Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2002 budget through September 11, 2002. The estimates, which are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of H. Con. Res. 83, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2002, show that current level spending in 2002 is below the budget resolution by $12.1 billion in budget authority and by $18.8 billion in outlays. Current level revenues are below the revenue floor by $0.4 billion in 2002. I ask unanimous consent to print the following in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I understand certain comments were made about the slowness of the appropriations process and the assertion that not having a budget resolution pass the floor is the reason for that. I do not think that is supported by the facts. The appropriations process is moving slowly for reasons that have no relationship to a budget resolution or having one or not having one. The fact is, the appropriators agreed to an amount for a budget that was what was recommended in the resolution that went through the Budget Committee. The appropriators agreed unanimously--Democrats and Republicans--to adopt the budget amount for this year that the committee recommended. So there is nothing to prevent appropriations bills from coming to the floor in an orderly process. The appropriators gave to each of the committees an allocation that added up to the amount of money that was provided for in the recommendation by the Budget Committee. So that is not the problem here. No. 2, I think it should be pointed out that we had an opportunity on the floor to pass a budget for this year and got 59 votes. We got 59 votes. Now, it required 60 votes. But we had a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate for a budget amount for this year--not a budget resolution but a budget amount for this year. We fell one vote short of getting that amount approved. Frankly, all of this misses the larger point. The reason we are in deep financial trouble now has nothing to do with the budget resolution for this year at all. The real problem is the budget resolution that passed last year. The budget resolution that passed last year put us on the course of a 10-year plan that has contributed to the most dramatic reversal in our fiscal fortunes in our Nation's history. It was the budget resolution that passed last year that contained a massive and unaffordable tax cut that has undermined the fiscal strength of this country for years to come. Last year, we were told we would have $5.6 trillion of budget surplus over the next decade--$5.6 trillion. Now, if we look at the Congressional Budget Office's new report, what we see is no surpluses; the money is all gone. If we just adopt the President's recommendation on spending and taxes for the next 10 years--no additional spending by Congress, not a dime-- if we just adopt his proposals, we will be $400 billion in the red. That is after being told last year we had $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next decade. Now we are $400 billion in the hole. That is a $6 trillion turn. And what are the reasons for it? The No. 1 reason is the tax cuts that were in last year's budget, pushed by the President, passed by the Congress. That accounts for over a third of the disappearance of the surplus. The next biggest reason: technical considerations that apply to revenue not meeting the estimates. That is the second biggest reason-- not related to the tax cut, but it is the second biggest reason. The third biggest reason is the increased costs because of the attack on the United States. I am talking now about, over the 10 years of the President's budget plan, what are the contributing factors to the disappearance of the surplus. The biggest reason--over a third--is the tax cut, 34 percent. The second biggest reason: revenue not meeting expectations, apart from the tax cut; that is 29 percent. Twenty-two percent is increased costs associated with the attack on the country. And the last, and smallest, part of the problem is the economic slowdown, representing 14 or 15 percent of the disappearance of the surplus. That is the reality. The appropriations process not moving forward has nothing to do with the budget resolution being passed or not passed. The simple fact is, the appropriators agreed to the amount that was in the budget proposal that passed the Budget Committee. They did so on a unanimous basis, and they proceeded to stay within that amount. That is the reality. The bigger truth, the larger reality is that we have fiscal problems because of the budget that passed last year. That put us on a course that does not add up, never has added up, and will require serious work in the future, if we are going to get back on track. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Five minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, anniversaries are a time for reflection, and I wanted to take a few moments to share what emotions this North Dakotan is experiencing. First, I feel sorrow, I feel sorrow for the thousands of innocent victims and the scores and scores of families and friends most directly and tragically affected. Those murdered were fathers and brothers, daughters and spouses; they were coworkers earning a living and supporting their families; they were best men in weddings, and mothers flying home to see their children. They were also honorable Americans, as well as citizens from 86 countries around the world. The victims included North Dakotan Ann Nelson. Ann was the kind of daughter every parent wishes for, she was intelligent, caring, adventurous, and had a real zest for life. Ann was simply doing her job that day in the World Trade Center. Ann, the pride and joy of Stanley, ND, didn't make it home from work that fateful day. When I think about Ann and her family and the other victims and their loved ones, I also feel anger. One of my home State newspapers, the Grand Forks Herald put it best, ``Americans should accept that at the core of their grief is a white-hot fury and a sense of being outrageously wronged. . . . The World Trade Center didn't collapse in a strong wind. The Pentagon didn't fall into a sinkhole from an abandoned mine, and United Flight 93 didn't crash in a Pennsylvania field because it ran out of gas. No, those things happened because a band of terrorist fanatics slit the pilots' throats and then flew the planes, passengers and all, into the buildings for the mad glory of killing infidels by the score.'' This North Dakotan's anger and sorrow also fuels my resolve. I feel resolve to continue working with members from both sides of the aisle and with our President to make sure we are doing everything in our power to protect North Dakotans and all Americans. Over the past year, we have enacted vital anti-terrorism legislation, including provisions I authored to shore up our visa and border security laws. And while we have paid more attention to the challenges of protecting our 4,000 mile northern border from terrorist infiltration, I continue in my resolve to focus the necessary attention and resources to get the job done right. So, I feel sorrow, anger, and resolve, but I also feel pride, pride in how our heroes performed that day in response to the attacks; pride in our police officers and firemen; pride in those risking their lives to save coworkers; and pride in members of Flight 93 who lost their lives to save countless others. I also feel pride at North Dakota's own, the Happy Hooligans, who minutes after the terrorist attacks took to the skies over Washington, protecting our Nation's Capital at this most critical time. I feel pride at the men and women in uniform, who have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan and across the world, with the unfailing twin goals of eradicating global terrorism and protecting their fellow citizens. I feel pride in the dedication of those reservists who have put their lives on hold to serve our country. I also feel pride in our country, and it is certainly appropriate that Congress and the President agreed to designate September 11 as ``Patriot Day.'' September 11 brought out the best in our fellow citizens and showed us again why we are all so fortunate to be a part of the greatest Nation on earth. Rather than the disillusionment that the terrorists hoped for, our country responded with renewed patriotism. And finally, on this first anniversary of one of the darkest days in our country's history, this North Dakotan feels optimism. In times of challenge, moments of great opportunity also present themselves. In this instance, we stand at a critical time in our Nation's and the world's history, and the decisions we now make will influence the shape of our world in the 21st century and beyond. Will we live in a world of freedom or fear? Will democracy reign or will fanaticism retain its lure? Will our country try to build a wall around ourselves or will we continue to be a beacon of freedom, democracy, and tolerance around the world? Some fifth grade North Dakota students are planning to commemorate the September 11 attacks by planting trees at the International Peace Garden, just north of Dunseith, ND. The name of the program is ``Seeds of Peace.'' I have the optimism to believe that this is the perfect symbol to commemorate the first September 11 anniversary.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, those who are in opposition to providing disaster assistance to our Nation's farmers and ranchers who have been hit by disaster have said it will cost money. Of course, that is true. It will cost money, over $5 billion, to provide disaster assistance. It is something we have always done. It is something we should do now. More than that, the Congressional Budget Office informed me yesterday that there will be savings from the farm bill of $5.6 billion. Let me repeat that: The CBO informed me in a letter yesterday there will be $5.6 billion of savings from the farm bill. That is not a direct offset for this disaster assistance. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind when we are looking at overall spending that it will be about a wash. There are savings from the farm bill because production is down. That means prices are higher than anticipated, meaning costs under the farm bill will be less by $5.6 billion. That approximately pays for the disaster package. If anyone wonders whether it is really needed, I urge them to visit southwestern North Dakota, which has become like a moonscape. In running a food bank in northern South Dakota, a Presbyterian minister reported that the wives of ranchers are coming in asking for food and they are very concerned that their husbands not find out because they are proud. They do not want public assistance, but they desperately need it. Now is the time. Please help. We always have in the past.

Mr. CONRAD. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee by the amount of appropriations designated as emergency spending pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. On July 23, I filed adjustments to the 2002 budgetary aggregates and allocation for the Appropriations Committee resulting from the $29.9 billion in emergency funding included in the conference report to H.R. 4775, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (Public Law 107-206). The legislation, however, included $5.1 billion in emergency funding that the Congress made contingent on the President designating the total amount as emergency spending within 30 days of enactment. On August 13, the President announced that he would not declare the $5.1 billion as emergency spending, thereby vitiating the entire amount. Consequently, I am lowering the adjustments I made on July 23 by the amount of the contingency--$5.1 billion in budget authority--as well as by the estimated amount of the contingency's impact on 2002 outlays-- $0.96 billion. Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts:

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring of S. 2708, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The committee-reported bill provides $81.936 billion in nonemergency discretionary budget authority including an advance appropriation into 2003 of $36 million, which will result in new outlays in 2003 of $11.901 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $18.330 billion in 2003. Of that total, $1.442 billion in budget authority and $1.075 billion in outlays are classified as conservation category spending. In addition, the committee-reported bill provides new emergency spending authority of $400 million for wildland fire management, which will result in outlays of $400 million. In accordance with standard budget practice, the emergency spending is not counted against the appropriations committee's allocation until after conference. Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee voted 29-0 on June 27 to adopt a set of non-binding sub-allocations for its 13 subcommittees totaling $768.1 billion in budget authority and $793.1 billion in outlays. While the committee's subcommittee allocations are consistent with both the amendment supported by 59 Senators on June 20 and with the President's request for total discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2003, they are not enforceable under either Senate budget rules or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. While I applaud the committee for adopting its own set of sub-allocations, I once again urge the Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan resolution, which would make the committee's sub-allocations enforceable under Senate rules and provide for other important budgetary disciplines. With the new fiscal year starting in 26 days, it is important that we act now. For the Interior Subcommittee, the full committee allocated $18.926 billion in budget authority and $18.804 billion in total outlays for 2003. The bill reported by the full committee on June 27 is above its sub-allocation for budget authority by $10 million and is below its sub-allocation for outlays by $280 million. An amendment by Chairman Byrd, however, at the outset of the bill's consideration lowered the bill's total budget authority by $10 million, making it consistent with its sub-allocation. In any event, the appropriations committee's sub- allocations are not enforceable under Senate rules; thus, a point of order did not lie against the bill for exceeding its sub-allocation as reported. However, by including emergency funding for wildland fire management, the committee-reported bill does violate section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the concurrent resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, by designating nondefense spending as an emergency. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the amendment before us is critically important to many parts of the country. It is certainly critically important to my State. This has been a year of extremes. In southwestern North Dakota, it has been the worst drought since the 1930s. If you went to southwestern North Dakota, what you would find is it looks like a moonscape. We have had wildfires, the most extensive in my lifetime. We had, in one part of south central North Dakota, a wildfire that burned 35,000 acres. That burned an entire town, the little town of Shields, ND. Hundreds of buildings burned up. The only two buildings that survived were the bar and the church. It is amazing what happens in these circumstances. I was there the morning after that dreadful night, and I met with the ranchers. One rancher had been up fighting fires for 72 hours. As he slumped in a chair, he told me: Senator, if there isn't assistance coming, I have to liquidate my herd and I am out of business. Of course, he would have to liquidate his herd at the time prices are plunging; ranchers all over the region are liquidating their herds because there is not feed for their cattle. It is happening in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas, right down the heartland of the country. At the same time the whole southwestern quarter of my State is hit by the worst drought since the 1930s, in the northeastern quadrant of the State, we have had hundreds of thousands of acres that couldn't be planted because it was too wet. What a remarkable set of circumstances. In northeastern North Dakota, in a 24-hour period, we got 12 inches of rain--12 inches of rain in a State where we average 18 inches of rain in a year. Hundreds of thousands of acres were destroyed, much of it never planted. Some 3 million acres in my State were never planted. This is a disaster by any description. What we do here determines whether or not people go under or survive. Some have said: Look to the farm bill for your assistance. There are no disaster provisions in the farm bill. I was one of the conferees on the farm bill, along with the distinguished chairman of our committee, the Senator from Iowa. We had disaster provisions in the farm bill that passed the Senate, but when we went to conference, those who represented the House told us there were two issues they could not discuss in the conference. Those two issues: Opening up Cuba for trade and disaster assistance. They said those had to go to the Speaker of the House. And when the majority leader called the Speaker of the House, he said unequivocally: No disaster assistance, period, in the farm bill. The conferees from the House side said that later on in the session it would be possible to consider disaster assistance, but it was not possible in the farm bill. So when the White House says to farmers in this country, look to the farm bill for disaster assistance, there is no help there for disasters. It was specifically precluded by the speaker of the House of Representatives, supported by the President of the United States. There is no disaster assistance in that farm bill. I just held a hearing in my State on this issue. The Governor of the State, a Republican Governor, the commissioner of agriculture, a Democrat, the leaders of the farm organizations--some Democrats, some Republicans--were present. What unified them was the dire emergency that exists, the urgent need for aid. Every single witness at the hearing, and everyone in the crowd who spoke, delivered the same message: Unless there is help coming, thousands of farm families are going to be forced off the land. They made it very clear. The commissioner of agriculture said the losses in North Dakota so far are over $800 million. In Washington, $800 million is not a lot of money. In North Dakota, $800 million is a huge amount of money. It will condemn to failure thousands of farm families if there is not assistance coming from here. Every time there has been a natural disaster in any part of the country for as long as I have been in the Senate, this Nation has responded. We have declared an emergency. We have provided the money. We should do no less here. It is not just North Dakota. It is the flooding in Minnesota, the worst floods in their history. It is disaster in our neighboring State of Montana, our neighboring State of South Dakota, and, as I indicated, right down the heartland of the country. We have seen the worst wildfires in history in Colorado and Arizona--all of this because of overly dry conditions. But there are parts of the country that have had flooding and, as a result, crop failure. This bill costs over $5 billion. We know that. We acknowledge it. But what has not been discussed is the substantial savings in the farm bill because of these same conditions. There are billions of dollars of savings in the farm bill because prices are higher than were anticipated at the time the farm bill was written. Why? Because of these disasters, there is less production. Therefore, prices are higher than were anticipated. As a result, there will be substantial savings in the farm bill. I have asked the Congressional Budget Office to reestimate the farm bill based on these most recent prices. I can tell you, it will mean billions of dollars of savings in the farm program itself. But those dollars are not available for the disaster program unless we pass one. This is an emergency. Always we have responded to natural disasters. Whether it was hurricanes in Florida, earthquakes in California, flooding in Missouri, or drought in other parts of the country, this Nation has rallied as one to provide assistance. I was very interested to see the President supporting disaster assistance for eastern Europe at the very time I was home in North Dakota going community to community. We saw the President declare his support for U.S. assistance for disasters, flooding, occurring in eastern Europe. Well, he has a plan for eastern Europe. He has no plan for the heartland of America. That cannot be the result. That is not fair. It should not be what we do. We ought to declare an emergency just like we always do. We ought to understand there are substantial savings under the farm bill because prices are higher than were anticipated because of these very disasters. And we ought to reach out a hand of help and hope to the hundreds of thousands of families across this country hit by the various natural disasters. That is the American way. It is what we have done consistently for others. We ought to do no less now. I urge my colleagues to join to pass this urgently needed legislation. We have helped you when you needed assistance. We are asking now for the same consideration. At a time of devastating natural disasters, our region of the country needs help. We are not alone. Even with higher prices than were anticipated, it is very important to understand that because production is dramatically reduced, USDA, just 2 weeks ago, indicated that net farm income would decline by a stunning 23 percent. That is what is going to happen because of this series of natural disasters. That is a hit no part of our economy can afford to take. It is time to act. It is time to vote. We ought to have that opportunity. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to my colleague, we deeply appreciate the information he has provided on this issue. It was the Senator's amendment that prevailed in the Senate farm bill to provide disaster assistance in the first place. Nobody has understood better than he the consequences and the magnitude of this disaster. Perhaps no State has been harder hit than his own. I want to stand and acknowledge the leadership of the Senator from Montana on this issue and thank him publicly on behalf of the people I represent and the other people affected in other States for the diligence of the Senator from Montana. He has been relentless in getting disaster assistance for our people, and I want to thank him for it.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn of the untimely death of Jesse Brown on August 15, 2002. I was aware of Jesse's struggle with Lou Gehrig's disease, and know that friends, veterans and government officials across the Nation had Jesse and his family in their thoughts and prayers. Jesse was an individual for whom I had the highest regard. He was truly a distinguished American who not only made considerable sacrifices for his country as a Marine in Vietnam, but continued to serve our country, especially the veterans of our Nation through his service as Executive Director of the Disabled American Veterans and later as Secretary of Veterans Affairs for 5 years in the cabinet of President Clinton. It was during his tenure as VA Secretary that I worked more closely with Jesse and had the opportunity to learn of his commitment to our nation's veterans particularly to improve the medical care services to veterans. During a visit to the community of Grafton, ND for the dedication of an outpatient clinic, I had the opportunity to see first hand Jesse's concern and compassion for our veterans and their families. I was particularly impressed with his commitment to make certain that our veterans living in the rural and more remote areas of our country had the resources and access to the best VA medical care possible. Jesse Brown represents the very best of America, he was a U.S. Marine with a distinguished service record in Vietnam, a disabled veteran, a devoted family member, a distinguished public servant, and an individual that represented the very best qualities and character in America. He is a role model for the coming generations and for us all. I hope our younger Americans will have an opportunity to know Jesse over time, to learn of his sacrifices and accomplishments on behalf of all Americans. Jesse deserves our highest respect and admiration. My prayers and thoughts are with the Brown family members at this time.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer the Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 5010, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. H.R. 5010 provides $355.139 billion in discretionary budget authority, all classified as defense spending, which will result in new outlays in 2003 of $239.472 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, nonemergency discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $349.777 billion in 2003. The Appropriations Committee voted 29-0 on June 27 to adopt a set of non-binding sub-allocations for its 13 subcommittees totaling $768.1 billion in budget authority and $793.1 billion in outlays, which the committee subsequently increased to $803.891 billion in outlays following the passage of the 2002 emergency supplementary bill. While the committee's subcommittee allocations are consistent with both the amendment supported by 59 Senators last month and with the President's request for total discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2003, they are not enforceable under either Senate budget rules or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. While I applaud the committee for adopting its own set of sub-allocations, I urge the Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan resolution, which would make the committee's sub-allocations enforceable under Senate rules and provide for other important budgetary disciplines. For the Defense Subcommittee, the full committee allocated $355.139 billion in budget authority and $350,549 billion in total outlays for 2003. The bill reported by the full committee on July 18 is fully consistent with that allocation. In addition, H.R. 5010 does not include any emergency designations or advance appropriations. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of H.R. 5010 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring for S. 2720, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The Senate bill provides $2.417 billion in discretionary budget authority. Per tradition, that amount does not include funding for exclusive House items, which will be added in conference. The discretionary budget authority will result in new outlays in 2003 of $1.935 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total l$2.547 billion in 2002. The Appropriations Committee voted 29-0 on June 27 to adopt a set of non-binding sub-allocations for its 13 subcommittees totaling $768.1 billion in budget authority and $793.1 billion in outlays. While the committee's subcommittee allocations are consistent with both the amendment supported by 59 Senators last month and with the President's request for total discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2003, they are not enforceable under either Senate budget rules or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. While I applaud the committee for adopting its own set of sub-allocations, I urge the Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan resolution, which would make the committee's sub-allocations enforceable under Senate rules and provide for other important budgetary disciplines. For the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, the full committee allocated $3.413 billion in budget authority and $3.467 billion in total outlays for 2003. The bill reported by the full committee on July 11 is fully consistent with that allocation. In addition, S. 2720 does not include any emergency designations or advance appropriations. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 4775, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. The conference report provides $29.356 billion in net, new discretionary budget authority, of which $14.492 billion if for defense activities and $14.864 billion is for nondefense activities. That additional budget authority will increase outlays by a total of $7.8 billion in 2002. Of the total spending authority provided, H.R. 4775 designates $29,886 billion as emergency spending, which will increase outlays by $7.783 billion in 2002. Per section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, I have adjusted the Appropriations Committee's allocation for 2002 by the amount of that emergency funding. The conference report is within the committee's revised section 302(a) and 302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays. The conference report to H.R. 4775 is subject to several budget points of order. First, by including language increasing the 2003 cap on highway spending, the conference report violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, which requires that such language be reported by the Budget Committee. Second, by amending the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, H.R. 4775 decreases revenues by $60 million in 2003 and $785 million over the 2003-2012 period. Because the Congress has already breached the revenue aggregates under the 2002 budget resolution, the conference report violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. Finally, H.R. 4775 violates section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budge for Fiscal Year 2001, by including a number of emergency designations for spending on nondefense activities. I ask for unanimous consent that two tables displaying the Budget Committee scoring of H.R. 4775 be inserted in the record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires that chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee by the amount of appropriations designated as emergency spending pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The conference report to H.R. 4775, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, provides $29.886 billion in designated emergency funding 2002 for a variety of activities, including homeland security and the war on terrorism, which is estimated to result in $7.783 billion in outlays in 2002. Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Emergency Telemedical Communications Act of 2002 or NETCA. This bill would take important steps to strengthen our Nation's ability to respond to and manage biological, chemical, and nuclear terrorist attacks and other natural disasters. Today, we live in a world forever changed by the September 11 attacks on our country. These events exposed weaknesses in our homeland defense; the anthrax attacks further showed how important it is to have a strong public health system and what happens when such a system has been neglected. My bill would help address both of these issues. It would authorize two regional telehealth test beds, linking local and state health departments with the CDC, academic, VA, and DoD medical centers, Emergency Medical Services, and other health entities. Additionally, these efforts would be coordinated with local and State law enforcement, fire departments, and the National Guard. The system would then be tested for its ability to gather information in real-time, send timely alerts, and connect front-line responders with key support people to prevent or assist in managing a crisis. For instance, in a situation where there are mass casualties, an emergency room physician, while in the hospital, would be able to assist the emergency medical technician at the scene in triaging patients and directing where patients should be transported. They also would be able to participate directly in the treatment of patients in the field and not have to wait for them to arrive at the hospital. In these situations, minutes mean lives; enactment of this legislation would save lives. But this system would do more than allow for medical specialist-to- patient consultations; it would permit disaster experts hundreds or even thousands of miles away to view the disaster area and communicate directly with front-line responders. For example, in a ``dirty'' bomb explosion, fire and rescue responders might not notice anything different than expected based upon their training for response to explosives. However, if their trucks and uniforms were equipped with devices that recognized this radiation, not only would they be alerted, but the information could be automatically relayed by the telehealth system to radiation experts who could then be ``brought'' to the scene to help direct the response and improve responder safety. For such a system to work, everyone must be on the same page. This means the information being sent must be understood by all. We cannot have one part of the system use medical terminology typical for one region of the country, such as ``reactive airway disease'', and another part of the system using a different name, such as ``asthma.'' Thus, a common agreed upon language must be determined. Furthermore, each statewide network must be connected in a seamless fashion so this information can pass through smoothly and without interruption. My bill would create a task force of relevant experts from private and government to solve both of these challenges and then use the test beds to evaluate their solutions. In the end, I envision an intelligent system, capable of gathering information real-time and proactively connecting front-line responders with key support people. It would provide timely alerts, crisis response, prevention, and prediction of medical and other dangers. Ultimately, it is my hope that this project will lead to the formation of a secure National Emergency Telemedical Network. I am happy to say that there is broad support for this legislation in the telemedicine and information management communities, as well as in various State and Federal agencies. In particular, I am pleased that my bill has been endorsed by the American Telemedicine Association, the Center for Telemedicine Law, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the North Dakota Hospital Association, the North Dakota Medical Association, the North Dakota State Department of Health, the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, and the Telemedicine Center of East Carolina University. I am also pleased that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has joined me in this effort, and I urge my other colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Emergency Telemedical Communications Act of 2002 or NETCA. This bill would take important steps to strengthen our Nation's ability to respond to and manage biological, chemical, and nuclear terrorist attacks and other natural disasters. Today, we live in a world forever changed by the September 11 attacks on our country. These events exposed weaknesses in our homeland defense; the anthrax attacks further showed how important it is to have a strong public health system and what happens when such a system has been neglected. My bill would help address both of these issues. It would authorize two regional telehealth test beds, linking local and state health departments with the CDC, academic, VA, and DoD medical centers, Emergency Medical Services, and other health entities. Additionally, these efforts would be coordinated with local and State law enforcement, fire departments, and the National Guard. The system would then be tested for its ability to gather information in real-time, send timely alerts, and connect front-line responders with key support people to prevent or assist in managing a crisis. For instance, in a situation where there are mass casualties, an emergency room physician, while in the hospital, would be able to assist the emergency medical technician at the scene in triaging patients and directing where patients should be transported. They also would be able to participate directly in the treatment of patients in the field and not have to wait for them to arrive at the hospital. In these situations, minutes mean lives; enactment of this legislation would save lives. But this system would do more than allow for medical specialist-to- patient consultations; it would permit disaster experts hundreds or even thousands of miles away to view the disaster area and communicate directly with front-line responders. For example, in a ``dirty'' bomb explosion, fire and rescue responders might not notice anything different than expected based upon their training for response to explosives. However, if their trucks and uniforms were equipped with devices that recognized this radiation, not only would they be alerted, but the information could be automatically relayed by the telehealth system to radiation experts who could then be ``brought'' to the scene to help direct the response and improve responder safety. For such a system to work, everyone must be on the same page. This means the information being sent must be understood by all. We cannot have one part of the system use medical terminology typical for one region of the country, such as ``reactive airway disease'', and another part of the system using a different name, such as ``asthma.'' Thus, a common agreed upon language must be determined. Furthermore, each statewide network must be connected in a seamless fashion so this information can pass through smoothly and without interruption. My bill would create a task force of relevant experts from private and government to solve both of these challenges and then use the test beds to evaluate their solutions. In the end, I envision an intelligent system, capable of gathering information real-time and proactively connecting front-line responders with key support people. It would provide timely alerts, crisis response, prevention, and prediction of medical and other dangers. Ultimately, it is my hope that this project will lead to the formation of a secure National Emergency Telemedical Network. I am happy to say that there is broad support for this legislation in the telemedicine and information management communities, as well as in various State and Federal agencies. In particular, I am pleased that my bill has been endorsed by the American Telemedicine Association, the Center for Telemedicine Law, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the North Dakota Hospital Association, the North Dakota Medical Association, the North Dakota State Department of Health, the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, and the Telemedicine Center of East Carolina University. I am also pleased that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has joined me in this effort, and I urge my other colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's official scoring for S. 2709, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The Senate bill provides $10.622 billion in discretionary budget authority, all classified as defense spending, which will result in new outlays in 2003 of $2.771 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $10.12 billion in 2003. Despite the bipartisan support of 59 Senators, the Senate was blocked on procedural grounds last month from approving a 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committee. Consequently, the Appropriations Committee voted 20-0 on June 27 to adopt a set of non-binding sub- allocations for its 13 subcommittees totaling $768.1 billion in budget authority and $793.1 billion in outlays. While the committee's subcommittee's allocations are consistent with both the amendment supported by 59 Senators last month and with the President's request for total discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2003, they are not enforceable under either Senate budget rules or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. For the Military Construction subcommittee, the full committee allocated $10.622 billion in budget authority and $10.122 billion in total outlays for 2003. The bill reported by the full committee on June 27 is fully consistent with that allocation. In addition, S. 2709 does not include any emergency designations or advance appropriations. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join Senator Brownback in introducing important legislation aimed at ensuring that a piece of the puzzle regarding adequate physician services in underserved communities is preserved. By all accounts, the Conrad State 20 J-1 Visa Waiver program has been a great success at bringing crucially-needed doctors to medically- underserved areas. It has served as a wonderful resource for my State and for other States across our Nation. The bill we are introducing today eliminates the program's sunset date, thereby making sure that this much-needed program remains available. I created the Conrad State 20 program in 1994 to deal with the reality that many areas of the country, especially rural communities, have a very difficult time recruiting American doctors. These health facilities have had no other choice but to turn to foreign medical graduates to fill their needs. J-1 visa waivers allow foreign physicians to practice in medically-underserved communities after their J-1 status has expired without first returning to their home countries. These waivers allow foreign physicians to receive nonimmigrant, H-1B status, temporary worker in specialty occupation, for 3 years. In order to receive the waiver, the physician must agree to serve the medically- underserved community for the full three years. If he or she fails to fulfill that commitment, the physician is subject to immediate deportation. Prior to the creation of my State 20 program, J-1 visa waiver exclusively involved finding an ``interested Federal agency'' to coordinate the request. This was found to be a long, cumbersome, and bureaucratic process. By allowing States to directly participate in the process of obtaining waivers, my program relieves some of the burdens on participating Federal agencies and allows decisions regarding a State's health care needs to be made at the State level by the people who know best. I have shepherded the Conrad State 20 program from its creation in 1994 through a subsequent reauthorization and other improvements over the years. By now removing the program's sunset date, the bill that Senator Brownback and I are introducing today will ensure that this important program remains a part of a State's tool belt in dealing with physician-shortages in medically-underserved areas. Our bill also provides for a modest increase from 20 allowable Conrad State 20 visa waivers per State per year to 30. For some time, a number of States have been bumping up against the State 20 ceiling, and my hope is that this increase will help additional medically underserved communities throughout the country procure the physician services they need. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I join Senator Brownback in introducing important legislation aimed at ensuring that a piece of the puzzle regarding adequate physician services in underserved communities is preserved. By all accounts, the Conrad State 20 J-1 Visa Waiver program has been a great success at bringing crucially-needed doctors to medically- underserved areas. It has served as a wonderful resource for my State and for other States across our Nation. The bill we are introducing today eliminates the program's sunset date, thereby making sure that this much-needed program remains available. I created the Conrad State 20 program in 1994 to deal with the reality that many areas of the country, especially rural communities, have a very difficult time recruiting American doctors. These health facilities have had no other choice but to turn to foreign medical graduates to fill their needs. J-1 visa waivers allow foreign physicians to practice in medically-underserved communities after their J-1 status has expired without first returning to their home countries. These waivers allow foreign physicians to receive nonimmigrant, H-1B status, temporary worker in specialty occupation, for 3 years. In order to receive the waiver, the physician must agree to serve the medically- underserved community for the full three years. If he or she fails to fulfill that commitment, the physician is subject to immediate deportation. Prior to the creation of my State 20 program, J-1 visa waiver exclusively involved finding an ``interested Federal agency'' to coordinate the request. This was found to be a long, cumbersome, and bureaucratic process. By allowing States to directly participate in the process of obtaining waivers, my program relieves some of the burdens on participating Federal agencies and allows decisions regarding a State's health care needs to be made at the State level by the people who know best. I have shepherded the Conrad State 20 program from its creation in 1994 through a subsequent reauthorization and other improvements over the years. By now removing the program's sunset date, the bill that Senator Brownback and I are introducing today will ensure that this important program remains a part of a State's tool belt in dealing with physician-shortages in medically-underserved areas. Our bill also provides for a modest increase from 20 allowable Conrad State 20 visa waivers per State per year to 30. For some time, a number of States have been bumping up against the State 20 ceiling, and my hope is that this increase will help additional medically underserved communities throughout the country procure the physician services they need. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. No, I will not yield. We hear, over and over, this is more money than the President's budget. Well, the President's budget is exactly the same amount as in this amendment. The President called for $768 billion in discretionary spending. It is true, we did not adopt his policy. There is a $9 billion difference because he wanted to transfer money from mandatory spending to discretionary. Do you know what he wanted to transfer? He wanted to transfer the cost of Federal employees' retirement and claim it was discretionary rather than mandatory. I have not found anybody who thinks that is a wise policy. Clearly, it is required that we pay the retirement costs of Federal employees. That is not discretionary. The fact is, the President's discretionary number is exactly the same as the number we have. We didn't adopt his policy, but that is his number. Now, let's look, in comparison, to last year. Last year we spent $710 billion in discretionary. These are the increases: $45 billion for defense, every penny of it requested by the President; $5.4 billion in homeland security, every penny requested by the President. The only difference is $7 billion, the difference between last year and this year, that is going to other things. All of the rest of the increase is for defense and homeland security, every dollar requested by the President. There is $7 billion more, 1 percent, for all the rest of Government. That doesn't even keep pace with inflation. Between 2003 and 2004, we are capping spending at $786 billion, an $18 billion increase, a 2- percent increase, for total discretionary spending by the Federal Government. That does not even keep pace with inflation, either. For those who say this is spending, spending, that doesn't pass the laugh test. This is a cap on spending, a cap on spending at the same number the President proposed, a cap on spending for the second year that allows a 2-percent increase for all of domestic spending. That is defense, parks, law enforcement-- all the rest. The fact is, without this amendment passing, there will be no budget. There will be no budget disciplines. They expire on September 30. That is the reality. This is a choice that really matters. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we cannot very well have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, decry not having budget discipline and a budget, and, on the other hand, oppose those very provisions. That is what this vote is about. It is a budget and it is budget discipline provisions. They are critically needed. I hope colleagues will support it.

Mr. CONRAD. I will not yield. They used an estimate of Medicare expenses in the House that says Medicare is going to rise at the lowest percentage in the history of the program. Now, how are we ever going to reconcile a 10-year budget in the Senate, which is what the law requires, with a 5-year budget in the House, when we used Congressional Budget Office estimates, which we are supposed to do, and they used Office of Management Budget estimates because it made it easier for them to cover up the raid on Social Security in which they were engaged? That is a fundamental reason that we have passed a budget resolution through the committee and not brought it to the floor because we know we would spend a week of the Senate's time and never be able to reconcile with the House because they have adopted rosy scenario forecasts, and they have adopted a 5-year budget when a 10-year budget is required.