[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.

                          ____________________