8,315,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, decrease the amount by $1,501,000,000.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be sequenced following the Dorgan amendment No. 2793, and
that there be 2 minutes remaining for debate at that time with respect
to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I reserved time for the Senator from
Oklahoma to speak on the amendment. He has not done that, so I will
continue to reserve 7 minutes for my colleague from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 2765

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Conrad,
for yielding me some time to describe an amendment I intend to offer
and would like to have the Senate consider and vote on.
This is an amendment which can be best summarized by reading it. It
is only a sentence long. And it says:

It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider a bill,
amendment, motion, joint resolution, or conference report
that increases the number of taxpayers affected by the
alternative minimum tax, except for a measure that extends
expiring provisions relating to the child tax credit, the 10-
percent tax bracket, and the marriage penalty.

Mr. President, this is what I would call a first-things-first
amendment. I heard the President, in his State of the Union speech--and
we have all heard him on numerous occasions--talk about how we need to
make permanent the tax cuts.
We had a hearing in the Finance Committee where Secretary Snow, our
Secretary of the Treasury, came in and said: We need to make permanent
our tax cuts. And my question to him was: What about this looming
problem that we all know about, which is called the alternative minimum
tax?
Now, the alternative minimum tax was put in place with the idea that
very wealthy individuals should not be able to avoid all taxes. If they
calculate their taxes and they figure out some way to determine they do
not owe anything, then they have to also calculate on the basis of the
alternative minimum tax and at least pay that amount.
That was the idea behind it. Unfortunately, with the changes we made
in the tax law and with the changes in the economy and the tax
structure, we are now to a circumstance where we are beginning to see
more and more people affected by the alternative minimum tax. If we
were to do what the President has urged--that is, make all these tax
cuts permanent--then the number of people who are adversely affected by
having to calculate their tax pursuant to the alternative minimum tax
would go up very dramatically. Instead of it affecting a couple million
people, we are talking about it affecting 30 million people by the year
2012.
My amendment says, let's do first things first. Let's figure out how
to resolve this problem of the alternative minimum tax, and let's not
be bringing bills to the floor and passing legislation unless we have
60 votes in the Senate in favor of it. Let's not be passing legislation
to worsen the situation and to require more and more Americans to fall
under these provisions of the alternative minimum tax. To me, it is a
straightforward, commonsense thing to do.
I asked Secretary Snow in this same hearing: How much is it going to
cost to fix the problem?
His answer was: We don't know. We are working on that.
I said: When are you going to know?
Well, we are going to know maybe a year from now.
That is not an acceptable answer for the Senate or for the Congress
or for the American people. We should not be making permanent tax cuts
and further cutting taxes unless we know the extent of the revenue loss
that is involved in fixing this alternative minimum tax problem.
All this does is set up a point of order. It says, if you are going
to bring a bill to the floor that adds more Americans to this roster of
people who have to calculate and pay their tax pursuant to the
alternative minimum tax, then you have to get 60 Senators to agree to
pass that bill or else it does not pass.
It is a very constructive proposal. It is one that would strengthen
this budget resolution substantially. I hope all Members will support
the amendment when the time comes for me to offer it.
I am advised by my colleague, Senator Conrad, this is not the
appropriate time. Therefore, I will not send the amendment to the desk.
Again, I appreciate the chance to explain the amendment so my
colleagues will know what is involved. As I say, I hope we can get a
very strong bipartisan vote in favor of the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Might I advise the Senator, we have now had a chance to
show the amendment to the other side. If the Senator would like at this
moment to send his amendment to the desk, that would be appropriate.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if our colleague would decide not to send
his amendment to the desk, I would be much more favorably inclined to
discuss it.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is the kind of good government
amendment that I was counting on my colleague from Oklahoma supporting.
I am sure the more he studies it, the more merit he will see in the
amendment. I will be glad to send it to the desk at this point, if now
is the correct time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. To further inform my colleague, I believe a budget point
of order lies against the amendment. I don't know that will change his
desire about whether to send it to the desk, but I am fairly certain
that a budget point of order does lie against it. I would urge you to
consider maybe keeping it at a good verbal discussion but not sending
it to the desk. But you certainly have that right to do so.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to my colleague from
Oklahoma, I would certainly want to send it to the desk and have the
opportunity to call it up for a vote at the appropriate time, if that
is appropriate at this time. I do send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 2765.

Mr. CONRAD. 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 ensure that legislation is not enacted that increases the
number of taxpayers affected by the alternative minimum tax)

On page 45, after line 13, insert the following:

SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER REQUIRING THAT INCREASES THE NUMBER
OF TAXPAYERS AFFECTED BY THE ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX AGAINST LEGISLATION.

(a) Point of Order in the Senate.--It shall not be in order
in the Senate to consider a bill, amendment, motion, joint
resolution, or conference report that increases the number of
taxpayers affected by the alternative minimum tax, except for
a measure that extends expiring provisions relating to the
child audit, the 10 percent tax bracket, and the marriage
penalty.

[[Page S2631]]

(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is next in
our queue. I am wondering if we might enter into a time agreement on
the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. I would suggest 20
minutes equally divided. We provided that amendment to the other side.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I haven't consulted with Senator Cochran.
That is the reason I am caught a little bit off guard. I have no
objection to limiting the debate to 20 minutes. I will be happy to
limit the debate time on Senator Lieberman's amendment to 20 minutes. I
may withhold some of our time for Senator Cochran to come in and debate
it at a later moment.
I ask unanimous consent that we have 20 minutes equally divided on
the Lieberman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 2807

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself,
Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Biden, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kohl, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment
numbered 2807.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 restore cuts and increase funding for homeland security
programs and reduce the debt by reducing the President's tax breaks for
taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million a year)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $4,533,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $4,089,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,160,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $4,533,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $4,089,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $1,160,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $4,533,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $4,089,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,160,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $8,197,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $12,286,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $13,446,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $13,621,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $3,664,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $8,197,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $12,286,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $13,446,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $13,621,000,000.

SEC.  . RESERVE FUND FOR HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAMS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations
to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels
and limits in this resolution by up to $6,800,000,000 in
budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of
outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a
bill, amendment, motion, or conference report that provides
additional fiscal year 2005 discretionary appropriations, in
excess of the levels provided in this resolution for first
responder grant programs, border security programs, port
security grants, the Operation Safe Commerce program, the
Coast Guard Deepwater program, and transportation security
programs at the Department of Homeland Security; the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, the
Edward Byrne grant program, and the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant program at the Department of Justice; and
bioterror--related programs at the Department of Health and
Human Services.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, last week we observed the first
anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security, the largest
reorganization of the Federal Government in almost a half century. With
that anniversary came a round of reflection on the status of our
homeland defenses. There was general agreement on the verdict. Yes, we
are stronger and safer at home, thanks to the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security and other steps that we have taken
since September 11, 2001. But no, we are not nearly as safe as we
should be. We are not as safe as we should be because this
administration has not given homeland security the focused leadership
and resources that it demands.
The Gilmore commission, led by former Virginia Governor James
Gilmore, a distinguished Republican leader, recently warned of
complacency about the terrorist threat and decried the lack of a clear
strategy to bring about improved security. Other expert panels, one of
them convened and led by former colleagues Warren Rudman and Gary Hart,
called the Nation ``still unprepared'' to respond to another September
11 attack and said that our first responders were ``drastically
underfunded.''
Homeland security will not come cheap. On first responders alone, one
of the expert panels I described told us they believe it would take $98
billion over 5 years to bring our defenses at home up to where they
need to be. Yet the administration proposes a stunning 30-percent cut
in resources for firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical
personnel.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2005 fails to acknowledge,
much less address adequately, the new threats we face as a nation,
shortchanging the homeland side of our war on terrorism.
That is why I rise today to offer this amendment that would add $6.8
billion to the administration's homeland security budget.
Let me describe where the money would go: $4.4 billion of that amount
would go toward helping our first responders, the firefighters, the
police officers, the emergency medical personnel, the hundreds of
thousands of people who every day go to work, put on a uniform to serve
not only as first responders but really, if we use them well, as first
preventers of terrorist attacks. I also propose $900 million in
additional resources for port and container security, widely
acknowledged as a continuing vulnerability to terrorists who will
strike always where we are undefended, and our ports and containers are
too greatly undefended.
I am calling here for $500 million to better prepare for the threat
of bioterrorism, which recent intelligence reports say continues to be
a focus of the terrorist groups around the world. I am asking for $500
million for additional border personnel as well as for needed equipment
and technology for border security, so we will not see a repeat of the
terrorists who came into America to carry out the evil deeds of
September 11, 2001.
I am asking for $\1/2\ billion to make further advances on aviation
security and for greater protection of other modes of transportation--
rail, bus, mass transit--that remain too unprotected. About $2.5
billion of this amendment is needed just to restore cuts that the
administration's budget makes in some of these homeland security
functions from fiscal year 2004 spending.
For example, in this amendment we restore the administration's $1
billion cut to the State homeland security grant program, the main
source of assistance to State and local governments and first
responders, an unacceptable cut. The amendment also would restore more
than $1 billion in cuts to proven first responder programs in the
Justice Department: the local law enforcement block grant, the Edward
Byrne Memorial grant program, and the Community Oriented Policing
Services Program, widely and appreciatively known as COPS.

[[Page S2632]]

If someone asked whether we have been safer since September 11 from
another attack, I just say: Thank God, we have been safe. But this is
not an overreaction.
Mr. Tenet testified before the Armed Services Committee the other day
and he said that al-Qaida and more than two dozen other terrorist
groups around the world are still in eager pursuit of chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Their No. 1 goal--not
their only goal--is to carry out another ``spectacular attack'' on the
United States. Those are the terms they use, ``spectacular attack,''
which they are convinced will break our will and certainly disrupt our
economy.
We cannot let that happen. We must defend our homeland and protect
our infrastructure and our people where we are vulnerable, through the
Department of Homeland Security, with the kinds of funds that are
authorized and appropriated in this amendment.
We have a long way to go before we fulfill the promise each of us has
made that our Federal Government would adequately secure the American
people when they are at home. We have to approach this profound
responsibility with the same unity, the same resolve, and the same
resources we have brought to the war on terror overseas. That is why I
have introduced this amendment and asked for my colleagues' support.
Allow me to lay out, more specifically, what this amendment would do
and why it is so necessary.
I am advocating $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2005--above the
President's request to help ensure that first responders have the
equipment, training, and other resources they need to prevent, prepare
for and if necessary respond to acts of terrorism.
We all remember the heroic role police, firefighters and other first
responders played on 9/11, as our Nation responded to the horrific
attacks of that day and braced for untold sequels that might be soon to
follow. Less visible is the role many of these officials also play in
attempting to prevent acts of terrorism here at home: State and local
police are the eyes and ears of the community that may first detect a
terrorist plot on U.S. soil or intercept a terrorist before he or she
can strike. We owe these front line homeland security troops more than
our admiration we owe them our full financial support.
Yet a distinguished panel convened by the Council on Foreign
Relations found these first responders wanting for the tools they must
have to confront a terrorist attack: firefighters without their own
radios or breathing equipment; police departments without protective
gear to respond to an attack with a chemical, biological or
radiological agent; and nearly all without interoperable communications
equipment. This is unacceptable and must be changed.
Let's start with the work that must be done just to undo the harmful
cuts sought by the administration. First, my proposal will restore the
administration's drastic $1 billion cut to the State Homeland Security
Grant Program, which is the main source of assistance to state and
local governments and first responders for emergency planning,
equipment, training, exercises, mutual aid agreements, and other
preparedness activities. There is bipartisan support for restoring
these cuts, reflecting the reality that all states face certain
homeland funding needs and need a steady, predictable source of money--
as this program provides--to plan wisely.
My amendment will also restore more than $1 billion in cuts to key
first responder programs in the Justice Department: the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG), the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant
Program (BYRNE), and the Community Oriented Policing Services Program
(COPs). These programs provide vital aid to help communities hire more
police officers and equip them with the tools they need. Funding levels
for these three programs have declined more than $1.8 billion since
fiscal year 2002, representing a dangerous and unwise reduction at a
time when the threat from terrorism, but also domestic crime, has
clearly increased.
The amendment would also provide $400 million to restore a 33 percent
cut in the vital Fire Act program, which provides direct support to
thousands of fire departments around the country, and to bring it to
full funding. And it restores a $9 million cut to the Emergency
Management Planning Grants program, which supports the capacity of
state and local governments to respond to emergencies of all kinds.
All of these programs are integral to the strength of our first
responders and it is incomprehensible that we would cut them at a time
the terrorist threat remains high. But we must do more than just hold
the line we need to dramatically improve our homeland defenses in our
communities.
My proposal would provide $1 billion in new funding to be dedicated
to helping first responders obtain interoperable communications
equipment so they can ``talk to one another'' when responding to
events. The lack of communications interoperability has received
substantial attention since the September 11, 2001 attacks revealed
major problems with communication between police and fire fighters at
the World Trade Center in New York. But the problem is hardly unique to
New York. Federal officials involved with this issue report that at
best--only 14 States have communications equipment that allows public
safety agencies to talk to each other during a terrorist attack or
other emergency. The price tag for fixing the problem nationwide has
been estimated as high as $18 billion, and the lead Federal official on
this issue has stated that, at the present rate, it will take 20 years
to achieve full interoperability in our country. This is much too long.
Yet, the President's 2005 budget actually takes a step backwards by
eliminating relatively small grant programs at FEMA that were dedicated
to interoperability. Instead, funding for interoperability must now
compete with funds for protective gear, training, exercises, and other
equipment. My proposal would dedicate $1 billion specifically for
interoperability to provide a significant lift to States' efforts to
overcome a critical obstacle facing emergency responders across
America. In addition to equipment, this would include funding necessary
for planning, evaluation, deployment, and training on the use of modern
interoperable communications.
Another $1 billion in this amendment would go to fully fund the SAFER
Act, staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, that is
necessary to hire 10,000 additional fire fighters. According to the
International Association of Fire Fighters, the shortage of fire
fighters has reached crisis proportions. Two-thirds of all fire
departments do not have adequate staffing, falling below the accepted
industry standards developed by the National Fire Protection
Association and, more to the point, putting those firefighters who are
on the job in danger. The SAFER Act, which Congress finally passed last
year due to the outstanding leadership of my colleague Senator Dodd,
authorizes $7.6 billion in grants over 7 years to career, volunteer,
and combination fire departments hire new firefighters. At a time when
budget cuts have forced some local jurisdictions to actually reduce the
number of first responders, this funding is necessary to help protect
firefighters and to provide the emergency response capabilities
communities want and expect.

Virtually every expert analysis of terrorist threats to the United
States focuses on the critical issue of port security. Small wonder--
millions of containers arrive at U.S. ports each year, coming from all
parts of the globe and subject to only limited, if any, inspection. The
ports are at once a tempting portal into the U.S. for dangerous cargo,
and a vital economic conduit that--if shuttered due to a terrorist
assault--could cause devastating disruption of the Nation's economic
life's blood. Earlier this year, the FBI testified that terrorist
organizations are looking ``for any holes in the port security system
to exploit.'' Yet in the face of such risk, the administration proposes
to cut spending on port security grants and eliminate Operation Safe
Commerce, an innovative program to improve the security of container
traffic into this country. In addition, the President's budget puts
Coast Guard fleet and equipment modernization on a slow boat--at the
administration's pace, the Deepwater modernization program will take 22
years. A 22-year modernization is practically an oxymoron.
My amendment would provide $900 million in additional resources for
port

[[Page S2633]]

and container security. About half of that would go to restore
Operation Safe Commerce and to improve physical security at our ports.
Bring port security grants--at only a suggested $46 million in the
President's budget--to $500 million. The Coast Guard has estimated it
will cost $7.5 billion--and $1.5 billion this year--just to provide all
ports with minimum security measures and implement the Maritime
Transportation Security Act. The grants help finance measures such as
fencing and surveillance to better secure the ports and--with them--our
vital trade links. Operations Safe Commerce has explored new
technologies to track container traffic and can provide a valuable
think tank for new approaches to secure their travel into our country.
The rest of the money would go to accelerating the Deepwater program,
a 22-year Coast Guard fleet modernization program. Since 9/11, we have
turned to the Coast Guard again and again for a growing roster of
homeland security needs--even as we expect them to continue their
outstanding work on non-defense missions such as fisheries enforcement
and search and rescue. Yet this outstanding agency operates with
virtually the oldest naval fleet in the world--39th out of 41. Senators
from both parties--and even the Heritage Foundation--have called for
more money for Deepwater. Not only is it the right thing to do, it will
actually save money in the long run since the longer Deepwater takes to
complete, the more the Coast Guard must spend on maintenance of the
decaying fleet.
More than 2 years after the anthrax attacks demonstrated our
country's vulnerability to bioterrorism, our efforts to protect the
American people against biological attacks remains disorganized and
underfunded. Indeed, a recent report by the Trust for Public Health
concluded that communities are ``only modestly better prepared'' to
respond to a bioterror attack than they were before 9/11. Yet here
again, the administration actually wants to cut spending--contradicting
the opinion of even its own official responsible for bioterror
preparedness.
The President's budget cuts $105 million from Centers for Disease
Control grants to help public health agencies prepare for bioterrorism,
and another $39 million from a program to help hospitals expand their
capacity to treat victims of a bioterror attack. Where bioterror is
concerned, these health officials are our first responders and we must
give them support commensurate to the threat. It is true that The
President would provide some new money for surveillance to detect a
bioterror attack, but this will be of limited use if we have no
resources to respond to an attack once we detect it. One public health
official likened it to ``laying off firefighters while investing in new
hoses and ladders.''
Therefore, my amendment would add $500 million for bioterror
preparedness, to restore those cuts and significantly expand the
hospital grant program. The health community has identified more than
$11 billion in additional needed medical supplies, protective gear for
staff and other essentials to respond to a bioterror attack. At the
current pace, it would take more than 20 years before hospitals could
provide even basic care in the event of such an attack. We must speed
up this effort, and my amendment would help us begin down that road.
The investments we make here will have the added benefit of improving
our capacity to respond to naturally occurring diseases, such as a
severe flu outbreak.

Our border officials process more than 440 million visits each year,
and police more than 7,000 miles of border with Canada and Mexico. In
the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress recognized we must spend more
to make this system work--to facilitate lawful visitors and trade,
while weeding out and halting those who pose a threat. We passed the
Patriot Act and the Enhanced Border Security Act, both of which called
for significant new border personnel. But since then we have fallen
short--hundreds upon hundreds short--of meeting those targets. Indeed
one of the only targets that was met--posting 1,000 Border Patrol
agents along the Northern Border--was reportedly achieved only by
shifting agents from the Southern Border. This is not real homeland
security.
My amendment would provide $500 million for additional border
personnel, as well as for needed equipment and technology for border
security. The needs are extensive and include portable, interoperable
communications equipment, surveillance systems and fingerprint
identification equipment. As US VISIT--the entry/exit system mandated
by Congress--is expanded to land ports, we will need expanded
facilities to process visitors. Total implementation costs for the
program could reach $10 billion.
Border security can make a difference. The September 11th Commission
discovered that one alert inspector in Miami had apparently stopped one
of the would-be hijackers simply by conducting a probing interview at
the airport. But we cannot expect such high performance if critical
homeland defense workers such as these are overworked and poorly
equipped.
We know from 9/11, and from terrorist attacks around the world, that
transportation networks pose a tempting target to would-be attackers.
This knowledge spurred Congress to create the Transportation Security
Agency in record time. Now we must give the agency the resources to
fulfill its mandate. My amendment would provide $500 million to make
further inroads on aviation security and expand to other modes of
transportation, which have been largely neglected thus far.
Although TSA has made headway on aspects of passenger and baggage
screening, much work remains to close known gaps in our aviation
security. Specifically, I would direct additional funding to developing
systems to screen air cargo, to screen passengers for explosives, and
to screen airport workers with access to aircraft.
About a quarter of all air cargo travels on passenger planes. Yet,
despite all the added precautions we've developed for air passengers
and their bags, this cargo remains largely uninspected--only about 5
percent is screened. All-cargo jets pose a similar vulnerability. We
must also develop effective systems to screen cargo and implement
short-term solutions at once. Another vulnerability is explosives:
current passenger screening only detects metallic threats, such as guns
or knives, not explosives. Yet we know this is not an obscure threat--
would-be terrorist Richard Reid was able to bring about 10 ounces of
explosives onto an American Airlines flight and was only stopped from
igniting them by an alert passenger on board. There are promising
technologies in this area, but we must spend money to develop them.
Finally, many airport workers with access to aircraft and sensitive
areas of the airport receive little scrutiny. We must do better.
However incomplete the work on aviation security, the federal effort
to secure other modes of transportation has hardly begun. According to
a recent news report, we have intelligence suggesting that al-Qaida is
looking at derailing trains, possibly carrying hazardous material. GAO
has also identified vulnerabilities regarding rail shipments of
hazardous materials, as well as protective measures that have not yet
been taken. Yet despite such concerns, little has been done to assess
the risks to our rail system or to deploy countermeasures. Similarly,
we know from the deadly sarin attack on the Tokyo subway and suicide
bombers on Israeli buses, that mass transit presents an inviting target
to possible terrorist activity.
The American Public Transportation Association has identified at
least $6 billion in transit security needs, such as video surveillance
and chemical and biological detection systems. But DHS has released
only $115 million in transit security grants thus far, and no money is
set aside for this purpose in the President's budget.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr.
Lieberman, to address shortfalls in homeland security funding in the
President's FY05 Budget Request. As a cosponsor, I believe this
amendment would go a long way to ensuring that our homeland security is
not shortchanged.
I am disappointed that the President's budget request cuts taxes for
the wealthy at the expense of funding homeland security programs. Our
amendment would restore $2.5 billion in proposed budget cuts and
includes an additional $7 billion to strengthen

[[Page S2634]]

existing programs. It would also reduce the deficit by offsetting
spending with tax cut reductions for those earning more than $1 million
a year.
Our amendment takes an important step to prepare our first responders
by restoring $1 billion for the State Homeland Security Grant Program,
which provides first responders critical funding for emergency
planning, training, and equipment.
This program is crucial for all States, especially States like Hawaii
with smaller populations, since a portion of this funding is evenly
distributed among all States.
Our amendment also takes important steps to ensure that homeland
security funding is allocated where it is needed most. It provides $1
billion in much needed funding to address first responder shortfalls
for interoperable communications equipment and $600 million for
hospitals and public health agencies to respond to emergencies.
I am equally disappointed that the President's budget request fails
to address the serious funding gaps for port security. In fact, the
American Association of Port Authorities has expressed great concern
that the President's FY05 budget contains no Federal funds to meet port
security requirements.
The amendment takes important steps to secure our ports and our
economy by providing $1 billion for port and container security and
Coast Guard modernization. This funding is critical to Hawaii, where 98
percent of imported goods are transported by sea. This is not just a
matter of security for Hawaii or coastal States, but the security of
our Nation.
According to a Council on Foreign Relations Homeland Security Task
Force report entitled, ``America--Still Unprepared, Still in Danger,''
if our Nation's ports suffered a weapons of mass destruction attack,
``the response right now would be to shut the [entire] system down at
an enormous cost to the economies of the United States and its trade
partners.'' The Task Force report estimates that if American ports were
to be closed to containerized cargo for longer than three to four
weeks, global shipping container trade would grind to a halt.
Our amendment also includes $500 million for aviation security, which
would provide for systems to screen air cargo and passengers for
explosives. This is an important step towards ensuring adequate funding
for security devices needed to detect dangerous material and to prevent
a potential crisis.
We must ensure that our homeland security is not shortchanged. This
is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. At this time, I yield 2 minutes of the time I have
allowed to the Senator from New York for his statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for
his leadership. I will be brief. In 2 minutes, one has no choice. This
subject could and should have a long debate. I understand the time
constraints.
We heard of the awful, terrible terrorist attack in Spain. There is
some debate as to whether it is ETA, the Basque separatist
organization, or al-Qaida. Now signs are beginning to point to al-
Qaida. I am getting asked by my people whether this could happen in New
York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or anywhere else? The obvious answer is
yes.
We are not close to doing what we should be doing on homeland
security. We are not helping our first responders, who are desperate
for more help in terms of their patrols and the equipment. They have
cut out money for interoperability of radio, which we in New York City
learned was so important on 9/11.
In port security, we are wide open and we are doing very little.
Truck security--what if they use bombs in trucks to blow up buildings,
or railroad stations, or whatever else? Brazil is way ahead of us on
truck security, I hate to say. The northern border is still wide open
and empty. Our immigration lists don't match up with our FBI lists,
which is allowing terrorists to slip into this country.
None of this is lack of technology. This is all lack of dollars. This
budget talks tough on homeland security, but it doesn't do the job. The
terrible tragedy in Spain today should remind us we are just as wide
open and vulnerable, but we don't have to be.
I salute my colleague from Connecticut on his amendment because it is
so needed, so desperately needed. We are doing everything we can to
fight the war on terror overseas. I have been supportive of that war.
But the bottom line is that we are not doing close to enough at home to
protect us. Money will help. If there was ever a consensus where we
need more dollars, it is here. We are not doing it.
I hope this Senate, in a bipartisan way, will rise to the occasion
and support the amendment my friend has offered and of which I am proud
to be a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask for an
additional minute of my colleague from Connecticut who has a related
matter.
Mr. CONRAD. How much time does the Senator need?
Mr. DODD. One minute.
Mr. CONRAD. I will give a minute off the resolution to the Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I heard my colleague mention the tragedy
that occurred in Spain, with the tremendous loss of life there as a
result of a terrorist attack, and we don't know whether it was ETA or
another organization. I inform my colleagues that we drafted a
resolution expressing our sense of outrage over these events.
I chair the United States-Spain Council every year and have developed
strong friendships with the people there. I know the budget matters are
gripping our attention, but I ask the managers at some point to find a
few minutes this evening to set aside the budget and express our sense
of solidarity with the people of Spain, as well as our great sense of
loss of what occurred. It is in connection directly to what my
colleagues are offering on this amendment on homeland security, which I
support.
I hope we might express our unanimous support for the people in
Spain.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator makes a very good point. I
think I speak for everybody when I say our hearts and minds are with
the people of Spain after the terrible tragedy they suffered. We will
seek to find a way to express our condolences to the people of Spain
before we complete our work before the break. I thank the Senator for
bringing that matter to our attention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are continuing the assault on
taxpayers. Next, in the not too distant future, we are going to be
voting on a lot of tax increases. This would increase taxes by $13.7
billion and increase spending by $6.8 billion. That is a 40-percent
increase. We fully funded the President's request of a 15-percent
increase but, obviously, that is not enough for some individuals.
I will now yield management of this amendment to Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I rise
to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. The
Senator from Connecticut serves as the ranking member on the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair.
We have worked very hard together on the issue of homeland security
and have held many hearings during the past year to evaluate the
progress that the new Department is making. But I believe the Senator's
amendment is ill advised.
I strongly support increased funding to help secure our communities,
but we must target those additional resources to programs that address
our greatest vulnerabilities, from our ports to our borders to even our
farms. We must also make sure each and every State builds and maintains
a baseline level of homeland security preparedness and response
capability.
The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut would increase funding
for many State and local homeland security programs by more than $7
billion over the President's budget request. That is simply not
responsible in this fiscal climate.
I also fear if we pour that amount of additional money into the
system, it will not be well and carefully spent.

[[Page S2635]]

Many of us met this past week with municipal officials from our home
States. I heard from my municipal officials in Maine that they are
spending the homeland security money that we are giving them very
wisely to improve their training, to perform joint exercises, and to
purchase new equipment.
Since September 11, according to Secretary of Homeland Security
Ridge, Congress has appropriated some $13 billion in homeland security
assistance for first responders, States, localities, and other
entities. This year, the President will allocate an additional $3
billion through the Office of Domestic Preparedness for many of these
programs.
I do believe we need to provide additional funding in some areas--
port security, for example, and the basic homeland security grant
program--to continue to build that baseline capacity and also to
address one of our biggest vulnerabilities, and that is the
vulnerability of our seaports. But I believe Senator Lieberman's
amendment does not target resources in the most effective manner.
Let me give a couple of examples. The Lieberman amendment provides
$600 million for new biosecurity spending. The administration's budget
also includes more than $100 million for a new biosurveillance
initiative and makes more than $2.5 billion available in fiscal year
2005 for bioshield. I simply do not believe the additional funding that
is contained in Senator Lieberman's amendment is required, given the
substantial investment the President's budget already makes in
biosecurity.
Again, I hope to be offering either a joint or my own version of a
homeland security amendment later in the budget debate. I believe the
proposal I will be putting forward better balances the need for fiscal
restraint as we work to improve the security of our homeland.
I urge that the Lieberman amendment be rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, further responding to the amendment, I
urge Senators to reject the amendment. The administration has requested
substantial increases in funding for homeland security. Although it is
a new Department, the Department of Homeland Security was funded at a
very generous level, about $30 billion of funding, during the current
fiscal year.
States and localities are submitting plans to the Office for Domestic
Preparedness on their priorities in terms of equipping and training
first responders and equipping the States to modernize their emergency
management agencies. A tremendous amount of money is being spent this
year, and a request is made for even more money next year.
The Budget Committee has analyzed the needs and the ways these funds
can be utilized and has come up with a very thoughtful and, in my
judgment, responsible recommendation to the Senate on this subject.
I support the Budget Committee's conclusions and their
recommendations. It is always easy to say we can use more money, we can
add more money for every good-sounding program in Government, and this
is certainly one that is very important. None is more important than
our national security and homeland security. But we do have the funds
that we need, that we can spend in an efficient way and in a responsive
way to the threats that exist to try to help us do a better job of
protecting the homeland.
The President has given strong leadership on this issue. The Congress
has responded in a very generous way, both bodies of Congress working
together to accommodate the needs we have in these areas.
I hope we can support the Budget Committee chairman and reject this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is the Senator from Connecticut seeking
additional time for wrap-up?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the ranking member
of the Budget Committee. I will take 3 additional minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 3 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my good friend and
colleague from Maine. She said ``reluctantly'' opposed the amendment,
but opposed it nonetheless, and the Senator from Mississippi. My own
feeling about this is, just as I have fully supported funding for the
war on terrorism abroad--and it has been a considerable amount of
money. We had a tremendous debate and controversy around the $87
billion supplemental last year, and we will have another supplemental
this year, but at least $50 billion for the war on terrorism,
critically necessary to our security, for the advancement of our
values, and to our freedom. In the same way, $6.8 billion, less than we
will give to the international war against terrorism, is critical for
the homeland side of the war against terrorism, to raise our defenses,
to protect our people.
As I said at the outset, we have made real progress in the last year
as a result of the work that the Department of Homeland Security has
done, but I do not think anybody--including the folks over there--
believe we have done enough to secure the safety of our people.
We provide for funding. It is a deficit reduction amendment, a $6.8
billion deficit reduction, paid for by the now familiar tax cut for
millionaires. It is fiscally responsible.
Can we afford it? I say we can't afford not to afford it. This is
today's primary way in which we are fulfilling our constitutional
responsibilities to provide for the common defense and to ensure
domestic tranquility.
This ought to be nonpartisan because it is like national security. We
always used to say partisanship stopped at the Nation's borders. Since
our enemies have attacked us within our borders, when it comes to
homeland security, we ought to be joining across party lines to do what
is right to protect our people.
I thank the Chair. I thank the Senate Budget chairman and ranking
member. I ask that when the vote is taken, it be done by 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.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from
Massachusetts need?
Mr. KENNEDY. I think my colleague and cosponsor, the Senator from
Connecticut, wants 4 minutes. I will take 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes off the resolution to
the Senator from Massachusetts and 4 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut off the resolution as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 2725

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I offer this amendment
on behalf of myself, Senator Dodd, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine,
Senator Stabenow, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Schumer, Senator Reed,
Senator Mikulski, Senator Kohl, Senator Lincoln, Senator Levin, Senator
Lieberman, Senator Reid, Senator Bingaman, Senator Durbin, Senator
Murray, and Senator Pryor.
This amendment is about education. It is about higher education. It
is about the children whose family average income is $15,000 a year. It
is about 4.8 million children in this country who receive Pell grants--
young people, gifted, talented, bright, smart, who come from families
with limited incomes and cannot survive even with the Pell grants,
unless they get additional help because of the increase in the cost of
tuition over the last 3 years.
Over the last 3 years, the tuitions in our public schools have
increased from $3,700 to $4,700. That is a 26-percent increase.
Currently, the Pell grants are $4,050. This would raise it to $5,000.
Almost 500,000 more low-income students will receive Pell grants. The
average Pell grant will increase by $600. Not everyone will go up to
the full $5,100, I should say, but the average grant will go up $600
and the maximum Pell grant will increase by $1,050. This effective
increase in the Pell grant offsets the explosion that has taken place
with tuitions across this country paid for by the $10 billion--$5
billion for the cost of

[[Page S2636]]

Pell grants and $5 billion for deficit reduction from the top limits.
If we are talking about priorities in this country, we are talking
about not leaving children behind. Middle-income, working families are
having a difficult time on health care, education, and employment. This
makes sure about one-quarter of all of the children who are attending
higher education come from families of $15,000 or below, 4.8 million.
This amendment is going to make sure some of the most gifted, talented
young people in this country are going to be able to continue their
education.
I remind my colleagues of President Bush's statement he made when he
was running for President of the United States in Hampton, NH, in the
year 2000: It is known for a fact that Pell grant aid significantly
affects the ability of a child to attend college or stay in college. A
child eligible for a Pell grant will be affected by the size of the
Pell grant. I am going to ask Congress to bolster the first-year aid--
at that time from $3,300--to $5,100 per recipient of the Pell grant.
This is what President Bush promised. The year was 2000. We have an
opportunity now in 2004 to fulfill this promise. The need has never
been greater. This is a defining issue, whether this institution is
committed to the cause of higher education and educational opportunity.
Everyone in this body understands education is the key to opportunity
for our future. It is the key to our economy. It is the key to our
national security. It is a key to our democracy. It is in our national
interest, our national defense, and our national economic interest.
Most of all, it is an issue of fairness, decency, and national priority
to have an increase in the Pell grants. I hope the Senate will accept
this proposal I offer on behalf of myself and my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
He is my very good friend. He did not get as excited today as
yesterday. I do not know if that is good or bad.
Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator want to give me 3 more minutes?
Mr. NICKLES. I think it is good. I think it is good.
My colleague from New Hampshire is not in the Chamber yet, but
hopefully he will be here.
I will make a couple of comments. One, we have assumed in the budget
a significant increase for Pell grants already. This is another one of
these things that no matter what we put in, there is going to be an
amendment to increase it. I understand that. I recognize that. The
history is this Congress, and frankly in the last few years since
Senator Gregg has been chairman and Arlen Specter has been chairman and
George Bush has been President, the amount for Pell grants has risen
and risen dramatically, from about six point some billion dollars under
President Clinton's last year to all the way now up to $12.5 billion.
So there have been dramatic increases in Pell grants.
In the year 2001, it was $8.7 billion. In our budget it is right at
$13 billion. That is a significant increase.
If this amendment was adopted, Pell grants would increase from 2004
to 2005 by 48.2 percent. We have had a lot of amendments. We had one
just a moment ago dealing with homeland security offered by my very
dear friend whom I respect greatly, Senator Lieberman, that would have
increased the homeland security function by 40 percent. This increases
Pell grants by 48.2 percent between 2004 and 2005.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. How can you possibly figure that when now it is $4,050
and the average Pell increase was $600, that is 48 percent?
Mr. NICKLES. Well, because that is what my staff told me, and if I am
incorrect, I will be happy to revise and edit my remarks. Again, I wish
Senator Gregg was doing this.
My staff informs me it would increase from $4,050 to $5,100 under the
Senator's amendment, and that would increase the cost by 48.2 percent.
It is not just the maximum amount of the award. The maximum amount of
the award would be going up some 20-odd percent, but there are a lot of
awards, not just at that amount but also at other amounts.
That is a very significant increase, 48 percent in 1 year. Funding
has gone up dramatically in this program, as I just mentioned. When
there is an increase from $8.7 billion under our resolution to $13
billion--and looking at the Senator's amendment it would increase that
amount from $13 billion an additional $4.9 billion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator could add $4.9 billion because it says it
would increase spending by $4.9 billion for 2005. If we add that to $13
billion, that is taking a $13 billion program to an $18 billion
program. My very able staff did very good work. I think that is 48
percent.
Again there has to be some kind of limit. I happen to like the idea
of doing some good things in Pell grants. We have assumed a 7.4-percent
increase, almost $1 billion increase for Pell grants in 1 year. My
colleague and friend from Massachusetts wants to multiply that times
five. I do not think we can afford that.

His amendment also says, well, we want to raise taxes to do it and
would raise taxes by $9.8 billion. I also want to say this is kind of
clever, but it does not sell. Many of our colleagues' amendments say we
are only increasing taxes 1 year to pay for the spending 1 year. There
is no way in the world if the taxes and spending are increased by $4.9
billion in 1 year that is not going to be continued or to be assumed.
So I mention, yes, that tax increase would be extended year after year
and so would the spending increase.
I want to warn taxpayers, there are a lot of amendments out here. We
are going to start voting on these amendments momentarily. My colleague
from North Dakota has been urging me, let's get the votes started. I
would like to advise our colleagues momentarily we are going to start a
long list of rollcall votes. I want to advise taxpayers to look out
because almost every one of these votes will raise your taxes.
I will tell the spenders of the world, almost every one of these will
increase spending. We will have a chance to vote.
I see my colleague from Oklahoma is in the Chamber and I reserved
some time for him to speak on the Lautenberg amendment. I do want to
let our colleagues know momentarily we are going to begin a series of
rollcall votes and it is very much my intention to run them very hard.
We will have 15 minutes on the first one. I hope not much more. On
subsequent votes, we are going to hold them to as close to 10 minutes
as the managers can. If Senators miss votes, they miss votes. Most of
these votes are going to become pretty obvious how they are going to be
determined before too long. Hopefully we will not waste too many hours
in the process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I join the chairman in saying we need to
move to votes as quickly as possible and we need to be disciplined in
how much time we spend on those votes. I think it is in the interest of
all of us to proceed expeditiously.
I do not share the chairman's characterization of these
amendments. These amendments, in a limited number of high-priority
areas, are doing two things. They are adding resources but paying for
them, and not only paying for them but in addition providing deficit
reduction. Remember, the budget resolution before us will add nearly $3
trillion to the national debt over just the next 5 years. So the
amendments on our side to restore some of the cuts in funding to the
COPS Program to put police on the street, to restore funding for the
firefighters who are the ones we expect to respond to any bioterror
threat, to provide a program to expand job opportunities in this
country, to provide expansion of health care opportunities for people
in our country--each one of these amendments is completely paid for.

In addition to that, we have provided for deficit reduction so at the
end of the day our Nation is burdened with less deficits and less debt.

[[Page S2637]]

In our amendments we have turned in some cases to closing egregious
tax loopholes, tax scams that are unfair to all taxpayers of our
country. Others of our amendments are paid for by turning to those
privileged few who earn over $1 million a year and we have asked them
to just slightly reduce their tax cuts. Remember, in 2005 the cost of
the tax cuts going to those who earn over $1 million a year, the cost
of their tax cuts for that 1 year alone will be $27 billion. For those
who earn over $337,000 a year, the top 1 percent, the total cost of
their tax cuts for that 1 year is $45 billion.
We don't think it is unreasonable to take a tiny fraction of those
tax cuts and use them to improve the education of our children, to
restore the cuts that have been made to the COPS Program that has put
150,000 police on the street, to slightly reduce the tax cuts of those
earning over $1 million a year to restore the cuts to firefighters or
to expand health care coverage in this country when we have over 40
million people who do not have health care coverage, or to slightly
increase Pell grants so we are providing expanded educational
opportunities in a way that will make our country more competitive in
this global economic environment.
We think those are the priorities of the American people, to reduce
these deficits, to reduce this buildup of debt, and to restore the cuts
in certain high-priority areas: law enforcement, police on the street,
firefighters, education for our kids. Those are the priorities of the
American people. Those are the priorities of American families. We
offered those amendments on our side.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Connecticut, if
he is seeking time?
Mr. DODD. I thought I had 4 or 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator had been previously yielded 4 minutes off the
resolution.
Mr. DODD. I will maybe take less than that. I associate myself with
the comments of Senator Kennedy and Senator Conrad in this debate.
It was 200 years ago this year that Thomas Jefferson said that any
nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was
and never possibly can be.
That was at the outset of the 19th century. Here we are, gathered in
this great Chamber at the outset of the 21st century and we are arguing
whether we can afford to give those who are the wealthiest in our
society a little bit less of a tax cut than they otherwise might be
getting in order to see to it that a significant majority of our young
people get the opportunity of a higher education which they are being
denied, not because they lack the drive or determination or absolute
desire to acquire the skills necessary to improve the quality of their
lives and the lives of all of us in this country but because they lack
the means.
What I hear my colleague saying is the total amounts are going up.
What has not gone up is the amount of money we provide to each student.
Because of a declining economy--and we are talking about families here
with incomes of $15,000 a year or less who qualify for Pell grants--we
have seen a growing number of families and a growing number of students
who want to go on and get a higher education.
In 1975, Pell grants paid for somewhere around 80 percent of a
college education. That is a generation ago. Today, I don't need to
remind people who may be listening to this discussion, $5,000, even at
a public institution, doesn't necessarily cover even 50 percent of the
cost of a higher education. Nevermind, the cost at private
institutions. In fact, at public colleges and universities, tuition has
gone up some 26 percent since President Bush took office and 77 percent
of all students attend public institutions. This Pell increase, up to a
little more than $5,000, really will help students and their families,
students who want to get an education and want to contribute to the
wealth of this Nation.
We now know, in the coming years, in the next 10 years, 80 percent of
the 23 million new jobs we hope are going to be created will require
that a person applying for them have more than a high school
education--80 percent of the 23 million jobs. What are we doing in this
year, this year, to prepare those students so they can acquire the
skills necessary to get the jobs that will require that someone have
additional education beyond high school?
We are asking today, in this amendment, that the most wealthy in our
society take a little less of the tax cut President Bush has offered
them in order to pay to see to it that more and more Black and Hispanic
children in this country, those who primarily fall into Pell income
categories, can get Pell grants to go on and get an education.
I don't know of many affluent people who would disagree with this
request. The very beneficiaries of the tax cut, I suspect, if you
polled them, would say, I'll take less of a tax cut if in fact you put
those resources to seeing to it that people who come from the poorest
families in our society, who have the intelligence and ability to go on
and get an education, will qualify for an additional amount of money
under the Pell grants.
That is what the Senator from Massachusetts is asking. We ought to be
supporting that on a bipartisan basis. I can't imagine, as we talk
about job creation and talk about this Nation remaining No. 1 in the
21st century, that we want to shortchange the ability of qualified
young people to go on to higher education. Pell grants make a huge
difference. We are unfortunately depriving these kids of the necessary
dollars they need, and all because we are not asking the most affluent
1 percent income earners to take a little bit less of a tax cut than
they might otherwise be getting.
I urge the adoption of the Kennedy amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy was questioning my math.
He said where did I get this answer that it increased by 48 percent. I
said I got it from my staff. Now I did it myself. I regret to inform my
good colleague from Massachusetts, but my staff was right. It just so
happens when you add $4.9 billion that is called for by his amendment
to the $12.9 billion we have in our resolution, that totals $17.8
billion. Last year we spent $12 billion. That is a 48.2 percent
increase. Actually, I calculated it at 48.3 percent. That is an
increase in 1 year.

Pell grants, as I showed by the chart, have already risen
dramatically. They have grown by 47.3 percent since 2001. Senator
Kennedy's amendment would have it grow by more than that in 1 year.
That is not affordable. That is not sustainable, not if you believe in
deficit reduction.
I have heard so many people make speeches about deficit reduction and
be critical of our President, but that is not the way people are
voting. They are voting for more spending, and then this hypothetical
we are going to raise somebody else's taxes. I don't think you can have
programs grow at 48 percent. Senator Lieberman had an amendment that
would grow homeland security by 40 percent. I don't think you can have
that kind of growth rate in expenditures and ever say you are serious
about deficit reduction.
During the debate on the Lautenberg amendment, I said I wanted to
refer to my colleague who happens to be chairman of the committee, the
authorizing committee that overseas Superfund, for his comments in
relationship to the Lautenberg amendment.
I notify our colleagues it is my expectation that we will begin a
series of rollcall votes in the very near future.
I yield my colleague from Oklahoma such time as he desires.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold?

Amendment No. 2725

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside, and the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for Mr.
Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 2725.

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

[[Page S2638]]

(Purpose: To create a reserve fund to finance an increase in the
maximum Pell Grant that keeps pace with the rate of increase in public
college tuition, extend Pell Grants to 500,000 new recipients, and
lower the national debt by closing tax loopholes)

On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $2,352,000,000.
On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $7,253,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $196,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $2,352,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $7,253,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $196,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $2,352,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $7,253,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $196,000,000.
On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $2,352,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $9,606,000,000.
On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $9,802,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $9,802,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $9,802,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $2,352,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $9,606,000,000.
On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $9,802,000,000.
On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $9,802,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $9,802,000,000.
At the end of Title III, insert the following:

SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR THE PELL GRANT PROGRAM.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations
to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels
and limits in this resolution by up to $4,900,000,000 in
budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of
outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a
bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference
report that provides additional fiscal year 2005
discretionary appropriations, in excess of levels provided in
this resolution, for the Pell Grant program.

Providing For A Conditional Adjournment Or Recess Of The Senate

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the adjournment resolution which is at
the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 98) was agreed to, as
follows:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the
close of business on Thursday, March 11, or Friday, March 12,
or Saturday, March 13, or Sunday, March 14, 2004, on a motion
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until Monday, March 22, 2004, at 12 noon.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Oklahoma
such time as desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 2703

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I compliment the senior Senator from
Oklahoma. He is doing a great job in handling this most difficult
issue.
We go through this every year, and I believe we are going to finally
get something done tonight. I certainly hope we will and that we will
have what we all will be proud of.
I can't help but comment. I happened to come in when my friend, the
Senator from Connecticut, was leaving the Chamber. It seems as if the
argument you hear from the liberal side of this body is the fact that
all of this came about as a result of the tax cuts of this
administration. I feel compelled to remind this body of the history of
these tax cuts. It was not a Republican idea. Ironically, one of the
truly great Democrat Presidents of this country, John Kennedy, was the
guy who came up with the concept. He said--and this is an exact quote--

We need more revenues to run these programs that we have
and the best way to increase revenues is to reduce marginal
rates.

That was back in the 1960s, and it worked.
There is a recognition of the problem we have right now. This
administration inherited a recession, and they are coming out of it by
having the very tax reductions to add to the amount of revenues coming
in. This is going to work. It is working today. If you do not think it
does, let us remember what happened back in the 1980s.
In the 1980s, the total amount of money that was raised from marginal
rates was $244 billion. In the 1990s, it was $466 billion. That was the
10-year period of the largest tax reductions on marginal rates in the
history of America. It had the result of increasing--not decreasing--
the amount of revenue.
The formula used was for each 1-percent increase in economic
activity, it creates $46 billion of new revenues. John F. Kennedy knew
that, Ronald Reagan knew that, and we ought to know that today, but we
ignore history.
Now my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, is coming up with
another one of his favorite tax increases. I have never seen a tax
increase he didn't like. But this seems to be one of his favorite ones.
We are going to have a big tax increase to vote on in just a few
minutes. It is called the Superfund tax.
There is a lot of doubletalk. On the one hand, they blame the
administration for U.S. job loss and lack of competitiveness. At the
same time, they want to impose a tax that expired in 1995 on some of
the most fragile industries that are not going to make it.
People say reinstating the Superfund tax will be a deficit-reduction-
reducing measure. I am not sure that is necessarily true. What you are
going to do is drive a lot of people out of business who are already
overtaxed.
I think if I could single out one argument I find the most
offensive--and I hear it as chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee over and over and over--every time we have a committee
hearing, they talk about ``polluter pay.'' Polluters are paying today.
That is the whole concept. When a polluter pollutes, that polluter
pays.
In fact, historically, PRPs--potentially responsible parties--since
Superfund started, the average of all cleanups has been 70 percent in
the average year of those cleanups which are cleaned up by industries
that have polluted.

This is interesting because in 2003, that 70 percent jumped to 80
percent.
In other words, all but 13 percent of the cleanups took place and
were paid for by the polluters.
The antijobs and the protax supporters also ignore the fact that the
Superfund tax, on its face, is unfair. It has nothing to do with taxing
companies and industries that pollute. If an industry falls into a
certain category--say you are going to have your taxes go up. It has
nothing to do with whether or not they have ever polluted. In fact, oil
and petroleum companies have paid more than 50 percent of the Superfund
taxes but were responsible for less than 10 percent of the liability on
Superfund sites.
That is historically accurate. I would defy anyone to challenge it.
As a result, this is an especially unfair tax to American families who
have to pay more at the pump.
Furthermore, Superfund tax supporters argue that cleanups have slowed
down as a result of the amount of money lost from the trust fund. That
isn't true at all. In fact, we had testimony in our hearings this last
week that there is not a correlation between the amount of money in the
Superfund reserve and the amount of cleanup.
In 1996, the tax fund was at its highest level. Yet the amount spent
by the Clinton administration in 1996 for Superfund cleanup was at a
10-year low.
This year's Superfund budget request is around $1.4 billion. But wait
a minute. Let us look at what they are proposing.
In this amendment, they propose an $8.5 billion tax increase. This is
the same thing we went through, by the way, last year. There has never
been a correlation between the amount of money raised by a tax and the
amount of money that has been spent.
For those who are responsible for contamination, they are already
being held liable for cleanup costs under Superfund. No one is getting
let off the hook, and I will challenge right now the other side to name
one viable polluter who is not being held accountable for the Superfund
contamination they caused.

[[Page S2639]]

Here we are again with the same amendment. We have had it several
times before. Senator Lautenberg danced this thing out again. We beat
it the last time 57 to 43. I will be down here to remind people how
they voted before. They will forget.
I honestly believe the only issue here is if you want to increase
taxes on the American people by $8.5 billion in one vote, this is your
opportunity to do it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are very close now to starting to vote.
Again, I ask our colleagues who have amendments in the queue to come
so that they could make their final argument before the vote with 1
minute to each side. I think that would be reasonable.
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. 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 appreciate everyone's patience. For the
information of our colleagues, we are going to have a series of votes
starting momentarily.
I am going to yield to my colleague and former chairman of the Budget
Committee for a few moments. I notify our colleagues we expect several
votes to begin momentarily. We are trying to warn everybody, we would
like everybody to be prompt and we would like for everybody to stay on
the floor.
Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from New Mexico such time as
he desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, I rise to speak for 2 minutes on the fiscal year 2005
budget resolution currently pending before the Senate. In particular, I
want to focus for just a little bit on the budgets for scientific
research.
The funding for the National Institutes of Health should be my
starting point. In the omnibus bill of 2003, thanks in large part to
the leadership of President Bush, we met our commitment; that is, in
2003, we met our commitment to double the funding for NIH.
Senator Nickles remembers that clearly, that a couple of Senators
started and everybody followed, and a resolution was adopted that
said--it was incredible to many of us, but we did it--let's double the
NIH. President Bush helped us, and we did that.
Allow me to explain these numbers. In 1998, we spent $13.7 billion on
the National Institutes of Health for cancer, for all of these various
diseases, heart conditions, and mental illness. When the commitment was
fulfilled, we spent $27.1 billion for medical research.
We need not stop there, however. Last year, we further increased it
to $27.9 billion. This means we have spent $145.9 billion in the last 7
years on the National Institutes of Health--a 109-percent increase.
This year we are planning on further increasing the budget of NIH to
$28.7 billion.
I join the President in supporting the work the NIH has done and
continues to do. But I am somewhat chagrined when I see the current
brochures and documents of the NIH complaining about the fact this
President, who funded them at the highest increased levels in their
history, who this year says we can only afford inflation--instead of
saying, the President who supported us the most says we cannot keep on
with that kind of increase, they end up critical that this year he did
not increase their funding as much as he did in the past, saying: We
must have more. He is not funding us enough.
I tell you, when I read that, it is a good thing they are not down
here asking for more money, as far as this Senator is concerned,
because I would be on the side of saying: Enough is enough.
In fact, I would like to give you a couple other thoughts about how
impressive their work has been.
The human genome project--for those who do not understand or
remember, that project is the genome project, spelled: G-E-N-O-M-E. Not
too long ago, the human genome was completed, in terms of mapping it,
much ahead of schedule. The completion of this work was only the
beginning.
More than 300 genes for human diseases, from cancer to deafness to
birth defects, have already been identified. It means in the past we
would spend years of research at maybe three major institutions to
locate a gene for diabetes. The mapping of the human genome says we are
in the process of mapping every genetic point of every major disease in
the human body at every location. We will know where they are. Then
let's hope the great scientists in the future will begin to cure those
incurable diseases.
The NIH is doing amazing work in developing techniques to detect,
diagnose, and treat many of the most devastating diseases humans face,
such as cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease.
I hope that we can continue to fund this important agency at these
record levels.
I am concerned, though, that we have collectively failed to be as
aggressive when it comes to funding basic scientific research in other
agencies.
Basic research is defined as systematic study directed toward greater
knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and
of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or
products in mind.
The technologies transitioned from basic research are the foundation
of applied programs and eventually fielded systems.
Put another way, basic research is the engine that makes our national
defense, homeland security, and economic superiority possible.
However, basic scientific research is not funded in a single place as
with medical research at NIH.
The correlative type research to NIH is something we call in America
basic research--physics, computer science, chemistry, engineering, et
cetera. We have no central focus point for that in America. I am not
sure we should or should not. It is just a fact.
In 2004, the sum total of expenditures for that was $11 billion, and
that included the Veterans' Administration--we assume some of what they
do is science--Interior, EPA, NASA, DOE. This is compared to $8.8
billion for these programs in 1998.
In the same period of time these programs have increased 35 percent,
while NIH increased by over 100 percent. I do not think America can
continue to dominate the world, invent the products, maintain our
standard of living with that kind of disparity for too much longer. The
time has come to spend money on basic research, just as we have on
medical research.
It is important to note much of our scientific research is done at
our universities. They have plenty of research in medical science and
medical science problems. But I guarantee you, Mr. President and fellow
Senators, they are very short on research for the basic sciences.
The Presiding Officer comes from a State that has great wealth. They
devote great quantities of that wealth to their schools, and then say:
Spend it on science. Go look at the University of Texas and a few other
of your universities and see where you put your money. You put it
there. But America does not put it there across the board.
I put this statement in comparing the two only because to keep them
at such a disparate level of a 100-percent increase in 10 years in one
and 30-some percent in the other is not going to keep America great.
I am hopeful when we finish with this resolution, we will get on to
thinking a little bit about where we are going the next decade, and
maybe we should start a resolution saying basic science ought to be
increased over the next decade in a substantial way, maybe even as we
did with the National Institutes of Health. I only wish I could see the
way clear to find the money. I would be here offering that resolution
right now.
Our future is just as certainly tied to our basic science moving up
into a parity position with wellness research. Eventually wellness
research will come up against insolvable problems. At least the
technology of application won't work because we won't have the physics
solved, the physical science.
With that, I thank the Chair for giving me a few moments and hope
every

[[Page S2640]]

now and then somebody in a position to do something about this can join
together and see if we can't get this done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 319

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are going to begin our series of
rollcall votes momentarily. First, I ask unanimous consent that after
the first vote in this series, the Senate then proceed to a resolution
at the desk regarding the recent bombings in Spain; provided further
that following the reporting of the resolution, there be a brief moment
of silence; provided further that each leader be recognized for up to 5
minutes each, Senator Allen and Senator Dodd be permitted to speak up
to 2 minutes each; I further ask consent that the Senate then proceed
to a vote on adoption of the resolution with no intervening action or
debate; further that following the vote the preamble be agreed to and
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, this does not define what
the first vote in the series would be.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that with
respect to the voting sequence, the Senate proceed to the votes in
relation to the pending amendments in the order offered, with no
second-degree amendments in order to those amendments; finally, there
be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each vote; and after
the first vote, that the time limit for each vote be limited to 10
minutes.
The sequence of votes will be as follows: Boxer amendment No. 2783;
Sarbanes amendment No. 2789; Dorgan amendment No. 2793; Lautenberg
amendment No. 2703; Harkin amendment No. 2799; Lincoln amendment No.
2803; Byrd amendment No. 2804; Bingaman amendment No. 2765; Lieberman
amendment No. 2807; and Kennedy amendment No. 2725.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
order dealing with the Spanish resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are now ready to call upon Senator
Boxer for her 1-minute description. I would also say if the sponsors
are not ready, we don't need descriptions and we will move forward with
rollcall votes. We are going to be very tight with time. Senators
cannot assume there is going to be an extra 10 minutes on the rollcall
votes. We are not going to allow that to happen, or we are going to try
not to let it happen.
I believe the Senator from California is ready.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 2783

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in 1 minute let me give it to you
straight: We have seen a loss of 3 million jobs in the last 3 years.
This is not sustainable. Our people are hurting. What this amendment
does is gives us a chance to do something about it. We give tax credits
to businesses, if they pay for health insurance, if they create
manufacturing jobs. What we do is boost up some of the wonderful
programs that are working in advanced technology, manufacturing
extension. We increase investments in basic science. We close the
loophole so if companies move abroad, they can't get special tax
breaks, and we don't allow Federal funds to be used to offshore jobs.
We pay for it by saying to the millionaires of this country: Instead
of getting back $120,000, you will get back $80,000. That is multiple
times what a minimum-wage worker will get. Millionaires will still get
back $80,000 a year under the Bush tax cut. We are asking them to make
that sacrifice because we need the jobs.
I urge an aye vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment offered by our friend from
California increases taxes by $24 billion over 3 years. Basically it
would wipe out all the tax relief we have in the bill in the year 2005
for the child credit and marriage penalty. But it doesn't add any
funding for jobs programs. We hear it does. It has a reserve fund that
could increase spending, maybe, if a few things happen. The resolution
before us fully supports the FSC/ETI bill, the JOBS bill Senator
Grassley and Senator Baucus are working on. If you want to help us be
more competitive, to create more jobs, that is certainly the approach.
It is a bipartisan approach and has a much greater likelihood.
The proposal suggested by our friend from California, frankly, would
mean an exodus of jobs from the United States. It would be telling
multinational corporations, you should not be in this country. You have
tax advantages for being in other countries. I don't think we should be
encouraging the headquarters of companies such as Intel or Microsoft
and others to be leaving the United States.
I urge our colleagues to vote no on the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2783. The clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns)
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent.
Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent
attending a funeral.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

YEAS--41

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

NAYS--53

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

NOT VOTING--6

Burns
Edwards
Ensign
Johnson
Kerry
Reid
The amendment (No. 2783) was rejected.
Mr. NICKLES. 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.

Amendment No. 2789

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, next we will have a vote on the Sarbanes
amendment No. 2789. I have two comments, but first I tell my
colleagues, we are going to cut these votes off. I am warning
everybody, and I urge colleagues to stay on the floor. We are going to
try to keep all of these amendments limited to 10 minutes. In fact, I
ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be limited to 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That order has been entered.
Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES. As soon as we have order, I ask the Chair to call upon
the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment would fully fund the
assistance to firefighter programs, the firefighter grant, and the
SAFER program up to the authorized amount. I urge my colleagues stand
with our firefighters.

[[Page S2641]]

Warren Rudman, in a report, said, ``emergency responders drastically
underfunded, dangerously unprepared.'' Don't let that situation
continue.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. The Senator from Maryland is correct. This budget contains
a $250 million cut in FIRE Act grants. There have been over 19,000
awarded since the program was established from 33,000 departments
across the country. These fire departments absolutely need the
equipment and training resources. In addition, the SAFER Act will put
75,000 new firefighters on the street over the next seven years. Recent
studies by major organizations indicate there are chronic shortfalls in
the numbers of people who serve in paid and volunteer and combination
departments.
This is a good amendment. We are asking those who make more than $1
million a year to take a little less of a tax cut than they would
ordinarily get. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. This amendment, as most of the amendments we are going
to be facing in this sequence of 10 votes, increases taxes. This one
increases taxes by $2.86 billion next year. That happens to be about
the same amount of money we assume for the child tax credit next year.
But it doesn't add any money for firefighters, zero. What it does is
promise a possible $1.3 billion increase in spending later in the year,
if the appropriations bills do such and such.
I think it is a gimmick. The facts are, if it did go to firefighting,
that would be a 157-percent increase over last year. That is
ridiculous. We put in 10 percent for homeland defense as requested by
the President. What the Secretary is trying to do is move more of that
money into high-threat areas, not necessarily in every little rural
fire department in Oklahoma, which, frankly, is not a Federal
responsibility. Terrorism is not a threat in most of the rural
communities.
I urge opposition to the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2789.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent
attending a funeral.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

YEAS--41

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

NAYS--55

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

NOT VOTING--4

Edwards
Johnson
Kerry
Reid
The amendment (No. 2789) was rejected.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________