[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4044-S4075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 23, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 23) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 
     2004 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal year 2003 and for fiscal years 2005 through 2013.

  Pending:

       Kyl modified amendment No. 288, to provide financial 
     security to family farm and small business owners by ending 
     the unfair practice of taxing someone at death.
       Dorgan amendment No. 294, to provide a meaningful 
     prescription drug benefit in Medicare that is available to 
     all beneficiaries.
       Rockefeller amendment No. 275, to express the sense of the 
     Senate concerning State fiscal relief.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like the attention of the majority 
leader, if I could, before he leaves the floor, to say to him nobody is 
suggesting we walk away from our responsibility to do the budget. But 
the fact is, that does not have to be done today or tomorrow. We have 
plenty of time before the budget deadline is reached. That is not until 
the middle of April.
  When we talk about responsibility here, we have no higher 
responsibility than the defense of this Nation. I tell you, the thing 
that is on the minds of my constituents, the thing that is on the minds 
of virtually every American, is not the budget resolution. The thing 
that is on the minds of the American people today is the fact that we 
have a quarter of a million troops engaged in a battle that is 
incredibly consequential to this Nation. I wish to register my strong 
disagreement with business as usual in the Senate when we are at war.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me respond and say there is a 
difference, I believe, in that I believe we express strong support for 
our troops, for our Commander in Chief especially; that we can do that 
and at the same time carry on our responsibility. It is a difference in 
approach. I guess that is why the last Congress, under other 
leadership, failed to pass a budget. Look where it got us--where the 
first 40 days of this particular Congress, we had to clean up a process 
which was left because of that same prioritization, that a budget is 
not important. We believe that a budget is important, that it 
prioritizes the needs of defense, of health care, of education. Thus, 
under this leadership, we are going to proceed with the budget. We are 
going to pass that budget resolution. We are not going to delay. Now I 
am beginning to sense a little bit that we want to delay the budget, 
put it off a week, a month, a year, or maybe into the next Congress. It 
is simply not going to happen. We are going to proceed. We have 14\1/2\ 
hours on this budget. We are not going to pay respect to the fact that 
some people say the budget is just not important now. We believe that 
budget is important.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there is no suggestion from this Senator 
that the budget is not important. I believe it is critically important. 
Harking back to last year has no relevance to this moment. We are at 
war, and to spend time in the Senate today on something other than that 
strikes me as wholly inappropriate.
  We are not talking about not getting to the budget. Nobody wants a 
budget resolution, I think, any more than this Senator. I have spent my 
entire career in the Senate on the Budget Committee. I want a budget 
resolution. We are at war and here we are talking about pay-go.
  Virtually every American is rivetted on what is happening to this 
Nation on

[[Page S4045]]

the brink of conflict. In fact, we are beyond the brink. It started 
last night. Our President addressed the Nation at 10:15 last night.
  I hope there is a reconsideration because this Senator is going to be 
extraordinarily disappointed in this Chamber if we are conducting 
business as usual while this Nation is going to war.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield time to Senator Reid.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my concern is this: First, understand, I was 
the first Democrat to break ranks with the majority at that time to 
support the first President Bush. I voted this time to support 
President Bush. I have said good things about the President. I have 
done my very best to work this budget resolution through.
  But I would say to my friend and anyone who is listening--the 
majority leader has left--it appears to me--and I want the Senator from 
North Dakota to listen to this--it appears to me that maybe there is a 
rush to go through the budget because maybe people are going to start 
asking questions about how much this war is costing. There is not a 
single penny in this budget that deals with the war, not a penny. Do 
you think that might be one reason for rushing through this budget? 
Don't you think we should know the cost of the war?
  I will bet right now they have prepared, at the White House, a 
supplemental emergency appropriations bill for tens of billions of 
dollars. I have heard it is $100 billion. Yet we are marching through 
with the tax cuts to satisfy the wealthy of this country. That is what 
this budget thing is all about. That is why we are going to work 
Fridays and Saturdays. I am happy to work Friday and Saturday. I will 
put my credentials up against anyone as far as moving legislation, 
including this budget bill. But I ask a question to the ranking member 
of the Budget Committee: Is there one dollar in this budget that 
reflects the cost of the war that is going on as we speak?
  Before I came here, I watched on television an aircraft carrier. 
Planes were being catapulted off it, then dropping bombs. Do we know 
how much that costs? Do we know how much the reconstruction of Iraq is 
going to cost? Is there a penny in this budget that reflects that?

  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator asked the question. There is no money. As the 
Senator knows, there is no money in this budget for the conflict. There 
is no money in this budget for the occupation. There is no money in 
this budget for the reconstruction. There is no money in this budget 
for humanitarian assistance.
  But I think there is a larger question. That is, our troops are now 
engaged. For us to conduct business as usual here just strikes me as 
totally and wholly inappropriate.
  I am the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I have been there my 
entire time in the Senate. I am in my 17th year. For us not to be 
discussing our Nation at war has the priorities all wrong. Yes, the 
budget is important. Yes, we ought to do a budget resolution. But we 
have lots of time to accomplish that. We can do that next week. We 
completed most of the debate on the budget already, but, unfortunately, 
a big chunk is missing.
  If we want to talk about supporting the troops in the field, we ought 
to do it tangibly by putting dollars in the budget. There aren't any.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator telling me and anyone within the sound of my 
voice that in this huge budget that is now before the Senate, that has 
tax cuts over $1 trillion over the next 10 years, for the war in Iraq 
that is now going on there is not a penny of money for the war in this 
budget?
  Mr. CONRAD. There is not a penny. We have been told the reason there 
is not a penny is that when the budget was done, operations had not 
commenced. Well, operations have commenced. The President spoke to the 
Nation last night and made clear that we are at war.
  I hope cooler heads are going to prevail. We need to think very 
carefully about what we do as an institution when we have a quarter of 
a million Americans' lives on the line.
  What should be the discussion in this Chamber? Should it be the pay-
go provisions of the budget? Should it be the reconciliation 
instructions in the budget resolution? Or should it be the question of 
war and peace? Should it be the question of supporting our troops in 
the field? Should it be a question of sending a clear message that our 
country is united behind our forces, no matter what our positions were 
on the wisdom of engaging in this conflict? That ought to be the 
priority we discuss.
  I must say I think this is an extraordinary moment, that the 
suggestion is we just have business as usual in the Senate. I find it 
totally and wholly inappropriate.
  Mr. REID. Could I ask the ranking member of the committee another 
question? The Senator has stated on at least two occasions this morning 
that there is not 5 cents in this budget to support the troops for the 
war that is going on in Iraq. Now we have heard statements for months 
about we are there to free the Iraqi people, and that we are going to 
supply food and medicine and everything else necessary to take care of 
the reconstruction of the country of Iraq. The Senator has heard those 
questions, has he not?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Would it not seem to the Senator, as it does to me, that in 
preparation for reconstructing Iraq there must be some budget numbers 
floating around down at the White House someplace? Would you think that 
is a fair statement?
  Mr. CONRAD. We know there are. We know there are estimates of $65 to 
$95 billion.
  Mr. REID. Is there one penny in this budget dealing with the 
reconstruction of Iraq?
  Mr. CONRAD. No, there is nothing for reconstruction. There is nothing 
for the conflict. There is nothing for any part of it.
  Let me say this for the Senator, if I could. We have been told a 
budget request will come next week for that. That is fine. It just 
seems to me it ought to be part of the budget. It is an odd 
circumstance to do a budget but leave a big part of the expenditures 
out of that budget. But what strikes me even more dramatically, much 
more dramatically than that, is we are not discussing our troops in the 
field. We are not discussing the fact we have gone to war.
  Now, goodness, the budget is important, but it is not the thing that 
is on the minds of the American people this morning. What is on the 
minds of the American people this morning is this Chamber sending a 
signal of support for our forces. They have been ordered to go into 
harm's way. We have an obligation to send a signal that we back them. 
Whatever our position is on the wisdom of this course, that is not the 
point at the moment. The point at the moment ought to be we support our 
forces in the field. That ought to be the discussion that is going on 
in this Chamber, not a discussion of pay-go or reconciliation. That is 
not to say we don't go to the budget quickly and in a timely way. 
Absolutely. But goodness--
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Nevada has the largest military airplane 
fighter training facility for the Air Force in the world, Nellis Air 
Force Base, with 10,000 people stationed there. I have been there. I 
have talked to the commanding general of this large force. Hundreds and 
hundreds of people have left Nellis for the Middle East. People have 
trained there. They have families in Nevada. Their kids go to school in 
Nevada. Fallon, 400 miles away, is a very large naval air training 
center, Fallon Naval Air Station. And there it is the same thing--Top 
Gun is there. Hundreds and hundreds of people from Fallon are now in 
the Middle East. That aircraft carrier I watched before I came in 
here--I can almost guarantee you those people taking off in those 
airplanes were trained at Fallon. They also have children going to 
school in Churchill County. They also have wives and husbands who are 
there waiting for their return.
  In addition to that, we have a very large ammunition depot at 
Hawthorne and it has gotten real busy because they are bringing 
ammunition out of

[[Page S4046]]

there, hauling it to the Middle East. In addition to that, we have 
large Guard and Reserve components. We have over 1,000 Guard and 
Reserve people who have been called up and are gone. Their families are 
gone. Some of them don't know how they are going to make the rental 
payments, their house payments. What I hear from the Senator from North 
Dakota is that maybe the Senator from Nevada sometime during the day 
should give a speech talking about the people in Nevada who have 
sacrificed to protect my freedom, my family's freedom. Is that what the 
Senator is saying?
  Mr. CONRAD. I think if we would look back in the history of this 
Chamber, when America goes to war, the Senate turns its attention to 
that fact, that confrontation, and sends a signal of our support for 
the troops in the field. That is just the most basic, I would say, of 
values, that that is what we should be talking about. That is what we 
should be discussing, and the budget we can talk about later. We can 
talk about it tomorrow or the next day. But today we ought to be 
talking about what is going on, what is on the minds of the American 
people.

  I urge my colleagues--I know the leader indicated we would go to a 
resolution at some point today. That is fine. I would just hope we 
would go to morning business so people could have a chance to discuss 
their feelings about our troops in the field.
  The Senator has indicated he has large bases in his State. I have 
large bases in mine. Minot Air Force Base, home to our B-52s, one of 
just two B-52 bases in the country, Grand Forks Air Force Base, one of 
the three core tanker bases for the United States, those are the places 
that are providing the air bridge to Iraq half a world away. We have 
thousands of troops engaged from North Dakota. We have large components 
of our National Guard which have been called up as well.
  I tell you, I just don't feel comfortable, honestly, talking about 
the budget on this day at this moment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from New York is here. He has an amendment 
that is relevant to the question, the matter of homeland security. I 
will yield--how much time does the Senator seek?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would say 30 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 30 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is 
recognized for 30 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 299

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent 
that the pending amendments be set aside and I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears 
none, and it is so ordered. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 299.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as 
read.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, he has been told not to offer the 
amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I could not hear the Senator.
  Mr. REID. There was no one from the majority on the floor when the 
Senator offered his amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the information of my colleague from New York, we 
would be happy to have----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleague, it 
takes unanimous consent. We have amendments that are pending, so we 
have to set those amendments aside. We wish to review amendments before 
we do that. I am happy to have my colleague from New York begin 
discussing his amendment. We will review the amendment at some point. I 
am sure we will be happy to have the amendment sent to the desk--just 
not yet.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Then I would imagine that we just--the chairman of the 
Budget Committee was off the floor. We had gotten unanimous consent to 
put this amendment forward. I take it we should just speak on the 
amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I do not believe the amendment should be 
pending.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment has been laid down.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be withdrawn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I say to my colleague from New York again, just to make 
sure we understand, we are trying to respect each other as far as 
management of the bill. I will be happy to work with the Senator on the 
amendment. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. This amendment is relevant, of 
course, to our new circumstances since last night, but I would just 
want to address my colleagues in the Senate on the circumstances of 
last night for a few minutes before getting to the amendment, because 
the President spoke to the American people. He said hostilities are 
commenced.
  I would just leave three thoughts as we begin on the era of this war. 
First is a prayer.
  First, Mr. President, as I listened to the chaplain from St. Joseph's 
give the prayer and we said the pledge, I think every one of us who was 
here felt a renewed depth and meaning to both the prayer and the 
pledge, given the times we are in.
  I would like to just add my prayer. My prayer is a simple one: It is 
that our military action is swift and decisive, with a minimum of 
casualties, both military and civilian. And my prayer, of course, goes 
to the soldiers, first and foremost, who are now in the Iraqi theater. 
They are continuing a grand American tradition, a tradition where 
civilians have laid down their jobs and then defended this country when 
the Commander in Chief thought they should.
  I have been to several of the debarkation ceremonies at Fort Drum and 
Canandaigua, on Long Island, as soldiers have boarded planes to go over 
to the Middle East. Because so many of our soldiers are now reservists 
and Army National Guard, they are a little older. They are every bit as 
trained and seasoned as the enlisted men and women, and I know our 
generals have complete confidence in them, as I do.
  But you see them with their families--not only with their parents, 
whom we have always seen with our soldiers, but in much greater 
frequency with their husbands and wives and their children. And we know 
the butterflies that are in all the stomachs as they prepare to leave. 
I look in their faces as they leave, and I am humbled and proud of 
them. My prayers are with them. We all pray for them.
  Again, we pray that the military action is swift and decisive and 
there be very few casualties, both military and civilian. The military, 
of course, I have spoken of. But I pray there are few civilian 
casualties. The war we are waging is not a war against the Iraqi 
people. It is a war aimed at the leadership of Iraq. The average Iraqi 
citizens--a husband or a wife, a mother or a father, a child, a son or 
a daughter--have the same loves and cares and worries in many ways that 
all the rest of the citizens of the world have. We pray that the number 
of casualties among the civilians is small.
  So that is the prayer of which the guest Chaplain from St. Peter's 
reminded me.
  Then we said the pledge to the flag. Our flag is a flag of unity. Now 
is the time for unity, for all of us to back our soldiers. There have 
been many different views held, with great passion, on what we should 
do in Iraq; there is no question about that. Every one of us here, on 
both sides of the aisle, might have scripted things differently. I, for 
one, have said I hoped we could get more international support. But if 
every one of us just said, ``Only our

[[Page S4047]]

plan, or nothing,'' we would be paralyzed. I believe Saddam Hussein has 
to be disarmed and removed from power. That is why I supported the 
President in his resolution. Now I believe is a time for unity. Now is 
a time for us to be backing up our troops. Now is a time that the 
President becomes Commander in Chief and that unity is called for.
  I just add one caveat: Freedom is what we are fighting for. Not 
everyone will feel the call for unity that I think is incumbent upon 
all of us in this body as leaders of this country, and some will 
continue to dissent. I hope we respect that dissent. In my State, there 
are many people whose views are heartfelt. They are different from 
mine. They are different from yours. They are probably different from 
the views of most of us in this Chamber. And the right to dissent is 
what we are fighting for. It is part of this tradition. I hope we are 
mindful of that, as well.
  Then one other thought. As I said, I pray that the military action is 
swift and decisive and that our victory comes quickly. Let us hope we 
can sow a wise peace in Iraq as well. Let us hope there can be a 
democratic Iraq despite the fact there are so many ethnic divisions. 
Let us hope we can bring democracy to the Middle East, a place starved 
for freedom, a place starved for individual choice, a place starved for 
prosperity.

  Let us hope the people of the Middle East, the Iraqi people, like 
everyone else, want to bring stability and a good life to them and 
their families. The beauty of a democracy is that you can strive to 
help your family and help yourself and at the same time you help the 
whole country. Unfortunately, the peoples of the Middle East--many of 
them--have not been fed a diet of food, clothing, and shelter but have 
been fed a diet of propaganda and hatred, which dictators often use to 
feed their people when they cannot provide a system of freedom, 
democratically and economically, that provides food. Let's hope that 
can change as well.
  So, Mr. President, we are in a new era. I realized this in my city 
from the time 9/11 happened. I put this flag on, on 9/12, in memory of 
all those who were then missing and the thousands who proved to be 
lost, gone. I met their families. I just met with some yesterday. I 
know the holes in their hearts, the sadness, frustration, and anger 
they feel. But we cannot forget them. We cannot forget what happened.
  I will wear this flag, God willing, this very one, every day for the 
rest of my life to think of them, to remind me that whatever our views 
here are, we have to do something to stop the scourge of terrorism, 
which will grow and grow and grow if we do nothing.
  Now, on to the amendment I would like to discuss, I realize it is not 
pending before us, but it is a relevant amendment. I, like my colleague 
from North Dakota, like my colleague from Nevada, hope we will have a 
full discussion about supporting our troops and the impending war. I 
have had an opportunity to express some of my views. I have limited 
them because I know the leadership wants to move forward, at least at 
this point, with this amendment. But this amendment at least has some 
relevance.
  The amendment is one that deals with homeland security. It is an 
amendment that deals, in my judgment at least, with an unfulfilled need 
in the budget, the need to protect our homeland.
  The whole world has changed since 9/11. We know that. We all have 
different views, again, as to how we ought to adapt to that change, but 
we cannot just ignore it. I think that is clear. History teaches us 
that.
  One of the things we have to learn and adjust to do is protect our 
homeland. You cannot win the war on terror, in my opinion, with just an 
offense; you need a defense. Like any good sports team, like, say, the 
Syracuse Orangemen, who are playing in the NCAA, you need a good 
offense and a good defense.
  There has been a great deal of focus on the offense. I do not think 
there has been enough focus on the defense because terrorists, 
unfortunately, are going to be with us for a while. The new technology 
that has blessed our lives and changed our country, that has created a 
lot of the prosperity we have seen in the last few decades, has an evil 
underside, and that is that small groups of bad people can use that 
technology to do huge damage in our homeland, damage we never imagined 
could be done until 2 years ago. That fact is going to be with us not 
just for 2 or 3 years, it is going to be with us for decades. And even 
if, God willing, we were to get rid of al-Qaida, and get rid of Saddam 
and his cronies who lead Iraq right now, there will be new terrorists 
who will come up.
  We have to protect our homeland. The odds are we will not be able to 
catch up to every new terrorist group that starts. The sad fact is, you 
can be in a cave anywhere in this world and if you have a wireless 
connection to the Internet, you can learn a whole lot about America. 
Then even a small group united together can do real damage here. So we 
have to look at every one of our weak pressure points and tighten them 
up.
  You can't just be content to fight a war overseas. To preserve and to 
protect our country, we must protect it at home. We have to try to 
think ahead of the terrorists. We have to try to think where they will 
hit us so that we can prevent that from happening. The list is a long 
one. There are probably places that no one has even thought of that we 
are weak in and where we need protection. But we have to do it.
  I make one other point. We can't delay. It is a huge undertaking. 
That is true. The terrorists will look to our weaknesses. That is true. 
If we strengthen air security, they will look to rail. If we strengthen 
rail security, they will look to ports. If we deal with bioterrorism, 
they will look at cyber-terrorism. Because of the information 
revolution, they have access to everything about America. It is all on 
the Internet. We will not stop the Internet. So we have to tighten up, 
and tightening up costs money.
  This budget does not acknowledge that reality. That is the 
fundamental problem. I am honored and privileged to introduce this 
amendment with my colleague from New York, as well as the help of the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, our minority 
leader Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Byrd. A large 
number of our Democratic caucus participated in crafting it.
  This budget resolution is the first step, but we are going to 
continue to fight on the supplemental appropriation that comes up and 
throughout the year because we believe homeland security is an 
imperative for America. We believe we have to do something about it, 
and we can't wait. The horrible feeling that so many of us had on 
September 12, mostly for the loss and the danger and damage, but also 
it already came into our minds, what if we had done this, what if we 
had done that? As we learned more, there were lots more what ifs that 
were asked. We don't want a second terrorist incident to occur and we 
are saying ``what if'' again. This amendment is intended to make the 
likelihood of those what ifs much lower. It is an attempt to diminish 
it.
  Let me explain what the amendment does. It provides an additional $88 
billion for fiscal years 2003 to 2013 for homeland security over and 
above the current proposed 2004 budget, including $5 billion in the 
immediate 2003 funding for first responders, port, border, and 
transportation security. That is a limited amount of money, but 
remember we only have half a year left. We don't want to waste money. 
We want it spent wisely. We thought this was about the maximum amount 
in this fiscal year, where everything is just getting started up in 
homeland security, that people could use.
  For 2004, the proposed budget would spend about $380 billion on 
defense--I support that, I support our troops--but we are only spending 
$37.7 billion on homeland security. We can do better than that. We 
should do better. I hope this amendment will be a bipartisan one in 
that regard. It is fully offset, and it provides a little deficit 
reduction as well.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to my colleague for the purpose of a 
question.
  Mr. NICKLES. How much of an increase did you have in 2004? I heard 
$88 billion over the life of the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. In 2003, it is $5 billion. In 2004, it is approximately 
6.5.

[[Page S4048]]

  Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection to my colleague sending the 
amendment to the desk.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be sent to the desk.
  Mr. NICKLES. To further clarify for all of our colleagues, we wish to 
review amendments. That was the problem. I appreciate the cooperation 
of my colleague.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I know that is what he 
wanted to do. We had brought it to the desk, and I had asked unanimous 
consent because I thought they had seen it and approved it. I 
appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, 
     Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 299.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide immediate assistance to meet pressing homeland 
security needs by providing funding in 2003 for first responders, port 
security, bioterrorism preparedness and prevention, border security and 
transit security, the FBI; to restore the elimination of funding of the 
COPS program, firefighter equipment grants, Byrne Grants and Local Law 
enforcement grants; to provide a sustained commitment of resources for 
homeland security needs without reducing funding to other key domestic 
    law enforcement and public safety priorities; and to reduce the 
                                deficit)

       On page 3 line 9, increase the amount by $3,643,000,000.
       On page 3 line 10, increase the amount by $8,681,000,000.
       On page 3 line 11, increase the amount by $13,500,000,000.
       On page 3 line 12, increase the amount by $14,996,000,000.
       On page 3 line 13, increase the amount by $15,892,000,000.
       On page 3 line 14, increase the amount by $16,602,000,000.
       On page 3 line 15, increase the amount by $16,769,000,000.
       On page 3 line 16, increase the amount by $16,853,000,000.
       On page 3 line 17, increase the amount by $16,993,000,000.
       On page 3 line 18, increase the amount by $17,268,000,000.
       On page 3 line 19, increase the amount by $17,314,000,000.
       On page 3 line 23, increase the amount by $3,643,000,000.
       On page 4 line 1, increase the amount by $8,681,000,000.
       On page 4 line 2, increase the amount by $13,500,000,000.
       On page 4 line 3, increase the amount by $14,996,000,000.
       On page 4 line 4, increase the amount by $15,892,000,000.
       On page 4 line 5, increase the amount by $16,602,000,000.
       On page 4 line 6, increase the amount by $16,769,000,000.
       On page 4 line 7, increase the amount by $16,853,000,000.
       On page 4 line 8, increase the amount by $16,993,000,000.
       On page 4 line 9, increase the amount by $17,268,000,000.
       On page 4 line 10, increase the amount by $17,314,000,000.
       On page 4 line 14, increase the amount by $4,987,000,000.
       On page 4 line 15, increase the amount by $6,395,000,000.
       On page 4 line 16, increase the amount by $8,189,000,000.
       On page 4 line 17, increase the amount by $7,316,000,000.
       On page 4 line 18, increase the amount by $7,902,000,000.
       On page 4 line 19, increase the amount by $6,425,000,000.
       On page 4 line 20, increase the amount by $5,927,000,000.
       On page 4 line 21, increase the amount by $5,498,000,000.
       On page 4 line 22, increase the amount by $5,090,000,000.
       On page 4 line 23, increase the amount by $4,344,000,000.
       On page 4 line 24, increase the amount by $3,480,000,000.
       On page 5 line 4, increase the amount by $1,809,000,000.
       On page 5 line 5, increase the amount by $4,210,000,000.
       On page 5 line 6, increase the amount by $6,298,000,000.
       On page 5 line 7 increase the amount by $6,610,000,000.
       On page 5 line 8, increase the amount by $6,577,000,000.
       On page 5 line 9, increase the amount by $6,410,000,000.
       On page 5 line 10, increase the amount by $5,932,000,000.
       On page 5 line 11, increase the amount by $5,382,000,000.
       On page 5 line 12, increase the amount by $4,827,000,000.
       On page 5 line 13, increase the amount by $4,302,000,000.
       On page 5 line 14, increase the amount by $3,618,000,000.
       On page 5 line 17, increase the amount by $1,834,000,000.
       On page 5 line 18, increase the amount by $4,471,000,000.
       On page 5 line 19, increase the amount by $7,202,000,000.
       On page 5 line 20, increase the amount by $8,386,000,000.
       On page 5 line 21, increase the amount by $9,315,000,000.
       On page 5 line 22, increase the amount by $10,192,000,000.
       On page 5 line 23, increase the amount by $10,837,000,000.
       On page 5 line 24, increase the amount by $11,471,000,000.
       On page 5 line 25, increase the amount by $12,166,000,000.
       On page 6 line 1, increase the amount by $12,966,000,000.
       On page 6 line 2, increase the amount by $13,696,000,000.
       On page 6 line 5, decrease the amount by $1,834,000,000.
       On page 6 line 6, decrease the amount by $6,306,000,000.
       On page 6 line 7, decrease the amount by $13,508,000,000.
       On page 6 line 8, decrease the amount by $21,894,000,000.
       On page 6 line 8, decrease the amount by $31,209,000,000.
       On page 6 line 10, decrease the amount by $41,401,000,000.
       On page 6 line 11, decrease the amount by $52,238,000,000.
       On page 6 line 12, decrease the amount by $63,708,000,000.
       On page 6 line 13, decrease the amount by $75,874,000,000.
       On page 6 line 14, decrease the amount by $88,840,000,000.
       On page 6 line 15, decrease the amount by $102,536,000,000.
       On page 6 line 18, decrease the amount by $1,834,000,000.
       On page 6 line 19, decrease the amount by $6,306,000,000.
       On page 6 line 20, decrease the amount by $13,508,000,000.
       On page 6 line 21, decrease the amount by $21,894,000,000.
       On page 6 line 22, decrease the amount by $31,209,000,000.
       On page 6 line 23, decrease the amount by $41,401,000,000.
       On page 6 line 24, decrease the amount by $52,238,000,000.
       On page 6 line 25, decrease the amount by $63,708,000,000.
       On page 7 line 1, decrease the amount by $75,874,000,000.
       On page 7 line 2, decrease the amount by $88,840,000,000.
       On page 7 line 3, decrease the amount by $102,536,000,000.
       On page 21 line 19, increase the amount by $550,000,000.
       On page 21 line 20, increase the amount by $139,000,000.
       On page 21 line 23, increase the amount by $1,125,000,000.
       On page 21 line 24, increase the amount by $631,000,000.
       On page 22 line 2, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 3, increase the amount by $1,182,000,000.
       On page 22 line 6, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 7, increase the amount by $1,426,000,000.
       On page 22 line 10, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 11, increase the amount by $1,529,000,000.
       On page 22 line 14, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 15, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 18, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 19, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 22, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 22 line 23, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
       On page 23 line 2, increase the amount by $1,600,000,000.
       On page 23 line 3, increase the amount by $1,579,000,000.
       On page 23 line 6, increase the amount by $1,650,000,000.
       On page 23 line 7, increase the amount by $1,662,000,000.
       On page 23 line 10, increase the amount by $1,575,000,000.
       On page 23 line 11, increase the amount by $1,624,000,000.
       On page 23 line 15, increase the amount by $3,500,000,000.
       On page 23 line 16, increase the amount by $1,225,000,000.
       On page 23 line 19, increase the amount by $3,262,000,000.
       On page 23 line 20, increase the amount by $2,841,000,000.
       On page 23 line 23, increase the amount by $4,712,000,000.
       On page 23 line 24, increase the amount by $3,790,000,000.
       On page 24 line 2, increase the amount by $4,251,000,000.
       On page 24 line 3, increase the amount by $3,922,000,000.
       On page 24 line 6, increase the amount by $4,490,000,000.
       On page 24 line 7, increase the amount by $4,017,000,000.

[[Page S4049]]

       On page 24 line 10, increase the amount by $4,330,000,000.
       On page 24 line 11, increase the amount by $4,347,000,000.
       On page 24 line 14, increase the amount by $4,372,000,000.
       On page 24 line 15, increase the amount by $4,411,000,000.
       On page 24 line 18, increase the amount by $4,515,000,000.
       On page 24 line 19, increase the amount by $4,435,000,000.
       On page 24 line 22, increase the amount by $4,659,000,000.
       On page 24 line 23, increase the amount by $4,457,000,000.
       On page 25 line 2, increase the amount by $4,503,000,000.
       On page 25 line 3, increase the amount by $4,530,000,000.
       On page 25 line 6, increase the amount by $4,548,000,000.
       On page 25 line 7, increase the amount by $4,578,000,000.
       On page 27 line 7, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 27 line 8, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 27 line 11, increase the amount by $800,000,000.
       On page 27 line 12, increase the amount by $366,000,000.
       On page 27 line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 27 line 16, increase the amount by $589,000,000.
       On page 27 line 19, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 27 line 20, increase the amount by $605,000,000.
       On page 27 line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 27 line 24, increase the amount by $515,000,000.
       On page 28 line 2, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 3, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 6, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 7, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 10, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 11, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 14, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 18, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 19, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28 line 22, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 28 line 23, increase the amount by $478,000,000.
       On page 36 line 11, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 36 line 12, increase the amount by $348,000,000.
       On page 36 line 15, increase the amount by $1,339,000,000.
       On page 36 line 16, increase the amount by $503,000,000.
       On page 36 line 19, increase the amount by $1,880,000,000.
       On page 36 line 20, increase the amount by $1,190,000,000.
       On page 36 line 23, increase the amount by $1,902,000,000.
       On page 36 line 24, increase the amount by $1,544,000,000.
       On page 37 line 2, increase the amount by $1,921,000,000.
       On page 37 line 3, increase the amount by $1,885,000,000.
       On page 37 line 6, increase the amount by $1,936,000,000.
       On page 37 line 7, increase the amount by $1,904,000,000.
       On page 37 line 10, increase the amount by $1,957,000,000.
       On page 37 line 11, increase the amount by $1,923,000,000.
       On page 37 line 14, increase the amount by $1,978,000,000.
       On page 37 line 15, increase the amount by $1,942,000,000.
       On page 37 line 18, increase the amount by $2,001,000,000.
       On page 37 line 19, increase the amount by $1,961,000,000.
       On page 37 line 22, increase the amount by $2,024,000,000.
       On page 37 line 23, increase the amount by $1,983,000,000.
       On page 38 line 2, increase the amount by $1,996,000,000.
       On page 38 line 3, increase the amount by $1,977,000,000.
       On page 40 line 2, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 40 line 3, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 40 line 6, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
       On page 40 line 7, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
       On page 40 line 10, decrease the amount by $453,000,000.
       On page 40 line 11, decrease the amount by $453,000,000.
       On page 40 line 14, decrease the amount by $887,000,000.
       On page 40 line 15, decrease the amount by $887,000,000.
       On page 40 line 18, decrease the amount by $1,369,000,000.
       On page 40 line 19, decrease the amount by $1,369,000,000.
       On page 40 line 22, decrease the amount by $1,891,000,000.
       On page 40 line 23, decrease the amount by $1,891,000,000.
       On page 41 line 2, decrease the amount by $2,452,000,000.
       On page 41 line 3, decrease the amount by $2,452,000,000.
       On page 41 line 6, decrease the amount by $3,045,000,000.
       On page 41 line 7, decrease the amount by $3,045,000,000.
       On page 41 line 10, decrease the amount by $3,670,000,000.
       On page 41 line 11, decrease the amount by $3,670,000,000.
       On page 41 line 14, decrease the amount by $4,333,000,000.
       On page 41 line 15, decrease the amount by $4,333,000,000.
       On page 41 line 18, decrease the amount by $5,039,000,000.
       On page 41 line 19, decrease the amount by $5,039,000,000.
       On page 46 line 20, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
       On page 46 line 21, increase the amount by $1,822,000,000.
       On page 47 line 5, increase the amount by $6,526,000,000.
       On page 47 line 6, increase the amount by $4,341,000,000.
       On page 47 line 14, increase the amount by $8,642,000,000.
       On page 47 line 15, increase the amount by $6,750,000,000.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the first part of this amendment deals 
with homeland security. The additional homeland security requirements 
on every one of our localities are enormous. Just yesterday, the mayor 
of my city, Mayor Bloomberg, and Secretary Tom Ridge announced that the 
administration would be seeking additional funding for homeland 
security in the next supplemental budget. That is a great first step. I 
hope there are sufficient resources to deal with the problem, 
particularly with the first responders who are definitely suffering.
  Since September 11, the Congress has worked with the administration 
in a bipartisan fashion in many ways. I hope this homeland security 
issue can become a bipartisan one as well. But it does involve spending 
the dollars necessary. Words alone will not bring the homeland security 
that our people need.
  Let's first go to first responders. I know in New York City, first 
responders are stretched as far as they can be. Like most other places, 
we have fiscal problems. So the number, for instance, of police 
officers is 4,000 lower than it was before. Many other agencies have 
fewer people working. In all instances, our police, firefighters, being 
the patriotic people they are, have a high proportion in the reserves, 
so we are losing people going overseas to fight for us. At the same 
time, there are huge new responsibilities. For instance, the many 
bridges and tunnels of New York City, the many buildings, houses of 
worship have to be guarded more carefully. That takes a huge expense. 
That is during normal times. In addition to all of those expenses, our 
police chief, Commissioner Kelly, set up something, with Mayor 
Bloomberg, called Operation Atlas to deal with wartime. It is another 
$5 million a week. The mayor wisely said that he was not going to cut 
back on security if we didn't get Federal help for it, but it is 
stretching the people of our city and the first responders of our 
city. That is true with the brave firefighters. That is true with other 
first responders. It is true with the hospital staff who have to 
prepare for, God forbid, a bioterrorist attack. Everywhere we look, 
there are new needs. It is not just in New York City.

  I have an article from yesterday's Rochester Democratic Chronicle, 
the leading paper in Rochester. It talks about Rochester. It is a 
middle-size city. It has about 230,000 people in the city, close to a 
million in the greater metropolitan area--800,000. The city has its own 
burdens, as does every city. It is on Lake Ontario, which is pretty 
much unguarded. It is near the Canadian border. It is a little bit east 
of Lackawanna, which is near Buffalo, where the cell was found.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [From the Rochester Democratic Chronicle, Mar. 19, 2003]

         Rochester Area Prepares for War by Tightening Security

                          (By Michael Wentzel)

       The approach of war and a new plan to protect the nation 
     from terrorist attacks means

[[Page S4050]]

     increased surveillance and awareness in the Rochester area.
       With tight security already in place, some said no 
     operational changes would occur following the launch Tuesday 
     of Operation Liberty Shield, the Department of Homeland 
     Security's new defense plan.
       But there were additional patrols and checks at the Greater 
     Rochester International Airport. Monroe County will expand 
     water supply inspections. Department of Homeland Security 
     officials began asking more questions at Canadian border 
     crossings.
       ``We're following the directive of the government to 
     elevate our awareness levels,'' said Mark Cavanaugh, 
     University of Rochester's director of environmental health 
     and safety. ``We're prepared, and we're telling our people to 
     be prepared.''


                                airport

       One of the few visible signs locally of tougher security--
     roadblocks on the terminal access road at the Greater 
     Rochester International Airport--went up about 4:45 p.m. 
     Tuesday. Security guards will conduct spot checks of 
     vehicles, looking for signs of a terrorist threat, said David 
     Bassett, the federal security director at the airport.
       Travelers may also notice more deputies and bomb-sniffing 
     dogs in the terminal and passenger screeners who are more 
     attentive.
       Airport director Terrance Slaybaugh said air travelers 
     still need to arrive at least 75 minutes early to clear 
     security at the airport.
       Slaybaugh said the county has opted to use Pinkerton 
     security guards, not sheriff's deputies, at the roadblocks 
     because of ``man-power, staffing availability, cost.'' A 
     deputy is to be stationed with the guards while roadblocks 
     are active, he said.


                              water border

       Dick Metzger, Monroe County Water Authority's director of 
     production, said security patrols, water supply inspections 
     and water quality sampling will increase.
       ``We're taking all kinds of efforts to make sure the water 
     quality is proper and the quantity is always going to be 
     there,'' Metzger said.
       The city has a plan to protect reservoirs if there is an 
     increased security threat, said Edward Doherty, city 
     commissioner of environmental sciences. Doherty declined to 
     reveal the details for security reasons.
       ``Obviously it's something we have to be concerned about, 
     but we don't really see it as a high-level risk,'' Doherty 
     said.
       Officials at City Hall reported no changes in security 
     measures. Monroe County officials also reported no obvious 
     changes in security at their facilities. The county emergency 
     operations center, which might be used to respond to a 
     terrorist threat, has not been activated.
       The Department of Homeland Security increased surveillance 
     and monitoring of checkpoints along the New York-Canadian 
     border Tuesday.
       As a result, customs and border protection officers will 
     ask more questions of travelers wishing to enter the country, 
     said Janet Rapaport, spokeswoman for Customs and Border 
     Protection, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security. 
     And more agents will patrol the border between major points 
     of entry, she said.


                              ginna, kodak

       No new measures were announced at the Ginna nuclear power 
     plant, where security forces have been on heightened alert 
     since Sept. 11, 2001.
       ``If any changes are recommended by (federal) agencies, we 
     will take appropriate action,'' the plant's owner, Rochester 
     Gas and Electric Corp., said in a statement.
       Eastman Kodak Co., manufactures chemicals at Kodak Park for 
     a variety of uses in photography, radiology and imaging-
     related businesses. The company ``is not at liberty'' to 
     discuss security, spokesman Jim Blamphin said, but Kodak has 
     done a complete review and update of all crisis management 
     plans.


                              food supply

       Concerns about a terrorist attack on agriculture has been 
     around since Sept. 11, 2001.
       Wyoming County Sheriff Ronald Ely said deputies are still 
     taking more care to patrol around dairy farms in the wake of 
     milk tampering problems over the past two years.
       Wayne County Sheriff Richard Pisciotti said patrols are 
     also on alert after the theft of liquid fertilizer from 
     various New York state farms.
       Francois Lachance, manager at Star of the West Milling Co. 
     in Churchville, said there is a greater awareness of 
     nonemployees on company property.
       Trucks have always been specially sealed before they leave 
     the plant.
       UR's researchers who use radioactive materials have been 
     reminded that security is more important now than ever, said 
     Andrew Karam, the university's radiation safety officer. UR 
     has locked more areas and restricted use of keys.


                            federal building

       U.S. Marshal Peter Lawrence, whose office is in charge of 
     safe-guarding the Kenneth B. Keating Federal Building on 
     State Street, said nothing new was planned as of Tuesday.
       Lawrence said there was nothing in the new security 
     environment that would cause officials to impede lawful, 
     peaceful demonstrations at the federal building, scene of 
     anti-war protests.


                              city schools

       City school principals Tuesday will meet with school staff 
     to inform them of new security measures and let them know 
     what measures will be taken if the alert is bumped higher.
       At the current level, all planned field trips must be 
     reapproved, surveillance is increased, security at after-
     school activities is increased and principals are required to 
     stay on campus throughout the day.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. Madam President, this article talks 
about what Rochester has to do. It talks about the airport and how they 
need new security and are dealing with new security at the airport. It 
talks about the border.
  Again, Rochester is on the border. There is Lake Ontario, but like 
many cities in the Northeast and Middle West, it shares a border or is 
close to a border with Canada. It talks about some miles east of 
Rochester is the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant. It has to be protected. We 
cannot leave it open the way it was before.
  Kodak, the largest employer in Rochester, uses huge amounts of 
chemicals that are flammable. Rochester is doing what it can to protect 
Kodak.
  The food supply: We have a lot of farming areas in that part of our 
State, very prosperous, very fertile farms. People are worried, our 
authorities are worried about the food supply and food tampering. So 
they are looking at that area.
  The Federal building, which houses some judges and other offices and 
law enforcement, has to be guarded. The State of my friend from 
Oklahoma was hit several years ago. We cannot leave our Federal 
buildings unguarded. We learned our lesson.
  City schools: This is just the city government.
  We then have the hospitals. We have everything the private sector is 
doing. This scenario in Rochester is a typical city. It could be any 
city repeated anywhere in our country.
  What help is Rochester getting for all these extra burdens? Rochester 
is getting virtually no extra help. We know one of three things will 
happen, none of them good. Either the city, because it does not have 
the money, will not do everything it can for security--that is the 
least good choice; security must come first--or other services will be 
undersupplied and no help.
  If you are a citizen in New York City, Rochester, Buffalo, or any 
other place, you certainly do not want to be made safer from terrorists 
but be made less safe from the criminals. If you are a citizen, you 
want to make sure your firefighters know how to deal with terrorism--
biological or chemical, God forbid, if it should come--but you do not 
want to be made less safe from the scourge of fire. That is the second 
choice.
  The third choice is the city does both and then has to raise the 
property tax, which God knows is high enough.
  It seems to me if there were ever a Federal responsibility, it is 
here for our first responders.
  What do we propose to do in this amendment? We propose to support our 
first responders throughout the country in a measured but important 
way. The bill provides $35 billion over the proposed budget plan's 
funding level for the fiscal years 2003 to 2013 to provide first 
responder grants to States and localities to be used for hiring, for 
equipping, for training first responders, as well as covering related 
overtime costs.
  The amendment includes an additional $3.5 billion for first responder 
grants for fiscal year 2003 to ensure that cities and States can get 
needed funds immediately.
  On September 11, 2001, we know these first responders in New York 
City and elsewhere put their lives on the line to serve their country, 
just as our Armed Forces do. It is a different way, but they are brave 
and need help, and we should be backing them up just as we back up our 
soldiers.
  Next, in terms of first responders, we restore the cuts to law 
enforcement and to firefighters. The State and local law enforcement 
agencies deserve an increased commitment from the Federal Government, 
and this amendment restores $10 billion in cuts to State and local law 
enforcement and fire programs. The COPS Program, which is so important 
in bringing about security, is restored. The fire program--I see my 
colleague from Connecticut on the floor. He was instrumental in 
bringing up the fire program. That is vital.

[[Page S4051]]

Byrne grants, that is part of this amendment. All of the Byrne grants 
are restored, and other areas.

  I know there will be individual amendments on this issue. My 
colleague from New York and I are offering individual amendments on 
different parts of these issues that will be debated and voted on 
later. But this amendment has it all in one package. If my colleagues 
are for helping first responders throughout the country, this amendment 
is important. We do not just deal with personnel. We deal with 
equipment. Our police, fire, and emergency workers need new equipment. 
They have to guard, just as the soldiers do, against biological and 
chemical weaponry.
  Again, the local cupboard is bare. The cities, the States do not have 
money to do this. Are we going to delay the safety of our citizens for 
several years, or is the Federal Government going to step up to the 
plate in terms of its responsibility?
  Again, I am delighted that Secretary Ridge announced that the 
supplemental appropriations will contain new dollars, but how many? Is 
it enough? Is it similar to this amendment which, as I said, will be 
drawn tightly but mindful of real needs?
  The amendment increases the much needed funding for firefighters, 
hiring, and equipment, including the FIRE and SAFER Acts, by providing 
$11 billion over 10 years. So on first responders, this bill is 
carefully drawn but does the job. It is certainly adequate, and it is 
what we need. It is a very fine first start.
  I hope we will not repeat the mistake of either not funding these 
programs or funding them in a small way, mainly by taking money out of 
existing programs which does not make it any easier for our police 
departments, our fire departments, or anybody else.
  There are other areas that need help in terms of homeland security as 
well. Our first responders are extremely important, and they get the 
majority of the money that we have proposed here, but there are lots of 
Federal responsibilities as well.
  Port security, for instance, is an issue that I have become very 
concerned about and interested in. How could terrorists strike? As I 
mentioned earlier, they can strike in a myriad of ways, and they are 
going to look at our weak pressure points. One thing they could do is 
smuggle something in a ship, in a container that comes by our ports: 
the worst case scenario, a nuclear bomb.
  I have talked long about that dreadful possibility and what we can do 
about it. My friend from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has been a 
leader on this issue in terms of making sure we know what is in the 
containers and that someone cannot sneak something in. I have been 
fighting for nuclear detection devices that could be attached to every 
crane that loads or unloads a container. We need both.
  Again, we are underfunding port security rather dramatically. The 
amendment does these two things on port security, as well as several 
other things. As we know, in the Budget Act we cannot lay out the 
specifics but we know it will go a long way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 30 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for an additional 10 minutes from my colleague.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional 10 minutes to the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from North Dakota.
  So we have an additional $500 million in 2003, an additional $625 
million in 2004, and we total $7.8 billion over the 10-year period that 
we are adding things on.
  Right now, only 2 percent of the cargo containers are screened. Not 
every container is going to be screened. We know some of them are more 
suspicious than others. But most experts say it has to go up along with 
our ability to both track containers that come in and then secure them 
so nobody can come in after we know what is in the container, if it 
loads, say, in Rotterdam, and then someone sneaks something else in--to 
make sure that does not happen.
  Another issue is rail and transit security. Many of our cities have 
large tunnels in which terrorists could do some dastardly actions. Our 
own Penn Station in New York City is a classic example. It is almost a 
mile of tunnel with no egress, poor ventilation, thousands of people on 
commuter trains during rush hour going in or going out, from the whole 
northeast area, not just from New York. We have to do something about 
that.
  We have to do more to deal with truck security. Again, a method of 
choice of terrorists has been to take hazardous material, place it on a 
truck and then explode it. Of all places, Brazil has a good system 
using GPS and assigned routes. They can tell immediately if a truck 
goes off track, if it is a hazardous material truck. We do not do that. 
The Brazilians, by the way, have saved money by implementing this 
because the number of stolen trucks has greatly decreased.
  The bottom line is that there are many other places in transportation 
security that is not air and that is not rail, where we have to be more 
secure. This amendment proposes a $5 billion increase for the TSA's 
budget to start doing these things.
  Those of us from Washington State to Maine who share the border with 
Canada know how unguarded it is. We have been proud of our unguarded 
border. The Canadian Government does its best to cooperate, but we do 
not have close to the number of personnel and detection devices that 
are needed to make the northern border secure. The southern border 
needs help as well, but not close to the amount that the northern 
border does. The number of personnel in my State, which shares several 
hundred miles of border with Canada, is small and not enough.
  We have to do more. The detection devices that have worked rather 
successfully on the southern border are not installed. Then border 
security needs other help because of commerce that cities such as 
Buffalo and Detroit and Seattle-Tacoma have with Canada. We need all 
kinds of new computer systems so we can check trucks quickly. We want 
to have both commerce and security, and we can if we provide the 
dollars.

  If the dollars are not provided, you are either going to have weak 
security or you are going to have to go the old route and try to 
inspect so many trucks that the traffic is backed up at the border for 
hours, the economy suffers, and the number of jobs decline. So we have 
to do that as well.
  The amendment provides $8.2 billion over 10 years for border 
security, $450 million in this remaining 6 months of the fiscal year.
  The FBI, that is another place where homeland security matters. The 
FBI was in poor shape in terms of counterterrorism before 9/11. It is 
trying to move quickly, but it needs more help.
  The computer system is still almost laughable. I have had lengthy 
discussions with Director Mueller. They are trying their best, they are 
working hard, but we should not have money be a barrier to them doing 
what they need to do.
  Intelligence gathering, we are rearranging those agencies and 
restructuring them to make the synapse between domestic and foreign 
intelligence less of a barrier. That is a great idea. It takes dollars. 
While the leadership says the FBI has all the money they need, go talk 
to the people in the ranks, they do not think so. So we add an 
additional billion dollars in funding for the FBI to hire new 
personnel, particularly analysts and translators, and upgrade critical 
infrastructure.
  Bioterrorism, this is a place where we have made some progress but 
not enough. Aside from the money our first responders need in terms of 
local government, in terms of hospitals--we are asking so many 
hospitals to do the job in terms of bioterrorism. I do not have a 
problem with that. I do not think there has to be a new Federal agency, 
but it takes dollars to store the vaccines; to do the training about 
how to administer the various programs; to do the training, how to spot 
the illnesses. With bioterrorism, we know early detection is vital. The 
amendment provides $5.7 billion for bioterrorism initiatives to improve 
the public health sector's ability to prepare for disasters and local 
governments' ability to cover the cost.
  Finally, threat assessment and critical infrastructure assessment, 
the amendment provides a billion dollars so we can know what we are 
doing and we can stay ahead of other potential

[[Page S4052]]

weak pressure points that we do not know about now. Critical 
infrastructure such as chemical plants and nuclear powerplants and 
water infrastructure, they need to be protected. We are not sure even 
how to do it. We have had no blueprint and it is being done differently 
in different States, with varying degrees of success. The Federal 
Government has to be more involved. So we provide a billion dollars to 
conduct an assessment of the relative threat levels in coordination 
with intelligence and to begin to prepare to protect these areas.
  Here, our first responder money will play in because it will not be 
Federal people who do this. It will be local people. But they need to 
know what to do.
  I will have more to say later, but this is a basic outline of our 
proposal. There is large help for first responders, $38 billion over 10 
years, an immediate shot in the arm in 2003 and then large funding 
levels in 2004; help in the other areas where we need help.
  We have not covered everything, but we have covered a lot. As we work 
through the appropriations process, we will hope to refine them.
  In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to look at this amendment. I ask 
them to ask themselves if we have done enough on homeland security. I 
ask them to answer the infamous ``what if'' question. How many of us 
want to be here the morning after, God forbid, another attack on our 
homeland and say, what if? This amendment prevents that what if. It 
goes a long way to preventing that what if. I hope it will receive 
broad and bipartisan support.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
New York, Mrs. Clinton.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and 
I thank my colleague and partner from New York for the Herculean effort 
he has undertaken on behalf of the cause of homeland security. Senator 
Schumer and I, of course, have been personally impacted by the need for 
enhanced security in a very horrific way because of the events of 
September 11 and the ongoing threats posed to New York City and other 
communities throughout our State where terrorist cells are under 
surveillance and finally discovered in Lackawanna, NY, where people are 
arrested in Syracuse, NY, for their likely connections with the funding 
of organizations that support terrorism. I don't think it is a 
coincidence or an accident that the two Senators from New York would be 
standing here in the Senate advocating as strongly as we can for the 
Schumer-Clinton homeland security amendment to this budget.
  Before my words of support to the specifics that the amendment 
contains, I am somewhat concerned that as we meet here today, our men 
and women are in harm's way in the Persian Gulf. I believe we should be 
suspending action on the budget. We should be focusing in this Chamber, 
as families and citizens across America are focusing on their 
television sets, on the Internet, on what is by far the most important 
issue confronting us: the execution of this war. We hope it will be a 
decisive and overwhelmingly successful effort accomplished as quickly 
as possible, with a minimum loss of life. I know the thoughts and 
prayers of all of us go out to those wearing the military uniform of 
our Nation and their families, their loved ones, who are praying for 
them.
  I certainly, like all my colleagues, have had the great and high 
privilege of meeting and being with these young men and women. They are 
by far the best prepared, equipped, and motivated military in the 
history of the world. We are all very proud of their skill, their 
training, and their courage. We should not only continue to do 
everything possible to support them at this time, but it would be 
appropriate for us to suspend action on the budget, especially, I must 
add, because I don't know that we are fully able to debate and pass a 
budget at this moment in history.
  It seems quite odd to me, while we are commenced upon a war, we have 
no funding for that war in this budget. We have no money for the 
proposed reconstruction of Iraq that has been discussed in the 
administration. We have no money for whatever other consequences--
intended or unintended--that might flow from the action begun last 
evening.
  Unfortunately, history will judge us harshly, because we are moving 
forward on parallel tracks to debate and vote on a budget that does not 
take account of the most overwhelming challenge we are facing. What is 
wrong with this picture? It makes absolutely no sense. I am stunned 
that we are, on the one hand, holding our hearts and our breath while 
we listen and see what is happening thousands of miles away that will 
have a direct effect not just on the lives of our brave men and women 
in the military who are fighting this battle, but will have a direct 
effect on every single American--that we are making decisions without 
having the information. We are being asked to vote on a budget that 
does not even pay for this war.
  I find this truly unbelievable. But that is the choice of this 
leadership, and therefore we have to go along as though this were 
business as usual. Let's just get up and debate a budget that does not 
even pay for the war that is going on now. I am sorry, I find that hard 
to explain to myself, and I find it impossible to explain to my 
constituents.

  Then I pick up the Wall Street Journal, and there is an article, 
apparently sourced from people within the administration, that 
contracts are being let for the reconstruction of Iraq, and in it--I am 
sure Americans would be interested to hear--our Government is to 
guarantee health care to Iraqis. We are going to guarantee good schools 
to Iraqi schoolchildren. We are going to build highways. We are going 
to build powerplants. I don't know that any of us would argue with that 
noble goal, but we are letting contracts, as we speak, for American 
businesses to undertake this contracting work.
  When are we going to provide for every American? It is certainly not 
in this budget we are debating. When are we going to provide good 
schools and the facilities our children deserve? It is not in this 
budget we are debating. When are we going to make sure we have our 
transportation needs met in our country, in every part of our country? 
It is not in this budget we are debating.
  Madam President, there are a lot of unanswered questions that deserve 
an answer. But one of those has to do with this amendment that is 
currently before the Senate. If you look at this budget, not only are 
we not even attempting to fund the war, but we do not adequately fund 
the second front of the war; namely, the threat of terrorism right here 
on our shores.
  We have to cover the costs of this war, and we should be honest about 
it. There are choices to be made. Apparently this body, under its 
current leadership, wants to avoid those choices. They do not want the 
American people to know that coming down the road in a couple of days, 
or a week at most, there is going to be a supplemental to pay for the 
war. Will it be $65 billion, $95 billion? We do not know. It is going 
to come to the Senate, and of course we will debate it, but why aren't 
we being honest with ourselves and with the rest of America? Put the 
costs of this war in this budget.
  The choices we are asking Senators to make are going to have a direct 
impact on the choices Americans can make. We already know this budget 
is hurtling us into deficits as far as the eye can see. I have never 
seen such fiscal irresponsibility passed on to the backs of our 
children. The young people, 18, 19, 20-year-old soldiers over there 
fighting for us, are the ones who will pay for this irresponsibility. I 
find that absolutely unbelievable.
  There are a lot of questions to be asked and answered, but certainly 
among our priorities, if we intend to go forward with this budget which 
does not account for the war, which does not make the hard choices that 
Americans have to live with, then certainly we had better make sure we 
are funding homeland security because the one thing all of the security 
experts agree on is that, yes, we will win, but we will also reap the 
whirlwind. There will be additional terrorist activities here at home 
and on Americans around the world, and we have to be prepared.
  These homeland security costs should be not only included but 
increased because right now they are

[[Page S4053]]

being borne by cities and counties and States that are in deficit 
themselves. They do not have any revenues. The economy is flat. There 
is no money coming in. They are laying off firefighters. They are 
closing police stations.
  Our hospitals are wondering whether they are going to be able to 
continue to take in the ambulances that come to the emergency entrance 
or whether they are going to have to divert them because their funding 
is under so much pressure.
  Yesterday my colleague and I, Senator Schumer, met with the mayor of 
New York. Everybody knows there is not any better prepared city in the 
world than New York and everybody knows there is not any city under 
more stress and more potential for terrorism than New York. God bless 
our firefighters and our police officers and our emergency workers. 
They are on 12-hour shifts on, 12-hour shifts off. Every time the 
threat level increases in America as a whole, it goes up even higher in 
New York.
  The operation that New York City has put into effect to try to 
prevent terrorism, called Operation Atlas, is spending $5 million a 
week. We are already cutting $2.5 billion out of the New York City 
budget. We are going to have to cut even more, according to the mayor. 
But what choice do we have? New York is a global city, not only an 
American city. It is where the United Nations is. It is where so much 
else happens. Our mayor and our police and fire and other emergency 
workers are doing a tremendous job, but we cannot continue to shoulder 
these costs on our own.
  Our national security and our homeland security needs should be in 
this budget. We should be putting into this budget the cost of the war 
in the Persian Gulf and the cost of defending ourselves in New York and 
across America.
  If we are going forward, business as usual, with a very unusual 
budget that does not fairly lay out the costs and the choices before 
the American people, then the very least we can do is, in a bipartisan 
way, resoundingly pass the Schumer-Clinton amendment. This amendment 
restores cuts to important traditional first responder programs. It 
sets aside $8 billion for each of the next 10 years. And it does 
something that is desperately needed in this budget when it comes to 
homeland security: It does not take money away from existing law 
enforcement and firefighting programs and move it over into another 
category and say, guess what, we have now provided homeland security. 
That is the oldest shell game in the world.
  This budget cuts the COPS Program, cuts the local law enforcement 
block grant, cuts the Byrne memorial program, cuts the FIRE Act, cuts 
the SAFER Act. I don't think we in good conscience can cut the programs 
that keep the police on the street, the firefighters in the firehouse 
to do what they have to do every day, and then turn around and, with 
their additional responsibilities, claim we have given them the 
resources for these new burdens and challenges. These resources must 
come in addition to and not at the expense of these other critically 
necessary law enforcement and firefighting programs.
  As we go through this and look at the specific programs, we have 
tried to increase the programs that keep the operations going day to 
day and to provide the additional funding that is necessary. Let me 
give one example.
  In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated $360 million for the FIRE 
Act. The FIRE Act is a program that assists fire departments in 
protecting local communities. Those communities may use it for 
training, equipment, and additional staffing. It has been a Godsend to 
both professional and volunteer fire departments across New York and 
across America.
  As to the $360 million appropriated, there are more than $2 billion 
in requests from fire departments for this funding--six times the 
amount appropriated. Yet the proposed budget provides only $500 million 
for the FIRE Act for fiscal year 2004. The Schumer-Clinton amendment 
would add $250 million, so we could at least try a little harder to 
meet the legitimate requests of fire departments.

  Currently, two-thirds of our Nation's fire departments do not even 
meet the standards for adequate staffing. I don't think this Congress 
would ever allow our Army to engage in a war with two-thirds of its 
divisions understaffed. Incredibly, that is exactly what we are asking 
our firefighters to do.
  This amendment also provides additional funding for bioterrorism 
preparedness and prevention. The budget provides a mere $400 million 
for these critical needs. Even with the funding that we offered last 
year under the leadership of Senators Kennedy and Frist, that is not 
enough. Many local and State public health departments do not have the 
facilities or the equipment to perform routine surveillance or 
epidemiological investigation, or do the lab work to identify any kind 
of foreign matter. At the same time, we have loaded the burden of the 
smallpox vaccination effort on top of everything else public health 
departments are supposed to be doing, again without adequate funding.
  I asked at several counties in my State, what are the tradeoffs? That 
is what happens at the local community. We can have this debate and 
pretend there are no tradeoffs, that we are not going to pay for the 
law, that we are going to cut funding for local law enforcement and 
firefighters and let somebody else worry about it. We will be the 
Senate that cuts taxes so they have to be raised at the local level or 
else local communities have to do without essential services.
  I asked about the tradeoffs in one county, Onondaga County, where 
Syracuse is. In order to deal with the smallpox vaccination challenge, 
they have had to go out and cut all their other programs. They had to 
cut the Maternal and Child Health Program; they had to cut the women's 
health examination program; they had to cut the regular examinations 
and screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer; they have had to 
cut pediatric dental visits and preschool and early intervention family 
services.
  Nobody is saying we do not want to be prepared in the horrific event 
of a smallpox terrorist attack, but don't we also want to take care of 
our maternal child and health needs? Our children's dental needs? Why 
are we putting ourselves into making these false choices?
  I will tell you why. Because the other side is intent upon this huge 
tax cut no matter what the war costs, no matter what homeland security 
needs are, no matter what the choices are. I have to say I am no great 
historian, but I think history will look back on this moment and will, 
if not shaking its head and scratching its chin, certainly wonder how 
on Earth, at a time of an international crisis for America's 
leadership, we would unilaterally decide to drive our economy and this 
Government into the deficit ditch.
  That is for my friends on the other side of the aisle to answer. I 
don't have an answer. I find it unbelievable that it is even a question 
we have to be addressing at this moment in time.
  There is much to be done that would at least try to interject some 
common sense, some reality into this budget. But under any objective 
assessment of where we stand in the world right now, this budget should 
be a nonstarter. It should be withdrawn from the floor. Every one of us 
should be saying: My goodness, we have higher obligations. How can we 
keep faith with those young men and women who are on the front lines 
for us? How can we keep faith with those young men and women who are on 
the front lines at home for us? How can we continue to provide the 
quality of life and economic opportunity that is expected in our 
country?

  We are in danger of being the first generation of Americans to leave 
our children worse off than we were. Mark my words, no generation of 
Americans has ever done that. We are about to do that. We are about to 
load onto the backs of our children and those lucky enough to have 
grandchildren the unknowable costs of military actions that may be 
necessary to protect our freedoms; the unknowable costs of ongoing 
security to protect us here at home; and the very certain costs of 
providing quality, affordable health care and quality education and 
decent transportation--to say nothing of keeping faith with Social 
Security and Medicare.
  This is a very solemn moment, and it is not only solemn because of 
what is happening in the Persian Gulf; it is solemn because of the 
extraordinary commitment of this Senate leadership to take action that 
will not stand the test of time.

[[Page S4054]]

  But, if we go forward on this budget, I hope we will, in a bipartisan 
way, not only increase our homeland security amount, but I will be 
offering a domestic defense fund based on nearly 18 months of work. It 
would go into the Department of Homeland Security to get money directly 
to first responders, to put money directly to places of high threat 
such as New York and Washington, and money into a flexible fund that 
can be drawn down by communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 20 minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Dakota yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield an additional 5 minutes to the 
Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. President, this domestic defense fund would lift the budget cap 
for fiscal year 2003 when we finally do get the supplemental that I am 
sure will be presented to us in the very near future. And it would send 
a clear message that we are not going to wait on this budget to get 
money out to our first responders to relieve the necessary costs of our 
local communities; we are going to try to get that money out when it is 
needed. Operation Atlas is going on right now in New York City. 
Operation Liberty Shield is going on right now in America. We can't 
wait until the end of the year for the ordinary budget process to work 
to get money out, to make us safer, to give the tools to defend us to 
our firefighters and our police officers.
  This is a solemn time. Not only are my heartfelt feelings and prayers 
going out to those brave young men and women, but in good conscience I 
want to be sure we are doing what we should be doing. And with all 
respect, I don't think we should be doing business as usual. I do not 
think we should be considering a budget that is as devoid of reality as 
is this one. That sends a terrible message that here we are making 
flowery speeches, talking about our prayers and our best wishes for our 
men and women in uniform, and decimating--decimating--our ability to 
respond to the inevitable, unpredictable consequences of the action we 
have commenced. We owe more to the next generation. I hope we will 
decide to put aside previously existing ideological and partisan 
positions and come together in this Senate, as we are coming together 
in this country, on behalf of the military and on behalf of the country 
they are fighting to defend.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to say that I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of this vital amendment for more homeland 
security funding being introduced by Senator Schumer. And I come to 
talk about the necessity of making hard choices.
  I know this administration can make hard choices. I know it because 
in taking military action against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, that 
is precisely what the President has done made a difficult but necessary 
decision for the sake of America's security.
  Unfortunately, I don't see the same willingness to make hard choices 
here at home, particularly when it comes to our budget and our economy. 
On Sunday, I saw Vice President Cheney on Meet the Press and he said 
something that stuck in my mind. The Vice President was asked why his 
administration wouldn't reconsider the unaffordable, unfair, and 
unfocused tax cuts that it pushed through in 2001, not to mention the 
new tax cuts called for this year, when we have so many other national 
needs: the cost of military action against Iraq, the cost of rebuilding 
the Nation after war, the cost of investing in homeland security, just 
to name three.
  His response was telling. He said that Presidents don't have the 
luxury of doing only one thing at a time, that this administration has 
many ``balls in the air,'' and that President Bush must tend to the 
economy even as he works to defend our national security.
  I agree with the Vice President on the premise--but could not 
disagree more strongly on the implication. Yes, Presidents must do more 
than one thing at a time, and our best Presidents always have. 
President Lincoln did. President Roosevelt did. President Kennedy did. 
But by putting the tax cut, which is itself an ineffective prescription 
for our economic woes, before every other priority, this administration 
isn't multitasking. It's unitasking. It's sacrificing every other 
critical mission and priority to one ideological pet project--
unfocused, unfair, and irresponsible tax cuts.
  As a result, our national cupboard has been raided. We have no 
resources left to shore up Social Security, pay down the debt, provide 
our seniors with the prescription drug benefit they need, or invest in 
the landmark education reform plan we promised our teachers and 
students. No money left to make smart investments and strategic tax 
cuts to spur growth. Not even enough money left to pay for homeland 
security, even though right here at home we are under unprecedented 
attack from an aggressive, unpredictable, and undeterrable new enemy 
against which we remain dangerously vulnerable.
  The casual question, which might not sound fit for the Senate floor, 
is: ``What gives?''
  And the unacceptable answer is: ``Nothing gives.'' Tax cuts that help 
a select few Americans, tax cuts designed before September 11th, before 
the prospect of an expensive military action against Iraq and an 
expensive peace to follow, before Americans started losing jobs in the 
hundreds of thousands, trump everything else. No, with all these needs 
and demands, the President will hold onto his tax cut, come hell or 
high water.
  Mr. President, that is worse than a failure of arithmetic, as 
President Clinton called it. It is a failure of understanding. A 
failure of principle. A failure of priorities.
  Sadly, this administration has taken to believing that everything in 
its economic policy is absolute. Everything is extreme. There is no 
room left for learning. No room for pragmatic adjustment. No room for 
the critical needs of the American people. Today I want to discuss some 
of those needs--our urgent domestic defense priorities and how they can 
and must be paid for in this budget.
  Mr. President, America has the greatest military in the world, and 
that is because we have paid for it. Over the last half century, we 
have worked together across party lines and every other division to 
invest in our Armed Forces and the men and women who dedicate their 
lives to the common defense. We are truly, to recall President Kennedy, 
willing to pay any price and bear any burden to deter and defeat 
foreign threats.
  If we want the best domestic defenses, we will have to pay for them, 
too. But consider this. In its budget proposal for next year, the 
administration recommended a $19 billion increase in defense spending--
an increase I support. But in the very same budget proposal, the 
administration only called for $300 million more than they expected 
spending this year on our homeland defenses, which are far less 
prepared to protect our people today than the Pentagon is.
  This amendment would begin to correct that shortsighted shortfall. In 
the fiscal year 2003 budget, it would provide $5 billion above current 
levels in funding for our first responders, for port security, for 
bioterrorism preparedness, and for border security. I am supporting 
more funding both as part of this resolution and in the supplemental 
when it comes before the Senate--particularly for our first responders.
  In fiscal year 2004, Senator Schumer's amendment would provide $6.5 
billion over the President's proposal for police, firefighters, and 
public health professionals, port security, bioterrorism preparedness, 
border security, transportation security, critical infrastructure 
protection, and more. All told, this amendment would invest $88 billion 
in the urgent domestic defense improvements we need to make between now 
and 2013--a long-term vision of rising to meet and beat these threats, 
not shrink from them.
  Independently, last month I called for an increased homeland security 
investment in next year's budget of $16 billion over the President's 
proposal, which is what I have concluded is necessary to begin doing 
all this vital work. So I see this amendment not as a complete number, 
but as significant progress in the right direction.

[[Page S4055]]

  Let me talk now about a few of the urgent needs that this amendment 
will help address.
  First, first responders. Just this Monday, I attended the legislative 
conference of the International Association of Firefighters, and I must 
say that, though these brave men and women are always ready to take on 
a challenge and rise to meet danger, our firefighters, police officers, 
and other first responders are tired. They are tired of lacking the 
resources to hire new people, get advanced training, and buy state-of-
the-art technology, all of which are urgently needed to fight 
terrorism.
  Can't we come together now and get this done?
  Mr. President, it is downright irresponsible that the President's 
budget for next year would provide no new money for first responders. 
The President's proposal would make the same total $3.5 billion 
investment next year as was made this year. And even that is deceptive, 
because at the same time the budget would slash other funding for local 
law enforcement and emergency preparedness.
  This amendment would restore COPS and other local law enforcement 
programs in fiscal year 2004. It would provide the money for training, 
equipment, and qualified personnel. And it would call for $5 billion in 
funding this year--in an fiscal year 2003 supplemental the bulk of 
which would go to our first responders.
  There is a real crisis out there. We need to help our police 
officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and other first 
responders meet it.
  I believe the investment we make in our first responders needs to 
start by passing the SAFER Act, sponsored by my dear friends Senators 
Dodd and Warner which I am proud to cosponsor. That bill would provide 
more than $7.5 billion over 7 years so our communities can hire the 
firefighters they need. It is critical, it is bipartisan, and it should 
pass. This budget amendment we are discussing today would provide a 
good start in fiscal year 2004 for the bill.
  But that is just a beginning. First responders need advanced 
training, specifically in detecting and protecting against chemical, 
biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. This amendment will 
provide more of the resources they need to get them that training.
  First responders need better equipment. On September 11th, the New 
Jersey State Police grew so frustrated at their inability to contact 
New York City authorities that they had to take a boat across the 
Hudson River and find a police commander at Ground Zero. And as we 
know, New York City firefighters tragically lost their lives because 
their communications equipment was not what it needed to be. This 
amendment will provide the resources to start to get first responders 
all over the country the communications equipment they need to prevent 
similar problems from occurring when they face emergencies.
  This amendment gives our local first responders--who are also our 
first preventers of terrorist attacks--more of the resources they 
urgently need to guard against terrorism.
  As we work to strengthen our local first responders' capabilities, we 
need to dramatically improve transportation security nationwide. The 
type of attack we suffered on September 11th was, of course, of a very 
particular and unexpected nature. In its wake, improving the security 
of air travel has received substantial attention and substantial 
funding. And we have made serious progress in the skies.
  But just as terrorists constantly change their means and mode of 
attack, the TSA must broaden its scope of defense--and rapidly. But 
under the President's proposal and this budget resolution, TSA's 
appropriation is actually decreased for next year--which will make it 
difficult to keep pace with their current responsibilities, much less 
take on new ones. This amendment would give the agency critical 
resources so that TSA could begin expanding its focus to other critical 
transportation security needs including roads, rails, bridges, tunnels, 
and subways.
  Let me give you another example--port security. Homeland security 
experts widely acknowledge that our ports are among the most vulnerable 
points in our homeland defenses. About 7 million containers arrive at 
these ports each year, but a tiny percentage are searched. Any one 
could become a vehicle to smuggle in a dangerous weapon, or even 
terrorists themselves.
  Again, this costs money to fix. The Coast Guard has estimated that it 
will take $4.4 billion to improve basic physical security at the 
Nation's ports, starting with close to $1 billion the first year.
  Yet the administration's budget proposal provided no new money in 
port security grants--and this budget resolution largely ignores the 
physical security of our ports. In an effort to jumpstart these vital 
improvements, I have called for $1.2 billion in port security grants 
for fiscal year 2004. This amendment will start moving us toward that 
goal.
  We must also invest more to permanently protect our critical 
infrastructure--our financial, transportation and communications 
networks, our energy systems and water supplies, chemical plants and 
hazardous materials, emergency services and public health systems. 
Eighty-five percent of these networks and facilities are under the 
control of the private sector. Though plenty of lip service has been 
given to this priority by the Department of Homeland Security, actual 
progress has been exceedingly slow. That's largely a question of 
leadership, but it's happened in part because the financial commitment 
has not been forthcoming.
  This can't wait. That is why this week I have sent a letter to 
Homeland Security Secretary Ridge outlining a series of urgent 
questions I believe he and his Department must answer so that we can 
begin seeing results, and better protecting our Nation's nervous 
system, its circulatory system, its respiratory system, and all its 
vital organs without delay.
  Finally, let me address one other crucial area of investment which 
receives vastly too little funding in this budget resolution--
protecting ourselves against biological attack.
  Some of the most chilling scenarios posed by homeland security 
experts are those that envision the use of diseases as weapons. We are 
depending on our public health network to help prepare for, protect 
against, and if necessary respond to such assaults. Yet in this budget, 
our health providers aren't being provided anywhere near adequate 
resources to do the job as well as they must do it. This amendment will 
provide a critical infusion to start improving these capabilities.
  On the floor today I have only mentioned a discrete set of the gaps 
we must close to protect the American people. There are many more, and 
still more gaps we have yet to identify are likely to rear their heads 
in the months to come.
  We are at war against terrorism. Let's not frustrate and condemn to 
failure those whose job it is to protect us--many of whom risk their 
lives--by failing to provide them the resources they need to meet and 
beat the threats.
  Whether our protectors work for the Department of Homeland Security 
or for the local fire department, they deserve not only our gratitude 
and our respect. They deserve the ability to rise to this challenge, 
the resources and the tools to do the job. We depend upon them for our 
safety. Surely they should be able to depend upon us for support.
  Let's put the safety of us all before the wallets of the few. Let's 
invest in our homeland defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need.
  I do feel the need to make comments that when I got up this morning I 
had no idea I would need to make. I have listened to the debate in the 
Chamber this morning, and I think there are some corrections that need 
to be made for my colleagues and the people of America. We have made it 
sound as if we are debating an emergency supplemental budget. We are 
not. We are debating the regular budget of the United States of America 
for the next year, the year that begins October 1, 2004--not yesterday, 
not today, October 1, 2004. We have been working on this all year 
because it is the regular budget. It is not the emergency supplemental 
budget. This is our regular work.
  Why are we doing our regular work? We are doing our regular work 
because

[[Page S4056]]

we are expecting America to do its regular work today. Everyone would 
like to be listening to the radio or the television or picking up the 
latest news, however they possibly can, but for most of America that is 
not possible because they are doing their job. They are making America 
work. They are making sure that the planes are flying, the trains are 
moving, the trucks are going, the manufacturing is happening.
  Why is that important? Because those are the jobs that are providing 
the materials to keep America safe. Those are the people doing the jobs 
that help us live our everyday lives and to fight a war. America is not 
supposed to stop working today. We are not supposed to stop working 
today. We will do an emergency supplemental budget. I have heard the 
people here say we should be working on that this minute. How many 
people here know how long that war is going to go on? By tomorrow we 
will have a better idea. By Monday we will have an even better idea.
  Now, somebody said there is not a penny in this budget for this war. 
Maybe there should have been a penny in the last budget for this war--
the budget that never got done on this floor. That budget should have 
considered this war.
  Well, instead we went ahead and we did an appropriation. But we 
didn't do the appropriation last October 1 when the statute says we are 
supposed to have it done. We did not do that until the end of January. 
We did not get the conference done until February. And the President 
was not able to sign the bill until February 20. That is when we got 
last year's work done because we did not do our regular work on the 
time schedule that we are required--required by statute--to do. The 
statute says we will finish this budget by April 15. That does not just 
mean the debate in this Chamber, that means the conference committee 
and the final approval by April 15. Who knows how long that will take. 
But we need to do our regular work just as we expect everybody else in 
this country to do their regular work. It is essential to the operation 
of this great country.
  We will get an emergency supplemental budget. An emergency 
supplemental budget is different from this budget. This budget is a 10-
year budget. We are trying to anticipate the needs of the country for 
10 years and put a little plan out there so that we can plan for 10 
years. An emergency supplemental bill is for an emergency that is 
happening at the time of the debate of the emergency. It is supposed to 
cover it to the best of our ability at that time.
  Now, we do not do very well in our budgeting process. We got to spend 
a lot of time last year getting on corporations in this country for bad 
accounting. Well, I am the only accountant in the Senate, and I do not 
think the corporations are the only ones that should have been 
embarrassed. When I look at this budgeting process, I am delighted I 
got to be on the Budget Committee this year. I have had comments on the 
budget before, and there are some changes that need to be made. They 
can't be made until we do the regular work of passing this regular 
budget, but there are things on which we need to be working.
  Usually budgets are divided into categories. They are not just one 
type of a budget. There is usually a capital budget, where you plan for 
the buildings, the maintenance, and the replacement. We do not do that. 
We do everything as though it were a one-time cost. But that is another 
topic for another time.
  I have talked a lot in this Chamber about the need to reduce the 
national debt. We do have a national debt, a scary national debt that 
was scarier before; it will be scarier yet to come. We can see that 
from what we know about the dollars. But it is important for us--and 
both sides agree--that we need to balance the budget as soon as we can 
and we need to pay down the national debt as soon as we can to have 
better security in this country.
  One of the difficulties when we debated the balanced budget 
constitutional amendment 6 years ago when I first got here--it was the 
first debate I was in. People will recall that we did not pass a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, that we lost that by 
one vote. There were some provisions in there for emergencies. This 
would be one of those emergencies.
  But when we are paying down the national debt, it can be done in a 
rather simple manner if we start with a small amount, plan it into the 
budget, and then when we reduce that national debt by that amount, just 
like you make a house payment--and this needs to be done over a 30-year 
period just like a house payment--when you make that payment, you do 
not spend the interest you saved.
  You add that interest to the payment and make the payment bigger. 
Then you can start, as with a house payment, with a relatively small 
amount, and wind up with making a big payment in the end. It is pretty 
difficult. I would like to have some charts to show that.
  But when I have talked about that, and the fact that we could pay off 
the national debt in a 30-year period, I have also mentioned there are 
emergencies. Emergencies would work just like a house loan as well. 
Emergencies would be that second mortgage you have to take out every 
once in a while. It would not be a 30-year loan plan; it would have to 
be a short-loan plan, but it would have to be taken care of, too.
  On our budgeting, I want to talk about emergencies because another 
pet peeve of mine with emergencies is, we know in this country every 
year there will be about $6 billion spent on emergencies. Some of them 
are drought, some of them are tornadoes. There are lots of different 
kinds of disasters that happen in this country.
  We do not know where disasters will happen. We cannot prevent 
disasters from happening. But we know those disasters are going to cost 
about $6 billion. It is something we ought to build into the budget. I 
am hoping I can sell 51 people on doing that.
  War is different. It isn't something we know will happen each and 
every year. It is something that happens once in a while. We would 
prefer if it never happened.
  There were comments that in this budget there isn't a dime for this 
war. I have explained why there isn't. But I do want to point out to 
the people of America, when we sent those troops over there, we sent 
them with supplies, we sent them with ammunition, we sent them with 
arms. That is the best equipped army we have ever had in the field in 
the history of the United States. You cannot send them there without 
paying for it. So getting them there, having them equipped, having them 
in a war is included in what we have done.
  Now, how long it lasts, and what happens afterwards, we are going to 
get a supplemental budget on that. But we are not going to get the 
supplemental budget today. Hopefully, they will hold off a day or two, 
at least, to see what kind of a war we have over there. Daily, the 
ability to predict will be better, the ability to predict the expense 
will be better. That is why we do emergency supplemental budgets.
  We just had an amendment that was offered that deals with homeland 
security and some additional expenses on that. We started putting that 
in as a specific item this year. We have been doing homeland security 
for the history of the country, but because of September 11, that 
became ever more critical and we needed to have a department for 
homeland security. We escalated homeland security to the point of 
having its own department with its own security.
  Now, for those of my colleagues, or anyone else who might be 
listening, you will recall we spent an awful lot of time, last year, 
talking about the need for homeland security. And it got delayed and it 
got delayed and it got filibustered and it got delayed. And now the 
side that delayed it is trying to look as if they are the prime 
homeland security folks. It is not fair.
  We can try and outspend each other to try to show we are more 
dedicated to homeland security than the other side. I think the way the 
debate has gone in the past shows how that works.
  We do have a department for homeland security. The Department of 
Homeland Security has said what moneys they think are needed. That is 
in the package. As the alerts change, we may get supplementary requests 
on homeland security. We will have to respond to those. Hopefully, they 
will not get built into the budget as an every-year expense, just like 
war.

  One of the reasons we budget for war through an emergency 
supplemental budget is because we do not want it built into the base. 
We do not want the

[[Page S4057]]

American people to anticipate we are going to have war every year, and 
it is going to be the same cost. That is not good budgeting. The 
regular budget has the regular items in it that you do on a regular 
basis. It isn't a war budget. Wars are not done on a regular basis in a 
regular way for a regular expense, and hopefully they never will.
  Now, on homeland security, there were some comments about the need to 
do more for the cities and the counties and the States. I want to do 
more for the cities and the counties and the States.
  I used to be a mayor. I was the mayor of a boomtown in Wyoming that 
just about quadrupled in size while I was mayor. There were a lot of 
things that had to be taken care of, additional sewer, water, streets, 
basic things, increasing the fire department, increasing the police 
department. I did not do that on my own. The community did not do it on 
its own. It had help. It had help from the bottom to the State.
  The Feds did not get into it much. That is because every expense in 
this country is not a Federal expense. Some of the expenses are a local 
expense. The benefits go to the people at the local level. The people 
at the local level understand those benefits better. They provide for 
them, for the most part, themselves. I kind of object to us giving 
people the impression that we do that.
  I know the cities and the counties and the States are hurting out 
there. We want to work with them to make things as easy as possible. 
But that should not make the budget the prime spot for bailing 
everything out. Yes, we have a responsibility. Yes, we need to take 
care of it. But we talk about these things as though the Federal 
Government were the prime supplier of everything.
  Education is the most important thing after defense. But education is 
one of those areas where we try to make it look like we do a lot, and 
like we could do a lot more. And we can. But we used to provide about 7 
percent of the money. I think we are up to about 8.6 percent now of the 
money that is spent for schools. It is really the people paying the 
taxes to their schools who get the schools. And we add a little bit to 
it. A lot of it is some new programs we think are pretty fancy and 
sound good, and we think they will help education.
  But with that 8.6 percent that we provide for education, we force 
more than 50 percent of the paperwork. We keep them so busy doing 
paperwork, they cannot do the job of working with the kids they ought 
to be doing.
  Now, we tried to change that in the No Child Left Behind legislation. 
I think we made a good start on it. There is more that we can do. There 
is more that we will do at the Federal level. But I wish we would not 
give everybody the impression that the Federal Government provides 
everything because it leads them to expecting the Federal Government to 
provide everything, when, in fact, they ought to be giving themselves 
more credit for the job they are doing. And looking around their 
community--I don't care how big of a city you are in, I don't care if 
you are in New York City--there is still a community, the people you 
know around you.
  I think one of the things that happened with September 11 is that 
sense of community increased. People suddenly became more interested in 
their neighbors and helping their neighbors.
  There is a tremendous amount that can be done with community. That is 
where it starts. We are beginning to get the impression that the 
Federal Government prints the money so the Federal Government can 
provide all of the money that is necessary. We could, if we wanted to, 
go broke. So we have to solve the problems at all levels and not 
immediately escalate every cost to a Federal cost.
  The final thing that has been brought up a number of times over the 
last day, and particularly today, is the economic package the President 
has suggested. There have been comments that we should not be doing an 
economic package. Of course, they don't like to call it an economic 
package. There are no ideas for stimulus coming from the people calling 
it a tax cut. They don't want to talk about the economic package right 
now.
  Let me tell you what the budget process is. The budget process is 
where we say what the goals are for the next year for the regular 
operation of the country--not the emergency, not the war, the regular 
operation. One of the things we have said is that the economy is down. 
We need to do whatever we can to boost that economy. It is one of the 
things we have to worry about. It is one of the things we in Congress 
have to worry about.
  How do you go about doing that? Well, one of the things is to do a 
budget. A budget is not a vote on the economic package. The budget is 
the vote on the possibilities we have for the next year. It sets down 
rules that govern how we will pass legislation the rest of this year. I 
don't want anybody to get the impression that we are passing an 
economic package this week. We need to pass the budget so the 
consideration of an economic package can go on. We need to pass that. 
But the real debate on the economic package comes when the economic 
package comes up.
  If we chip away at it here and chip away at it there and put it into 
other things that we think are our priorities, then we have limited the 
possibilities for a solid economic plan for America. Most of that 
tactic is designed to get to the rhetoric that the tax cut will go to 
the rich.
  It is a plan to get jobs, and jobs will go to everybody--not just new 
jobs, but keeping the job they have now. That is really the biggest 
concern people have. Those who have a job want to make sure they keep 
it. Those who do not want to make sure they have one.
  That is what we want to do with an economic plan. We are trying to 
figure out the best possible economic plan we can put together. The 
President has said it needs to be $726 billion. I think we have $698 
billion in the package, but that is an upper limit, not an actual 
package, not the final result. What we need to do is pass the regular 
budget so we can do the regular authorization work and the regular 
debate so we can get to appropriations by October 1. That is how long 
of a timeframe we are working on.
  Why do we need to work on it now? Why should we, like the rest of 
America, keep working today? Because we have a job to do that includes 
this budget, a whole bunch of authorization bills, and then finally 13 
appropriations bills. Now 13 appropriations bills normally take us 1 to 
2 weeks per bill. So you can see if we are going to have that done by 
what the statute says, October 1, what the administration is relying on 
of October 1, we need to be meeting a timeframe right now. Statutorily 
it says this has to be done by April 15. That is just the budget part. 
That isn't where we even get to what the dollars per specific item are.
  Last year we didn't have a budget. That kept us from getting the 
authorizations done. That kept us from getting the appropriations done 
timely. We didn't get them voted on until the end of July. We didn't 
get them conferenced until February, and we did not get them signed 
until February 20, which was very shortly after the conference was 
done. That is the earliest the President could sign them, February 20. 
People are talking about how No Child Left Behind doesn't have enough 
money. Well, how would they know whether they have enough money or not? 
None of it was released until February 20.
  We cannot get in that position again. This Budget Committee is 
determined to make sure we will get it done in a timely manner and that 
as soon as there is a supplemental budget--and I do hope it is a couple 
of days into this so there is a better indication of how long it is 
going to take, what it is going to cost, how much damage has been done 
over there--then we will seriously look at that supplemental bill. But 
in the meantime, like the rest of America, I hope we will keep on doing 
our regular work while they do their regular work, so America and the 
war can be successful.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, having been delegated authority by Senator 
Conrad, I yield 20 minutes off the amendment to the Senator from North 
Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me respond to a few of the things said 
this morning and also talk generally about

[[Page S4058]]

the budget resolution. This budget resolution has been called an 
economic package, something focusing on jobs. In fact, this budget 
resolution doesn't add up. It cannot possibly be serious in its attempt 
to address what is happening and what is wrong in this country.
  Let me use one chart to show what kind of a resolution we have before 
us. Skyrocketing deficits as far as the eye can see, a virtual ocean of 
red ink as far as the eye can see. I want to ask a question with 
respect to a budget proposal that comes to the floor at this moment in 
our history that says our major priority is a long-term permanent tax 
cut, and the most significant part of that priority is to exempt 
dividends from taxation. The implication of that, of course, is to say, 
in terms of our values, let's decide to keep taxing work but exempt 
investment. So let's tax work but exempt investment. I don't understand 
that.
  But I especially don't understand it when there is a single U.S. 
soldier in the mountains of Afghanistan or a single U.S. soldier in the 
sands in Iraq, that we in this country would not say we are prepared to 
spend whatever is necessary of our tax dollars to support those 
soldiers. We must do our part.
  Yesterday I was in a hearing in the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. The Chief of Staff of the Army was testifying, along with 
the Secretary of the Army. I was asking the various questions my friend 
and colleague from Wyoming just discussed. What are some of these 
things going to cost. I fully understand we don't know exactly what is 
going to happen with respect to Iraq and what that will cost. I don't 
understand why there are not in this budget provisions to pay for the 
war on terrorism.
  We know that is an ongoing war that began a couple years ago, and it 
is going to go on for a long while. And you know that the Defense 
Department is now taking money out of its other accounts in order to 
cover its costs for a war on terrorism. They know that war will 
continue in the next fiscal year. But they won't request money for it 
at this point in the budget before us.
  We know that American presence will continue in Afghanistan in the 
next fiscal year. But the request for money for that will not be in 
this budget.
  You can make a pretty decent case that we don't know what it is going 
to cost with respect to Iraq.
  You cannot make a case that the war on terrorism and the efforts in 
Afghanistan should not be part of this budget. Of course they should. I 
understand that sometime--I think it is anticipated in the next 24 
hours--we are going to receive a supplemental budget request--I am told 
it is somewhere in the neighborhood of between $70 billion and $100 
billion--asking for that amount of additional money. We are told, 
although that has been put together in the Department of Defense and 
elsewhere, they do not intend to show it to us in Congress until we 
finish our discussions about the Federal budget.
  I do not understand that. People keep saying this place should be run 
like a business. Is this the way you run a business? If a board of 
directors is making critical financial decisions about the company and 
you say, Oh, by the way, there is another very big piece out there, $60 
billion to $70 billion to $100 billion, but we are not going to tell 
you what it is, we are not going to send it to you until you have 
actually completed your budget for next year, that is preposterous. 
Everyone knows that. It does not make any sense.
  We have an economic plan in this country that is just not working. 
Mr. President, 2.5 million people have lost their jobs in the last 
couple of years. Our economy is sputtering. What used to be a strong, 
vibrant, growing economy is now an economy that is sputtering, not 
doing well at all, with people losing their jobs and budget surpluses 
turned to budget deficits.
  It does not matter that we should spend time here talking about who 
did what. What matters is we should spend time talking about how do we 
fix what is wrong and how do we put our country back on track. And on 
the edge of war with Iraq, we are told in this budget document today, 
tomorrow, and this weekend apparently, that the highest priority is for 
us to enact very large permanent tax cuts, the most significant part of 
which is an exemption for taxes on dividends.
  I, for the life of me, do not understand that. Is that doing our part 
in a national emergency? Is that doing our part? Is that a message to 
the American soldiers: You go risk your lives, but we will not support 
you with our tax dollars? What we will do is spend money and charge it, 
and you come back, having risked your life, and you also inherit the 
burden of paying the taxes to support it because we would not do it. 
That is not fair. That is not right. That is not doing our part.
  Again, as long as there are soldiers in Afghanistan or soldiers going 
into Iraq, we ought not be doing this. We ought to put together a 
budget that adds up.
  I just came from a hearing this morning, I say to my colleague from 
Wyoming, on appropriations for the Forest Service. Does my colleague 
know what they did to the Forest Service? We had massive problems with 
forest fires all around the country last year. They are deciding to cut 
the number of firefighters by much more than one-half. Does anybody 
think that is justifiable? Of course it is not justifiable. It is 
gimmicks and games. We do not have any intention of cutting the number 
of firefighters who fight forest fires in half.
  When those fires rage across this country in America's forests, as 
they have in the last several years, we have a proposal to cut the 
number of firefighters in the Forest Service in half? I do not 
understand that. Are Mr. Daniels and those at the OMB with these tiny 
little pencils and microscopic eyeglasses not able to think at all? Are 
they the ones everyone says know the cost of everything and the value 
of nothing? Where on Earth is the value system in proposals such as 
this? I just do not understand it.
  This country, at this moment, owes it to the men and women who are 
prepared to wage war for America to be honest as we approach these 
budgets. This budget is not an appropriate budget at all. We have an 
economy that is in desperate trouble and soldiers about to fight, and 
we are telling them: Oh, by the way, it is our intention to spend money 
we do not have on things we do not need and charge you the balance, 
and, by the way, we have the biggest amount of expenditure that is 
coming up, but we won't tell anybody what it is because we want to wait 
until we get the budget done, and then we will get a $100 billion bill 
and let you gnash your teeth over that. By the way, a fair amount of 
that should have been in this budget for the next fiscal year, but we 
do not want to tell you what that cost is either because in the next 
fiscal year we will give you another surprise and ask you to pass that 
on an emergency basis.
  That is no way to budget. It is no way to run a business and no way 
to run a Government, and everybody understands it.
  Because my colleague mentioned the No Child Left Behind Act, I cannot 
help but respond to that issue with respect to budgeting, expenditures, 
and cost. The basic notion of the President's proposal of no child left 
behind is accountability. Schools should be accountable for that which 
they spend to educate America's children. I agree with that. But we 
passed legislation saying no child left behind with the implied 
comments of everyone, including the President, that they would fund 
that which was necessary to make it work. The No Child Left Behind Act 
was enacted, but the President left the funding behind.
  I introduced legislation in the Congress to say there ought to be a 
moratorium on the deadlines in that legislation until two things 
happen: One, we have the funding to make that work; and, two, until we 
see the implementation of that with the flexibility that is necessary, 
so that we do not have the same template put over a rural school in a 
small town in Wyoming and North Dakota as is put over a school in an 
inner city that has different needs. I will give an example.
  If you have a great teacher--I mean a great teacher--teaching in his 
or her minor, who has taught in it for 12 years, does a terrific job, 
teaches children very well, do we really believe we ought to tell that 
school district that does not have the money, by the way, that it must 
hire a teacher in their major to replace a teacher who teaches very 
well in that teacher's minor and is producing students who are well 
educated? Is that what we want? Or do we

[[Page S4059]]

want basic flexibility? I think we want basic flexibility.
  I came from a school with 4 grades, 40 kids, and I graduated in a 
high school class of 9. If someone came to that high school and said 
every class taught needs to be taught by the teacher in the teacher's 
major, that school district does not have anywhere near the capability 
to make that happen. So we need to make that work, but it will not work 
with respect to this kind of budget dealing with education. The needs 
are not meeting the implied promises given when we passed that 
legislation.
  Let me mention a couple of other issues with respect to the economy. 
I wish, and all Americans wish, this economy were growing, and growing 
rapidly, expanding so jobs and opportunities would exist for all 
Americans. That, regrettably, has not been the case.
  About 2 years ago, the President proposed a $1.7 trillion tax cut, 
and some of us said: Things are good, times are good, we see big budget 
surpluses in the Federal Government, but we ought to be a bit 
conservative. Maybe we ought not jump to have permanent tax cuts of 
$1.7 trillion over the 10-year period. Maybe what we ought to do is be 
a bit more conservative and do it incrementally. They said: No, the 
President wants it this way and had the votes to make it happen. So we 
did.

  What happened after that vote was taken and we had this permanent 
large tax cut? The first thing that happened was we discovered we were 
in a recession and less revenue was coming into the Federal Government. 
Second, on September 11, we had a devastating terrorist attack against 
our country. Then we had the most significant corporate scandals in a 
long time. At the same time we were fighting a war against terrorism, 
the stock market collapsed and the tech bubble burst. All of these came 
to the same intersection at the same time, dramatically affecting this 
country's economy.
  What was intended to be large budget surpluses in our future became 
very large budget deficits that are growing and growing worse. What is 
the response to that, even as we have additional foreign policy 
challenges, a war with Iraq, very serious problems in North Korea, and 
a continued war with respect to terrorism and dramatic new needs with 
respect to homeland security? What is the response? The response by the 
majority party and the President is to bring the budget to the floor of 
the Senate and say none of that matters; what matters is we have more 
large permanent tax cuts. That is not doing our part for national 
security. It is not doing our part, in my judgment, to support our 
soldiers.
  We would be wise to put together a budget that adds up, one that 
works, one that invests in the future, and one that says to the 
American soldiers: You are not the only ones fighting this war. This 
country is behind you, and we are doing our part.
  We are not going to send you off to battle and then bring you home to 
pay the bill. That ought to be our responsibility. This budget 
resolution is wrong and everyone knows it.
  We are going to have a whole series of votes on choices because, 
after all, budgets are simply a series of choices. Let me describe, for 
example, one other choice.
  I am going to offer an amendment relating to our country's trade 
deficit. We not only have the largest budget deficits in history at 
this moment, we also have the largest trade deficit in history--$470 
billion in 2002.
  Every single day, seven days a week, nearly $1.5 billion more in 
goods are brought into this country than we ship out. Think of that.
  One can make a case on the budget deficit that perhaps that is a 
deficit we owe to ourselves. One cannot make that case with the trade 
deficit. That is a deficit we owe to other countries and one that we 
will inevitably repay with a lower standard of living unless we resolve 
these trade issues.
  We now have a $103 billion trade deficit with China. So you would 
think that our government has a good number of people working to 
address that huge deficit. Guess again. We have just 19 people in the 
Market Access and Compliance Section at the Department of Commerce, 
whose job it is to pry open these foreign markets in China that are 
closed to U.S. producers. We have a $103 billion trade deficit with 
China, and we have 19 people working on it. We have a $70 billion trade 
deficit with Japan. It has been that way every year as long as we can 
remember. We have 10 people working down at Market Access and 
Compliance trying to pry open markets in Japan.
  We have a thirteen billion dollar deficit with Korea. We have two and 
three-fourths people--that is what they say, two and three-fourths, 
working to deal with trade barriers to U.S. products in the Korean 
market. I do not know how one gets three-fourths of a person. I guess 
when you are dealing with trade, the laws of nature don't apply.
  With Europe, we have an $82 billion trade deficit, and only 15 people 
working on that.
  Despite our debate about budgets and all of the mantra and chanting 
that goes on about economic growth, our country is not going to do well 
unless we straighten out this trade mess. The manufacturing sector 
cannot be decimated in the strongest economy on Earth without serious 
consequences in the long term. Jobs cannot be shipped overseas, as well 
as factories, and a dismantling of the manufacturing sector, which is 
exactly what is happening in our country, without having very 
substantial problems.
  The reason I mention all this is I am going to offer an amendment 
that adds money to Market Access and Compliance, which says: Let us 
address the trade issues by demanding, by requiring, and by having the 
people to fight for the open markets overseas for our producers. We do 
not do that. We are weak-kneed in this country. We lack backbone and 
spine to deal with these trade issues.
  I will give you a couple of examples. We had trade negotiators 
negotiate with China. This is an example of a bad agreement. Our trade 
negotiators negotiated with China and they agreed that after a phase-in 
of some years, China would be allowed to impose tariffs on U.S. 
automobiles sold in China 10 times the amount of tariffs that we would 
impose on any Chinese automobiles sold in the United States. Think of 
that. Our negotiators agreed to that. I think that is nuts.
  How about Korea? Anybody know how many cars we sent to Korea last 
year? The United States of America shipped 2,800 cars to the country of 
Korea. How many Korean cars were shipped to the United States? Over 
600,000 cars came from Korea to the United States. We shipped 2,800 
back. Want to know why? Is it because Koreans do not want to drive 
American cars? Absolutely not. It is because the Korean Government does 
not want American cars, so we have one-way trade and that means our 
jobs are gone and there is this decimation of our manufacturing 
capacity. It has to stop.

  I am going to offer an amendment, and we are going to see if people 
care about the issue of trade and supporting America's manufacturers. 
We are going to see who wants to stop this nonsense of shipping jobs 
overseas so that 14-year-olds can work 14 hours a day and get paid 14 
cents an hour so that U.S. workers are told you have to compete with 
that, and if you cannot compete with it in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, 
Los Angeles, or Fargo, then those jobs are going to be gone 
permanently. That is not fair trade.
  Any budget that we pass is going to be irrelevant in the context of 
this country's economic problems if it does not address the basic trade 
imbalance of $470 billion in one year.
  Thirty years ago, we had a $3 billion trade deficit in one quarter, 
and it was considered a crisis. These days we cannot get anybody to 
look at this. But countless people are impacted by it; the people who 
woke up this morning who did not have to dress for work because their 
jobs are gone. They had to tell their family: I am a hard worker, I do 
good work, but my manufacturing plant was moved overseas and I no 
longer have a job.
  Millions of people have experienced that, and they are told by too 
many in this Congress and too many others who fight for bad trade 
policies that they have to compete in circumstances where fair 
competition does not exist.
  So I am going to offer an amendment with respect to market access and 
compliance, saying if we have a $470 billion trade deficit, we ought to 
have a lot of folks prying open these foreign markets, and dealing with 
unfair trade practices.

[[Page S4060]]

  The fact is, we hardly have anybody working on it. There are a bunch 
of people going off making goofy agreements on behalf of this country, 
selling out American farmers and selling out manufacturers because they 
do not care very much, and then when the agreement is done, even if it 
is a bad agreement, if there is some ability to enforce it, we do not 
have anybody who wants to enforce it anyway.
  I ask for 5 additional minutes by unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 20 minutes.
  Mr. REID. By the authority of the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg 
is to be recognized for up to 20 minutes, time off the resolution. 
Senator Nickles does not want the amendment offered. It takes unanimous 
consent to just speak about the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. That would be fine, but I would like the Senator from New 
Jersey, who has waited some time to be recognized--Senator Enzi, the 
Senator is going to be recognized for 5 more minutes, followed by 
Senator Lautenberg to be recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will probably not use all the 5 minutes. 
I know my colleague wishes to speak.

  There are so many other issues of choices, especially bad choices, 
with respect to these budget resolutions we are discussing.
  The budget resolution brought to us from the committee has large, 
biting, permanent budget deficits. It includes very large tax cuts. At 
a time when we are asking this country to sacrifice, especially with 
its sons and daughters, at a time when we are sending America's sons 
and daughters to war, this Congress is saying we will have our sons and 
daughters make tough choices, but we will not make tough choices. It is 
not the fair thing to do. I do not want those soldiers to come back to 
bear the burden of the costs of a war we would not cover.
  A little over a year ago, I was in Afghanistan. I recall visiting on 
the edge of Afghanistan an old Soviet airbase. I believe it was called 
Kanabad. At that Soviet airbase, we had soldiers. At that point, there 
were still a lot of activities in Afghanistan when we fought the 
Taliban and kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We were then 
searching for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. When I visited that base 
and spoke to the soldiers, the men and women living in a tent city were 
walking around in mud up to their ankles, snow, conditions that were 
not good, but I could see the pride in their eyes. They understood why 
they were there. They understood what they were doing for their 
country, and they were proud of it, and this country is proud of them.
  They are still in Afghanistan. Fortunately, the fighting does not 
present itself these days so much in Afghanistan. We have been 
remarkably successful in Afghanistan and hopefully we will restore the 
new government under Mr. Karzai. The fact is, we still have troops in 
Afghanistan. We are prepared to move troops into Iraq. Some are perhaps 
there, others perhaps in a day or so. It seems to me our obligation to 
those, especially the mostly young men and women who have been taken 
from this country, away from their families, and who said, ``let me 
serve, I will go,'' who are risking their lives for this country, our 
obligation is to be talking about the realities of what this country 
faces. To say to those soldiers the sacrifice is not only yours, it is 
a national sacrifice.

  When someone asks, What do you do for the war, you say I get a 
dividend tax exemption? We had Warren Buffett come to the Congress a 
week and a half ago. He is the second richest man in the world. He 
said: If you provide a tax exemption for dividends, which is in this 
resolution, I will actually benefit to the tune of about $400 million a 
year. He said: But it won't make any sense for the country. It will not 
help the economy and I don't support it.
  Why on Earth would we be doing this when we ought to be supporting 
our troops? When the troops are doing their part, in my judgment, we 
must do ours. We should support them with our tax dollars, even as they 
support us with their lives. That is what these discussions are about.
  The reason I decided to speak about this, my colleague said we do not 
have any idea what any of this costs. Nonsense. We all know better than 
that. Of course we know what it will cost. We do not know the details. 
We know what the war against terrorism has cost.
  I was told yesterday by the Department of the Army in an open hearing 
that amount of money to prosecute the war against terrorism has been 
taken out of the regular accounts because they have not been provided 
for and they will be in an emergency supplemental, but the war on 
terrorism is not a temporary event and it ought to be part of the 
regular budget. We know what is going to happen in Afghanistan. We will 
have troops there. We know what that will cost. It ought to be part of 
this budget and planning. We know it will cost some money; it already 
has in Iraq. But the administration is deliberately at this point 
deciding not to allow anyone to see those numbers and they will not 
discuss them until we pass this budget.
  Why? I think we understand why. It will be a very big number. It is 
something we ought to be considering here, in my judgment.
  I asked the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shinseki, about it 
yesterday. I didn't press him because he got in very hot water a couple 
weeks ago. The published reports were that there were people in the 
Pentagon who wanted heads to roll because General Shinseki answered the 
question, What is this going to cost? He got in real trouble.
  It seems to me we ought to deal with all the facts and come up with a 
budget that adds up and works.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I 
plan to offer when the opportunity presents itself. My amendment 
establishes a reserve fund for national and homeland security. My 
amendment is cosponsored by Senators Conrad and Schumer as well.
  This budget reminds me of a movie I saw some time ago, not intending 
to present any humor, but it is precise in what it says: ``Show Me The 
Money.'' Everyone understood immediately what they were talking about. 
Here we are, searching for the money to pay for our defense needs and 
the war with Iraq. It is nowhere to be found.
  I was the ranking member of the Budget Committee for several years. 
There is one thing you learned on that committee, simply wishing for 
money does not make it appear. This must come as a shock to people who 
in their regular lives try to set money aside for future expenses such 
as mortgages or tuition or rent or real estate taxes. We all have to 
budget for our critical needs.
  The war with Iraq has started. We see the pictures of our troops and 
you wonder how they put up with the heat and the dust, the threat to 
their lives, the ominous presence, perhaps, of chemicals or biological 
weapons. There is plenty to think about. But for God's sake, we ought 
to think here about how we provide the money to prosecute that war. It 
has to sound strange to people listening to what is said in the Senate 
this morning.
  We have an obligation to tell the American people how much and where 
the money is going to come from to finance the war and to finance our 
domestic security needs. At critical moments in history such as this, 
we ought to be truthful with the American people about what it is we 
are doing.
  The truth is, this budget does not provide the funding to prosecute 
our war with Iraq. It is a simple equation. We are shortchanging 
national security spending and the costs of the war in order to protect 
a tax break, largely for the wealthiest.
  I want people to understand. We are going to prosecute the war, and 
we are going to do it fully, but we ought to tell the truth to the 
American people about how we are going to pay for it. The money to pay 
for this war is not provided in any place we look. It is a tax cut that 
people understand is going to the wealthiest among us. I want everyone 
to know the money that would be used to prosecute this war is going to 
go to another priority; that is, a tax cut for the wealthiest. A tax 
cut that,

[[Page S4061]]

as we heard from the Senator from North Dakota, a tax cut people with 
wealth typically do not need, and I can tell you most of them do not 
want it when they recognize it comes from the very foundation of our 
strength in this country.
  The Senate GOP plan ignores the cost of war. We are going to look at 
a supplemental, which is in addition to the budget, that was not 
planned for. But with less than a wink of an eye, everyone knows the 
war otherwise will not be prosecuted out of the funds available for the 
Defense Department. That is what we are looking at. From $60 billion to 
$95 billion is expected to be requested in a supplemental plan. The 
present Senate budget plan does not provide for any of it.
  My friends in the business world are people who run big companies, 
some of them little companies, but they run organizations and they know 
how important it is to fund your critical needs.

  My amendment corrects a major problem with this budget. My colleagues 
may not realize that the Senate Republican budget resolution actually 
cuts defense spending by $103 billion below the President's request.
  We have heard a great deal of talk about patriotism from the other 
side of the aisle. We have even seen it raised in the ugliest of 
fashions, in an election where a triple amputee who lost his limbs in 
Vietnam was accused of lacking patriotism and lost the election. 
Imagine, a triple amputee, a man left with one arm, the legs are gone, 
one arm is gone, and he is accused of being unpatriotic. Language flows 
loosely around here at times.
  We have heard a lot about putting national security and homeland 
first above all, and at times when the defense budget was being 
prepared it was suggested if you challenged it, if you voiced some 
concern about it, if you questioned the tactic being used, there was an 
implied criticism that you were not being loyal, that you might be like 
the French. Talk is loose here.
  I served in another war, a long time ago, and they used to have a 
slogan ``loose lips sink ships.'' Boy, we would not have a lot of ships 
afloat here.
  When you examine the details of this budget, it is apparent that it 
is tax cuts for the rich that have the highest priority. In fact, this 
budget cuts national security funding in order to provide those tax 
cuts to the wealthy.
  I had a business career before I came here. Thank goodness for the 
American opportunity, we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. We were 
three poor kids from working-class families in Patterson, NJ. The 
company did very well. Today a company that we started employs 40,000 
people.
  Mr. President, it is obvious that a company with that kind of growth, 
that kind of success, produced some wealth for the founders. It did. 
And I can tell you I do not want a tax cut for myself and I don't think 
people in my position ought to have tax cuts right now. America has 
been good enough to us that we do not need the tax cut. We need a 
strong country. We need a harmonious population where people know they 
are being treated fairly and that we are not putting everything else 
aside so we can give a tax cut to people who neither need it and in 
most cases don't want it.
  There are sleight of hand maneuvers in this budget. If you look at 
the years 2004 through 2008, the Republican budget projects defense 
spending at the level requested by the President. But in the last 5 
years of the budget window, from 2009 through 2013, the Republican 
budget resolution actually cuts $103 billion below the levels CBO, the 
Congressional Budget Office, estimates would be required just to 
maintain defense spending in real terms at the level the President 
proposed. During those latter 5 years, where is that missing $103 
billion going? The answer is--I don't want to be repetitive, but this 
is so hard to understand, so impossible to conceive that we have to say 
it a lot because it does not get through. But maybe, just maybe, the 
American people will hear this clearly enough to say:

       Hey, listen, I have heard some pretty good presentations 
     this morning.

  I am discounting mine. I am talking about others here.

       They keep talking about this tax cut for the wealthy.

  That is what we are talking about, Mr. and Mrs. American citizen. 
That is what we are talking about. The tax cut in this bill over 10 
years will cost this country $1.4 trillion.
  Are we cutting defense for this tax cut? Whom does that help? Let's 
look at the facts about the President's tax proposal. Almost half of 
all tax filers, 49 percent of them, would receive tax cuts of less than 
$100. That doesn't do much for people's standard of living.
  The average tax cut for the bottom 80 percent of tax filers would be 
$226. That is the average tax cut. By contrast, the top 1 percent of 
tax filers would receive an average tax cut of $24,100. But those who 
are at the tippy top, with incomes of more than $1 million, would get 
tax cuts averaging $90,200. That could make a difference in one's 
standard of living, but not for those folks, they are already living at 
that scale. That is why I call it skewed towards the wealthy.
  As for another part of the tax cut proposal, the dividend tax cut, 
nearly 70 percent of the benefits would flow to the top 5 percent of 
our tax filers, and the top 1 percent would receive 46 percent of the 
benefits--1 percent would receive 46 percent of the benefits, nearly 
half of the benefit to the top 1 percent.
  So the priorities are quite clear: Tax cuts for the wealthy first; 
national security, when it comes to the money, further down the list. 
That is just plain wrong.
  There is a reason it is being handled that way. I do not suggest lack 
of patriotism, lack of loyalty, lack of conviction on this war. I just 
know that in the planning, in the machinations that go toward 
developing the budget, what happens is someone says: Hey, guys, do you 
know what happens? If we don't get that tax cut in the total package, 
we are not going to get it. It is just not going to happen. It's a lot 
easier to get money for the war, a lot easier to get money for our 
defense, homeland defense needs. We can get that in supplementals or 
other places. A tax cut, we had better get that now, while we can.

  The President laid out his request for accomplishing these goals. But 
what did the Senate Republican budget do? It sacrificed funding for 
national security in order to provide tax cuts for the rich, as I 
explained. The process took over. To make matters worse, this budget 
ignores the fact that we have gone to war. Every one of us is glued to 
the news, whether it is the papers or television or radio or whatever 
it is; we want to know what is happening with our troops. We worry. We 
heard about a Black Hawk helicopter that went down. I know I must speak 
for everybody. We are holding our breath until we learn that those who 
were carried in that helicopter were rescued.
  The White House has told the press that it will happen, that we are 
going to need the money. Again, I used to be ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, so I know my colleagues on that committee read the 
newspaper.
  The administration is about to send up a war supplemental request to 
us of between $60 and $95 billion. It is not in the budget, it is 
supplemental. It is extra. You can make the case pretty easily. It is 
one thing to make the case because of the need. It is another thing to 
make the case because you want to put the funds that are available in a 
lot of rich persons' pockets.
  This war and its aftermath will cost a lot of money. Estimates are 
that the reconstruction of Iraq could cost $30 billion over 10 years. 
Every year of Iraqi occupation could cost between $17 billion and $46 
billion. As far as this budget is concerned, apparently it doesn't see 
any of it happening. So we ignore the war in the budget, we cut 
national security spending. Why? Simply because it seems, in the eyes 
of the administration, the most important agenda is to provide tax cuts 
to the wealthiest Americans at the cost of other priorities.
  My amendment makes it clear that tax cuts should not take priority 
over every other need. My amendment restores the 2009 through 2013 
national security cuts in the budget resolution. The amendment moves 
$103 billion in budget authority and $88 billion in outlays into a 
reserve fund for national security and homeland security. To offset the 
cost of this critical reserve fund, my amendment simply goes to the tax 
cut and reduces it by $88 billion during the same period, so we can 
take that cash from the tax cut--again,

[[Page S4062]]

most of it going to the wealthiest--and put it into the most vital need 
we have right now, and that is to make sure that every penny we can put 
together to make sure our people in the field, those who are fighting, 
know we will do everything we must by way of financing to make sure 
they have every tool available, they have all the protections they 
need. That is where to put the money.
  We are faced with a clear choice. My amendment says our Nation's 
national security is far more important than tax cuts for the wealthy. 
I hope when we have a chance to present the amendment, my colleagues 
will support voting for national and homeland security by voting for 
the amendment.
  In the war I fought in a long time ago, we used to talk to the public 
about what they had to do to prosecute the war, to provide for our 
defenses.

  This poster shows its age by the way the characters are drawn. It 
says: ``BUY WAR BONDS.'' I think they were $25 at their least price. It 
said: Everybody has to kick in. Everybody has to do their share. Do 
what you can to help us conduct ourselves in our defense as proudly, as 
forcefully, as we can. That is what it is about.
  And here we are ashamed to ask the richest among us to sacrifice 
their $90,000 on a $1 million income? Wait, make more money. Warren 
Buffet addressed a group of Senators the other day, and he said: I love 
paying taxes because every time I pay taxes, it means there is more 
money left in my pocket. Pretty simple. And that is how we ought to 
face our responsibilities now: Tell the truth to the American people, I 
say to my colleagues on the other side. Tell the truth about how you 
plan to use the money that otherwise would currently be available to 
prosecute the war.
  Maybe we would not even have to do a supplemental. There are times 
when we are mystified by the arguments presented on one side or the 
other. I am sure that happens with our Republican friends when it is a 
Democratic proposal. The fact is, these figures that are generated here 
have been reviewed by the distinguished committees of people who study 
budgets as a professional thing, as an organizational commitment. They 
tell us: Look, all you have to do is look at the lines, look at the 
years.
  Right now, everything looks OK. Get out to about 2007, and you see 
what happens. The President's budget is one thing; in the Senate GOP 
plan--that is, the budgeteer's, the majority's plan in the Budget 
Committee--they have something else. They show they cannot meet the 
President's number.
  The tragedy of this kind of a debate is that we have to confront one 
another. I believe this is a time when the last thing on the list of 
priorities ought to be tax cuts going largely to the wealthiest among 
us.
  Let's stand up and do what is right. Let's send all that we have 
right now: commit it, reserve it, make it such that it cannot be 
touched anyplace else.
  I hope when we have a chance to review the amendment, we will see the 
thought has prevailed that says: Hey, they could be right on this one. 
Let's send it all into our defense needs which are so heavy right now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Who yields 
time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, as the daughter of a veteran and the granddaughter of 
two grandfathers who served in the war, and the mother of two small 
boys, I want to say how proud I am of the men and women who serve in 
our Armed Forces in this great country, those who go to the front lines 
to defend the freedoms and the conveniences we enjoy here every day.
  They have done a tremendous job, and they continue to do a tremendous 
job. I want them to all know that our thoughts and prayers and, more 
importantly, our pride is with each and every one of them as they 
perform a mission on our behalf.
  I also rise today on behalf of the men and women who serve our Nation 
as members of the National Guard and Reserves, who are out there today, 
as well, defending our rights and our freedoms.
  I am going to discuss an amendment that I will offer, when the time 
becomes appropriate, with Senator Landrieu, with a tremendous amount of 
help and background from many other Senators who have worked on this 
issue, particularly Senator Leahy--an amendment that will bring members 
of the National Guard and Reserve into the TRICARE health care program.
  Currently, Guard and Reserve families cannot enroll in the TRICARE 
program unless the Guard or Reserve member is activated with orders 
lasting over 30 days.
  Our amendment would allow members of the Guard and Reserves, as well 
as their families, to sign up for TRICARE health care coverage at any 
time regardless of whether the Guard or Reserve is activated.
  This amendment is paid for by reducing the size of the proposed tax 
cut by $20.3 billion over 10 years. Specifically, these numbers are 
backed up by a GAO report on this subject that was authorized by the 
fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. And the study was 
completed in September of 2002. So we have the numbers to back up what 
we want to do on behalf of these incredible men and women in the 
National Guard and Reserves, who deserve the support of health care, as 
do their families.
  In recent years, our Nation has increasingly looked to our volunteer 
reservists and guardsmen for our defense and peacekeeping needs, 
requiring them to leave their jobs and families in defense of our 
Nation.
  Arkansas has sent over 2,000 Guard and Reserve members to contribute 
to the war on Iraq and the war on terrorism. They are among over 
212,000 Guard and Reserve members who have been activated nationwide.
  Given the scope of their sacrifices, I do not think it is too much to 
ask their fellow Americans to sacrifice as well by accepting a smaller 
tax cut.
  Currently, over 20 percent of this Nation's Guard and Reserve 
soldiers lack health care coverage when they are not on active duty. 
That number is much greater in a State such as Arkansas where our 
overall numbers of uninsured are much greater than the national 
percentage.
  In this time of increased dependence upon the members of our National 
Guard and Reserves, it is imperative we increase benefits for them and 
their families for when they are not on active duty.

  I also want to acknowledge this amendment only provides funding for 
this program. It does not begin to detail how the extended TRICARE 
benefits should be structured. That test would be left up, and should 
be left up, to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I am also aware that many Senators have been working, for some time, 
on the details of how to structure and provide these benefits. I hope 
my budget amendment will complement their efforts by solely allocating 
the necessary budget authority to provide these benefits to our Guard 
and Reserve members.
  I look to the leadership of Senators Leahy and DeWine and Daschle, as 
well as both the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
to develop the specifics of how these benefits will be provided.
  I am also aware that this amendment will only provide an estimate of 
the cost of providing these benefits. In fact, some estimates state 
that providing these benefits will cost much less than this amendment 
would provide. I hope that is the case.
  Nonetheless, this Nation's National Guard and Reserve members and 
their families deserve these benefits now.
  I was drawn into this by a recent visit from our National Guard and 
Reserve units in Arkansas. A human resource officer brought to me the 
fact that many of these individuals--Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield another 2 minutes to the Senator 
from Arkansas off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

[[Page S4063]]

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, on a visit with our National Guard and 
Reserves, a human resource officer came to me and said: Do you realize 
that when these individuals are called up to active duty, we can't 
activate them because they have not had the proper medical care? These 
are individuals who have signed on the dotted line and said they are 
willing to go and defend this country. Yet in their private lives they 
cannot afford or have access to the appropriate health care that keeps 
them at a health care level that we could actually activate them when 
we need them.
  This amendment is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to this 
Nation's overwhelming amount of uninsured families. Statistics show us 
that one in five Americans do not have any form of health coverage at 
all.
  Congress must address the larger problem of uninsured families across 
this Nation, but the absolute least we can do is to provide full 
coverage to America's National Guard and Reserves and their families.
  The time is right. And this is the right policy and the right 
priority for our men and women serving in the Guard and the Reserves.
  Mr. President, I would also like to add Senator Pryor as a cosponsor 
to this amendment when we are prepared to offer it.
  I say to all those Americans listening, we all must make 
contributions. It is not too much to ask of our fellow Americans to 
delay a larger tax cut in order to provide the necessary health care 
that these individuals need to be called up to serve.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield me 5 minutes to 
have a colloquy with the Senator from Arizona?
  Mr. CONRAD. We can have that understanding, and then we will come 
back to Senator Brownback for a time he desires.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I listened to the speech of the Senator from 
Arkansas, talking about the men and women in the armed services. What I 
want to focus on for a minute is my son. One of my boys married a 
beautiful young woman and they have two of my grandchildren. I have 
gotten to know her sister Megan. Megan is a brilliant young woman, 
graduated Jefferson High School, which is a school for the academically 
talented, has more merit scholars than any high school in America. She 
is a graduate of MIT, another great scientific institution. This young 
woman is now in the gulf, an officer on a destroyer. She is trained to 
be the person who gives the direction to fire missiles.
  Things have changed since the Vietnam war, the Korean conflict, the 
Second World War. Women are now heavily engaged in actions that are 
military in nature. When we speak of the men and women of the armed 
services, I can't help but focus on Megan. She is married. Her husband 
is getting ready to go to medical school. He is here. His wife is in 
harm's way in the Middle East. My conscience has been quirked by the 
very fine statement of the Senator from Arkansas when she referred on 
more than one occasion to the men and women of the armed services 
because the men and women of our armed services are the Megans of the 
world. They are standing side by side of the men doing anything that a 
man can do. I congratulate the Senator for the amendment she will offer 
and her contribution to the Senate, not only with this amendment but 
what she does every day.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his comments.
  It is so important for us to realize that these men and women in the 
Reserves and the National Guard are leaving their families. They are 
leaving their careers, their jobs. The least we can do is provide for 
them the ability to provide for their families the kind of health care 
they need.
  One of the most outrageous stories I heard was from our reservists in 
Arkansas who said: We had to spend unbelievable amounts of money just 
to get these individuals up to the health care level where we could 
actually activate them. These are people who have offered themselves 
and have pledged that they would leave their families, they would leave 
what they have worked their entire lives to build to go and defend our 
country. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot provide for them 
the ability to provide for their families and for themselves the health 
care they need to be ready when the time comes and we call on them.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada. For all of my colleagues listening 
to this debate, I do not think it is too much to ask for the rest of 
Americans of what we can do for those being called on more and more to 
serve this country. That is the National Guard and the Reserves.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Kansas to introduce an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 282

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to propose an amendment at the 
desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so 
I may introduce an amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would be constrained to object at this 
point because what we are doing is allowing Members to speak on their 
amendments on both sides but not actually present their amendments at 
this point. That has been what we have been doing back and forth all 
day today, as Members have come and spoken on their amendments but not 
actually sent them to the desk, with the exception of Senator Schumer 
who had an amendment on homeland security. So I am contrained to object 
at this point. The Senator is completely able to go ahead and make his 
presentation. I would have to object at this point.
  Mr. ENZI. It was my understanding that we were going to go back and 
forth on the introduction. It was our turn to have an introduction of 
an amendment. That is why we did that. We will wait for the 
introduction.
  Mr. CONRAD. We are trying to go back and forth with respect to 
speakers and with respect to the opportunity to address amendments, but 
not formally enter them at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I hope once we are able to present the amendment that 
it will be accepted. We have floated it by both sides and it has been 
vetted as well. I hope it will be accepted.
  I will be sending an amendment to the desk that will express the 
sense of Senate that a commission be established to provide a real 
means of addressing and eliminating Government waste in domestic 
agencies and programs within agencies. The Federal Government needs 
such a commission. We don't need one like the ones we have had in the 
past that don't have any teeth to them, that simply report but there is 
never a vote taken on what the commission puts forward. This one will 
be different in that respect. Indeed, at a time of economic uncertainty 
and of war, it is imperative that the Government demonstrate real 
fiscal responsibility and accountability in Federal spending. Whether 
it is corporate America or the U.S. Government, fiscal accountability 
is paramount.
  With the devastating collapses we have had in corporate America, with 
Enron and WorldCom and others last year, we have seen what happens in 
the corporate world when fiscal accountability grows lax. Let's take 
steps now to avoid the same pitfalls at the Federal Government level. 
Let us ensure public trust by opening the books of Federal domestic 
agencies and programs within agencies, making changes and reforms where 
necessary, in order to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are 
being spent wisely.
  Fiscal accountability is what my amendment to the budget resolution 
is all about. Over the years we have established many useful measuring 
sticks for fiscal accountability in Federal spending. The Government 
Performance Result Act, GPRA, comes to mind. However, what measuring 
sticks such as GPRA lack is an effective means to implement their 
useful findings. What this resolution calls for is a commission that 
would incorporate the Federal Government's existing accountability 
measuring sticks to perform additional research of its own and provide 
the Congress with legislation, which we would vote on to either accept 
or reject as a whole, to implement its recommendations or not to accept 
them.

[[Page S4064]]

  In a few days I will be reintroducing bipartisan legislation that 
creates such a commission. The bipartisan Commission on the 
Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA Act, would fulfill 
what is addressed by this resolution. It is bipartisan. Senator Miller 
from Georgia is a cosponsor, and I hope to add a number of others on 
this bill in the near term.
  I wish to speak for a minute about the CARFA Act. The CARFA Act 
provides Congress with a viable proven model to eliminate Government 
waste and inefficiency. It is modeled after the successful Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission. CARFA will incorporate the findings 
of past measuring sticks such as GPRA and will give them teeth. This 
program will focus on domestic discretionary spending. It will not be 
focused on military or entitlement programs. It is domestic 
discretionary programs. Where past commissions and reports failed in 
that they had no real means by which Congress could implement their 
findings and recommendations, CARFA will succeed.
  The scope of review called for by this resolution entails domestic 
agencies and programs within agencies. I want to emphasize that point. 
Where BRAC is already in existence and has gone through several rounds 
in rooting out waste in the Department of Defense and consolidating 
resources to make them more useful, more viable, CARFA would review 
Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies using a narrow 
set of criteria which should produce significant results and do what 
BRAC did, consolidating our dollars in more efficient uses in high-
priority areas.
  Over the proposed commission's 2-year review, the commission focused 
on two particular areas.
  One, duplicative: Where two or more agencies or programs are 
performing similar functions which can be consolidated or streamlined 
into a single agency or program, the commission would recommend that 
the agency or program be realigned. We do not need duplication within 
the Federal Government.
  Second, wasteful or inefficient: Where the commission finds an agency 
or program to have wasted Federal funds by low-priority spending, it 
would recommend that such an agency or program be realigned or 
eliminated.
  Three, outdated, irrelevant, or failed programs: We have those within 
the Federal Government. Where the commission finds that an agency or 
program has completed its intended purpose--I do not think we ever 
think about that, that a program actually completes its intended 
purpose, but it happens and we keep spending in the program--has become 
irrelevant, or has failed to meet its objectives--it was designed 
properly in the sense that the people at the time had the best of 
intentions in the design of the program, but it simply did not work to 
meet the needs at that time--and it would recommend the elimination of 
such an agency or program.
  Such a commission, upon completion of its 2-year review, would submit 
to Congress both its recommendations for the realignment and 
elimination of domestic agencies and programs, and proposed legislation 
to implement these recommendations.
  The Congress would then consider the commission's proposed 
legislation in an expedited manner, with input from the committees 
under whose jurisdiction the affected agencies or programs fall. 
Following the committee's comment period, the proposed legislation 
would be brought to the floor of each Chamber for debate and a single 
vote, up or down, without amendment, one vote.
  If we are going to get serious about priority spending during this 
critical time in our Nation's history, if we want to get the most use 
out of every taxpayer dollar that comes to Washington, such a 
commission is clearly needed.
  As in any bureaucracy, inefficiency or low-priority use of taxpayer 
dollars is often a serious threat to the credibility of an agency or a 
program, much less the legislative bodies that create and sustain them. 
We must be certain the money we spend is not just allocated in a 
certain way just because we have historically spent it that way.
  I do not know of anything that drives my constituents more nuts than 
to see wasteful Federal spending or programs that have accomplished 
their purposes but the money is still being spent. There are people who 
come up to me and say: I do not mind paying my taxes, but it drives me 
nuts to see the money poorly spent. If I am going to work hard to earn 
this money, I want it to be wisely spent. Too often there are examples 
of that not occurring.
  Priorities do change and our spending must change with them. The 
CARFA Act is crafted to take these changes into account. Whether one is 
conservative or liberal or in between, surely we can all agree that 
low-priority use of taxpayer dollars is an unacceptable strain on hard-
working Americans and on our economy. It is certainly no way to operate 
a business. Yet I feel, as do many of my colleagues, that we 
continually fail to get the most out of every taxpayer dollar that 
comes to Washington.

  Let's change that. CARFA is about maximizing the benefit of all 
Federal funds. Funds saved through this legislation could be used to 
pay down the national debt or be channeled to higher congressional 
priorities.
  It is my hope this body will agree to this amendment and then proceed 
to consider and enact the CARFA Act. Truly, this will provide a real 
tool at the service of the Federal Government to better prioritize 
spending and shift funds from less beneficial to more beneficial areas. 
All of us surely support such a move.
  I believe Americans would greatly benefit from such a commission 
which has the real potential to help us truly root out inefficiency in 
the Federal Government in such a way that we can more fully realize the 
benefits of all Federal funds. That is the spirit of this amendment and 
the CARFA Act.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, to vote for this 
amendment, to adopt it as part of the budget resolution and to show 
support for the CARFA Act of 2003 by becoming original cosponsors of 
this important legislation.
  Mr. President, as we debate the budget, this is exactly what we need 
to be doing: Finding ways we can prioritize and make sure our spending 
is efficient.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as such time I am allowed to offer an 
amendment, I intend to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and 
Senator Corzine. This is an amendment I actually offered in the Budget 
Committee. I thought we had a good debate on it. It goes to the heart 
of what is happening at this moment on which so many Americans are 
focusing and on which so many people in the world are focusing.
  This Nation has gone to war with Iraq. Our thoughts are first and 
foremost with the men and women who serve our country in the Armed 
Forces. While we debated the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, and I 
personally have questioned whether it is a good idea, there can be no 
debate or doubt about the dedication of our troops and devotion to our 
country or the honor they do us through their sacrifice. We all hope in 
earnest for a speedy victory and for the safe and quick return of those 
men and women.
  If we fail to prepare in this budget for the fact of this war in 
Iraq, we will be engaging in wishful thinking. Worse, we will be 
failing to think at all. The notion that this budget does not provide 
anything for this enormous undertaking that is occurring is really 
troubling and really is not what you can call honest budgeting.
  I will concede no one is really certain how much the war with Iraq 
will actually cost, but we can be certain this war will be far from 
free. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the President's 
former adviser for economic policy, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated the 
cost of the war would be $100 billion to $200 billion. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates, the initial deployment of troops 
and equipment would cost about $14 billion; the first month of combat 
would cost $10 billion, and then with each subsequent month of combat 
costing $8 billion per month. To return troops and

[[Page S4065]]

equipment to their home bases after the war some people believe would 
cost $9 billion, and any postwar occupation of Iraq would cost between 
$1 billion and $4 billion, Mr. President, per month--per month.
  Using CBO's figures, if we make some ballpark assumptions that active 
military combat will last for 2\1/2\ months and that the following 
reconstruction and occupation would last another 2 years, we are 
talking about something between $69 billion and $141 billion.
  The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that the 
cost of combat from 1 to 6 months would be $18 billion to $85 billion, 
and the cost of reconstruction for 5 years would range from $25 billion 
to $105 billion. Adding all the potential costs identified by the 
center, it would lead to total cost estimates ranging on the low end 
from $129 billion to $683 billion on the high end.
  Plainly, we are talking about a major enterprise, and obviously it is 
one for which we should budget.
  The amendment I offer on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from 
New Jersey will create a reserve fund to set aside $100 billion.
  That is an amount well within the range of the available estimates I 
was highlighting in order to fund this military action and 
reconstruction in Iraq. We pay for this action by reducing the amount 
that we would budget for cutting taxes in the period covered by the 
budget resolution--a simple proposition. The amount of $100 billion 
would be put in a reserve fund so we can honestly estimate a budget for 
the war in Iraq, and that would come out of the tax cut that is 
contemplated.
  When we are conducting a war, the budget must reflect it. We cannot 
blithely go along as if this were a time for business as usual. We 
should budget responsibly for what is happening right before our eyes.
  When I am able to actually offer this amendment, I will strongly urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment. The American people will be 
extremely supportive, obviously, of our troops in this effort as it is 
conducted. What they will not understand, though, is if we pretend that 
this will cost nothing, that we will pass a budget in the midst of this 
war effort pretending that the war in Iraq will not be an expensive 
proposition. We owe them that. We owe them honesty at this historical 
and very significant moment, and we must set aside a reasonable 
estimate of funds to cover the cost of this enormous undertaking.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. President, I explained earlier why the emergency supplemental was 
not a part of the regular budget process. I want to share one paragraph 
from a CRS report:

       Based on an examination of previous CRS reviews of funding 
     for wars and other major military operations, it appears, 
     with one possible exception, that Presidents have not 
     requested and Congress has not provided funding for wars in 
     advance of the start of operations. Rather, administrations 
     have requested funding after operations have begun and 
     Congress has subsequently appropriated money to meet specific 
     documented budget requirements.

  I yield the floor, reserving the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds to respond to the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in response to the Senator's remarks, 
the reason these wars were not budgeted for in the past is that they 
were obviously not foreseen. They occurred after the budget resolution 
occurred. We have known about this war and the imminent reality of it 
for some time. We are actually seeing it undertaken as we speak, and we 
are doing the budget resolution right now. There simply is no hard and 
fast rule against being honest in budgeting. That is all we are calling 
for, and this is an appropriate occasion when we can and should budget 
for the war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Wisconsin. I 
think it is absolutely bizarre that we have the budget before us and we 
have nothing to pay for the war in that budget. The reason given was 
that operations had not commenced. Well, operations have commenced. And 
not to set aside funds for the war makes no earthly sense. How can that 
possibly be defended? We are at war. We have already spent tens of 
billions of dollars on that conflict, and now to suggest we put our 
head in the sand and say there is nothing going on defies reality, 
defies common sense.
  I very much hope the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin is 
adopted.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from the State of Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, America is at war. Our priority must be 
to keep America and Americans safe, both at home and abroad. I look 
forward to supporting a supplemental budget to pay for the war and to 
pay for homeland security, and I also voted to reserve the money to do 
that. That is why I supported the ``patriotic pause'' that said no tax 
cuts until we know the cost of the war.
  We know Americans are fighting overseas. The U.S. military should 
know they have the entire Nation behind them to make sure they have the 
best weapons, the best strategies, and the best support for their 
families while they are overseas. We also stand up for what America 
stands for. That means strengthening the safety net for those who need 
it the most. That means standing up for America's families.
  We also need to recognize that families are hurting. We have a weak 
economy. People are going into debt to put their kids through school; 
affordable health insurance. Some families are facing extraordinary 
challenges because they care for a loved one who has a chronic 
condition: a parent with Alzheimer's, a child with autism, a son with 
cerebral palsy, a spouse with multiple sclerosis.
  These families struggle every day to take care of their loved ones. 
They face a tremendous emotional and financial burden. It is not the 
job of the Federal Government to help them with their emotional burden, 
but I believe it is the job of the United States of America to help 
them with their financial responsibility. For those who are giving 
care, I believe we should give care. I want to give help to those who 
practice self-help.
  Therefore, I will be offering an amendment to provide a tax credit 
for up to $5,000 for family caregivers, or those needing care who have 
caregiving expenses. This would cost $3.5 billion a year. My tax credit 
would pay for the prescription drugs, medical bills, or medical 
management for juvenile diabetics, the medical bills, or other care 
needed if a person has someone they are caring for with Parkinson's 
disease. My amendment would help people with multiple chronic 
conditions. We are not talking about hay fever, though that is 
disruptive. We are talking about juvenile diabetes. We are talking 
about autism. We are talking about multiple sclerosis, people who are 
unable to perform their activities of daily living, who are severely 
cognitively impaired, or children with such complex medical conditions 
they require medical management and coordination of care.
  Why is this needed? Well, in 2000, over 125 million people had 
chronic conditions. One in five Americans have multiple chronic 
conditions. Eighteen million children in this country have chronic 
physical, developmental, or other conditions that impede their ability 
to live full lives. Almost 4 million Americans have mental retardation 
or another severe developmental disability. If the work of family 
caregivers was replaced with paid services, it would cost the Federal 
Government close to $200 billion a year.
  Family caregivers face many demands, emotional, physical, and 
financial stress. They have stresses with their families, with their 
marriage, the stress of 36-hour days. They pay the high cost of 
medication, physical therapy, durable medical equipment such as 
wheelchairs, daycare for children with special needs, and medical bills 
from care with specialists.
  People with serious chronic conditions pay for their health care by 
either making gradual medical payments over time or using money from 
savings, mutual funds, or other assets.

[[Page S4066]]

  Families struggle to make ends meet. Let me give an example. A woman 
in Potomac, MD, was caring for her husband who had a debilitating 
neurological disease. There was no treatment or cure. Her husband could 
no longer talk, walk, or feed himself. The family received no financial 
help. She worked full time to support his full-time home care. She 
herself is in her early 60s. She sure could have used that tax credit.
  Or as the mother of two children in Parkville, MD, one of her 
children is a 4-year-old boy with autism. This family has relied on 
volunteers from local colleges to assist with respite care for their 
son. This mother has not been able to return to work because of the 
amount of time needed to care for her two young children. She has two 
masters degrees in education.
  Or like the Maryland woman who cared for a parent with Alzhemer's 
disease who worked 25 hours per week to pay someone to care for her 
mother while she worked to have health insurance for herself; saw her 
own income go from a high of $40,000 a year to a low of $6,000 a year. 
A tax credit could have helped her with home health care and respite 
care for her mother.
  I think my amendment speaks for itself, but I try to speak for the 
families where we need to give help to those who are practicing self-
help.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations supporting this 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Who supports BAM's Amendment:
       Autism Society of America, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 
     National Organization for Rare Disorders, Easter Seals, 
     United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Arc of the United States, 
     National Health Council, National Council on the Aging, 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America, Family Voices, National 
     Respite Coalition, National Family Caregivers Association, 
     and the National Alliance for Caregiving.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. One of my first milestones in the Senate was the 
enactment of the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act to change the cruel 
rules of Medicaid so that families would not have to go bankrupt before 
Medicaid would pay for nursing home care for a spouse. The spouse 
living in the community could keep the family home, keep a car, and 
keep some income each month to live on. This has helped one million 
people.
  But this was a down payment. Not much has been done since then except 
the National Family Caregiver Support Program and long-term care 
insurance for Federal employees. I was proud to sponsor and work on 
both of these important measures and a bipartisan basis to get them 
signed into law.
  Now it is time to make the family caregivers who are the backbone of 
the long term care system in this country a priority in the Federal law 
books and the tax code.
  I urge my colleagues to get behind our Nation's family caregivers and 
vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her 
excellent amendment. We appreciate very much her presentation and the 
thoughtfulness and the energy that she has put into this amendment. I 
hope my colleagues will pay close attention to what she has offered.
  Next, I am going to yield 30 minutes to the senior Senator from South 
Carolina. Let me say that if there was an award in this body for Mr. 
Fiscal Responsibility, it would be the senior Senator from South 
Carolina. In the time I have been in the Senate, nobody has been more 
serious, more dedicated to balancing budgets, to paying down debt than 
the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the leader from North Dakota. He 
has led our Budget Committee and done an outstanding job. The kudos 
belong to him for fiscal responsibility, and the responsibility in the 
position he has as the ranking member, to try to get the group together 
on a consensus, which is next to impossible, but he does the job.
  I have three amendments at the desk, and I understand we are not 
introducing amendments, so I will address hastily comments on all 
three.
  The first, of course, is the port security amendment for $1 billion a 
year for 2 years. It is focused, not Pepto-Bismol homeland security of 
$80 billion over 10-some years. I have talked to Senators on both sides 
of the aisle. They want to finance what we passed unanimously--all 100 
Senators--earlier last year for port security.
  Right to the point, Osama owns several vessels. His teams landed and 
blew up the Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. His crews were on 
planes flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He could 
just as easily have two or three crews get on an Exxon tanker going up 
the Delaware River to deliver a tankerful of oil, throw the captain 
overboard and that tanker aground, and that would close down the 
eastern seaboard for at least 1 year.
  I could go into it, but the amendment is worked out and in detail. I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the details of the 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Hollings Seaport Security Amendment to the Budget Resolution

       Amendment would add one billion annually, over the next two 
     years, to the Federal Budget. The one billion will be spent 
     as follows:

     Maritime Administration (610 million):
       450 million--for grants to ports and waterfront facilities 
     to help ensure compliance with federally approved security 
     plans.
       150 million--for grants to states, local municipalities and 
     other entities to help comply with Federal area security 
     plans and to provide grants to responders for port security 
     contingency response.
       10 million--to be used in conjunction with the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center to help develop a seaport 
     security training curriculum to provide training to Federal 
     and State law enforcement personnel, and to certify private 
     security personnel working at seaports.
     Coast Guard (160 million):
       50 million--for port security assessments.
       50 million--for the establishment and operation of multi-
     agency task force to coordinate and evaluate maritime 
     information in order to identify and respond to security 
     threats.
       40 million--to help implement the Automated Identification 
     System (AIS) and other tracking systems designed to actively 
     track and monitor vessels operating in U.S. waters.
       20 million--for additional Coast Guard port security 
     vessels.
     The Border and Transportation Security Directorate (230 
     million):
       100 million--to Customs for the installation of screening 
     equipment, and to be used to help develop new technologies to 
     help develop and prototype screening and detection equipment 
     at U.S. ports.
       100 million--to TSA and Customs; 50 million each, to 
     evaluate and implement cargo security programs.
       30 million--for the Transportation Security Administration 
     (TSA) to develop and implement the Transportation Worker ID 
     Card, and to conduct criminal background checks of 
     transportation workers who work in secure areas or who work 
     with sensitive cargo or information.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguish Chair.
  The second concerns paying for the war. At the very beginning of this 
session, the first week of January, I introduced a bill to pay for the 
war in Iraq. I read a book about the fiscal dilemmas we faced each time 
there was a war, and I say to my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, 
each time our leaders paid for the war. During the Civil War they put a 
tax on dividends. The party of Lincoln did that. In World War I, they 
went up to a 77 percent marginal tax rate to pay for that war; in World 
War II, a 94 percent rate; in the Korean war, 91 percent. In Vietnam--
that is when President Johnson, who has been abused in history but he 
is the one who wanted to pay for guns and butter--he balanced the 
budget, paying for both guns and butter, in 1968 to 1969. That was the 
last time in the history of this Congress we balanced the budget. We 
paid for the war in Vietnam.
  Now, of course, we come to the war on Iraq. Unlike the Civil War 
where we had put taxes on dividends, here, there is no tomorrow; like 
drunken sailors, we come up to this chamber and say we are not going to 
pay for the war.
  My particular measure on the desk is a reserve fund of $100 billion. 
Larry Lindsey, the President's former chief economic advisor, said the 
war will cost between $100 and $200 billion, but that is up to the 
Finance Committee to figure out. You have to put your money where your 
mouth is. I think a better way to pay is with new money. We cannot just 
forgo this program or that program. We need a value-added tax of 2

[[Page S4067]]

percent dedicated to paying just for that war in Iraq. It would take 
the IRS a solid year until they fashioned the tax and we could start 
collecting it. But it is a very enforceable tax. Every industrialized 
country has had one. We had hearings before the Finance Committee back 
in the 1980s about a value-added tax. We almost adopted it then.
  We ought to get serious and get off the deficit bandwagon we are on 
now. That is what disturbs me. The Commander in Chief, the President of 
the United States, says in time of war we run deficits. Then, just the 
other day, in a speech to the nation, he said that ``Americans 
understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. 
War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.''
  The point is, we must have sacrifice; yet that is not being followed 
through, by any manner or means, with respect to paying for the war. 
Now is the time for this body to sober up and realize we are running 
horrendous deficits.
  What we have right now is the certainty of sacrifice, for everyone 
except the Commander in Chief and us in Congress. What we are saying to 
that GI going into Iraq tonight is: We hope you don't get hurt. We hope 
you don't get killed because we want you to hurry back. Why? Because we 
are going to give you the bill. We are not going to pay for the war. 
The fellow who fights the war is going to have to pay for the war 
because we need a tax cut. We are going to Disney World. We are not 
going to have any sacrifice.
  They are all running around here with flags on their lapels. So I put 
section 6 into my bill when I introduced it, which says that if members 
vote against it, they will be prohibited from wearing the flags in 
their lapels.
  Now when the President leads you to deficits by saying, in time of 
war we can run deficits, we are playing a game. He says that so in the 
election next year, you can say, ``I voted for tax cuts.'' That is our 
dilemma.
  The other side talks about the need for tax cuts so we can see 
economic growth and growth and growth; but my third amendment is to 
stop the tax cuts.
  You can see in this budget before the Senate, the only growth we have 
is in the national debt. It goes from $6.687 trillion in fiscal year 
2003, to $11.919 trillion in fiscal year 2013. It goes up, up, and away 
by $5.2 trillion. I was here when we did not even have a $1 trillion 
deficit. President Reagan started this tax cut nonsense with voodoo I, 
and we immediately had a recession. Dave Stockman wrote in his book 
``The Triumph of Politics,'' we should have canceled the tax cut in 
November 1981, and we did not. He said the President did not do what he 
should have done.
  Then we had voodoo II, the year before last, with President Bush's 
tax cut. On June 1, 2001, we had surpluses. Then we passed the tax cut, 
voodoo II, on June 8, and by July 1 we had a deficit. By September 10, 
2001--one day before September 11 we had a deficit. We were in the red 
by $99 billion, so don't blame the deficits on September 11.
  We were already in deficits, and voodoo II caused it. Now we seem to 
get no education in the third kick of a mule, so to speak. We are on 
course just for the pollsters and buying the election next year with 
more tax cuts. That is why I resist what some members are trying to do 
by cutting the tax cut down to $350 billion.
  Do you know what that means to this particular Senator? I was with 
Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman on Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and our 
particular initiative called for the reduction of the deficit each year 
by $35 billion. Here they want me to vote to increase the deficit each 
year by $35 billion for 10 years, or $350 billion.
  What will happen is we will pass it in the Senate, it will get over 
to the conference, they will fix it, it will be back up to $700 
billion-and-something. You will have the votes. You have the majority.
  I ask unanimous consent to have ``budget realities'' printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                               HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Annual
                                                            U.S. budget   Borrowed trust      Unified     Actual deficit                   increases in
                     Pres. and year                        (outlays) (in       funds       deficit with    without trust   National debt   spending for
                                                             billions)      (billions)      trust funds        funds        (billions)       interest
                                                                                            (billions)      (billions)                      (billions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
    1947................................................            34.5            -9.9             4.0           +13.9           257.1
    1948................................................            29.8             6.7            11.8            +5.1           252.0
    1949................................................            38.8             1.2             0.6            -0.6           252.6
    1950................................................            42.6             1.2            -3.1            -4.3           256.9
    1951................................................            45.5             4.5             6.1            +1.6           255.3
    1952................................................            67.7             2.3            -1.5            -3.8           259.1
Eisenhower:
    1953................................................            76.1             0.4            -6.5            -6.9           266.0
    1954................................................            70.9             3.6            -1.2            -4.8           270.8
    1955................................................            68.4             0.6            -3.0            -3.6           274.4
    1956................................................            70.6             2.2             3.9            +1.7           272.7
    1957................................................            76.6             3.0             3.4            +0.4           272.3
    1958................................................            82.4             4.6            -2.8            -7.4           279.7
    1959................................................            92.1            -5.0           -12.8            -7.8           287.5
    1960................................................            92.2             3.3             0.3            -3.0           290.5
Kennedy:
    1961................................................            97.7            -1.2            -3.3            -2.1           292.6
    1962................................................           106.8             3.2            -7.1           -10.3           302.9             9.1
Johnson:
    1963................................................           111.3             2.6            -4.8            -7.4           310.3             9.9
    1964................................................           118.5            -0.1            -5.9            -5.8           316.1            10.7
    1965................................................           118.2             4.8            -1.4            -6.2           322.3            11.3
    1966................................................           134.5             2.5            -3.7            -6.2           328.5            12.0
    1967................................................           157.5             3.3            -8.6           -11.9           340.4            13.4
    1968................................................           178.1             3.1           -25.2           -28.3           368.7            14.6
Nixon:
    1969................................................           183.6             0.3             3.2            +2.9           365.8            16.6
    1970................................................           195.6            12.3            -2.8           -15.1           380.9            19.3
    1971................................................           210.2             4.3           -23.0           -27.3           408.2            21.0
    1972................................................           230.7             4.3           -23.4           -27.7           435.9            21.8
    1973................................................           245.7            15.5           -14.9           -30.4           466.3            24.2
    1974................................................           269.4            11.5            -6.1           -17.6           483.9            29.3
Ford:
    1975................................................           332.3             4.8           -53.2           -58.0           541.9            32.7
    1976................................................           371.8            13.4           -73.7           -87.1           629.0            37.1
Carter:
    1977................................................           409.2            23.7           -53.7           -77.4           706.4            41.9
    1978................................................           458.7            11.0           -59.2           -70.2           776.6            48.7
    1979................................................           504.0            12.2           -40.7           -52.9           829.5            59.9
    1980................................................           590.9             5.8           -73.8           -79.6           909.1            74.8
Reagan:
    1981................................................           678.2             6.7           -79.0           -85.7           994.8            95.5
    1982................................................           745.8            14.5          -128.0          -142.5         1,137.3           117.2
    1983................................................           808.4            26.6          -207.8          -234.4         1,371.7           128.7
    1984................................................           851.9             7.6          -185.4          -193.0         1,564.7           153.9
    1985................................................           946.4            40.5          -212.3          -252.8         1,817.5           178.9
    1986................................................           990.5            81.9          -221.2          -303.1         2,120.6           190.3
    1987................................................         1,004.1            75.7          -149.8          -225.5         2,346.1           195.3
    1988................................................         1,064.5           100.0          -155.2          -255.2         2,601.3           214.1
Bush:
    1989................................................         1,143.7           114.2          -152.5          -266.7         2,868.3           240.9

[[Page S4068]]

 
    1990................................................         1,253.2           117.4          -221.2          -338.6         3,206.6           264.7
    1991................................................         1,324.4           122.5          -269.4          -391.9         3,598.5           285.5
    1992................................................         1,381.7           113.2          -290.4          -403.6         4,002.1           292.3
Clinton:
    1993................................................         1,409.5            94.2          -255.1          -349.3         4,351.4           292.5
    1994................................................         1,461.9            89.0          -203.3          -292.3         4,643.7           296.3
    1995................................................         1,515.8           113.3          -164.0          -277.2         4,921.0           332.4
    1996................................................         1,560.6           153.4          -107.5          -260.9         5,181.9           344.0
    1997................................................         1,601.3           165.8           -22.0          -187.8         5,369.7           355.8
    1998................................................         1,652.6           178.2            69.2          -109.0         5,478.7           363.8
    1999................................................         1,703.0           251.8           124.4          -127.4         5,606.1           353.5
    2000................................................         1,789.0           258.9           236.2           -22.7         5,628.8           362.0
Bush:
    2001................................................         1,863.9           268.2           127.1          -141.1         5,769.9           359.5
    2002................................................         2,011.0           270.7          -157.8          -428.5         6,198.4           332.5
    2003................................................         2,137.0           222.6           246.0           468.6         6,667.0           323.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government; Beginning in 1962, CBO's The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2004-2013, January 2003.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. If you take the years from 1945, from President Truman 
down through President Ford, 30 years, to 1975, you will find the 
aggregate total of all deficits at $358 billion. That is for 30 years, 
six Presidents, the cost of World War II, the cost of Korea, the cost 
of Vietnam. All throughout that and all the deficits, it was only $358 
billion. Last year the deficit was, in 1 year, $428 billion. Here in my 
hand is the President's budget. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the last page in here, page 332.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               TABLE S-14.--FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCING AND DEBT
                                            [In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Estimates
              Function                  2002   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                       actual      2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt outstanding, end of year:
    Gross Federal debt:
        Debt issued by Treasury....      6,171      6,725      7,294      7,811      8,327      8,832      9,363
        Debt issued by other                27         27         27         26         26         26         25
         agencies..................
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, gross Federal debt      6,198      6,752      7,321      7,837      8,353      8,858      9,388
    Held by:
        Debt held by Government          2,658      2,874      3,155      3,451      3,751      4,061      4,385
         accounts..................
        Debt held by the public....      3,540      3,878      4,166      4,387      4,603      4,797      5,003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. On page 332, the President projects we will have a 
deficit next year of $569 billion. He says this year we will end up 
with a $554 billion deficit. That $554 billion doesn't include the $100 
billion for Iraq. So you can see we are up around $600 or $700 billion.
  I used to say Strom Thurmond and I are home free. But I think my 
newest distinguished colleague from South Carolina will have to pay for 
it. I will not have to pay for it. I am not worried about it, and 
everything else like that. We can retire, get our pension, go on home 
and be quiet. But you cannot do it in good conscience when you come to 
Government to do the job of the people, and they trust you, they want 
you to look out for the needs of the country, not the needs of the 
campaign. That is what we are all engaged in here.
  People are giving up their lives for us, for what we believe in, for 
what we legislate, and for the command we give them to go to war. We 
ought at least to pay for the war on the one hand. And we ought to 
ensure the peace economically for our children and grandchildren, not 
by tax cuts, but somehow, somewhere, to pay for these budgets.
  I would like to get Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. I remember 
when Alan Greenspan went down with a team to President Clinton and he 
said you are going to have to raise taxes. In 1993 we raised taxes. We 
cut the spending and we raised taxes on Social Security, we raised 
taxes on gasoline, we raised taxes on the highest bracket. And we had 8 
years of the finest and strongest economy.
  Now we come here and want to sell the idea of tax cuts are going to 
give growth. We know that with $428 billion and $554 billion in 
deficits, that's really almost a trillion dollars in stimulus, and that 
is without the cost of the war. What gives here?
  We have to sober up and get off this deficit barleycorn we are 
drinking like drunken sailors around here, like there is no tomorrow, 
like we don't have to pay for the war. There is no sacrifice for us.
  We go to the schoolchildren in America and we say there is one thing 
certain about war, it is sacrifice. But then we come up with the 
pollsters and say we have to get reelected so we want to go ahead next 
year to say we cut taxes.
  So there we are. I am not for that $350 billion compromise or 
whatever it is. I admire the people who are trying to work out the 
compromise, but that is totally misleading to the American people, that 
somehow the burden is too great on estate taxes. We have had people 
come here, George Soros, Bill Gates, and the others come who are paying 
the estate taxes. They come and say don't worry about it. That is not 
really too big a burden.
  With respect to dividends, in the market in New York there is a 
dichotomy, a difference up there with respect to whether or not we 
ought to lift the taxes on dividends. But if they would talk about 
seniors, they would say senior are double taxed on their Social 
Security. I pay the tax on Social Security and when I receive the 
benefit, I pay the tax on that Social Security benefit. That is double 
taxation. Eighty percent of seniors in America depend for the major 
part of their income on Social Security. So if it's seniors we have in 
mind we want to look out for, then look out for, not the rich seniors, 
but the poor seniors, 80 percent of the seniors, because they are not 
in that top bracket that is worried about estate taxes and everything 
else of that kind.
  I really appreciate the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 
yielding me this time. I wanted to be able, in a deliberate fashion 
talk about these amendments, because when we get to that 1 minute a 
side rule I will not be able to.

  I have a very judicious amendment on port security, where we would 
just fund it for 2 years. We voted 100 to nothing, all Republicans and 
all Democrats, with respect to port security.
  I think we ought to pay for the war. We are not raising the taxes 
here and we are not telling them how to do it in the Finance Committee. 
The Budget Committee can't do that. But we can do the amount. And I 
think we ought not to have any more tax cuts.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota, with my gratitude. I appreciate it very much.

[[Page S4069]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the senior Senator from South Carolina for his 
leadership. One of the people who inspired me to run for the Senate was 
the Senator from South Carolina. I don't think I have ever told the 
Senator that. But when the Senator from South Carolina was running for 
President of the United States, our former Governor, Bill Guy, endorsed 
Senator Hollings.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My friend.
  Mr. CONRAD. Bill Guy was a very close friend of my family and 
somebody who has been a mentor to me in public service.
  Bill Guy was a balanced budget Democrat. He believed in balanced 
budgets and he believed in fiscal responsibility. He was proud to stand 
with the Senator from South Carolina during that time of dramatically 
rising deficits. To him it was a threat to the economic security of the 
country and he thought the Senator from South Carolina had the best 
plan.
  I think if anybody looks back objectively at that time, one will see 
in fact the Senator from South Carolina did have the best plan. If it 
had been adopted at the time we would have avoided much of the debt now 
facing the country.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished Senator will yield, I really am 
grateful to him. The truth is, more than a balanced budget, we need 
balanced Senators. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is just 
that. He has that even temper in how he approached it, and therefore 
has been far more effective because I have been wailing and crying 
without effect for years. But I will continue on, trying my best, thank 
you very much.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. And I can only say, I have been 
completely ineffective at stopping what I think is a rush to deficits 
and debt and, ultimately, decline.
  I believe it is profoundly wrong--profoundly wrong--to run up these 
budget deficits. Unfortunately, the budget that the President of the 
United States sent to us and the budget that has come out of the 
committee will dramatically increase our budget deficits.
  As the Senator has indicated, we are going to have a deficit, if the 
President's budget is adopted, of over $500 billion this year and will 
never have a budget deficit below $400 billion any year for the rest of 
this decade under the budget the President sent us. Under the budget 
that has come out of the committee, we will never have a deficit under 
$300 billion.
  On this chart is the President's budget. One can see we have red ink 
as far as the eye can see, over $500 billion this year, over $400 
billion in every year for the rest of this decade.
  Here is what happens to the gross Federal debt. The gross Federal 
debt is going to go from $6 trillion, in 2002, and is going to reach 
$12 trillion by the end of this budget period. That is the consequence 
of the President's budget.
  What I think should sober us all is that the cost of the President's 
tax cuts explodes at exactly the time the cost to the Federal 
Government of the retirement of the baby boom generation explodes--
deficits and debt.
  These are not my projections. These are official reports of the 
Congressional Budget Office and the President's own budget documents.
  Here is the President's own budget document as shown right here. This 
is the long-term outlook if the President's policies are adopted. It 
shows that we are in the sweet spot now. This is where we are now. And 
although these are record deficits, the biggest in dollar terms we have 
ever had, if we adopt his policies, it is going to get much worse 
because, as I indicated, the cost of his tax cuts explodes at the very 
time the cost of the retirement of the baby boom generation explodes.
  That is not a projection. We know baby boomers have been born. They 
are alive today. They are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. 
There are going to be 77 million of them--about double the number we 
have eligible today. That is what we face as a consequence of this 
budget. I think it will be a significant mistake.
  I want to, for a moment, discuss an amendment I will be offering for 
our colleagues to deal with the promise the Federal Government made on 
IDEA; that is, the Individuals With Disabilities Act. We made a promise 
to local governments that the Federal Government would fund 40 percent 
of the cost. It was a promise we have never kept. As a result, property 
taxes are higher in every jurisdiction of America.
  I will offer an amendment to keep the promise of IDEA, and to pay for 
it, and to pay for it by reducing the tax cuts that are part of this 
legislation.
  The legislation before us has $1.4 trillion in tax cuts. The 
associated interest costs another almost $300 billion. So the total 
cost of this tax cut, in this measure, is $1.7 trillion. The 
legislation I will offer to keep the promise on IDEA is a fraction of 
that, a small fraction of that--around $70 billion over the next 10 
years.
  The Federal Government made a promise, when the legislation was 
adopted, that we would fund 40 percent of the cost. My colleagues know 
that we are only doing about half as much as we promised.

  What does that mean? That means the local districts get stuck with 
the bill. That means pressure is put on local property taxes. In my own 
State, now the annual property tax is about 2.5 percent of the value of 
the property. That is a very burdensome tax. In part, it is a result of 
our not keeping a promise and shoving the burden off on local school 
districts. That is not something we should do. If we make a commitment, 
we ought to keep it.
  I am going to give our colleagues a chance to keep the promise that 
was made on IDEA, and to fund it out of the tax cut. We are still 
operating under an agreement in which we are discussing amendments but 
not sending them to the desk at this point. We will do that at an 
appropriate time. But I wanted to alert my colleagues that I am going 
to offer an amendment on IDEA. I am going to offer it in a way that is 
paid for. I am going to offer it in a way that is not at the top end of 
the range, by any means. It is going to have a cost of between $70 and 
$80 billion over 10 years. We will pay for it by reducing the $1.4 
trillion tax cut.
  A budget is about choices. A budget is about priorities. I believe 
that ought to be a priority for this body and for this country. I 
believe we ought to keep the promise that was made to local school 
districts when the legislation was passed. I believe we ought to 
rejigger the priorities of the budget resolution that is before us, 
reduce the size of the tax cut, keep the promise of IDEA, and take 
pressure off local property taxes because that is exactly where the 
burden is borne when the Federal Government does not keep its promise.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the 
Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I share Senator Conrad's desire that we 
do more for IDEA. Under President Bush, we have done more than ever. We 
also need reform of IDEA. If we listen to our teachers, principals, and 
school people, they will tell us that the Federal laws are driving them 
crazy, undermining their ability to discipline. We need some reform at 
the same time we put in some additional money. We have a chance to do 
that this year.
  What I want to express my concern about is this manufactured issue 
about the supplemental and that we cannot proceed with our budget 
without knowing what the supplemental is going to be. We have a budget 
law that says we have to have this done by April 15. We cannot sit 
around here and wait forever.
  I would just like to remind everybody how we got here.
  Last fall, in this body and the House--we voted 77 to 23 in this 
Senate to authorize the President of the United States to use force, if 
he deemed fit, to protect the security of the United States.
  After great care and every option being pursued, the President has 
concluded that we should use force. I am not aware that a single one of 
those 77 Senators wishes to change their vote.
  I also note that at that time the Democrats controlled this body. And 
at that time, while we voted to authorize the President to act, we 
debated the

[[Page S4070]]

cost. We talked about the cost a great deal. People had all kinds of 
ideas about the cost. And when we voted to authorize him to act, we 
knew there would be a cost.
  We also knew our budget was not in balance and the effect of the war 
would be to exacerbate the debt that we had. Nobody had any doubt about 
that. Nobody has any doubt about that today.
  In the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, we voted to 
proceed with an authorization bill. We will have an authorization bill 
that sets our spending criteria for next year, with a limit that we 
pass here. We are going to have a nice increase in the baseline for 
defense next year, with far greater increases than ever occurred under 
President Clinton and the Democratic leadership here. Suggesting we are 
not doing enough for defense--we are having a nice, solid, significant 
increase. I wish it could be more. In our circumstances, it is the best 
we can do.
  So we know we are going to fund the budget. We are going to fund this 
war. And we know how we are going to do it; and that is, by a 
supplemental.
  Now, for example, Turkey is still waffling around, to some degree, 
about whether or not we can come through there in pursuing this war.
  There are a lot of uncertainties out there. It is not fair to expect 
that the President can walk in here today and give us an accurate total 
about how much this war is going to cost. We certainly ought not to 
fail to meet our April 15 deadline of passing a budget based on that 
objection. We are going to fund this war, and we should fund this war 
completely. We are going to do it by a supplemental. Everybody knows 
it. It is nothing more than a delaying tactic for them to claim that we 
should not proceed with the budget until the supplemental is done.
  In fact, who knows, we could have a supplemental even after the war 
is over, but we probably need it sooner so we can make sure our funding 
stream continues apace.
  Historically, we have never budgeted the cost of a war. The 
Congressional Research Service has done a report. They report:

       Presidents have not requested and Congress has not approved 
     funding for wars in advance of the start of operations. 
     Rather, administrations have requested funding after the 
     operations have begun, and Congress has subsequently 
     appropriated money to meet the specific documented budgetary 
     requirements.

  It goes on to say:

       Congress has provided the executive branch with 
     considerable flexibility in financing military operations in 
     advance of specific congressional action on appropriations.

  So this is just an excuse. This is just a political gimmick that we 
know is going on. We know this supplemental is going to be significant. 
We have known that from the very beginning. I don't believe we ought to 
be deterred from completing our statutorily required duty, and that is 
to produce a budget waiting on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a little later this afternoon we will 
consider a resolution supporting the men and women in uniform waging 
the war with Iraq. Many Members will come and express their sentiments. 
It is appropriate, and this is the right moment to do it. When the 
first shot is fired, the political debate should start to take a back 
seat to our solidarity and commitment to standing behind these men and 
women who have their lives on the line. We hope this conflict is short 
lived, that it is successful, and that they come home safe with their 
mission accomplished. Our thoughts and prayers are not only with them 
but with the innocent people of Iraq, many of whom have been victims of 
the terrorism of Saddam Hussein and his repressive regime.
  There is another part of this conflict that needs to be addressed. We 
will also stand with the President, with the administration to provide 
the money that is necessary to wage the war. There is no doubt about 
that. This Congress will vote to give the men and women the resources 
they need to come home safely and quickly. Of course, the question 
posed to us is, How will you pay for it?
  It is ironic that we are debating a budget resolution today that 
contains zero for the war in Iraq. I am sure many people are puzzled 
when they step back and reflect. We have known the troop buildup was 
expensive. We know the war itself is expensive, perhaps the cost of 
occupation afterwards. Why don't we budget for this? Why don't we plan 
for it? Some have said: We don't appropriate money for possibilities. 
We appropriate money for real needs.
  This is a real need. We have to be honest. We have allies in this 
effort, primarily Great Britain, but there aren't many countries, if 
any, coming forward with troops in the field or money to pay for the 
cost of this undertaking. That is why I come today in support of an 
amendment which will be offered later by Senator Russ Feingold of 
Wisconsin. It is an important amendment because basically what Senator 
Feingold is saying is, over the next 10 years we will be setting aside 
$10 billion a year to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq; $100 billion 
is not an unreasonable pricetag. The lowest pricetag we have had for 
the war is about $26 billion, and the most expensive is way beyond 
Senator Feingold's suggested amendment.
  I am not suggesting we won't appropriate this money; we will. But we 
should at this point do not only the patriotic thing but the 
responsible thing and set aside the money we will need to pay for the 
war.
  If we don't, I can tell you what is going to happen. It is going to 
go into a tax cut proposed by the President for the wealthiest people 
in this country. What is more important, that we meet our obligation to 
our men and women in uniform not just with rhetoric but with a pledge 
of money to pay for the resources they need to win or that we provide a 
tax cut for the wealthiest people in America? That should not even be a 
choice at this moment.
  We have to remember we are spending about $700 million a month right 
now on the war on terrorism. I commend the efforts of the Senator from 
Alaska, Mr. Stevens, during the Clinton administration to have the 
Defense Department budget for ongoing contingencies such as the 
conflict in Bosnia and the no-fly zones in Iraq. These were ongoing 
conflicts with expected costs that were not budgeted, and the Senator 
from Alaska insisted on honest budgeting. That is what the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, is insisting today.
  The administration may send up a supplemental appropriation bill as 
early as next week. That really begs the question, Why does the White 
House refuse to send up estimates of the cost of the war this week and 
insist that we pass this budget resolution without one penny for the 
war in Iraq?
  To a lot of people who are watching the debate, this may seem like 
some procedural hassle over accounting techniques. It is more. If we 
don't set aside the funds for the war in Iraq, those funds will come 
out of programs for education and health care and critical domestic 
needs. I will support the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin, but 
I hope all those who stand in solidarity with America's troops in Iraq 
will also stand in solidarity when it comes to honest budgeting to pay 
for the cost of the war so that our men and women in uniform can be 
successful and come home safely and as quickly as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, would the Senator mind if Senator 
Brownback sent his amendment to the desk? He was ready to offer the 
amendment last night and did not. He has already spoken on the 
amendment. We

[[Page S4071]]

agreed to allow Senator Schumer to send his amendment to the desk. Can 
we send his amendment to the desk?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would if we can get agreement to send Senator 
Feingold's amendment as well.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have not looked at it. Let me look at his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Why don't we do that, and if we can get agreement on 
that, we will be happy to agree to Senator Brownback sending his 
amendment to the desk as well.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Brownback has an amendment. I 
believe it is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent we set aside the 
pending amendment for consideration of the Brownback amendment, and 
following that, I ask consent to set aside the Brownback amendment to 
have the Feingold amendment be considered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, what will that do to the 
sequence of votes? We would not want the Schumer amendment to lose its 
position; that we would vote on that prior to the Brownback amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct. There is also a Cochran amendment that 
will be offered as an alternative to the Schumer amendment. I would 
like to have that voted on adjacent to the Schumer amendment, but we 
have not sent that to the desk yet. The Schumer amendment is in the 
queue. This would put the Brownback amendment in the queue, and it 
would also put the Feingold amendment in the queue.
  At some point, I will be asking consent for Senator Cochran's 
amendment, and I will ask consent to have it considered adjacent to the 
Schumer amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Fair enough.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the time being, I am asking consent for the 
Brownback amendment to be considered and then the Feingold amendment. I 
understand from the Parliamentarian he has two amendments. I am not 
sure which one the Senator requested to be sent to the desk.
  Mr. CONRAD. It would be the amendment which Senator Feingold 
discussed, which is the amendment for a $100 billion war reserve fund 
so that the war is paid for and the resources are available in this 
budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 282

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Brownback amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself, Mr. 
     Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Cornyn, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 282.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that a commission be 
       established to review the efficiency of Federal agencies)

       On page 79, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 308. FEDERAL AGENCY REVIEW COMMISSION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that a commission should be 
     established to review Federal domestic agencies, and programs 
     within such agencies, with the express purpose of providing 
     Congress with recommendations, and legislation to implement 
     those recommendations, to realign or eliminate government 
     agencies and programs that are duplicative, wasteful, 
     inefficient, outdated, or irrelevant, or have failed to 
     accomplish their intended purpose.


                           Amendment No. 270

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will now report the Feingold 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and 
     Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 270.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: to set aside a reserve fund for possible military action and 
                        reconsturction in Iraq)

       (a) Federal Revenues.--
       (1) On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (2) On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (3) On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (4) On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (5) On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (6) On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (7) On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (8) On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (9) On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $10 billion; 
     and
       (10) On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $10 
     billion.
       (b) Amounts by Which Revenues Should Be Changed.--
       (1) On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (2) On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (3) On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (4) On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (5) On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (6) On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (7) On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (8) On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $10 billion;
       (9) On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $10 billion; 
     and
       (10) On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $10 
     billion.
       (c) New budget Authority.--
       (1) On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $181,000,000;
       (2) On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by 
     $713,000,000;
       (3) On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $1,329,000,000;
       (4) On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $1,973,000,000;
       (5) On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $2,627,000,000;
       (6) On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by 
     $3,320,000,000;
       (7) On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $4,052,000,000;
       (8) On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $4,816,000,000;
       (9) On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $5,619,000,000; and
       (10) On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $6,465,000,000.
       (d) Budget Outlays.--
       (1) On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $181,000,000;
       (2) On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $713,000,000;
       (3) On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by 
     $1,329,000,000;
       (4) On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by 
     $1,973,000,000;
       (5) On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by 
     $2,627,000,000;
       (6) On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $3,320,000,000;
       (7) On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $4,052,000,000;
       (8) On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $4,816,000,000;
       (9) On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $5,619,000,000; and
       (10) On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $6,465,000,000.
       (e) Deficits.--
       (1) On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $10,181,000,000;
       (2) On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $10,713,000,000;
       (3) On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 
     $11,329,000,000;
       (4) On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 
     $11,973,000,000;
       (5) On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by 
     $12,627,000,000;
       (6) On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by 
     $13,320,000,000;
       (7) On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $14,052,000,000;
       (8) On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by 
     $14,816,000,000;
       (9) On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by 
     $15,619,000,000; and
       (10) On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by 
     $16,465,000,000.
       (f) Public Debt.--
       (1) On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by 
     $10,181,000,000;
       (2) On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by 
     $20,894,000,000;
       (3) On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by 
     $32,223,000,000;
       (4) On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by 
     $44,196,000,000;
       (5) On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $56,823,000,000;
       (6) On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $70,143,000,000;
       (7) On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $84,195,000,000;
       (8) On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $99,011,000,000;
       (9) On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $114,630,000,000; and
       (10) On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $131,095,000,000.
       (g) Debt Held by the Public.--
       (1) On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $10,181,000,000;
       (2) On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by 
     $20,894,000,000;
       (3) On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $32,223,000,000;
       (4) On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $44,196,000,000;
       (5) On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $56,823,000,000;
       (6) On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $70,143,000,000;
       (7) On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $84,195,000,000;
       (8) On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by 
     $99,011,000,000;

[[Page S4072]]

       (9) On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by 
     $114,630,000,000; and
       (10) On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by 
     $131,095,000,000.
       (h) Net Interest.--
       (1) On page 40, line 6, decrease the amount by 
     $181,000,000;
       (2) On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by 
     $181,000,000;
       (3) On page 40, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $713,000,000;
       (4) On page 40, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $713,000,000;
       (5) On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $1,329,000,000;
       (6) On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $1,329,000,000;
       (7) On page 40, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $1,973,000,000;
       (8) On page 40, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $1,973,000,000;
       (9) On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $2,627,000,000;
       (10) On page 40, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $2,627,000,000;
       (11) On page 41, line 2, decrease the amount by 
     $3,320,000,000;
       (12) On page 41, line 3, decrease the amount by 
     $3,320,000,000;
       (13) On page 41, line 6, decrease the amount by 
     $4,052,000,000;
       (14) On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by 
     $4,052,000,000;
       (15) On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $4,816,000,000;
       (16) On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $4,816,000,000;
       (17) On page 41, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $5,619,000,000;
       (18) On page 41, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $5,619,000,000;
       (19) On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $6,465,000,000; and
       (20) On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $6,465,000,000.
       (i) Reconciliation in the Senate.--On page 45, line 24, 
     decrease the amount by $100 billion.
       (j) Reserve Fund.--At the appropriate place, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.  . RESERVE FUND FOR POSSIBLE MILITARY ACTION AND 
                   RECONSTRUCTION IN IRAQ.

       (a) In General.--Upon the favorable reporting of 
     legislation by the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     making discretionary appropriations in excess of the levels 
     assumed in this resolution for expenses for possible military 
     action and reconstruction in Iraq in fiscal years 2003 
     through 2013, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may, 
     in consultation with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     appropriate committee, revise the level of total new budget 
     authority and outlays, the functional totals, allocations, 
     discretionary spending limits, and levels of deficits and 
     debt in this resolution by up to $100 billion in budget 
     authority and outlays.
       (b) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (c) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (d) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate; and
       (2) the Chairman of that Committee may make any other 
     necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this 
     resolution.

  Mr. NICKLES. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time----
  Mr. CONRAD. What was that last request, if I can inquire? I missed 
that last request.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am inquiring how much time I have left on the 
resolution.
  Mr. CONRAD. Before that.
  Mr. NICKLES. I asked that the reading of the amendment be dispensed 
with.
  Mr. CONRAD. Both have been dispensed with?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Both amendments are pending.
  Mr. NICKLES. We set aside the Brownback amendment, and now the 
Feingold amendment is the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, I inquire of the Parliamentarian, how much time do I 
have remaining on the resolution?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five hours and 45 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield back the remainder of my time on the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is yielded back.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think it is good we have a few more 
amendments in the queue. I ask Senator Nickles and the staff to review 
the other amendments and maybe we can get those lined up. We will 
improve the operations if we can get those lined up. I thank the 
chairman for his courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first, there has now been agreement on a 
resolution with respect to Iraq. At least we had a caucus and there is 
agreement on the wording of the resolution. I hope very much we get on 
with that sometime soon.
  I personally think it is surrealistic to be talking about other 
issues and not talking about Iraq. I hope when we get on to the 
discussion of the war with Iraq, not for the purpose of delay, because 
we could dispense with that discussion hopefully throughout the day and 
perhaps tomorrow morning go back to the budget and complete the budget 
by early next week, which is long in advance of when we need to finish 
it, but to have our country at war and not be discussing that when the 
resolution has now been completed strikes many of us as incongruous.
  With that said, we are still on the budget. Let me go to the question 
of the amendment I have already announced I will send to the desk.
  The amendment I will be offering is on funding IDEA. We see that in 
2002 and 2003, we enacted $2.5 billion. Full funding for that period 
would be $24.4 billion. When we say ``full funding,'' that is not 
really full funding. That is funding the commitment the Federal 
Government made to provide 40 percent of the cost of that legislation, 
a commitment that we have never kept. As a result, we forced up local 
property taxes all across the country.
  The budget that has come before us in 2002 is far short of meeting 
the Federal commitment in 2003 and in 2004.
  The chairman of the committee has indicated they increased IDEA--and 
they did, that is absolutely correct--by $1 billion. That is a move in 
the right direction, and we applaud it. But we are still so far below 
what we promised when we passed the legislation. I say to my 
colleagues, when the Federal Government tells the States and all these 
local units all across the country, we are passing this legislation and 
as part of the bargain we will fund 40 percent of it--40 percent--and 
then we never come anywhere close, that is not a good way for the 
Federal Government to do business. That damages our credibility and it 
also forces local jurisdictions to raise local property taxes.

  The budget we have before us on education is the smallest increase we 
have seen in 8 years. There are increases, absolutely; that is true. 
There is an increase. Our colleagues on the other side like to 
concentrate on those areas that have increases. They often do not say 
they have funded many of those increases with corresponding cuts. The 
overall increase is $1.1 billion, and that is by far the lowest 
increase for education in 8 years.
  My own strong belief is education is the priority. After defending 
the Nation, which is our No. 1 priority--that is our No. 1 
responsibility--I believe education is right at the head of the line. 
Maybe I believe that because I was raised by my grandparents.
  My grandmother was a schoolteacher, and my grandfather, who only had 
an eighth grade education, had profound respect for education. 
Certainly my grandmother did. She drummed it into all of our heads: If 
you want to make the most of your opportunity in life, get the best 
education you can.
  My grandparents were deadly serious about it. They were so serious. 
They were middle-income people, but they made sure they set aside funds 
to help every one of their grandchildren, 13 grandchildren, get an 
advanced degree. Not just a college degree, but every single one an 
advanced degree because they saw education as the way to open the door 
to opportunity. That is what we ought to be doing with our education 
funding. This budget doesn't do it. This budget puts the priority, the 
overwhelming priority, on tax cuts. Of the money above baseline in this 
budget, 74 percent is for tax cuts; 74 percent of the money above the 
baseline.
  That is above the normal spending and the normal taxes. Seventy-four 
percent of the change above baseline is for tax cuts. That is the 
priority in this budget. I do not think that is the right priority.

[[Page S4073]]

  I hope my colleagues will give serious consideration to this 
amendment. It costs $73 billion over 10 years, and it is paid for by 
reducing the $1.4 trillion tax cut by a like amount.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will yield to the Senator from Nevada. As I do, let me 
say how much I appreciate the partnership of the Senator from Nevada in 
this endeavor of working on a budget resolution. His patience and 
willingness to work with others to try to accomplish legislative 
results are legendary in the Chamber. We appreciate very much his hard 
work.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to speak while there is not a lot of 
activity on the Senate floor because it will become hectic. There are a 
few hours remaining on this resolution, and then we have the Iraq 
resolution, which will be forthcoming soon.
  I speak for the entire Democratic caucus about our ranking member on 
the Budget Committee. He is a very modest man. He and I came to the 
Senate together. His parents were killed in an automobile accident 
caused by a drunk driver. He was raised by his grandparents. His 
parents and his grandparents must be smiling broadly now to see the 
contribution he has made to our country. The biggest contribution he 
has made is allowing the Democratic Senators with whom he has served to 
better understand the fiscal situation of this country at any given 
time.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized as the person in the 
Senate who knows the numbers. He believes very strongly that deficit 
spending is bad, that the debt that was in existence when he came to 
the Senate had to be downsized, and working with the prior 
administration, that was accomplished. In fact, the debt was being paid 
down. These past months, he has also articulated so well how it is not 
good for the country to again have these huge deficits.
  So I again say on behalf of the entire Democratic caucus how much we 
all appreciate the work, the guidance, and the direction the Senator 
from North Dakota has given us. As a result of the education I have 
received from him about the financial matters of this country, I better 
understand what is going on in the economy of this country. I extend my 
appreciation to the Senator for that education.
  One of the areas I was totally naive about was the agricultural 
problems of this country. There are a number of Senators who come from 
agricultural States. I have learned to listen to and admire the 
direction I have received from other Senators on both sides of the 
aisle regarding agriculture, but no one has done more to educate me on 
issues relating to the American farmer than the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  I have received rewards in recent years for voting with American 
farmers. In Nevada, we do not have a lot of agriculture. We produce 
quite a bit of alfalfa just simply because the growing season is so 
long. We grow a lot of onions. We are the largest producer of white 
onions in the United States, but basically our agricultural output is 
very small.
  So for me to be part of the army to move forward to protect the 
family farm is something that I have learned from the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  For these and many others reasons, while there is a little bit of 
down time, I want to let the Senator know how much I appreciate his 
friendship and his leadership on the issues of fiscal constraint, the 
general economy of this Nation and the world, agriculture, and so many 
other things on which his great mind has been able to assist me in 
being able to be a better Senator.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his kind remarks.
  I will take this moment to alert our colleagues, who may be listening 
back in their offices, of the circumstance we face. The other side now 
has yielded back all of their time. We are down to some 5 hours--might 
I inquire of the Chair how much time we have on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five hours 9 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Five hours 9 minutes. I thank the Chair. So we have just 
over 5 hours remaining. I alert my colleagues and their staffs that if 
they have amendments they want to offer, this is their chance. Time is 
going to run out, and then we will vote on the amendments that are 
pending at the time until we have disposed of all of those amendments. 
So if people want to have a chance to debate and discuss their 
amendments, time is running out. This is their chance. I urge my 
colleagues to take advantage of that opportunity.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in these moments while we are asking 
colleagues to come to the floor to offer their amendments--and I 
understand a Senator is on his way to the floor--I also understand we 
may be turning to the resolution on Iraq at 2. Instead of having this 
time wasted, I thought I would review, from my perspective, what has 
happened to our budget condition over the last several years, where we 
are headed, and why it alarms me so much.
  My colleagues will recall that 2 years ago we were told there were 
going to be $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next decade. It was in 
that context that President Bush sent Congress a budget that had a $1.7 
trillion or $1.8 trillion tax cut. He said at the time that he would 
only be taking 1 of every 4 surplus dollars for tax reduction, and he 
said he would still be able to fund a strong buildup for national 
defense, that he would be able to fund the priorities of education and 
health care, that he would be able to have a maximum paydown of the 
national debt, in fact he would be able to virtually eliminate the 
national debt, and that he would also be able to protect the trust 
funds of Social Security and Medicare.

  Unfortunately, that proved to be overly optimistic. Many warned at 
that time that it was unwise to be betting on a 10-year forecast, that 
you cannot count on a 10-year forecast. You cannot bet the ranch on the 
revenue coming in as anticipated.
  We all know what has happened. With the tax cut implemented at the 
time, with the economic slowdown, with the attack on America, with the 
additional tax cuts proposed by the President because now he has 
proposed an additional $1.6 trillion of tax cuts, and with the 
associated interest costs, the total cost of those tax cuts would be 
$1.96 trillion. When that is put together, we are back in the deficit 
ditch and by over $2 trillion.
  Where did the money go? Over this period, most of it went to the tax 
cuts, both those that had been implemented and those proposed. The 
second biggest chunk of the money, 27 percent, went to additional 
spending as a result of the attack on the country. Virtually all of 
this has increased defense spending and additional homeland security 
spending. The next biggest chunk is revenue coming in below 
expectations not related to the tax cut--in other words, the total 
revenue below what we would have had without the tax cuts and without 
the overestimations of revenue.
  The revenue change is 64 percent, but only about two-thirds of that 
is from the tax cut. The other is from the models not predicting 
accurately what revenue would be raised for various levels of economic 
activity. The smallest sliver, the smallest part, is the economic 
downturn.
  Most alarming is the long-term outlook. The long-term outlook, 
according to the President's own analysis, from his analytical 
perspectives, page 43 of his budget document, shows what happens if we 
implement the President's proposals for spending and tax cuts.
  What one sees should alarm everyone. It shows these are the good 
times with respect to deficits. The deficits we are running now are 
record amounts. We have never had a budget deficit over $290 billion, 
even including Social Security, not over $370 billion. This year we 
will have a budget deficit of over $500 billion.
  This chart shows--and again it is from the President's own analysis--
the situation will get much worse as the baby boom generation starts to 
retire because they will put pressure, of

[[Page S4074]]

course, on Medicare and Social Security, programs for which they are 
eligible, programs on which they are counting, and we are going to have 
over 75 million people who are in that baby boom generation. That will 
double the number of people eligible for those programs.
  Look what happens then. If we adopt the President's policy, his tax 
cuts, and his spending policy, when the baby boom generation retires, 
according to the President's own documents, the deficits absolutely 
explode.
  Is this a course we should be on? I don't think so. This is a course 
for deficits and debt that is utterly unsustainable. This is a course 
that I believe, and I predict today, will lead to dramatic cuts in 
Medicare, in Social Security, and in virtually every other part of the 
Government.
  I am the first to acknowledge there are items in the Government we 
should cut. There is waste in Government, there is fraud in Government, 
there is abuse in Government, no question about that. But we have been 
hunting waste, fraud, and abuse a long time, and we will need to 
continue that, and we will need to do a much better job of it because 
where we are headed is totally unsustainable.

  If anyone doubts this will lead to massive cuts in Medicare and 
Social Security, look at the House budget resolution. It proposes $470 
billion of cuts in mandatory programs. That is Medicare and that is 
Medicaid. It proposes another over $200 billion of cuts in domestic 
discretionary programs that are not defense related.
  The course we are on is a disaster for this country, of mounting 
deficit, of mounting debt, right before the baby boom generation 
retires. And this is the sweet spot because right now the trust funds, 
especially the Social Security trust fund, are generating billions of 
dollars. This year alone there are $160 billion of surplus and we are 
taking every dime of it under the President's proposal and using it to 
pay for tax cuts and other expenses of Government.
  Some people say that does not matter; the trust fund is still whole 
because it is being credited with the amount of money coming in. It is 
true, the trust fund is being credited. It is also true that the only 
way those pledges, those IOUs are going to be paid back, is if we have 
sufficient resources to do so at the time those bonds come due. That 
depends on the size of the economy. That depends on the strength of the 
economy. That depends on the economic growth we experience between now 
and then. This is something upon which many agree. That is a 
fundamental truth that our ability to redeem those obligations depends 
on the size of the economy, depends on how good a job we have done 
growing the economy in the interval.
  That goes to the question, How do we best secure economic growth? 
This is where we have a profound difference. Many on our side believe 
it is best done by providing a stimulus to the economy now, and the 
stimulus can be either tax cuts or additional spending. Either one of 
them provides stimulus. There are many economic models that suggest 
spending is actually somewhat superior to a tax cut because all of the 
spending dollars go into the economy. When you do a tax cut, some of 
the dollars go into the economy but some are saved.
  To the extent they are saved, that does not provide immediate 
stimulus.
  Our friends on the other side believe the most effective way is tax 
cuts, that tax cuts will encourage greater economic activity. I say to 
them, on a factual basis, it is clear spending and tax cuts, either 
one, stimulate the economy.
  All of that has to be in a context. The context is, What is the long-
term balance of revenues and expenditures? When you have an imbalance, 
when you are spending more than you are taking in, you run deficits. 
Deficits over time have a negative effect on the economy. Why? Because 
when you run budget deficits, the Federal Government has to borrow 
money. When the Federal Government borrows money, it is in competition 
with the private sector for borrowing money and that puts upward 
pressure on interest rates, especially at a time of economic growth.
  We have looked at what the President calls a growth package. Not only 
have we looked at it but economists we respect have looked at it and 
they have concluded, and many of us have concluded, it does not promote 
growth. It will actually inhibit growth. Why? Because the tax cuts are 
not paid for. They are not paid for by spending reductions under the 
President's plan. They are paid for by borrowing the money. That means 
increasing the deficit, increasing the debt.
  It is the dead weight of those deficits and debt that are harmful to 
economic growth. I say harmful, because to the extent you run budget 
deficits, that reduces the pool of societal savings, that reduces the 
pool of money available for investment, and you have to have investment 
to grow.
  Many believe the President's plan is not a plan of economic growth, 
that it is a plan that will hurt economic growth because it will 
explode deficits and debt. That is not the only problem with the 
President's plan. It will force choices in the future that will require 
deep cuts in Medicare, in Social Security, in funding for education, in 
funding for law enforcement because there is no other possible outcome 
when, if you adopt the President's plan, you run deficits of this 
magnitude.

  This is not Kent Conrad's chart or the Democrats' chart; this is the 
President's chart.
  What he says is: If you adopt my policies, you never escape from 
deficit. And the deficits, once we get past this period when the trust 
funds of Social Security and Medicare are producing surpluses and those 
trust funds turn cash negative, which will happen in the next decade, 
the deficits will explode. The debt will explode and a future Congress 
and a future President will then face truly difficult choices.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience in listening to this. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I notice the two leaders are here. I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent with respect to amendment No. 294, 
that the names be reversed and Senator Graham of Florida appear first 
as the one proposing the amendment with Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Democratic leader and I have been in 
discussion on a resolution in support of the President and the Armed 
Forces of the United States. We are now prepared to offer that 
resolution and allow the full Senate to express its support.
  As people have watched the course of today, we are all aware that 
there is a lot of activity going on in Iraq as we speak and we believe 
it is very important that Members be given appropriate time to express 
that support and thus believe this resolution is a wonderful way for us 
to send a signal, today, of that support.
  I know a number of Members will come to the floor to express that 
support over the next couple of hours. They will be making brief 
remarks. Over the course of the coming days, we will have ample 
opportunity to expand upon those remarks. Senators, clearly, will want 
to speak on the resolution, but I do want to encourage people to keep 
their remarks short so we can eventually get to the vote as early today 
as possible to express that support with the full support of the 
Senate.
  We have talked back and forth as to whether we need specific time 
limits, in terms of how much time to spend on this particular 
resolution. We have

[[Page S4075]]

agreed not to have strict time limits because we do want to give 
everybody that opportunity. But we have agreed we will have a vote on 
this resolution of support for our troops today. Again, it is 
imperative, I believe, that the Senate express its support today 
through this resolution.
  We will resume the budget resolution following the conclusion of the 
resolution of support. There are about 5 hours, I believe, remaining on 
the budget resolution; therefore, we will finish that resolution this 
week and we will talk a little bit more back and forth in a few minutes 
about what our expectations are for later tonight and tomorrow.
  I know the managers on both sides of the aisle have encouraged 
Members to submit their amendments. I hope Senators are listening and 
working with the chairman and ranking member so we can have an orderly 
process. Although we have all tried on both sides to avoid a vote-
athon, there is going to be a vote-athon tomorrow. But we want to have 
an orderly process. To do that, we want to make sure we have those 
amendments this afternoon so we can go through and prioritize and then 
be able to plan for tomorrow.
  Before I formally call up the resolution, I yield to the Democratic 
leader for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me simply add that it is our hope we 
can have a vote at about the time that the votes have been called this 
afternoon. We have a cluster of votes on the budget resolution that 
will be voted upon at around 4 o'clock. My hope would be that we could 
have a vote on this resolution as we have those votes as well, 
providing an opportunity for Senators on both sides. I assume time will 
be controlled by Senators Warner and Levin or their designees and that 
we will alternate back and forth until that time. Senators, then, would 
have the opportunity to continue to express themselves after these 
votes, either on the resolution supporting our troops or in support of 
amendments that will be offered during the vote-athon beginning 
tomorrow.
  I think this is as reasonable and as prudent a way possible with 
which to address the challenges that we face as we close out this week. 
We have worked in good faith on both sides in drafting a resolution 
that I hope will enjoy unanimous support within the Senate. I think it 
deserves that depth and breadth of support. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor.
  I think if we can accommodate the need to address the resolution, as 
the distinguished majority leader has suggested, if everybody keeps 
their remarks relatively brief, we will have ample time as the days 
unfold to come back and express ourselves again.
  I hope to set the example. With that, I am going to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank the Democratic leader because all of us know we 
are trying to accomplish a lot this week. We have been able to work 
together in an orderly way thus far this week. It will get increasingly 
hectic over the next 48 hours. We have an orderly process which would 
mean the resolution will be introduced now. Over the next several hours 
we will have ample opportunity for people to make their initial remarks 
of support. We have a series of votes that begins at 4 o'clock today. 
As the distinguished Democratic leader said, our intention is to follow 
those votes with this vote on the resolution for support.
  Following whenever that vote is--and again I encourage our colleagues 
to keep remarks short so we can get to that vote because that is the 
real signal that we send out from the Senate once we actually vote on 
that resolution--following that resolution we will come back to the 
budget and continue the excellent debate, focusing on various 
amendments today and tonight. We will be here late tonight. There has 
been time yielded back, from our side, to facilitate that process.
  I think what we would like to do--it really depends on how the 
afternoon and night goes--is to begin the series of votes after all 
time is exhausted, which would be sometime late tomorrow morning. 
Again, I do not know exactly what the time would be like. And then it 
really depends on how many votes we have as part of the so-called vote-
arama. It is our intention to finish this budget this week.
  As I said this morning, if it is Thursday, Friday, or Saturday, it is 
important, we all believe, to complete this budget this week.
  That is a rough outline of how we would like to see things play over 
the next 48 hours.

                          ____________________