Israeli-Palestinian Peace Enhancement Act of 2003

Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the first part of a series of proposals to protect and strengthen our nation's health care safety net. That bill, the ``Strengthening Our States'' or SOS Act of 2003,'' seeks to protect and improve the Medicaid program--a critical component of our country's health system. To repeat the words of Diane Rowland and Jim Tallon of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, ``Medicaid is the glue that helps hold our health system together and takes on the highest-risk, sickest, and most expensive populations from private insurance and Medicare.

Like a waterfront community that seeks to set up barricades against a rising river, defending the Medicaid program from attacks, such as the idea of a block grant, is a top priority.

However, once that is assured, we must also take the next step and confront the fact that an estimated 41.2 million people, or almost 15 percent of the population, was without health insurance during the entire year of 2001, which was an increase of 1.4 million people over 2000.

Moreover, the numbers in 2002 and this year have undoubtedly worsened. A report by the National Coalition on Health Care says, ``The confluence of powerful economic forces, fueled by the terrorist attacks on September 11, have unleashed a `perfect storm' that could increase dramatically the number of uninsured in the U.S.--with as many as 6 million people in total losing their coverage in 2001 and 2002.''

The number in New Mexico are staggering. New Mexico leads or ranks second only to Texas in the percentage of its citizens who are uninsured. In fact, New Mexico is the only state in the country with less than half of its population having private health insurance coverage.

A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 43 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 68 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage.

To address this growing crisis, I have worked closely with the American College of Physicians since last fall on the legislative proposal, which I call the ``Health Coverage, Affordability, Responsibility, and Equity Act'' or the ``HealthCARE Act of 2003.'' The proposal seeks to: First, build upon programs that currently work, including Medicaid, employer coverage, and the private market; second, provide choices for uninsured individuals, states, and small businesses while rejecting either employer or individual mandates; third, use methods that have bipartisan support by borrowing the best ideas from Democratic and Republican proposals; and, fourth, simplify rather than complicate coverage.

This is in sharp contrast, in a number of ways, to past efforts to create untried schemes or to impose mandates upon either businesses or the individual. It also seeks to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans. This has certainly not been easy to put together and nor will it be easy to pass. On the other hand, we have tried to start with the tools and principles more likely to get beyond the partisan divide.

As Julie Rovner of the National Journal recently wrote, ``If reforming the nation's healthcare system was easy, the old saw goes, it would have been done long ago. But for the moment, those who care about the issue seem to be succeeding only in butting each other's heads. Republicans keep pushing market-oriented reforms while Democrats want to expand existing public programs. And each party continues to reject the other's ideas. . . .''

The ``Health CARE Act'' seeks to break that partisan gridlock. First, it adopts and builds upon the notion of many Republicans to offer tax credits for the uninsured. As such, the bill would enact a new health insurance tax credit that is both refundable and advanceable to uninsured Americans with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level to purchase health coverage through a variety of options, including employer-coverage, State purchasing pools, or even the individual market--something pushed by a number of Republicans for many years but rejected by many Democrats.

Second, the legislation expands coverage through a State option with Federal financial support through the Medicaid program to anyone up to 100 percent of the poverty level. Medicaid has been a tried and tested program for low-income Americans over the years and is a far better and more viable option to people with incomes below the poverty level than a tax credit would be. Furthermore, few beneath the poverty level have the option of employer-coverage. Therefore, public programs, such as Medicaid, for low-income Americans makes far more sense than a tax credit.

Furthermore, through the strengthened and improved state purchasing pools provided for in the legislation, individuals and small businesses would be afforded better options to get coverage with a choice of plans that is typically not available to them with, what we believe will be, lower costs due to the ability to purchase coverage as a group.

Consequently, this approach attempts to build upon the ideas of both political parties, as it has both public program and tax credit aspects to it. Our hope is that people will see the things both parties like in it rather than focusing on what they do not like. In fact, we have also added the creation of an on-going expert health commission to make recommendations for further reforms and mid-course corrections in the future.

This bill is introduced in the spirit of compromise. To those on the right, I recognize your concern about the expansion of Medicaid as not being as market-oriented as you might prefer, but would point out that tax credits are virtually unworkable and employer-sponsored coverage often unavailable for people below the poverty level and that Medicaid is largely contracted out to private health plans--the same that many of you are enrolled in.

To those on the left, I recognize your concerns about tax credits and the potential for adverse selection with people buying coverage through the individual market, but I say to you that these are tax credits for low-income people and that we have taken steps in the legislation to mitigate problems that the added options in the bill create with respect to adverse selection. I would add that any expansion of coverage to people without health insurance is a good thing.

The most important message that I hope this bill carries is that we must stop having the perfect be the enemy of the good. This proposal is certainly not perfect but we hope it makes a very good start.

I would like to thank the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership and help in putting this legislation together. ACP has been a long-standing advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the nation.''

I would also like to thank the many people at the Economic and Social Research Institute, or ERSI, on their forethought, advice, and counsel as we refined the proposal over the past number of months. Their non- partisan approach and expertise have been invaluable to making the bill a workable and well-reasoned reality.

It should also be noted that the ideas put forth in the bill are based upon much of the expert work commissioned by ESRI, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Task Force on the Future of Health Insurance, funded by the Commonwealth Fund. As a result, the work of a number of other experts is reflected in the legislation and we thank you as well.

Among the endorsing organizations for this legislation are all of the leading primary care physician groups in our country. In addition to the American College of Physicians, the bill has been endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Geriatrics Society.

As a practicing physician in New Mexico, Dr. Robert Strickland sums it up well. As he wrote in an editorial

published in the Albuquerque Journal about this legislation yesterday, ``As a New Mexico internist for 31 years, I have seen many uninsured people go without care until it is too late for me to do much to help them. The HealthCARE Act offers the potential of breaking the political gridlock that has allowed this crisis in health care to go on for far too long.''

I hope we can break the gridlock and urge my colleagues to heed the call of our nation's primary care doctors to support this legislation.

I would ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement from the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Geriatrics Society, and Families USA, and the text of the legislation printed in the Record.

There being no ojection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Lugar, Lincoln, Corzine, Landrieu, Breaux, Kerry, Murray, Cantwell, Clinton, and Miller. This legislation, entitled the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003,'' would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, and to newborns through the first full year of life.

Sunday is Mothers' Day. Every year, we honor our Nation's mothers and we should take the time to assess how we can do better by them, including their health and well-being.

According to a recent report by Save the Children entitled ``The State of the World's Mothers,'' the United States fares no better than 11th in the world. Why is this? According to the report, ``The United States earned its 11th place rank this year based on several factors: One of the key indicators used to calculate the well-being for mothers is lifetime risk of maternal mortality . . . Canada, Australia, and all the Western and Northern European countries in the study performed better than the United States in this indicator.''

The study adds, ``Similarly, the United States did not do as well as the top 10 countries with regard to infant mortality rates.''

In fact, the United States ranks 21st in maternal mortality and 28th in infant mortality, the worst among developed nations. We should and must do better by our Nation's mothers and infants.

Throughout our Nation's history, there has been long-standing policy linking programs for pregnant women and infants, including Medicaid, WIC, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. CHIP, unfortunately, fails to provide coverage to pregnant women beyond the age of 18. As a result, it is more likely that newborns eligible for CHIP are not covered from the moment of birth, and therefore, often miss having comprehensive prenatal care and those first critical months of life until their CHIP application is processed.

By expanding coverage to pregnant women through CHIP, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' recognizes the importance of prenatal care to the health and development of a child. As Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine has written, ``Prenatal care is an important factor in the prevention of birth defects and the prevention of prematurity, the most common causes of infant death and disability. Babies born to women with no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to [be] low birthweight or very low birthweight as infants born to women who received early prenatal care.''

Unfortunately, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico ranked worst in the Nation in the percentage of mothers receiving late or no prenatal care last year. The result is often quite costly--both in terms of the health of the mother and newborn but also in terms of the long-term expenses since the result can be chronic, lifelong health problems.

In fact, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ``four of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications (respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen).'' As a result, in addition to reduced infant mortality and morbidity, the provision to expand coverage to pregnant women can be cost effective.

The ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' also eliminates the unintended federal policy through CHIP that covers pregnant women only through the age of 18 and cuts off that coverage once the women turn 19 years of age. Certainly, everybody can agree that the government should not be telling women that they are more likely to receive prenatal care coverage only if they become pregnant as a teenager.

This bipartisan legislation has previously received or has added endorsements from the following organizations: the March of Dimes, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the What to Expect Foundation, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the Federation of American Health Systems, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Premier, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities USA, Family Voices, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Health Law Program, the National Association of Social Workers, Every Child By Two, the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Families USA.

This legislation is a reintroduction of a bill that was introduced in 2001. Throughout that year, the Administration made numerous statements in support of the passage of this type of legislation, but unfortunately, reversed course in October 2002 after publishing a regulation allowing states to redefine a ``child'' as an ``unborn child'' and to provide prenatal care through CHIP in that manner. In a letter to Senator Nickles dated October 8, 2002, Secretary Thompson argued, ``I believe the regulation is a more effective and comprehensive solution to this issue.''

While a number of senators strongly disagreed with Secretary Thompson's assertion and sent him letters to that effect on October 10, 2002, and on October 23, 2002, we felt it was important to get the testimony of our Nation's medical experts on the health and well-being of both pregnant women and newborns. We called for a hearing in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on October 24, 2002. Witnesses included representatives from the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the What to Expect Foundation. They were asked to compare the regulation to the legislation and I will let their testimony speak for itself.

Dr. Nancy Green testified on behalf of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. She said:

We support giving states the flexibility they need to cover

income-eligible pregnant women age 19 and older, and to

automatically enroll infants born to SCHIP-eligible mothers.

By establishing a uniform eligibility threshold for coverage

for pregnant women and infants, states will be able to

improve maternal health, eliminate waiting periods for

infants and streamline administration of publicly supported

health programs. Currently, according to the Department of

Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services and the National Governors' Association, 36 states

and the District of Columbia have income eligibility

thresholds that are more restrictive for women than for their

newborns. Encouraging states to eliminate this disparity by

allowing them to establish a uniform eligibility threshold

for pregnant women and their infants should be a national

policy priority.

Dr. Green adds:

Specifically, we are deeply concerned that final regulation

fails to provide to the mother the standard scope of

maternity care services recommended by the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American

Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Of particular concern, the

regulation explicitly states that postpartum care is not

covered and, therefore, federal reimbursement will not be

available for these services. In addition, because of the

contentious collateral issues raised by this regulation

groups like the March of Dimes will find it even more

difficult to work in the states to generate support for

legislation to extend coverage to uninsured pregnant women.

Dr. Laura Riley testified on behalf of ACOG. In her testimony, she stated:

ACOG is very concerned that mothers will not have access to

postpartum services under the regulation. The rule clearly

states that ``. . . care after delivery, such as postpartum

services could not be covered as part of the Title XXI State

Plan . . . because they are not services for an eligible

child.''

On the importance of postpartum care, Dr. Riley adds:

When new mothers develop postpartum complications, quick

access to their physicians is absolutely critical. Postpartum

care is especially important for women who have preexisting

medical conditions, and for those whose medical conditions

were induced by their pregnancies, such as gestational

diabetes or hypertension, and for whom it is necessary to

ensure that their conditions are stabilized and treated.

As a result, Dr. Riley concludes:

Limiting coverage to the fetus instead of the mother omits

a critical component of postpartum care that physicians

regard as essential for the health of the mother and the

child. Covering the fetus as opposed to the mother also

raises questions of whether certain services will be

available during pregnancy and labor if the condition is one

that more directly affects the woman. The best way to address

this coverage issue is to pass S. 724, supported by Senators

Bond, Bingaman and Lincoln and many others, and which

provides a full range of medical services during and after

pregnancy directly to the pregnant woman.

Dr. Richard Bucciarelli testified on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He said:

Recently, the Administration published a final rule

expanding SCHIP cover unborn children. The Academy is

concerned that, as written, this regulation falls dangerously

short of the clinical standards of care outlined in our

guidelines, which describe the importance of covering all

stages of a birth--pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care.

It is important to note that the regulation subtracts the time that an ``unborn child'' is covered from the period of continuously eligibility after birth. Consequently, children would be denied insurance coverage at very critical points during the first full year of life. As such, Dr. Bucciarelli expressed support for the legislation over the regulation because it, in his words:

. . . takes an important step to decrease the number of

uninsured children by providing 12 months of continuous

eligibility for those children born. . . . This legislation

ensures that children born to women enrolled in Medicaid or

SCHIP are immediately enrolled in the program for which they

are eligible. Additionally, this provision prevents newborns

eligible for SCHIP from being subject to enrollment waiting

periods, ensuring that infants receive appropriate health

care in their first year of life.

And finally, Lisa Bernstein testified as Executive Director of The What to Expect Foundation, which takes its name from the bestselling What to Expect pregnancy and parenting series that has helped over 20 million families from pregnancy through their child's toddler years. Ms. Bernstein also supported the legislation as a far superior option over the regulation and make this simple but eloquent point:

. . . only a healthy parent can provide a healthy future

for a healthy child.

The testimony of these experts speak for themselves and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a series of letters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, because of the circumstances, I really don't have a prepared statement. I wish to outline for the Senate how we intend to proceed. We have been working for some time trying to obtain a process by which we could proceed to act on the 11 appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2003 which were not completed by the end of the last Congress.

I commend my good friend from West Virginia and his staff for assistance in working with us to work out this procedure. These bills that will soon be included in an omnibus amendment to

this continuing resolution are familiar to the Senate. We worked on them throughout the last year. And I wish to say that to the best of my knowledge the components of this bill, except for one portion, were worked on on a bipartisan basis by the staffs of the 11 subcommittees that handled these 11 bills. I can't say that there has been total agreement on the part of anybody as to what we have done, but we have proceeded to reduce the 11 bills that were involved to the amount of the President's request, which was $750.5 billion, plus an amount that is represented by a budget request for the fire items that are included in the bill of $825 million. In doing so, we come down considerably in many of these bills.

But I point out to the Senate that the Government has been operating under the CRs that have been passed since October 1. All of the agencies affected by these bills have been operating on the basis of the 2002 appropriations level--the enacted level of funds for those agencies. If we do not finish these bills now, they will continue to act under the 2002 level until obviously we do something to take us down to the end of this fiscal year.

I have taken the position that the sooner we can enact these 11 bills the better off all the agencies are, and the better off the Congress is because our job is to turn to the requirements of the law to deal with the fiscal year 2004 bills through the budget process and through the consideration of the 13 bills that we have in the Appropriations Committee through the individual subcommittees and get them done this year--God willing--according to the normal schedule and before September 30. We cannot do that if we labor over these bills intensively for a period of time.

I am pleased to say that everyone concerned has been very cooperative, and, above all, the members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to get us where we are today.

The amendment that I will soon present contains not only that portion that I mentioned in terms of a series of bills but it contains the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations for fiscal year 2003. It provides budget authority for Agriculture, rural development, and the nutritional programs.

There is in this bill $670.4 million--more than the President's request--and more than $1.1 billion more than 2002.

I have a whole series of highlights on this bill. I don't want to take the time of the Senate to outline the individual ones. We will do that as we proceed on the bill. There are definitely needs for the programs for each of these items.

The second bill we have is the Commerce, State, Justice and related agencies appropriations bill. Again, this is the recommendation of the subcommittee as adjusted by the process I just outlined. It is approximately $2.5 billion above the 2002 enacted funding level.

These, of course, are a series of highlights. I may later ask to put them all in the Record as part of my opening statement. I want to review these outlines later. I do not make that request now.

We also have the District of Columbia appropriations bill. It makes appropriations for the District of Columbia. It is an item that is substantially higher than the President's request. It is a total of $512 million in discretionary budget authority for the District of Columbia.

We have the energy and water appropriations bill. It recommends $26.164 billion for 2003. It exceeds the President's request by $649 million, and it exceeds the 2002 level by $900 million.

We have the foreign operations bill among the 11 included in this amendment. This bill is $221 million below the President's request. It is also below the fiscal year 2002 level by $73.5 million.

The Department of the Interior bill provides $19.18 billion in total discretionary budget authority--an increase of $641 million over the enacted level of 2002. It is $36 million over the President's budget request for 2003.

The Labor-Health and Human Services bill deals with the President's request, which was $131.9 billion. This bill as recommended by my amendment will be $131.3 billion. The details will be in the items that I will put in the Record.

On the Department of Transportation and related agencies, we recommend $64.6 billion for 2003. This is $9.4 billion more than the President's request of $55.2 billion. I do not have a figure above the 2002 level. I will put it in the Record later.

We have the Treasury and general government appropriations bill. This provision is in the bill at $34.5 billion. The President's request was $34.2 billion, and the 2002 level was $32.8 billion. This is another area where it is above the President's request.

The last section is the section that deals with items that have been added to the 13 bills. One is to fund the election reform bill that was enacted in the last Congress. The maximum authorized level for that program for 12 months for fiscal 2003 was $2.35 billion. For the remainder of the bill, this amendment that I offer will fund election reform at $1.5 billion.

For drought relief, we have set a target of $3.1 billion. The provisions of the bill as presented by the Agriculture Committee and others will adjust the mandatory programs in order to provide relief for the drought that has occurred.

We also have a provision dealing with Medicare adjustments, dealing with physicians' payments and payments for rural hospitals. The total amount would be $1.6 billion. These items would be offset by a 1.6- percent across-the-board cut on the other 11 bills.

We have done our best to present to the Senate--I have, working with the members of the committee and their staffs--a bill to meet the requirements of the administration, to meet the requirements of the agencies, and to present a bill that can be taken to conference and worked out with the House in conference.

Madam President, I point out, the House has not passed any bills. The House has passed this continuing resolution, to give us a House-passed bill, to return this bill to the House for their consideration. We are hopeful that the House will enact its own version and send it to conference. As has been outlined already by the unanimous consent agreement that is in place, we will seek a conference with the House at the earliest possible time.

I urge Senators to consider the problem we face, and that is the problem of catching up with the bills we should have enacted last year. I point no fingers as to reasons we did not. The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Byrd, did report out all the bills. We were prepared to act, but circumstances at that time made it impossible for us to pass those bills.

Under the circumstances now, we cannot afford the process of passing separate bills, facing vetoes or veto threats, and having bills go back and forth between the Houses. If we are going to catch up and start the process of dealing with the 2004 appropriations, as is our duty in this new Congress, we must put these requests of the past, for the remainder of this fiscal year, in place. We must pass this amendment or something similar to it as soon as is possible, as soon as the Congress can agree and the President will concur with our actions.

I will say, I have discussed this at length with the Office of Management and Budget. I cannot say they approve of what we are doing, but I can say they approve of the fact that we are doing something. So that is what I am asking the Senate to do tonight, to start the process of doing something on these accumulated items that must be faced by this Congress as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record summaries from which I read partially.

Madam President, again, I thank my friend from West Virginia for his courtesy. I know that while I have been working on these other matters, my friend has had a very erudite statement prepared, and I am prepared to listen to it.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent request that now is the time for me to offer my amendment.

Amendment No. 1

Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The Senator from West Virginia has an amendment to offer. I thank him for his comments. We are in substantial agreement, except in the conclusion. We both feel that the Government of the United States should not operate under a continuing resolution. What it means is that our agencies are not moving forward in 2003 at the rate actually requested by the President in 2001 for the fiscal year 2002.

Times have changed. They have changed considerably. Each of these agencies are subject to new laws that were passed both in 2001 and 2002 with regard to the programs that they administer. They cannot do those new programs without new money.

As the Senator from West Virginia said, they are currently operating on autopilot. I am an old pilot and autopilot is a wonderful thing to have, but it doesn't know how to change course unless someone turns the dials. Autopilot cannot take you off or land you. It only continues on the course that it is on. It will fly right into a mountain if you don't change the course. There is a mountain ahead of us, which is the mountain of unfulfilled commitments in the Federal Government, which both the President and Congress have made and changes that were made since the President first conceived the budget of 2002.

I do believe that the Senator is right. I would have joined him last year in proceeding as we did with the bill as reported. But it is different now. We are ready to start a new Congress. We, hopefully, will have our organization resolution soon, and we will be working toward complying with the laws that we work under--the Budget Act--and the requirement that we pass 13 appropriations bills for 2004.

We cannot get there if we pass these bills separately. As I said before, we

will face the prospect of disagreement with the House and endless conferences on 11 bills, and possibilities of vetoes and motions to override, and all the time it will take. Mr. President, it will be June before we get down to the business of this Congress if we do not follow the recommendation to proceed that has been made now by me on behalf of the President and on behalf, I believe, of all the members of our committee.

We have differences on what should be in the bill, but the main thing is that we should proceed. I await the offering of the Senator's amendment. I know pretty well what is in it, and I regret that I cannot join him this year in supporting it.

Is the amendment now pending before the Senate, Mr. President?

I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 2

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, presented a chart showing the major elements of the $5 billion homeland security package. Eventually, this homeland security money, since it is money that people involved in that area want, we will address not only this year, in this 2003 bill, not only in the 2004 bill, but out into 2005. This Homeland Security Department has not even formed yet, as we know. There are several components in the existing Government that will be transferred into homeland security, and they have funding in this amendment I have offered.

For instance, Senator Byrd wants to add to this amendment I have offered $1.4 billion for State and local assistance to combat terrorism, but we already have spread throughout the 11 bills $2.2 billion to deal with the same concepts. We have money for first responder radio equipment. We have money for emergency planning and training.

Last year, I supported this money that Senator Byrd wants in his amendment for this bill--in a series of bills, as a matter of fact. The problem we face now is, should we continue to operate at the 2002 level until we can find an agreement with the President as to the amounts Senator Byrd wants to add to the President's request or should we move forward through the way we allocated money in the bill for the various elements of homeland security in the existing Departments? The money we put in the existing Departments will be transferred to Homeland Security as that Department is formed.

Senator Byrd wants to put up an additional $1.8 billion for border security. Again, in the period ahead we will spend money like that, but in these bills already is a total of $4.3 billion, and we are looking at a period of less than 8 months to spend that money.

I have presented the amendment that is before the Senate now because we want to find a way to work with the President to close the books on the 2003 appropriations. We cannot do that if we continue to battle with the administration and try to give them money beyond what they believe is necessary.

At the time we were looking at this last year, we thought the Homeland Security Department would have been created before September 30 of last year. We wanted to put up money so it would be there for the Homeland Security Department to be transferred to start spending in October. This money would be started to be spent in late February or March.

I am trying to make a point. Take airport security; Senator Byrd wants an additional $720 million. We have already appropriated substantial monies that are in the supplemental from last year for airport security. We have tried to fund the needs of the Transportation Security Administration. We already have an additional $374 million in these separate portions of the amendment I have offered.

I am trying to emphasize the fact that we do not need to give this Department of Homeland Security more money beyond what has been asked.

On nuclear and energy security, I do not disagree with the statements that have been made about the needs for additional money. In this amendment I have offered is $1.650 billion for that function. Senator Byrd wants to add another $296 million. I understand he is trying to fully fund the estimated needs of homeland security for the future, which is a laudable goal, but we are trying to stay within some sort of budget constraint.

As I said, let's finish the job of getting the books closed on how much the agencies have to spend in the remainder of fiscal year 2003.

On Federal law enforcement with the FBI, Senator Byrd wants to add $212 million to the $1.2 billion already in the bill. I am urging the Senate to listen in terms of the concepts we have worked out. Stop this battle with the President over how much is needed for the agency that has not even been established yet. The various components of that agency, the Homeland Security Department, will have enough money coming into this new Department to fully fund whatever they can do by the time they get organized as a Department.

I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia--not because he is not right at estimating the future needs of homeland security--because we believe we are right in saying, let's fund now the money that can be spent before the end of this fiscal year, be spent before September 30. I am confident we have sufficient moneys in this amendment that we have offered in the 11 separate sections which would normally be separate appropriations bills, enough money to deal with the problems of homeland security.

Beyond that, I remind the Senate the President still has some money left from the $20 billion we gave him after 9/11. If there are any defects here, he has more than $5 billion in that account and can allocate it if it is necessary to establish Homeland Security so long as it is working toward establishing the facilities and entities we need to prevent further repetition of the catastrophe of September 11.

I hope the Senate will listen. To adopt the Byrd amendment will be to prolong the conference. If it was in a bill that would go to the President, he would veto it. Then where are we? Maybe I am too pragmatic about this, but it is time to get this job done. The amendment I have offered will get the job done. There will still be some differences with the House. As a matter of fact, there will still be some differences with the administration because we have increased some items that they do not want to see increased and we have decreased some they do not want decreased. But overall, we are within the total limit and parameters of the requests of the President.

I hope tomorrow the Senate will be looking at this. There will be further debate tomorrow morning. The leader will, of course, state what the procedure will be. We expect a vote sometime around noon or soon thereafter on the Byrd amendment. I am hopeful that the Senate will work with us to try and understand my job now is to get this amendment to conference.

As I told the Senate Members, the House has not passed any of these bills. It passed some of them last year. We did not act on them. We passed some last year and they did not act on them. We are trying to restart the 2003 conference and there will be an overall conference on all 11 bills at one time if the Senate will give us the support to pass this bill and take it to conference.

There will be individual differences as far as amendments are concerned. As a matter of fact, there are some things in this amendment I personally would change, but they have been brought here by the work of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking Members of the individual areas covered by these bills. I think it is the best course to follow, to take this amendment to conference, to go to the House and say, let's get these 11 bills finished so the agencies will know for certain the money they have. Even the homeland security bill was not passed when we originally contemplated passing the appropriations to fund it.

I am confident we have done the best we can under the circumstance. Again, I do not criticize Senator Byrd. Eventually, we will spend more than $5 billion in addition to what we have in the amendment before the Senate. However, we do not need it now. I sat through all the hearings that have been mentioned, that Senator Byrd had on the needs for homeland security across the Nation. I remember going to small towns in my State when the mayor told me they needed a new fire truck. They needed a new fire truck? They have never had a fire truck. There is not anyone in the country that does not want some of this homeland security money. The question is, what is needed now to go on with the job and protect the country. I believe our amendment does it.

I send to the desk a statement prepared by the individual subcommittees that goes along with 11 components of this bill. Had we had the meetings of

the separate subcommittees and reported separate bills, we would have prepared 11 reports. Instead, I am submitting for the Record to be printed the overview and summary of each of the components so there will be no question in the future of what is intended by the provisions of the amendment I have offered if it is enacted. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman, perhaps ranking member, depending on the time of the month in January of this year, of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He has led the fight in the Senate on these issues dealing with homeland security, an extremely important subject for this Senate.

I wish to talk about why his amendment is a very important choice for us to make. This is, after all, about making choices. It is not a case that there is not the money to do one thing or the other; it is a matter of making the choices of what the right things are for this country's future. Emerson once said that common sense is genius dressed in work clothes. Common sense with respect to homeland security to me is to understand that post-9/11, we are in an urgent situation to protect our country at home. We are prosecuting the war against terrorists here and abroad, and we have an urgent requirement to protect our homeland.

The head of the CIA just a couple months ago said to the Nation that we are as vulnerable today to a terrorist attack as we were on September 10, the day before that devastating terrorist attack on our Nation. The head of the CIA said: We are as vulnerable today as we were the day before that devastating attack.

If that is the case, then the question is, What more do we need to do and how soon must we do it to give a measure of assurance to the American people that we are doing everything possible to thwart those terrorists who would attack our country?

I wish to talk about a couple areas of homeland security that my colleague, Senator Byrd, has spoken about previously and spoke about again this evening, and addresses in his amendment. I wish to talk about the security of our country's ports.

I come from a State that does not have any ports. North Dakota is not surrounded by oceans, so we do not have ports. I did recently tour one of our large ports in this country. That follows on the heels of a tour I did several years previous. I was curious as to what kind of security exists in America's ports.

I know we get 5.7 million containers coming into this country every year stacked on container ships. These 5.7 million containers pull up to a dock at 2 miles an hour, then are offloaded on to 18-wheel trucks, and they motor off to the rest of the country. I also know of the 5.7 million containers that come into our country every year, 100,000 of them are inspected, 5.6 million are not.

One asks the question: We spend a lot of money and time talking about an antiballistic missile program or a missile defense system to protect against an incoming ballistic missile or a ballistic missile traveling 10 or 15,000 miles an hour. So we spend $8 billion creating a ballistic missile defense system.

How much money do we spend protecting against the threat of a ship with a container carrying a weapon of mass destruction coming to a dock at 2 miles an hour at one of America's major ports in America's major cities? The answer is we do not spend nearly enough.

I recently, with the Customs Service and others, toured one of our country's major ports. This is a port that gets a great deal of freight and commerce from Asia. I was very impressed with the men and women who worked there. I was very impressed with what they do there. I took a look at their x-ray technology in which they x-ray containers that are on an 18-wheel truck, having been taken from the deck of a ship. This technology is remarkable. What they are doing at the Customs Service is extraordinary, but they are desperately short of funds. They are incapable, in my judgment, of assuring the American people that of these 5.7 million containers reaching America's ports, they are able to inspect a sufficient number to give us a measure of confidence that terrorists will not use these containers with which to attack our country.

We might all remember the story about a fellow who was a suspected terrorist who actually put himself in one of those large containers. In that container, he included a heater, a cot, water supply, a GPS system, a computer--he had all the comforts of home locked with him in a container, shipping himself from the Middle East to Canada, presumably then to go from Canada into the United States.

If someone decides to ship a weapon of mass destruction in a container aimed at this country with only 2 percent of the containers being inspected at our docks, how confident are we that we have the homeland security and homeland protection we need and deserve at this point?

Senator Byrd includes in this amendment the resources that are necessary to add to that measure of confidence, to create more inspections, to provide more security at America's ports, and that is important.

He also in this amendment deals with the issue of border security. I do represent a State that has a long and common border with the country of Canada. Just a couple of months ago, there were concerns across our country about five men, suspected terrorists, who apparently entered the U.S. through Canada. We did not know who they were. We did not know where they entered our country. We did not know what they planned to do. But there was a national manhunt for five men from those parts of the world from which terrorists have originated who entered our country, and we were searching for these individuals. Apparently they were never found.

The point is, they were supposed to have entered our country through Canada. How would one do that? Along the border between the United States and Canada, we have a great many ports of entry where we have very little security, as a matter of fact. Prior to our Appropriations Committee adding some money in the last year and a half, at many ports of entry in North Dakota, when the ports of entry closed because they are open only a certain portion of the day, at the end of the day, at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night, they put up an orange rubber cone, and that was the security to keep terrorists out of this country or to keep out those who are not supposed to enter this country.

The polite ones who enter this country illegally say they would get out of the car, remove the cone, drive into this country, and replace the orange cone. Those not so polite would shred that cone at 60 or 70 miles an hour, with nothing to stop them.

We changed some of that at ports of entry, but we have a 4,000-mile border. There is not a ghost of a chance that the Border Patrol and others who are required to provide the security on this country's northern border can possibly do all that is necessary to keep terrorists from entering our country.

Despite that, we have the Immigration Service, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and others doing heroic work, but they need more resources. They are short of money. And that also is included in Senator Byrd's proposal.

Last July in Congress, we on the Appropriations Committee passed by a wide margin a supplemental appropriations bill that included $2.5 billion for homeland defense, port security, as I mentioned, the security of nuclear plants in our country, airport security, cyber security, and training for police and fire personnel, the first responders for any terrorist attack. Yet the President decided he would not use that $2.5 billion. He blocked it, and this amendment restores much of those funds.

I know earlier today we had people come to the Chamber and talk about those who want to spend money. There are those who say this is all about spending money. This is a rather small amount compared to what we did for Defense, for example, in this year.

The President asked for and we agreed to increase Defense spending nearly $45 billion in this year. We face some very significant challenges in Iraq, North Korea, terrorists. We call on young men and women in this country to put on their uniform and, in a moment's notice, be called up, put on a ship or airplane and shipped to the farthest points of the world to protect our country. We increased that spending in a very significant way.

Just a year ago--in fact, a year ago this week--I was in central Asia. I was in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and toured those areas where our young men and women--American soldiers--were defending our liberty and freedom.

I do not think anyone will ever want to shortchange them in what we do to spend money to protect them, and I commend Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye for their leadership in making certain we make that investment. But it is not only with respect to this Nation's defense that we must make investment. We also must make those investments in our homeland security. If we fail to do that, there will be a time, after some additional national tragedy as a result of a terrorist attack, when we will ask the question: Why did we not plug that hole? Why did we not add those resources? Why did we not have those additional inspections?

We can avoid all of that if we simply make wise and prudent investments in homeland security in this legislation. I prefer we not be required to spend any money on homeland security. I prefer we live in a world in which there is not a terrorist threat, in which those who have evil in their hearts, such as Saddam Hussein and others, would not exist and we would live in peace and harmony and not have to worry about protecting our homeland. But the attacks of 9/11, which killed thousands of innocent Americans, by those holed up in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan plotting the murder of innocent people tell us we can never again be sure that that kind of world will exist.

We must understand that terrorists want to do damage to this country and kill innocent Americans. As a result,

we simply must have adequate homeland security and adequate protection. That is all this amendment offered by Senator Byrd does.

We will have an opportunity to discuss other issues with respect to the omnibus bill. Although I have been talking about homeland security, I fully agree with Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd that we should handle these appropriations bills this way. It is the only way we can solve this issue of getting the eleven bills done, getting to a conference, getting them to the President, and getting them signed. So there is no disagreement about that. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens are absolutely correct. This is what we should do. We should do it this month and get these priorities funded. But as I say that, the question is: What priorities? What choices?

I have not yet seen the entire amendment or the entire omnibus bill that has been offered. I expect I will be able to review some of it this evening and perhaps tomorrow. But this is significant legislation. I know what part of it is. Chairing one of the subcommittees on appropriations, I know what is in that subcommittee. With Senator Campbell and me working closely together, I know what is in that particular part, but the rest of it I am not aware of, and I think most Members would not be aware of the specific provisions. We need to work together in the coming days to make sure the choices we make in terms of priorities are the right choices.

I will have a lot to say on a couple of other issues, but I want to specifically say to Senator Byrd, I think this amendment makes eminent good sense. It is an important amendment, an urgent amendment, and represents one of our first priorities: Making the right investment for homeland security.

There is a part in this omnibus bill that deals with disaster legislation, drought relief, for farmers. I do not know this for sure, but my understanding is the money for that actually comes out of the agricultural spending base, which in my judgment should not happen. Second, it is only about half the size of what is needed.

By a very wide margin, we passed last year a $5.9 billion disaster relief bill for drought relief for a major part of the country's agricultural producers. That is about what we need. In my judgment, we are going to have to amend this provision.

My understanding also is that in order to get part of this money, there is an across-the-board reduction, and I believe there are certain areas where we cannot do across-the-board reductions. Having said all of that, we need to debate those amendment by amendment. This first amendment is an important amendment. As Senator Byrd said, and let me hasten to say as well because I serve on this committee, the leadership of Senator Stevens is exemplary. I am proud to be on this committee, whether under his leadership or Senator Byrd's. Our differences in choices with respect to both the White House and those who support this amendment are not meant to be disrespectful but are an assertive difference, representing what we believe to be an urgent priority.

There is no greater priority than to make sure we have done what we can do to thwart the efforts of terrorists to attack this country, and in a number of areas we are markedly and substantially deficient in homeland security investment. We have known that for some long while. This is the time to correct it. It is not spending, it is an investment, just as it is an investment in this country when we make the kind of appropriations we need to make for defense. We have done that. Now we need to make the same judgment with respect to homeland security.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, I thank my esteemed colleague and dear

friend, Senator Ted Stevens, for his characteristic courtesy, and for his friendship, and for the cooperation he has shown to me over many years of working together.

I thank him for joining with me, last year, in reporting out of our committee all appropriations bills before the close of July.

I thank all of the Republican members as well as the Democratic members of my committee who voted unanimously to report those 13 bills out of the Appropriations Committee, without a single vote cast against those bills.

I am sorry that the situation has developed, as it has, when I must oppose the distinguished Senator's amendment. I always do whatever I have to do to meet my own conscience and to deal with requirements that are incumbent upon me as the chairman of the committee or as the ranking member of the committee, whichever is my role at the particular time.

I do not like to be in a position of differing with my friend from Alaska, but there are times when we do have to differ. In this case, I find myself at odds with him, but I want to say here that it is only for the purposes of advancing this bill. It certainly does not cut across our friendship, as far as I am concerned, when I have to differ with Senator Stevens, and differ with him vigorously. He is still my friend.

I understand what he has to do, as he sees his responsibilities. And I have to do what I have to do as I see my responsibilities. Our friendship is unaffected. I want to assure him of that, as far as I am concerned.

Last July, almost 6 months ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on all 13 of our appropriations bills, each on a bipartisan unanimous vote. These bills restored essential funding for programs that the President proposed to cut.

We provided $1.1 billion more than the President requested for veterans medical care. We restored the $8.6 billion cut proposed by the President in highway funding. The President proposed only a 1 percent increase for education programs. He would have turned the No Child Left Behind bill into another unfunded mandate. Our bill provided a 6 percent increase for education, including key funding to reduce class size.

We included sufficient funding to keep Amtrak operating. We restored over $1 billion of cuts that the President proposed for State and local law enforcement programs.

We fully funded the President's proposed increases for homeland security programs, but we provided the funds through existing programs that our Nation's fire and police organizations support. We provided a significant increase for the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to investigate corporate fraud. We provided $400 million for election reform.

Now this White House believes that these increases represent wasteful and unnecessary spending. Last year this White House worked with the House Republican leadership to slow the appropriations process down. The House has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months.

Let me repeat that. The House of Representatives has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months.

The domestic agencies of the Government are now operating under the sixth--the sixth--continuing resolution, which expires on Friday, January 31.

My friend, Senator Ted Stevens--who is the very able ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, who will soon succeed me as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and who has already succeeded me as President pro tempore of the Senate--and I worked together to produce those 13 bi-partisan bills last summer. Each of those 13 appropriations bills was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee with a unanimous vote--not a single vote cast against any one of the 13 appropriations bills.

After the election, however, the President indicated his determination to limit discretionary spending to the arbitrary figure of $751.3 billion. This level will necessitate cuts of $9.8 billion from 11 of the bills approved last July. After providing for modest increases for homeland security programs, the substitute that Senator Stevens is forced to offer provides for a virtual freeze in all other domestic spending.

I oppose the $9.8 billion cut that is contained in the substitute. The needs of the American people for homeland security, for education, for transportation, for veterans, for public health, and for other programs have not gone away. The needs are still there as plain as ever.

I am not being critical of my colleague, Senator Stevens. I am not being critical of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young of Florida. However, the President has now thrown down the gauntlet and is insisting on a $9.8 billion reduction, resulting in cuts in priority programs designed for what? Designed to defend our homeland, to educate our children, to improve our transportation systems, and strengthen our law enforcement programs.

I am extremely disappointed, not with Senator Stevens or the other members of the Senate Appropriations Committee or my friend, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, or his ranking member, Mr. Obey, but with this administration, with this White House and its lack of vision and knowledge regarding the needs of the people of this country.

With great fanfare, the President signed numerous authorization bills this year that would increase spending demands for many of these same important programs. Last January he signed the No Child Left Behind Act with great fanfare. The President signed the No Child Left Behind Act which had passed the Senate 87 to 10 and which endorsed additional resources in important education programs for our children. Last May, the President, Mr. Bush, signed a border security bill with great fanfare, which had passed the Senate 97 to nothing, which authorized strengthening glaring and dangerous weaknesses in our border security. Last July, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which had passed the Senate 89 to nothing, and which addressed shameful corporate fraud that bilks innocent people. In October, Mr. Bush signed the election reform bill with great fanfare which had passed the Senate 92 to 2 to help State governments overhaul the Nation's outdated and corruptible electoral system. In November, President Bush signed legislation which had passed the Senate 95 to nothing to improve security at our ports.

Yet in order to reduce our bills by $9.8 billion, the omnibus legislation that we will consider this week will cut education by $1.5 billion. It will cut homeland security programs by $1 billion, including cuts of $627 million for border security, $23 million from port security and $132 million from first responder funds. It will cut Securities and Exchange Commission funding below the levels in Senator Hollings' bill by $94 million.

This omnibus legislation will reduce Head Start funding by $202 million. It will reduce job training by $534 million. It will reduce low income home energy assistance by $300 million.

The new omnibus bill will cut Amtrak funding by $374 million, a level that will result, I am told, in the termination of Amtrak service.

In addition, the bill includes 1.6 percent across the board cut on all domestic programs. This represents a $435 million cut in the National Institutes of Health. It represents a $182 million cut to Education for the Disadvantaged. It represents a $372 million cut in Veterans Medical Care. On top of these cuts, every homeland security initiative in this package is reduced by 1.6 percent. This is no way to govern. We must move forward on this legislation. As much as I chafe about these mindless cuts, we cannot allow the domestic agencies of our government to continue operating on automatic pilot for the rest of the fiscal year. The people elected us to make choices about how we invest their tax dollars. There will be amendments offered in the coming days to restore some of the cuts contained in the substitute to be offered by Senator Stevens for homeland security, for education, and for other worthy programs. I urge Members to consider these amendments carefully and to ponder the impact of the reductions in this bill.

These should not be up or down party-line votes. When the Congress

passed, with broad bi-partisan votes, and President Bush signed, authorization bills for homeland security, for port security, for border security, for investigating corporate fraud, and for No Child Left Behind, we all recognized that these programs required adequate resources. We did not vote to address these critical problems with rhetoric alone. We have heard plenty of rhetoric. We collectively decided that these were real problems that needed real solutions. To solve these problems requires resources, not empty promises. I urge every Member to reflect on their support of these authorization bills as they decide how to vote on amendments that will be offered in the coming days. Let's make the rhetoric match the resolve.

While I oppose the $9.8 billion in cuts which are being required by the administration as the price to move these bills, I recognize that an even worse alternative is to fail in our duty to enact appropriation bills and allow the United States Government to operate without sufficient funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. I believe my colleague, Senator Stevens, is of a similar frame of mind. He is doing what he sees as his duty. He is a good soldier. He has my profound empathy.

This is the U.S. Senate. We are 100 Senators who have taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We serve with Presidents. We don't serve under any President, I have served with 11 Presidents, not under any President. The votes that we will take on this important legislation, especially those relating to the defense of our homeland and the education of our children, are not about politics. They are about doing what is right and what was promised to the people of this country.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the $9.8 billion of cuts contained in the substitute compared to the fiscal year 2003 bills reported last July by unanimous vote in the full Appropriations Committee, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this Nation faces a turning point as we are challenged once again by the threat of attack on our shores. We know that terrorists live among us. Yet we do not know where they will strike, or when, or how they will strike. With endless warnings in mind, and with a clear realization of our many homeland security gaps, it is time that Congress invest the necessary resources in homeland security to match its rhetoric and to match the rhetoric of this administration. So I have offered an amendment that would accomplish three goals:

First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations Committee voted--every member, 29 members of the Appropriations Committee, with 15 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress overwhelmingly in the summer of last year, but which was rejected by this White House.

Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has found so necessary and that President Bush has signed into law. This amendment would fund the Airport Security Act that created the Transportation Security Administration and placed rigorous, new safety standards on the Nation's airports. This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last May. This amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last November.

These dollars address our Nation's most critical needs. These funds would help to shore up our Nation's defenses and save lives at home.

The Congress has voted to create the Department of Homeland Security, but that Department is months--if not years--away. I read in the Washington Post today about the slowdown in the fulfillment of that dream, but that Department is months--if not years--away from being a strong defense against terrorist attacks. There are many details to be worked out. We cannot wait to address gaps in our Nation's defenses while this new Department is organized. Terrorists will not wait to attack. We cannot afford delay. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the amendment be printed in the Record at this point so that all Senators, members of the press, and the people at large may read on tomorrow the contents of the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation similar to measures I have introduced in previous Congresses that will help protect our Nation's natural resources and improve the visitor experience in our national parks and other public lands. The Transit in Parks Act, or ``TRIP,'' establishes a new Federal transit grant initiative to support the development of alternative transportation services for our national parks, wildlife refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Akaka, Alexander, Baucus, Corzine, Dodd, Graham, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Levin, Reid, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden, who are cosponsors of this legislation.

I want to underscore again today some of the principal arguments I have made in past years as to why this legislation is urgently needed. Memorial Day weekend, the opening of the summer travel season, is just weeks away. Millions of visitors will soon head to our national parks to enjoy the incredible natural heritage with which our Nation was endowed. But too many of them will spend hours looking for parking, or staring at the bumper of the car in front of them.

Clearly, the world has changed significantly since the national parks first opened in the second half of the nineteenth century, when visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. At that time, travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was long, difficult, and costly. Not many people could afford or endure such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and see some of our Nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to millions of Americans.

Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of visitors and cars have resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The Grand Canyon alone has almost five million visitors a year. As many as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,400 parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a giant parking lot.

In 1975, the total number of visitors to America's national parks was 190 million. By 2002, that number had risen to 277 million annual visitors--almost equal to one visit by every man, woman, and child in this country. This dramatic increase in visitation has created an overwhelming demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut out of the parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than four million visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million visitors a year and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve these problems now or risk permanent harm to our nation's natural, cultural, and historical heritage.

Visitor access to the parks is vital not only to the parks themselves, but to the economic health of their gateway communities. For example, visitors to Yosemite infuse $3 billion a year into the local economy of the surrounding area. At Yellowstone, tourists spend $725 million annually in adjacent communities. Wildlife-related tourism generates an estimated $60 billion a year nationwide. If the parks are forced to close their gates to visitors due to congestion, the economic vitality of the surrounding region would be jeopardized.

The challenge for park management has always been twofold: to conserve and protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive environments. Until now, the principal transportation systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access into our national parks are roads, primarily for private automobile access. The TRIP legislation recognizes that we need to do more than simply

build roads; we must invest in alternative transportation solutions before our national parks are damaged beyond repair.

In developing solutions to the parks' transportation needs, this legislation builds upon the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, in which the two Departments agreed to work together to address transportation and resource management needs in and around national parks. The findings in the MOU are especially revealing: Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many of the National Parks contain significant noise and air pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on the city streets they left behind.

In many National Park units, the capacity of parking facilities at interpretive or scenic areas is well below demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use areas.

On occasion, National Park units must close their gates during high visitation periods and turn away the public because the existing infrastructure and transportation systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were designed.

In addition, the TRIP legislation is designed to implement the recommendations from a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in public lands that I was able to include in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, as section 3039. The Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study confirmed what those of us who have visited our national parks already know: there is a significant and well-documented need for alternative transportation solutions in the national parks to prevent lasting damage to these incomparable natural treasures.

The study examined over two hundred sites, and identified needs for alternative transportation services at two-thirds of those sites. The study found that implementation of such services can help achieve a number of desirable outcomes: ``Relieve traffic congestion and parking shortages; enhance visitor mobility and accessibility; preserve sensitive natural, cultural, and historic resources; provide improved interpretation, education and visitor information services; reduce pollution; and improve economic development opportunities for gateway communities.''

In fact, the study concluded that ``the provision of transit in federally-managed lands can have national economic implications as well as significant economic benefits for local areas surrounding the sites.'' The study determined that funding transit needs would support thousands of jobs around the country, while also providing a direct benefit to the economy of gateway communities by ``expand[ing] the number of visits to the site and expand[ing] the amount of visitor spending in the surrounding communities.''

The study identified ``lack of a dedicated funding source for developing, implementing, and operating and maintaining transit systems'' as a key barrier to implementation of alternative transportation in and around federally-managed lands. The Transit in Parks Act will go far toward helping parks and their gateway communities overcome this barrier. This new Federal transit grant program will provide funding to the Federal land management agencies that manage the 388 various sites within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other public lands, including National Forest System lands, and to their State and local partners.

The bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded transit services throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources and wildlife habitats, to prevent or mitigate adverse impact on those resources and habitats, and to reduce pollution and congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor access and improving the visitor experience. The program will provide capital funds for transit projects, including rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent to national parks and other public lands. The Secretary of Transportation may make funds available for operations as well. The bill authorizes $90 million for this new program for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2009, consistent with the level of need identified in the study. It is anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be available to augment these amounts.

The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in national park lands. The bill further provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal land management agencies. The projects eligible for funding would be developed through the transportation planning process and prioritized for funding by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation. It is anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior would select projects that are diverse in location and size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional public transit system. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity of projects selected for assistance.

In addition, I firmly believe that this program will create new opportunities for the Federal land management agencies to partner with local transit agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation systems. This will spur new economic development within these communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public lands.

The ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks-- quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of our gateway communities.

As we begin a new millennium, I cannot think of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our national parks, wildlife refuges, and Federal recreational areas than by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is strongly supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, Environmental Defense, the American Public Transportation Association, Community Transportation Association, Amalgamated Transit Union, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, America Bikes and others, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis, and letters of support be printed in the Record, along with the USA Today article, ``Save Parks: Park Cars.''

I believe that we have a clear choice before us: we can turn paradise into a parking lot--or we can invest in alternatives. I urge my colleagues to support the Transit in Parks Act to ensure that our Nation's natural treasures will be preserved for many generations to come.