Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act, a bill that will make it easier for American consumers and businesses to conduct sales from remote locations. Our bill will also help states begin to recover from years of budgetary shortfalls.

This bill is not a disguised attempt to increase taxes or put a new tax on the Internet. Consumer are already supposed to pay sales and use taxes in most States for purchases made over the phone, by mail, or via the Internet. Unfortunately, most consumers are unaware they are required to pay this use tax on purchases for which retailers choose not to collect sales tax at the time of purchase.

That means consumers who buy products online are required to keep track of their purchases and then pay outstanding use tax obligation on their State tax forms. Most people do not know this or comply with the requirement. As such, States are losing millions of dollars in annual revenue.

Our legislation will help both consumers and States by reducing the burden on consumers and providing a mechanism that will allow States to systematically and fairly collect the taxes already owed to them.

This bill is not about new taxes. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow remote sales taxes to go uncollected and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, other taxes--such as income or property taxes--will have to be increased to offset the lost revenue. I want to avoid that. That's why we need to implement a plan that will allow States to generate revenue using mechanisms already approved by their local leaders.

This bill is about economic growth. Sales and use taxes provide critical revenue to pay for our schools, our police officers, firefighters, road construction, and more. It will bring more money-- money that is already owed--into rural areas that are struggling economically. It will also help businesses comply with the complicated States sales tax systems. That means the business resources that have historically been spent on tax compliance could be used, among other things, to hire new people and buy new equipment.

This bill is about tax simplification. As the Supreme Court identified in the Quill versus North Dakota decision in 1992, the complicated State and local sales tax systems across this country have created an undue burden on sellers. Our bill will help relieve this burden by requiring States to meet the stringent simplification standards outlined in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This bill requires States to implement and maintain these simplification measures before they can require any seller to collect and remit sales tax.

The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement includes dramatic simplification in almost every aspect of sales and use tax collection and administration, especially for multi-state sellers. Areas of simplification include exemption processing, uniform definitions, State level administration of local taxes, a reduced number of sales tax rates, determining the appropriate tax rate, and reduced audit burdens for sellers using the state-certified technology.

I firmly believe this bill, coupled with the Agreement, will facilitate a change to our taxing system that benefit local and State governments, Main Street and online businesses, and consumers. I recognize that this legislation may not be perfect, but I welcome the opportunity to continue working with retailers, local and State lawmakers and my colleagues to address any remaining concerns. Our intention is to close the sales tax loophole for remote sales, and I am ready and willing to engage in discussions to ensure that this bill fairly accomplishes that objective.

I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for his tireless efforts on this issue. He has been instrumental in drafting this critical legislation, and I appreciate his insight and thoroughness. I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have agreed to be original cosponsors--Senators Dorgan, Breaux, Bingaman, Chafee, Bob Graham, Hagel, Hutchison, Johnson, Ben Nelson, Rockefeller, Voinovich, and my esteemed fellow Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act, a bill that will make it easier for American consumers and businesses to conduct sales from remote locations. Our bill will also help states begin to recover from years of budgetary shortfalls.

This bill is not a disguised attempt to increase taxes or put a new tax on the Internet. Consumer are already supposed to pay sales and use taxes in most States for purchases made over the phone, by mail, or via the Internet. Unfortunately, most consumers are unaware they are required to pay this use tax on purchases for which retailers choose not to collect sales tax at the time of purchase.

That means consumers who buy products online are required to keep track of their purchases and then pay outstanding use tax obligation on their State tax forms. Most people do not know this or comply with the requirement. As such, States are losing millions of dollars in annual revenue.

Our legislation will help both consumers and States by reducing the burden on consumers and providing a mechanism that will allow States to systematically and fairly collect the taxes already owed to them.

This bill is not about new taxes. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow remote sales taxes to go uncollected and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, other taxes--such as income or property taxes--will have to be increased to offset the lost revenue. I want to avoid that. That's why we need to implement a plan that will allow States to generate revenue using mechanisms already approved by their local leaders.

This bill is about economic growth. Sales and use taxes provide critical revenue to pay for our schools, our police officers, firefighters, road construction, and more. It will bring more money-- money that is already owed--into rural areas that are struggling economically. It will also help businesses comply with the complicated States sales tax systems. That means the business resources that have historically been spent on tax compliance could be used, among other things, to hire new people and buy new equipment.

This bill is about tax simplification. As the Supreme Court identified in the Quill versus North Dakota decision in 1992, the complicated State and local sales tax systems across this country have created an undue burden on sellers. Our bill will help relieve this burden by requiring States to meet the stringent simplification standards outlined in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This bill requires States to implement and maintain these simplification measures before they can require any seller to collect and remit sales tax.

The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement includes dramatic simplification in almost every aspect of sales and use tax collection and administration, especially for multi-state sellers. Areas of simplification include exemption processing, uniform definitions, State level administration of local taxes, a reduced number of sales tax rates, determining the appropriate tax rate, and reduced audit burdens for sellers using the state-certified technology.

I firmly believe this bill, coupled with the Agreement, will facilitate a change to our taxing system that benefit local and State governments, Main Street and online businesses, and consumers. I recognize that this legislation may not be perfect, but I welcome the opportunity to continue working with retailers, local and State lawmakers and my colleagues to address any remaining concerns. Our intention is to close the sales tax loophole for remote sales, and I am ready and willing to engage in discussions to ensure that this bill fairly accomplishes that objective.

I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for his tireless efforts on this issue. He has been instrumental in drafting this critical legislation, and I appreciate his insight and thoroughness. I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have agreed to be original cosponsors--Senators Dorgan, Breaux, Bingaman, Chafee, Bob Graham, Hagel, Hutchison, Johnson, Ben Nelson, Rockefeller, Voinovich, and my esteemed fellow Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas.

Mr. President, 50 years ago James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of the DNA molecule--the blueprint of life. Their discovery laid the foundation for predicting and treating the hereditary diseases that threaten us.

The completion of the Human Genome Project in April 2003 was a significant step towards this goal. Because of the work of these scientists, we now are able to decipher the exact sequence of the genetic code. This knowledge will allow earlier detection and more effective treatment of genetic illnesses.

However, genetic information brings challenges along with promise. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act will ensure that the promise of genetic information is not hindered by fears about its misuse. This legislation will protect individuals from discrimination in health insurance and employment on the basis of genetic information.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for crafting a bill that fairly and effectively protects people against genetic discrimination. In doing so, we have been mindful of existing discrimination and privacy laws and regulations. While the issue is complex, our objective is clear: to encourage people to seek genetic services by reducing fears about the misuse or unwarranted disclosure of genetic information.

Today, we mark the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick's historic discovery with the passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. With each new advance in genetic science, the significance of this legislation grows. By allaying fears about genetic discrimination in health insurance and in the workplace, this legislation will save lives now and in generations yet to come.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, with the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Congress acted swiftly and surely to restore investor confidence in our capital markets. Something needed to be done to assure people that it was OK for them to start investing in and relying on the market again. People wanted to feel certain that the rules had been fixed and the market was fair for all.

Although I am proud we were able to do that, we all knew that there was still more that needed to be done to help the millions of American workers whose retirement savings are fueled by the financial markets.

There's a gap that still threatens the retirement security of the 42 million Americans who participate in defined contribution plans, like 401(k) plans. In defined contribution plans, the employee--not the employer--decides how much and how to invest retirement assets. As anyone who has been investing their hard earned dollars through their employer provided plans knows, there are quite a few choices out there. They each have their own risks and rewards, but they have one thing in common--they require an employee who is investing his or her pay to have a good sense of the market. Employees find themselves having to navigate bull and bear markets, weather changes in personal and professional circumstances, and use long-term planning to set a course that leads to retirement security.

401(k) plans provide great opportunity as well as risk. The difference between the employee who can maximize opportunity and minimize risk and the employee who cannot is sound investment advice. Unfortunately, only 16 percent of plan participants have an investment advisory service available to them through their retirement plans. This survey by the Spectrum Group confirms the existence of an advice gap that must be addressed. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to close the advice gap and help workers choose wisely and chart their course to retirement security.

Both workers and employers are acutely aware of the advice gap. According to the 2002 Transamerica Small Business Retirement Survey, 76 percent of employees felt they don't know as much about retirement investing as they should--up from 65 percent in 2001. This view is held even more strongly by employers, with 91 percent believing their workers don't know enough about retirement investing.

There is another gap that exists with respect to retirement investment advice. Wealthier individuals or high-level executives are more likely to have access to quality investment advice than rank-and- file workers. The Retirement Security Advice Act of 2003 will bring access to quality investment advice, and thereby retirement security, to rank-and-file workers who need it most, particularly those employed at small businesses.

Access to investment advice has not kept pace with either the increasing number of workers participating in 401(k) plans or the increasing complexity of investment options. What accounts for the gulf between the need for and the supply of investment advice?

The 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) imposes outdated barriers to the provision of investment advice to workers participating in 401(k) plans. ERISA prevents investment advisors who have an affiliation with the investment options available under the plan from providing investment advice to plan participants. This restriction might have

seemed reasonable in 1974 when retirement plans were dominated by traditional defined benefit pension plans. However, the explosion in 401(k) plans--and thus the need to provide workers with investment advice services--was not imagined in 1974.

This bill will allow employers to provide their employees with access to quality investment advice so long as the advisors fully and clearly disclose their fees and any potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, investment advisors are subject to ERISA's stringent fiduciary obligations, which requires them to act solely in the best interest of plan participants. Investment advisors who breach this fiduciary duty are subject to a lawsuit by the worker, another plan fiduciary, the plan itself, or the Department of Labor. Employers also have the fiduciary obligation of prudently selecting and periodically reviewing advice providers.

Let us remember that workers are not required to either seek or follow the investment advice. All advice given is strictly voluntary. With clear and full disclosure of fee arrangements and potential conflicts of interest, plan participants can decide for themselves whether or not to act on it.

Some of my colleagues might argue that only independent investment advisors should be allowed to provide investment advice to plan participants. This ignores both the realities of the marketplace for investment advice and the needs of employees and employers. Excluding many of the most qualified financial services companies from offering investment advice to plan participants will leave a large void in the 401(k) advice marketplace. Conversely, increasing competition in this marketplace will promote better quality and lower costs--both to the benefit of plan participants.

Restricting the provision of investment advice services to independent advisors ensures that the advice gap will remain wide-- particularly at small businesses. Employers would be required to look outside of their plan's current administrative arrangement and hire another financial institution to provide investment advice services to employees. For small companies like those in Wyoming, meeting this criteria would be almost impossible. Small employers face unique resource and personnel limitations. The cost of researching, selecting, and paying for the services of an independent advice provider will deter small employers from providing this valued benefit to employees.

The key to retirement security for 401(k) participants is quality investment advice, tailored to the needs of each worker. The key to expanding the number of workers getting such advice is increasing competition in the marketplace for investment advice while providing meaningful protection and disclosure to workers. The Retirement Security Advice Act will open the door to both.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, with the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Congress acted swiftly and surely to restore investor confidence in our capital markets. Something needed to be done to assure people that it was OK for them to start investing in and relying on the market again. People wanted to feel certain that the rules had been fixed and the market was fair for all.

Although I am proud we were able to do that, we all knew that there was still more that needed to be done to help the millions of American workers whose retirement savings are fueled by the financial markets.

There's a gap that still threatens the retirement security of the 42 million Americans who participate in defined contribution plans, like 401(k) plans. In defined contribution plans, the employee--not the employer--decides how much and how to invest retirement assets. As anyone who has been investing their hard earned dollars through their employer provided plans knows, there are quite a few choices out there. They each have their own risks and rewards, but they have one thing in common--they require an employee who is investing his or her pay to have a good sense of the market. Employees find themselves having to navigate bull and bear markets, weather changes in personal and professional circumstances, and use long-term planning to set a course that leads to retirement security.

401(k) plans provide great opportunity as well as risk. The difference between the employee who can maximize opportunity and minimize risk and the employee who cannot is sound investment advice. Unfortunately, only 16 percent of plan participants have an investment advisory service available to them through their retirement plans. This survey by the Spectrum Group confirms the existence of an advice gap that must be addressed. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to close the advice gap and help workers choose wisely and chart their course to retirement security.

Both workers and employers are acutely aware of the advice gap. According to the 2002 Transamerica Small Business Retirement Survey, 76 percent of employees felt they don't know as much about retirement investing as they should--up from 65 percent in 2001. This view is held even more strongly by employers, with 91 percent believing their workers don't know enough about retirement investing.

There is another gap that exists with respect to retirement investment advice. Wealthier individuals or high-level executives are more likely to have access to quality investment advice than rank-and- file workers. The Retirement Security Advice Act of 2003 will bring access to quality investment advice, and thereby retirement security, to rank-and-file workers who need it most, particularly those employed at small businesses.

Access to investment advice has not kept pace with either the increasing number of workers participating in 401(k) plans or the increasing complexity of investment options. What accounts for the gulf between the need for and the supply of investment advice?

The 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) imposes outdated barriers to the provision of investment advice to workers participating in 401(k) plans. ERISA prevents investment advisors who have an affiliation with the investment options available under the plan from providing investment advice to plan participants. This restriction might have

seemed reasonable in 1974 when retirement plans were dominated by traditional defined benefit pension plans. However, the explosion in 401(k) plans--and thus the need to provide workers with investment advice services--was not imagined in 1974.

This bill will allow employers to provide their employees with access to quality investment advice so long as the advisors fully and clearly disclose their fees and any potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, investment advisors are subject to ERISA's stringent fiduciary obligations, which requires them to act solely in the best interest of plan participants. Investment advisors who breach this fiduciary duty are subject to a lawsuit by the worker, another plan fiduciary, the plan itself, or the Department of Labor. Employers also have the fiduciary obligation of prudently selecting and periodically reviewing advice providers.

Let us remember that workers are not required to either seek or follow the investment advice. All advice given is strictly voluntary. With clear and full disclosure of fee arrangements and potential conflicts of interest, plan participants can decide for themselves whether or not to act on it.

Some of my colleagues might argue that only independent investment advisors should be allowed to provide investment advice to plan participants. This ignores both the realities of the marketplace for investment advice and the needs of employees and employers. Excluding many of the most qualified financial services companies from offering investment advice to plan participants will leave a large void in the 401(k) advice marketplace. Conversely, increasing competition in this marketplace will promote better quality and lower costs--both to the benefit of plan participants.

Restricting the provision of investment advice services to independent advisors ensures that the advice gap will remain wide-- particularly at small businesses. Employers would be required to look outside of their plan's current administrative arrangement and hire another financial institution to provide investment advice services to employees. For small companies like those in Wyoming, meeting this criteria would be almost impossible. Small employers face unique resource and personnel limitations. The cost of researching, selecting, and paying for the services of an independent advice provider will deter small employers from providing this valued benefit to employees.

The key to retirement security for 401(k) participants is quality investment advice, tailored to the needs of each worker. The key to expanding the number of workers getting such advice is increasing competition in the marketplace for investment advice while providing meaningful protection and disclosure to workers. The Retirement Security Advice Act will open the door to both.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. There are millions of good reasons why we need to pass this important bill today and they are reflected in the millions of small businesses around the country that benefit from the support the Small Business Administration provides small businesses in Wyoming and around the country. Although we do not have time for me to list those millions of reasons I can sum them up in just three words--jobs, jobs, jobs.

It's an expression we have heard many, many times but it is the truth--small businesses really are the backbone of our economy. They provide careers for the established generation of workers who need jobs to raise their families and they provide jobs to the younger generation of workers--teens and young adults of my State and many others who are looking for employment to help them pay the expenses of school and help them learn the lessons of responsibility, commitment and teamwork.

As a former small business owner myself, I have seen firsthand how a paycheck impacts lives and teaches invaluable life lessons and career skills. A job is more than a responsibility--it's a precious gift that can change your life and help you understand what it means to be a contributing member of society.

In my home state of Wyoming, 96.5 percent of our businesses are small businesses and that translates into a lot of jobs and a lot of families with food on the table and a roof over their heads thanks to the SBA and the programs it provides the people of our country.

That is why I was so pleased to be a part of the important work on the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. This is truly a historic occasion as we celebrate the SBA's successes of the past 50 years and set its course for the years to come.

We've all heard the expression--give a man a fish and you will have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you will have provided him with the tools he will need to feed himself for the rest of his life.

The SBA operates on a similar principle. It does not give a business funding for a day's operation. Instead, it provides the tools, training and support necessary to ensure that a business begins to operate on firm, solid footing and has a reasonable chance for success.

Then, when the doors open up and the customers come in, the SBA continues to serve as a reference and a source of support to ensure that a small business has a place to turn to for advice, encouragement and help if things take an unexpected turn for the worse.

Expect the unexpected--that's not just good advice--it's the focus of the SBA's updated disaster authority in this bill. This section is one of the changes we were able to make to help ensure that SBA remains responsive in the bad times--as well as the good. We were able to expand the definition of a disaster to include drought and below average water levels in bodies of water that support small businesses. That change was clearly needed because the impact of a drought or low water level on agriculture is clear to all of us.

What might not be so clear is how these water problems also affect tourism and recreational businesses. It wasn't clear before, so these businesses often fell through the cracks of Federal assistance. With the passage of this bill, however, that crack will be filled in and small businesses will no longer suffer from these problems with no help or relief in sight.

Native Americans will also benefit from this bill and find help for the terrible challenges poverty and unemployment impose on the Native American communities in my State and across the Nation. Promoting the creation and development of small businesses in these areas will bring much needed assistance to those Native Americans who need a chance to help themselves. I believe this approach will work because each tribe will actively support it to ensure the program is a success.

These and many other changes to the SBA will ensure that it remains a beacon of support and hope for small businesses that are carefully navigating the rough and rocky shores of competition and the thousands of details that can slow or destroy a small business at any stage of its development.

As I have already mentioned, our small businesses are the backbone of our economy. The Small Business Administration is the lifeblood of our small businesses. The support and encouragement of each helps make the other more efficient, more productive and more successful.

Our small businesses and the Small Business Administration have a unique and important relationship. They need each other to grow and prosper and best of all--as they do--they help the Nation to do the same.

Reserving the right to object, we have some statements on our side we would like to give. That is why we wanted 25 minutes. If we take Senator Voinovich's time out of it--I am not sure how long he spoke--it will not give time for Senator Thomas and me.

Mr. President, in my day-to-day life, I have worn many hats. In my life, I have been a small business owner, a mayor, a parent, and a consumer, just to name a few of the roles I have played over the years. I mention them because with each of them, whenever there was a job that had to be done, I always knew the best way to ensure I got the best deal on a project or product was to put it up for bid and place the job in competition. It is a simple philosophy, and it just makes sense to apply the same logic even to Government.

President Bush has said Government should be market based; we should not be afraid of competition, innovation, and choice. Why is the administration so enthusiastic about competitive sourcing? Because it saves money while holding quality standards high. In other words, we get the same quality at less cost. Who wouldn't like a deal like that?

We do not need to look far to find the results of competitive sourcing. The Department of Defense, NASA, and the Coast Guard have a fair amount of experience in the field. In fact, the Department of Defense reports that it will have saved $6 billion from 2000 to 2003 through A-76 reviews.

Another telling example cited by this study was OMB's decision to take a job usually given to the Government Printing Office and put it up for bid. The job was the printing of the 2004 Federal budget. When forced to compete, the Government Printing Office turned in a bid for the project that was 24 percent lower than the previous year.

I do not think there can be any doubt that competitive sourcing saves money. But it does more than that by allowing Government to more actively engage in contracts with the private sector. Government can increase its access to the skills, technologies, and innovations of the small business communities throughout the country.

This spring, I had an opportunity to visit the Mint in Philadelphia, and the employees there told me what a good job they were doing. I observed them doing a good job. They let me know they were doing that so their jobs would not be outsourced. It was a good attitude. They were doing quality work. They were improving. I saw an article in last week's USA Today that talked about the improvement at the Mint since the new director, a business person, was put in charge.

We have before us an amendment to slow the process and prohibit the continuation of funding for competitive sourcing in the Department of the Interior. Adopting this amendment would turn back the clock and head us in the wrong direction. At a time when budget deficits must be controlled, we should be taking full advantage of tried and true methods to cut spending and control costs, not trying to remove the option.

One concern that has been raised about competitive sourcing is that it might have a seriously negative impact on the Federal workforce. This is not true. Competitive sourcing is about increasing efficiency, not eliminating workers.

As Senator Voinovich said, it is about asking the employees how it can be done best. The person actually doing the job usually knows how and best. As a case in point, the Department of the Interior has reported that of more than 2,500 full-time employees whose jobs have been analyzed under A-76, none have been involuntarily dismissed from their jobs. Those who claim we are out to toss out the Federal workforce are missing the point about this program.

Simply stated, competitive sourcing is better for taxpayers and the Federal Government. It makes Federal dollars go further, and it forces Federal agencies to perform more like businesses where the highest level of efficiency is the only acceptable level, and it is working.

If we allow passage of the Reid amendment, we are in fact taking away the one tool a Federal agency has to ensure it is getting maximum efficiency and quality. As a member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I have a responsibility to oppose legislation that may harm our small business community. I cannot support the Reid amendment because it would have a negative impact on the small businesses of our Nation by refusing to allow them to compete. I have been holding some procurement conferences in Wyoming for small business so they could learn how to compete, how to combine if the job is too big for one small business. It has been working. It hasn't kicked Federal employees out of their jobs, but it has produced some lower prices and some employment for small businesspeople.

Studies have shown that when the private sector does win public/ private competitions through Circular A-76, a small business, a woman- owned business, or a minority-owned business wins that competition 60 percent of the time. By cutting funding for competitive sourcing in the Department of the Interior, we would be blocking off one of the few entryways that small businesses have available to gain access to jobs in the Federal Government.

With more than 50 percent of the Federal workforce eligible for retirement within the next 5 years--let me repeat that--with more than 50 percent of the Federal workforce eligible for retirement within the next 5 years, it is essential to ensure we have the right people in the right positions.

Competitive sourcing creates an atmosphere in which the Government is not forced to deflect its valuable Federal employees to tasks that are not inherently governmental. It allows Federal agencies to more effectively manage their personnel.

That kind of management was clearly in evidence when a number of national parks on the eastern seaboard used temporary employees during the summer as lifeguards. Through competitive sourcing, the National Park Service contracted this work to private lifeguard companies. These companies then hired the Park Service's temporary employees, giving them full-time year-round jobs. The local communities benefited through the enhanced opportunities for local businesses and the former Park Service employees benefited by getting better pay and more work.

Circular A-76 is important because it represents a win-win situation for small businesses; also for the Government; also for the taxpayer; and for all those who need and perform the work.

We are all familiar with the old adage, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Circular A-76 is working well and will only get better as we fine- tune the process. It is a process that isn't broke and it deserves to keep doing what it does best, saving the Government money.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about a promise the Federal Government made to Wyoming's Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes nearly 100 years ago. A promise my colleague from Wyoming and I tried to fulfill this year through the appropriations process. Unfortunately, due to confusion about the project, we came up short-handed. As a result, I would like to take a few minutes to set the record straight.

In 1905, the Federal Government entered into an agreement with the Wind River Tribes to initiate and complete an irrigation project in exchange for the opening of 1.4 million acres of land to the United States. The Tribes lived up to their end of the bargain. The United States, on the other hand, has not. Since 1905, the project, known as the Wind River Irrigation Project has continually battled budgetary shortfalls, inadequate maintenance, and bureaucratic red tape.

The history of the Project's funding is long and complex. Construction began in the early 1900s and was funded under the Public Works Administration Project's budget. Significant improvements were made to the Project under this funding scheme and the Project grew to 13 main canals, 94 main laterals, 268 sub-laterals, two feeder canals and a couple of drainage canals. However, in the 1950s, new construction essentially stopped as Congress changed the way it funded Indian irrigation projects. When Congress began making lump sum appropriations to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the Construction of Indian Irrigation Projects in 1951, funding became even more sporadic and unpredictable. Sometimes the system was in fair condition, but most of the time it was in poor condition. Finally, in the 1980s, Congress stopped appropriating all together for the construction of Indian Irrigation projects. As a result, the only significant Federal funds the Wind River Irrigation Project has received in nearly 20 years has been for the rehabilitation of the Washakie Dam, which was funded using money from the Safety in Dams program within the BIA.

Yes.

It is my understanding that the BIA owns and operates this system and has been responsible for the collection of the operation and management fees since the project was authorized in 1905.

Yes.

Is the Senator aware that as a general guideline, the Bureau of Reclamation suggests that irrigation projects in the region need at least 140 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal to be economically self sufficient? No wonder the Wind River Irrigation Project has been forced into a state of disrepair. It is pretty difficult to collect enough user fees to maintain a system when it is only serving 55 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal.

We are both from the great State of Wyoming and I am extremely encouraged by the leadership our State government has shown in helping to address the water problems on the Reservation. We both received letters from our Governor, the Director of the Wyoming Water Development Commission, county commissioners from that area and three State legislators in full support of the project. We have also heard from the Mayor of Riverton, which sits adjacent to the Wind River Reservation, and the three surrounding irrigation districts. While the vocal support is helpful, I am even more encouraged by the State's willingness to put its money where its mouth is.

I thank the Senator for the question and yes, according to information provided by the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs owns the system. Although a portion is managed by the Tribes under a 638 contract, the BIA clearly owns and operates the Wind River Irrigation Project.

That is why it is so critical that the Federal Government step up and help fulfill this promise to the Tribes on the Wind River Reservation. Rehabilitating the Wind River Irrigation Project is the only way farmers, ranchers and other land users can produce their commodities. Furthermore, unless we improve the system so that it is a reliable water source, the Tribes cannot attract new and diverse businesses. Without funds to fix this problem, the Reservation cannot move into the 21st century successfully.

We will have to find a way to fund the Wind River Irrigation Project and other similar Indian Irrigation projects in the future. I hope we can work with our colleagues on the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee next year to address the critical shortfall in funding and the lack of planning to address these problems within the BIA.

private landowner's incentive program

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Interior appropriations subcommittee, for his leadership in bringing this important spending bill to the floor and for helping us establish the spending priorities for our Nation's public lands. Wyoming is greatly impacted by this bill and Senator Burns' leadership is very much appreciated. Because of this tremendous impact on Wyoming, I would like to ask my colleague if he would join me in a colloquy to discuss one of the programs that is funded in his bill. Specifically, I would like to discuss the Department of the Interior's Private Landowner's Incentive Program and its potential impact on land management planning on private lands within the U.S. Forest Service's Thunder Basin National Grasslands.

I would like to share one example of an effort in Wyoming that has already benefited from this program and which I feel could greatly benefit in the future from its continued participation. Three years ago I met with officials from the Thunder Basin National Grasslands Landowners Association, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to discuss the role that private

landowners could play in developing land management plans on western national grasslands. The Landowners Association presented a revolutionary proposal to combine the talent and resources of all local landowners to develop an ecosystem assessment and to enter into a series of ecosystem management strategy and conservation agreements with the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that would integrate a comprehensive, multi-species land management proposal for more than 260,000 acres of Federal and private lands within the U.S. Forest Service's Thunder Basin National Grasslands. Their proposal was to first establish a scientific baseline where they catalogued what was on the land and what species existed. Then they proposed to use that baseline to make ecosystem-wide management decisions that would make the land as a whole more vibrant and more sustainable for a number of species including the black-tailed prairie dog, the black footed ferret, and the sage grouse. What they would not do was make management plans based on the presence or absence of any one specific species or to pit different species' habitat requirements against each other. Their goal was to make the land healthier as a whole so that all species would be better off.

As a result of their efforts the Department of the Interior was able to provide an initial grant to the association through the Landowner's Incentive Program of $150,000 that allowed them to assemble an advisory committee made up of national grasslands experts that has helped them develop scientific research and monitoring protocols that are now being used to establish baseline information on area wildlife and ecosystem concerns. In fiscal year 2003, we funded this program at $175,000 which allowed the association to continue its monitoring efforts and to host a symposium in Wyoming on cooperative land use efforts. I would like to see this group funded again in fiscal year 2004 at a minimum of $175,000 to ensure that their efforts have not been wasted.

I would like to ask my colleague if he has any thoughts on whether or not we should continue funding this program.

I thank my colleague for his thoughts and once again express my appreciation for his leadership in these important issues. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to discuss this program.

Rebuild America

Mr. President, as I consulted the morning weather reports, the thought occurred to me that today's economic forecast sounds a lot like the weather forecast. There is good reason to believe dramatic change is on the way. Yet, unlike the weather, how dramatic the economic change will be and how prepared we will be for it is in our hands. While we can't do anything about the weather, we can do something about helping America's workers get back to work.

We have already taken action to lay the groundwork for our economic recovery. We have ensured the presence of more capital in our economy which will lead to the creation of more jobs for our people. We have also begun to deal with the changing face of our Nation's economy. Because the kinds of jobs that will be available in the days to come will be different from those that were highly valued just months ago, we need to ensure that those who are looking for jobs find them. To do that we must ensure they have the training they will need for these new positions. We must also bring workforce supply and demand together to ensure that our businesses have the skilled employees they need to compete in a more global economy.

Workforce development is a powerful economic development tool. In these challenging times, the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act will give us an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of our workers, and increase the strength of our businesses and communities.

Legislation I am introducing today, the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2003, along with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Senator Murray, will build upon the success of the Workforce Investment Act while addressing its shortcomings.

In 1998 the Workforce Investment Act was enacted to create a streamlined job training and employment system that would be responsive to the needs of employers and workers. The system may be fairly new, but we've already learned a great deal about its strengths and weaknesses. These lessons reinforce what I learned as a small business owner in Wyoming: real opportunity in America comes from the small business sector; economic development and workforce development go hand in hand; rural areas face unique workforce development challenges; Washington cannot--and should not--determine state, local and individual workforce needs; and overly burdensome administrative requirements divert resources from serving customers.

Prior to coming to the Senate, my wife and I owned a small chain of shoe stores. We were not shoe salesmen, we were shoe fitters. There is a big difference. Shoe fitters listen to their customers and then meet their need for footwear with something comfortable to wear. Some people may be born salesmen, but they have to be trained to be shoe fitters. We had a series of courses we put our employees through. Few people are aware that slight changes can be made in a shoe to make it especially comfortable as well as useful and attractive. They aren't aware of the possibilities because they haven't been coming to see shoe fitters-- they've been dealing with salesmen.

We taught listening, needs questioning, and technical fitting. Any staff person could advance through our training and begin filling foot doctor's prescriptions. The value of the training was that it made our stores special. We made sure our customers received the help they needed--even though they didn't know to ask for it--because they didn't know it was available.

Along the way we got to see some very special people achieve. One young returning Vietnam vet became a store manager, then bought that store--and later--bought a second store from us. Now he owns his own building and is also in the motel business. Bill Schepeler of Miles City, MT has and is playing a role in building three communities. I also consider him to be one of my good friends. He went through a workforce training program that we had approved in conjunction with the federal government.

My wife has also served on several boards that dealt with training and jobs and is currently on the Advisory Committee On Apprenticeship of the Department of Labor. She and I know that real opportunity in America comes from the small business sector where the American dream can still happen.

This bipartisan legislation I am introducing today wil help keep the American dream alive for millions of American workers. It will provide workers with the training they need to find new or better jobs.

Our bill improves upon the existing one-stop career center delivery system to ensure that it can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of employers and workers in the new economy and address the needs of hard-to-serve populations. The bill also better connects the job training system with the private sector and with post-secondary education and training, social services, and economic development systems. Doing so will prepare the 21st century workforce for career opportunities and skills in high-growing sectors. Our bill removes barriers in the laws that have discouraged business involvement in workforce training. As a result, job training and employment services will be more demand-driven and responsive to the needs of employers, both large and small.

One-stop career centers are the focal point of WIA's job training and employment system. However, distance can create a barrier to delivering job training and employment services in many rural and frontier areas, like Wyoming. A job seeker or employer in Dubois, WY has to travel 150 miles round trip to get to the nearest one-stop center in Lander. It isn't hard to understand the impact that traveling distances like that can have on a trainee or business owner. If you live in a big city-- there's probably a facility just down the road--or a short bus ride downtown. There is an answer to that problem--technology can effectively remove the barrier created by distance. This legislation will leverage technology to improve access to WIA services throughout each state, including rural areas.

Some states and localities have found creative ways to overcome the challenges imposed by current law. Wyoming has done a magnificent job with the resources they have been allotted, and I commend their ingenuity. With this legislation, we will give Wyoming and the other states and localities the tools they need to help the unemployed or underemployed.

I want to thank my colleagues on the HELP Committee for all their work on this bipartisan Workforce Amendment Act. I also want to thank the Department of Labor for their assistance. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to expeditiously address outstanding issues and enact this vital legislation. A demand-driven, flexible, and accountable system that works in all areas of the country in all economic times is what we can achieve through the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.

We can't do anything to change the path of Hurricane Isabel. However, we can do something to put our workers on the path to new and better jobs. In fact, this bill means more than just jobs--it means good, solid careers for the workers of this country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I consulted the morning weather reports, the thought occurred to me that today's economic forecast sounds a lot like the weather forecast. There is good reason to believe dramatic change is on the way. Yet, unlike the weather, how dramatic the economic change will be and how prepared we will be for it is in our hands. While we can't do anything about the weather, we can do something about helping America's workers get back to work.

We have already taken action to lay the groundwork for our economic recovery. We have ensured the presence of more capital in our economy which will lead to the creation of more jobs for our people. We have also begun to deal with the changing face of our Nation's economy. Because the kinds of jobs that will be available in the days to come will be different from those that were highly valued just months ago, we need to ensure that those who are looking for jobs find them. To do that we must ensure they have the training they will need for these new positions. We must also bring workforce supply and demand together to ensure that our businesses have the skilled employees they need to compete in a more global economy.

Workforce development is a powerful economic development tool. In these challenging times, the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act will give us an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of our workers, and increase the strength of our businesses and communities.

Legislation I am introducing today, the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2003, along with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Senator Murray, will build upon the success of the Workforce Investment Act while addressing its shortcomings.

In 1998 the Workforce Investment Act was enacted to create a streamlined job training and employment system that would be responsive to the needs of employers and workers. The system may be fairly new, but we've already learned a great deal about its strengths and weaknesses. These lessons reinforce what I learned as a small business owner in Wyoming: real opportunity in America comes from the small business sector; economic development and workforce development go hand in hand; rural areas face unique workforce development challenges; Washington cannot--and should not--determine state, local and individual workforce needs; and overly burdensome administrative requirements divert resources from serving customers.

Prior to coming to the Senate, my wife and I owned a small chain of shoe stores. We were not shoe salesmen, we were shoe fitters. There is a big difference. Shoe fitters listen to their customers and then meet their need for footwear with something comfortable to wear. Some people may be born salesmen, but they have to be trained to be shoe fitters. We had a series of courses we put our employees through. Few people are aware that slight changes can be made in a shoe to make it especially comfortable as well as useful and attractive. They aren't aware of the possibilities because they haven't been coming to see shoe fitters-- they've been dealing with salesmen.

We taught listening, needs questioning, and technical fitting. Any staff person could advance through our training and begin filling foot doctor's prescriptions. The value of the training was that it made our stores special. We made sure our customers received the help they needed--even though they didn't know to ask for it--because they didn't know it was available.

Along the way we got to see some very special people achieve. One young returning Vietnam vet became a store manager, then bought that store--and later--bought a second store from us. Now he owns his own building and is also in the motel business. Bill Schepeler of Miles City, MT has and is playing a role in building three communities. I also consider him to be one of my good friends. He went through a workforce training program that we had approved in conjunction with the federal government.

My wife has also served on several boards that dealt with training and jobs and is currently on the Advisory Committee On Apprenticeship of the Department of Labor. She and I know that real opportunity in America comes from the small business sector where the American dream can still happen.

This bipartisan legislation I am introducing today wil help keep the American dream alive for millions of American workers. It will provide workers with the training they need to find new or better jobs.

Our bill improves upon the existing one-stop career center delivery system to ensure that it can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of employers and workers in the new economy and address the needs of hard-to-serve populations. The bill also better connects the job training system with the private sector and with post-secondary education and training, social services, and economic development systems. Doing so will prepare the 21st century workforce for career opportunities and skills in high-growing sectors. Our bill removes barriers in the laws that have discouraged business involvement in workforce training. As a result, job training and employment services will be more demand-driven and responsive to the needs of employers, both large and small.

One-stop career centers are the focal point of WIA's job training and employment system. However, distance can create a barrier to delivering job training and employment services in many rural and frontier areas, like Wyoming. A job seeker or employer in Dubois, WY has to travel 150 miles round trip to get to the nearest one-stop center in Lander. It isn't hard to understand the impact that traveling distances like that can have on a trainee or business owner. If you live in a big city-- there's probably a facility just down the road--or a short bus ride downtown. There is an answer to that problem--technology can effectively remove the barrier created by distance. This legislation will leverage technology to improve access to WIA services throughout each state, including rural areas.

Some states and localities have found creative ways to overcome the challenges imposed by current law. Wyoming has done a magnificent job with the resources they have been allotted, and I commend their ingenuity. With this legislation, we will give Wyoming and the other states and localities the tools they need to help the unemployed or underemployed.

I want to thank my colleagues on the HELP Committee for all their work on this bipartisan Workforce Amendment Act. I also want to thank the Department of Labor for their assistance. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to expeditiously address outstanding issues and enact this vital legislation. A demand-driven, flexible, and accountable system that works in all areas of the country in all economic times is what we can achieve through the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.

We can't do anything to change the path of Hurricane Isabel. However, we can do something to put our workers on the path to new and better jobs. In fact, this bill means more than just jobs--it means good, solid careers for the workers of this country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this last weekend I got a new name. Fifty- nine years ago when I was born I was named Michael Bradley Enzi. The middle name comes from my Grampa and Gramma Bradley on my mother's side. They were homesteaders in Montana. My grandfather on my dad's side homesteaded in North Dakota and named his son Elmer, but he died shortly after I was born and before I could know him. My dad's favorite song was ``Elmer's Tune'' but he thought there were enough Elmers already and named me Michael. I grew up being Mickey and then Mike. As I mentioned, this last weekend I got a new name and I am truly delighted.

I am now Grampa--and that is spelled with an M, not an N, and there is no D in it. I will explain that in just a moment.

My son and his wife had a son. My son, also like me, had the good fortune to overmarry, to Danielle, a delightful young lady from Kentucky whom he

met in Washington, DC. She is one of the most organized, focused, and thoughtful people I know. My son Brad and daughter-in-law Danielle had a son. I cannot begin to share the emotion and feeling that overwhelms me today. It is such an incredible feeling to hold another generation in your hands.

When my son was born, we named him Michael Bradley Enzi, as well, and instead of giving him the title junior we just used his middle name Brad to avoid confusion. Now we have a third Michael Bradley Enzi, but we do not believe in titles so we call him Trey to avoid confusion. Now Danielle and Trey had extremely fortunate timing for Diana and me. Trey was supposed to be born the end of this month, but he and his mother moved that up to when Diana and I were in the neighborhood. Diana and I met Brad and Danielle on Friday so I could get the transportation system. We used to call that strollers and car seats; now it is transportation systems. My dad started a tradition of buying the wheels for my kids. That means the wagons, the skateboards, the rollerblades, the bikes, et cetera. When I heard I was going to be a grampa, I staked the ``wheels'' out, too.

So we picked out the transportation system. Danielle thought she started having contractions. We knew she had walked a lot. So Brad checked her into the hospital at midnight. At 8 a.m. the water broke, and at 4:21 p.m., Saturday, September 13, we all got new names. Trey weighed 6 pounds 14 ounces and was 20\1/2\ inches long, with huge hands and long feet, of course--his 6 foot 8 inch dad, who played basketball for Wyoming, has size 16 feet and easily palms a basketball.

Danielle came through, as is her nature, invigorated and enthusiastic. You would not have known by looking at her face, except for that special aura of being a mother, that she had just given birth. The rest of us were emotional wrecks. The best way I can tell you of the thrill is to tell you that we canceled the events of the weekend and extended an extra day, and I spent as much of that time as I could just holding that baby, watching him breathe and move ever so slightly, and listened to every little sound he made. Of course, I had to let Diana hold him a little, too. And his mom and dad even wanted turns.

If you would have told me I would spend hours just gazing at this miracle of life, and having only that thought for hours, I probably wouldn't have believed you. But I have some instant replay memories of that little face and those moving hands and those blankets and that cap, to hold the body heat in, locked in my mind.

I am constantly doing little instant replay memories for myself and thanking God for the opportunities he has given me--from finding Diana and learning about prayer with our first child, the daughter who was born premature, who showed us how worthwhile fighting for life is, to the birth of our son, to the birth of our youngest daughter, who just got married, to helping me through open heart surgery so that I might have this chance to hold yet another generation in my hands.

I think of the Prayer of Jabez in Chronicles, where he says: ``Lord, please continue to bless me, indeed.'' And to that I add my thanks for this and all the blessings noticed and unnoticed.

So I am a grampa. That is not grandfather--too stilted. Years ago my daughter gave me a hand-stitched wall hanging that says: ``Any man can be a Father, but it takes someone special to be a Dad.''

The name is also not grandpa. That is a little too elevated. My grampa--spelled with an M and no D--my Grampa Bradley took me on some wonderful adventures. He taught me a lot--fishing, hunting, and work. He ``let'' me help him plant and water trees when I was 4. He showed me how to chop sagebrush and make flagstone walks. He covered up holes he encouraged me to dig. He covered them so people wouldn't drive a car into them. He taught me how to spade a garden, mow a lawn, and trim it properly.

He later showed me the point in life when you are supposed to start carrying the heavy end of the log. Later in life, he had heart trouble and couldn't go fishing by himself, so he took me along. After a few minutes, he would place himself at the picnic area and visit with the tourists who stopped. He would tell them about his grandson who would be arriving shortly with fish and have quite a group waiting for my return.

He liked to be called Grampa. And I am now delighted to have the opportunity to earn that name. I wish I could adequately share with you the joy in my heart.

Trey, grandson, welcome to this world of promise and hope and love.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we mark the second anniversary of one of the darkest days in our Nation's history from the initial attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, to the forced plane crash in Pennsylvania. Each moment of September 11, 2001, is forever etched on our minds.

Although our wounds are still too fresh for us to view the date from the perspective of history, the last 2 years have given it a certain distance.

When terrorists attacked the symbols of our Nation's unity and strength, they failed to realize that they are just symbols of our strengths. The real strength of our Nation comes from our people--not our buildings. By attacking us on our own soil, they served not to weaken but to strengthen our resolve that this and other acts of terror would not stand, and we would answer with great and awesome strength.

On this September 11, 2 years after, we remember those who died on those three battlefields, as well as the brave soldiers from Wyoming and across the Nation who have given their lives since then to end the threat of terrorism wherever it is found.

We will all continue to remember September 11 in our own way. Some will join family and friends at public memorials to pray for peace. Others will honor this day by remembering it in the silence of their hearts. However we remember this fateful day, we will never forget the lessons learned and their terrible cost. For me, it was the realization that we are truly one nation, under God, indivisible, and that we must remain so in the face of any threat to ensure our country remains strong, united, and free.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. The chairman and ranking member will be here this afternoon throughout the consideration of the bill. It had been the hope of the leader to schedule votes this evening on amendments to the Labor-HHS bill. However, it is our understanding there will be an objection from the other side of the aisle for any unanimous consent request that sets a vote for today. That objection extends to setting votes on executive nominations as well. Therefore, on behalf of the leader, I announce that no rollcall votes will occur during today's session. We will continue to work throughout today to resolve the remaining issues on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, and we hope additional progress can be made on the bill.

Mr. President, speaking purely on my own behalf but hopefully reflecting some of the feelings of the leader, we are terribly disappointed that until the time is set exactly as the time the Presidential candidates want to have the vote, no other business can happen in this Chamber. That isn't how this ought to work. We ought to be proceeding on other amendments. We ought to be wrapping this thing up and getting down to what evidently could be the last vote. It needs to happen.

I am terribly disappointed the overtime rule has been made into such a political hot issue. It is a proposed rule. The way rules work around here is they get published so there can be comments. There have been 80,000 comments. This amendment doesn't stop the rule. At this point, it stops the review of those comments. The Secretary of Labor can't even look at the 80,000 comments to see if she made a mistake in the rule.

It appears there are some concerns about the rule and the way it is written. But it can't even be rewritten, if this amendment passes. This amendment takes away the right of the Secretary to review those 80,000 comments so changes can be made, if needed, to the rule. That is how we do rules around here.

To take the money away and stop that process I don't think is the right way to do it. We have a process in place. We even have a process for overcoming the process. That is the Congressional Review Act. If the Secretary does not pay the attention needed to it, we have the right to overturn the rule. In fact, we have the obligation to overturn rules. That is why we did a Congressional Review Act.

I hope we will let her go ahead and read the 80,000 concerns and see what changes need to be made, see what people are thinking about the rule. Obviously, there are people with concerns. I hope the rule can be revised to take care of those concerns. It has not been revised in 50 years. Tell me that business has not changed in 50 years. Tell me that employment has not changed in 50 years. It has.

One of the provisions of this is raising the amount you have to be covered by overtime from $8,600 to $22,000. That needs to be done. People make a lot more money now than in 1950.

I hope we can go ahead with the rule. I hope we can go ahead with other amendments as we have been doing for the last week, setting aside amendments so we can debate amendments. All the amendments are still in a queue and we still have to take care of those amendments. It does not keep them from being voted on but keeps them just from being voted on in that necessary order, although you can call for regular order and put it right back in the queue in the same place. It is possible to get votes. In fact, it is impossible to avoid votes around here.

As stated, if there were a motion to table, it could be brought up again. There will be a vote. Now, whether the leader gets to set the exact time for the vote or whether the minority sets the exact time for the vote evidently is the question for debate. I hope we can get past this little rift and move on and cover some more amendments. I was hoping we could have some votes today so tomorrow we could finish up. If we were going to finish anyway tomorrow, we could finish early tomorrow so we could move on to the other bills. I hope that wedge will not remain in there and we can make some progress.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, since the issue of education has been brought up not only this morning but over the last couple of days, and I have listened to some wailing and comments, I feel compelled to talk a little bit about education myself.

This week, many of my colleagues have come to the floor to criticize the President and criticize his administration and even to criticize the Senate leadership for their commitment to education. This is a discussion we need to have every time the Senate debates spending, but every time we seem to plow the same old ground. There are a lot of platitudes and myths out there that keep being regenerated. It takes a lot of time, and it keeps us from completing the spending bills. I hope I can say a few words that will put this debate in perspective.

My colleagues have argued that the current appropriations bill cuts education spending and it underfunds the No Child Left Behind Act. They have suggested, and I suppose will continue to insist, that the bill contains harsh and unacceptable cuts to education and that it will somehow leave students and teachers on their own. That is simply not the case.

The bill contains over $12 billion for title I programs, the third straight year it has had an increase. That is a total increase of 45 percent in title I funding since 2001.

It also contains $1 billion for Reading First, close to $700 million for State education technology grants, and over $1.1 billion for impact aid programs. All told, this bill contains about $56 billion for education programs, over $12 billion more--$12 billion more--than fiscal year 2001. Yet my colleagues insist that this bill cuts too much from education. They argue it does not go far enough and that we must increase our Federal deficit by several billion dollars more to assure we have adequately funded education. Where are these disastrous cuts? How is a $12 billion increase in education funding over 4 years a harsh and unacceptable cut?

Before I came to the Senate, I worked as an accountant. I learned how to balance accounts and read ledgers, and I am astounded to see my colleagues insisting that a $12 billion increase in education funding for over 4 years somehow constitutes a cut. I guess that kind of gives you an idea why we have some problems. It does not take special training in accounting to understand that a $3.9 billion increase in title I spending since 2002 is not a cut. Even without my training as an accountant, I am confident I would understand, as do families across America, that a $12 billion increase is not a cut, no matter how you frame it.

It is interesting to see how many of my colleagues are now criticizing the President and this administration for recommending less than the authorized amounts--authorized amounts--under No Child Left Behind. Let me explain authorized amounts.

We go through a three-step process around here. We have a budget process. A budget is something the President has to present to us by February so that we can approve a massive outline of how we are going to do spending by April 15. It is a Federal statute. It has been complied with twice in the history of the country. Once was this year. The other one was many decades ago. We did a budget.

Then there is a second part to the process. It does not necessarily have to come after the first part. It can be contiguous or it can be before the first part. It is called authorization. Authorization is when a bill is drafted by the committee of jurisdiction, the ones that have the knowledge and the concentration and focus on the problem. They do an authorization bill. It is usually a 6-year authorization, and it is an authorization for the maximum amount that will be spent, not minimums.

I hope everybody catches that. The authorization bill does not give minimums of spending, it gives the authorization for the maximums of spending, and that is the maximums of spending over a 6-year period.

Taking into account inflation, new programs, and issues such as those, nobody ever starts at the maximum and hopes they can sustain and increase that through the period of the authorization bill. That is not how it works. We always start at less than the authorized amount, and we build up to it over the 6-year period.

Let's take a look at some history because I seem to recall that this body did the exact same thing last year when they were doing No Child Left Behind in this particular bill.

My colleagues, of course--now they are in the minority--held all of the leadership positions at that time. They were in charge of doing this appropriations bill. They were the ones in charge of figuring out how much of that authorization could logically be tucked into this appropriations bill.

If we look at the appropriations bill reported out of committee last year, we find that it contained $3.5 billion less than the authorized level in title I funding. Somehow the administration is now being taken to task for recommending more than the colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were in charge last year recommended, even though they both recommended less than the fully authorized amounts. That is not unusual, and it shows that both sides of the aisle understand how this works.

Remember, we will find that the appropriations bill reported out of committee last year contained $3.5 billion less than the authorized level in title I funding, and the administration is now being taken to task for recommending more than the other side of the aisle did. I guess that should cut both ways. You cannot accuse the President of cutting education spending because he asked for less than the fully authorized amount when the other side of the aisle has done the same thing.

Even though my colleagues approved a bill last year that left a gap between appropriations and the fully authorized amounts, it has now become unacceptable in their eyes to fund No Child Left Behind at less than the fully authorized levels. In Wyoming, we have a lot of expressions we use to describe that kind of behavior, but the only one I can probably use on the floor of the Senate is doubletalk.

I also want to point out that we never made it to an Education appropriations bill last year. We never passed a budget last year. That was when the other side of the aisle was in the leadership. And it took us until this spring, under our current leadership, to pass any increase in title I and the No Child Left Behind Act. I think that bears a little bit of extra description.

Yes, I have held town meetings in Wyoming, and I have had to answer to education, and I have had to explain to them that a year ago we could not even pass a budget. A year ago, we did not even take up Education appropriations. Yes, we had this new authorization bill for No Child Left Behind, but, Madam President, do you know what. You cannot appropriate any additional dollars if you do not do an appropriations bill, and that appropriations bill never got done under the leadership last year. There was not a dime of increase passed last year.

When Senator Frist became the majority leader this year, we went to work on getting the appropriations done, and with the cooperation across the aisle, we were able to get nine bills approved in 8 days. I think that is about how it was.

That was the first funding for education under No Child Left Behind. When did that happen? The President signed it into law on February 26, and the bureaucratic machine moved faster than it ever has. By March 26, the checks went out to the States. Miraculous. But school in this country ends at the end of May or the middle of June at

the latest. So on March 26, the mail went out. Eventually the States got those checks. Then the States had to do the allocation out to the school districts.

I do not imagine they got that done in one day. I do not imagine they got that done in a month. So now we are talking about the end of April, and school is going to end the next month. What kind of education funding is that?

So nobody got an increase for last year. They had to operate on the budget that they had from the year before. We never passed a budget. It took us until this spring, under our current leadership, to pass any increases in title I and the No Child Left Behind Act.

The current Senate leadership can point to two separate increases in funding for education compared to last year when this body did not approve any increases in education funding. If this issue is such a priority for my colleagues, why did we adjourn last fall without passing an additional dollar for education? As I am sure my colleagues will recall, we left Washington last year without a single dime more for education than was available the year before. Incidentally, because of this delay, when the President made his budget recommendation to Congress--that is that first step of the process I mentioned--we were still working on fiscal year 2003 appropriations; we had not finished them.

Those appropriations should have been the base for the President's recommendation, but we require him to have that in by February, and he did. That is the only way we can get our work done by April. He complied. So what figures could the President use?

The present administration is being blamed for this body's failure to pass an appropriations bill last fall, and that seems preposterous to me. Of course, he had to base his budget on what we had done for 2002, and he did, and he made substantial increases.

I want to mention just a little bit about the budget process we went through, too. During the budget process, we had an interminable number of votes attempting to do unprecedented earmarking. Well, that is not really what it was designed to do. What it was designed to do was to make it look as if a majority of the Senators who were doing responsible budgeting were actually voting against key programs that are normally not outlined specifically with earmarking. So the responsible Senators did the right thing and voted against what looked like voting against kids, and that is exactly politically how it was designed to be. But they did it so that we could have a responsible budget.

Now here we go again with the interminable number of votes I am sure we will be expected to take that will earmark an increase and change, and all of them are outside of the budget process that has already been approved.

Fortunately, I am sure the people across America are educated enough--I am sure our system has done that--to see through what is happening. We all know the Senate's budget process and we know the President is required to make that recommendation in February. When this body does not pass the appropriations bill that normally serves as the basis for the President's recommendation, it is unconscionable to then criticize the President for his recommendations.

The bottom line is that this body passed last year's appropriations bill 6 months late, and only then under the current Senate leadership. A better comparison would be the President's recommendations on the fiscal year 2002 appropriations, which were the only figures available at the time the President submitted his recommendation to Congress.

Clearly, this discussion is not about funding levels, it is about politics. This body has too much important business before it to waste time playing politics, particularly playing politics on education. There are students and teachers depending on this body to give them additional funding, and that is what my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have done. Let us get the business of the Senate completed so these students and teachers can get what they need this year, rather than another day, another week, or another month of debate that could once again push the dollars into the following year.

Let us get our work done timely. Let us give some consideration to what kind of amendments are being offered. Let us put the politics behind for our kids and let us get this bill done.

Madam President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I have enjoyed working with the Senator from Washington, the ranking member. I appreciate all of her efforts on the Workforce Investment Act, and, of course, the ranking member of the full committee, Senator Kennedy, who has been working with us, and his staff who have been working in great detail to be sure we have a Workforce Investment Act we can pass this year so that we can make sure the money is funneled through the proper channels and the most people are taken care of for the money. It is up for reauthorization this year. It is particularly critical that we do it. It is landmark legislation that is a priority for both myself and my colleague from Washington. I am pleased that they worked so closely on getting this bipartisan bill to this point. I think we will be able to finish it and get it marked up sometime this month.

During the reauthorization process, we have considered how resources are most effectively used for the people who need it most. There is no problem for anybody to see that there is a problem.

Having said that, I need to explain that I will be opposing this amendment. I want to carefully explain that. I am not questioning the importance of job training in these difficult economic times, nor am I questioning the importance of the Workforce Investment Act as our Federal workforce development system. But I am opposing the amendment that increases funding for job training without appropriately offsetting such increased amount. At the appropriate time, I will be taking that action.

The way this appears to be offset but really isn't is through what we use rather liberally in some of the amendments, even a couple pending before us now, which is advance funding. That means that we steal a little bit out of another year's appropriations so we can spend it in this year's appropriations, and, oddly enough, spend it in that year's appropriations, too. You can see if we get into a process of spending money twice, we are going to be in some real trouble.

This amendment increases funding that is not targeted to individuals who are in most need of job training and assistance. Of the $801 million increase in funds, only $159 million will go to the dislocated workers program--those individuals most in need of assistance to get back to work.

So we are going to throw $801 million at the dislocated worker problem. Granted, there are uses for that money in those other areas, but we are going to do that to take care of $159 million that will go to dislocated worker programs. I don't think that is the right way for us to go about the process.

The committee bill provides $5.1 billion for job training and employment services, and that is $164 million above the budget request. Of this total amount, the committee bill provides $1.43 billion for dislocated worker activities.

We went through this during the process of the budget. We approved a budget. A change in the budget is what results in budget points of order. So the Labor-HHS bill must seek to address a lot of important needs, not the least of which is job training funding to ensure American workers are equipped to contribute and succeed in a changing economy. Of course, we always want that to happen faster than it is ever possible for it to happen.

The committee bill does reduce job training funding from fiscal year 2003 by $85 million, but I explained in a speech just a little while ago how that comes about. The President had to submit his budget before he knew what we were going to do in 2003, because we did not do a budget for the previous year; and then we did not pass the appropriation. So what we were going to be doing was not known until after he had to submit a budget to us. So he had to base his budget on what had been done for 2002, and there was a significant increase from 2002. Again, we raised it a little bit, and did so again in the appropriation.

So unless that can be offset, I am going to have to reluctantly oppose the amendment. Again, I don't think we ought to spend $801 million trying to solve a $159-million problem. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.