[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19617-19618]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the proposal 
that a number of us have made--Leader Reid in the Senate, myself, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Leader Pelosi in the House, 
Congressman Spratt, the ranking member of the Budget Committee--to put 
off the reconciliation proposals that flow from the budget resolution.
  We have just been hit by perhaps the greatest natural calamity in our 
Nation's history. We don't know yet how it will rank, but there is 
certainly a possibility this will be one of the greatest calamities in 
our Nation's history. And that is the reason we sent the letter this 
morning to Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert, as well as the 
chairmen of the Budget Committees in both the House and the Senate 
recommending that we suspend those reconciliation instructions that are 
part of the budget resolution.
  We did that because we don't think what was written then fits the 
facts now. We have just had a massive disaster. It makes no sense to 
pursue the priorities that were part of that budget resolution.
  This is not a time to be cutting services to the most needy among us. 
This is not the time to cut food stamps, to cut medical care for the 
indigent, to cut student loans. That is what is in the reconciliation 
process. Are we really going to cut Medicaid $10 billion when we have 
hundreds of thousands of people homeless and don't have medical care 
and don't have a home? Are we really going to cut Medicaid in that 
context? Are we really going to cut food stamps when there are tens of 
thousands of people displaced, hundreds of thousands of people have had 
to leave their homes, and we are going to cut services for the most 
needy and, at the same time, cut taxes for the most fortunate among us?
  Frankly, I did not think the budget resolution made much sense when 
we passed it. The budget resolution's reconciliation instructions cut 
spending $35 billion and cut taxes $70 billion, so it increased the 
deficit, on balance, $35 billion when we are facing massive budget 
shortfalls--among the biggest in our history.
  In fact, the budget that was passed here will increase the debt of 
the country every year by $600 billion. That is stunning. It is going 
to increase the debt $600 billion. That is before Katrina. Now are we 
really going to continue down that path? Are we going to continue down 
a path that says on an emergency basis cut services to the least among 
us, cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, and run up the debt even 
more? What sense does this make?
  It makes no sense to consider those legislative proposals in light of 
this new reality. It seems to me very clear none of us can know yet the 
cost to the Federal budget of the response to Hurricane Katrina. We 
should not be rushing through a further reduction in resources the 
Federal Government has available to respond to our Nation's challenges.
  Katrina is a body blow of stunning proportion. We already passed $10 
billion of aid, which we obviously should have done. We are told that 
we are going to be asked to immediately consider another $51 billion of 
aid, which clearly we should do. But that is just the beginning.
  I have been told that the cost of this disaster to the Federal 
Government may well reach $150 billion. So for us to go forward with a 
budget plan that was written before this catastrophe, and for some to 
come to the floor of the Senate and say, Steady as she goes, just keep 
on with that plan, does not make a whole lot of sense.
  We have just seen a dramatic disaster, a catastrophic disaster. You 
don't stick with the same old plan when something of this consequence 
occurs. We have to respond, and we do not just respond by doing what we 
were getting ready to do when we faced a totally different set of 
facts. Frankly, I

[[Page 19618]]

don't think it made much sense before this disaster. It makes 
absolutely no sense after this disaster.
  Again, let me say to my colleagues, are we really going to cut 
Medicaid when we have hundreds of thousands of people displaced? Are we 
really going to cut student loans when we have a whole group of 
colleges that have been wiped out? Are we really going to cut food 
stamps when every night we can see on television what is happening to 
people who have lost everything? Are we going to say to them, Sorry, 
there is no help for you because we had a plan, a reconciliation plan 
up in Washington, and we had to stick to it? Is that really going to be 
the answer? I hope not because the facts have changed. The facts have 
changed, and the facts require that we change. The facts require that 
the plan changes, and the facts require we have a new plan and a new 
approach.
  I submit to my colleagues this is not the time to cut assistance for 
those who are the least among us and to cut taxes for those who are the 
wealthiest among us. This is a time for all of us to come together as a 
nation and respond to this disaster with a generous heart. That is my 
belief of what is required of us at this moment. That is the moral 
imperative at this moment--to respond to this disaster, to help those 
in need, to assist in the rebuilding, to help the sick, to feed the 
hungry. Goodness knows, we can see on our television screens every 
moment of every day that there are tens of thousands of our fellow 
citizens who deserve a helping hand. The notion that we just go forward 
with the plan as written makes absolutely no sense.
  Here are the images. We can all see them. Here are the homes 
flooded--an absolute unmitigated disaster.
  I have been asked by the news media about an incident that occurred 
in 2002 before the Senate Budget Committee. I want a chance to review 
that for the record. I have been asked repeatedly about a series of 
questions that I asked in 2002 of Mr. Parker.
  I asked a question in a Budget Committee hearing on February 26, 
2002, of one of the witnesses, Mr. Mike Parker, the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Civil Works. He said at that hearing:

       If the corps is limited in what it does for the American 
     people, we will see a negative impact on the people of this 
     country.

  He was talking in testimony that he provided the Budget Committee and 
in response to a series of questions that I asked him.
  Here is how that conversation went. Assistant Secretary Parker said: 
``That figure we came up with was around $6.4 billion [for Army Corps 
funding] . . .''
  I asked him:

       That is what you requested?
       Assistant Secretary Parker: Yes.

  My question back to him:

       $6.4 billion?
       Assistant Secretary Parker: Right.
       Senator Conrad: And you got, on a comparison basis, $4 
     billion . . . Well, did you think $4 billion was the right 
     number to come to?
       Assistant Secretary Parker: No. I would have offered that 
     number if I thought it was the right number.

  In other words, what happened was I asked Assistant Secretary Parker 
if the amount of money being requested by the administration for the 
Army Corps of Engineers was sufficient to deal with the challenges they 
were facing. He told me, no, they were not sufficient, that they had 
estimated $6.4 billion was needed, but the administration would only 
ask for $4 billion. And that is after the previous year's budget was 
$4.6 billion.
  I also addressed questions to Lieutenant General Robert Flowers, 
Chief of Engineers for the Army Corps, who came to testify with 
Assistant Secretary Parker. Here is how that conversation went.

       Let me ask you this. Last year, there was $4.6 billion [in 
     Army Corps funding]. The President cut that by $600 million 
     on a fair comparison basis to $4 billion. What are the 
     implications of those reductions? What will it mean? . . .

  LTG Robert Flowers said:

       With the budget as it stands, we would in fact have to 
     terminate projects . . .
       Senator Conrad: So you would have no choice but to 
     terminate contracts?
       Lieutenant General Flowers: Yes, sir. That's correct . . .
       Senator Conrad: It doesn't sound like it makes much sense 
     to me. Does it make much sense to you, General Flowers, 
     knowing what those projects are? Would it make any sense to 
     you to terminate these projects?
       Lieutenant General Flowers: Sir, it doesn't.

  Lieutenant General Flowers went on to say:

     . . . I would submit that in combating the war on terrorism 
     and providing homeland security, the work we do in 
     maintaining strategic ports is very vital to the military 
     effort as well as the economy, because 98 percent of our 
     foreign commerce is seaborne.

  My rejoinder:

     . . . So this has got a security issue attached to it.

  Lieutenant General Flowers:

       Sir, I believe it does. We have traditionally, in the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers, I think, contributed to the national 
     defense.

  What happened in these exchanges is very clear. I asked Mr. Parker, 
the civilian head of the Corps of Engineers, if he was asking for 
enough money. He said he was not. He said the administration had sent 
up a request for $4 billion. He determined what was needed was $6.4 
billion, but the administration would not allow him to make that 
request.
  Because of that testimony, Mr. Parker was then fired by the 
administration. He lost his job.
  Senator Trent Lott said:

       ``Mike Parker told the truth that the Corps of Engineers 
     budget, as proposed, is insufficient,'' said Senate Minority 
     Leader Trent Lott.

  Newspaper headlines on the firing of the Army Corps Chief in 2002 ran 
the gamut from the New York Times that said:

       Official Forced to Step Down after Testifying on Budget 
     Cut.

  The Washington Post:

       Corps of Engineers' Civilian Chief Ousted; Parker Resigns 
     after Openly Questioning Bush's Proposed Spending Cuts.

  The Wall Street Journal:

       Head of Corps of Engineers is Forced Out after Criticizing 
     Budget Cuts for Agency.

  The Sun Herald of Biloxi, MS:

       Parker Let Go as Army Corps Chief; Honesty Got Him Fired, 
     Some Say.

  The fact is, the funding for the Corps of Engineers was deficient to 
do the job necessary to protect New Orleans and other cities. It was 
clear at the time. It was testified to by the man who was the head of 
the Agency, and because he was honest and forthright in questions that 
I put to him, he was removed from his job.
  That is the factual history of what occurred. And those who removed 
him because he was honest and forthright about the needs bear serious 
responsibility, I believe, for what has occurred.
  All of us now have a special responsibility to reach out and assist 
those who have been devastated. It should never have happened. None of 
us can know if these funds had been forthcoming at the time that they 
were clearly needed, and that need was made clear by an appointee of 
this administration, who was then removed from his position because he 
said the funding was inadequate.
  This calamity requires a response, and the notion that we stick with 
the plan I do not think will withstand much scrutiny. We are going to 
have to have a new plan, and as part of that plan we should not be 
cutting the least fortunate among us. We should not be cutting food 
stamps. We should not be cutting the other life lines, whether it is 
medical assistance or any of the other programs that are now in place 
to assist these people who have been so badly hurt.
  I do not believe it makes any sense at this moment to cut the 
resources of the Federal Government when we already cannot come close 
to paying our bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

                          ____________________