[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2904-S2906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Homeland Security

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there have been a number of statements over 
the past many months about the fact that we should have been spending 
more money on homeland security.
  For example, this week, I had a woman come to me from Las Vegas, who 
is in charge of the 9-1-1 center at the Metropolitan Police Department, 
a very large police department, with hundreds and hundreds of police 
officers representing that urban area of some 1.5 to 1.7 million 
people.
  She indicated to me there is a real problem. If you have a telephone 
call coming from a standard telephone, that person can be identified. 
They know the location of that telephone. Or if it is a pay phone, they 
know the location of that pay phone. But today a lot of people are 
getting rid of their standard telephones, as we know them, and are 
using computers, and millions and millions of people are using cell 
phones.
  She said that for virtually every place in the United States, 
including the Las Vegas area, if you call 9-1-1 from a cell phone, they 
have no idea who is making the phone call or where it is coming from. 
And, of course, with the computer, that is absolutely the case also.
  She was lamenting the fact that the technology is there. It is easy 
to do what needs to be done to make sure that 9-1-1 calls that come 
from cell phones can be located.
  People have lost their lives and have been injured and harm caused to 
them as a result of 9-1-1 not being able to identify when the emergency 
call comes in. This is only one example of how technology could handle 
the problem.

  Why isn't it being done in Las Vegas and other places? There isn't 
enough money. With what happened on September 11, there is tremendous 
need for more money to be spent for homeland security. This was 
certainly the opinion of the Governors who were in town this week. They 
are having all kinds of problems.
  So, Mr. President, I would like to refer again to the New York Times. 
I have talked about an editorial, as did my friend from Idaho, in the 
New York Times. I want to refer to a news story from the New York 
Times, dated today, February 27, 2003, written by one Philip Shenon, 
entitled ``White House Concedes That Counterterror Budget Is Meager.'' 
In effect, what this news article says is the White House now 
recognizes that there isn't enough money to take care of the problems 
of homeland security.
  In this article, among other things, the President blames the 
leadership of the House and the Senate. And, of course, that does not 
include the Democratic leadership, because everyone knows, including 
the President, that we have been crying for more money for more than a 
year.
  There are just a couple things from this news article I would like to 
point out to the Senate:

       . . . the long delayed Government spending plan for the 
     year does not provide enough money to protect against 
     terrorist attacks on American soil.

  Mr. President, this is a statement from this administration. This is 
not a statement from the Senator from West Virginia, the senior member 
of the Appropriations Committee, who has spoken for hours and hours on 
the need for more money. This is not a statement from Senator Daschle, 
the Democratic leader. This is coming from the administration: White 
House concedes that counterterror budget is meager.
  The article goes on to say:

       . . . because it had failed to provide adequate money for 
     local counterterrorism programs.

  Mr. President, throughout America today you can't have police 
agencies talking with each other. In Las Vegas, as an example, you have 
the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the city of Henderson, 
and Boulder City, and they can't talk to each other in an emergency. 
The technology is there. They can do that. But these governments simply 
don't have the money to do that. Fire departments can't talk to police 
departments all over America. It is not only a problem in Nevada.
  We have been asking that the President help with these moneys, and he 
has been unwilling to do so. He, in effect, vetoed a multibillion 
dollar proposal we had in a bill just a short time ago. In the bill we 
had, the big omnibus bill, we asked for a small amount of money for all 
the demands in here. We asked for $3.5 billion, but it contains only, 
as this article indicates, about $1.3 billion in counterterrorism money 
for local governments.
  Now, these remarks struck some of the audiences unusually sharp, 
given that ``both Houses of Congress are controlled by the President's 
party,'' as the article indicates.
  Now, there is more in this article, and the day is late, and the snow 
is falling, but I do want to read this to make sure the picture is 
plain.
  This is a quote from Governor Gary Locke of Washington, which is in 
the article:

       We have a lot of police agencies in the state that were 
     assured by the administration, repeatedly, that this money 
     was on the way.

  Still quoting from the article:

       He said that many police and fire departments had bought 
     [for example] hazardous-materials protective suits and other 
     counterterrorism equipment in the expectation that they would 
     be reimbursed by the federal government.
       ``And now,'' Governor Locke said, ``they're going to have 
     to scramble to terminate other programs in order to cover 
     those costs.''
  It is not only Democratic Governors complaining. Republican Governors 
are complaining. Governor Bob Taft, a Republican, said lawmakers did 
not appropriate the amount that was recommended and earmarked for what 
they appropriated. So it is very clear there are things we need to do 
on this Senate floor that deal with more than the employment of one 
man, Miguel Estrada, a man who today, I am sure, is billing big hours 
down at his plush office here in Washington, a man who makes hundreds 
of thousands of dollars a year.
  There have been statements made on this floor that it is extremely 
important that we shift from this man's employment, one man's 
employment, to the millions of people who are unemployed, and millions 
who are underemployed, people who have no health insurance and are 
underinsured and the many other problems we face.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 466

  Based upon the New York Times article and the fact that the President 
of the United States has now acknowledged that the counterterror budget 
is meager, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to 
legislative session and then proceed to the immediate consideration of 
S. 466, a bill to provide $5 billion for first responders, introduced 
today by Senator Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is no surprise. I hope that people will 
understand the need to go to other legislation. When we have our own 
President who, for more than a year, has said we have enough money, 
there is money in the pipeline, now agreeing that we have a problem, 
that we don't have enough money. The State of Nevada, I spoke to the 
State legislature there a week ago last Tuesday, 10 days ago, 9 days 
ago. I told the legislature there, which is like 45 other State 
legislatures around America today, they have a State that is in red 
ink. I told them there are a number of reasons they are

[[Page S2905]]

in red ink. One is we have passed a bill called Leave No Child Behind, 
and we are leaving lots of children behind because we passed on to the 
State of Nevada and other States unfunded mandates that create 
financial problems for the States.
  I also told the State legislature that what we have done in passing 
different measures dealing with terrorism, we have passed on to the 
State and local governments unfunded mandates, costing the State of 
Nevada and local governments millions of dollars, causing their budgets 
to be in the red significantly.
  The President is wrong. He must help us address the problem. Senator 
Daschle's bill for $5 billion for first responders is not enough, but 
it is a step in the right direction.

  We are fighting. We have now here the former chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, now ranking member. As we speak, American forces 
are in a war in Afghanistan. People every day are being wounded and 
killed in Afghanistan. But that has been overwhelmed by what is going 
on in Iraq, or what soon will go on in Iraq.
  We have lots of problems. We have problems in North Korea, which is a 
real serious one. They have started their second reactor there in the 
last few days. I was present at a briefing the other day with somebody 
from the administration who should know about how much the war is going 
to cost, and they don't know. The war in Iraq, they don't know. But we 
know we have a war going on here at home to fight terrorism, and we are 
not spending enough money to protect American people.
  We have interests in the Middle East. We have interests in 
Afghanistan. We have interests on the Korean peninsula. We have 
interests here, and they are being neglected. The President 
acknowledges that. What are we doing here, spending 3 weeks dealing 
with Miguel Estrada. It is wrong. I am not surprised this unanimous 
consent request was objected to, but even though I am not surprised, it 
doesn't take away from the significance and really how depressed I am 
as a result of not having the adequate resources we need to take care 
of the problems dealing with homeland security.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for one question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have heard now with some regularity from the 
administration that they have no idea, no estimate as to what the cost 
of the war with Iraq will be, nor what the aftermath would cost; in 
other words, assuming there is a war, assuming that we occupy Iraq with 
or without others. According to General Shinseki, that could actually 
involve up to 100,000 troops there for some unlimited period of time. 
But even if they disagree with that, which apparently some members of 
the Pentagon do, we have not been able to obtain--and they claim there 
is none--an estimate of the cost of the aftermath of a war with Iraq at 
the same time that they are asking us to put in place an additional tax 
cut.
  Does it not strike my good friend from Nevada as being irresponsible 
to put into place tax cuts with huge costs to the Treasury when we are 
likely on the verge of a war which has no particular estimated cost, 
and then the aftermath of that war, which could last years, in turn 
also has no estimated cost? Does it not strike the Senator from Nevada 
as simply not being the responsible thing to do to be imposing or 
putting into place tax reductions which means losses to the Treasury, 
when we are right on the verge of potential expenditures which could be 
literally hundreds of billions of dollars over a reasonably short 
period of time?
  Mr. REID. Even though I would disagree with what the administration 
would do if they had the information and wouldn't give it to us, I 
wouldn't like that, but I would at least feel more comfortable that 
they were on top of their game. But for them to come to us and say, we 
don't know, that says it all. If they don't know and have no estimates 
as to the cost of what post-Iraq is going to be, we should all be 
concerned. If the general is 50 percent wrong, and it is only 100,000 
troops, that is a lot of troops to keep there for a period of time. 
They don't know whether it is 2 days, 2 years or 2 decades.

  Mr. LEVIN. And the answer we get is there is no way to know with 
certainty. These specifics are simply not available. There are too many 
imponderables. That is true, there are clearly some uncertainties. But 
it seems obvious to me the planners at the Pentagon must have some 
range of time or else there is no exit strategy, or else it is forever.
  Previous administrations have been criticized for not having exit 
strategies, not having estimates in time, for making their estimate too 
short: They will be home by Christmas. But that is no excuse for not 
having some range--that we will be there from 1 to 3 years according to 
the best estimate. The worst case scenario is X number of years, best 
case scenario is such and such. The best case scenario is we won't have 
problems with the Kurds or the Shia will not be attacking the Sunni. 
The worst case scenario is we will have those kinds of civil wars. 
There are best case and worst case scenarios which allow planners who 
are working actually on estimated costs and exit strategies to come up 
with some kind of an estimate upon which we can base future resources 
and expenditures of this Nation.
  Mr. REID. People in the administration who try to be candid with 
Congress get in trouble. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser to 
the President, told us the war would cost $100 billion. He lost his 
job. I don't know if that is the only reason, but the general, a couple 
days ago, said: We will have to have 200,000 troops. There was a mad 
rush to that poor man to get him to change his opinion, and he changed 
his opinion and said: Maybe I was wrong, maybe it will be--and he 
mumbled around a little bit, but he gave an honest answer.
  Mr. LEVIN. He did.
  Mr. REID. Let's hope he doesn't lose his job. Let me also say this. 
We have all been impressed with this movie ``A Beautiful Mind,'' which 
a year ago won the Academy Award. The principle of that movie and the 
book that I read, written by a woman named Nasar, was that this 
brilliant man, Nash, figured out what was called the game theory. This 
doesn't necessarily mean playing checkers.
  He was able to determine through this brilliant mind that he had what 
would happen if more than two people were engaged in an activity and, 
as a result of the work he did, that is what much of the cold war 
planning was based upon--his theory, his game theory.
  Now, for me to be told that this mighty Nation, the United States of 
America, with 260 million people, with the finest educational 
institutions in the world--there are about 121 great universities in 
the world, and we have about 112 of them; basically they are all in 
America. So for someone to tell me that we don't know what it is going 
to cost postwar, that simply is not being candid. They know. There are 
different scenarios and they have them all in those computers, and they 
know what the different costs are going to be.
  I say to my friend from Michigan that, through mathematics, through 
computer modeling, you can figure about anything out. As most everybody 
knows, my last election was real close. I won election night by 401 
votes. By the time it was over, I picked up 27 more votes. But on 
election night, I had a computer man who worked with me for many years. 
He was a fine man. He had run a number of different models for the 17 
counties in Nevada and he told me after the vote was out of Clark 
County: You cannot lose. I have run every model there is and you cannot 
lose. It will be close, but you cannot lose. He figured out with 
mathematical certainty that I could not lose. Now, I didn't believe 
him, but he knew because he believes math doesn't lie.
  So without belaboring the point to the Senator from Michigan, 
somebody knows in this administration, but they are not going to tell 
us because they are afraid the American people are going to lose more 
confidence. As reported yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reports that 
soaring energy costs, the threat of terrorism, and a stagnant job 
market has sent consumer spirits plunging to levels only seen in 
recessions. That was from yesterday. That is why they are not telling 
us.
  I have given the Senator a very long answer to a short question, but 
I believe the administration knows and

[[Page S2906]]

they are afraid to fess up to the Congress and to the American people 
what this war is going to cost.
  Mr. LEVIN. Just to add one further thought, it seems to me it would 
be absolutely irresponsible not to have a range or an estimate of what 
the cost of a war would be in the best and worst case scenarios.
  Mr. REID. Or middle case.
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes, or at least a range on what is the worst case 
scenario and what is the best case scenario. I cannot believe the 
planners at the Pentagon and the OMB do not have a range. If they don't 
have a range, it would be irresponsible because how in heaven's name 
can the administration then say that we can afford a tax cut of the 
size they are proposing, when we have an impending demand for resources 
in a war that could be lengthy, costly, and then the aftermath could be 
lengthy and costly? It borders on the reckless, in terms of an economy, 
to say we don't have an estimate, we don't know whether or not it is 
going to be $20 billion, $40 billion, $100 billion--we don't have a 
range; yet they are trying to persuade a majority of the Congress that 
we ought to shrink the resources coming into the Government at the same 
time we are on the verge of war and the aftermath of a war, which 
doesn't have any estimated length, any estimated cost, and no troop 
estimate. We were given about a 200,000 estimate. Well, that is too 
high. OK, what is the ceiling that is more realistic to the people 
who say 200,000 is too high? We are completely devoid of that.

  What we are not devoid of, though, is the effort to shrink resources 
to this Government through a tax cut, which has a number of problems to 
it. One of them is that when we are facing what we are in terms of 
expenditures, it is not the responsible thing to do.
  Mr. REID. I would like to respond, not in a very direct way, but to 
point out problems the Senator has outlined in his statement to me. Is 
the Senator aware that yesterday I talked about a Pew Research Center 
poll? It is a nonpartisan organization. They are not for Democrats or 
Republicans. This was a real big poll, where 1,254 adults were 
contacted between February 12 and 18. For the first time in this 
administration, the American people do not approve of the way George W. 
Bush is handling the economy; 48 percent of the people disapprove. Is 
the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. LEVIN. I wasn't aware of the Senator's remarks, but I was aware 
of the poll.
  Mr. REID. And the Senator talked about tax policy. This same poll 
says that 44 percent of the American people disagree of George W. 
Bush's handling of tax policy. So the Senator said it all. I appreciate 
his asking me a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to speak about the very budget 
document that the Senator from Nevada and I have been discussing, 
perhaps in an indirect way. I wish to share some thoughts with the 
Senate about the proposed budget for 2004, which the President has now 
sent to Congress.
  As always, I wanted to see where the President's priorities were--not 
in sound bites, but the actual nitty-gritty numbers in the budget 
document. While every budget request is important, with the economy 
sputtering the way it is and with huge Federal deficits looming and 
critical domestic and international issues unresolved, particularly 
when we are facing the potential of a war and a very lengthy and 
complicated, expensive aftermath to that war, this budget requires 
special attention.
  I have been keenly disappointed by what this attention revealed. The 
President's budget would do exactly what he recently said he did not 
want to do, which was to pass our problems along to the next 
generation. The President made a very eloquent statement in the State 
of the Union Address, saying that we are not going to pass our problems 
along to the next generation. But when you look at the details of the 
budget, that is precisely what this budget request does.
  By the administration's own calculations, this budget would have us 
run a deficit of over a trillion dollars for the next 5 years, 
including record-setting deficits of over $300 billion for this year 
and next.
  Now, the contrast here between this projection of deficit and the 
$5.5 trillion 10-year surplus that was projected in January of 2001 is 
simply stunning. That contrast between just what 2 years ago was 
projected for our economy--a $5.5 trillion surplus--now there are 
projections of deficits upon deficits upon deficits--a projected 
deficit of over a trillion dollars over the next 5 years.
  The administration's plan estimates a non-Social Security deficit 
totaling over $2.5 trillion to the year 2008, which would leave us with 
an additional debt of $5 trillion in 2008, which is 150 times greater 
than what was projected just in the year 2001.
  Why such dire fiscal predictions? First, while the tax cut in the 
year 2001 played a huge part in putting us into the current deficit 
ditch, the President's call for an additional $1.5 trillion in new tax 
cuts--most of which disproportionately benefits upper income folks--
will help ensure that we not only stay in the deficit ditch, which we 
are back into, but that it will be a deep deficit ditch.
  Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recognized the danger of 
such cuts when he spoke of the importance of curbing the deficit, not 
increasing it.
  That perhaps came as a surprise to some people in the administration 
who were looking to Alan Greenspan to give support to the tax cut 
proposal and minimize, they hoped, the impact of deficits on future 
economies. That is not what Chairman Greenspan did. He 
straightforwardly recognized the danger of the tax cuts when he spoke 
of the importance of reducing deficits and not increasing deficits.
  Mr. President, I see the Democratic leader is in the Chamber. I 
withhold the remainder of my comments at this time because he has a 
very important message relative to North Korea, and I wish to 
participate with him in a colloquy and presentation. So I withhold the 
remainder of my comments relative to the President's budget at this 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.