[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3293-3316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            2007--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 1:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of the budget 
resolution, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 83), setting forth 
     the congressional budgets of the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2007 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2006 and 2008 through 2011.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I listened to the very able Senator from 
Kentucky. His description of this budget does not quite fit the budget 
I have seen, both in the Senate and in the committee. He talks about 
deficit reduction. There is no deficit reduction here. Let's be clear 
with people. There is no deficit reduction.
  He talks about the deficit reduction bill offered last year by the 
Republicans. They called it ``deficit reduction,'' but there was no 
deficit reduction. They cut taxes $70 billion, cut spending $40 
billion. Do the math. That did not reduce the deficit. It increased the 
deficit. Is the deficit going to be lower this year after their deficit 
reduction bill? Or is it going to be higher? It is going to be higher. 
There is more deficit after their deficit reduction bill of last year. 
Not only is there more deficit, but there is a whole lot more debt.
  Let me say to my colleagues, here is what is happening under our 
colleagues' fiscal plan. Here is what is happening to the debt of the 
country. When President Bush came in at the end of his first year--we 
do not hold him responsible for the first year because that is 
operating under the previous year's Presidency--at the end of

[[Page 3294]]

his first year the debt was $5.8 trillion. At the end of this year, the 
debt will be $8.6 trillion. If this budget is adopted, this 5-year 
budget, at the end of the 5 years the debt will be $11.8 trillion. And 
they are talking about deficit reduction? Where? Where is it? Show me. 
Show me where they are reducing the deficit. This is the debt of the 
country. The debt is skyrocketing under their plans.
  Now the Senator talks about their deficit reduction plan of last 
year. This is last year. The deficit was $319 billion, one of the 
biggest ever. In fact, in the 5 years of this Presidency, he has had--
count them--four, when this year is complete, four of the biggest 
deficits in the history of the country. In dollar terms, the four 
biggest.
  Last year, the deficit was $319 billion. The Congressional Budget 
Office says if this budget is agreed to, this year the budget will be 
$371 billion based on the President's proposal. Actually, the proposal 
in the Senate is a little worse, at $371 billion. Is $371 billion more 
of a deficit than $319 billion or less? This is after their big deficit 
reduction plan. There is no deficit reduction.
  What about going forward? What will happen going forward? Here is 
what will happen, going forward, to the debt of the country. They say 
the deficit will go down each and every year of this budget. Well, not 
quite. The last year they say it blips up a little. They claim the 
deficit will be going down. But, of course, they have left out some 
pretty big things. They have left out any war costs past 2007. They 
have left out any cost to fix the alternative minimum tax passed this 
year. Over 10 years, that costs $1 trillion to fix. That is a big item. 
They have left out the associated interest costs of those items, which 
is ``other'' on the chart. They have also left out the money they are 
taking from Social Security each and every year of this budget, all of 
which gets added to the debt, all of which has to be paid back.
  So when we add it all up, here is how much the debt is going to grow 
under the plan before the Senate: In 2007, it will go up $680 billion. 
Not the deficit they are talking about of $319 billion; the debt will 
go up $680 billion. The next year it will go up $656 billion; the next 
year it will go up $635 billion; the next year it will go up $622 
billion; the next year it is going up to $662 billion.
  Is there any improvement here? They are talking about deficit 
reduction, they are talking about their improving the fiscal picture of 
the country. No, they are not. The debt is going to grow every year by 
more than $600 billion. The result is going to be at the end of this 
period, the debt of our Nation will reach $11.8 trillion. Now I project 
at the end of this year it will be $8.6 trillion. By the way, they are 
getting ready to increase the debt limit by almost $800 billion in 1 
year. We are going to have that vote this week.
  So when they say they are reducing the deficit, it is just talk. 
There is no reduction in the deficit going on here. In the deficit 
reduction package they say they had last year, the deficit went up, and 
the deficit is going up under their deficit reduction package. So let's 
be straight with people.
  Now, my colleague called the economy ``stunningly robust.'' No, the 
economy is not stunningly robust. In fact, the unemployment rate just 
went up. The unemployment rate just went up from 4.7 to 4.8 percent. 
That is not good news. That is going the wrong way.
  But I think of more concern is, if you compare this recovery to the 
nine previous recoveries since World War II, what you see is this one 
is far weaker than the average of the nine previous recoveries.
  Let's look at what the numbers show. Here is real median household 
income, as shown on this chart. Now, this would tell us whether the 
economy is doing well. If this is such a robust economy, why isn't 
household income going up? It is not going up. It is going down. Real 
median household income has declined 4 years in a row.
  To try to determine what is happening with this economy, we went and 
looked at all the recoveries since World War II. Here is what we found. 
On average, at this stage of recovery, the economy would be growing at 
3.2 percent a year. That is what we have seen in the previous 
recoveries: 3.2 percent growth; this recovery: 2.8 percent. It is 
weaker than the average of the nine previous recoveries.
  That is not the only indicator that things are not going as well as 
we have seen in other recoveries. For the nine other recoveries since 
World War II, this dotted line on the chart shows business investment. 
The black line shows this recovery. It is 62 percent behind the average 
of the nine previous recoveries.
  My colleague just talked about how strong job growth has been. No, 
job growth has not been strong. We went and looked at the nine previous 
recoveries since World War II. This dotted red line on the chart shows 
the average. This black line shows this recovery. And, look, we are 6.6 
million private sector jobs short of the typical recovery. So when they 
say things are going great, that is not what any serious analysis 
reveals.
  What any serious analysis reveals is that this recovery is lagging in 
a substantial way behind the nine recoveries since World War II. It is 
lagging in business investment by 62 percent. It is lagging in economic 
growth--3.2 percent is the average of the nine previous recoveries, and 
in this period, 2.8 percent. On job creation, we are 6.6 million 
private sector jobs behind the average of the nine other recoveries 
since World War II.
  But I said this morning the debt is the threat. And here it is, as 
shown on this chart. Our friends on the other side have been in charge 
since 2001. This is their record. This is what has happened under their 
fiscal plan.
  The President told us if we adopted his fiscal plan, he would have 
maximum paydown of the debt. Remember? He was going to virtually 
eliminate the debt. It has not worked out that way. Not only has there 
been no reduction in the debt, the debt has skyrocketed, and the debt 
has gone up approaching--well, with this latest increase that is being 
sought that they want to vote on this week--the debt under this 
President will have gone up $3 trillion. If we adopt this plan, it is 
going to go up another $3 trillion.
  That is the hard reality of what we see before us. If you love debt, 
you are going to love this budget plan. Our friends on the other side 
accuse us of tax and spend. They are guilty of spend and borrow. Borrow 
and spend, borrow and spend, spend and borrow, borrow and spend, spend 
and borrow--that is their policy, to drive us deep into debt.
  As I showed on the Senate floor, one of the most alarming things is, 
increasingly, this debt is financed by foreigners. About half of our 
debt now is held abroad. This morning I showed what an incredible 
legacy this President is going to leave because it took 42 Presidents 
224 years to run up $1 trillion of external debt, debt held by 
foreigners. This President has more than doubled that in 5 years. That 
is truly stunning.
  Let me repeat, it took 42 Presidents 224 years--in fact, here is the 
chart I used this morning that shows it--it took all these Presidents, 
from George Washington to Bill Clinton--42 Presidents--224 years. Some 
of them were sons of Virginia. The occupant of the chair is a proud 
representative of Virginia. They were much more careful with public 
money than this President. It took all these Presidents--42 of them--
224 years to run up $1 trillion of external debt. This President has 
more than doubled it, in fact, substantially more than doubled it, in 
just 5 years.
  Now, as a result of this, we owe Japan over $700 billion. We owe 
China over $250 billion. Here it is, as shown on this chart: Japan; 
China; the United Kingdom, my favorite; the Caribbean banking centers. 
We owe the Caribbean banking centers $111 billion. I sometimes ask 
audiences back home: Are any of you doing your banking in the 
Caribbean? I get very few takers on that. Somebody is doing their 
banking in the Caribbean, and we are borrowing huge amounts of money 
from them. We owe Taiwan over $70 billion. We owe South Korea over $66 
billion.
  Now, whatever else is going on, No. 1, this fiscal plan is not 
working as advertised. The President said, very clearly, he was going 
to have maximum

[[Page 3295]]

paydown of the debt. The debt is skyrocketing, and when our friends 
come out here and say, well, they have a deficit-reduction plan, where 
is it? It certainly is not in this budget that is going to increase the 
debt over $3 trillion over the next 5 years.
  This year, the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
is going to be bigger than the deficit last year, after our friends 
came out here and said they had a deficit reduction plan. In fact, they 
passed it and they labeled it ``deficit reduction,'' but the deficit is 
going up, not down. So their deficit reduction plan, like all these 
other plans they have come out with, has not worked.
  The President said he was going to have maximum paydown of the debt. 
The debt is increasing. They say they have a deficit reduction plan. 
The deficit is increasing, not being reduced.
  And talk about economic recoveries, this is one of the weakest 
economic recoveries of the nine we have had since World War II. 
Something is not working. I believe one of the things that is not 
working is that this pileup of debt is creating an enormous weight on 
our country. At some point we have to take this on. This budget does 
not do it. My own belief is, the only way we are going to take this on 
is to do it together, Democrats and Republicans. Democrats certainly 
cannot do it. We are in the minority. I do not think Republicans can do 
it alone because they have proven they are not going to do it. And if 
they wanted to do it, I do not believe they could do it on their own. I 
think this is going to take us working together. And the sooner we get 
together and the sooner we face up to this, the better off our country 
will be.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join in the desire of the Senator from 
North Dakota to move forward in a bipartisan way.
  We could start by approving this budget in a bipartisan way. But 
independent of that, I agree, we--and we have talked about this; 
actually I think we are the only two people talking about this, but we 
have talked about trying to develop a framework where we could actually 
address this issue.
  But that is a global settlement. I would like to see it done. It is 
going to have to address Medicare. It is going to have to address 
Medicaid. It is going to have to address Social Security. It is going 
to have to address revenues. And it needs to be done sooner rather than 
later. But it is such a large idea that it is not going to occur this 
week.
  This week, what is going to occur, hopefully, is a step forward in 
the exercise of disciplining ourselves through budget processing, 
setting out a blueprint which defines where the Federal Government is 
going to spend money, how it is going to spend money, and constrains 
the Federal Government, especially on the discretionary side of the 
ledger. I would like to have constrained the Federal Government a 
little bit in its rate of growth on the entitlement side of the ledger, 
but that is not possible, primarily because I get no votes from the 
other side of the aisle.
  The Senator from North Dakota has made a point of talking about 
economic statistics relative to what the Bush administration and the 
Republican leadership have done relative to this economy. His structure 
and definition of this is, it is sort of dire, this economy. Well, that 
is hard to accept on its face. This is not a dire economy. In fact, it 
is a fairly robust economy that has gone through very significant 
growth now for 5 years.
  We have had 17 consecutive quarters of expansion of this economy. 
That is big, 17 consecutive quarters. We came out of one of the most 
difficult times, from an economic standpoint, in the history of this 
country, probably the most difficult time in the postdepression period, 
when we had the largest bubble in history, the Internet bubble 
collapse, and when we were attacked and America was at war and found 
the essence of our economy--Wall Street--basically destroyed in the 
World Trade attack.
  So they were double blows to our economy, and yet we have responded 
as a government the right way. We cut taxes. We gave people an 
incentive to go out there and be productive and create jobs. The 
response has been that people have gone out, risked their capital, 
taken risks, been entrepreneurs, created small business, and created 
jobs.
  We have had 17 consecutive quarters of expansion of this economy, 
which is a lot of growth. We had a 3.5-percent rate of growth in 2005. 
That is higher, as an average, than the 20-year average of the prior 20 
years. We are growing at a rate faster than the average over the last 
20 years.
  Just last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced we created 
243,000 new jobs. That is a huge jump in new jobs when you put it in 
the context of the fact that for 30 straight months we have been 
creating new jobs in this economy. Literally, 5 million new jobs have 
been created in this economy since 2003. It is a result, in large part, 
of the economic engine created by giving people the right to be 
investors and entrepreneurs and capitalists and market-oriented, taking 
risks and creating jobs--5 million new jobs. Do you know how many jobs 
that is? That is more jobs than was created in Japan and Europe 
combined. I would point out that Japan and Europe combined have a 
population which is about half, again, larger than the United States.
  So we have had 17 quarters of consecutive growth. We have had 3.5 
percent GDP growth, which is above the economic average for the last 20 
years. We have had 5 million new jobs created. Just last month, we 
added 243,000 jobs. Those are pretty good numbers.
  Let's put it in the context of the Bush administration versus the 
Clinton administration.
  Real disposable income--which is basically the essence of what you 
really look at when you are talking about how people's lives are 
getting better or worse--has increased $1,905 since President Bush has 
been in office, which has been for about 5 years, 4\1/2\ years.
  Under President Clinton, what was the increase? For the last term of 
his office, the last 4 years when he was in office, during this period, 
when we were going through this economic bubble, real disposable income 
only went up $1,500.
  So this President has exceeded the rate of growth, in real disposable 
income, of the Clinton final 4 years, for which we hear so much about 
what a great job President Clinton did on the economy. And except for 
the fact he did not control the bubble, the fact is, the economy did 
pretty well during his administration.
  Real hourly compensation has gone up 8.9 percent during this same 
period, whereas if you compare it to President Clinton's second term, 
real hourly wage growth went up only three-tenths of 1 percent.
  The rate of growth of a person's actual wages has jumped dramatically 
in comparison to the Bush years versus the last 4 years of President 
Clinton. This is true economic growth. It is hard to deny that. You can 
deny it, you can be pessimistic about it, but the fact is the economy 
is doing very well, especially in the context of the fact that we are 
fighting a war on terrorism in the middle of all this, which has been a 
fairly significant stress on our economy, and that we had the largest 
natural disaster in the history of our Nation--exceeding even the San 
Francisco earthquake of 1906--in the Katrina and Rita storms in the 
Gulf States which essentially wiped out one of the great engines of our 
economy, the Gulf States, especially in the area of energy production. 
Still the economy grows.
  In fact, interest rates--I remember the Senator from North Dakota 
making a statement, I think it was last year, maybe the year before, 
saying that interest rates were going to have to go up because the 
Federal Government was crowding out borrowing--haven't gone up. 
Interest rates continue basically to be affordable in the context of 
historical interest rates. Yes, they are off a historic low, but they 
are still well below what is the historic mean for interest rates.
  So the economy is not only not dire, it is rather robust. It is 
robust in large part because of the fact that we made

[[Page 3296]]

the right decisions at the beginning of this administration on the 
issue of tax policy. We gave people an incentive to be productive, an 
incentive to invest, to take risks, all of which translates into jobs, 
and jobs translate into more revenue for the Federal Government.
  We have gone through the charts of how much the revenue to the 
Federal Government is jumping as a result of this economic activity. It 
is a consistent statement made by the Senator from North Dakota that 
the economy is terrible, but I don't think it is a correct statement.
  Furthermore, this budget is obviously not a magic wand. It doesn't 
have the capacity to say: Eliminate the debt or eliminate the growth of 
the debt as we fight this war and we face issues of financial pressure. 
But without this budget, the debt will be significantly larger. In 
fact, as has been said before, spending will go up if the Democratic 
proposals that came out of committee are allowed to pass. Taxes will 
also go up because they propose tax increases. But that will have no 
impact on the debt. That is a wash, according to their representation. 
They spend $120 billion, and they raise taxes $125 billion or something 
like that, so they may have gotten $5 billion over 5 years back for 
deficit reduction. We usually underestimate the spending in those 
programs and we usually overestimate the revenue, especially when you 
are talking about loophole closing. That definitely usually 
overestimates revenue. So I suspect we would have found the debt would 
have increased, too.
  But giving them the benefit of the doubt, there is no initiative here 
on the floor--and there was no initiative in committee--which 
significantly addresses the debt other than the budget that is before 
us which puts a hard freeze on nondefense discretionary spending. That 
addresses the debt. That means that next year you will add less to the 
deficit than you would have if you didn't have that hard freeze. It is 
not a big number in the context of the overall issue, but it is a big 
number by New Hampshire standards. It represents billions of dollars 
which will not be added to the deficit and therefore not added to the 
debt. That is a positive.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has very 
ably used the oldest debate tactic known to man, which is the straw man 
argument. He suggested I have said that the economy is terrible. Those 
are not my words. I have not described the economy as terrible. I have 
described the economy as not performing as well as it has in other 
recoveries since World War II.
  Let me repeat: Real median household income has declined 4 straight 
years. That is not a sign of economic strength; that is a sign of 
economic weakness. The economic growth in this recovery has 
substantially lagged the economic growth we saw in the other nine 
recoveries since World War II. In the other recoveries since World War 
II, economic growth averaged 3.2 percent. In this recovery, it is 
averaging 2.8 percent.
  On business investment, this dotted line is the average of nine 
previous recessions. This recovery is the black line. It is 62 percent 
behind what we have seen in the other nine recoveries since World War 
II. That is also true of job creation. The red dotted line is job 
creation and the average of nine recessions since World War II. The 
black line is this recovery, 6.6 million private sector jobs behind.
  The most dramatic result is this: This is how our friends have 
propped up the economy. They have done it by running up the biggest 
debt in the history of America. Their proposal in this budget is to 
keep on doing it, more debt on top of debt that is already at record 
levels. When this President came in, at the end of his first year the 
debt was $5.8 trillion. At the end of this year, it will be $8.6 
trillion, headed for $11.8 trillion if this budget is adopted. That is 
the wrong course for America. It is a mistake, and we will regret it 
deeply if we allow this to go forward. That is why this budget ought to 
be defeated. Only if this budget is defeated are we going to have a 
chance to change course and get America on a firmer fiscal footing.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3002.

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

         (Purpose: To make technical and conforming amendments)

       On page 3, line 11, strike ``$1,694,445,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$1,694,455,000,000''.
       On page 3, line 23, strike ``reduced'' and insert 
     ``changed''.
       On page 21, line 3, strike ``$441,150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$411,150,000,000''.
       On page 28, line 15, after ``000'' insert ``,000''.
       On page 28, line 16, after ``000'' insert ``,000''.
       On page 29, line 18, strike ``by $0 for fiscal year 2007 
     and''.
       On page 42, strike beginning with line 11 and all that 
     follows through page 43, line 4, and insert the following:

     SEC. 311. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR CHRONIC CARE CASE 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       If the Senate Committee on Finance reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or an amendment is offered thereto or a 
     conference report is submitted thereon, that would provide 
     $1,750,000,000 to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services (CMS) to create a demonstration project or program 
     that assigns a case manager to coordinate the care of 
     chronically-ill and other high-cost Medicare beneficiaries in 
     traditional fee-for-service Medicare, the Chairman of the 
     Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution by the amount provided in such measure for that 
     purpose, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

  Mr. GREGG. This is an amendment to make corrections to the resolution 
so it conforms to the resolution as ordered reported by the committee. 
It has been agreed to by both sides. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I certainly 
will not object--this is something both sides are in complete agreement 
on. I ask my colleagues to understand that this is a technical matter 
to make certain that the resolution conforms to what was done in 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3002.
  The amendment (No. 3002) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. I see the Senator from Massachusetts seeking recognition. 
I yield the Senator 20 minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our friend and colleague from 
North Dakota for his leadership on this issue. I hope that those who 
have had the chance to listen to opening debate will pay close 
attention over the next 4 days. This is an enormously important 
document we are debating. It is an indication of a nation's priorities. 
It is important that we listen with care to the discussion.
  Money isn't everything, but it is a measure of a nation's priorities. 
Budgets are moral documents. They represent who we are and what we 
value. Just 6 weeks ago, the President delivered a State of the Union 
Address that gave hope to many of us in Congress for a budget that 
meets the needs of the American people. The President told us that 
night that a hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens

[[Page 3297]]

in times of suffering and emergency and stays at it until they are back 
on their feet. But the budget before us tells a different story. It 
fails to meet the security needs of Americans who are looking for real 
security in the face of terrorism.
  We have seen the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, the failure in 
Iraq, a failing grade from the 9/11 Commission, failure on the security 
of our ports, failure in curbing nuclear power in Iran and North Korea, 
failure after failure when it comes to our national security. But you 
would never know it from this budget. Does it prepare us for the next 
disaster? Does it support a winning strategy in Iraq? Does it fully 
invest in the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? Does it secure 
our ports and inspect every shipping container crossing our shore? When 
it comes to nuclear weapons, does it provide the resources needed for 
real nonproliferation? The answer to each one of these questions is no. 
The administration and the Republicans may talk about national 
security, but the real record is one of mistake and failure.
  This budget is a failure, too, when it comes to meeting the needs of 
our families here at home. When it comes to healing the sick, feeding 
the hungry, caring for the poor, the elderly, or the disabled, this 
budget falls short. When it comes to strengthening our economy, opening 
the doors of opportunity, creating new jobs, and equipping America to 
compete in the global economy, this budget again falls short. Instead, 
it cuts vital programs on which people rely and offers even more tax 
cuts to the wealthy.
  Franklin Roosevelt had it right: The test of our progress is not 
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is 
whether we provide enough for those who have too little. This budget 
does none of that. Countless families are facing serious problems. They 
are being hit on all sides with higher health costs, higher heating 
costs, higher college costs, higher gas prices. Their jobs and pensions 
are in danger. Their savings are at an all-time low. They are caught in 
a prescription drug nightmare because of a bill that put the drug 
industry and the insurance industry ahead of patients.
  These are hard-working men and women who play by the rules and take 
care of their families, but this budget lets them down. Instead of 
investing in education, it cuts school programs. Instead of helping the 
elderly with their heating bills, it slashes funding for low-income 
heating programs. Instead of training workers for new jobs, it 
eliminates job training and vocational education programs. Instead of 
helping our young people afford college, it cuts college aid. But it 
provides for $1.7 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. Those are the 
wrong priorities for America. Compare that to the recent cuts to 
Medicaid. Compare that with the $379 million cut in heating assistance 
for the poor. Compare that with the cuts to education. Compare that 
with the $456 million needed to help disadvantaged high school students 
reach college under the TRIO, Upward Bound, or Talent Search Programs.
  Yes, a budget is a statement of priorities, and we have seen where 
this administration's priorities are on health. The Medicaid Program is 
key to promoting a real culture of life in America. Medicaid provides 
care to a third of all mothers giving birth, including the prenatal, 
pediatric care their children need to be healthy.
  Mere hours after the President declared in the State of the Union 
Address that the Government would meet its responsibility to provide 
health care for the poor and elderly, the President signed a bill to 
impose draconian cuts on the Medicaid Program. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, that bill will cause 45,000 poor Americans 
to lose coverage over the next 5 years, and 65,000 will lose coverage 
within 10 years, and 60 percent of those losing coverage will be 
children.
  In Maryland, a quarter of families subject to increased premiums 
disen-
rolled. In Oregon, higher costs caused disenrollment, and 67 percent of 
those who disenrolled became uninsured. Because of these Medicaid cuts, 
13 million Medicaid beneficiaries will have to pay more for their 
prescriptions over the next 5 years, and 20 million will have to pay 
more over the next 10 years.
  When copayments rise for the poorest patients, health declines. A 
study in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that 
increased copayments for medications for poor families caused an 88-
percent increase in adverse events, such as heart attacks and strokes, 
and caused a 78-percent increase in emergency room visits.
  This is what happens. If you cut back on providing assistance with 
copays for individuals who otherwise would be eligible, we are finding 
out, you end up paying a great deal more out of the health care budget, 
in addition to increasing the pain, anxiety and difficulties these 
families are facing.
  A single mother with two children who makes $8 an hour currently pays 
$3 when she visits the doctor and does not have any cost sharing when 
her children go to the pediatrician. Under the new law, when her child 
goes to the pediatrician with an ear infection, she may be charged $20. 
When she goes to a doctor for treatment and a test for diabetes, she 
will pay $50. She may have to pay as much as $832 a year.
  A single mother with two children earning $25,000 now pays no 
premiums or cost sharing for a child's medical care and pays $3 
copayments for herself. Under the new law, she will now be charged 
monthly premiums for Medicaid coverage for herself and her children. 
Even if she manages to pay the premiums, she may have to pay $40 for a 
visit to the pediatrician, and she will have to pay as much as $1,250 a 
year for Medicaid.
  Do you know what happens? Those parents, when they have that sick 
child who has the ear infection or has that cough, are thinking: Is 
this child $40 sick or $50 sick? Or if I go to the emergency room, is 
this child $125 sick? Is my child $125 sick? I think I will wait 
tonight. Sure, they are coughing, and sure they are in pain, sure they 
are suffering, but I am working at a low paying job, and I have to make 
the decision about whether I can afford care.
  For a single mother of two earning the minimum wage, the new Medicaid 
law imposes additional cost sharing on her children. They would now 
face copayments for certain prescription drugs, and these copayments 
would, for the first time, be indexed to the rate of medical inflation, 
which is higher than the general inflation. And on minimum wage, her 
income would not even keep up with general inflation since the minimum 
wage has not been increased since 1997.
  To add to these damaging reductions, the President's budget proposes 
another $14 billion in reductions to Medicaid. The Senate budget 
resolution has not adopted these serious cuts, but time and again, we 
have seen how the House-Senate conferees follow the administration's 
proposal rather than the Senate's measure.
  The President's budget proposes $36 billion in Medicare cuts over the 
next 5 years and $105 billion over the next 10 years. This means higher 
premiums for seniors and the disabled and will result in reductions of 
quality of care at hospitals and home health agencies.
  In Massachusetts, President Bush's Medicare proposal will mean that 
our hospitals will have to cut their budgets by more than $400 million, 
home health agencies by $50 million, and nursing homes by $150 million.
  Again, the Senate resolution has not adopted these reductions, but we 
know where the conference report is likely to end up.
  In addition, the budget resolution includes a deeply troubling 
procedural barrier to fixing the problems in the Medicare drug program. 
The Republican budget effectively torpedoes any sensible measure to 
improve the benefit provided to seniors by requiring any such 
improvements to overcome a point of order.
  The budget resolution has adopted major reductions to public health 
programs. Under these reductions, Massachusetts would lose millions of 
dollars for programs that protect the health and safety of our people. 
That cut means 17 rape crisis centers across our State will face 
significant financial

[[Page 3298]]

hardship, and our programs on violence prevention and suicide would 
effectively be eliminated.
  The cuts mean that programs to keep our children healthy would be 
eliminated. Programs to screen newborns as early as possible for 
hearing loss would be eliminated and so would our State oral health 
program. That means 59,000 children would not get basic dental 
screening, and over 35 programs that train health care providers to 
deliver care in underserved areas and support diversity and proficiency 
in health care would be eliminated.
  Although we are living with the threat of natural and manmade 
disasters, the proposed cuts would compromise our emergency medical 
services and impair the system's ability to function as a safety net 
for catastrophe.
  Under the chairman's budget, NIH funding will barely keep up with 
inflation. Last year's budget was cut so our medical research programs 
are still suffering setbacks. Over the last 2 years, the NIH budget has 
increased by an average of 1 percent per year. Not since 1970 has the 
NIH been so consistently underfunded. If the NIH budget were simply to 
keep up with inflation since 2005, we will have to increase the budget 
by another $1.8 billion.
  This chart indicates the Bush administration cuts to vital NIH 
research. We see the important increases during early 2000, 2001, 2002, 
and 2003. Then we see dramatic reductions. Under the President's 
budget, the NIH budget would be flat for the second year in a row. That 
hasn't happened in more than half a century.
  This is the century of the life sciences. With all that we know about 
the slicing of the gene, DNA, and all the possibilities of stem cell 
research, most researchers believe that the opportunities to make 
enormous progress on the diseases which affect every family, whether it 
is cancer, Alzheimer's, or heart disease, are immeasurable. But we are 
not going to have those promises fulfilled if we see the kinds of 
reductions that we have seen in this budget.
  We hear a great deal about the challenges we are facing to compete 
internationally. We are told we need to be an innovative society, and 
an innovative society needs innovative life sciences. That is certainly 
an area of enormous possibility if we are going to provide resources 
for the basic research. But, no, we are cutting back in these extremely 
important areas. These are the areas in which we are cutting back: We 
have seen reductions in the Cancer Institute, a reduction in the Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute, reductions in research in diabetes and 
kidney diseases. We know that $1 out of $4 spent under Medicare are 
spent on diabetics; $1 out of $10 in the general health area are spent 
on diabetics.
  When we make breakthroughs in the diabetes treatments, we are going 
to see an enormous change for the people who are affected by this 
disease, and we are going to have an enormous impact in terms of total 
health care costs. But we are cutting back on those areas of research 
and we are cutting back on mental health and cutting back on child 
health and development. 18 of the 19 NIH institutes will suffer cuts 
compared to the rate of inflation, which means that NIH will fall 
behind in the race for new cures.
  I don't believe those are America's priorities, but they are the 
priorities of this President, and we are going to find out if they are 
the priorities of this Senate.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to address the issue of education. 
This budget also fails to make education a priority. In this shrinking 
world, education is an even greater priority than ever before, and our 
budget should reflect that.
  As a nation, we must invest in Americans by ensuring access to the 
highest quality educational opportunities. We need to have the best 
educated, the best trained, the most sophisticated individuals, and we 
need to nourish the capacities of every person in the Nation.
  Yet the President's budget has proposed the biggest cut to education 
in the 26-year history of the Department of Education.
  Here is what we have seen on the No Child Left Behind Act--I will 
have an opportunity in the debate to go through this in greater 
detail--but the commitment to No Child Left Behind, an Act signed into 
law by the President, is to take every child who is not up to 
proficiency and to make sure they are going to have the support systems 
to get them up to proficiency--smaller class sizes, better trained 
teachers, supplementary services, and greater involvement of parents in 
these various programs.
  However, what we have seen is that we are not living up to that 
commitment--instead, we are leaving children behind because of 
inadequate funding. This year alone, 3.5 million to 4 million of the 
nation's students will be left behind.
  We are seeing now under the current program that 29 States are going 
to lose Title I funding, which are funds for the schools in greatest 
need. Under this budget, there are going to be some 29 States, 
including the State of Virginia, that are going to lose funding.
  Many of the programs that the President has slated for elimination--
GEAR UP, TRIO Upward Bound and Talent Search--have been incredibly 
successful in terms of providing students who might not have had the 
opportunity to continue their education with the support they need to 
do so. In the TRIO Upward Bound program we find that when measured 
against students of similar backgrounds, nearly 70 percent of the 
students who participate in these programs go on to higher education. 
If we take a similar review of the students who don't participate, only 
about 54 percent of them attend college.
  Now let's look at what is happening in higher education. This chart 
shows the cost of attendance at a 4-year public college versus the 
maximum Pell grant. In 2001, we look at the gap between the cost of 
going to a 4-year public college, and we look at it today, and we see 
how this gap has grown to about 8,000 dollars. We have about 400,000 
young Americans who would be able to go to college and who want go to 
college, who have the intellectual ability to go to college, but who 
just cannot afford it. And those numbers are increasing dramatically 
over time.
  At an appropriate time, I intend to offer an amendment, hopefully 
with my colleague Senator Menendez and others, that will increase the 
maximum Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500, restore the eliminations of 
TRIO, GEAR UP, the LEAP program, and Perkins loans, and further 
increases the funding for all student aid programs, including what they 
call the SEOG, work study and graduate education, and restores cuts in 
vocational education and job training programs.
  The cuts in the job training program make no sense whatsoever. We 
have 73,000 jobs that are going begging in my State of Massachusetts. 
We have 156,000 people who are looking for jobs. What is missing is the 
connection between the training of those people who want the jobs and 
the jobs that are there, and in this particular budget, we are cutting 
those training programs, cutting the education programs, cutting the 
training programs, and even reducing the title I programs that are so 
essential.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 20 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). 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, how much additional time does the Senator 
need?
  Mr. KENNEDY. An additional 4 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts on the resolution.

[[Page 3299]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, please let me know when I have 30 seconds 
left.
  At some time, we will have an opportunity to see the Senate vote for 
an increase in the areas of education, offset by closing a loophole 
that has been accepted here in the Senate by 80 votes or more that are 
available out there at the present time.
  As many of us have seen, in a recent report, it was stated that about 
650,000 engineers will graduate from China this year. There will be 
330,000 engineers graduating from India, and 72,000 engineers from the 
United States--and half of those are foreign students. We are falling 
further and further behind. We are not talking just about out-
sourcing, we are talking about out-
sourcing basic research. When we find IBM opening up their new research 
centers in Bangalore, Intel opening up their new research centers 
abroad, hiring 2,500 engineers over there, we have to ask: Where are we 
here in the United States? Are we giving the appropriate kinds of 
support for students to continue their education?
  We have seen the request and the statements that have been made in a 
bipartisan way by Senator Alexander and Senator Bingaman, the reports 
of the Academy of Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences, all of 
which say that we need to respond here in the United States the way we 
responded at the time the Russians sent up Sputnik, and that is to have 
a major investment in the young people of this country.
  Yes, we can give focus and attention just narrowly to math and 
science, and certainly we ought to provide that, but in order to really 
meet the challenge we are facing because of globalization, we have to 
make sure we have the best trained, best educated young people and that 
they are ready to meet these challenges. We need to equip every single 
American with the ability to compete and succeed, and we need to equip 
our country to be able to deal with globalization and ensure that we 
are well-educated, that we will be an innovative economy, and that we 
will provide innovative research. And when we have an innovative 
economy, we will have an innovative defense.
  This is a matter of national security. This is a matter of national 
security and national defense, making sure that we are going to be at 
the cutting edge of all of the research that is possible over a period 
of years. That is going to be the issue in question on which we will 
have an opportunity to vote during the course of this debate and 
discussion, and I look forward to the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. President, 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. 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.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to colleagues on our side of the 
aisle, what we are attempting to do is change the way we handle the 
budget debate this year and to do it in a way that will have more of 
the votes occur before the vote-athon on Thursday night. That is what 
Senator Gregg and I are attempting to accomplish. It is going to take 
cooperation.
  What we are doing with our colleagues now, we have agreed on the 
first six amendments to be debated and the time for each. What we are 
asking our colleagues to do is agree to exchange time for certainty--
certainty of when their amendment would be considered, certainty for 
the amount of time they would have but less time than they could have 
under the rules. People can disagree and they can say: No, we won't 
agree to that. If they don't agree, we are going to be right back in 
the soup, and we will be here until the wee hours Thursday. We don't 
think that is the best way to debate this issue. We don't think that is 
the best way for colleagues, all of our colleagues, to have the best 
chance of having their amendments considered.
  So I am sending this message out to colleagues: If we work together, 
I think we can improve this budget debate process and have a whole 
series of votes tomorrow afternoon that we won't then have to have 
Thursday and do it again the next day and do it again the next day. 
That is what we are asking colleagues to do.
  Mr. President, would 20 minutes be sufficient for the Senator from 
North Dakota?
  Mr. DORGAN. Twenty minutes, yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the debate, the discussions 
today, and I have watched some of it from my office. The budget is a 
discussion about this country's value systems. It is very simple. I 
have mentioned many times on the floor the proposition that if someone 
asked you to write an obituary for someone you had never met but who 
had died and the only information you had about that person was their 
check register, what would you write? Well, you would write a little 
something about what that person felt were his priorities in life, what 
was his or her value system. What did they invest in? What did they 
spend money on? That would represent their value system. That is what 
you would tell about that deceased person you never met.
  One hundred years from now, we will all be dead. Historians will be 
able to look back at this moment and say: What were our values? What 
was our value system? By looking at the Federal budget, they will say: 
Here is what the United States held dear; here is what they invested 
in; here is what their priorities and their values were.
  Now, because this budget represents a set of priorities and values, 
it is important to take a look at the first step in the budget process, 
and that is the budget sent to us by President.
  I recall, in the year 2001, the debate on the floor of the Senate 
about the President's fiscal policy. This President came to town at the 
time when we had a very large budget surplus for the first time in many 
decades, and were predicting surpluses in future years.
  This President said: Let's give away this future surplus. This money 
doesn't belong to the Government; it belongs to the taxpayers.
  Some of us said: Well, we don't have that surplus yet. Yes, the year 
that we are in is a surplus, but we don't have the next 10 years as a 
surplus. What if something should happen? Maybe we should be a little 
conservative.
  The President said: No, don't worry about being conservative. Let's 
give back money we don't have but are expected to have because experts 
tell us we will have a big surplus during the next 10 years.
  So the President got his way and gave very large tax cuts. The most 
significant amount went to the wealthiest Americans. And those large 
tax cuts which now eat quite a hole in our revenue stream for this 
Government turned out to be tax cuts, cutting revenue at the time when 
we hit a recession some months later, the 9/11 attacks in 2005, about 9 
months, 8 months later; then we had the war on terrorism, the war in 
Iraq. So these large budget surpluses turned into very large budget 
deficits.
  My colleague, Senator Conrad, has described with this chart where 
this administration will take us. This doesn't take an advanced degree 
from Wharton School of Economics to understand. All you have to do is 
look at this red ink and evaluate where this fiscal policy is taking 
America.
  I believe both political parties have contributed mightily to this 
country. These are political parties, Democrats and Republicans, that 
have a grand tradition of offering good ideas to America.
  One of the things you used to be able to count on the Republicans for 
was fiscal policy. The caricature was that they wore wire-rimmed 
glasses and gray suits, they looked like they just swallowed a lemon, 
and you could always count on them saying: We demand a balanced budget; 
we demand a fiscal policy that adds up for the good and for the wealth 
and for this country's future. There is no such thing as those 
conservative Republicans anymore. There is a Republican in the

[[Page 3300]]

White House, and Republicans in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate who have 
a completely different fiscal policy. It is a fiscal policy that steps 
us up year after year after year after year toward greater debt.
  I told you, things didn't turn out quite the way the President 
suggested. He got his way here in the Congress because he had the votes 
to get his way. So we have a fiscal policy that cut taxes mostly for 
the wealthy--a few crumbs for the rest but mostly tax cuts for the 
wealthy--and increased spending, especially relating to the aftermath 
of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. We had the Emergency Terrorism Response 
Supplemental Appropriations Act and DOD Appropriations Act, $17.6 
billion added to that as an emergency in the fiscal year 2002; 
emergency supplemental, $13.6 billion, 2002; emergency supplemental, 
$65.9 billion, 2003; emergency supplemental, $85 billion, 2004. I could 
go on and on. Over $400 billion sent to us by this President as an 
emergency request passed by the Congress, none of it paid for, all of 
it piled right on our children's debt which they will pay for at some 
point in the future.
  Now, did Congress vote for this? Sure. Is anybody going to say: Let's 
send our troops, but let's not provide the equipment they need? No, I 
don't think so. I think most of us have the same view on that. You send 
troops to go into harm's way, then you have a responsibility to provide 
the things they need to do their job. But shouldn't there be some 
requests of the rest of the American people--not just the troops but 
the rest of the American people--to weigh in here and to help pay for 
some of these things? If we are going to ask that it be spent in 
support of the troops, shouldn't we ask that it also be paid for?
  As I said, we have a fiscal policy that is out of balance, out of 
control, and we need to put it back on track. Let me describe what is 
happening with some of this emergency money. It is the case that we 
have been hit with a lot of things: a recession back in 2001--and no, 
President Bush didn't inherit a recession. Let's set the facts 
straight, if we can. The recession that began on this President's 
watch, then 9/11, and then a series of others things, including 
Hurricane Katrina.
  Not only do we have a fiscal policy that is completely and thoroughly 
out of whack, adding debt after debt after debt to our children year 
after year, we also have a sea of incompetence almost never before 
seen. Let me describe that with respect to Hurricane Katrina.
  This is a picture of Paul Mullinax. Do you see Paul there? He has a 
portable radio, he has a couple of bottles of water, it looks like 
maybe he has some chips, and I think this is a little stove.
  Paul is a really interesting guy. I met him, actually. He is an 
independent truck driver from Florida. As you see, he is sitting out in 
front of his truck. This is Paul's truck. He was sitting with a long 
line of trucks, and that picture was taken on a base, Maxwell Air Force 
base in Montgomery, AL. There were 100 refrigerated trucks at 
Montgomery, AL.
  Mr. Mullinax was instructed by FEMA, in the post-Katrina Hurricane 
period, to take a truckload of ice from Newburgh, NY, to Montgomery, 
AL. Actually they said take it to Carthage, MO, first so he picked up 
the ice at Newburgh, NY, and then he went to Carthage, MO, and the 
minute he got there they told him you need to go to Maxwell Air Force 
Base in Montgomery, AL, so he got there.
  Then Mr. Mullinax sat there in front of his refrigerator truck for 12 
days with 100 other refrigerator trucks that were also hauling ice. The 
victims of Katrina desperately needed this ice, but it just sat there 
at an Air Force base in Alabama.
  So here was Paul, a Florida trucker who hauled the ice to Missouri, 
then was told you need to go to Alabama, and with 100 other truckers, 
Paul sat in front of his truck for 12 days. Then he was told by FEMA, 
you need to take this ice to Massachusetts. You think I am kidding. I 
hear someone giggling about that. The folks who were the victims of 
Katrina needed the ice but he was told by FEMA to deliver it to 
Gloucester, MA, and so he did. I don't know what happened to the other 
trucks. There were 100 trucks lined up there.
  It cost $15,000 to have the American taxpayers have Paul pick up ice 
in New York and deliver it to Massachusetts by way of Carthage, MO, and 
Maxwell Air Force Base, AL. In the meantime, the victims of Hurricane 
Katrina could not get any ice. So Paul sat. Then he went to 
Massachusetts to offload his ice. One load of ice, and there were 
hundreds and hundreds of such trucks--and just one load of ice cost 
$15,000, and was hauled from New York ultimately to Massachusetts.
  A Mississippi sheriff, in the middle of all this, got so frustrated 
with the ice truck fiasco that he ended up commandeering 2 trucks full 
of ice and sending them directly to the relief centers for Hurricane 
Katrina. Sheriff Billy McGee saw trucks sitting at a staging area in 
Camp Shelby, MS, so he ordered two of the trucks to be sent to Brooklyn 
and Sheeplow, MS, and a National Guard man tried to stop the sheriff 
from rerouting these two trucks. The sheriff had the guardsman arrested 
and got the trucks where they were to be offloaded for the victims, and 
now the sheriff is being prosecuted for a misdemeanor.
  Why do I tell you all this? Because we are spending a massive amount 
of money with parts of a Government that are fundamentally incompetent.
  It is almost unbelievable to see the way some of this money is 
wasted. I think a lot of people take a look at the Federal Government 
and they say there is a lot of waste, and I agree with that. We ought 
to tighten our belts. We ought to get rid of some of this waste.
  But there are lots of programs that are vitally important, and that 
deserve funding. This includes, for instance, health programs for 
people who live in rural areas of America. The President doesn't 
distinguish between good spending and bad spending. The President 
doesn't do that. He says my biggest priority is to preserve a 15-
percent tax rate on capital gains and, oh, by the way, everything else 
can go by the wayside to pay for it.
  So the community service block grant--it doesn't matter, we can get 
rid of that if we want to. Rural health, we can get rid of that. All 
these issues are less important to this administration than the issue 
of preserving the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains. That is a fact.
  I have worked with Senator Conrad for many years. We both come from 
the same State. There is nobody better prepared on the floor of the 
Senate to make the case on thoughtful and solid budgeting than Senator 
Conrad. He understands common sense, understands the numbers.
  I see another of my colleagues volunteering for recognition here--and 
I will say that the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of 
the committee have had an impossible job.
  Trying to make sense of the budget sent to us by this administration 
is like trying to connect two ends of two plates of spaghetti. It is 
impossible. It cannot work because this is a budget that does not add 
up under any set of circumstances.
  Social services, that is the money that goes in grants and direct 
appropriations to both agencies and nonprofits to help people around 
this country--they are the ones that take a hit in many of these areas. 
I held a meeting with social service groups and nonprofits in North 
Dakota and asked them about this budget. They told me about the people 
who are going to get hurt as a result of this. None of those people 
serve here in this Chamber. They are just people who try to make a 
living every day or try to exist in retirement with little income.
  One of the stories that was interesting to me was a nonprofit group 
which the day before had an 81-year-old woman show up applying for a 
job. This is a group that helps people get work. The 81-year-old woman 
wanted a job. Why? Because she lost her last job. What was her last 
job, at 81 years old? Cleaning office buildings at 1 a.m. Go in at 1 in 
the morning and clean office buildings at age 81. The company downsized 
a little bit and she lost her job and now she wants another job.

[[Page 3301]]

Why? Because her payment under Social Security was $170 a month. That 
is what she was left with. So she has to work at 81.
  Should this budget reflect the needs of this woman who is cleaning 
buildings at 1 in the morning at age 81? Sure it should. There are a 
lot of people in this country who are vulnerable, who are in 
difficulty, who understand they need some help. A good budget, a 
thoughtful budget reaches out to those folks to say here is a helping 
hand. We want to help you up. This budget doesn't do that.
  This budget offers a helping hand only to the rich. In fact, every 
budget since 2001 has been a budget that says let's give a helping 
hand--to those who have much. That is the way the budget has been 
working. It is unbelievable.
  I want to put up another picture. I have used this a fair number of 
times. I do it because a budget is about how much revenue do you have 
and how much spending are you going to have. Let me tell you why we 
don't have enough revenue, and why the President wants to cut funding 
for key programs, especially program cuts that will hurt the most 
vulnerable in our country.
  This is a nice picture of something called the Ugland House. It is a 
five-story white building on Church Street in the Cayman Islands. 
According to David Evans, an enterprising reporter who did the story 
about this building, this building houses 12,748 companies. The 
companies are not all there in person. I am not suggesting that. But 
this is the official home in the Cayman Islands, on Church Street, for 
12,748 companies.
  Do you know why? It is their mailing address. They need a formal 
mailing address in a tax haven country so they can run their income 
through a tax haven country and avoid paying the taxes they would owe 
to the United States of America.
  This goes on, getting worse. Is anybody talking about cutting that? 
No, not really. In fact, this issue of cutting taxes for those who are 
the most well off in America is not abating at all. This administration 
believes its highest priority is to retain that 15 percent.
  Interestingly enough, we don't have enough money for community 
development block grants, rural health, the Byrne grants and so on, but 
last year there was enough money in this Chamber to decide that these 
companies and many more should get a 5.25-percent tax rate. That is 
right, 5.25-percent tax rate on money they repatriate from abroad. The 
expectation was they were going to pay a 35-percent tax rate. That was 
the statutory rate. But we said--I didn't vote for it--but we said as a 
Congress, we want to be generous so all of those big companies with 
standard brands out there you would recognize, they want to repatriate 
$30 billion worth of income, bring it back to this country. Did they 
pay 10-percent income taxes on it as most people would at the lowest 
income Americans? No, they didn't. Fifteen percent or 25 percent or 30? 
No, they didn't pay any of that. They paid 5.25 percent. They saved 
$102 to $104 billion.
  This Senate had enough resources to decide we want to give the 
biggest interests of this country a $102 billion tax break by allowing 
them to pay a 5.25-percent tax rate but now we say we are out of money, 
we can't afford to deal with those ends of the spending side that 
affect the most vulnerable in our country.
  I think those are very strange priorities. There is much to be said 
about this budget. I am mindful, also, that it is easier to criticize 
than it is to propose. I think it was Mark Twain who was once asked if 
he would be engaged in a debate and said, Of course, as long as I can 
take the negative side. They said, We haven't told you the subject. He 
said, It doesn't matter, the negative side takes no preparation.
  This takes even less than no preparation, to look at this budget and 
look at what this is doing to America and understand that this is to 
fiscal policy like mud wrestling is to the performing arts. This is an 
abysmal failure that is dragging this country down, down, down into 
deeper debt. The question I think most people would ask--they certainly 
ask those who propose this from the White House, and those who 
construct it here, is do you believe adding additional debt is a move 
toward greater sensibility in fiscal policy?
  The answer has to be no.
  I have a whole series of recommendations on where we should cut 
funding. I will not go over them at the moment and I will be happy to 
come back at some point. I would start with programs such as TV Marti. 
We actually spend money--we bought a new airplane last year to send 
television signals to Cubans that they can't see. We have spent close 
to $200 million on that program. It ought to be shut off immediately, 
but we can't do it because too many of the Members of the Senate keep 
voting for it. Why? Because of Florida. Why? Because of politics.
  That is for another day. I have a whole series of recommendations. 
These are areas where we can and should cut Federal spending. I think 
we ought to. We ought to begin collecting revenues from companies that 
have been generously provided tax breaks from the Senate and our 
colleagues in the House, pushed by this President. We ought to get our 
fiscal house in order.
  As I started, I said I watched some of this debate today. This is 
very important. This establishes some of the priorities for this 
Congress and I hope finally this year we might get them right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from 
North Dakota, for his comments and for his insights. I especially like 
his picture of the building in the Cayman Islands that is the home to 
more than 12,700 companies. Why is it their home? Because they are 
engaged in a giant tax dodge, that is why. What they are doing is 
acting as though they are doing business in the Cayman Islands so they 
can show their profits in the Cayman Islands, because the Cayman 
Islands do not have any taxes. What these companies are doing, many of 
them are operating in the United States where they earn their money, 
but they don't show their profits here. They have a series of 
subsidiaries and they show the profits of the subsidiaries in the 
Cayman Islands so they avoid their taxes here. That is what is going 
on. It is a giant scam. That is not the only scam. There are all kinds 
of scams going on.
  One of perhaps the most remarkable scams is that companies in the 
United States are buying sewer systems of cities in Europe and 
depreciating them on their books in the United States to reduce their 
tax burden here. Then they lease back the sewer systems to the cities 
in Europe that are actually using them. If that isn't an outrageous 
scam, I don't know what is. They are not just doing it with sewer 
systems, they are doing it with metro systems, they are doing it with 
all kinds of public infrastructure. That should not be permitted. Some 
say if you shut that down you are increasing taxes. I don't think so. I 
think you are collecting taxes that were legitimately owed in the first 
place and you are stopping a scam. That is what we did in the Budget 
Committee. When we offered additional spending--and we did, we offered 
$126 billion of additional spending and $104 billion of it was one 
amendment.
  Some might say, there the Democrats go again, spending money. What 
were we spending money on? What was that amendment about? I will tell 
you what it was about. It was to make the assistance for veterans in 
this country mandatory, not discretionary. I think people will be 
surprised to find out that the way our budget is devised, support for 
our veterans is considered discretionary. Medicare is considered 
mandatory, Social Security is considered mandatory, but aid to our 
Nation's veterans is considered to be discretionary.
  We thought that was not right so we proposed switching aid to 
veterans from discretionary accounts to mandatory accounts because we 
think that is what the American people intend. I don't think they think 
it is a discretionary matter, to provide assistance to young men and 
women who have been fighting for us in Afghanistan and

[[Page 3302]]

Iraq. So we proposed putting that on the mandatory side of the budget. 
That shows up as a cost--$104 billion. We offset it by proposing 
closing tax loopholes in the tax gap.
  The tax gap is now running at $350 billion a year. The difference 
between what is owed and what is being paid is $350 billion a year, 
according to the testimony of the Revenue Commissioner of this 
administration. He said it before the Senate Budget Committee, and he 
said we could capture $50 billion to $100 billion a year without 
fundamentally changing the relationship of taxpayers to the Revenue 
Service. We should do that.
  Some say that is a tax increase. I don't think that is a tax 
increase; I think that is collecting taxes that are already due and 
owed but aren't being paid. If we are not going to start insisting that 
everybody pays, we are just going to run a system where some pay, then 
shame on us, shame on the system. That is unfair to the vast majority 
of people who are paying what they owe. The vast majority of people and 
the vast majority of companies pay what they owe, but unfortunately we 
have an increasing number of people and an increasing number of 
companies that aren't. That is unfair to all the rest of us, and it is 
dramatically increasing the debt of our country at the worst possible 
time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are two other issues that relate to 
a tax hike, because a budget is about how much revenue you have coming 
in and how much you are preparing to spend. I mentioned this little 
Christmas gift--it is not really little--$102 billion given by the 
Congress to companies that had parked income overseas but were 
anticipating having to repatriate to this country and pay a 35-percent 
corporate tax rate. This Congress and the President felt: Gee, we 
probably should--maybe I should not include the President so much; it 
was more the Congress decided that we really ought to give those 
corporations a 5\1/4\-percent tax rate or a $102 billion tax break. So 
the Congress did, and not with Senator Conrad's vote nor my vote, but 
nonetheless the Congress did that. About $330 billion was repatriated.
  Very quickly, we learned that the pharmaceutical industry repatriated 
at the early stages--I am not sure what the final stage was--$75 
billion which they earned abroad. The interesting thing was the 
pharmaceutical industry said: We charge the highest prices to American 
consumers because we don't make money elsewhere. We have to charge 
lower prices in other countries because we are prevented from charging 
higher prices. Now we discover they were making a lot of money overseas 
because given the chance to pay a 5\1/4\-percent tax rate, when they 
repatriated it, they repatriated a bunch of money they earned overseas 
at lower prices for the same prescription drugs. We not only saw the 
taxpayers short shrifted by the highest prices in the world, but now we 
see the drug companies getting $75 billion of their income being taxed 
at 5\1/4\ percent.
  If I might make one additional point, we also have a provision in tax 
law which says to companies: Shut down your plant in America, fire your 
workers, move it to China, and we will give you a tax cut. And by the 
way, the Joint Tax Committee says that is worth $1.2 billion a year or 
$12 billion in 10 years. So we will spend $12 billion in the next 10 
years giving tax cuts to companies that shut their American plants, 
fire their American workers, and move their jobs overseas. If there is 
any perversity in this Congress, it is those who refuse to be willing 
to shut down that kind of a tax break. We have had four votes on it. I 
have offered it four times. We have lost all four times. And on four 
occasions, people stood up here in the Senate and supported a tax break 
to companies that would ship their jobs overseas. It is almost 
unbelievable.
  The reason I mention this is that in the case of putting together a 
budget, you ought to be able to at least shut down those drains on the 
revenue side that run against the public interest in this country. Is 
it in the public interest to pay those companies to shut down their 
American plants and fire their workers? I don't think so. Certainly it 
is not. It is just nuts for the Congress to be saying: Let us reward 
that behavior. And that is exactly what is happening this year to the 
tune of $1.2 billion.
  I say to my colleague from North Dakota that there are many areas in 
revenue where we would try to plug a drain on our revenue, and the 
other side will say: You are increasing taxes. Yes. I am increasing 
taxes for those who aren't paying, for God's sake.
  Maybe somebody camped out in the Ugland House, an official address in 
the Cayman Islands, with a lawyer camped out, so they can move their 
jobs to China, sell their products in America, and run their income 
through a house in the Cayman Islands and avoid paying taxes. Do we 
want to increase their taxes? Darned right. Why? Because they are not 
paying their fair share. Everybody else does. What about them? Yet the 
majority party keeps saying that if you are going to plug these 
loopholes, you are increasing taxes. That is a strange viewpoint, and I 
think one we need to fix. We need to solve these problems.
  I appreciate the work of Senator Conrad.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I don't consider it a 
tax increase to actually collect the taxes that individuals or 
companies already owe which they are not paying. That is not a tax 
increase. No tax rate is increased. That is not creating a new tax; 
that is collecting the taxes that are already owed.
  The Revenue Commissioner testified before the Senate Budget Committee 
that the tax gain--the difference between what is owed and what is 
actually being paid--is $350 billion a year. The deficit is going to be 
$371 billion, and we are not collecting $350 billion of revenue that is 
owed. I don't consider that a tax increase. I think that is simply 
enforcing the laws that already exist.
  I want to again alert colleagues. We are trying to change the way the 
budget debate occurs. The chairman and I are trying very hard. We have 
heard the complaints of our colleagues about vote-aramas. A vote-arama 
typically occurs because time runs out before the amendment that has 
been offered has a chance to be voted on under the rules of the Senate. 
We are trying to make sure that the people have a chance to debate 
those amendments and get a vote and dispense with some of these votes 
before we get to Thursday night.
  I hope very much that colleagues are going to agree to the timeframe 
that we have set out in order to accomplish that purpose. If people 
resist that, then we are going to be right back in a vote-arama 
Thursday night and voting until the wee hours of the morning. If people 
want a reform of the way we do business here, we need them to cooperate 
and help us.
  Perhaps the chairman could review what the order of business is going 
to be for the rest of the afternoon and this evening in terms of the 
opportunities that are going to exist for colleagues to come to the 
floor tonight and talk about their amendments and make their opening 
statements. We are going to be in business to the extent that people 
take advantage of the time that is available.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I 
agree with him and thank him for encouraging our membership to 
participate actively early in the debate.
  As he mentioned, we hope to reduce the exercise known as vote-arama 
so we are not here until the wee hours of Friday morning or Thursday 
night, and one way to do that is to get these amendments up and get 
them offered.
  What we are going to do this evening is reach an agreement for the 
first six amendments, which we will begin debating tomorrow in 
sequence, and then we will vote them tomorrow, with the vote time 
coming off the bill. This evening, we are going to have a vote at 5:30. 
I hope Members will come down between now and 5:30 and talk about the 
bill or talk about their amendments. Then, after the vote at 5:30, the

[[Page 3303]]

floor will be open for Members to come forward and talk about their 
amendments--not to offer them at that time because we are going to set 
up this sequence. If Members have amendments they wish to offer, get in 
touch with us, and we will get them in debating order.
  That is the game plan at the moment. I appreciate the efforts of the 
Senator from North Dakota in making that happen.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have Members who are now on their way 
to the floor to speak on the budget.
  I again implore colleagues, if they want to make an opening 
statement, tonight is the opportunity to do so. If they want to talk 
about an amendment and not offer it tonight but talk about it, tonight 
is the opportunity.
  As we get into tomorrow, the time is going to be very scheduled in a 
very disciplined way so that we can make maximum progress. It is going 
to be that way Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday until we finish. 
Tonight is the opportunity to make opening statements. Tonight is the 
night to talk about amendments that you might otherwise not get time to 
talk about. Again, this won't be the time to actually offer amendments, 
but you can describe it, you can debate it, and you can discuss it. 
Please. We are giving colleagues this opportunity tonight so that 
tomorrow we can get amendments up and vote on amendments and get the 
work of the Senate concluded.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I talked earlier about the $12 billion 
expenditure, $1.2 billion a year over the next 10 years, according to 
the Joint Tax Committee, that we use to reward companies that move 
their jobs overseas by giving them a tax break for such activity.
  I have previously offered this on four occasions. I have lost it on 
four occasions in the Senate. I can't believe there is anyone left in 
the Senate who, having thoughtfully evaluated this, would believe we 
should continue to give tax breaks to those who ship jobs overseas.
  In the hope that other of my colleagues have seen the light or felt 
the heat or some way or other found an epiphany about this subject, I 
anticipate offering this again and consider my previous statement to be 
an opening statement when I would offer such an amendment, so I 
wouldn't require any particular time on it. I have already spoken on 
it, and perhaps my two colleagues would consider at an appropriate 
point accepting the amendment. It is infused with such wildly common, 
common sense my hope would be that my colleagues would decide to simply 
accept the amendment on this fifth occasion on the floor of offering 
the amendment, especially inasmuch, I might say, as Ford Motor 
announces that they are going to close plants and get rid of 30,000 
workers, General Motors is going to get rid of 25,000 to 30,000 
workers--and the list goes on. By the way, not only get rid of their 
workers but cut their pensions and run them through with health care 
problems and payment of corporate health care accounts.
  Given all that news, my guess is that perhaps the sentiment would 
have changed, believing maybe now is the appropriate time to shut down 
this perverse tax incentive that rewards companies that fire their 
American workers and move their jobs overseas.
  At some appropriate point, I will consider offering it. I would not 
need time to debate it.
  Again, I say to my two colleagues that my hope and expectation would 
be that you would just accept the amendment at some appropriate time. 
And this would stand as some future discussion, if I offer that 
amendment at the appropriate time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I may have already asked, but let me renew 
this unanimous consent request that for the duration of the budget 
debate, when there is a quorum call, the time be deemed to be running 
against both sides equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                          water infrastructure

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman 
in a colloquy.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CRAPO. I wish to express my appreciation for your efforts to put 
together a well-crafted fiscal year 2007 budget resolution that 
balances the need for critical Government programs while taking a 
strong stand against our budget deficit. 
  As the committee works to address these critical needs, one area of 
the administration's request in particular needs special mention--the 
proposal to reduce funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, 
CWSRF, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, DWSRF. Although the 
administration's budget submission makes a number of difficult choices, 
the recommendation to reduce funding to the CWSRF and the DWSRF 
represents a tremendous hardship for communities throughout the 
country.
  Recent studies show that our Nation's water and wastewater 
infrastructure needs severely exceed the availability of resources at 
the local and State level to meet them. So many towns and cities across 
our country have exhausted their abilities to raise utility rates and 
issue bonds to pay for needed improvements. At the same time, 
increasing Federal water quality and drinking water standards force 
utility managers to upgrade systems or fall into noncompliance.
  No community or customer wants to be served by a failing water or 
wastewater facility, but the Federal Government's commitment to 
addressing these regulatory mandates must be mated with its assistance. 
Without this commitment, communities can be left with nowhere to turn 
for help. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2002 that the 
United States has between $132 billion and $388 billion in clean water 
infrastructure needs alone over the next 20 years and the spending gap 
over that time will reach $70 to 360 billion. Similar figures affect 
the Nation's drinking water infrastructure.
  Idaho, a small State by population and infrastructure needs, still 
only receives about $15 million annually, but its aggregate water and 
wastewater needs over the next 20 years will approach $1 billion by 
some estimates. For instance, the rural city of Castleford, ID, has 
become out of compliance with the EPA's arsenic standard for drinking 
water. In order to conform with the rule, the town, with a population 
of less than 200, will have to expend more than its entire annual 
operating budget to update the water infrastructure system.
  The principal means for assisting utilities are the SRFs, which 
provide a loan pool for State agencies to work with distressed 
communities. The SRF assistance help finance infrastructure projects at 
the local level, and those communities in turn repay those loans so 
that the State might aid other communities in need.
  That is why I believe it is so problematic to see a continuing 
decline in funding for the CWSRF and DWSRF. As recently as 2 years ago, 
funding was $1.35 billion and $850 million, respectively. 
Unfortunately, budget pressure has forced the CWSRF down to $900 
million in the current fiscal year, and the President has proposed to 
reduce that to $688 million for the next year. While the DWSRF is 
proposed at only an $8 million reduction, a fateful and disturbing 
trend is developing.
  As the past chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee 
on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, I led efforts in two successive 
Congresses to update and increase the authorization for the CWSRF and 
DWSRF. Although those legislative initiatives never made it to the 
Senate floor, I remain committed to helping communities in Idaho and 
throughout the country address their water and wastewater needs.
  During the debate on this budget resolution in the Budget Committee, 
an amendment was offered to condemn the President's call for reductions 
in those important accounts. I opposed that amendment because I want to 
focus effort where it counts, by working with my distinguished chairman 
and the Appropriations Committee to restore funding for the two SRFs to 
the best of our abilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that you join me in working through the balance 
of the

[[Page 3304]]

budget resolution process, as well as during your service on the 
Appropriations Committee, to help restore these vital funds.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Senator Crapo. I agree with your comments about 
the importance of these resources, and I applaud your leadership in 
this area. While the President's request for these accounts is lower 
than many would like, I believe that during the appropriations process, 
Congress will try to remedy this problem. As you know, historically, 
the President tends to request lower funding levels for these accounts, 
and Congress usually pluses them up through the appropriations process, 
often quite significantly. For example, in 2004, 2005, and 2006, 
Congress provided considerably more for the Clean Water SRF Program 
than the President requested, +492 million, +291 million, and +$157 
million, respectively. As Congress works to finalize the fiscal year 
2007 budget resolution, I will continue to work with you on these 
issues.
  Additionally, in my role as a member of the Appropriations Committee, 
I will certainly be cognizant of the funding needs for SRF Programs.
  Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
vote scheduled for 5:30 today the Senate resume consideration of the 
budget resolution for debate only this evening; provided further that 
when the Senate resumes debate on the resolution on Tuesday, the Senate 
begin consideration of the following amendments in the order listed 
below under the listed times for debate: Conrad amendment, the Conrad-
Feingold amendment on pay-go for an hour, equally divided; the Talent 
amendment on defense for an hour, equally divided; the Kennedy 
amendment on education for an hour, equally divided; the Chafee 
amendment on IDEA special education, an hour equally divided; the Byrd 
amendment on veterans, equally divided; the Akaka veterans amendment, 
equally divided.
  I further ask consent the votes occur in relationship to the 
amendments beginning at approximately 3 p.m. on Tuesday, with no 
second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relationship to 
the amendments. I ask consent that the vote time consumed under this 
agreement count equally against the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for working this 
out. It is a good start to this bill. It gives us an opportunity to get 
out of the box with a series of amendments, get them voted on and 
hopefully reduce the vote-arama at the end of the bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for working this out, 
as well. I thank our colleagues for their willingness to cooperate and 
to say to other colleagues that this sets a good example. I hope very 
much other colleagues and their staff are listening and that they 
understand if we continue on this course, we could have a much better 
budget debate and not wind up in that vote-arama, voting four times an 
hour with very little discussion or debate intervening. I hope very 
much colleagues are listening and that they will continue to cooperate.
  I am especially grateful to the six colleagues who have already 
agreed in this order to these time limits, at these times.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I take it the parliamentary situation is 
such that it is in order for me to now be recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, at the very outset, let me say I have closely followed 
Senator Conrad's remarks on the budget. It is something I have done 
each year he has served as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. 
As always, I found his presentation to be both clear and insightful. 
For anyone who cares deeply about fiscal responsibility, as he does, 
the picture he has painted of America's fiscal condition is deeply 
troubling. I express my own deep appreciation to Senator Conrad, as I 
think people all across the country should do, for seeking to focus 
attention on this important problem.
  Day by day, we have different issues which grab the headlines and the 
public's attention, but, meanwhile, this deteriorating situation of 
America moving further and further down into a fiscal box goes on. The 
implications of that are very far reaching.
  Senator Conrad has sought to call our attention to that, to focus our 
attention upon it, and to make us come to grips with this challenge. I 
commend him for what I think has been a very important public service.
  As we set out to consider the budget for fiscal year 2007, I think it 
is necessary for all of us to recognize the budget resolution is, in a 
very basic sense, the most important document we will deal with in this 
Congress.
  The budget contains within it literally hundreds and hundreds of 
decisions that are critical to our national life. Each time it comes 
before us, it puts to us the questions: What are our values? What are 
our priorities? What are we trying to accomplish as a society?
  It is within the budget that we set our priorities. We make these 
judgments: how much of our resources to commit, how much to raise 
through the taxing system, how large a deficit to run. All of these are 
very basic questions, and the priorities set among these programs 
determine the direction of our national life.
  Now, I think in order to judge the current budget and to develop some 
informed and responsible answers, we need to place that budget in the 
fiscal and economic context in which the Nation now finds itself.
  You do not need a very long memory to recall that a few short years 
ago, under President Clinton, as he was moving through his second term, 
after we, the President and the majority in Congress, had made some 
very hard choices on taxes and spending, restraining spending and 
raising some taxes, primarily on upper-income people--we were able to 
turn around the Nation's fiscal status.
  In 1998, the Federal Government reported its first surplus in the 
budget since the 1960s. When President Bush took office, we were in our 
third straight year of a surplus in the Federal budget, and we were 
projecting surpluses over the next 10 years of $5.6 trillion--five and 
a half trillion dollars in surpluses projected over a 10-year period.
  Obviously, this was a pretty healthy position to be in. It would 
have, of course, allowed the Nation to pay down the large national debt 
that had been accumulated as we moved through the 1980s and into the 
1990s. But in what I predict history will write as a gross 
irresponsibility, President Bush, in effect, squandered the projected 
surpluses by instituting irresponsible and reckless tax cuts--tax cuts 
whose overwhelming beneficiaries were those at the very top of the 
income and wealth scale. These were not broad-based tax cuts. These 
were tax cuts whose benefits, upon analysis, were seen to be focused 
very much on the top few percent of the income scale.
  When the President submitted his first budget proposal, he asserted:

       We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget 
     deficits, even if the economy softens.

  ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, 
even if the economy softens.''

[[Page 3305]]

  The following year, with a budget already in deficit, the President 
advocated for yet another tax cut--yet another--promising that ``our 
budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' In fact, 
the President's budget that year, 2002, stated the deficits would be so 
short term that today--as he was looking ahead--the Government would be 
back in surplus.
  Now, let's look at what has happened. Exactly the opposite of what 
the President predicted has happened. Under the irresponsible fiscal 
policy that this President has pursued, we have run deficits each and 
every year since 2001.
  In 2002, the deficit was $158 billion. President Bush inherited a 
surplus in 2001 of $128 billion. The three previous years had had 
surpluses as well, and then there was a $158 billion deficit in 2002. 
The deficit rose to $378 billion in 2003, rose again in 2004 to $413 
billion, fell slightly in 2005 to $319 billion, and is now projected to 
go back up again in 2006 to $371 billion. Far from being small and 
short term, these deficits are at record levels.
  This chart shows the deterioration in the Nation's fiscal position 
over the last 35 years. As we see, the budget went into the red more 
and more and more. In fact, in 1992, we had the previous record deficit 
of $289 billion. Then there were the years I referred to when we came 
out of deficit and ran a surplus. Now we have dived back into deficit, 
thanks primarily to the excessive tax cut and other factors, including 
the slowing of the economy and the involvement in Iraq. We ran a record 
deficit in 2004 of $413 billion. What an extraordinary deterioration in 
fiscal position to go from here to there.
  The deficits would be even larger if we were not using the Social 
Security trust fund each year to mask the cost of the President's 
policies. When we do a unified budget, we include in it any surplus or 
deficit in the Social Security trust fund, and the Social Security 
trust fund has been running a positive balance. That offsets the 
picture of the deficits, but it is not a totally accurate picture.
  The President has submitted a budget this year that would cause our 
Nation's fiscal health to continue to deteriorate. Regrettably, the 
President's budget does not even tell the whole story. It fails to 
account for very significant and substantial obligations overseas and 
for significant and substantial obligations at home. I want to give two 
examples of that. There are others. We could develop a longer list. But 
for purposes of illustration in terms of dealing with a budget that is 
not fully transparent and fully accountable, I will give two examples.
  From the very start of the war in Iraq, the administration has not 
reflected its true cost in the budget and in the budget submissions. In 
retrospect, one is given pause by the fact that the very day the 
bombing started on Baghdad in March of 2003, we were debating the 
budget resolution on the floor of the Senate--3 years ago.
  Of course, since the war had just started at that time, the budget 
resolution before us did not contain funding for that war. Instead, the 
President came along and submitted a request for an emergency 
supplemental appropriation to cover the initial war cost. That is not 
out of the ordinary. The budget had been submitted. The war had not 
been started. The money was not included for the war. I noted at the 
time that the money requested in the emergency supplemental 
appropriations was clearly only a downpayment and that much more would 
be needed to cover the full cost of the war and of the reconstruction. 
I am frank to say to my colleagues, I fully expected that the President 
would include those costs in his next budget submission. In other 
words, I expected that, having now become involved, the costs of that 
involvement would be reflected in subsequent budget submissions, and 
yet the President's budgets in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 
did not include a single cent for the ongoing cost of operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the President continued to ask for 
funding for Iraq and Afghanistan outside of the regular budget process.
  This year the President has included a placeholder of $50 billion in 
his budget. Even for the administration, after 2 years of not 
recognizing these costs, it finally hit home that they had to do 
something. So they put, as it were, a placeholder of $50 billion in the 
budget that was submitted, when everyone knows that significantly more 
than that figure will be needed. This is not responsible budgeting. The 
President is refusing to own up to the true cost of his policies.
  Let me turn to a domestic issue which is not fully reflected in the 
budget but, again, as we know, is going to happen. That is the cost of 
fixing the alternative minimum tax. This tax was put in place as part 
of our Tax Code in order to require that very wealthy people, who are 
using various exemptions and deductions in the Tax Code to avoid paying 
any taxes at all, would pay at least a certain amount of tax. It was an 
effort to assure some equity and fairness in the workings of the tax 
system. What has happened is that the threshold levels of the 
alternative minimum tax have not been adjusted for inflation. As a 
consequence, this tax is beginning to affect middle-class Americans to 
whom it was never intended to apply. We have adjusted it in previous 
years. It is clear it will need to be adjusted again at a significant 
cost. But those costs are not reflected in the budget the President has 
submitted to us.
  When these two items are taken into account, plus the deficits the 
President is projecting on the basis of his revenue and spending 
programs, we are now projecting a 10-year deficit of $3.5 trillion. 
Think about that. When the President came into office we were 
projecting a surplus over 10 years of $5.6 trillion. Now we are 
projecting a $3.5 trillion deficit. This is a deterioration in fiscal 
position of over $9 trillion. Because of these annual budget deficits, 
which we are running and are projected to continue to run, the debt of 
the country is projected to explode. It is now projected to rise to 
$11.8 trillion, almost $12 trillion, in gross Federal debt by the year 
2011.
  Look at this incredible runup in debt that has happened since 2001. 
We have moved up in an escalating way. We are at $8.6 trillion in 2006. 
We are projected to go to almost $12 trillion by 2011. Net interest 
payments on this debt are expected to consume more than $1 trillion 
over the next 5 years. These are just the interest payments on the 
debt. Each dollar that we pay in interest is one less dollar that we 
can invest in key areas that will help to keep our economy competitive 
in the future. We face a global competition. Other nations are 
investing in workforce training, physical infrastructure, 
transportation networks, research and development. If we fail to rise 
to that competitive challenge, we are going to fall behind, not move 
ahead.
  These debt figures, some say, are just numbers. It is hard to get 
your imagination around $12 trillion in debt. But these numbers all 
reflect real obligations. These will have to be paid off by the next 
generation and the generation after them through higher taxes and a 
reduced standard of living. As the New York Times put it in an 
editorial entitled ``The Pain That is Yet to Come'':

       America cannot escape the consequences of its debt 
     indefinitely. The effects may be sudden or gradual, but 
     either way they mean a weaker economy than would otherwise be 
     the case.

  This debt has another troubling aspect to it as well. We are 
financing this deficit by mortgaging our financial future to foreign 
lenders. The United States, in roughly a quarter of a century, has gone 
from being the world's largest creditor nation to being the world's 
largest debtor nation. In my view, there is a basic contradiction 
between being the world's largest debtor nation and asserting a role as 
the world's leading nation.
  Our international deficit, called our current account deficit, was 
nearly $800 billion last year, over 7 percent of our Nation's gross 
domestic product. In effect, we rely on over $2 billion of foreign 
inflow into the country each and every day. Warren Buffett was recently 
quoted as saying:

       Right now the rest of the world owns 3 trillion more of us 
     than we own of them. In my view it will create political 
     turmoil at some point. Pretty soon I think there will be a 
     big adjustment.


[[Page 3306]]


  This large adjustment could come in the form of higher interest rates 
here at home, a sudden crash in the value of the dollar or a sharp drop 
in our stock and bond markets. We don't know exactly what will happen 
because we are not in control of our own economy. Much of that control 
is in the hands of others overseas.
  As Blanche DuBois said in Tennessee Williams' play, ``A Streetcar 
Named Desire'':

       We have become utterly dependent on the kindness of 
     strangers.

  ``Utterly dependent on the kindness of strangers.'' Obviously, this 
situation should raise serious concerns about our ability to conduct 
our foreign policy in the future if we are constrained and limited by 
the need to keep our creditors willing to lend us money.
  Regrettably, in the budget plan submitted this year, the President 
offers no solution to bringing this national debt under control. In 
fact, the President is calling for the permanent extension of his tax 
cuts for the wealthy at a cost of trillions of dollars.
  I didn't agree with the President's tax plan in the days in which we 
had a budget surplus. I felt then it was too large, too heavily 
weighted toward the wealthy. Some argued--and I thought it had some 
logic to it--for a short-term targeted tax cut aimed primarily to 
middle- and working-class Americans and, at the same time, using the 
surplus to pay down our debt. In other words, to do a combination of 
those things.
  What I opposed and did not understand was the very excessive tax cuts 
the President put forward then and his continued support today for tax 
cuts in times of war and enormous budget deficits.
  We keep moving along year to year in this way, and we make these 
budget decisions, and then we go on to other business, but all the time 
these policies are working to drive us deeper into debt. As I said, 
much of this debt is held by foreign lenders, and that amount is 
growing all the time.
  At the end of fiscal year 2001, 31 percent of the outstanding Federal 
Government debt was held by foreign lenders. Over the succeeding 4 
years, borrowing from abroad accounted for more than 80 percent of the 
increase in our Government debt. So we have seen the debt rise and the 
portion of the debt held by foreign lenders, in percentage terms, rise 
at a much more rapid rate.
  If foreign lenders continue to buy 80 percent of new Federal debt, 
the Federal Government will owe more than half of the debt to foreign 
lenders by 2011. That is equivalent to almost 25 percent of our 
expected gross domestic product. Think of the leverage we are placing 
in the hands of foreign lenders. And a shift has also occurred from 
private to Government lenders with respect to where those funds are 
coming from.
  Regrettably, the President's budget also cuts substantially a number 
of programs designed to help working and middle-income people in this 
country. For example, Federal education funding has been cut by the 
largest amount in the 26-year history of the Department of Education. 
These cuts come at a time when tuition and fee increases have placed 
college education out of reach for many students. Since 2000, tuition 
and fees have increased almost 60 percent for public 4-year colleges 
and 32 percent for private 4-year colleges.
  The budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development is, 
once again, marked by cuts in programs that provide housing services 
and a healthy home environment for millions of American households. The 
President has proposed a 20-percent cut in community development block 
grants, a 25-percent cut in elderly housing, a 50-percent cut in 
housing for the disabled, and despite everyone's recognition of the 
essential services provided by our police and firefighters--everyone 
waxes eloquently about our first responders--the budget proposes to cut 
funding for community police by close to $400 million and to cut the 
fire programs by more than half.
  Let me try to put this in a little bit of context in terms of the 
choices being made with respect to priorities.
  In fiscal year 2007, the benefit of the President's tax cuts for 
millionaires, those with incomes over $1 million, will total $41.3 
billion. That is the benefit for millionaires resulting from those tax 
cuts.
  I mentioned cuts in education, housing, police, and fire. We could 
fund all of those programs that I listed--in other words, bring them 
back up to the current levels--for less than 10 percent of the benefits 
flowing from that tax cut for millionaires--less than 10 percent. I am 
not supportive of the bulk of that tax cut. I think it was giving much 
to those who already had more when we had other pressing needs facing 
us. But just 10 percent of it would bring education, housing, fire, and 
police back up to current base levels.
  What does it say about our priorities as a nation that we are placing 
these tax cuts for people at the very top ahead of investments in these 
programs?
  What is said, of course, is: We can't do the programs because we have 
a deficit. The public needs to ask: Why do we have this deficit? And 
the reason we have it is because of the tax cuts. So in terms of 
setting priorities, the tax cuts were given a higher priority than 
investments in education or in housing or in stronger police and fire, 
and I could go through the rest of the budget reflecting the same 
decisions and the same choice in terms of priorities.
  I could develop that list at some length, but let me conclude with 
one last point. I think the American people have a strong sense of 
fairness and equity. There have been a number of events during the 
course of this administration which have underscored the necessity to 
come together as a nation with this sense of fairness and equity--the 
attacks of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, the 
devastation of Hurricane Katrina, most prominent among them. But to 
move ahead, we must share the burden, and, unfortunately, the 
President's budget continues to favor the very wealthy. They are not 
carrying the burden. In fact, they are being relieved of some of the 
burden through the tax cuts while leaving the majority of Americans to 
carry the burden.
  So as we move forward with this budget process, we need to ask 
ourselves: What are our priorities as a nation? In my judgment, the 
President's budget does not reflect the values of the American people. 
It is neither fair nor responsible. While some changes were made in the 
Budget Committee, I still think it basically reflects the policies 
submitted to us by the President which I think are not fair, not 
responsible, and I urge my colleagues to reject the budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I know Senator Feingold is here on the floor and would 
like to be recognized for up to 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FRIST. Reserving the right to object, I have a short statement to 
make, and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin 
or have the ranking member yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. FRIST. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I am obviously 
disturbed--I know what the Senator from Wisconsin will be presenting 
shortly. I expect him to offer a resolution to censure the President of 
the United States--he made those intentions clear yesterday, and I 
expect him to do that shortly--a censure of the President for defending 
the United States of America and protecting our homeland security.
  As I implied in some statements I made publicly yesterday, I do 
believe this is a political stunt, a political stunt that is addressed 
at attacking the President of the United States of America when we are 
at war, when the President is leading us with a program that is lawful, 
that is constitutional, and that is vital to the safety and security of 
the American people. It is being offered at a time--with really an 
attack on what the President is doing--

[[Page 3307]]

at the same time we have terrorists right now intending to attack 
Western civilization and, indeed, the people of our homeland.
  With that being my feeling and the intention being so apparent to me, 
I do want to make it clear that if that is the case, and if this 
resolution is offered tonight, we will be ready to vote on that censure 
resolution tonight.
  That being the case, then I will offer a unanimous consent request at 
this juncture.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the 
5:30 vote this evening, the Senate proceed to a vote on the resolution 
of censure to be submitted by the Senator from Wisconsin, without 
further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand this has not been discussed 
with the minority leader, this proposal for a vote, and I would 
therefore object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The unanimous consent 
request is not agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. I would respectfully request of the leader that he 
should have a discussion with the minority leader before seeking to set 
the agenda.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I then ask unanimous consent that 
immediately following the budget vote scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, 
the Senate proceed to the consideration and an immediate vote on the 
resolution of censure that will be submitted by the Senator from 
Wisconsin without any further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I object for the same reason. I think 
the majority leader should have a responsible discussion with the 
minority leader before setting the agenda of the Senate. It should be 
an elemental courtesy in the conduct of the Senate's business.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I heard the objection. I just wanted to 
discuss our willingness on what is an important issue. We are talking 
about the censure of the President of the United States, and we are 
ready to vote on that this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Maryland yield me 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for up to 25 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. I understand, Mr. President, this is off the 
resolution; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin asked to speak as 
in morning business. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. I think an agreement was reached that it would be off 
the resolution and count toward the time on the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that stipulation?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is our understanding that 25 minutes 
would count on the underlying bill.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, is there a unanimous consent 
request pending?
  Mr. SARBANES. Only that the 25 minutes that Senator Feingold is going 
to use will come off the resolution.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand I have been recognized for 25 minutes as 
in morning business; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection has been heard to the unanimous 
consent request of the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thought that was the second unanimous 
consent. I simply asked originally for 25 minutes in morning business, 
and I believe that was approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Wisconsin to speak as in morning business for 25 minutes?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
object, we are perfectly willing to have the Senator speak but have the 
25 minutes count to the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I 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. 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. Mr. President, what we need here in the Senate is more 
debate, not less debate. I certainly have no problem with the Senator 
from Wisconsin speaking for as long as he wishes, and if the managers 
of the bill wish to yield time off the resolution to him, it is fine 
with me. I do want to say this, however: For the majority leader--and 
he has the right, I don't dispute that at all--to come to the floor 
without notice to his counterpart and offer a unanimous consent request 
is something that I never tried to do. I always tried to give him the 
benefit of my telling him what I plan to do, and I think that is the 
right thing to do. I am sure there was nothing willful in what he did; 
I am sure it was just an oversight.
  To try to limit debate on this most important matter that Senator 
Feingold is going to put before the Senate is not appropriate. I have 
no problem with arranging a time to finish debate on the Feingold 
proposal, but it seems to me what is happening in the Senate is there 
is no time to debate much. And we are under a statute, and that is why 
we are here today with the budget resolution, with 50 hours on this.
  But if we look at what we have facing us in the future, in the 
immediate future, the Secretary of the Treasury has asked us to 
increase the national debt from $8.2 trillion to $9 trillion. Now, if 
there were ever an opportunity for the American people to hear the 
differences between the two parties, I think it would be on that 
debate. Or, even if that weren't the case, something where we are being 
asked to increase the national debt by $800 billion, shouldn't there be 
a debate on that?
  To show our willingness to cooperate on something this important, I 
agreed with the distinguished majority leader that we would have 5 
hours of debate on the national debt and three amendments that we would 
offer. We would have a half hour on each of ours, an hour and a half 
time is all we wanted. When we are going to be asked to increase the 
national debt by approximately $800 billion, I think it is fair that we 
could have a few hours to talk about that.
  But it appears at this stage that is not going to happen. It appears 
there will be the 50 hours on this matter that is now before the Senate 
which will be completed sometime Thursday, and there will be a mad rush 
to get out of here for the week break that we have. Of course, offering 
amendments after the matter is brought to the attention of the Senate, 
I mean we can't do that because we may shut down the Government. And 
that is why the majority has waited so long, even though Secretary Snow 
advised us in December that there was going to be a problem with the 
national debt ceiling.
  So I have no problem with the Senator from Wisconsin being yielded 
time off the resolution by the distinguished ranking member of our 
Banking Committee who is now managing this bill for Senator Conrad, but 
I want the record to be spread with the fact that this is an issue that 
deserves more debate, not less debate. I don't care if the time is used 
off the budget resolution.
  So I would ask the distinguished Presiding Officer to read, or 
recall, at least, the unanimous consent request that was made by the 
distinguished majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request of the majority 
leader?
  Mr. REID. Yes. It was my understanding the request was that the 
Senator from----

[[Page 3308]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin would be recognized 
for 25 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. REID. But the time would be used off the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I yield 
first to the majority leader to comment.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a lot is happening very quickly now. In a 
very few minutes, we are going to get to the Senator from Wisconsin who 
has appropriately requested 25 minutes, and the unanimous consent 
request will be that the time would come off the bill and it will be as 
in morning business.
  Just to clarify, he has said his intentions representing the other 
side of the aisle to offer a resolution to censure the President of the 
United States for a program that I have said and will restate is a 
lawful program, is a program that is constitutional, and is a program 
that is vital to the safety and security of the American people. My 
response to that unanimous consent request was if that is the case and 
if that is the position of the Democratic Party, that we are ready to 
vote at 5:30 or after our 5:30 vote today. That unanimous consent 
request was objected to by the other side of the aisle.
  Then the second unanimous consent request that I propounded was that 
we would vote after a series of stacked votes tomorrow on the 
resolution to censure. There was an objection from the other side of 
the aisle.
  When we are talking about censure of the President of the United 
States, at a time of war when this President is out defending the 
American people with a very good, lawful, constitutional program, it is 
serious business. And if it is an issue that the other side of the 
aisle wants to debate or debate through the night, I guess we are 
willing to do that as well. But the censure of the President is 
important, and if they want to make an issue of it, we are willing to 
do just that.
  I have no objection to the unanimous consent request that has been 
made.
  Mr. REID. There is no unanimous consent request now pending; is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. You reserved the right to object, but 
there is only one pending before the Senate at this time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent request 
giving Senator Feingold 25 minutes be expanded to give this Senator 25 
minutes, with the time running off the bill.
  Mr. REID. So now we have Senator Feingold speaking for 25 minutes, 
that would be yielded off the budget resolution, and Senator Specter 
speaking for 25 minutes, that being yielded off the resolution; is that 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending request. Is there 
objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, and there is no other unanimous consent 
request before the Senate at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.


                         Resolution of Censure

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when the President of the United States 
breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am 
submitting a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.
  The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American 
citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public----
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for 
a question? May we have a copy of your resolution?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be introducing it at the conclusion of my 
remarks. I will be happy to supply the Senator with a copy of the 
resolution, but I do intend to introduce it at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Senator from Wisconsin would let 
this Senator have a copy of it now.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just said I would be happy to give the 
Senator a copy of the resolution right now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be started over 
again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the 
law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am submitting a 
resolution to censure President George W. Bush. The President 
authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American 
soil, and then misled the Congress and the public about the existence 
and the legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the 
rule of law by condemning the President's action.
  All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. 
Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when 
the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a 
clear message that the President's conduct was wrong.
  And we must do that. The President's actions demand a formal judgment 
from Congress.
  At moments like this in our history, we are reminded why the Founders 
balanced the powers of the different branches of Government so 
carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of 
government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong and 
that others in the Government will then bear the responsibility to do 
right.
  This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning 
his conduct and showing the people of this Nation that his actions will 
not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
  To date, Members of Congress have responded in very different ways to 
the President's conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, 
ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded 
statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know 
he is breaking the law, we do not know details of what the President 
has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow 
it. Yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal 
conduct. To approve the President's actions now without demanding a 
full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the 
President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions 
would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the 
legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of 
powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the 
rule of law.
  Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. 
Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the 
Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to 
use the power of the purse to get some answers out of the 
administration. Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an 
independent commission to investigate this program.
  As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of 
possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, 
legislation, or even impeachment. But at a minimum Congress should 
censure a President who has so plainly broken the law.
  Mr. President, our Founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses 
would occur. Federalist Paper No. 51 speaks of the Constitution's 
system of checks and balances. It says:

       It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices 
     should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But 
     what is government itself, but the greatest of all 
     reflections of human nature? If men were angels, no 
     government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, 
     neither external nor internal controls on government would be 
     necessary. In framing a government which is to be 
     administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in 
     this: You must first enable the government to control the 
     governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

  We are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the 
law. The Founders understood that the

[[Page 3309]]

branches must check each other to control abuses of Government power. 
The President's actions are such an abuse. His actions must be checked 
and he should be censured.
  This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 
2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the PATRIOT Act and 
to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the 
critical fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. In both of these 
instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President's 
action, however mistaken the approval may have been.
  Here is the difference, Mr. President: This was not the case with the 
illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President 
shortly after September 11. The President violated the law, ignored the 
Constitution and the other two branches of Government, and disregarded 
the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one 
questions--no one questions--whether the Government should wiretap 
suspected terrorists. Of course we should and we can under current law. 
If there were a demonstrated need to change the law, of course, 
Congress should consider that step. But instead, the President is 
refusing to follow the law while offering the flimsiest of arguments to 
justify his misconduct. He must be held accountable for his actions.
  The facts are pretty straightforward. Congress passed the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, nearly 30 years ago to 
ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also 
protect innocent Americans from unjustified Government intrusion. FISA 
makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the 
requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps 
of Americans on U.S. soil. So it is pretty simple. The President has 
broken that law and that alone is unacceptable.
  But the President did much more than that. Not only did the President 
break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people 
about his actions and then, when the program was made public, about the 
legality of the NSA program. He has fundamentally violated the trust of 
the American people. The President's own words show just how seriously 
he has violated that trust.
  We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after 
September 11. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the 
President went out of his way, he went out of his way in several 
speeches to assure the public that the Government was getting court 
orders to wiretap Americans in the United States, something he now 
admits was not the case.
  On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in 
Buffalo, ``Any time you hear the United States government talking about 
wiretaps it requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.''
  In fact, a lot had changed. But the President wasn't upfront with the 
American people. Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own State 
of Wisconsin, the President said, ``Any action that takes place by law 
enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government 
can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court 
order.''
  And then, Mr. President, last summer on June 9, 2005, the President 
spoke in Columbus, OH, and again insisted that his administration was 
abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. ``Law enforcement officers need 
a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a 
federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet 
strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are 
fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.''
  Now, Mr. President, in all of these cases the President knew that he 
wasn't telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political 
battle during the Presidential campaign and later over the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a system of 
checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from 
Government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he 
had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances 
that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the PATRIOT Act and 
his administration's performance.
  This conduct is unacceptable. The President has a duty to play it 
straight with the American people. But for political purposes, he just 
ignored that duty.
  After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of 
last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the 
American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress 
until February, but the President's surrogates held press conferences 
and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted 
lawfully.
  Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this 
disinfor-
mation campaign. In the State of the Union Address he implied that the 
program was necessary because otherwise, the Government would be unable 
to wiretap terrorists at all.
  Now, Mr. President, that is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be 
further from the truth. You don't need a warrant to wiretap terrorists 
overseas, period. It is clear. You do need a warrant to wiretap 
Americans on American soil, and Congress passed FISA specifically to 
lay out the rule for these types of domestic wiretaps.
  FISA created a secret court made up of judges who develop national 
security expertise to issue warrants for surveillance of suspected 
terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush 
administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. They are 
the judges who review applications for business records orders and 
wiretapping authority under the PATRIOT Act. The administration has 
almost never had a warrant request rejected by these judges. It has 
used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time it asserts 
that FISA is an ``old law'' or ``out of date'' in this age of 
terrorism, that it can't be complied with. Clearly the administration 
can and does comply with it except when it doesn't. Then it just 
arbitrarily decides to go around these judges and around the law.
  The administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too 
long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency 
where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before 
a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed 
immediately as long as the Government goes to the court within 72 
hours. Now, the Attorney General has complained that the emergency 
provision does not give him enough flexibility; he has complained that 
getting a FISA application together, of getting the necessary 
approvals, takes too long. What the Attorney General is actually 
talking about, the problems he has cited, are bureaucratic barriers 
that the executive branch put in place. They are not mandated by 
Congress. They are not mandated under FISA. These were put into place 
by the Justice Department, the executive branch itself, and they could 
be removed if they wanted.
  FISA permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless 
electronic surveillance in the United States--unlimited--during the 15 
days following a declaration of war to allow time to consider any 
amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. This is the time 
period that Congress specified very clearly. Yet the President thinks 
he is above the law. He thinks that he can just ignore that 15-day 
period and do this indefinitely. The President has argued that Congress 
gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant 
when it passed the authorization for use of military force after 
September 11, 2001.
  That is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution 
to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. 
We all know that. Anyone in this body who tells you otherwise either 
was not there at the time or isn't telling the truth. We authorized the 
President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and 
justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap 
American citizens on

[[Page 3310]]

American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly 
three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of 
terrorists with the approval of a judge. That is why--and I have heard 
them do this very clearly--many Senators, both Republicans and 
Democrats, have come forward to question this bogus theory.
  This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval 
of the PATRIOT Act just a few weeks after we passed the authorization 
for use of military force. The PATRIOT Act made it easier for law 
enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies 
while maintaining FISA's baseline requirement of judicial approval of 
wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is also ridiculous to think that 
Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in 
the PATRIOT Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to 
ignore FISA in the AUMF.
  In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in 
December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA at the 
administration's request from 24 hours to 72 hours. Why did we do that? 
Why do that if the President has some kind of inherent power or power 
under the authorization of force resolution to just ignore FISA? That 
makes no sense at all.
  The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives 
him the power to approve this program, but here the President of the 
United States is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That 
means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases 
a half century ago, ``at its lowest ebb.'' A letter from a group of law 
professors and former executive branch officials points out, ``Every 
time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-
in-Chief's authority, it has upheld the statute.'' The Senate reports 
issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA 
overrode any preexisting inherent authority of the President. As a 1978 
Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA ``recognizes no inherent 
power of the President in this area.'' And ``Congress has declared that 
this statute, not any claimed Presidential power, controls.'' So 
contrary to what the President told the country in this year's State of 
the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in 
violation of FISA.
  The President's claims of inherent executive authority and his 
assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity are 
baseless. But it is one thing to make a legal argument that has no real 
support in the law; it is much worse to do what the President has done, 
which is to make misleading statements about what prior Presidents have 
done and what courts have approved to try to somehow make the public 
believe that his legal arguments are much stronger than they really 
are.
  For example, in the State of the Union, the President argued that 
Federal courts have approved the use of Presidential authority that he 
was invoking. I asked the Attorney General about this when he came 
before the Judiciary Committee, and he could point me to no court--not 
the Supreme Court or any other court--that has considered whether, 
after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to 
bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The 
administration's effort to find support for what it has done in 
snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were 
not so serious.
  In the same speech, the President referred to other Presidents in 
American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless 
surveillance. But of course, those past Presidents--like Wilson and 
Roosevelt--were acting long before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 
that our communications are protected by the fourth amendment, and 
before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch could no 
longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. I asked the 
Attorney General about this issue when he testified before the 
Judiciary Committee. And neither he nor anyone in the administration 
has been able to come up with a single prior example of wiretapping 
inside the United States since 1978 that was conducted outside FISA's 
authorization.
  So again the President's arguments in the State of the Union were 
baseless, and it is unacceptable that the President of the United 
States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.
  The President also has argued that periodic internal executive branch 
review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even 
characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. 
But we don't know what this check involves. And we do know that 
Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive 
decisionmaking in this area when it passed FISA.
  Finally, the President has tried to claim that informing a handful of 
congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of 8, somehow excuses 
breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren't 
given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing 
what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these 
extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional 
oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional 
approval of the program.
  In fact, it doesn't even comply with the National Security Act, which 
requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence 
Committee to be ``fully and currently informed of the intelligence 
activities of the United States.'' Nor does the latest agreement to 
allow a seven-member subcommittee to review the program comply with the 
law. Granting a minority of the committee access to information is 
inadequate and still does not comply with the law requiring that the 
full committee be kept fully informed.
  In addition, we now know that some of the Gang of 8 expressed concern 
about the program. The administration ignored their protests. One of 
the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, 
Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence 
Committee, has said she sees no reason why the administration cannot 
accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.
  None of the President's arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or 
the NSA's domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that 
the President has the audacity to claim that they do.
  And perhaps that is what is most troubling here. Even more troubling 
than the arguments the President has made is what he relies on to make 
them convincing--the credibility of the Office of the President itself. 
He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply 
because of the office he holds.
  But Presidents don't serve our country by just asking for trust, they 
must earn that trust, and they must tell the truth.
  This President hides behind flawed legal arguments, and even behind 
the office he holds, but he cannot hide from what he has created: 
nothing short of a constitutional crisis. The President has violated 
the law, and Congress must respond. Congress must investigate and 
demand answers. Congress should also determine whether current law is 
inadequate and address that deficiency if it is demonstrated. But 
before doing so, Congress should ensure that there is accountability 
for authorizing illegal conduct.
  A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first 
step to assure the public that when the President thinks he can violate 
the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him 
accountable. If Congress does not reaffirm the rule of law, we will 
create another failure of leadership, and deal another blow to the 
public's trust.
  The President's wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a 
response that prevents wrongdoing in the future but a response that 
passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the 
responsibility to check a President who has violated the law,

[[Page 3311]]

who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable 
for his actions.
  We are hearing people say that somehow this censure resolution sends 
a terrible signal to the terrorists who want to do us harm. I tell you 
what is a terrible signal, that we are so meek in response to this 
terrorist threat that we are going to let the President of the United 
States break the law of this Nation and not do anything about it. Now 
that is a victory for the terrorists if we won't even stand up for our 
system of Government because everybody has to be afraid to mention that 
this President broke the law.
  Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this 
President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means 
for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, 
short of impeachment, of the Executive's conduct. It is different than 
passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to 
cut off funding for certain activities.
  He should be censured.
  The Founders anticipated abuses of Executive power by creating a 
balance of powers in the Constitution. Supporting and defending the 
Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, requires us to preserve 
that balance and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious 
transgression by the President with a serious response. We must work, 
as the Founders urged in Federalist 51, to control the abuses of 
Government.
  The Constitution looks to the Congress to right the balance of power. 
The American people look to us to take action, to speak out with one 
clear voice, against wrongdoing by the President of the United States.
  To conclude, in our system of government, no one, not even the 
President, is above the law.
  I send the resolution to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be received and 
appropriately referred.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 25 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Wisconsin to 
stay on the floor?
  Mr. President, I think this subject matter is worthy of debate, but 
notwithstanding my experience of debating, I don't think I can debate 
without someone to debate with. I tried to attract the attention of the 
Senator from Wisconsin before he departed the Chamber. I think I got in 
right as he was on the way out the door.
  But let me ask his staffers if they would invite the Senator from 
Wisconsin to return to the floor. Having listened to his long 
soliloquy, I would appreciate the benefit of his presence so we can 
deal with these issues in some substantive detail.
  At the outset, I say that I agree with a number of things which the 
Senator from Wisconsin said and items which are in his resolution.
  When he comes to the resolve clause and speaks about censure and 
condemnation of President Bush, I think he is vastly excessive. Call it 
over the top, call it beyond the pale, the facts recited in this 
resolution simply do not support that kind of conclusion.
  Going right to the heart of the issue, the Senator from Wisconsin 
says in the fourth ``whereas'' clause on page 2 that the President does 
not have the inherent constitutional authority to act in distinction 
and difference from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  That is what you call a naked assertion unsupported by any statement 
of law, unsupported by any rationale.
  The Judiciary Committee, of which the Senator from Wisconsin is a 
member, has held two hearings on the authority of the President to 
conduct electronic surveillance. And there has been a great deal of 
testimony from reputable sources saying that the President does have 
inherent authority under article II of the Constitution.
  If that legal conclusion is correct, then constitutional authority 
trumps a statute.
  The Congress cannot legislate in derogation of the President's 
constitutional authority.
  We cannot enact laws which take away authority prescribed to the 
President under the Constitution, just as we cannot legislate to take 
away authority that the Supreme Court has under the Constitution. Just 
as we cannot delegate our authority which the Constitution gives to the 
Congress, we cannot delegate our authority in derogation of our 
constitutional responsibilities and authorities.
  Those are very basic principles of law.
  I am sorry that the Senator from Wisconsin saw fit to condemn and 
excoriate the President for 25 minutes but doesn't have time to come to 
this floor to answer a simple question. And that simple question is, 
Doesn't the Constitution trump statute?
  A subordinate part of that question is if the President has inherent 
authority under article II, isn't it incorrect to say that the 
President has violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which 
would be superseded or trumped by the President's constitutional 
authority?
  We are going to have some more hearings before the Judiciary 
Committee. If I don't have an opportunity to confront the Senator from 
Wisconsin this afternoon, I will find another opportunity to do so.
  But I think the Record should be plain that in the hearing last month 
a number of academicians testified that the President does have 
inherent authority under article II to supersede the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. And the Attorney General testified at 
length that the President has inherent authority under article II, 
which would lead to the conclusion that if Attorney General Gonzalez is 
correct, as a matter of law, then there is no violation of law by the 
President. Admittedly he is taking the President's side, but that is 
the job of Attorney General as a generalization. He also represents the 
American people, and he has to discharge his oath consistent with his 
duties to the American people.
  There are a number of points, as I have said earlier, where I think 
the Senator from Wisconsin makes a valid argument.
  I think on his third ``whereas'' clause on page 1 of the resolution, 
where he says that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the 
exclusive statutory authority for electronic surveillance, he is 
correct. That doesn't rule out the Constitution superseding the 
statute, however.
  When the Senator from Wisconsin says on his third ``whereas'' clause 
on page 2 that the resolution authorizing the use of military force did 
not change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I think the 
Senator from Wisconsin is correct. But the correctness of those two 
propositions do not supersede the inherent article II authority of the 
President. And that is the issue which has yet to be resolved.
  The majority leader spoke very briefly this afternoon before the 
Senator from Wisconsin presented his resolution. Senator Frist said 
that we are dealing with a lawful program. Senator Frist is in the 
position to make an evaluation on that subject because Senator Frist is 
one of the so-called Gang of 8, which has had access to the program. He 
has been briefed on the program.
  I believe the Senator from Wisconsin is correct in the body of his 
resolution when he raises an issue that the statute requires all 
members of the Intelligence Committee to be briefed. That is the 
applicable law. It may be that there are good reasons for not briefing 
all the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and all members of 
the House Intelligence Committee. Perhaps because members of the 
Congress leak. But if good reasons do exist, then the President ought 
to come to the Congress and ask it to change the law. I agree with him 
that the Congress leaks. I have to say, in the same breath, that the 
White House also leaks. That is not a very good record for either the 
Congress or the White House.
  That is why I have prepared legislation which would submit the NSA 
electronic surveillance program to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court.

[[Page 3312]]

That court now passes on applications for search-and-seizure warrants 
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They apply the 
standard, which is different than the standard for a search-and-seizure 
warrant in a criminal case. They have expertise in the field. They also 
have an exemplary record for keeping secrets.
  That is the way to deal with this issue. There must be a 
determination on constitutionality. It is not possible, in my legal 
judgment, to make a determination as to whether the President's 
inherent article II powers authorize this kind of a program, without 
knowing what the program is. I don't know what the program is. The 
Attorney General would not tell us what it is when he testified last 
month. I understood his reasons for not telling us, even though we 
could have gone into a closed session. But the Judiciary Committee was 
looking at the legalities of the program. We were in a position to 
render a judgment on whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
was the exclusive remedy, and whether the resolution to authorize the 
use of force changed the FISA act. But it is a matter for the 
Intelligence Committee to get into the details of the program which, 
until last week, the administration has been unwilling to do.
  I have great respect for my colleague Senator DeWine, and have talked 
to him extensively about this issue. He and I serve on the Judiciary 
Committee together. I like his idea about getting the administration to 
submit the program to, at least, the eight members of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee who, according to the press accounts, were 
briefed about it last week. I do not think it is adequate, as other 
parts of the DeWine legislation propose, to allow the surveillance to 
go on for 45 days, and at the end of that 45-day period to then give 
the administration the option of going to the FISA Court or to the 
Senate subcommittee. The subcommittee does not grant authorization for 
warrants. The subcommittee function is oversight. It is not a 
replacement for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
  A way is at hand to deal with this issue. The majority leader, 
Senator Frist, said we have a lawful program. That opinion has weight, 
substantial weight in my mind, but it is not conclusive. Senator Frist 
is not a judicial official. It may be that a more detailed analysis is 
necessary than has been presented to the Gang of 8. I don't know, 
because I don't know what they heard or what they learned.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. SPECTER. No, but I will at the conclusion of my presentation.
  We ought to focus for a few moments on the importance of judicial 
review on the fourth amendment issues of search and seizure.
  With the limited time I have left, I have only a few references, but 
I begin with a famous case in 1761 where a Boston lawyer defended 
Boston merchants who had been searched by customs house officials. 
James Otis gave a stirring 5-hour speech, charging the customs officers 
``break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they 
break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire.'' Very 
weighty words in 1761. Maybe if James Otis had seen this program, we 
could take his word on its constitutionality.
  John Adams described this case as the spark of the American 
Revolution. He stated:

       Then and there was the child Independence born.

  Then in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, it is stated that 
one of the key reasons for the American Revolution involved the King 
allowing his officers to violate the rights of Americans and then 
protecting them ``by a mock trial, from punishment,'' for the injuries 
that they had committed.
  And then we have the fourth amendment. We need to go back to the 
basics of this amendment, which prohibit unreasonable searches and 
seizures. That is the question in this matter.
  In 1916, in the Weeks case, the Supreme Court of the United States 
ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment could 
not be used in a criminal trial. In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme 
Court of the United States ruled that the due process clause of the 
14th amendment prohibited States and State criminal prosecutions from 
using evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and 
seizure.
  We have had the Supreme Court of the United States intervene, even in 
time of war, to limit the President's authority. During the Korean war, 
President Truman cited ``the existence of a national emergency'' to 
``be able to repel any and all threats against our national security.''
  The Supreme Court of the United States, in Youngstown Sheet v. 
Sawyer, said the President did not have that authority. They said it 
exceeded his authority.
  In the Hamdi case, 2004, 18 or 20 months ago, the Supreme Court 
stated:

       We have long since made it clear that a state of war is not 
     a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights 
     of the Nation's citizens.

  And the Court went on to say:

       . . . whatever power the United States Constitution 
     envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other 
     nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it 
     most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when 
     individual liberties were at stake.

  We have a way through this maze. The way through the maze is for the 
Congress to give jurisdiction to the FISA Court. That is our job, to 
give jurisdiction to Federal courts. We have dealt with the issue as to 
whether there is a case or a controversy. There is one. Without going 
into details here, it is not an advisory opinion.
  But this resolution calling for the condemnation and the censure of 
the President is out of line and out of bounds. In listening to the 
Senator from Wisconsin, I did not hear, at any time, him say the 
President has acted in bad faith. The President may be wrong, but he 
has not acted in bad faith. I think all would concede that the 
President was diligently doing the best job he can. And I agree with 
him. I think the President's best job is satisfactory, and that no one 
has ever accused him of bad faith.
  In the absence of any showing of bad faith, who has standing to 
censure and condemn the President and then not stay in the Chamber to 
debate the issue? I do hope this matter is referred to the Judiciary 
Committee, and not to the Rules Committee. We have already had two 
hearings on matters relating to this subject. I especially want to see 
this resolution referred to the Judiciary Committee because if it is in 
the Judiciary Committee, I can debate Senator Feingold. If it goes to 
the Rules Committee, I cannot debate Senator Feingold. Now, isn't that 
a powerful jurisdictional argument for the Judiciary Committee?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, through the Chair, I commend the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has 
shown extraordinary leadership in convening two separate hearings on 
this question of the wiretap issue, the first with Attorney General 
Gonzales which I attended and thought to be one of the more challenging 
and interesting committee hearings I have ever attended--it went on for 
a whole day--the second, sadly, was in conflict with another meeting, a 
Rules Committee on ethics reform and I did not attend it, but he 
invited constitutional scholars to come and speak to the same issue. 
Many on Capitol Hill may shy away from controversial issues, 
particularly if they involve an administration of the same party. I 
commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for being an exception to the 
rule on this issue and for speaking up and standing up.
  I wish to ask a question. After listening to Attorney General 
Gonzales' testimony before our committee, it appears that the thrust of 
the constitutional argument justifying the wiretap goes back to a vote 
that we share, a vote we both cast in favor of authorizing the use of 
military force on September 18, 2001. I ask the Senator from 
Pennsylvania if he believed that in

[[Page 3313]]

casting his vote for that resolution authorizing force to pursue those 
responsible for September 11 that he was giving the President authority 
to wiretap American citizens without obtaining a court order required 
by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978?
  Mr. SPECTER. No.
  Mr. DURBIN. The next question I wish to ask the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and I appreciate his forthright response, the majority 
leader, Senator Frist, came to the Senate a few moments ago and said he 
believed the wiretap program of President Bush was constitutional and 
legal. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania agree with that conclusion?
  Mr. SPECTER. I neither agree nor disagree. I do not know. As I said 
more extensively in the body of my comments, I do not have any basis 
for knowing, because I do not know what the program does. I think it 
may be that the program could be structured as going after only al-
Qaida conversations. And I would like to see some proof of that. Quite 
frankly, I would like to see some proof that they have reasonable 
grounds to think one party or the other is al-Qaida. That is in the 
body of Senator Feingold's whereas clauses.
  It may be that they have been able to take a limited amount of 
information, destroying the rest, and that it has produced very 
important results with a minimal incursion. I do not know the answers 
to those questions. But I certainly think you ought not castigate the 
President as a criminal until you do know the answers to those 
questions.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do. And I want to thank you for being here in Senator 
Feingold's stead.
  Mr. DURBIN. Well, I am standing here----
  Mr. SPECTER. You are a little tougher to debate than he, but I thank 
you for coming.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania one 
last question.
  When you referred to the suggestions of our colleague, Senator 
DeWine, on the Judiciary Committee, and other proposals to change the 
law that might accommodate what we are now seeing in this wiretap 
program, is that not an admission that what is going on now is 
violative of law or at least outside the bounds of the laws as written 
which authorize wiretaps?
  Mr. SPECTER. No, I do not think it is an admission because, like 
consent, it has to be informed. And I do not think he is informed. I do 
not think anybody is informed. I do not think Senator DeWine intends to 
make an admission. I think Senator DeWine, in good faith--very good 
faith--is searching for a way out. And I think he made a significant 
step forward when his actions resulted in seven members of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee being briefed. The reason I say ``I think'' is 
because I do not know what they were told. But I think that is a 
significant step.
  Senator DeWine's proposal of legislation to allow the program to go 
on for 45 days is no concession. It is going on anyway. His idea to 
bypass the FISA Court and allow the Administration instead to go to the 
Intelligence Subcommittee, I think, is not appropriate because the 
Intelligence Subcommittee does not have the function of a court.
  So I think he is doing the best he can. But right now we are flying 
blind on a great deal of this, and we have to accept very limited 
representations by the Gang of 8, and now the new Gang of 7. And no 
matter what, it does not amount to judicial review.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an important announcement to make.
  Will my friend yield to me?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Pennsylvania has 
expired. The Senator does not control time.
  The Senate minority leader is recognized.


                         Death of Maggie Inouye

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 4 o'clock this afternoon, an hour and 15 
minutes ago, Maggie Inouye died. I had the good fortune of being able 
to visit with the Inouyes Friday night.
  On behalf of the entire Senate, I extend condolences to Senator 
Inouye and his son Daniel Jr. This wonderful couple had been married 57 
years. They were married in 1949. Senator Inouye proposed to Maggie on 
their second date. Daniel Jr. goes by the name of Ken. He has been at 
his mother's side, as has Senator Inouye, for many days.
  She was a wonderful woman. She formerly taught at the University of 
Hawaii. She was such a steadfast supporter of her husband in everything 
that he stood for.
  Anyone who has spent any time at all with them knows how much they 
cared for each other, loved each other. Her death brings sadness to the 
entire Chamber because it is a loss for the entire Senate family.
  Senator Inouye is a very nonpublic person. He holds everything very 
close to his vest, and he was not someone who came to luncheons or 
meetings with us and talked about his wife's illness. That was a 
personal thing for him.
  But she needed the support of her family. She had a very difficult 
time. She will now have peace, and to a certain extent so will Senator 
Inouye because he has suffered with her.
  Senator Inouye is such a wonderful human being. In my visit with him 
and Ken on Friday,--his wife was there but in another room--we talked 
about a lot of things. We laughed a little bit. We cried a little bit. 
Here is a man who is a true American patriot. We throw those words 
around a lot, but we are not throwing this word around. Dan Inouye is a 
true American patriot who served with distinction and valor during 
World War II, and that is an understatement. He was awarded the 
Congressional Medal of Honor for courage above and beyond the call of 
duty.
  Senator Inouye will be away from the Senate for a while. He is going 
to take Maggie back to Hawaii. But I wish my words were adequate to 
convey my personal affection for Senator Inouye and that of the entire 
Senate, but they are not. So the Record will have to stand on that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for bringing this sad 
news to the attention of the Senate family. There are many things that 
divide us, but there are things that unite us. We are united when 
Members of our Senate go through personal tragedy. Senator Reid knows 
better than anyone on our side of the aisle the personal sacrifices 
Senator Inouye has made over the last months and years as his wife has 
gone through this serious illness.
  It is clear, from what he has given of his life, he took his vow very 
seriously to stand by her in sickness and in health. It is a tribute to 
this man, his devotion, and to their love which sustained them for 57 
years.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada for bringing this to our attention. 
We all join in expressing our sadness at her loss and will stand by 
Senator Inouye and his family to ask them to try to remember, at this 
time of loss, those good memories of times together. We hope those 
memories will sustain their family.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has already been announced that 
Senator Inouye's wife Maggie has passed away.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statement made by my great friend 
about his wife be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statement by U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye on the Passing of His Wife, 
                             Maggie Inouye

       Washington.--I am saddened to report that my dear and 
     lovely wife of nearly 57 years, Margaret Awamura Inouye, 
     passed away today at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time at Walter 
     Reed Army Medical Center. She was 81, and her death was due 
     to complications resulting from colon cancer.

[[Page 3314]]

       ``Maggie was recently hospitalized because an examination 
     found small blood clots and some fluid in her right lung, and 
     she had been undergoing a process of draining out the fluid 
     and dissolving the blood clots.
       ``This most recent medical challenge came after Maggie 
     underwent surgery in November 2004 to remove a cancerous 
     growth from her large intestine. Her surgeons had pronounced 
     that operation a success.
       ``As she has done throughout her life, Maggie handled her 
     difficult situation without complaint, and with dignity and 
     grace. Although her chemotherapy treatments would leave her 
     drained, she always had a smile for you and she retained her 
     optimistic outlook.
       ``It was a most special blessing to have had Maggie in my 
     life for 58 years. She was my inspiration, and all that I 
     have accomplished could not have been done without her at my 
     side. We were a team. She always supported me, listened to my 
     ideas, and many times offered invaluable suggestions that 
     always proved she was capable of achieving as much on her own 
     right, given her intelligence and education. Instead, she 
     chose to join me on a special journey that took us to 
     Washington, and gave us the privilege of serving the people 
     of Hawaii.
       ``On the campaign trail, she was invaluable. During my 
     first race for the U.S. Senate in 1962, legislative work in 
     the U.S. House permitted me to make only short trips back to 
     Hawaii. I was facing a formidable opponent, the son of the 
     wealthiest man in Hawaii. Both Time and Newsweek magazines 
     didn't think much of my chances of winning. But Maggie put 
     some magic into my campaign. She returned to Hawaii that 
     June, and spent seven days a week visiting every island and 
     making hundreds of speeches on my behalf. When I finally did 
     get back in October, my campaign manager met me at the 
     airport and said, `We're glad to have you, but Maggie's been 
     doing great.' I won, and I won big. In my heart, I know that 
     without her I could not have won that pivotal race that put 
     me on the path to become a United States Senator.
       ``I first met Maggie in the autumn of 1947, a week before 
     Thanksgiving, when we were introduced to each other. She was 
     already known as a poised, graceful, articulate, and gentle 
     lady from a good family who was very much ahead of her time. 
     Back then, few women went to college. But Maggie not only 
     earned her undergraduate degree in education from the 
     University of Hawaii, she went on to earn a master's in 
     education from Columbia University in New York City. With her 
     graduate degree, she returned home to Hawaii, and began her 
     career as a speech instructor at UH.
       ``I, too, had returned home--from the war and from my 
     injury rehabilitation regimen that I had undergone on the 
     mainland. I was enrolled at the University of Hawaii, and was 
     still trying to chart my future. However, I was certain of 
     one thing almost immediately after I met Maggie: I was going 
     to marry her. I don't think the possibility of marriage had 
     ever occurred to me before that moment, but afterward it 
     never left my mind. Everything I had and wanted to have 
     suddenly became absolutely meaningless unless Margaret 
     Awamura would share it with me.
       ``On our second date on December 6, 1947, I asked her to 
     marry me. Without hesitation, she said, `Yes.' Her answer 
     made me feel like I was in heaven. She was willing to have as 
     her lifelong partner a man who at that time was nothing more 
     than a combat veteran on the GI Bill whose future was still 
     uncertain. Her numerous other suitors had much more to offer, 
     as they were already professional men.
       ``During the 18 months before our marriage on June 12, 
     1949, we were an unusual couple on the UH campus. She was an 
     instructor; I was an underclassman. Of course, it was 
     Maggie's salary as a teacher at the university that saw us 
     through those first years of our marriage.
       ``In the early 1950s when I was studying at George 
     Washington to earn my law degree, Maggie was the breadwinner, 
     while I contributed what I received from my GI education 
     benefits and my pension as a retired Army Captain. While I 
     was in class, she was working at the Department of the Navy's 
     Bureau of Yards and Docks, first as a file clerk and soon she 
     was promoted to administrative secretary.
       When we returned to Hawaii, I went to work for the City and 
     County of Honolulu as a Deputy Public Prosecutor, while 
     Maggie returned to the University of Hawaii as an instructor 
     in education. It was a position she would hold for six years.
       ``In 1964, five years after she left UH, Maggie gave birth 
     to our son, Daniel K. Inouye, Jr. That was a most special 
     day, perhaps because we became parents at a rather late stage 
     in our lives.
       ``Kenny and I--as well as the people of Hawaii--were 
     blessed to have had Maggie in our lives. She was a most 
     special woman, and she will always be in my heart.''
       In addition to Senator Inouye and Daniel K. Inouye, Jr., 
     Mrs. Inouye is survived by five sisters, Edith Satow of 
     Carmarillo, California; Grace Murakami of Honolulu; Betty 
     Higashino of Orinda, California; Shirley Nozoe of Honolulu; 
     and Patricia Tyler of Sudbury, Massachusetts. Funeral 
     arrangements are pending.


                  MARGARET AWAMURA INOUYE AT A GLANCE

     Personal
       Born on June 23, 1924, in Wailuku, Maui.
       Married Daniel K. Inouye on June 12, 1949.
       One son.
     Education
       Kaiulani School, Honolulu.
       Central Intermediate School, Honolulu.
       Roosevelt High School, Honolulu.
       University of Hawaii at Manoa, bachelor's in education, 
     1946.
       Columbia University, New York, master of arts, 1947.
     Career
       Instructor in speech, University of Hawaii, 1947-50.
       File clerk and later promoted to administrative secretary, 
     Bureau of Yards and Docks, Department of the Navy, 
     Washington, DC, 1950-52.
       Instructor in education, University of Hawaii, 1953-59.
     Recent Honors
       The Dan and Maggie Inouye Distinguished Chair in Democratic 
     Ideals at the University of Hawaii.
       In 2005, Maggie Inouye was selected as one of Roosevelt 
     High School's most distinguished alumni.
       In 2003 at the Philadelphia Kvaerner Shipyard, she 
     christened Matson's new containership, MV Manukai.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this time.
  Mr. President, on behalf of my wife Millie and my entire family, I 
rise to express our sincere sympathies, our deepest condolences, and 
our warmest aloha to my dear friend and my colleague, Senator Daniel K. 
Inouye, for the loss of his lovely wife Maggie, who passed away this 
afternoon.
  Over the past year, whenever I spoke to Senator Inouye, I would ask 
him about Maggie, and his reply to me was: She is a trooper. She is 
doing the best she can. And that really sums up it so well about 
Maggie.
  Maggie was definitely a trooper. She was a wonderful, wonderful lady 
who served our country as a Senate spouse for the past 40-plus years. 
Maggie was a classy woman who was well respected everywhere she went. 
She had a heart of gold and will definitely be missed by the people of 
Hawaii and the families here in Washington, DC. My thoughts and prayers 
go to Senator Inouye, to his son Kenny and his wife, their extended 
family, and all of the Inouye staff here and in Hawaii. We stand 
waiting to do whatever we can to help in this difficult time. We will 
miss Maggie. May Maggie's soul rest in peace.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise standing near our friend and 
colleague from Hawaii as we think about his colleague in the Senate and 
the fond relationship they enjoyed. If a poll was conducted in this 
Chamber or among the Members of this Chamber, if you said: Who is the 
most respected, beloved, wise Member of the U.S. Senate, you would come 
up with only one name, not that there aren't others of friendship and 
good will and intellect and all of those things, but Danny Inouye is 
the exceptional person. His demeanor was quiet and thoughtful and 
always helpful, and he served his country in a way that few have in our 
history, having lost his arm in Italy and fighting on to lead his 
troops.
  I give you that background that all of us are so familiar with: a 
Medal of Honor winner, a distinction so rarely given, only to true 
heroes, to true leaders. But Danny is a multidimensional person. He 
always had room for friendship, warmth, and affection, and his 
companion of 57 years, someone he always talked of with respect and 
admiration, and the linkage was true and fast. He relied on some people 
for advice and counsel and always cleared the air with his own 
thinking. But Maggie, his wife, was someone who was such an integral 
part of Danny Inouye's living that this moment is especially tragic. He 
looked after her with love and affection and talked to those with whom 
he had contact about her, never really resigning in tone or in words 
the fact that she was not doing well.
  So when a Member, a friend like Danny Inouye loses his dearest 
friend, his beloved wife of 57 years, their relationship, we all feel 
sadness, we all feel touched by his loss and want him and his family, 
his son and all of the Inouye family, to know that we all

[[Page 3315]]

care, we all share Danny's grief. We all are ready to stand with him as 
friends and try to bolster his view about the future by reminding him 
how valuable he is to all of us and that we understand his pain, his 
anguish, and the sadness he feels. I think I speak for many in this 
Chamber: We want to express our feeling and devotion to Danny Inouye, 
friend, soldier, leader, our sadness, our grief at this terrible loss 
he has sustained.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I join with the other Senators in 
expressing my sadness tonight as to Senator Dan Inouye's loss. I think 
all of us see Senator Inouye as the gold standard of caring. He has 
always cared about his constituents. He has always cared about his 
colleagues. But, most of all, he has cared about his family, and he 
threw himself with every ounce of his energy and strength into caring 
for his spouse who has passed today.
  It is important for the Senate to note that in addition to his 
caring, what Senator Inouye is best known for is his quiet sense of 
dignity. This is a place where it can get loud and clamorous at times, 
and what Dan Inouye has always done is to try to always take the quiet 
path, to lower the decibel level, to try to get Senators to keep a 
perspective. That is why he always put his family first.
  There are many fine people in the Senate, but when we think about our 
colleague Dan Inouye tonight and all he did for his spouse in those 
last few months, there is no better person, no better colleague, no 
better friend all of us could have than Dan Inouye. I just wanted to, 
along with my colleagues, let him know he is in my thoughts and prayers 
tonight.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing our 
sincere sympathy to Senator Inouye on his loss. He is certainly one of 
the finest, most respected Members of this body. He is one of the great 
Senators who have served here and has been a true American patriot, 
serving his country with such fidelity and putting his very life on the 
line, and nearly losing it, and winning the Nation's highest honors in 
the course of serving his country.
  So I would just say from this Senator, and on behalf of so many of 
us, we are sorry to hear this news, and our prayers and support are 
with Senator Inouye at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about the 
budget that is before the Senate. But before I do, I want to add my 
voice to my colleagues who have come out here to express their 
condolences to our colleague, Senator Inouye, on the loss of his wife 
and long-time partner. Certainly, as the Senator from New Jersey said, 
Senator Inouye is the most respected Senator in this body, and he 
served his country well. Mrs. Inouye, too, has served her country by 
allowing Senator Inouye to be such a historic figure in this country 
and such a great leader and by all the time that was demanded by that. 
She has served her State, she has served her country, and we are all 
grateful. And to Senator Inouye, he and his family are in my thoughts 
and prayers as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to offer my deep condolences 
to our good friend and colleague, Dan Inouye, and his family and to the 
people of Hawaii on the death of our friend Dan's wife, Maggie, who 
died this afternoon.
  The death of anyone is cause for grief. The death of a spouse is an 
even greater cause for grief. The death of the spouse of a good friend, 
Dan Inouye, is even more grievous to all of us.
  Knowing Dan Inouye as we do, we are all hard pressed to find anyone 
who is as wonderful and caring, a statesman, generous, as wise a man as 
Dan Inouye. A Japanese American under the most difficult of 
circumstances, he served his country--and served it with tremendous 
valor.
  His wife Maggie I did not know well. You can tell a lot about a 
person in the first 5 or 10 minutes of just meeting someone. Maggie was 
just like Danny--very wise, very deep, very caring, very generous, 
classy like Dan.
  I say to Dan, to his family, and to the people of Hawaii, you all 
have our hearts, you have our prayers, our thoughts are with you as 
well as with Maggie in this most difficult time. Know that we are 
thinking of you, we are praying for you and for your family.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I come to the floor on a matter of great 
sadness for the Senate family. Today, at 4 p.m. at the Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center, after a long and difficult struggle with colon cancer, 
Margaret Awamura Inouye, the lovely and gracious wife of Senator Dan 
Inouye, passed on.
  On behalf of my colleagues, I offer my deepest condolences to the 
esteemed senior Senator from Hawaii. Our hearts go out to the Inouye 
family as they mourn their loss.
  Dan and Maggie were married for 58 blessed years. They met in Hawaii 
in 1947 right before Thanksgiving. He had just returned from the war 
and rehabilitation. She was back from Columbia University with a 
master's degree in education.
  For Dan, it was love at first sight. And he didn't hesitate to make 
his intentions known. He popped the question on their second date, and 
to his great, good fortune, she said yes.
  For nearly 6 decades, she stood by him, encouraged him, and believed 
in his success. Dan credits Maggie for putting him on the path to 
becoming a U.S. Senator. Without her, he said he couldn't have made it.
  The Senator tells us that Maggie handled her illness with dignity and 
grace--that she always had a smile and kept a bright outlook.
  Mrs. Inouye is survived by her husband, Dan, their son, Dan Jr., and 
her five sisters, Edith, Grace, Betty, Shirley and Patricia.
  Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Inouye family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might ask to be recognized for 3 
minutes on the budget resolution now pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude the matter raised between 
Senator Specter and myself about the resolution brought to the floor by 
Senator Feingold.
  I heard yesterday that Senator Feingold was going to offer this 
resolution. I did not realize he would do it today. I have spoken to 
Senator Feingold, and I believe it is his intention not to bring this 
to a vote today, as some have suggested, but, rather, to use this as a 
catalyst to bring about the kinds of hearings and investigations that 
this Congress owes to the people of the United States on the wiretap 
program.
  I have saluted Senator Specter earlier for his leadership on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. I am sorry the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, given a chance to do the same thing, failed to exercise its 
oversight responsibility on this same program.
  I think it is important, regardless of party affiliation, that we ask 
the critical constitutional and legal questions about this wiretap 
program. This resolution by Senator Feingold will be a catalyst for 
that type of investigation, those types of hearings. Whether that 
results in a censure of the President or any further action against the 
President remains to be seen. But it certainly says to the American 
people, we are not going to ignore what could be one of the most 
serious constitutional issues to come before this Government in 
decades.
  I have read this resolution Senator Feingold has offered. I agree 
with Senator Specter, I do not think when we voted to go to war against 
the Taliban we said to the President that he could ignore the law, that 
he could go about wiretapping Americans without court approval. That is 
basic to America.
  The President has said over and over publicly, if we are going to 
wiretap people, we will get court approval. Well, it turns out that is 
not the case at all. I do not know how often because I have not been 
briefed on the details, but apparently on many occasions this

[[Page 3316]]

Government has wiretapped the conversations of American citizens 
without court approval. The President and the administration have not 
followed the clear letter of the law. That is an important and serious 
constitutional question.
  I think the resolution being brought to us by Senator Feingold will 
cause us to look anew at this critically important issue. Whether it 
results in any action by Congress, as I said, remains to be seen. But I 
think it is important that we accept this challenge by the Senator from 
Wisconsin and that hearings be held in the Judiciary Committee, if that 
is where the resolution is eventually referred, and possibly even in 
the Intelligence Committee.
  I hope the Intelligence Committee will start to move on this on a 
bipartisan basis. It has historically been a bipartisan committee. But 
recently in the last few weeks there have been many important votes 
taken on partisan rollcalls, votes relative to the authority and 
exercise of that authority by this committee in investigating this Bush 
administration.
  It would be good if the committee could return to its bipartisan 
ways. I think it would give the institution of the Senate a vote of 
confidence that we can stand and investigate Presidents of either 
political party if there is serious and important policy questions to 
be determined.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a previous order that at 5:30 we will 
move to executive session and proceed to a vote on Calendar No. 520.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think back to a young Senator Inouye, 
serving in our military, putting his life at risk and nearly losing it 
for our country. One thing he had a right to expect of his Congress 
was, as a soldier, he would be supported in the conflict.
  We are here today hearing of a resolution presented by Senator 
Feingold to censure the President of the United States. It is baseless. 
It is not sound in law, and it is not sound in policy. We, by over a 
three-quarters vote, voted to send our soldiers in harm's way. This 
Senate voted to do that. We authorized the President, in a use of force 
resolution, to identify those responsible for attacking us and to 
attack and destroy them, to use such military force as he deemed 
appropriate to attack and kill them. And our soldiers have been doing 
that.
  The Supreme Court recently had to deal with the situation in which an 
American citizen was captured abroad, Hamdi. They caught him. It went 
before the Supreme Court of the United States, and the issue was 
whether he was entitled to a trial.
  The question was, Was he entitled to a trial? The Supreme Court held 
otherwise. The Supreme Court said that he was a prisoner of war, and 
the authorization of military force authorized the military to attack 
and kill enemies of the United States. It also authorized them to 
capture them. That was incident to the use of military force.
  It is quite plain that our history of military affairs supports the 
concept that surveilling in a time of war is incident to the carrying 
on of war. In the same way that we have a right to take an American 
citizen and lock them up in jail without trial if they are identified 
to be with the enemy, we can surveil the enemy's communications.
  The President authorized simply this: al-Qaida conversations in which 
one of the parties to that conversation is outside the United States 
could be monitored. We know it was through those kinds of 
communications that 9/11 occurred. We had sleeper cells here activated 
by foreign communications.
  It is wrong to undermine this President while we have our soldiers at 
war and at risk, to suggest that he has done something wrong and needs 
to be censured.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I express my strongest disapproval of the propriety of 
this resolution.

                          ____________________