[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 168 (Thursday, December 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12467-S12471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. REID. Madam President, in a short period of time we will take up
the Defense appropriations bill. This is a bill the Chair and the
ranking member, Senators Inouye and Stevens, have been working on as
partners. A better term would be cochairs. They work so well together
and have for so many years. They worked hard to get the bill to the
point where it now is. We also have the full committee chair, Senator
Byrd, who has worked very hard on this, with his counterpart, also,
Senator Stevens, to get to the point where the bill is.
One of the--and I am sorry to say this--controversial aspects of this
legislation deals with something Senator Byrd has called homeland
security. There will be efforts to strike this provision because it
costs too much money, according to some, even though Governor Ridge,
the homeland security czar, has stated that we need hundreds of
millions of dollars for the things he has already recognized need to be
done.
If we, in our mind's eye, fix the headlines of newspapers in recent
weeks--Smallpox threat; subsequent headline: Cost of smallpox
vaccinations more than originally anticipated; yesterday's headlines
across the country: Osama bin Laden and the terrorists have recognized
that they have what is called a dirty nuclear weapon, maybe--I hope we
will be in a position to do something about this. That is what Senator
Byrd has tried to do. That is what this legislation is all about,
dealing with some of the things I mentioned, headlines around the
country indicating we need to do something about homeland security.
Two of our Senators have been attacked with anthrax: Senator Daschle
and Senator Leahy. As we speak, we are trying to work with Senator
Leahy's letter to find out what should be done with that.
I hope when this legislation comes before us, which will be very
soon, we will recognize we will have problems with anthrax and other
biological agents such as smallpox, that our ports are unsafe and our
nuclear plants are unsafe. Local government is really being hurt as a
result of their spending all this money. So I hope we do something to
keep that in the bill.
I see the majority leader has come to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senate majority
leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished assistant
Democratic leader for his comments
[[Page S12468]]
just now and add my voice. He has said it so well. I know within the
hour the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator
Byrd, along with the Senator from Hawaii, our dear colleague, Mr.
Inouye, will lay down the Defense Appropriations Committee bill. Of
course, a key part of that Defense Appropriations Committee bill is the
homeland defense legislation incorporated within that bill.
The homeland defense bill is one-half of our economic stimulus plan,
first and foremost. It responds to the economists across the country
who have said, if you are going to improve the economy, if you are
going to strengthen our economic circumstances, the very best way to do
it--in fact, the only way to ensure that it happens--is to make sure
the confidence level of all Americans improves.
Confidence has been shaken. The only way we can address it
effectively is by ensuring that, regardless of where they travel,
regardless of their circumstances at home, the mail they are now
receiving--that under any circumstances we begin to put the safety back
into our system, safety that we have lost since September 11. That is
what homeland defense is all about.
Read the headlines in almost any daily newspaper. You don't need any
more evidence than that, that we have a set of circumstances unlike
this country has seen before. God forbid we have another event
tomorrow, an attack within the week. I have no doubt, if we had any
kind of additional terror activity, regardless of where it may be, even
abroad, it would trigger the need, it would trigger the desire on the
part of our colleagues, to ensure that we have the resources for
homeland defense.
That is what we are saying. We should not be response oriented, we
should be preventive in our desire to ensure the infrastructure is in
place.
We have proposed a very narrowly drawn bill, a bill that addresses
the need for bioterrorism response, the need for greater law
enforcement, the need for protecting our infrastructure, the need for
ensuring that we have the health facilities in place. That is what this
bill does.
I don't know that you could make a better case than the New York
Times editorial this morning about the need for homeland defense now.
They simply make a statement, about two-thirds of the way through the
editorial, that says basically: The American people want this
protection now. They don't want to wait until next year. They know what
we know: The terrorists do not operate on a fiscal year basis.
Terrorists operate now. Terrorists will operate whenever it is
convenient and appropriate for them.
There is no time to wait, when it comes to the homeland defense
investments that are so important to us, as we look to restoring
confidence, restoring safety, restoring the opportunities that we need
in this country to be ready should something happen.
That is what this fight is going to be all about. I hope our
colleagues will join with us in supporting it. I hope we are not going
to be required to go through it piece by piece, which is what we will
have to do if we have no other option; we will offer amendments piece
by piece.
I asked my Republican friends, rhetorically, over the last several
days: Tell us which part of it you do not support. Is it the effort at
bioterrorism? We have 76 cosponsors on the Kennedy-Frist bill. I think
there would be strong support for that. Is it efforts to provide
greater resources to local law enforcement? If they are opposed to
that, let's have an amendment. We'll take it out. Are you opposed to
providing the new vaccine for smallpox and anthrax antibiotics? If that
part is what you are opposed to, we will take that out. But we will be
required, of course, to take each of these pieces step by step. I hope
that will not be necessary.
I hope people understand this is going to be a very important debate,
a debate that I think will give us our first chance to see how willing
the Senate is to respond to the very critical need in this country for
homeland defense. This is the first opportunity, and it is on the
Defense bill. There could not be a more appropriate vehicle for it.
I hope my colleagues will support it, will work with us to get it. It
has such import that it is my intention to stay on this bill until we
finish it. If it takes Saturday to do it, I want to put my colleagues
on notice. Because Monday is a Jewish holiday, Hanukkah, we really have
to complete our work this week. So we will be on the bill this
afternoon. We will be on the bill tomorrow. We will be on the bill
Saturday if necessary. But we will stay on the bill and complete our
work on it because it is that critical. We need to get in conference
with our House colleagues, and we need to get this job done before we
leave.
Clearly, because of the importance we must place on completing our
work, we will have to accommodate whatever schedule is required to
ensure that we complete it this week.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the New York Times editorial
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Dec. 6, 2001.]
The Home-Front Emergency
The need to do more to guard against terrorism at home is
obvious. Tom Ridge, the director of homeland defense, and
members of Congress have certainly endorsed the idea--in
principle. Yet today, when the Senate takes up a measure that
would add $7.5 billion to the budget for items like airport
security and defense against germ warfare, Republican leaders
will be trying to block it. The appropriation is tacked onto
a emergency military spending bill that no one opposes. But
an emergency also exists at home. Senators should put the
safety of their constituents first and vote for the entire
package.
President Bush has threatened to veto the $7.5 billion
measure if it reaches his desk, and Mr. Ridge has urged the
senators to wait until next year, when he acknowledges he
will be asking for more money for things like public health
and food safety. Senators have been appropriately skeptical
of his plea for delay. ``That, simply stated, is too late,''
said Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.
Why would the White House, which has issued another
generalized terrorism warning, want to temporize on mounting
an American response? The answer is old-fashioned budget
politics. Earlier this year the administration and Congress
settled on a ceiling of $686 billion in so-called
discretionary spending for the current fiscal year. After
Sept. 11, Mr. Bush and Congress agreed to add $40 billion to
deal with the terrorist attacks, half of which was supposed
to be set aside for New York. Not surprisingly, the money has
been used up quickly. About $20 billion is going to the
military to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. Only $10
billion may go to New York. Only $8.5 billion is set aside
for homeland defenses.
It makes no sense to postpone help for the nation's health
facilities to recognize and treat victims of biological or
chemical attack when federal health officials have testified
that their departments could use the money now. If the
American people were asked whether they wanted to wait until
next year to appropriate money to keep nuclear facilities
secure and protect the nation's borders, they would
undoubtedly opt for immediate action. The other great unmet
need this year is New York City's recovery. The Bush
administration argues that the promise of at least $20
billion to help the city will, eventually, be spent as costs
are incurred. But that is beside the point. The Senate bill
would give New York a further $7.5 billion for costs that
would not be covered under those emergency procedures, such
as grants to businesses to keep them from moving out of Lower
Manhattan. It would also commit money to the Port Authority,
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and other agencies
to start rebuilding now. Other parts of the package would
help reimburse utilities for rewiring the area and hospitals
for the emergency care they provided.
The only serious argument against the Senate package
appears to be the president's opposition. Senator Ted Stevens
of Alaska, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations
Committee, says he would vote for the bill except that the
White House asked him not to.
Mr. Bush has lately accused Congress of overspending,
though lawmakers have stayed within all the agreed-upon-
limits except those related to the emergency. Recently
Mitchell Daniels, Mr. Bush's budget director, has been citing
new deficit projections as evidence that Congress needs to
keep spending down. But the administration has found room to
expand the separate economic stimulus package to include huge
giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. About $25 billion
in the Republican stimulus bill would simply go to help the
biggest corporations in America avoid taxes altogether.
This is a time for Senator Stevens, and all his colleagues,
to vote on the merits. The merits dictate that the bill be
passed.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished majority leader, so everyone
within the sound of his voice recognizes this is not
[[Page S12469]]
something we are trying to drum up for any reason other than the
seriousness of it, I direct the Senator to today's newspaper--it is in
all the newspapers--where the Ambassador from the Taliban to Pakistan
said that any weapons the Taliban have they would use, including
nuclear. He is not speaking for al-Qaida. If the Taliban, which we
recognize as bad people and bad leaders, are willing to do that, will
the Senator acknowledge that al-Qaida would be willing to do that, and
more?
Mr. DASCHLE. I think it has been documented now in most of the
newspapers and media that the terrorist cells which exist have produced
information that would cause us to be concerned that some of these
cells and some of these networks have weapons of mass destruction that
they certainly intend to target towards the United States. There is no
question they have made every attempt to acquire these weapons over the
course of the last several years, and if they have been successful, I
think it is a reasonable assumption the United States would be the
first to experience those attacks.
That is why it is so critical for us to do all we can to prepare for
whatever possibility there is that these weapons could be used against
us. We are not there yet. We have a lot of work to do to create the
kind of infrastructure required to provide the maximum degree of safety
for all Americans. We don't have that today.
Director Ridge has indicated he is prepared to ask for additional
resources next year. They have acknowledged that additional cost could
entail upwards of a $200 billion commitment in homeland defense
resources. But if we are going to require $200 billion, what is wrong
with taking the first installment, $7.5 billion, and putting in place
at least the foundation of this new homeland defense infrastructure?
We have to do it. We know we have to do it. Why do it responsively in
reaction to incidents that have occurred? The time to do it is now,
before these new incidents occur. That is really the essence of the
debate in the Chamber this afternoon. But I thank the Senator for
asking the question.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it appears to me the Defense bill has been
worked very much by Senators Inouye and Stevens, and they have come up
with a great bill to meet the demands of this new war. The bill is
about $340 billion. We are arguing over $7.5 billion for homeland
security--the items the distinguished majority leader outlined. It
doesn't seem to me we should be arguing about $7.5 billion compared to
$340 billion. Some people in the administration say maybe we can deal
with it in a supplemental next year. But that is next year. It is the
same dollars. It would be a few months' difference. A few months, as
far as my family is concerned, and the people of every State, could
make a big difference.
Does the Senator agree?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Nevada.
Also, there really have been, as I understand, two basic concerns
expressed by our Republican friends about their additional commitment
to homeland defense. One was that we agreed to $68.6 billion in
appropriations for this calendar year. The fact is that is true. We
have agreed to $68.6 billion in overall money. But we also have always
recognized that in cases of emergency there is a need for an additional
commitment in resources. That agreement was reached before the anthrax
attack. That agreement was reached before we had three specific
incidents where we were put on high alert as a result of the potential
for additional attacks somewhere in this country. Clearly, the
circumstances have changed dramatically since that agreement. They
certainly have in my office, and I think we could say across the
country.
No. 1, I think we all have to recognize the changed circumstances,
and the emergency circumstances. We need to at least begin to put in
place the homeland defense structure that is so critical.
The second concern is that our Republican colleagues have said this
really doesn't have anything to do with stimulus, and for that reason
they are opposed to it. Yet that is contrary to what every single
economist has told us--that there is a tremendous stimulus out there.
In fact, there was an article on the front page of the Washington Post
a few days ago which said as a direct result of the efforts we are now
making on homeland defense, the economy has actually started to blossom
again because of some of these new commitments we have made.
On both counts--No. 1, because the emergency circumstances have
changed, and, No. 2, clearly there is a stimulative value to what it is
we are doing beyond the security value to which we should all aspire--
there is ample reason for us to be overwhelmingly supportive of
homeland defense.
I only ask my colleagues: What would happen if we were attacked
tomorrow? I have no doubt we would respond with not $7.5 billion, but
we might respond with $70 billion, if another attack were to occur. We
don't want to see another attack. God forbid that there would be
another attack. But we have to assume that if it is up to the
terrorists, because they do not look at fiscal years--they are not
going to wait until after we put all of this in place--they are going
to attack whenever they think it is right. And I don't want to see that
happen to this country. I think it is critical that we be prepared for
whatever comes.
Our Republican friends say we can't afford $7.5 billion right now. I
find that the most illogical of all their arguments given their
position. They say we can't commit $7.5 billion. But then they go out
and commit $175 billion to an economic stimulus package all in the name
of tax cuts, $23 billion of which goes in the form of retroactive AMT
relief to the largest corporations in the country--General Motors, $1
billion; IBM, close to $1 billion; Ford, almost $1 billion in
retroactive payments. Where is the stimulative value in retroactive
payments of that magnitude to corporations that have billions of
dollars of cash on hand?
Their notion is, we can't afford it, while at the same time our
Republican friends will tell us, well, we still think we ought to be
spending not $75 billion, which is what the President advocated for a
stimulus package, but $175 billion--$100 billion more than what the
President has acknowledged would be of stimulative value to us.
I have to say that argument doesn't hold much water either. Based on
what opposition I have heard so far, I don't think the argument is even
close.
The bottom line is that we have to be prepared. The bottom line is
that for an economic stimulus package to work, people have to feel more
secure. The bottom line is that we need these resources to put in place
a homeland defense system that we recognize will be needed for all
perpetuity--not just this year and not just next year.
I hope our colleagues will join with us in supporting this package in
the recognition that we need to be just as cognizant of our needs here
at home as we are abroad.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the leader yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I saw their discussion occurring on the floor. I have
been doing some calculations with my staff in the Budget Committee. I
thought some of what we found might be useful in the discussion.
Over the next 3 years, the difference between the Republican stimulus
plan and the Democratic stimulus plan is that the Republicans would add
$140 billion more in deficits with their stimulus plan than with
ours. And now they are talking about----
Mr. DASCHLE. Did the Senator from North Dakota say $140 billion over
how long?
Mr. CONRAD. Just 3 years.
Mr. DASCHLE. Just 3 years? Not a 10-year difference but just 3 years?
Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. If one looks at the different fiscal
outcomes based on the Republican stimulus plan and the Democratic
stimulus plan just over the next 3 years, it is over $140 billion of
additional deficits and additional debt with the Republican stimulus
plan versus the Democratic stimulus plan.
Interestingly enough, they are criticizing adding $7.5 billion for
homeland security to respond to the bioterrorism threat, to improve
security at airports, to improve security at our harbors, to improve
security for the rail system in this country--all things that are
clearly necessary. I submit that terrorists are unlikely to wait for
us.
But I also have learned that within the administration, they are
working
[[Page S12470]]
on a supplemental that would come to us early next year for as much as
$20 billion for these same items. So what we have in terms of
resistance on the other side to addressing the vulnerability of this
country now on the terrorist threat rings pretty hollow--rings pretty
hollow--when they say, on the one hand, gee, you are going to be adding
$7.5 billion to the deficit and the debt, and yet when we examine their
stimulus package over the next 3 years, compared to ours, they are
going to be adding $140 billion to the deficit and debt and perhaps
most revealing, all of their talk about how this represents big
spending, and we have learned through sources in the administration
they are working on their own additional spending plan to be brought
before us next year in the amount of approximately $20 billion.
I did not know if the leader had heard of these calculations or of
these reports, but I thought it might be useful to the discussion as to
what the issue is going to be when we vote on these questions on the
floor of the Senate.
Mr. DASCHLE. I really appreciate the Senator from North Dakota
clarifying and reporting to the body about the intentions of the
administration. I was not aware they are contemplating a supplemental
of that magnitude. I find it all the more ironic, I guess, that at the
very time they oppose $7.5 billion, they would be contemplating a
supplemental of the magnitude the Senator has just announced--a $20
billion supplemental.
If $20 billion is good for February, why isn't $7.5 billion good for
December? Where is the difference? Why is it that we must wait? And
what happens between December and February if something, God forbid,
would happen?
So it seems to me that it makes the case all the more that this isn't
necessarily about money, it isn't about the need. It cannot be about
the administration's intentions. I do not understand the basis for
their opposition, if, in just 60 days, as the Senator from North Dakota
reports, they could be preparing a supplemental of the magnitude he has
just discussed.
So I hope our colleagues can clarify that because I think the $20
billion is a clear indication they, too, understand the importance of
homeland defense. What we are arguing over is whether we ought to do it
now or we ought to do it later.
What the Senator from North Dakota is saying is, we ought to do it
now. This is the time when we ought to be putting much of the
preventative infrastructure in place. So I appreciate very much the
Senator's comments and his contribution to this colloquy.
Mr. CONRAD: I just say to my colleague, I was startled to hear the
criticism coming from the other side on the question of $7.5 billion to
deal with specific threats that we all know exist. After all, our
vulnerability in these matters is not something we just discovered. We
have had report after report made by very respected Members. In fact,
the former Republican majority leader in the Senate, Howard Baker, did
a report that alerted us to the need for tens of billions of dollars of
expenditure to deal with weapons of mass destruction being developed in
other parts of the world, specifically the former Soviet Union; and
there are also the reports that were done on a bipartisan basis of the
terrorist threats that existed to this country's infrastructure and the
need to respond. It takes money to respond.
In light of what I have been told by people within the administration
that they are, right now, working on a potential supplemental of $20
billion for early next year, perhaps in the March timeframe, that they
would be bringing before us, they themselves know it is going to take
more money to respond to bioterrorism; it is going to take more money
to strengthen our airports against terrorist attack; it is going to
take more money to provide defense for our harbors and to deal with the
threats to the rail infrastructure of this country.
I do not think there is a person here that does not know there are
these additional threats. When I couple that with what the Republicans
are doing in terms of their stimulus package that would add, in
comparison to our package, over $140 billion of additional deficit and
debt over the next 3 years, and they are talking about defending the
deficit on $7.5 billion of funding necessary to protect this Nation at
the same time they are working on a plan for $20 billion of additional
funding to protect this Nation, that kind of rings hollow.
Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, it does ring
hollow. I would hope our colleagues could enlighten us as to the
intentions of the administration. If, indeed, they are going to be
requesting this $20 billion supplemental, we ought to know that. If
they are going to be requesting it, how much would be dedicated to
homeland defense? If they can tell us that, they ought to be explaining
why it is important to do it in March but it is not important to do it
in December.
Can they assure us that between December and March there will not be
any need at all? I do not think anyone can do that. Nobody is that
clairvoyant. So it is a risk. I do not think anybody ought to be
willing to take that risk today.
Clearly, we could commit a lot more than $7.5 billion to our own
personal security. But that is what we are doing in the name of
reaching accommodation with our Republican friends. We started out with
$15 billion, and we have cut it back in an effort to try to find a way
to reach some compromise. What we have done is to cut it back to the
bare essentials.
As the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, the essentials--which
includes the fight against bioterrorism; the fight to ensure that our
infrastructure, our nuclear facilities, our ports, our airports are
secure; the fight to ensure that we have the health facilities in
place--we were just apprised of a situation where somebody contracted
West Nile disease in September. The diagnosis was sent to the Centers
for Disease Control, and they were not informed as to what that
diagnosis was until just this week because they are so backlogged
because they do not have the resources, they do not have the personnel.
My goodness, that is a wakeup call of a magnitude about which
everybody should be concerned. But that is what we are talking about
with homeland security: ensuring that we have the resources to deal
with diagnosis, ensuring we can work with local law enforcement
officials.
To which part of what I have just described is our Republican caucus
opposed? Which part of it do they want to take out? I think that is
what we are going to have to try to figure out.
I think clearly within each one of those cases not only are we
attempting to address it in as conservative a way as we can from a
fiscal point of view but in as prudent a way as possible, taking what
needs to be done first and dealing with those issues that could be
dealt with later at a later date.
So I appreciate very much the Senator's comments this morning.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for an additional observation?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. CONRAD. I thought I should report on testimony we had before the
Budget Committee with respect to stimulus. We had a number of
economists who appeared who said spending to strengthen security is
perhaps the very best thing we could do to stimulate the economy. Not
only would the spending itself be stimulative, but, more important, it
would improve the security of people in the country.
One of the big problems we have is a lack of confidence.
People are feeling threatened. People are feeling vulnerable. That
inhibits economic activity. We see that in airline travel. People don't
feel safe flying. To the extent you can make expenditures that improve
the security of airports and improve the security of rail operations
and improve the security in ports, that is going to improve the
psychological security factor that people feel. That is going to help
the economy. They said you actually get a double hit: Not only the
expenditures will be stimulative, but the additional security will make
people feel safer and be safer.
I hope this does not become kind of a political debate, a partisan
political debate, but that we deal with the underlying realities. The
fact is, we know there are things that have to be done to strengthen
our security. We can make that commitment now and get the work underway
now. That makes sense instead of delaying.
We are talking about $7.5 billion, when our Republican friends are
talking about a stimulus package that
[[Page S12471]]
means $140 billion of additional debt over the next 3 years over and
above what Democrats are advocating. This choice is going to be a
relatively simple one.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his
contribution. I underscore what he said just now about the stimulative
value of confidence. You can't calculate how much of an improvement in
the economy it will make when people feel safe again. You know it is
there; intuitively, you know that if people feel good about flying and
traveling and doing all the things we did months ago, this economy is
going to start improving. People are going to start putting their lives
back together again with a sense of normalcy that we have not
experienced in some time. They have to know it is safe to do so, that
our airports and our ports and our nuclear facilities and all of our
infrastructure are safer today than they were before.
That is, in essence, what we are talking about, creating that
psychology, that confidence, that sense of normalcy that we have not
had now for some time. I hope my colleagues will work with us in a way
that will allow us to address this need. If we are going to do it next
March, let's do it now. Let's do it in a way that we can agree ought to
be done.
Homeland security is not a partisan issue, and it should not be in
this case either.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the majority leader has outlined for us
what we will take up the balance of today and possibly tomorrow as we
debate the most important issue of Department of Defense
appropriations.
There is something that has to be said in response to what the
majority leader has just outlined because while he has opined with
great emotion a frustration about the basis of opposition that those of
us on this side are expressing to this particular bill, what he has
failed to talk about are the very agreements he once made and once
entered into with our President.
That agreement first started on October 2, well after September 11,
as this country was beginning to assess its needs in light of a
terrorist threat and how we might ultimately conclude our efforts in
Congress for fiscal year 2002.
The President, the majority leader from South Dakota, the Republican
leader, and the House met. They looked at all of these different issues
and agreed on a couple of issues. First, they agreed that $686 billion
in discretionary spending was an adequate level, plus $40 billion that
would be dedicated to homeland defense and the very emergencies we are
talking about and the effort to deal with the great tragedy in New York
City. Forty billion had already been agreed to: $20 billion of it was
to be spent immediately at the discretion of the President; $20 billion
was to be worked out cooperatively with the Congress and the
appropriating committees of the Congress. That work has been done.
What has gone on in the meantime is the breaking of a word. I come
from Idaho. The majority leader comes from South Dakota. Out there is a
ground level expression called ``a deal is a deal.'' You walk up; you
look your fellow person in the eye; you shake hands; you arrive at an
agreement, and that is the way you operate. We went even beyond that.
The President, in a letter, wrote:
This agreement is the result of extensive discussions to
produce an acceptable bipartisan solution to facilitate the
orderly enactment of appropriation measures. This agreement
and the aggregate spending level are the result of a strong
bipartisan effort at this critical time for our Nation, and I
expect that all parties will now proceed expeditiously and in
full compliance with the agreement.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush.
Today the deal is not a deal; the deal has been broken. The DOD bill
that comes before us this afternoon is a deal breaker.
What the majority leader did not say, as he opined the criticality of
a homeland defense expenditure, was that it was not designed by the
appropriate committees. It was not reviewed by all of the committees of
jurisdiction. It was largely written in the back room of the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Bob Byrd. I am not at all here
today to impugn the integrity of Senator Byrd. That is not my intent. I
work with him on a daily basis. I have high regard for him.
But for the majority leader to come and say that $15 billion of
spending is necessary in all of these categorized areas for homeland
defense is totally ignoring the fact that darn few have seen all of
where it goes. Our new Homeland Defense Director is at this moment
developing an analysis of and an expression of need for a full
implementation of homeland defense. That is where he talks, and the
majority leader spoke, too--the issue of coming forth next year
with recommendations, thoroughly vetted, looked at by all, examined by
the committees of jurisdiction and not done in the back room of the
Appropriations Committee of the Senate.
I am a bit surprised when the majority leader comes to the Chamber
and suggests that Republicans are attempting to play politics with the
issue of the stimulus package. It has been openly discussed. That is
appropriate. It has been reviewed by the authorizing committees, and
that is appropriate. But what has not gone on and that which is being
brought to this committee this afternoon is a thorough and responsible
examination by all involved. That is why we look at it with great
concern, and the very reality that the money we are spending today
crosses that line of a balanced budget and into deficit.
There is no question that a stimulus package that will be dealt with
bipartisanly or not is going to have the impact of deficit spending or
it likely could happen. But the reason we are willing to look at an
investment in the economy today is the hopes of lessening that deficit,
getting people back to work, causing things to happen out there.
Before the August recess, 1 million Americans had lost their jobs. We
were already in recession by August.
The appropriate committees that examine it and the appropriate
Federal agencies that examine it to make the official proclamation had
not yet done so. That didn't occur until just a few weeks ago. Any of
us going home, any of us spending time in our communities knew this
country's economy had turned down dramatically. Now the figures show
that it started well before George W. Bush came to town. It started in
September of a year ago, and it was accelerating through the fall and
into the winter months and across the summer. We now know that as a
reality. It is important that we do a stimulus package. We responded to
that when we did tax relief earlier this spring, and the then-chairman
of the Budget Committee, who is now on the floor, spoke very eloquently
as to why we did that. That is all part of the reason we are here.
I am extremely surprised we would now attempt to do what we are
attempting to do in this. We will oppose this effort.
A deal is a deal. The President has said he will veto it. I am sorry
the message did not get to the majority leader. I am sorry the
agreement he once struck is no longer the deal because he says
circumstances have changed.
No, frankly, circumstances have not changed. There is still a lot of
money out there to spend. This afternoon we will thoroughly debate this
issue, but it is important that the statements made this morning be
responded to.
I yield the floor.
____________________