A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness.

Up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the country is truly well served by having the Senator from North Dakota as ranking member. I don't know anyone who knows more about facts relating to our budget this year, last year, or in the last decade than the Senator from North Dakota. I am not being solicitous.

A good friend of ours from the State that was much closer to North Dakota than Delaware--from Wyoming, Senator Simpson--used to say in the Senate repeatedly, in his colloquial way: You know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not entitled to their own facts.

It seems as though some in the Senate think they are entitled to their own facts.

I will repeat some things that have been said here. They are so consequential I don't know how they cannot be repeated because they have not seemed to have broken through the ether, not here necessarily, but even in the country. To state the obvious, these are very serious times, just as they were at the dawn of the atomic age when Einstein observed ``that everything had changed except our way of thinking.'' We face mortal threats to our Nation from terrorists from rogue nations, expanding international commitments, a looming and gigantic democratic transition--a fancy word for saying there is going to be a bulge in the retirement-age people, myself included, and part of this baby boom generation--and our thinking must now change, not just about how we secure our safety in this dangerous new world but how we maintain our economic security, as well.

And we are here today with yet another budget resolution that calls for more than $1 trillion in new taxes.

One definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This budget meets that definition.

Thanks to the people of Delaware, I have been here now for three decades and I have shared this floor with many of my colleagues--well, not that many, actually--who are still here today. How many of my colleagues came to this Chamber back in the 1980s and talked about the need to balance the Federal budget? It was a fervor at the time.

The President of the United States of America, and many on this floor, the most ardent supporters of this outrageous budget deficit, were insisting on--and I remind everybody--a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Does everybody remember that? A constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

When some of us voted for an exception to that amendment for war, our Republican friends, by and large, overwhelmingly our conservative Republican friends, voted it down and said that is a loophole we cannot sustain.

The President, this President of the United States, indicated that. When we said that when there are exceptional economic circumstances requiring us to deficit-spend as an exception to the constitutional amendment, our Republican friends said no, no, we want to enshrine it in the Constitution of the United States of America. I think the leader of the Budget Committee was probably for a constitutional amendment-- without exceptions, we tried to put in.

Now what are we doing? Here we are. Back in the 1980s we were told that

Government needs to run more like a business and like a family; that business and families are under the danger of extending beyond their means and they should stop.

I know it is kind of trite to say it, but I guess we are modeling this after Enron businesses, instead of what we used to know as businesses back in the 1980s.

It took some time, but we eventually took that sound advice and we did balance the budget. As the old political saw goes, ``I have the scars on my back to prove it.'' It took discipline. It took some hard choices that made my constituents angry and my most ardent supporters angry--because we cut their programs.

Here we are again. But this time the Nation is at war--in case someone on this floor hasn't noticed. We are at war. We face ballooning deficits, far larger than anyone could have imaged, especially, I might add, in the wake of our jubilation just 2 years ago about a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years.

This year alone, counting the costs of the war, our deficit, if we pass this budget, will reach, in the unified budget, which means counting the surplus in Social Security, a $350 billion deficit. If you take out Social Security like we all promised you we would do, and don't count the surplus in Social Security, it is a $587 billion deficit this year.

In the face of this $587 billion deficit, or what everybody likes to talk about now, the unified budget, which takes the Social Security surplus and spends it, the $350 billion deficit that this budget resolution calls for in the face of this more than a third of a trillion dollar deficit, for 1 year we are adding another $1.3 trillion tax cut.

In my 30 years in the Senate I can honestly say, from my perspective, I cannot recall a more reckless or irresponsible proposal to come before this Senate.

Where are the deficit hawks now? Where are those who were demanding for decades that we balance the budget; those who said we couldn't sustain our economy in the face of massive deficits? Where are those who were telling me we cannot let our children and grandchildren foot the bill for our excesses? Where are they now? Where have all--not the flowers--where have all the balanced budgeters gone? What happened to them? They all died and were reincarnated as kings. All my conservative Republican friends--where are they? Where have they gone?

Instead of a careful, conservative approach to our finances, instead of caution and a sense of responsibility in these dangerous times, this budget throws caution to the wind and simply dumps the bill for our choices today on our children and our grandchildren.

A lot of people around this place, since I got here--it is a dangerous habit we tend to--and I hope I don't do it--question one another's motives, not just their judgment. I am not questioning the motive of my Republican colleagues here. I believe that, notwithstanding that the rich benefit the most from this--I don't think that is their purpose. It is a result of what they do. I think their purpose is they truly believe somehow, if they go along with this budget, somehow it will cause the economy to grow so significantly that everybody is going to be all right. We are going to be able to pay for everything and balance the budget.

They even went so far--I will do this in a separate speech since I don't have time--they even went so far as to get someone from the President's Council of Economic Advisers and place him, hire him with the Congressional Budget Office to make a case that this could be done.

As I understand it from my Ph.D. economist on my staff, he ran, I don't know how many--two, three, five, a half dozen econometric models, a fancy term for seeing how this would work out under dynamic scoring, and still could not come up with a balanced budget. Even the Republicans can't, through this new voodoo, come up with a balanced budget--not this year but long term.

We are now in a position where we ask, when we are fully engaged on the ground in Iraq in a war that is not truly over and will not be over until the reconstruction and nationbuilding the President rightly calls for is accomplished, where are they now? Where are my deficit hawk friends now when the $75 billion the President has requested is just the first downpayment on the war?

Let me be clear about the numbers at the outset, before we find ourselves under the weight of deficits that will begin to crush us, before we have to have our old ``cut the deficit'' conversation again, because I promise you it is coming up. We are going to have our ``we have to cut the deficit'' conversation when reality finally sinks in, unfortunately probably too late.

In the face of all the new, massive domestic and international commitments that are staring us in the face, this resolution calls for a $1.3 trillion tax cut. The additional interest charges we will pay on the increased national debt as a consequence of the tax cut and the budget deficit will total over $1.5 trillion. It will bring the amount up to $1.5 trillion, the cost of the tax cut; over $1.5 trillion in dollars that will not be available to meet the new commitments we face.

These funds will not be available, to take one example close to home, to give the Adjutant General of the Delaware National Guard, General Vavala, the medivac helicopters he needs or the civil support he needs in case of biological or chemical attacks.

Sadly, there are countless more examples of tax cuts shortchanging vital programs such as the hundreds of thousands of eligible veterans still waiting 6 months to enroll in a health care system, not to mention 400,000 claims by disabled vets that are still backlogged, not to mention no money for the COPS Program, or underfunding nearly $10 billion in the President's own No Child Left Behind education law, signed just last year and heralding the President as the President of Education.

Forget about Social Security. Virtually all of these tax cuts are borrowed straight from the Social Security system on the very threshold of the time when that system will need not just the borrowed surpluses, but even hundreds of billions of dollars more to meet the commitments to a retiring generation of baby boomers.

Let's be clear now at the outset what we are about to do and the choices we are about to make. I remember clearly those conversations with many of my colleagues. You can be sure as I am standing here today we will be having them again soon.

Mark Twain said a lot of things, but one of the things he said is very appropriate today, in my view. He once said:

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Boy, am I hearing a rhyme here today. It does rhyme. It rhymes with all the nonsense of the supply-siders of the 1980s. It rhymes. It rhymes: massive tax cuts and deficits as far as the eye can see. They rhyme.

Mr. President, at its core, a nation's budget reflects its basic values. More than any speech, more than any campaign promise, our budget reveals who we are, what we believe in, what we think is important, what we think is not. It reveals our real values, our real priorities.

I do not say this as a criticism, but my value system and that of the Senator from Oklahoma are fundamentally different. My value system and the value system of my friends who are supporting this massive deficit are very different. And that is legitimate. I am in no way casting an aspersion but stating the obvious.

Budgets reflect our values. In these historic times, in my view, our budget policy should reflect two of our most fundamental American values. The first is facing up to our responsibility.

I love all my friends, Democrats and Republicans, who talk about that we have to have more individual responsibility in this Nation. I just ask the average person listening to this debate: Tell me how responsible you think we are being individually. It means putting together a responsible budget that makes hard but necessary choices, just like they are making in their families right now, as I speak. It means doing what is right. And by that I am not saying my Republican friends are doing what is wrong. They mean well, but I think it is wrong.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 5 more minutes.

I will take the additional few minutes.

It means doing what is right . . . and not handing the bill for our actions to our children and grandchildren.

By returning us to the failed policies of massive deficits this budget does exactly that. It hands it to the generation of young men and women who are fighting in Iraq.

The second value is fairness--a sense that we're all in this together.

In a democratic society like ours, under threats like those we face today, that means having a shared sense that paying our fair share of the bill is not just a partisan buzz-phrase . . . it is not just window dressing . . . It is who we are . . . It is what we are about. It is what this budget should be about, fairness and responsibility.

No one's definition of fairness is a tax cut that gives a taxpayer in the middle income bracket about $250, while those with incomes over a million dollars get a cut of over $90,000.

No one's definition of fairness is a tax cut that gives almost half of all taxpayers a cut of less than $100, while the top one percent of taxpayers get a cut of over $24,000.

Take a look at the income bracket of the men and women who are fighting now in Iraq--the young people who will be handed the bill for the future deficits in this budget. They will be getting less than $100 in tax cuts.

Is there anyone here who will argue that is fair, Mr. President?

In my view, as far as reflecting our values, this budget fails.

It is written as if we faced no new threats to our physical and economic security and it ignores the--small ``d''--democratic standard of fairness that we are fighting for.

I remember when the President was running for office . . . when he was still facing a primary challenge from Steve Forbes and his flat tax, then Governor Bush proposed cutting taxes. The problem back then, as he saw it, was that we were piling up budget surpluses and we were paying off--yes, paying off--the national debt.

So what did he say? He said it would be better to cut taxes, above every other possible use of those resources.

He did not say we should use those resources to fix Social Security, for example, or to restore the integrity of Medicare, or beef up and reorganize the military, or build up homeland defense to meet the new threats we face, or paying for his own priorities such as a missile defense system.

At that time, at the end of the second Clinton Administration, the Federal budget was in surplus. We had actually paid down over 150 billion dollars of the national debt, and we were on schedule to eliminate the national debt altogether by 2010.

Think about that. In seven years, we were going to completely eliminate the national debt . . .

If there was any question about what the government could do if it balanced the budget and ran a surplus--if there was any question why surpluses are better than deficits--it was answered on the morning of September 11.

That morning we learned the nature of the new threats we might face . . . We realized what it would cost to defend the Nation against them . . . It wasn't long before we saw the pricetag for rebuilding Afghanistan . . .

And now we are winding down a war in Iraq that the budget doesn't fully account for . . .

Not to mention the pricetag for nation building which--from the looks of news reports of massive looting this morning--will be substantial.

In his first year in office the President promised that he could cut taxes . . . pay off the national debt . . . add new funds for education . . . launch a missile defense system . . . and--he insisted--take care of any emergency that might come along.

A lot of us were skeptical. We thought the tax cuts were too big . . . that the surpluses were overestimated . . . that the future was too uncertain. But unfortunately it was a vote we lost. He got what he asked for: a tax cut totaling $1.7 trillion, counting interest, over the next decade.

We have seen the results of that mistake--the results are right there in the hundreds of billions of dollars of red ink we are spilling every year.

Simple common sense tells us we must not make the same mistake again.

In ordinary times, these proposals would be bad tax policy, and bad budget policy . . . In these times, they are irresponsible, a failure to confront the challenges we face.

In the face of threats to our security, we are offered weaker Federal finances, with deficits as far as the eye can see . . .

In the face of a weak economy, we are offered a tax cut program that is a windfall for a few instead of jobs for the many who need them . . . In the face of a demographic wave that will overwhelm our Social Security system, we are told to borrow the system's reserves . . .

Let me conclude by suggesting that at a time when our Nation is challenged as never before, we are offered a budget policy that was devised to win a party primary 3 years ago.

Finally, we must be concerned--in these times above all others--about the question of fairness. When we are putting the lives of our men and women in uniform on the line, when we face security threats here at home, in the Middle East, and in Korea, when deficits are once again imbedded in our budget, we have to pull our Nation together.

It does make a difference how we pay for these goals. It is important that America believes we are in this war all together. We cannot send the bill for this to our children and our grandchildren--returning from this war--by returning to another era of deficits. And they are young men and women in their teens and early twenties.

We cannot--in these times above all other times--cut taxes for a small fraction of Americans while we face the unknown costs of reconstructing Iraq and maintaining our security.

Right now, I think the best thing we can do is forego any tax cuts that are not paid for and that are not part of a short-term stimulus package, and forego spending increases, as well, unless they are for homeland security and national defense because anything else--anything else we do, in my view--is just wrongheaded.

In terms of the fairness of this, I will conclude by saying, if one's definition of fairness in a tax cut is to give taxpayers in middle income about $250 this year--with this tax cut--while those with incomes over $1 million get $90,000, and those in the top 1 percent-- meaning people making over $317,000 a year--get $24,000 a year, and the kid coming home--with the average pay being paid for a kid who is fighting over there in Iraq now--their tax cut will be $100 on average, give me a break about how this is fair--beyond being wrongheaded and counterproductive economic policy.

I thank my colleague for the time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, so often Members of Congress, the President of the United States, and members of the press refer to an event as ``historic.'' The vote we are about to take on the budget resolution is one of those events. If this resolution passes, then April 11, 2003 will be included in the history books as the day the Senate relinquished part of its Constitutional purpose and power.

On March 31, a little over a week ago, I attended the funeral service of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I had the privilege of serving in the Senate with Senator Moynihan. He was a visionary, a leader, a teacher, and a statesman. Senator Moynihan reminded us to pay attention to our history. And he protected the historical purpose of the institutions of our nation's government the executive branch, the judicial branch, and especially the legislative branch.

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution designates the Senate as our Nation's deliberative body. As such, Senators are the only elected officials in our Federal Government with the power to impeach, approve treaties, and have 6 year terms.

In Federalist paper No. 63, the Founders explained that 6 year terms were important because the Senate would serve ``as the cool and deliberate sense of the community.'' The Framers believed this was important to prevent the Federal Government from making hasty decisions about matters that are central to the future of our country.

Let me quote directly from Federalist 63:

. . . so there are particular moments in public affairs

when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or

some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful

misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures

which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to

lament and condemn.

In short, our Founding Fathers saw the Senate's obligation to deliberate the important issues of our time:

Until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority

over the public mind.

I believe we are at such a critical juncture.

Several Senate rules facilitate the Founders intent. First, Senators generally are allowed to offer amendments to any bill brought before the Senate. This is not generally the case in the House of Representatives.

In order to limit debate and reduce amendments, either all 100 Senators must agree to the limitations or the promoters of the legislation must file a motion to close debate and get 60 votes for that motion. That means that a simple majority is simply not good enough. The magnitude of our decisions requires a larger number of the Members of this body--60--to agree that it is the right thing to do for our country.

These Constitutional protections are fundamental to ensuring that the Senate maintains the role envisioned by our Founding Fathers. We must be very cautious when diminishing these protections in any way.

The enactment of the Budget Act of 1974 is one of the very few instances when the Senate has cut back on these protections. This was done with another important goal in mind--reducing deficits.

Let me take a minute to touch on the budget and budget reconciliation protection process.

When Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the purpose of the legislation was to help Congress control its budget.

Among other things, the Budget Act allows Congress to enact a budget blueprint each year. That blueprint, contained in what we call a budget resolution, is considered under special rules and must be passed by April 15th of each year.

One of these rules is that, instead of requiring 60 votes for approval, the resolution requires only 51. After a limited amount of time for debate, the Senate moves to a final vote.

The Budget Act set up a streamlined process--reconciliation--to make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation pursuant to the directives of the budget resolution.

Those provisions such as cutting spending or increasing taxes, are critical to reducing deficits.

Thus we agreed to significantly diminish the right of Senators to debate and amend measures brought to the Senate floor when done as part of the budget resolution and reconciliation. We agreed to give up these rights for a very important goal--that of deficit reduction.

Things changed, though, in 1996. In 1996, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the budget resolution's streamlined reconciliation protection could also be used to pass tax cuts, that is, provisions that increase deficits.

The budget resolution can now include instructions to the Finance Committee to report tax cuts that can be passed in subsequent legislation with only 51 votes in the Senate. That ruling turned the Budget Act on its head. Unfortunately, today's parliamentary maneuver goes even further; it turns Senate procedure on its head.

The instructions in this budget resolution regarding the tax cut establish new precedents that will expand the power of the House and the leadership of the Senate at the expense of Senators. The precedents will diminish the power of any individual Senator, the Senate's committees, and whichever party happens to be in the minority at any given time. This new budget resolution scheme runs counter to intention and rules governing Congress since Congress first convened in 1789.

The tax cut instructions direct the Finance Committee to pass a bill with a maximum of $550 billion in tax cuts.

However, if the Finance Committee passes a bill greater than $350 billion, then the bill will not be permitted to pass the Senate unless it garners 60 votes of support instead of 51. This is accomplished through a new point of order that will apply during Senate consideration of the Finance Committee bill.

So, for example, if the Finance Committee passes a tax cut bill costing $450 billion, any Senator could raise a point of order on the Senate floor. The point would be sustained by the chair, unless 60 Senators voted to waive the point of order.

The point of order, however, is not applicable in conference under this resolution. Accordingly, a conference report that comes back above $350 but no more than $550 would need only 51 votes. No known points of order would lie against it--a dramatic change from current Senate practice.

At this point, I might say the architect of all these provisions which were designed to maintain Senate procedure and to maintain control of the deficit in a meaningful way is now seated on the floor, Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia. I pay great respect to the Senator from West Virginia, who I am sure right now is lamenting a lot of new procedures that this body is about to adopt.

Under the Byrd Rule, the Senate could not exceed the instructions to the Finance Committee unless there were 60 votes to waive the objection.

But there is a significant difference. The Byrd Rule applies to both Senate consideration of the tax bill and Senate consideration of the conference report. But there is a big twist. The new point of order will apply only to Senate floor consideration of the Finance Committee tax cut legislation. It won't touch the conference report.

Now, you may ask, why doesn't the Byrd Rule still apply to the conference report? I believe that the Chair would rule that it does apply. This was confirmed in a letter sent from the Parliamentarian to Senator Daschle on April 9, 2003, which stated in part:

During Senate consideration, the conference report on this

measure [the tax cut bill] would be subject to the level of

the reconciliation instruction given to the Finance

Committee. If that conference report exceeded the instruction

to the Finance Committee, the Byrd Rule would be available to

remove provisions from that report sufficient to bring the

measure into compliance with the reconciliation instruction

to the Finance Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

That is what the Senate Parliamentarian wrote in a letter to Senator Daschle 2 days ago.

The operative question is, What is the instruction given to the Finance Committee? I suggest there are two possibilities: $550 billion and $350 billion. The case for the $550 billion is technical. Section 201(b) of the bill before us states:

The Senate Finance Committee shall report a reconciliation

bill not later than May 8, 2003, that consists of changes in

laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by

not more than [$550 billion].

The case for $350 billion--that is what is the instruction given to the Finance Committee--is substantive. The instruction to the Senate Finance Committee is conditional. The very next section of the budget resolution, Section 202(a), provides:

It shall not be in order for the Senate to consider a bill

reported pursuant to section 201, or an amendment thereto,

which would cause the total revenue reduction to exceed [$350

billion] . . .

Taken together, the instruction to the Senate Finance Committee regarding reconciliation is $350 billion. I believe if you were to ask 100 Senators what the size of the tax cut is going to be in the Finance Committee-reported bill, they will tell you, it will be $350 billion-- not more. Everyone in this Senate, this body, knows that is what is going to be reported.

The budget resolution says it is not in order to consider a tax bill greater than $350 billion. If the Chair rules that the instruction to the Finance Committee is for $550 billion, then I believe that approval of this resolution would eviscerate a significant part of the Byrd rule.

The Senate will have created a mechanism to, at a minimum, eliminate the effect of the Byrd rule provision in consideration of conference reports.

Under this ruling, there would be no basis for stopping further erosion of the Byrd rule. The drafters could eliminate the use of the Byrd rule provision by setting a very high instruction number to the committee, and setting points of order at lower amounts at whatever steps along the way were necessary to command the votes sufficient to pass a bill.

For example, the budget resolution could instruct the Finance Committee to report a bill costing $1 trillion. The resolution could then set a point of order applicable to the Finance Committee bill at $200 billion, set a point of

order applicable to Senate floor consideration at $300 billion, and set a point of order applicable to the conference report at $400 billion. The Byrd rule would then be inapplicable provided the cost of the tax cut bill was not more than $1 trillion, an artifice. That is exactly what is going on here in this budget resolution.

That result is absurd, and I believe this interpretation renders portions of the Budget Act moot or ineffective. If these actions go forward, this ruling will come back to haunt the Senate. It may enhance the Senate's ability to pass bigger tax cuts. It may enhance the Senate's ability to pass larger spending increases. It may do both. But it will not help the Senate reduce the deficit, which was the purpose of the reconciliation provisions.

I urge every Member of this body to fully examine the effects this ruling will have on the Senate and on our Nation. It is irresponsible to go forward with this plan, and I cannot support the procedural scheme cooked up in this budget. I urge my colleagues to look at the long run, not the immediate short run, and vote against this resolution.

In addition to my earlier comments expressing my disappointment and serious concern regarding the procedures adopted with respect to this budget, I would like to also speak against certain funding provisions included in this budget conference report. I'm especially concerned by the insufficient level of highway funding and by Title III.

Highway funding is one of the most effective ways to create jobs and send needed assistance to the States--in my State of Montana and across the nation. It is unacceptable to cut transportation funding at this time when states are facing record deficits and unbalanced budgets. In addition to highway funding levels being set too low in the budget resolution, the reserve fund provisions won't allow us to increase the highway program unless we raise taxes.

In order to build on the success of TEA 21 and pass a TEA 21 reauthorization bill, we must ensure that our budget resolution can accommodate higher levels of spending for highways and transit. These higher levels of spending will enable the successor to TEA 21 to become law.

Increasing funds into the Highway Trust Fund is the sole responsibility of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Grassley and I have been working very hard to find ways to grow the highway and transits programs, without raising taxes.

I can't emphasize enough how the single principal feature of any new highway reauthorization bill has to be its increased funding for the program, something that will help Montana and help our country. The blueprint that the budget resolution sets for our fiscal year 2004 budget fails when it comes to transportation funding.

I am also troubled by provisions that were included in Title III of the budget resolution. Similar to the deceptive procedures that are being used to rush this budget to a final vote, Title III includes misleading findings in order to justify possible future cuts to programs that are essential for working Americans. Title III includes findings on waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs and instructions for the tax-writing committees to examine these programs for savings.

Many of the programs included in Title III involve aid to low income Americans. Included in this group are millions of veterans and members of our current armed forces. Title III includes findings addressing the earned income tax credit (EITC). EITC works to reduce the tax burden on low income Americans, while giving a powerful incentive to work. I am concerned by a section of Title III that would crack down on erroneous payments of the earned income tax credit, stating that the OMB has found that $8 billion a year is paid erroneously for EITC claimants.

I have no tolerance for people who commit fraud and steal benefits paid for with the tax dollars of hard working Americans. However, I believe the OMB findings are largely due to errors, not fraud. And I believe that the complexity of the tax credit and complex living situations are responsible for the high error rate. Publication 596, the instructions and forms for the EITC, are 54 pages long. The number of pages explaining the EITC is longer than those describing the alternative minimum tax. Many of the claims paid ``erroneously''-- according to the study on 1999 tax returns--are not paid fraudulently. Often a payment made in ``error'' is simply made to a mother living in the same house as her grandmother--who should have claimed the credit-- and is consequently marked as paid in ``error.''

Senator Nickles argued earlier today that we have never addressed these issues before. With all due respect for my good friend from Oklahoma, we have worked in a very bipartisan way over the last several years to address the issue of EITC noncompliance. In 1997, we passed a provision allowing the IRS to access the Federal Case Registry to determine if a child is qualifying. This registry is still a work in progress. We also established kid-link, which as of today, only affects children aged four and up.

In 2001, Senator Grassley and I worked together to include significant provisions in the bipartisan tax cut that were aimed at reducing error. These changes include the AGI tiebreaker provision and giving the IRS math error authority to prevent deadbeat dads from claiming the EITC.

It should be noted that almost none of these changes were in place when the study Senator Nickles refers to was done on 1999 returns.

President Reagan hailed the expansion of the EITC in 1986 as ``the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' It has been estimated that nearly 4.8 million people, including 2.6 million children, are lifted out of poverty every year because of the earned income tax credit.

In 1999, then Presidential candidate, Governor Bush, told reporters ``I don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor.'' Mr. President, I hope we take these words to heart when we consider this budget.

Mr. President, while I welcome what I have just heard the Senator from Iowa say, no one should be under any illusion that there will only be $350 billion in tax cuts provided for in the budget resolution. This budget resolution provides for $1.3 trillion of tax cuts. Focusing on the reconciled tax cuts is only half of the story. It is a very important part of the story because those are the provisions that have special protection. There is a whole other part of the tax cut package part of this budget resolution that gets little reported. We are still left with well over $1 trillion of tax cuts.

People keep asserting it is a growth package. This is the work of the people who determine the effect of various packages, the very people who are under contract to the White House, the people who are under contract at the Congressional Budget Office who have looked at the President's plan. This is what they say:

Initially the plan would stimulate aggregate demand

significantly by raising disposable income, boosting equity

values and reducing the cost of capital. However, the tax cut

also reduces national saving directly while offering little

new, permanent incentive for either private saving or labor

supply. Therefore, unless it is paid for with a reduction in

Federal outlays, the plan will raise equilibrium real

interest rates, ``crowd out'' private-sector investment, and

eventually undermine potential GDP.

Not a growth package, it is a package that hurts economic growth. That is the hard reality.

The fundamental reason for it is revealed in the President's own budget that shows his long-term outlook with respect to budget deficits if his budget plans are adopted. This is from his budget document. It shows we never get out of deficit. It shows the deficits explode because the baby boom generation retires and the cost of his tax cut package explodes.

The result is a heavy load of deficit and debt that burdens this economy and prevents the kind of economic growth for which we had all hoped.

The Senator from Montana is seeking time. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Montana, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, the former chairman of the Finance Committee, for, with great specificity, pointing out the extraordinary danger of what is being proposed here.

In order to accomplish a short-term goal, we are endangering the ability of this body to responsibly manage the budget of this Nation. I believe this is a dark day for the Senate. I believe we will live to regret the day this was adopted.

It is a sham. It will create enormous problems in the future. Whoever is in the minority--whoever is in the minority--is going to face a dramatic diminution of the power and the ability to influence outcomes.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague, he may get a budget resolution, but there is no fiscal discipline here. Let's not mislead anybody. This is a prescription for record budget deficits, for red ink as far as the eye can see, for the explosion of deficits and debt. This may be a budget resolution, but it is not a prescription for fiscal discipline.

People can make all the deals they want. We are going to vote on a budget resolution. This budget resolution authorizes $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. That is what is provided for here. And they can do this fandango dance that they instruct on one hand the Finance Committee to do $550 billion of tax cuts, then turn around and make a supermajority point of order against any actual product of that committee over $350 billion, and the chairman of the committee can come out and commit not to bring back from conference committee anything more than 350. I have respect for the chairman of the committee. When he gives his word, I believe it. I commend him for it. But let's not be under any illusion that that restricts what is happening to $350 billion of tax cuts. It does not.

What is in this budget we are going to vote on is $1.3 trillion of tax cuts when we already have record budget deficits, and it also increases spending by $1.1 trillion. Guess what? You are going to have deficits as far as the eye can see. And they are not small deficits; they are huge deficits. And they are going to mushroom when the baby boom generation retires.

Is the Senator from West Virginia seeking time?

How much time would the Senator like?

I am happy to yield 20 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and also an extraordinarily valuable member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. As I indicated, he is a very valuable member of the Budget Committee and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. He has said very clearly what this budget before us represents: a plunge off the cliff into unending deficits and debt--at the worst possible time.

Here we are at war, the cost of which we cannot know, right on the brink of the retirement of the baby boom generation. We are already in record budget deficits. The Senator said the budget deficit, as some private forecasters indicate, will be over $400 billion this year. That doesn't count the $160 billion they are going to take out of the Social Security trust fund.

On a true operating basis, we are going to have a deficit this year of more than $600 billion. Is anybody listening? And it doesn't end this year.

We don't see the deficit on an operating basis, if this budget is adopted, ever getting below $300 billion to $400 billion a year. This is the sweet spot--the time the trust funds are throwing off big cash surpluses. When the baby boomers retire, we will go into cash deficits. Then the cost of the President's tax cuts truly explode, driving us off the cliff into deficits, and deficits that are totally unsustainable.

I note the Senator from New Jersey is seeking time. He is also an extraordinarily valuable member of the Senate Budget Committee. He is somebody whose expertise in financial matters has been demonstrated in the private sector and public sector. Very few have been as successful as he has been in the private sector, and he was successful in understanding how the economy works. How much time does the Senator seek?

I will be happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I will be happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and any additional time he requires.

I thank the Senator. I yield now to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I take issue with my colleague on this question of spending. This chart demonstrates the long-term relationship between spending and outlays going back to 1981. This is the outlay line, the spending of the Federal Government. It was over 23 percent of gross domestic product in 1982 and has been brought down steadily. When Democrats were in control in 1993, we put in place a 5- year plan. Look what it did to spending.

I hear the allegation that Democrats are the spenders. Let's look at the historial record. When Democrats had control in 1993, this is the trajectory we put spending on--down as a percentage of our gross domestic product, which economists say is the right way to measure spending over time because you are taking out the effects of inflation. We did increase revenues because we faced massive deficits. These deficits during this period were huge as a percentage of gross domestic product.

So we cut spending; we raised revenue; we balanced budgets; we turned deficits into surpluses; we stopped raiding Social Security trust funds. We kicked off the longest period of economic growth in our Nation's history. We had the lowest unemployment in 30 years, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the strongest business investment in history. That is our record. We are proud of it.

When the talk is about spending, let's look at the comparison. This chart looks at, from 1981 going forward, the difference in the Democratic alternative and the Republican budget before the Senate. Here is the difference. They are at 19 percent of gross domestic product, and we are at 19.3. We are both dramatically down from the peak of 23.5 percent in 1982. We have demonstrated spending restraint. This increase in spending that occurred was totally bipartisan. The increase in spending that occurred was for defense and homeland security almost exclusively. We participated in that spending increase together. We all agreed we ought to increase defense and we ought to increase homeland security.

I hope my colleagues, when we talk about the record around here, will reflect on the whole record, and Democrats, despite what we hear all the time, were disciplined in spending, reduced spending when we were in a position to control it, reduced it for 5 years in a row as a percentage of gross domestic product, and balanced the budget.

I give them high marks for getting a budget resolution. But what is in this budget resolution deserves low marks. It is red ink as far as the eye can see, with absolutely no concern for balancing budgets, ever.

Our friend on the other side said this has a plan to pay off the debt. There is no plan to pay off the debt. If this budget is adopted, it doubles the debt. He is talking about a plan to pay off the debt; there is no plan to pay off the debt. This exploded the debt. If they want to get partisan about fiscal accomplishments here they are: The deficits of the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now this Bush administration. The only time we have been out of deficit, the only time was when the Democrats were in charge and we actually not only got out of deficit, we stopped the raid on the Social Security trust fund. That is a fact.

And the deficits this President proposes are deep and long lasting and could not be timed in a worst way. Here we are on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation that will absolutely explode the deficits, and the President's tax cuts will explode in costs at the same time, putting us into a sea of red ink.

How much time does the Senator from Delaware seek?

I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I do not have that additional amount of time. I will give him an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and want to echo that for Members on our side. We are very close now to being able to go to the final vote.

How much time remains on our side, Mr. President?

Fifteen and a half minutes.

Could I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey?

I appreciate very much the Senator from New Jersey, who is the former ranking member of the Budget Committee, and, of course, has a history of extraordinary success in the private sector as well as tremendous contributions in the public sector.

How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, we anticipate now that the vote will start at 5:20. We want to alert our colleagues to that. Let me just wrap up, if I may. And then would the chairman like to conclude this debate?

All right. Mr. President, let's all understand what we are voting on. This is not a tax cut of $350 billion. There is a tax cut contained in this budget resolution for $1.3 trillion. There may be some side deals that have been arranged to reduce the reconciled amount of that tax cut, but the budget resolution before us provides $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. This is at a time of record budget deficits. We have the biggest budget deficits we have ever had.

The budget deficit for this year will be between $500 and $600 billion, not counting Social Security. If we treat Social Security the way it was intended and we don't take it and use it for other things, the operating deficit is between $500 and $600 billion this year.

This is advertised as a growth package, something that will grow the economy. In our analysis, nothing could be further from the truth. The deadweight of these deficits and debt will burden the economy for years. It threatens the economic security of our country.

This is the analysis of the people who were hired by the White House and the Congressional Budget Office to do the economic analysis. This is what they say:

Initially the plan would stimulate demand by raising

disposable income, boosting equity values, and reducing the

cost of capital. However, the tax cut also reduces national

saving while offering little new permanent incentives for

either private saving or labor supply. Therefore, unless it

is paid for with a reduction in Federal outlays, the plan

will raise real interest rates, crowd out private sector

investment, and eventually undermine potential gross domestic

product.

In other words, this plan hurts the economy. It doesn't help it. It hurts it. That is the analysis of the people who are paid to do it by the White House themselves.

The White House's own budget document reveals the long-term circumstance we face: Exploding deficits as a result of exploding costs to the Federal Government from the retirement of the baby boom generation, coupled with exploding costs of the tax cut that is proposed and contained in this budget. The result: we never get out of deficit, ever, at least until the year 2050, according to the President's analysis. The deficits just get deeper and deeper and deeper, threatening the economic security of the country.

I close with this piece that appeared in the New York Times op-ed page on Wednesday. This is a piece done by six of our most distinguished colleagues: three former Senators--two Democrats, one Republican--two members of President's Cabinet in the past--one Republican, one Democrat--and Paul Volcker, former head of the Federal Reserve. I don't know his political affiliation.

They are warning us of the direction we are going. They conclude by saying this:

Congress cannot simply conclude that deficits don't matter.

Over the long term, deficits matter a great deal. They lower

future economic growth by reducing the level of national

savings that can be devoted to productive investments. They

raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise.

They raise interest payments on the national debt. They

reduce the fiscal flexibility to deal with unexpected

developments. If we forget these economic consequences, we

risk creating an insupportable tax burden for the next

generation.

That is what is at stake here.

Are we really going to pass a budget that contains authorization for another $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, when we are already in record budget deficits, when we are in a war, the cost of which we do not know, and we are on the brink of retirement of the baby boom generation, which is going to explode the cost to the Federal Government?

Mr. President, anybody who votes for this budget is voting to increase the

deficits by $2.4 trillion. It is precisely the wrong thing at this time. It is precisely the wrong thing. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, we welcome the Vice President to the Chamber. We congratulate you on the success of our forces half a world away in Iraq. We deeply appreciate that success.

We have concluded action now on the budget resolution. This has been an item of significant debate in the Chamber, and disagreement, but we respect the outcome. Everyone had a chance to express their view. Everyone hopes this works out for the best for our country.

I conclude by thanking the chairman of the committee, who worked very hard in difficult circumstances to produce a budget resolution. We congratulate him on his success. We also thank his excellent staff, who were terrific to work with. Although we had, obviously, disagreements on the two sides, the tone of this debate has been excellent.

I also thank all of my colleagues who expressed themselves, who participated in this debate and made their feelings known.

I conclude by thanking my own staff, my staff director, Mary Naylor, Jim Horney, Sue Nelson, my counsel, Lisa Konwinski, and all of the other staff members who worked long and hard as we considered this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I compliment my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his leadership, for his courage, for his service on both the Finance Committee and on the Budget Committee. He full well realizes we need both a budget and a growth package, and he has helped us and enabled us to do that. I also thank my colleagues from Ohio and Maine as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take issue with our colleagues. I regret the decision they made. But that is not the way this resolution reads. It may have been the way we were looking at having it a couple days ago, but because of some changes that were made, this resolution reconciles both committees to $550 billion, both Houses to $550 billion.

It also has additional language that says the Senate will be limited to $350 billion, both out of committee and on the floor. The chairman of the Finance Committee said he would not report, he would not sign a conference report that was greater than $350 billion. You can take the word of the chairman of the Finance Committee. If he says it is not going to be more than $350 billion, it is not going to be more than $350 billion.

But to say we are starting something different, if the resolution was drafted correctly and it said $550 billion for both Houses, it did have limitations on the Senate. We have the right to put limitations. We put instructions to various bodies, either the House and/or the Senate, and various committees. That is what a Senate resolution does.

I just want to make sure people understand both the commitment our colleague from Iowa made and also that the resolution--and it was not done haphazardly. It was not done with malice or trying to distort the budget process. We were trying to pass a budget in both the House and the Senate. That is what we are going to do. We are going to have a budget.

We did not have a budget last year. We are going to have a budget this

year. We are going to have a budget that will have caps on discretionary spending and points of order against entitlements. It will be able to keep people from offering entitlements on any little bill that comes down that costs billions of dollars and acting as if it did not cost anything. We are going to have budget enforcement. We are going to have fiscal discipline. We are going to have a reconciliation package that will be reported out of the Senate Finance Committee on the floor of the Senate, and I believe out of the conference report, at $350 billion.

I will also say, I heard my colleagues say: Well, there is really $1.2 trillion. Mr. President, $600 billion and some of that is for the last 3 years of the reconciliation period--the years 2011, 2012, and 2013. That will be to extend present law. If we do not extend present law, you are going to have people who are paying 10 percent, who will be paying 15 percent. You are going to have people who are paying 25 percent who will have to go back up to 28 percent. You will have an increase or reinstatement of the marriage penalty. You will have people who were receiving a $1,000 tax credit per child who will only get a $500 tax credit per child.

I just mention these. Everybody keeps talking about these fabulous tax cuts for the wealthy. The highest income tax bracket has been reduced a great big 1 percent. It has gone from 39.6 percent to 38.6 percent. Hopefully, eventually it will be at 35 percent. How high is 35 percent? I might remind my colleagues, in 1990, the maximum rate was 31 percent. So even after all of these enormous personal income tax cuts proposed by President Bush, the rate is going to be 35 percent, which is still about 13 percent--or maybe higher than that--well, the old rate was 31 percent. So you are still about 15 percent higher than it was under President Clinton.

I just mention, with all these rate reductions--I have been in the Senate not nearly as long as Senator Byrd, but when I came to the Senate, the maximum personal income tax rate was 70 percent. In my first 8 years in the Senate, it was reduced to 28 percent--a pretty significant reduction.

Incidentally, Federal revenues in that 10-year period of time, between 1980 and 1990, doubled. So even though we reduced personal income tax rates dramatically, total revenues to the Federal Government rose dramatically--doubled--in that timeframe. So it can happen.

We reduced capital gains rates in 1997 from 28 percent to 20 percent, and revenues rose, and rose dramatically, because we cut tax rates.

President Bush is now proposing additional tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The chairman of the Finance Committee said the reconciliation package would be $350 billion. Colleagues on the other side offered tax bills and spending bills--mostly spending--that was $140 billion. I guess that was OK but this is not OK.

We are looking at an economy that is $11 trillion per year. We are looking at total revenues to the Federal Government over this same period of time of $28 trillion. We are trying to move the economy by having a slight reduction of $350 billion. The House would say $550 billion. That is hard to do. Some of us think it should be more, but we also know we have to count votes. We also know we have to pass a budget. That is our objective, to pass a budget and to get the biggest growth package we can. That has been my objective for a long time. I think it would be very foolhardy to say: Well, we can only get half a growth package; therefore, we will not have a budget. I think that would be a mistake.

We need to have a budget. We need to have a growth package.

I just tell my colleagues as well that there are still opportunities to do additional tax cuts outside of reconciliation. I encourage that. I was very close to recommending we not have reconciliation and just do a tax cut, period, the old-fashioned way, without the expedited procedure, Senator Byrd, because I believe we can pass one. I think we should pass one. It would be amendable and debatable. We could do it, and we would help the economy. I hope we will, in addition to what we do on reconciliation. I don't think you can stimulate the economy as big as this economy is. I don't think you can do enough with $350 billion. I agree with our President. It may well be we will have to do some inside of reconciliation, and we will have to do some outside of reconciliation. Fine. I would imagine the House can pass a tax bill, and I hope and look forward to taking it up in the Senate. Yes, there will be unlimited debate and unlimited amendments. Fine. Let's take it up. Let's vote. Let's find out, do we really want to grow the economy.

I hope our colleague, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, will work with the chairman to make that happen.

I yield the floor.

I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, just for the information of our colleagues--I appreciate the comments that have been made by many of our colleagues--I think we are close to wrapping this up. I inform people it is our expectation we will be voting probably no later than 5:30. So if colleagues are off Capitol Hill, at least they can have that in mind. The rollcall vote will probably be starting maybe at 5:20, 5:25, 5:30. So I just want to make that notification.

I understand the concern of the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico about mental health parity, and I would concur with my colleague's assessment. The conference report does assume the revenue impact of enacting mental health parity legislation.

Thank you.

Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we are going to be voting momentarily. I have a lot of colleagues who say they want to catch planes, and a lot of the debate has cycled around once or twice. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Conrad. I am not totally surprised that he will not vote for the budget resolution-- maybe a little disappointed.

I hope we return to the days of having bipartisan budget resolutions. There will be some Democrats who will vote for this. I hope there are several. When we passed this budget 3 or 4 weeks ago in the Senate, there were several Democrats who voted for it. I hope we will get several to vote for it today.

I have heard a lot of complaint about it, most of which is excessive tax cuts. I beg to differ. We have tax revenues over the next 10 years of about $28 trillion, and the reconciled portion of this tax cut, at maximum, would be $550 billion, but probably more like $350 billion. That is a small percentage. Some colleagues say: Wait a minute, there are more; in the outyears, there is $600 billion, and that is basically continuing present law. If you don't do that, you are going to have massive tax increases in 2011, 2012, and 2013. A lot of those tax increases will be on low-income people, raising their rate from 10 percent to 15 percent, reinstating the marriage penalty, or it would be eliminating the $1,000 tax credit per child. I don't want to do that. I don't know that we are going to do it this year. We don't have to do it this year. We should do something to stimulate the economy. We have a small stimulus package--$350 billion for the Senate.

So I hope our colleagues will support this package.

I will make one comment about deficits. Are deficits too high? You bet. Some people say--and I have heard this a lot--they were caused by excessive tax cuts in 2001. But I disagree with that. There are two equations: how much revenue you are taking in, and also how much money you are spending. We have been spending a lot of money because of national defense needs, because of homeland security and, frankly, Congress got in the habit of spending a lot of money during the later years in the Clinton administration when we had a lot of growth revenue. We had spending compounding at double-digit levels--12, 13, 14 percent. We cannot continue doing that.

This budget has fiscal discipline. It does say that the discretionary amounts, compared to last year prior to the supplemental, will grow at about 2.5 percent. We have caps on entitlements, points of order against growing entitlements, and we say that entitlement changes in Medicare should be limited to $400 billion after a bill is reported out of the Finance Committee. We didn't put that in reconciliation. We want Medicare, and we want a prescription drug bill, and we think we can get it as a result of this bill.

Last year, we had no budget. When we had no budget, we didn't get appropriation bills done. We didn't pass 11 of 13 appropriations bills last year because the House and Senate didn't have numbers with which they concurred. We didn't get a prescription drug bill. We didn't function or manage.

I urge my colleagues, let's not be totally focused just on the size of the growth package--and a lot of people have different opinions, such as it is not large enough, it is too big; some want zero, some want $350 billion, some want more, and some may want more than that. Let's also keep in mind that that is a tax figure over 10 years, and it is a very small percentage compared to what we are spending per year, which is $2.2 trillion.

This budget is the only game in town if you want to have any control over the growth of that total expenditure. We didn't pass the budget last year. If we don't pass one this year, the whole budget process is dead. I urge my colleagues, let's be fiscally responsible. This is the only game in town. For people to say, wait a minute, this is too high-- the only thing they are talking about being too high is on the tax side. That doesn't count the trillions of dollars they were trying to add on spending.

I urge my colleagues to be responsible. Let's work together and pass a budget that can pass. This can pass. Let's reinstate some discipline that we didn't have last year. I urge my colleagues to support this budget.

I yield back the remainder of my time and I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues. This has been a challenging process. I especially thank Senator Conrad. We have had a good debate, a challenging process, needless to say, but we now have a budget. I thank all of my colleagues for their support in making that happen.

I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici. Personally, my admiration for him has gone up dramatically, recognizing that he was either chairman or ranking member for 22 years of the Budget Committee, and every year he was chairman, he was able to get a budget passed. It is not an easy process. I also thank him because he has given me some excellent staff and they have been a great asset. Hazen Marshall is the chief of staff who put together a great team, many of whom were former employees of my very good friend.

Senator Domenici, who is now chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is doing a fabulous job. This year we will have an energy bill and it will be passed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. When marking it up, it had a lot of amendments. We had a lot of amendments on the budget package in committee and on the floor, and I am sure we will in the energy bill, but I am sure we will have an energy bill to contribute to our country's energy security.

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

I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, as well as my colleague and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than 1 million Americans with type 1 or juvenile diabetes.

As the founder and co-chair of the senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, life-long condition that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. It is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. Moreover, a new study released by the American Diabetes Association last week estimates that diabetes cost the Nation $132 billion last year, and that health care spending for people with diabetes is almost double what it would be if they did not have diabetes.

The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young adults with type 1, or juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow.

In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure, and people with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating, life-threatening complications as well as a drastic reduction in their quality of life.

Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will be cured in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the Edmonton Protocol, an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the approximately 200 patients who have been treated using variations of the Edmonton Protocol, all have seen a reversal of their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and nearly 80 percent have maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 1 year.

Moreover, the side effects associated with this treatment-- which uses more islet cells and a less toxic combination of immunosuppressive drugs than previous, less successful protocols--have been mild and the therapy has been generally well tolerated by most patients.

Unfortunately, long-term use of toxic immunosuppressive drugs, has side effects that make the current treatment inappropriate for use in children. Researcher, however, are working hard to find a way to reduce the transplant recipient's dependence on these drugs so that the procedure will be appropriate for children in the future, and the protocol has been hailed around the world as a remarkable breakthrough and proof that islet transplantation can work. It appears to offer the most immediate chance to achieve a cure for type 1 diabetes, and the research is moving forward rapidly.

New sources of islet cells must be found, however, because, as the science advances and continues to demonstrate promise, the number of islet cell transplants that can be performed will be limited by a serious shortage of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation. There currently are only 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these, only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively.

The legislation we are introducing today will increase the supply of pancreases available for these trials and research. Our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to grant credit to organ procurement organizations OPOs--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research.

Currently, CMS collects performance data from each OPO based upon the number of organs procured for transplant relative to the population of the OPO's service area. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

In addition, the legislation establishes an inter-agency committee on islet cell transplantation comprised of representatives of all of the Federal agencies with an active role in supporting this research. The many advisory committees on organ transplantation that currently exist are so broad in scope that the issue of islet cell transplantation-- while of great importance to the juvenile diabetes community--does not rise to the level of consideration when included with broader issues associated with organ donation, such as organ allocation policy and financial barriers to transplantation. We believe that a more focused effort in the area of islet cell transplantation is clearly warrented since the research is moving forward at such a rapid pace and with such remarkable results.

To help us collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy covered by insurance, our legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on the impact of islet cell transplantation on the health-related quality of life outcomes for individuals with juvenile diabetes, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.

Diabetes is the most common cause of kidney failure, accounting for 40 percent of new cases, and a significant percentage of individuals with type 1 diabetes will experience kidney failure and become Medicare-eligible before they are age 65. Medicare currently covers both kidney transplants and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants for these individuals. To help Medicare decide whether it should cover pancreatic islet cell transplants, our legislation authorizes a demonstration project to test the efficacy of simultaneous islet-kidney transplants

and islet transplants following a kidney transplant for individuals with type 1 diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end stage renal disease ESRD.

Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation JDRF, addresses some of the specific obstacles to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water system, recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as variable leaf milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over southern New England's tidal pools, and just last year began their advance into Maine--to the potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.

Maine and many other States are attempting to fight back against these invasions. Unfortunately, their efforts have frequently been of limited success. As with national security, protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species.

Today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species that invade our shores.

The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and damaging public water supplies.

In the 1950s, European green crabs swarmed the Maine coast and literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.

Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new invasions. It is too late

to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the east coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.

Three months ago, in the town of Limerick, ME, one of North America's most aggressive invasive species--hydrilla--was found in Pickeral Pond. Hydrilla can quickly dominate its new ecosystem--already hydrilla covers 60 percent of the bottom of Pickerel Pond from the shoreline out to 6 feet deep. Never before detected in Maine, this stubborn and fast- growing aquatic plant threatens Pickerel Pond's recreational use for swimmers and boaters, and could spread to nearby lakes and ponds. Unfortunately, eradication of hydrilla is nearly impossible, so we must now work to prevent further infestation in the State.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is the most comprehensive effort ever to address the threat of invasive species. By authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy cruise of invasive species into U.S. waters through the ballast water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million per year to develop and implement these regulations.

The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for research, education, and outreach.

The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing $25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.

One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. The bill we are introducing today would establish a framework to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species by ships.

Currently, the U.S. is in negotiations with the international community on the development and implementation of an international program for preventing the unintentional introduction and spread of non-indigenous species through ballast water. I commend American negotiators for working with the international community to address this global problem. This legislation offers a strong framework that the U.S. should use as a model in negotiating this important international convention. The U.S. Government must ensure that the international convention will be at least as protective as the legislation we are introducing today. The United States must take the most protective action possible to protect our waters, ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species before it is too late.