To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by providing the necessary resources to our firefighters, police, EMS workers and other first-responders by restoring $1,626 billion in cuts to first-responder programs.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 2006

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 18, which the clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 18) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for the
fiscal year 2006 and including the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2005 and 2007 through 2010.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
on the budget be equally divided between the majority and minority.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes off the resolution to
the Senator from Montana.

[[Page S2662]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is
recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from North Dakota
and also say that I hope we can make some good sense out of this budget
resolution. It is not the first time we have had a budget resolution,
but I hope we can show that we are exercising leadership in getting one
that makes sense.
I rise to speak about something that I hear more about at home than
any other subject. It is astounding, frankly. I was home last weekend,
home prior weekends. I hear more and more on this one subject than any
other, and that is Social Security.
People in Montana walk up to me and say: Senator, please save Social
Security. Don't adopt the privatization plan. It doesn't make sense.
In my experience as a public servant, I have never experienced such a
broadside of reaction on Social Security compared to any other issue I
have ever faced. It is that great.
Let me tell a little about what I think Montanans are really
thinking. Here is what Montanans are telling me about Social Security.
A man from Helena, MT, put it this way:

I have been an employee and employer for 55 years. The
Social Security system is the only solid, dependable program
that I and everyone I have been involved with can rely on.

Laura from Baker, MT, says:

It seems to me that our Social Security system has worked
well for many, many years. I cannot understand the
President's desire to reform it.

Well, when it comes to trying to understand why the President wants
to privatize Social Security, Laura is not alone. Let me talk a little
bit about the President's plan to privatize Social Security and what it
would mean in practical terms.
The first thing we have to do is to put aside the notion that
privatizing Social Security has anything to do with strengthening
Social Security and preserving Social Security for the long run. It
does not. Privatization has nothing to do with preserving Social
Security for the long run--nothing.
In fact, it undermines Social Security. Social Security's actuaries--
these are the Congressional Budget Office folks, and we all agree they
are totally nonpartisan, straight shooters--agree that privatizing
Social Security does not improve the solvency of the Social Security.
In fact, they believe it makes it worse.
Bobby from Eureka, MT, put it this way:

I strongly oppose President George Bush's proposal to
privatize Social Security or any part of it. I feel this is
only the first step to dismantling Social Security all
together.

She is concerned about the first step to dismantle Social Security,
and there is a real basis for her beliefs because the private accounts
have nothing to do with solvency. Many of us are wondering whether
Bobby might be right.
We have to start with the proposition that President Bush is looking
somewhere else besides private accounts for the real answer to
extending Social Security solvency. To be candid, none of us know
exactly how the President wants to pay for extending Social Security
solvency.
He hasn't given us a specific proposal. In the State of the Union
speech, however, he mentioned five possibilities. What are they? One
was limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Another one he mentioned is
indexing benefits to prices rather than to wages. He also mentioned
increasing retirement age. Further, he mentioned discouraging early
collection of Social Security benefits. Five, changing the way benefits
are calculated. All of those options the President has mentioned have
one thing in common: they all cut benefits.
Even if we do not know for sure how the President wants to cut Social
Security benefits, the administration has not been all that subtle
about their druthers. For months, President Bush and many in the
administration hinted that their preference is one of the plans put
forward by the President's Commission on Social Security. What is that?
That plan would divert Social Security payroll taxes into new private
savings accounts. As I said, that has nothing to do with solvency. I
will come back to that later. But that plan would also deeply cut
Social Security benefits for future beneficiaries by changing the way
the benefits are calculated. The President's plan would cut benefits,
in the President's words, by indexing benefits to prices rather than to
wages. What does that mean? What is the effect of that? Let me explain.
Under current law, when the Government calculates a worker's initial
Social Security benefit, the Government adjusts the worker's past
earnings for the growth in wages and the economy. Under the President's
plan, the Government would adjust the worker's past earnings for the
growth in prices, not in wages but in prices. What is the effect of
that? Most people don't realize it, but wages actually grow faster than
prices. Wages actually grow faster in the long run. People see prices
rising all the time, but folks do not always focus on how much their
wages increase. Wages generally keep up and surpass the increase of
prices. On average, over time, wages grow faster than prices. Why is
that? That is largely because workers today are more productive than
workers used to be. Workers today produce more than workers did years
ago. Economists call that productivity. They are more productive, so
workers today demand higher wages. They are more productive, so they
have higher wages, even after adjusting for inflation. Even though
inflation goes up, workers are more productive, so wages rise faster
than inflation, even though prices are going up. So adjusting the
initial benefits to a growth in wages makes sense. It is current law.
It makes sure Social Security will replace roughly the same share of
future retirement incomes as it did for previous generations of
retirees.
What does the Commission plan to do about that? Their plan to move
from wage indexing to a price index means initial benefits for retirees
in the future would gradually start to get smaller and smaller than
they would under current law. Because these reductions in benefits
would accumulate over time, each new group of retirees would get that
much more of a cut in their benefits relative to what the current law
promises them.
This chart shows the story. It is very illustrative. I hope people
pay attention to this. I daresay that every American concerned about
Social Security would take a good long hard look at this chart and they
would realize the deeper problems in the President's proposal. This
chart shows under current law--talking about what the law is today--
succeeding generations of retirees can expect Social Security to
replace a relatively constant amount of their income. This yellow line
shows for people who start to retire today--when they retire, their
Social Security benefits are going to be about 40 percent of their
previous wages. As wages go up over time and people retire, they get
about 40 percent of their wages just before they retire. That is called
replacement income. That is the law, and it stays at about 40 percent
out into the future.
On average, Social Security promises to replace about 40 percent of
income year after year, represented by the yellow line. If we adopt the
Commission's plan, what happens? That means the share of income Social
Security replaced would go down. That is the red line here. So over
time these cuts become very deep. For workers now in their midthirties,
benefits will be cut by about 25 percent. For somebody born about now--
one of our children or grandchildren--benefits will be cut in half. You
see this red line comes about half of where the yellow line is. So
somebody who enters the workforce about now, under the President's
plan, when he or she retires, is going to receive almost 20 percent of
wages, not 40 percent. That is a 50-percent cut. So a person would get
much less under the President's plan in the future.
I am looking at some of these pages on the floor. When they work, and
if this plan goes into effect, their Social Security benefits will be
half when they retire compared to what it would be today under current
law if they could retire. I don't know if they would want that.
If the Commission's plan had been in place when Social Security began
to pay benefits in 1940--reverse that. Say the President's plan was in
effect then; benefits for average earnings would be 60 percent less
than today. If the President's plan had been in effect in 1940--I was
born in 1941--then the benefits I would receive today, or anybody my
age, would be, under the President's

[[Page S2663]]

plan, much less than I would get today if I retired. How much less? You
can tell by this chart. Today I would get about $1,278 a month. Under
the President's plan, if I retired today, and this were in effect since
1940, I would get $515 a month. Let me state that again. Under current
law, a worker with average wages who retires in 2005 will get about a
$1,278 monthly Social Security check. Had the Commission's plan been in
effect since 1940, that average worker would get only $515 a month in
Social Security. That is $515 a month instead of $1,278.
Remember, this is kind of a startling statistic. For one-fifth of our
seniors, Social Security is their total source of income. For 20
percent of seniors today, Social Security is all of their income. So no
matter where you live, this is what you get in Social Security. If this
plan had been in effect in 1940, seniors would be receiving $515 a
month now, a lot less than they receive. That kind of cut in benefits
would mean that a lot more seniors would be living in poverty. Had the
Commission's plan been in effect since 1940, 7 million more seniors
would be living in poverty today. Today, about 3.6 million seniors are
living in poverty. That is not good. That is bad, but that is a fact.
If the President's law had been in effect since 1940, then 10.5 million
seniors would be living in poverty--more than three times that.
Someone might say: This isn't going to happen to me under the
President's plan. Why? Because I am not going to participate in those
private accounts. I will stay away from that. I will just do nothing
and keep my payroll tax, which will still go into the Social Security
trust fund. I don't have a private account, so this should not affect
me. Then I won't have my benefits cut.
Guess what. That is not right. Under the Commission's plan, the
President's proposed plan, these cuts would apply even if you did not
choose to participate in private accounts. That may not seem fair, but
that is a fact. These are the cuts you get irrespective of whether you
participate in a private account. It makes no difference whether you do
or do not participate in a private account.
Another question people might ask is, Will these cuts apply to people
with disabilities, to survivors? To be candid, none of us knows for
sure, but the Commission's numbers show that savings of people with
disabilities and survivors were included. That means they are going to
get cut, too. We are talking about widows or orphans here. Listen to
the words of Linda from Great Falls, MT:

My father died when I was 13 years old. My mom went to work
as a bookkeeper making a little over $200 a month. Our entire
lives changed, and without the assistance of Social Security
benefits, I would never have been able to attend college.

Social Security is a vital lifeline for millions of Americans. We
have to be very careful about how we change it. In addition to the cuts
about which I have been talking so far, the President has a plan. It
includes a second set of cuts; that is, a second set of cuts for
anybody who signs up for the privatized accounts. Remember, I talked
about the first round of cuts and benefits. There is a second round.

Under the plan, when workers retire, the Social Security benefits
would be further reduced by, first, all of the contributions to the
worker's private account. That amounts to an additional reduction in
benefits. Then there is another reduction, and what is that? That is
the interest that those contributions would have earned had they earned
a 3-percent rate of return above inflation. Some people call it a
``clawback.'' I call it a privatization tax.
This next chart, number 4, shows the story. It shows a case of a
typical worker born in 1990. So a person born in 1990 retires in 2055.
I suppose that would probably apply to a lot of our younger people.
After all, this has been pitched for our younger people. Under current
law, that person would get $23,300 each year from Social Security. So
under current law, someone who is born in 1990 and retires in 2055, at
age 65, that person will get about $23,300 in benefits from Social
Security.
Let's talk about the cuts. The first cut under the President's plan
is in benefits, due to changing from wage indexing to price indexing,
as I mentioned earlier. What is the effect of that? That would cut a
worker's Social Security payments to $13,104 a year. That change
alone--cutting all benefits of all retirees under the President's plan
by moving from wage indexing to price indexing--means the benefits that
person will receive in 2055, born in 1990, would not be $23,000, but a
whole whopping roughly $10,000 a year less, a cut down to $13,000 a
year.
Then there is a second cut. That is the cut due to the privatization
tax. That would cut a worker's Social Security benefits further. How
much further? Down to a mere $3,276 a year. Just think of this for a
minute; suspend judgment and let this sink in. This is what is
happening under the President's plan. Today, that person would get
$23,000 in Social Security benefits. The first cut applies to everybody
in the President's plan irrespective of whether you have a private
account. So everybody will get a cut by $10,000 a year, down to $13,000
a year. What about those folks who say: Gee, I am going to beat the
system and I am going to divert 3 or 4 percentage points of my payroll
tax into my private accounts. I am going to beat the system.
Wrong. What is really the fine print of the President's probable
plan? What is the effect? It is a further deep cut of another $10,000.
So the benefit that a person is going to receive is going to be not
$23,000 but, rather, only $3,000 a year. The proponents tell us that:
Gee, if they keep their private account, that will be made up by the
income they will get from the private account, earnings they will get
from the private accounts.
Let me just say what the Congressional Budget Office says about this
part here, the red part on the chart about earnings. What do they say?
They say workers with average earnings will be back to where they were
in this middle bar, up to close to $13,000. So that means that after
all the shouting, workers who are now 25 to 35 years old will have
total retirement income cut--Social Security benefits plus income from
the private accounts--total income cut by about a quarter below what
current law promises.
Think of that for a moment. What did people think when they learned
about all this? Some know about this, but a lot do not. Do you want to
know something, Mr. President? I found something very startling about 2
weeks ago. I hope you will listen to this point because it is pretty
important. The point is this: I asked a Senator on the other side of
the aisle about 2 weeks ago: Senator, I wonder, does your side
understand the fine print of the President's proposal? Does it really
understand it? His answer--this was a private conversation--his answer
was: Not really.
I said to the Senator: Do you mind if I explain what it does, what
the practical effect of all this is? I do not want to be pedantic about
it.
He said: Sure; what is it?
So I explained all this to him. He was amazed. He did not know all
that. I take him at his word. He said most of the other side did not
understand it. Maybe he was being very generous and actually they did.
But I was startled by this conversation. He said most do not understand
it.
Second, it was a revelation to him when I explained what it actually
does.
I mention all this because I think it is important for the facts to
get out. Facts often speak louder than words. I hope the facts get out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator has used his allotted
20 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. If I may have a few more minutes, I would appreciate it.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield another 5 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
I repeat, workers 25 to 35 years old will have total retirement
income; that is, Social Security benefit cuts, plus their income from
the private accounts--that is income, not the principal reduced by 3
percent--cut by about a quarter below what current law promises. Those
with average earnings born in this decade who retire at age 65 will
have their total retirement income cut in half--again, their total
retirement income cut in half. For those who participate in private
accounts, their total income will be cut in half. That is all based on
CBO's assumption that the private account will

[[Page S2664]]

get a rate of return of 3 percent over and above inflation. It could
get more, but it could get less.
Let me remind people that what goes up may also come down. In the
late 1920s in America, people might have expected their stocks to go up
at least 3 percent a year after inflation. As this chart shows, stocks
went down nearly 90 percent between 1929 and 1932. From its high in
1929 of 381, the Dow fell to 41 in 1932.
Under the President's plan, what would happen to your Social Security
benefit if the stock market crashed? You would still need to pay the
full privatization tax on all the contributions to the worker's private
account plus 3-percent interest above inflation. That is even if you
did not earn that much. Under the President's plan, you still have to
pay all that.
So under the President's privatization plan, your Social Security
check will be reduced by more than what you have put in your private
account. The only thing that would be guaranteed would be this little
green bar at the end of $3,276 a year. I challenge anyone to explain to
me how they can live on $3,276 a year. Under the President's plan, that
is all you would be guaranteed. Under current law, you are guaranteed
$23,000. If the stock market crashes and you are in a private account,
your guarantee will only be $3,000. Come on, I do not think people want
to do that. I do not think Congress wants to do that.

As Frederick from Great Falls, MT, asked:

[I]f the bottom falls out of the market, who takes care of
them then?

Some say we cannot sustain Social Security's current promises anyway.
But the Commission's cuts would be deeper than if we did absolutely
nothing to Social Security. If we did nothing to extend the life of
Social Security--and no one is recommending that--but if Congress did
nothing--again, no one is recommending we do nothing; we have to do
something that makes sense--if we did nothing, then according to the
Congressional Budget Office, in 2052, we would still be able to pay 80
percent of promised benefits. In contrast, under the Commission's
plan--that is the President's probable plan--benefits would be cut
before 2052 and benefits would be cut deeper than that in 2052 and
after.
This chart puts it together. For that typical worker born in 1990,
current law promises Social Security benefits to be $23,300, as I
mentioned earlier. But even if we do nothing--again, I do not advocate
doing nothing; we have to do something--Social Security would be able
to pay that worker $18,100 a year. The Commission's plan would cut that
to $13,104, and the President's privatization tax cut would cut the
guaranteed benefit to $3,276. In all likelihood, the worker would get a
total package of benefits--their Social Security plus their private
account--in the neighborhood of $13,104.
We do not know how much the rate of return is going to be. That is
why it is red with a question mark. It could go up; it could go down.
It has to be a high level annual rate of return to equal, frankly, what
one would get in total benefits, even after the cuts. As I said, this
chart puts it altogether.
That is why the President's privatization plan does not make any
sense. From the perspective of typical beneficiaries, it would leave
them worse off than if we did nothing. Worse off than if we did
nothing--let that sink in a little bit. The President's plan would
leave people worse off compared to if we did nothing, at least over the
next 40 to 50 years, through 2052. That is roughly the next 60 years--
worse off. That is before we take into account the $5 trillion in new
borrowing that the President's plan requires in its first 20 years. I
did not talk about that.
Let me summarize. We have demonstrated conclusively why people would
be worse off under the President's plan than they would be under
current law. Now we add another huge problem with the President's plan.
What is that? That is the $5 trillion of new borrowing the President's
plan would require in its first 20 years; $5 trillion of additional
borrowing. We are already deeply in debt.
Jack from Kalispell, MT, wrote me of his suspicion on this:

President Bush is proposing a gimmick to take attention
away from plans to reduce future benefits. I believe the
Federal Government should solve its own solvency problems
and either stop borrowing from the Social Security trust
[fund] or actually pay back its loan with market rates for
interest.

Jack may have a point. The private accounts are a gimmick, and the
benefit cuts are bad enough that anyone associated with them might want
to divert their attention away from them.
The reason why the cuts are so deep is because the Commission's plan
would place all of the burdens of securing solvency on benefit cuts--
all of the burden of solvency on benefit cuts, all of it, all. Within
benefits cuts, the Commission's plan would place all the burdens of
securing solvency on today's young people and future beneficiaries. He
is passing the buck. First he says, OK, all of the solvency solution is
on the back of the beneficiaries in terms of benefit cuts. And the $5
trillion, who is going to pay for that? That is going to be young
people in future generations, future taxpayers. They are going to have
to pay back that $5 trillion. That is the effect of switching from wage
indexing to price indexing, and I do not think that is fair.
Look at this chart again. The President's plan would change Social
Security from a guaranteed $23,300 in earned benefit to a guaranteed
$3,000--23 down to 3, plus a gamble. That is a benefit you would get
from the President's plan. You are guaranteed $3,000 and you are
guaranteed a gamble. It may pay off and be big. The gamble may not pay
off. You may lose your shirt. No wonder people wonder whether the
President's plan is more about, as Bobby from Eureka, MT, put it,
``only the first step to dismantling Social Security altogether.'' She
is concerned about that. When you look at the effect of the President's
plan, you begin to think that maybe Bobby is on to something here.
That is why Democrats have called upon the President to disavow his
plan for private accounts funded out of Social Security. We ask him to
do so, why? Because we want to make sure these private accounts are
not, in Bobby's words, ``the first step to dismantling Social Security
altogether.''
Democrats want to address Social Security's solvency. You bet we do.
There is a problem here. It is not a crisis. It is a problem we should
address now rather than later. We want to strengthen and protect Social
Security for the future. We do think there is a problem. But in order
to do that, we need reassurance that the changes we agree to will
strengthen Social Security, not dismantle it. The President needs to
disavow privatizing Social Security. That is a necessary first step. He
needs to state he does not want to dismantle Social Security and has to
do that before we can agree on how to fix it. If he makes that
statement, boy, you bet there would be a big rush in the Congress, on
both sides of the aisle, to fix the solvency problem in Social
Security.
That is the problem Americans worry about, solvency of Social
Security. That is their concern, so let's address their concern.
Mary from Belgrade, MT, summed it up pretty well. She wrote:

The American Social Security system is one of the most
cost-effective pension plans ever devised. It costs a
pittance to administer, it is thoroughly honest, and it works
flawlessly. ``Privatizing'' it will almost certainly ruin it.

Privatizing will almost certainly ruin it.

It would add hugely to the crushing burden of national
debt, it would mean smaller retirement pensions for millions
of retiring Americans, and it would cost 20 to 30 times more
to administer. Congress has a duty to the American people to
protect this popular, inexpensive, highly effective program.
I implore you, Senator Baucus, to tell the President you
oppose privatization, and to legislate only a plan that will
fix long-term problems without changing the basic structure
and function of our Social Security system.

Nobody could have said it better. Mary knows what is going on here.
She figured it out. I think a lot of Americans are also beginning to
figure it out. And when more figure it out, we have no choice but to
address solvency and to take privatization totally off the table.
Mr. President, you can help us a lot if you were to make that
statement.
Mary has it right. We need to get beyond plans to privatize Social
Security. And once we do, we can get about the business of ``fix[ing
its] long-term problems'' and securing it for generations to come.

[[Page S2665]]

That is why I will support the amendment by the senior Senator from
Florida, Mr. Nelson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed his additional time.
Mr. BAUCUS. If I might have 1 more minute.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional minute off the resolution to the
Senator.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, that is why the senior Senator from
Florida, Mr. Nelson, is going to offer an amendment on Social Security
later this week. It is why I urge my colleagues to support it. We want
to keep Social Security, in the words of that man from Helena, as ``the
only solid, dependable program that [we] can rely on.'' They want to
keep it. They should keep it. We want to keep it. It is ``the only
solid, dependable program'' seniors can rely on.
We want to keep it, in the words of Laura from Baker, MT, a ``system
[that] has worked well for many, many years.'' And we want to keep a
system that can work well for ``many, many years to come.''
I very much thank my good friend from North Dakota. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 25 minutes.
I rise in support of the budget resolution that is before the Senate,
and I support the leadership of our new chairman. He has shown
tremendous leadership on a very tough issue.
This budget is about the future. It is about our children and our
grandchildren, as is Social Security. I was pleased to hear the Senator
from Montana admit we do have a problem with Social Security. We have
some Members who apparently do not think there is a problem with Social
Security. I would like to go back to Social Security perhaps at a later
time.
We have before us a budget resolution. We have to keep in mind that
this budget resolution is about numbers. We are not getting into the
specifics of the program, even though we are going to see a lot of
amendments on the floor today that are going to be dealing with
specifics of the program. In reality, this is about numbers. It is
about the top numbers and how the numbers are allocated among the
various committees. But the real decisions about how those dollars are
going to be spent will rest, in some cases, with an authorization
committee, or it may rest with the Appropriations Committee.
If we look back historically at the budget, particularly in the last
few years, the growth of the national budget, as reflected in the
budget resolution, has been greater than what the growth of the economy
has been. This budget is an attempt to reduce the rate of growth.
There are some people who are going to try to characterize that as
cuts, but if we look at the total figures in the budget, what we are
doing is reducing the rate of growth. Even if we look at what we have
done to reduce the rate of growth in entitlements, which has covered so
much of the discussion throughout the budget debate, the growth in
entitlements is greater than the growth in the economy.
So we are talking about reducing the rate of growth. I believe this
resolution represents a courageous balancing act in trying to bring
some sanity to the budgeting process, some fiscal responsibility.
We are funding our social and military priorities. The total
discretionary budget authority for 2006 is $834.4 billion. Most of that
is defense spending. We have about $438 billion, or something like
that, that is set aside for discretionary spending in that area. The
resolution is consistent with the President's request, plus a generous
increase for some educational programs, particularly Pell grants.
The resolution assumes full funding of the President's defense
request, which is supporting our global war on terrorism, restructuring
our U.S. forces, which I believe is badly needed, future threats, and
raising the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. We have
some tough decisions that have to be made when we are allocating these
dollars, and they do have an impact.
The resolution funds important existing commitments--certainly the
reconstruction of Iraq. Nobody can deny the importance of that. We did
not step away from that. That is an obligation we have assumed, and it
is important we finish the job.
We have a $50 billion reserve fund put up in this particular budget
to begin to address the needs of our men and women in the military.
In education, I mentioned the Pell grant increase, increases in
higher education, No Child Left Behind--the increase in Pell grants of
10 percent or $417 million; we have a $5.5 billion reserve account for
the new Higher Education Act, which is money that is going to be
available when the HELP Committee acts.
The budget features sound and vital mechanisms for fiscal restraint
and budget discipline, which is something we have lost here in the last
few years. I think we have to regain that. It is important that we do
something to reduce deficit spending. This is something that will
impact our children and grandchildren, if we do not begin to address it
today. And the sooner we address it, the better off we are going be.
If a business is having financial problems or any entity is having
financial problems, I think everybody recognizes that if you wait until
the last minute to address those financial problems, they get
unsolvable. But the earlier you address those problems, the better off
you are.
We do have some Social Security problems. My feeling is the sooner we
begin to address them, the less the pain is going to be. There is going
to be some pain, but the pain is going to be less. If we wait until the
last minute, the pain is going to be unbearable in Social Security.
We have the same thing with many of our other entitlements programs.
This budget begins to set discretionary budgets for 2006, 2007, and
2008, which is something that is enforced with the 60-vote point of
order. It is a way of expecting a higher threshold if you want to
increase spending. If we begin to mortgage the future of our children
and grandchildren, then we are going to require a higher threshold in
this Congress to be able to do that, which means the issue has to be
that much more important in the minds of Senators and the Congress.
We establish points of order against new direct spending totaling $5
billion in any of the next four 10-year periods.

The resolution continues sensible mechanisms for nondefense spending,
advance appropriations, and pay-go, and it contains recommendations for
a review of Federal agencies and their performance to eliminate or
reduce wasteful, duplicative, inefficient, outdated, or failed
programs. This idea in particular represents a growing sentiment within
the body. I believe it represents a growing sentiment that we are
seeing throughout the Nation. We have seen some efforts to try to
restrain spending in high priorities areas in this Congress, such as
defense. We are preparing to go through the BRAC process where we are
looking closely at defense installations to see if they still meet the
mission of a modern military. We need to have a similar type of
scrutiny in the nondefense programs, to see if they continue to meet
the mission the Congress intended of them when they first passed the
legislation. That is being provided for by GPRA, which stands for
Government Progress and Results Act, which measures how agencies do.
The President has taken this and modified it to prevail as sort of a
detailed roadmap through what he called his PART ratings, which is a
roadmap I think Congress should pay more attention to.
So he is looking at some accountability within the agencies. Again,
we are not talking about anything more than just a reduction in the
rate of spending as far as the total budget is concerned.
This budget represents a landmark attempt to do something about
entitlement spending. The first attempt was 19 years ago when there was
an attempt to rein in entitlement spending in a budget resolution. So
it has been awhile since we have looked at these. In the meantime these
programs have been running on automatic. They have been spending more
than what has been happening in the growth rate of our economy. Over
time we are going to pay for it. It is going to be our children and
grandchildren.
The resolution includes instructions to produce mandatory savings of
$32 billion over 5 years. This is a very important provision that is
being wildly

[[Page S2666]]

exaggerated. We have to keep in mind that mandatory spending is two-
thirds of our total budget. The total budget is running at 2, a little
over $2.5 trillion. Figure it out. We are only talking about $32
billion over 5 years. If you want to average it out, it is a little
over $6 billion a year out of this 1 year's budget of over $2.5
trillion. So many of these provisions I think are being wildly
exaggerated. Mandatory spending would still increase from $1.5 trillion
in 2005 to more than $2 trillion in 2010. That is a growth of $500
billion in 5 years.
So even though we are cutting back on the rate of spending growth, it
is still increasing every year, and it is still increasing at a rate of
$500 billion over a 5-year period of time. Some people in this body say
that is too many cuts, but I look at these figures and I wonder who
they are kidding.
The doomsday cuts in this resolution barely add up to a moderate
restraint of the stratospheric growth of these programs. Many people
agree that entitlement spending is swallowing the budget and we must
look seriously at our long-term fiscal health. The Federal Government
consumes just under 20 percent of our total economy, and entitlements
promise to grow and consume a larger and larger portion of this sizable
chunk of our gross domestic product. The Congressional Budget Office,
for example, estimates 65 percent of Federal resources by 2015. We had
testimony in the Budget Committee from the Congressional Budget Office
which said these were not sustainable--a personal view. I have to
agree, when you look at 65 percent of Federal resources by 2015 as far
as entitlement growth is concerned, that is a serious problem, and this
Congress needs to face up to it.

Despite the unanimous agreement that we must do something about it
before our grandkids have to bear our policy burdens, I hear nothing
from the other side except more money, more and more and more. I don't
hear any suggestions on what their budget proposal is. They want to
raise taxes, they want to increase spending. That is the only plan we
get out of the other side. In some ways there is an analogy on Social
Security. The other side is continuing to criticize Social Security,
but they don't--and some of them, like Senator Baucus of Montana, agree
now that there is a problem with Social Security, but there is no plan
they are putting forward. The President has courageously stepped
forward and suggested some plans to protect our children and
grandchildren. They are very modest. He has done that with the budget.
He is doing that with Social Security.
Last week's markup I thought was very revealing. We had numerous
amendments for additional spending in the Budget Committee and the
promise of an alternative budget they said through amendments. That is
how they were going to make their budget heard. It is easy to pick out
a budget through amendments, but I would like to see a total budget
plan presented by the other side if this budget is so bad. But nothing
has materialized except more spending and the reductions of the
enormously successful tax cuts. And those tax cuts were successful.
That is what has created the economic growth we are seeing today.
I had some experience in the House being in the minority which the
other aisle finds themselves in, and we had the courage to step forward
with a total budget and to make tough choices. We were challenged by
the majority, by the Democrats in the House at the time I served on the
Budget Committee, to come up with our own budget, and we said, yes, in
fairness of debate, we ought to have one. So we did put forward a
budget, a total budget about where we wanted to see the country be in 5
years, even in 10 years, and we compared that with the majority, the
Democrats on the House side during those early years, and as a result
of that, I think we established some credibility.
My challenge to the other side is, you need to come up with your
budget. You need to make the tradeoffs. Just submitting amendments here
and there and picking at certain parts of the budget for political
reasons or because it is an easy program to pick on or whatever is not
the way to put together a budget for this country. So I challenge the
other side to come up with a total budget and see what their ideas are
and what they are going to do to protect the future generations of
Americans, our children and our grandchildren.
This resolution makes a minor adjustment to the explosive growth of
Medicaid. You would think the sky was falling, and here is the percent
of adjustment--.007 percent of Medicaid over 5 years. That is all we
are touching. Now, there is still a huge increase going on in Medicaid,
as far as I am concerned. We are just reducing that growth from what
has been projected out so that there is a .007 percent of Medicaid
being impacted over 5 years, which is a reduction. It appears to me
that the only option that would be given from the other side is a tax
increase without smothering growth and solving the underling problems

The clock is ticking. The Budget Committee testimony by the
Comptroller General of the GAO revealed estimates that our Nation's
unfunded promises over the next 75 years are $44 trillion. In the
entire history of the Federal Government we have raised a total of only
$38 trillion in revenue. That is astounding testimony. We cannot wish
this away. We cannot rely solely on economic growth. And we cannot tax
our kids and grandkids into oblivion to solve these problems. Annual
mandatory spending is on autopilot, rarely undergoing the kind of
examination we give to the issue of steroids in Major League Baseball,
for example. And this is much more important.
CBO's baseline projects net mandatory spending will grow at an annual
rate of 5.8 percent over the next 10 years. That is $5.4 trillion in
total growth above 2005 spending levels. This resolution offers a
modest reduction in the rate of that growth--a courageous and important
step in our thinking around here.
The resolution offers a very good start. If someone has a better
plan, again, not just a series of constant amendments but a budget, we
will be here to discuss it.
Provisions to protect the taxpayer and promote growth are in this
budget.
The resolution includes assumptions focusing on preventing
economically damaging tax increases. The President's tax cuts, which
were passed by this Congress, have helped the economy grow. They have
increased revenues, and not only to the Federal Government. We can see
that happening in our States. In my State of Colorado we are beginning
to see a change in revenues.
Provisions of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Package Reconciliation
of 2003 are set to expire after tax year 2008. We need to address that.
The budget assumes we will continue the tax cuts that stimulate the
economic development that ended our Nation's short recession. Without
this budget, capital gains taxes would jump from 15 percent to 20
percent. If there is one tax reduction out there that has been an
incentive which stimulated the economic growth, it has been capital
gains. We saw that happen during the Kennedy administration. That is
one of the tax cuts President Kennedy advocated when he was in office
to stimulate revenues in the Federal Government. We have seen that
during the Reagan administration. I have seen it happen in the State of
Colorado. When we had capital gains adjustments, we saw the revenues
improve, as far as State revenues. We have seen it happen again. When
we dropped capitol gains rates, we saw the tremendous impact it had on
the economy which resulted in more revenues to the Federal Government.
Without this budget, taxes on individual income would jump from 15
percent to as much as 35 percent. Incentives for small business owners
to invest would be set to expire in 2007. Without this budget, it would
dry up. Not extending these tax cuts is like declaring economic war on
small businesses and investment.
One of the important things we did was focus on small business. That
is where most of our economic growth is. We helped them write off more
on their expensing. There was a dramatic increase in what we allowed
them to write off on expensing. That is one of the things that helped
small business and contributed a lot to our economic growth.

[[Page S2667]]

In my view, small business is the key to our economic growth.
Reconciliation instructions in this budget direct the Finance Committee
to produce more tax relief--$70.2 billion over 5 years. That means more
economic development, more investment, more savings.
We do not tell them how they are going to meet these things, but we
put the dollars in there and we direct them in that direction.
Personally, as many colleagues, I would endorse a larger number of tax
relief provisions because I believe it is more money in the hands of
business owners, more money in the hands of consumers, more money in
the hands of parents and investors. It stimulates greater growth,
education, savings--prosperity at every economic level. Not
surprisingly, it will likely increase revenues to State and Federal
Government.
The $70.2 billion is a compromise number. We have already worked on
it. Many of us would have liked to have seen over $100 billion. We
thought that would be more appropriate to keep our economy growing. But
working with the Members of the Senate, the budget chairman, to his
credit, has come up with what I think is a reasonable number. It is a
number I can support, which is a little over $70 billion, holding down
the tax burden.
The budget promotes fiscal health and economic development. It holds
down the rate of growth in spending and protects the most important
national funding priorities we have. It extends expiring tax cuts and
reconciles tax cuts that have a known stimulative effect. This budget
provides new disciplinary tools for spending restraint. It leads to
overall deficit and thus debt reduction.

The mark will cut the deficit in half in 5 years, relative to the
size of the economy. Under this resolution, the deficit will fall to
2.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007; then, as we move on to
2010, reduce it down to 1.3 percent.
Our annual deficits compound our existing debt burden and, long term,
there is no greater threat to Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare,
education--and the taxpayer--or other priorities, than the swelling of
the public debt. It is something we must begin to address. I think this
budget begins to address it in a serious way.
Several years ago I offered the American Debt Repayment Act. It was a
suggestion to the Members of Congress that we ought to look at our
national debt the way we would the mortgage on our home. We ought to
put a plan in place a commitment to begin to pay down that debt.
This budget we have before us attempts to put in place a plan that
will aid us in getting us out of the deficit, in a position where we
can begin to pay down the national debt. It is clear if we leave it to
the designs of Congress on the floor, things get out of hand and more
spending happens. But if we have a plan on how we are going to pay down
the debt, it gives some parameters. This budget provides somewhat of a
plan. Congress repeatedly shirks its responsibility when it comes to
the debt.
So I commend the chairman for doing something in a serious way to
deal with our deficit and the debt. Maybe it is time for me to
reintroduce the legislation to tie our undisciplined hands. This
resolution before us represents a good start, as I said, in restoring
such discipline.
There is one other thing. We have had some comments here about Social
Security and I think Members are beginning to realize we do have a
problem with Social Security. Like the budget, this debate on Social
Security is very important to our children and our grandchildren.
I think we have to keep in mind that what the President is suggesting
is not a mandate. If you are under 55 years of age or younger, you
don't have to get into private accounts if you don't want to--personal
accounts, if you don't want to have them. I prefer to refer to them as
personal accounts because what we are doing is we are giving individual
taxpayers a choice. People who are going to rely on Social Security
will have a choice as to how they would like to structure their
retirement account. We don't mandate them to do anything.
Do you know what. If we put in place personal accounts, I think the
Members of this Senate, particularly people who are opposing personal
accounts, would be surprised how many Americans would flock to it. I
base my observations on what has happened with Federal employees and
State employees. Try to suggest to the Federal employees that somehow
or other they ought to participate in Social Security and give up their
own retirement plans. It would not be very popular. They have a choice.
Federal employees have a choice, as Members of Congress have a choice.
They have a choice. Do they want to put their money in the stock
market? They don't invest in individual stocks. It goes into a fund
that is managed, and these professional investors manage that stock
fund. It goes into a bond fund and professional managers manage that.
Or it goes into Treasury notes. Those are the choices Federal employees
have.

Why can't ordinary Americans, everyday Americans who are out here
working on Main Street, why can't they have the same choice as Federal
employees? One concern I get from State employees in Colorado is: Don't
put us in the Social Security system. We have our own retirement
system, called RA. We have a choice, as State employees, where we want
to put our money for retirement, whether we want it to go into a stock
market fund or whether we want it to go into a bond market fund or
whether to put it in some type of Treasury note. They have three
choices. That is what I understand the President is talking about.
When given the choice of whether they want to go into Social Security
or they want to go into a similar fund, what we are talking about with
personal retirement accounts for Americans, there is a general
rejection of that idea. Employees on the Federal level, employees on
the State level, don't like that idea because they know Social Security
performs so poorly, and when they are given their own choices as to how
they want to invest their money for their own retirement plans, they
can do a better job than the Government can do. That has been reflected
in history. That has been reflected in the experiences we see
throughout the States as well as at the Federal level.
Members of Congress have the same choices as Federal employees.
During the Presidential campaign we heard the candidates talking about:
The American people should have the same choices as Members of Congress
have in retirement. We can go ahead and give them that.
I think this is a good budget. I think it tries to address our budget
in a responsible way. So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing a
budget. We need to pass a budget. That is the responsible thing, to get
a budget passed. Then we can continue the debate. I think this is an
important issue and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution. I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I might say, in regard
to the recent statement by my good friend from Colorado with respect to
privatization accounts--with all due respect, I want to point out, I
don't know if he is quite accurate. I would like his response to this.
Isn't it true, though, that today Federal employees have both Social
Security and private accounts? In addition to Social Security, that is,
you have your Thrift Savings Plan. Federal employees have the Thrift
Savings Plan, and they also pay into Social Security, which is not the
President's program at all. The President's program is to take money
away from Social Security and put it into a personal account. Even with
the so-called personal account, they wouldn't be able to keep it, as we
would our Thrift Savings. They have to give it back to Social Security.
It is not even apples and oranges compared to the President's plan, it
is watermelons and peanuts.
There is no comparison. The fact is, again to make it very clear, we
Federal employees have both Social Security and the private accounts,
separate, outside Social Security. We get to keep all we put into our
private account because that is our money, whereas in the President's
plan, money is taken away from Social Security into a privatization
account and the person who

[[Page S2668]]

has that account is not able to keep very much of that money. So, as I
said, it is not apples and oranges, it is really watermelons to
peanuts. Isn't that accurate?

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Montana for his response. I
appreciate his clarification as far as Federal employees. But the point
I would make is in the State of Colorado, our employees in the State
don't pay into Social Security. I think a lot of other States do that.
Mr. BAUCUS. If I might respond?
Mr. ALLARD. If I can finish, the point I want to make is we do give
choices to Federal employees in their retirement plan. We do it through
the 401(k). We give choices to Members of Congress. We give choices to
our State employees who do not participate in Social Security. So why
can't we give choices to Americans out here on Social Security? We are
not mandating them to do this. We give them that choice and give them
an opportunity to do that.
In my view, by giving them an opportunity to do that, actually who
you help is the disadvantaged. The people who are better income earners
are able to utilize individual retirement accounts and 401(k) accounts
and get the revenue back and do that.
Mr. BAUCUS. I have 4 minutes, Mr. President. I don't know if I will
be able to use my 4 minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. I guess the Senator understands my point, though. And I
thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. BAUCUS. I might say with respect to State plans, most State plans
have both Social Security and private plans, but there are a few States
that do have only private plans. That is because in those few States
they are so lucrative, the employees have a good deal compared with
other States. But most States by far have both. Colorado is the
exception, a State that has one, the main point being we are talking
about choice, Thrift Savings, and choosing different kinds of
investment equity that is in a private account today for Federal
employees outside of and in addition to Social Security, not carved out
of Social Security. We are talking about a carve-out. So it is totally
different.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was frankly astonished to hear the
Senator from Colorado say that Members of Congress and Federal
employees have a choice not to participate in Social Security. That is
not true.
Since 1983, under the new Federal retirement system, FERS, the
Federal Employees Retirement System, all of us are in the Social
Security system. Members of Congress don't have a choice, if they have
been elected since 1983, as to whether to participate in Social
Security. The Senator from Colorado is flat wrong, absolutely wrong. I
have heard this on talk shows around the country--that Members of
Congress don't participate in Social Security. I want to make very
clear that this Member participates in Social Security, and every
Member elected sense 1983 participates in Social Security. Anyone
saying something else is flat wrong. It is incorrect and not even close
to being right.
Let us be very clear. Federal employees didn't have a choice as to
whether they participated in Social Security. I don't know where the
Senator from Colorado got this idea. That is just not correct. Under
the Federal Employees Retirement System, since 1983, Federal employees
have participated in Social Security. That is a fact. It is important
for people to know that.
The Senator from Colorado also said other things that I think are
incorrect. The Senator from Colorado said the tax cuts produced more
revenue. No, they did not. That is factually incorrect. Here is what
happened to the revenue since the tax cuts. The revenue as a share of
gross domestic product plunged. It didn't go up, it went down.
It is amazing to me how facts don't seem to matter when ideology gets
in the way. Somebody once said everybody is entitled to their own
opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. The facts are that
the revenue of the United States plunged to the lowest level since 1959
after the tax cuts. That is a fact.
Here is a second fact. With the tax cuts, the United States suffered
the worst multiyear revenue drop since World War II. That is a fact.
Revenue did not go up, revenue went down.
This is Federal revenues in trillions of constant 2000 dollars.
Revenue went down 18 percent over 3 years with the tax cuts. Tax cuts
did not generate more money, they generated less money. That is a fact.
When I hear the claim that this budget before us is fiscally
responsible, that is just words. What are the facts? The facts are,
according to their own calculation--this is from their own budget
document--the debt goes up each and every year of this budget by over
$600 billion. It goes up $669 billion this year, it goes up $636
billion next year, $624 billion in 2007, up $622 billion in 2008, and
up $611 billion in 2009.
They say they are improving the deficit. No, they are not. This
budget before us makes the deficit worse by $130 billion--worse than if
we just put the Government on autopilot and made no policy changes. But
this budget does make policy changes, and the policy changes that it
makes makes the deficit worse, makes the debt worse in 5 years by over
$3 trillion of additional debt when we have already got the debt that
is running away from us.

Amendment No. 144

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and
Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 144.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 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 ensure that 75-year solvency has been restored to Social
Security before Congress considers new deficit-financed legislation
that would increase mandatory spending or cut taxes)

On page 57, after line 2, insert the following:

``SEC.   . POINT OF ORDER TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST.

(a) Point of Order in the Senate.--It shall not be in order
in the Senate to consider any direct spending or revenue
legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit in any
fiscal year.
(b) Exception.--The point of order established by this
section shall not apply if 75-year solvency has been restored
to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust
Funds as determined by the Social Security Administration
actuaries.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the
Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the
Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.''

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment that I send to the desk is
the ``Save Social Security First'' amendment. It acknowledges that we
have a challenge in Social Security. Clearly we do. It says what we
ought to do is make Social Security a priority.
It says simply this: Before we have any new tax cut, or any new
mandatory spending, it should be the policy of the Congress to restore
solvency to Social Security. What this amendment says is no new tax
cuts, no new mandatory spending, unless they are paid for, or they can
achieve a supermajority vote in this Chamber.
It is a very simple amendment. It is about priorities. What is most
important? Is it more important to have new spending in other programs?
This amendment says no. The priority ought to be to restore solvency in
Social Security. Is it a priority to have more tax cuts? This amendment
says no. The priority ought to be to restore solvency in Social
Security.
This amendment says simply no new mandatory spending or new no tax
cuts until Social Security is solvent, unless the tax cuts for the new
spending are paid for or unless they can get a supermajority vote in
the Senate. You could have new spending or new tax cuts if, No. 1, you
pay for them or, No. 2, you are able to get a majority vote. If you
can't do those things, you can't have new tax cuts and you can't have
new mandatory spending unless we achieve solvency in Social Security.
For all those who have given speeches all across the country and all
across their States about Social Security first, this is a chance to
put their votes where their speeches are. This is a chance to say, yes,
the priority ought

[[Page S2669]]

to be restoring solvency to Social Security. That ought to come ahead
of tax cuts, and that ought to come ahead of new spending unless those
things are paid for. If you pay for new tax cuts or pay for new
spending, that is fine. If you can get a supermajority vote, that is
fine. Otherwise, we have to restore the solvency of Social Security
first.
There is no question we have a problem in Social Security. There is
no question at all. Why? Because the Congressional Budget Office tells
us that in 2020 the Social Security trust fund will go cash negative;
in 2052, Social Security will only be able to meet 78 percent of its
obligations.
Clearly, there is a problem. The big driver to the challenge of
Social Security is the demographics of the country.
Here is what happened. We have about 40 million who are eligible for
Social Security now. By 2050, there will be twice as many.
That is the demographic challenge that we face. It is not just Social
Security. We face it in Medicare, we face it in Medicaid, and, in fact,
the shortfall in Medicare is eight times the shortfall in Social
Security.
When we look at the President's budget plan, what we find is instead
of making it better he makes it all much worse.
Why do I say that? Because this chart demonstrates clearly where this
is all headed. The green bars are the Social Security trust fund. The
blue bars are the Medicare trust fund. The red bars are the President's
tax cuts, both those that have been implemented and those he has
proposed.
This shows very clearly that right now we are in the sweet spot.
Right now we are getting more revenue from the trust funds than we are
paying out. But as those trust funds go cash negative, the cost of the
President's tax cuts explodes. The result is the country goes right
over the fiscal cliff. We are running record deficits now. We haven't
seen anything yet. Under the President's plan, the deficits and the
debt explode, and they explode right when the trust funds go cash
negative.
The President has indicated that he believes there is a 75-year
shortfall in Social Security of $3.7 trillion. That is based, by the
way, on a very pessimistic forecast of economic growth. That is based
on a forecast that says economic growth for the next 75 years will be
1.8 percent or 1.9 percent. Economic growth in the previous 75 years
has averaged 3.4 percent. This whole forecast of Social Security is a
very pessimistic forecast.
I must say I have great doubt about the accuracy of the underlying
forecast. But based on that forecast, the President says there is this
looming shortfall in Social Security. Interestingly enough, the cost of
his tax cuts over that same period are three times as much--$11.6
trillion compared to the $3.7 trillion shortfall he says exists in
Social Security.
When the President sent up his 2002 budget, he told us at the time:

None of the Social Security surplus will be used to fund
other spending initiatives or tax relief.

That is what he said. That is not what his budget says. His budget
does precisely what he said he would not do. His budget takes every
penny of Social Security money that is available to pay and uses it to
pay for other things--$2.35 trillion over the next 10 years.
Just follow this for a moment. The President, on the one hand, says
Social Security is short $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years, but he
sends us a budget that takes $2.5 trillion of Social Security money and
uses it to pay for other things.
How is that consistent? How does that make any sense, on the one
hand, for the President to say we are short $3.7 trillion in Social
Security over the next 75 years, and then he sends us a budget that
takes $2.5 trillion of Social Security money and uses it to pay for
other things? That is a contradiction of staggering proportion.
Interestingly enough, I asked my staff to figure out how much money
the President is taking out of Social Security over the next 10 years
and then tell me how much his tax cuts are over that same period.
Interestingly enough, here is what they came back with: The President
is going to take $2.35 trillion of Social Security money over the next
10 years to pay for other things. The cost of his tax cuts over the
same period are almost the identical amount, $2.6 trillion.
The flaws of the President's Social Security plan are very evident,
if you study the details. With the Nation already in record deficit,
with the debt skyrocketing, the President says: OK, Social Security is
short of money. So in my budget I am going to take even more Social
Security money and use it to pay for other things, despite having
promised in 2002 not to do that.
Then the President says, in addition, I want to take even more money
out of Social Security to establish private accounts. How much? Over
the next 10 years the President's plan takes an additional $754 billion
out of Social Security, in addition to the $2.5 trillion he is taking
from his budget to pay for other things. He takes another $754 billion
to establish private accounts. But that is just the tip of the iceberg,
because the 20-year cost of the President's plan is $4.4 trillion. Not
million, not billion, trillion: $4.4 trillion.
Where does the President propose getting that money? He proposes to
borrow it. On top of our already record deficits and debt, the
President proposes borrowing another $4 trillion.
Now, the problem with all of that, of course, is, where is he getting
the money? Where is he borrowing it? Increasingly, he is borrowing it
from foreign countries. The foreign holdings of our debt have gone up
almost 100 percent in just the first 3 years of this administration.
And it is rising very rapidly as we go forward. The President says, Go
out and borrow even more.
Here is what is happening to the publicly held debt of the United
States under the President's policies. When he came into office we were
$3.3 trillion in debt. By 2015, under the President's policies he will
have nearly tripled the debt to $9.4 trillion.
Social Security is perhaps the most important legislative enactment
of our time. Social Security has lifted people out of poverty. Two
thirds of retirees rely on Social Security for more than half of their
income. Let me repeat that: Two thirds of retirees rely on Social
Security for more than half of their income; 31 percent get at least 90
percent of their income from Social Security.
I will never forget going to a community forum in a small rural town
in North Dakota. An elderly woman was in the front row. She had a
little note pad. On that note pad she had written out her budget for
the month. That woman had about $800 of income a month. That was her
only income. She had scrawled in a shaky hand on that note pad where
the money went. She had her rent; she had her prescription drugs; she
had her food costs. After she was done with rent, utilities,
prescription drugs and food, she had no money left.
She said to me, Senator, what will I do if my prescription drug costs
go up even more? She was paying, as I recall, out of her roughly $800 a
month in income about $200 a month in prescription drugs. She was
paying, as I recall, $250 a month in rent. She said, What do I do if my
prescription drugs become even more costly?
She was in that category of the 31 percent that get at least 90
percent of their income from Social Security; 33 percent get 50 to 89
percent of their income from Social Security; 36 percent get less than
50 percent of their income. So almost two-thirds rely on Social
Security for more than half their income and almost a third get 90
percent of their income, or more, from Social Security.
This is not something we can be gambling with. For those people,
Social Security is their lifeline. We know that nearly 50 percent of
beneficiaries would be in poverty without Social Security. With Social
Security, 9 percent of seniors live in poverty. This is according to
the Social Security Administration. Without Social Security,
they estimate 48 percent of seniors would live in poverty.

I want to go back to the question of the whole basis for this
discussion and debate on Social Security, because it is all based on
assumptions. It is all based on forecasts. And the forecast is for
economic growth of 1.8 to 1.9 percent for the next 75 years. Economic
growth over the previous 75 years was much higher than that, 3.4
percent. The components of the economic growth are two: one is
productivity and the second

[[Page S2670]]

component is new entrants to the workforce. The reason they are
forecasting such lower economic growth for the future is because they
look at the demographics of the country and they say we are going to
have a real slowdown in new entrants to the workforce.
The other component of economic growth is productivity, and they are
assuming productivity will grow at a rate of only 1.6 percent for the
next 75 years. That is a very pessimistic forecast. It is much lower
than the productivity gains we have been getting over the last 15
years.
The green bars on this chart show the level of productivity growth we
have been achieving over the last 15 years. From 1990 to 1994 we were
at 2 percent. From 1995 to 1999 we were about 2.5 percent. And from
2000 to 2004 we were over 3.5 percent productivity growth. But the
whole basis for these forecasts is that somehow these people that write
these forecasts say the productivity growth in the country is going to
plunge to 1.6 percent. I don't believe that. I think that is overly
pessimistic.
I believe part of this Social Security debate is based on a false
premise, a premise that the economic growth of the country is going to
collapse from what it has been over the last 75 years to a rate of half
as much.
With that said, there still is a challenge in Social Security. Even
if these forecasts are all right, there is still a problem. The problem
is largely one of demographics. The President's plan is to dramatically
cut the benefits. In fact, he would cut the benefits by moving from
wage indexing to price indexing. Out in the future that would reduce
benefits from what are currently provided by 46 percent.
Now, the President says, yes, that is true; I do have a plan that
cuts the benefits dramatically. But, he says, I also have a plan to be
able to set aside in private accounts, personal accounts or individual
accounts, money that could be invested in the stock market. That money
would be in your name. That money would be able to grow perhaps more
rapidly. That is the bet that he is making.
The problem with the President's plan, one of the problems, aside
from being financed by massive debt, is the way these private accounts
function. These private accounts function in a little different way
than I have heard the President describe them. Under the President's
plan, there is something called an offset. Let me explain how that
works.
Under the President's plan, if you set aside $1,000 for 40 years and
you have 6\1/2\ percent rates of return during that period, you would
have $92,000 in your account at the end of the 40 years. Let me repeat
that: If you put aside $1,000 a year for 40 years and you got a 6.5
percent rate of return every year for those 40 years, you would have
$92,000 in your account. That sounds pretty good. Under the President's
description, that is your money and no one can take it away. That is
true as far as the prescription goes.

But what the President has been leaving out is that his plan assumes
that the money to establish your account was loaned to you by the
Social Security trust fund and they expect to be paid back with
interest. I have not heard the President ever describe his plan in
quite that way, but that is how it works. Yes, you have this $92,000 in
your account, but they are expecting you to pay back to the trust fund
all of the money they theoretically loaned you, plus interest. So at
the end of the 40 years, you would owe back $78,000 under the
President's plan.
Now, you do not owe it back out of your individual account. Here is
the twist to it. They assume they have loaned you this money for your
private account and they expect to be paid back. But they don't expect
to be paid back out of your private account. Instead, they expect to
have a further reduction in your already reduced traditional Social
Security benefit. So you have already taken a reduction in that
account, supposedly made up for by these individual accounts, but a big
chunk of what you have in your individual account you have to pay back.
And you pay it back not out of your individual account but you pay it
back out of your already reduced Social Security benefit.
Under this scenario, at least you would be ahead of the game. That is
assuming you earned a 6.5 percent rate of return on your private
account. But what happens if you do not earn a 6.5 percent rate of
return on your private account? What happens then? Then the story is
even less appealing. Because under that scenario you would have $64,000
in your account--not $92,000--but you would still owe back $78,000.
For those who are listening to this in somewhat incredulous
disbelief, I am not making this up. This is how the President's plan
works. I have had his people spend hours with me. I have asked them
about it, I have quizzed them about it, and they have assured me this
is how it works. Yes, you put money into your individual account. Yes,
hopefully you have a rate of return on it, but--and it is a big
``but''--you owe the money back because theoretically that $1,000 a
year was loaned to you from the Social Security trust fund and they
want it back. And they want it back with interest.
So, if you set aside $1,000 a year for 40 years and you only earn 5
percent on the money, you would have $64,000 in your account but you
would owe back $78,000--the $1,000 a year plus a 5.8 percent rate of
return on the money they loaned you. That is a 3 percent real rate of
return plus inflation. The Social Security Administration calculates
that at 5.8 percent, you would owe back on the $1,000 a year they gave
to you. So, under this scenario, if you only earn 5 percent in your
individual account, you owe back more than you have in your account.
And again, you do not pay back out of your individual accounts,
although they assume that is where the money was loaned to you; you pay
back by taking an additional reduction out of your already reduced
Social Security benefit.
When people find out that is the way this works--I have had dozens of
people who were very interested in this concept of the President.
When they find out how this thing really works, they become less
interested.
Let me just conclude as I began. I am offering an amendment which is
at the desk that says, simply, let's put Social Security first. Let's
say no new mandatory spending and no new tax cuts until Social Security
is solvent, unless those who want more tax cuts or more new spending
pay for them or unless they can get a supermajority vote here in the
Senate. If they do not pay for them, if they cannot muster a
supermajority, then let's not have new mandatory spending or new tax
cuts until Social Security is solvent. It is a very simple amendment
that says, what are the priorities of the country? Are the priorities
new tax cuts that are not paid for or new spending that is not paid for
or is the priority to restore the solvency of the Social Security fund?
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to try to reframe
the issues which are before us because a lot has been said by the other
side that has gone unrebutted, and I think it needs to be responded to
because some of it, I believe, is bad policy and some is just
inaccurate.
The representation that the Senator from Colorado was inaccurate in
his statement relative to what has happened to taxes is also
inaccurate. The statement of the Senator from Colorado was correct.
Since the tax cut was put in place, yes, there was a falling off of tax
revenues during that period. It was primarily driven by a recession,
which would have been a much more severe recession. And there would
have been a much deeper drop in revenues had the tax cuts not occurred.
That recession was driven by two primary elements. The first was the
breaking of the bubble of the late 1990s, the largest bubble in the
history of the world, the Internet expansion bubble. The second was the
attack of 9/11, which was a terrorist attack, which contracted the
economy as a result of America adjusting to that. And, of course, we
had to spend a lot of money to get ready to deal with this terrorist
event, and that was money we had not expected to spend.
But since those tax cuts have been put in place something very
significant has happened. There has been an increase of revenues. The
recession was shallower than we expected. As a result

[[Page S2671]]

of the tax cut being put in place, people, therefore, received more of
an incentive to go out and work harder and to invest more of their
money. Rather than having the Government make the decision as to where
money was being spent, people were making decisions where their dollars
were going to be spent.
As a result, we had a more efficient economy and jobs have been
created. In fact, we have seen the largest expansion of the economy
since the early 1990s in the last quarter. Today we are at a historic
low in unemployment. Today revenues are going up, and they have gone up
for a number of years.
This chart points it out. Last year revenues went up by 9.4 percent
at the Federal level. That is a pretty big jump. The next year--this
year--it is expected to go up by 7.6 percent. Next year it is projected
to go up by 6.5 percent; then, 6 percent; 6 percent; 5.5 percent. These
are very significant increases in Federal revenues, and they are a
function of the fact that we have in place a tax law today which gives
people the incentive to go out and be productive.
Two specific revenues which have jumped dramatically are revenues
from dividend income and revenues from capital gains income, both of
which the rates were cut--dividends to 15 percent, capital gains to 15
percent. What was the practical effect of that? If you listened to the
other side, you would say the wealthy in America got a huge tax cut.
What actually happened was the Government of America got a huge tax
windfall. Items which were not being taxed before, such as capital
gains assets--assets which had appreciated and which people were
refusing to sell or convert or trade because they did not want to have
to pay taxes--suddenly people were saying: Well, let's sell that stock.
Let's sell that piece of real estate. Let's sell our small business
because today we will pay less in tax.

So assets which had been locked down from which the Federal
Government was getting no revenue suddenly were being sold. As a
result, we had a huge spike in revenues from capital gains. Not only
did we get the spike in revenues, we saw those revenues reinvested in a
much more efficient way because the dollars that came out of those
assets which had been sitting there were now cash in people's hands,
and they had been put back in the economy in a more productive way
because that is the way a market economy works. So we got a double
benefit. We got more tax revenues as a result of that tax cut, and we
got a more efficient marketplace. As a result, we have gotten more jobs
and more productivity as a nation. That is all a big plus.
Now, the 1930s economics that the other side subscribes to--which is
that you can simply tax your way to prosperity, that Americans really
should not own their own assets, that the Government owns your assets,
that we here in the Senate have a better way of spending your money
than you have--that philosophy has been proven to be not only
unconscionable but counterproductive to a strong economy in this day
and age. Yet we see it restated here over and over again with amendment
after amendment from the other side of the aisle which simply says:
Let's tax people more. Let's spend more. We know how to spend your
money better than you do. We're just going to raise your taxes and then
put it on our special little project. And we are going to put it here
or put it there so we can put out a good press release. Well, the
effect of that, of course, is to stifle the economy, to stifle
productivity, to reduce the creation of the job atmosphere in this
country.
What this President understood--as we headed into a recession, which
was not of his making, which came out of the 1990s bubble, which came
out of the fact that we were attacked on 9/11--what this President
understood in this timeframe is, if you reduce taxes, you create an
incentive for people to be more productive. If you say to people, you
spend your money rather than having the Federal Government take it out
of your pocket and have some Senator here in Washington tell you how to
spend your money, that dollar is going to be spent more efficiently and
create more jobs.
That is exactly what has happened. Not only has that happened, but
the Federal revenues are going up as a result of it, and they are
headed back toward what the historic level of revenues is in this
country, somewhere around 17.9 percent of gross national product.
We do not have as a nation a problem that the American people are
undertaxed. Show me an American who is working today who is earning
income who feels they are not paying enough in taxes. There are very
few who fall into that category. Most Americans pay a fairly heavy load
in taxes and a fairly reasonable load in taxes. They do not need to be
hit with more taxes. Yet as we go through this budget, the only
solution we hear from the other side is: Raise taxes and spend more
money. Raise taxes and spend.
The first amendment out of the box--a tax-and-spend amendment. We
have a list of tax-and-spend amendments that came out of the Budget
Committee that added up to $220 billion in new spending that the
American people were going to be stuck with and $240 billion of new
taxes they were going to be stuck with.
Tax-and-spend--oh, that is a wonderful policy. The only problem is,
it creates a fairly significant burden on the American people after you
raise the taxes. Americans would rather spend their own money than have
us spend it for them, quite honestly. We already spend enough money.
This budget will spend $2.6 trillion. Now, even in the hallways of the
Democratic caucus that has to qualify as serious money. That is a lot
of dollars to be spending. And where does it come from? Well, it comes
from Americans, Americans who are working.
This budget will spend $100 billion more this year than we spent last
year. Even in the hallways of the Democratic caucus that should be
serious money. You can run the State of New Hampshire for 20 years with
$100 billion--20 years. You can take all the revenues from all the
people in the State of New Hampshire and wipe them out for the next 10
years in order to pay for this year's increase in the Federal
Government.
That is a lot of money, but it is not enough for the other side of
the aisle. No, no, no. They have to raise taxes. They have to increase
spending because they have to put out their press releases to say that
they were concerned about this group or they were concerned about that
group.
Well, I have to tell you, a $2.6 trillion budget shows a lot of
concern for a lot of different groups. What we should be concerned
about is the American taxpayer. So to make the representation that
somehow the American people are undertaxed and we need to raise taxes
or that somehow we are not generating significant revenue increases in
this economy as a result of having cut taxes is simply inaccurate, in
my opinion.
Now, to move on to this specific amendment which raises the issue of
Social Security, the practical effect of this amendment would be to
essentially say the Federal Government can do nothing until it solves
the question of Social Security--that is the practical effect of this
amendment--unless we had 60 votes, which around here is pretty hard to
get for anything. We can't even get judges through. I can imagine what
we would do trying to get the Government to run. We can't even get
judges appointed without using 60 votes. So it is pretty obvious that
60 votes is a very high threshold and essentially saying we are going
to stop the Federal Government's progress in the area of giving tax
relief.
Interestingly enough, it does not say that the Federal Government
will not continue to spend dramatic amounts of money. It is basically
pointed at tax activity. It says new entitlements, but we all know it
is not the new entitlements that are the issue. The expansion of the
old entitlements is the issue. So it has a little bit of a
disingenuousness to it in that it treats tax policy and then spending
policy as dramatically different by essentially saying spending policy
is OK, that is exempt, as long as it is on the book, but if it is tax
policy and it is on the book and comes to an end, as it does under our
rules, we will treat it differently.
But independent of that, the practical effect of this amendment would
be to bring the activity in a number of areas of governance to a halt
until Social Security is determined to be solvent. This would be
philosophically

[[Page S2672]]

maybe a nice approach to take, but the problem with it is, from the
other side of the aisle we have had no proposals--no proposals--to make
Social Security solvent--none, zero, zippo. In fact, the other side of
the aisle continues to refuse to engage in discussions about whether
Social Security should be made solvent, which the President has
initiated. They have essentially said: I'm sorry. You are alleging
there is a problem. There is no problem. And we are not going to allow
you to move forward even if there is a problem.

So it is a little disingenuous, again, to take the position we should
solve Social Security's problems before we do anything else as a
Government and at the same time not be willing to put on the table any
proposals to address Social Security's problems or even admit that
Social Security has a problem, which would be the implication of the
Senator from North Dakota in that he said that the scoring of the
problem in Social Security was inappropriately arrived at because it
used too conservative a number. I presume that means if a more
aggressive number had been used, he would deem there was less of a
problem with Social Security and maybe there was not a problem. Maybe
that would solve the amendment if--maybe we could score ourselves out
from underneath this amendment, actually, as I think about it.
But independent of that, it does set up a conundrum that it
essentially demands a solution to a problem which the other side claims
is not a problem and will not allow us to move forward to a solution
on, which in the parlance of American politics I think is called catch-
22. You cannot solve the problem because the problem is denied to
exist, but you do not move forward until the problem is solved. It is
an amendment that I believe has serious questions on that score.
But independent of that, moving on to the question of how Social
Security is structured and the problems which Social Security faces,
this representation that the Social Security system is solvent through
the year 2040, 2036, 2052--whatever the number is that people arrive
at, depending on what assumptions are made--is theoretically correct
but practically unsustainable because Social Security has no assets.
The assumption that Social Security is solvent through that period
assumes that Social Security has assets which are physical, but the
only asset that the Social Security Administration has is an ability to
call, to make a put, to be more accurate, to the American taxpayer to
cover bonds which have been put into the fund.
So once the cash that is being paid into the Social Security system
falls below the benefits which are being paid out--and that begins to
happen in about the year 2018--once that occurs, then there are no
assets which the Social Security Administration can call down from like
a stock in General Motors or a bond in--I don't know--some county in
America. They do not have anything they are going to be able to
convert, any asset they are going to be able to convert to cash to
cover the difference. All they have at the Social Security
Administration is the ability to say to the American people--
specifically, our children and our children's children because those of
us in the baby boom generation will be retired at that time and getting
the benefit; we will not be paying the taxes--to say to them: You are
going to have to pay more taxes.
That is the only asset they have, the ability to say to the American
people--working Americans--that you have to pay more taxes in order to
pay for the obligations that were incurred years ago by Social
Security.
So, yes, theoretically, they are solvent because there is this
theoretical obligation that has been committed. But as a practical
matter, the effect of that obligation is you are going to demand a much
higher tax burden on working Americans. What does it work out to? We
had testimony in committee that that works out to a doubling of the
payroll tax on working young Americans. That is what that burden would
cost in order to maintain the alleged solvency. You can get there, yes,
but to get there, you have to double taxes on working Americans. That
is what you have to do. Nobody will admit to that. That is what we are
going to do to our kids--stick them with this huge tax bill on the
allegation that that is an asset they have to cover that is in the
Social Security trust fund and allegedly makes it solvent.
The practical effect of that is it will cause our children and our
children's children to have much less of a quality of life than we have
had, because they are going to have to pay twice as much in payroll
taxes. They are not going to be able to send their kids to college with
as much ease as we have been able to, although it has been difficult
for many. They are not going to be able to buy that first house. They
are not going to be able to increase their education or do a lot of
things with the ability we have had as a generation, because they are
going to be paying so much higher a tax rate in order to support our
retired generation. It is so intuitively obvious by looking at this
fact that you have to wonder why everybody on the other side of the
aisle is burying their head under this issue. The people who are going
to create this huge tax burden for our kids are all around this room.
It is everybody over 50 years old, and it is the largest generation in
American history. It takes the American system and turns it on its
head, because for years we had a pyramid system where more people paid
more into Social Security than was taken out. By the time the baby boom
generation--my generation--retires, that is not going to be a pyramid;
it will be a rectangle. We are such a huge generation and so many will
be retired that we are going to overwhelm the ability of the young
people in this country to support us, unless we address this issue
today.
It is like that advertisement you used to see on TV for an oil filter
that said: You can either pay me now or pay me later. When you pay me
later, you are going to replace the entire engine; today you can just
put in a new oil filter. That is the way the Social Security system is.
You can ``pay me now or pay later'' when the baby boom generation
retires, which will fundamentally undermine the quality of life of
younger workers. It will affect their benefits so much. You are going
to have to raise younger people's taxes so much.
The unwillingness of the other side of the aisle to face up to this
issue is, in my opinion, a failure on their part to address their
responsibilities to people who are governing this country today. Yet we
see amendment after amendment such as this one, which is an attempt to
basically gain political cover on the issue. What we don't see from the
other side is a willingness to step up and address the issue. Show us
your plan. You have castigated and vilified and basically attempted to
destroy the capacity of the President to address this issue time and
time again. You have said he has been dishonest in his presentation and
that his positions are going to harm America and older people in this
country, when he specifically said, of course, it will not affect
anybody over 55 and that it is voluntary.
Yet have you come forth with a plan, proposed a plan, or suggested
any remedy at all? No, you have not. You put out these amendments,
which are for the purpose of political protection. You should be
ashamed of yourselves.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am glad to see my colleague show such
spirit. I must say I disagree completely with his characterization not
only of my amendment, but of our position on this issue. Look, I think
it is very clear. The President came to the American people and said
there is a problem in Social Security. I happen to agree there is a
problem. My colleague must have missed part of my speech. I made it
very clear, although I believe the basis of the assessment of how
serious the Social Security situation is is based on a very pessimistic
forecast of 1.8 or 1.9 percent economic growth for the next 75 years--
--
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield so that I may agree with him on
something?
Mr. CONRAD. I would love to have the Senator agree with me, but not
right now. I want to complete my statement. Then I will be glad to have
an exchange with the Senator, for whom I have regard, and I even have
affection for the Senator.
I say to my colleague, we do have a difference and it is a very
important

[[Page S2673]]

difference and it deserves to have this kind of spirited debate. Let me
say that the President said there is a problem in Social Security.
Again, it is based on a forecast of 1.8 or 1.9 percent economic growth
every year for the next 75 years. Economic growth for the previous 75
years has been not 1.9 percent but 3.4 percent. I don't believe this
forecast is accurate. I don't believe it is correct. I still believe
there is a problem in Social Security and a challenge. The problem is
the one the Senator from New Hampshire outlined. It is a demographic
problem.
Now, the Senator also said there are no assets in Social Security.
That is factually wrong. There are assets. They are Government bonds,
backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The United
States has never failed to meet its obligations. Does anybody believe
the United States is going to default on those special issuance bonds
in the Social Security trust fund? I don't. I believe the United States
is going to keep its promise. The Senator is correct, however, that to
redeem those bonds, it is going to have to be done out of the current
income of the United States. That is the place he and I agree. That is
the place he and I might agree that we do have a challenge in Social
Security, and the sooner we face up to it, the better. That is a place
the Senator and I agree.
Now, with respect to the amendment I have offered, the amendment
says, what are the priorities? The Senator indicated that my amendment
says you cannot do anything in the Federal Government. No, it doesn't
say that. The amendment I have offered says simply you cannot have more
tax cuts or new mandatory spending unless you pay for them. That is a
novel idea around here. I must say my friends on the other side who say
they are conservative have run up the biggest deficits and debt in the
history of the country. They are borrowing more from abroad. They
increased holdings of U.S. debt by over 100 percent in 4 years. I don't
know what happened to my other friends who used to call themselves
conservative. There is nothing conservative about borrow and spend. We
have heard them hurl the epithet across the aisle that we are tax and
spend. I would rather pay for our bills than be in the position of the
party across the aisle, which says put it on the charge card, shove the
bills off to our kids, because that is what they are doing. They are
doing it in this budget.
When my friend describes this budget as fiscally responsible, that is
not what his own budget document reveals. It reveals that this budget
increases the deficit over just putting the Government on autopilot. If
we put the Government on autopilot, we would save $130 billion over
this budget. More than that, the debt of the United States, according
to their own calculation--this is their budget document. This is from
page 5 of the budget document. It shows the debt going up each and
every year by over $600 billion, if this budget is passed.
They say they are cutting the deficit in half. How is it, then, that
in their own budget document, the debt goes up $669 billion this year,
$636 billion the next, $624 billion the next, $622 billion the next,
and $611 billion the next?
Where is the cutting of the deficit in half? I do not see it. I see
the debt going up, up, and away under the budget they have brought
here. There is nothing fiscally responsible about it.
Now, the Senator accused us in the committee of offering over $200
billion of spending. Boy, that sounds bad, doesn't it? The Democrats
wanted to increase spending by $200 billion. Yes, we did. Absolutely we
did. Do you know why? Because we wanted to pay for the war. They do
not. They want to kind of kid the American people: You can have the
war, but it does not cost any money, or at least it only will cost $50
billion next year.
The Congressional Budget Office says they are not being straight with
the American people as to how much this war costs. It would cost at
least $200 billion more. So you know what we did? We put it in the
budget, and we paid for it, not just put it on the charge card, not
just dump it on our kids. We said: Yes, there is a cost, and we will
pay for it.
That is honest budgeting. That is telling the American people the
truth, instead of this endless borrow and spend that our colleagues on
the other side have fallen into. Borrow to solve Social Security,
borrow to pay for the war, borrow for tax cuts, borrow, borrow, borrow,
run up debt, and borrow the money from China and Japan and South Korea.
If you want to get spirited, I can get spirited, too, because I think
this is a reckless course for the country--reckless. We have a massive
deficit and the President's answer: Borrow more money, spend more,
borrow more, and go hat in hand to China. We have already borrowed $200
billion from them. Go hat in hand to Japan. I do not know of any
country that strengthened itself by borrowing hundreds of billions of
dollars from every country all around the world. But that is the
President's plan, that is the President's strategy, and it ought to be
rejected.
I notice my colleague from Michigan is in the Chamber. I yield 15
minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 15
minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota
for his outstanding leadership on this issue. I join in his
characterization of this entire budget resolution as reckless and out
of touch with the lives of the American people.
While I disagree with the chairman, I first want to say I appreciate
the way he has conducted himself with the Budget Committee and the
resolution. I appreciate very much his giving us the opportunity to
debate all of these issues. But I could not disagree more with the
characterization of what is going on or with what is happening in terms
of playing politics.
I start by saying that this amendment puts Social Security first. It
gets our priorities straight. Second, Social Security is our money--
your money, individual money. Each one of us pays into Social Security.
It is our American insurance policy so that we know we have a sense of
dignity and a foundation for retirement. Then if we become disabled,
there is a disability policy or, Heaven forbid, a worker loses their
life, something is there for their family. It is your money. It is my
money. There is not a penny of the general fund. This is our money that
goes into Social Security, and we are saying we want to keep it secure.
The American public is counting on us to keep it secure for the
future. And we are saying, with all the talk about Social Security
these days, it is time to step up and to fix it and to put Social
Security first.
I also say to my chairman, it is so easy to demagog on tax cuts. It
is so easy. It is the easiest thing for an elected official to do:
Don't worry about paying the bills; don't worry about how the schools
are; don't worry about enough police and firefighters; don't worry if
you cannot drink the water or breathe the air let's just talk about tax
cuts.
You know what, we know it is your money. For those watching, it is
all of our individual money, but we also know something else. It is
your schools. It is your roads. It is your health care system. It is
your military fighting so courageously for us overseas. It is your
veterans who are coming home. It is your communities asking us to
partner with them so they can provide jobs, economic development in
your communities. It is your debt--the largest deficit in the history
of the country. You could wipe out every penny of nondefense spending,
discretionary spending, and just about pay off this debt this year. It
is astounding.
This is reckless, it is irresponsible, and to demagog, always to
demagog, and say, Do you want to keep your families safe? Here, have
another tax cut. And by the way, you are not going to get it, but the
most blessed in your community will. To say we are not going to focus
on schools, we do not care about opportunities for the future, to say
we do not care about keeping ourselves safe or creating jobs is just
plain reckless and the ultimate in demagoguery.
When we had the largest budget surplus in the history of the country
4 years ago, I joined, on the Budget Committee, with our esteemed
colleague from North Dakota to support a reasonable future, to Take a
third of that surplus and put it into tax cuts focused on middle-income
people, small businesses, to drive the economy. Let's do tax cuts, I am
all for it, and I have

[[Page S2674]]

voted for many. But let's also take a third of that and take care of
Social Security. We could prefund the baby boomers' liability coming
and take care of Social Security for the next 75 years with just a
third of that. Then how about taking the other third to make sure our
kids have world-class schools, to make sure they have the technology
they need, to make sure they can afford to go to college, to make sure
our communities have the police and firefighters so when you dial 911,
you are going to get the fastest response possible. And, by the way,
let's make sure my city can talk to your city and the next city through
an up-to-date communications system. And let's make sure that our
seniors have a quality nursing home and can get the dignity of home
health care, that we are focused on health care, both for those most in
need and vulnerable, and to support those providing that health care in
our businesses.

We have a lot of work to do. We have not only an aging population, we
have an aging infrastructure. Not only individually do we need a face-
lift, but our cities need a face-lift--water systems, sewers, roads,
and bridges. It is reckless for us, in defining priorities of the
future of this country, not to be responsible in addressing each piece
of it.
There is a lot of demagoguery going on around here, and unfortunately
it is because the easy way for an elected official is not to pay the
bills but to talk about tax cuts.
Let me suggest something else. I agree with our esteemed chairman
that the bulk of Americans are not getting the tax cuts they need. They
are paying too much in taxes. Why? Because the tax cuts that were
passed are not going to them. They are going to the most blessed, the
wealthiest among us. I do not begrudge people working hard and doing
well, but I think they ought to pay for schools as well, and security
and roads and health care, the military, war, and the veterans. We all
have a stake in America, and we all have a responsibility to do our
part.
What I see is the overwhelming majority of the people in my State are
getting a twofer. They sure are not getting these tax cuts that are
talked about. They are not going to them. But they are going to pay
more for schools, get less quality, and have fewer police officers.
There are fewer police officers today in most of the cities in my State
than there were on 9/11/2001. What is with that? So my folks are going
to have to pay more for their kids going to college because we are
cutting support for the colleges and programs for folks to be able to
afford to go to college. They are going to have to be taking less in
the way of services that are basic services.

We are talking about basic quality of life in America. Everyone else
looks at America and wants to be like us. What we are seeing in this
budget is an effort to roll us back. We don't want to be like China,
where they can't drink the water. Our quality of life has been the gold
standard for the world. We have a responsibility to do the right thing
and to have a balanced strategy that strategically focuses on tax cuts
to move the economy forward, investments as well as the responsibility
of paying down this debt and securing Social Security for the future.
How many people here would take the tradeoff of saying we are not
going to fund health research? It doesn't matter who you are, you can
get cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, a multitude of health
concerns and diseases in this country. Research will make the
difference. Who would say that research into health, into cures and
technology for the future is not important in the greatest country in
the world? Yet all the demagoguery on tax cuts is about removing
revenue so that down the road the answer will be: We would love to do
that, it would be great, but we are really sorry, there is no funding.
That is what this is about, and it is wrong. This is about a balance.
We need to work together to get it right.
This amendment begins to get that right because it says we are going
to put Social Security first. The President is going all over the
country talking about Social Security and what needs to be done. We
could start by a value statement about what is important to us. We
could start by saying over the next 75 years, we will take a look at
the costs of tax cuts that have been passed--$11.6 trillion. I
supported some of those that go directly to our small businesses, to
our families, and to stimulate the economy. But the overwhelming
majority of this goes, again, to those most blessed who have benefited
by the greatness of America in our infrastructure and our opportunity.
If we just said, instead of $11.6 trillion over 75 years, how about
we take 3.7, about a third of that--just a third of it, about 30
percent of that--and we secure Social Security for 75 years, and then
you can have the rest? You can have 70 percent of it. But let's secure
Social Security first. Social Security is a great American success
story. Everyone is benefited by it. Even those right now who are doing
very well, who knows what will happen in the future?
I remember folks from Enron sitting in my office, folks who had been
wiped out, who said: Thank God for Social Security. I never thought I
would need it, but it is the only thing I have left.
Social Security is meant to be there as security for our families--
for everybody. It works.
What we are saying is, if we want to talk about a solution, we don't
have to ask folks to pay more in payroll taxes, folks who are already
being taxed too much and are being asked to have their services cut. We
don't have to cut benefits. We can say it is a priority for the
American people and we in the Senate are going to make it a
priority for us. That is what this amendment does.

Social Security is a great American success story. Prior to Social
Security, 50 percent of the seniors in this country were in poverty.
Today it is 10 percent. That is worth fighting for. That is a success
story. Again:

Honor thy father and thy mother.

It is not just words. We should act on it. This budget does not, in a
number of ways, act on that premise.
It is also important, again, to note that Social Security, in fact,
is more than retirement. It is our families' insurance policy. It has
worked. It costs a half a percent to administer, it has been there, and
it will be there if we do the right thing. But it is important to know
about not only the retirees but the disabled, and there are survivors
benefits. How many folks who work here in the Senate have a story to
tell about survivors benefits?
My husband, at 10 his father died. He was the youngest in the family.
His mother was older and not well. He survived on Social Security and
went on to college and was very successful because of our country's
commitment to each other.
I happen to believe caring about other people, caring about
community, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Social Security represents
what is best about us. Creating a system that we all pay into, you work
hard all your life, it is there at retirement or if you need it in case
of a financial disaster in your family; it works. Other countries look
to us, to this great system of Social Security.
There is no way the President's proposals do not undermine this
system. You can't protect people 55 or older or the disabled, the
survivors, when you take an insurance system and begin to pull out
dollars. I don't care how many times they say it, it is not true. You
can't do that. We know that. Regarding Social Security, if we go the
route of what the President is talking about with privatized accounts,
we know three things will happen. We are going to drastically increase
the national debt, which is already the highest in our Nation's
history. We will have high administrative costs--instead of a half
percent to administer Social Security, we will see anywhere from 10,
15, 20 percent or more. And the folks, by the way, you would pay to
administer the accounts are some of the folks we are seeing here at the
Capitol now who want very much to make the change. And deep benefit
cuts, there is no way to avoid benefit cuts under the President's
proposal.
So we are saying this doesn't work. We don't like this. What we have
is an alternative. We have the power to put Social Security first in
this budget. We have the power to do that. That is what this amendment
does. If you don't want to see increased national debt, you don't want
to see higher administrative costs, or deep benefit cuts, join our
amendment. Our amendment is the responsible approach, unless your goal
is to eliminate Social Security. If the

[[Page S2675]]

goal is to unravel Social Security for Americans, then you will not
support this amendment because this amendment is about fixing Social
Security for the future, securing it for the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I would say to the Senator, would she like additional
time? I would be happy to yield her an additional 5 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate that very much, but I notice a colleague
here as well and I would not proceed.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me say, it would help us because I need to visit with
the chairman of the committee before the next amendment is offered, in
the spirit of not surprising each other.
Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to proceed for a moment.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 5
minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate that. I know we have important matters to
discuss on the floor. Let me take the final few moments and speak about
the realities of Social Security and what is happening now, what we
know to be true about the facts. There has been a lot of misinformation
about the situation with Social Security, in terms of its financial
security. I think it is important. We all can have different opinions
and views and thoughts about what should happen, but we should not have
different facts.
The folks we all rely on, as we know, really have no philosophical
position. These are the number crunchers whose responsibility it is to
tell it to us like it is, the Congressional Budget Office. They tell us
this: The Social Security trust fund can pay 100 percent of its
obligation until 2052. Beyond that, if we do not do anything, and we
need to, they can pay about 80 percent, maybe slightly less, of all the
benefits that are currently in law.
We know we have a cap. We know we have a problem. The President's
proposal does nothing to fix this.
It actually makes it worse. It makes it worse by adding to the
massive debt. It doesn't add anything to the trust fund and, as the
Senator from North Dakota was indicating, the accounts are not even
fully given to the individual.
There is also a lot of misunderstanding of even how that would work.
I would welcome anyone to go to either my Web site or to a number of my
Democratic colleagues' Web sites where we have a calculator on the Web
site where you can put in your date of birth and average yearly wages
over your lifetime, and you can find out for yourself how you would do
under the President's proposal. But the reality is we do have a gap. We
know that. That is why this amendment is so important.
This amendment basically says that in order to address this gap in
funding that comes after 2052, we want to put Social Security first
before extension of or any new additional revenue losses, before new
tax cuts or any new mandatory spending, that we secure Social Security,
that we close that gap for the next 75 years, that we put it at the
front of the line before we talk about revenue spending on new things,
that we put it at the front of the line.
If in fact this issue has such a high priority for the President,
traveling around the country for 60 days to 60 cities, all the effort
and debate going on, you would think we would have universal support
for this amendment; that it would be a bipartisan vote for this
amendment. The only reason not to do it is if you do not support Social
Security. If you do not support Social Security as it stands as an
insurance policy, then you won't like this amendment. You will not want
this amendment. If you prefer to privatize the whole system, then you
won't like this amendment. But if you support Social Security as being
there for all of our families, if you believe, as I do, that it is a
great American success story and we should celebrate it, strengthen it,
and secure it, then this amendment is the right amendment for you.
I will go back to the very beginning and say this is always about
values and priorities. In fact, the budget resolution is our value
document. Just as looking at our own personal checkbooks tells us a
little bit about ourselves, looking at the budget resolution of the
Federal Government, tells us something about all of us and the people
we represent.
Right now this budget resolution is out of balance. This budget
resolution is reckless because it adds to the national debt. It does
nothing to pay down in a real way the deficit that doesn't even include
all of the expenditures. And it is out of touch with American families.
It is plain out of touch.
When we are talking about a third of those cuts being in education
and workforce development and vocational education, we are talking
about massive cuts in Medicaid to our families and our children and our
seniors in nursing homes, this does not represent the values of the
majority of Americans. We need some balance. That is not reflected in
this budget resolution.
I will go back to the final point, that this is about values and
priorities. As an example, if we were to look at the next 75 years and
the costs without new tax cuts that are being proposed, the current
costs of the tax cuts for the next 75 years, it is $11.6 trillion, and
to save Social Security is $3.7 trillion.
I would say to ask those most blessed in our country, receiving the
majority of the benefits, to be willing to share in some way and to
leave Social Security secure is the right thing to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Who yields time?
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded
3 minutes off the time controlled by the majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SUNUNU. I want to make sure that is all right with the minority
manager.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me be clear. The Senator is asking for
a unanimous consent on----
Mr. SUNUNU. For the timing of the next amendment to be offered. I
thought I might be speak for up to 3 minutes to ensure that everything
has been----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will take 3 minutes of the
majority's time.
Mr. CONRAD. We have no problem with that. Could I extend that
unanimous consent request and indicate that after the 3 minutes of the
Senator, the Senator from Florida be recognized for 20 minutes off the
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly to the concerns
raised by the previous speaker, and in particular the three grave
concerns with regard to Social Security. I take issue with those three
items. The first one of the three items was that any Social Security
reform proposal, modernization proposal as envisioned by the President,
would result from massive amounts of debt. That is wrong in part but,
even worse, it is misleading.
The reason to take up Social Security reform legislation, which I
have introduced in the previous session and will introduce again, is so
we avoid $12 trillion of unfunded debt that our children and
grandchildren will be stuck with if we don't act now.
To suddenly say we can't deal with Social Security because we are
worried about debt is simply a smokescreen, and it is a smokescreen
that refuses to recognize the reality that under the current structure
we have a huge unfunded debt our children and grandchildren will be
stuck with.
Second, there was a suggestion that personal accounts for younger
workers, an optional system of personal accounts would result in huge
administrative costs.
This is absolutely ridiculous, and every bit of evidence from any
similar plan, similar account, similar fund argues against such a
suggestion. The Thrift Savings Plan, which is probably the best model
of the kind of personal accounts envisioned by the President in
legislation that I have introduced, has 3.5 million members. Under
Social Security, there would be significantly more than that. The
administrative costs are less than two-tenths of 1 percent.
So to suggest that administrative costs would be exorbitantly high--I
see

[[Page S2676]]

numbers of 1 percent or 2 percent thrown out--is wrong. There is no
evidence, no model to suggest that would be even close to the truth.
Third, the suggestion that any kind of a personal account proposal
would require deep benefit cuts is again at best misleading, but at
worst it is an effort to scare retirees and those who are near
retirement. It is simply wrong.
I have introduced legislation which is scored by the Social Security
actuary that makes the system solvent, is scored as bringing the system
into balance permanently and has significant personal accounts and does
not require benefit cuts.
There are a lot of proposals out there that involve changes to the
current system, or even changes to benefits for, say, those at the
higher income level, but to suggest that deep cuts are required is
simply misleading the American public.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President----
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15----
Mr. CONRAD. We have a unanimous consent in place that the Senator
from Florida be recognized.
Mr. GREGG. I am sorry. I apologize. I ask if the Senator from Florida
will yield to me for purposes of making a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I so yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I didn't realize there was a unanimous
consent in place. I apologize.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today Senator
Graham or his designee be recognized to offer an amendment on Social
Security, the text of which is at the desk; provided further that at 3
p.m. today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Graham
amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Conrad amendment
on Social Security, to be followed by a vote in relation to the
Republican Social Security amendment, to be followed by a vote in
relation to the Nelson of Florida Social Security amendment, to be
followed by a vote in relation to the Stabenow amendment on first
responders. I further ask unanimous consent that all points of order be
waived with respect to the Social Security amendments; further, that no
second degrees be in order to any of the five amendments prior to the
votes.
I also ask unanimous consent that all debate time until 12:15 be
equally divided between the chairmen and ranking members, or their
designees, and further that debate from 2:15 until 3 p.m. be equally
divided in the same form, and that any quorum calls be counted against
the statutory time limit with time divided equally between the two
sides. Further, that all votes after the first be limited to 10
minutes, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided after the first.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, let me just say I will be
constrained to object until we get the actual text of the amendment. I
understand now that we don't have the text of the Republican amendment
or at least that we can't be certain that the text we have is the
amendment that would be offered, so we need to get that before we could
agree to this unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object to the unanimous
consent request?
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is constrained to object until we reach that
understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 145

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the
pending amendment be laid aside for the purpose of offering an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send to the desk an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 145.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should
reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a
massive increase in debt)

On page 65, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE IN SUPPORT OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject
any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a
massive increase in debt, and a failure to act by 2042 would
result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take
action to address Social Security solvency.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, let me read the amendment to
everyone because we have just changed the amendment that had been
printed that I intended to offer. I have added some additional
language.

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject
any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a
massive increase in debt, and a failure to act by 2042 would
result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take
action to address Social Security solvency.

That is the amendment offered as a sense of the Senate. We have heard
a lot of debate on Social Security. As a result of having 10 town hall
meetings in my State over the last recess, the people of Florida heard
what the administration's proposal was, to take up to 4 percentage
points of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax against an employee's
wages and instead of allowing all of that 12.4 percent tax to pour into
the Social Security trust fund, to allow up to one-third of it to go
outside of the Social Security trust fund in the so-called privatized
accounts, with the result, combined with the change in the formula as
proposed by the White House that future Social Security benefits would
be calculated increases each year not according to what has been the
case since the beginning of Social Security, according to the index on
wages, but instead targeted to a lower index, on prices.
So the combination of taking a third of the Social Security tax out
of the Social Security trust fund plus a changing of the payment
formula was going to cause cuts in benefits, with massive borrowing to
fill the hole.
Why cuts in benefits?
Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I would be happy to yield to the Senator, but
I have been waiting for the last hour and a half and this Senator wants
to speak his mind. Then I will be happy to engage with the Senator.
Mr. GREGG. This would be for the purposes of renewing a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. If it is a unanimous consent request, I yield.
Mr. GREGG. I renew the unanimous consent request which I propounded a
few minutes ago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Florida for his courtesy.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is a pleasure to always accommodate the
leadership of the committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the
leadership of the committee. Perhaps we might come to a resolution over
the amendment I have just offered because this amendment speaks truth.
Let's go back to where I was in the explanation. We are going to have
benefit cuts certainly by virtue of the change in the formula. All of
the Social Security actuaries will tell you if you change the index
from increases in wages to prices, for a young worker today, by the
time they retire, their Social Security benefits are going to be cut
almost in half. Second, if you are taking all of that Social Security
tax revenue out of the Social Security trust fund, since the trust fund
is a pay-as-you-go kind of trust fund, you have to fill that hole with
something. That means you are going to have to borrow additional money
to pour into the Social Security trust fund to fill the hole. The
Social Security actuaries have estimated that is $4.9 trillion over 20
years.
Members of the Senate, right now the publicly held national debt of
the entire country is $4.3 trillion. We are talking about a system, a
scheme, a proposal, that is going to more than double the publicly held
national debt over the next two decades if adopted.
It is most appropriate that we start this discussion of the budget
resolution

[[Page S2677]]

because the budget resolution is a lot about borrowing. It is a lot
about massive deficit financing. And now the administration has a
proposal that would add massive additional borrowing to the present
national debt.
When I came to the Congress in 1978 and was put on the Budget
Committee as a freshman in the House of Representatives, back then we
used to call it fiscal conservatism when someone would want to balance
the budget, when someone would want to get the revenues and the outflow
or expenditures in sync. What we had 3 years ago was more revenues
coming in each year than we had in expenditures, and the difference was
a surplus. But 3\1/2\ years later this is where we are: Massive
spending and less revenue.
The deficit in this next fiscal year--you can take your choice, since
this budget has now become a political document instead of an economic
document, whether you think it is going to be $390 billion, which does
not account for all of the realities of the additional spending as well
as additional tax cuts, if enacted, or it is going to be more like $434
billion of deficit spending. That is a concern.
Every time we talk about the budget--as a matter of fact, my maiden
speech on the floor of this Senate--and I waited appropriately for
about a month before I made a speech back in 2001--my maiden speech was
about the budget and wanting to have a fiscally conservative budget.
But we have gone the other way since January of 2001. So we talk a lot
about the annual deficit and adding to the national debt, and now it
has gone haywire. It is out of control.
Now we have a proposal with regard to Social Security, not even to
speak of the merits that you already heard in the discussion here, a
proposal that is going to add massively to the debt of the United
States. This is not the fiscally conservative nor prudent way to
approach a budget. So I have offered a sense of the Senate:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject
any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a
massive increase in debt, and a failure to act by 2042 would
result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take
action to address Social Security solvency.

Now, why 2042? I could have used the year 2052 because the
Congressional Budget Office has said it is the year--2052--when Social
Security will have to cut its benefits down to something like 73 cents
on the dollar. But the Social Security trustees say that date is 2042.
That is 37 years from now. Why is that important? It is important to
give us a marker at the point at which Social Security cannot pay 100
percent of the benefits.
This is quite in contrast to what we faced when I was a Member of the
House of Representatives. For there, in 1983, Social Security was about
to run out of funds within 6 months, not in 37 years, not in 47 years.
It was about to run out within 6 months. And do you know how we solved
it then? A Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a Democratic
Speaker, Tip O'Neill, got together and they said: We are going to solve
it. We are going to solve it in a bipartisan fashion. We are not going
to play ``gotcha'' politics. We are going to create a bipartisan
commission. As a result of that commission, we are going to go out and
give support in a bipartisan way. We are not going to use the results
of that against anyone in the next election.
That was one of the finest hours in a success story of the Government
of the United States, when within 6 months of Social Security being in
trouble, running out of money, in 1983, as a result of that agreement,
Social Security was made solvent all the way to the middle of this
century--pick your date, 2042 or 2052, depending on whether you believe
CBO or the Social Security trustees.
So that is why we put in this sense of the Senate the date 2042. And
then we say something that we all acknowledge, that, indeed, Social
Security does have a solvency problem. We state the outside of when
those deep benefit cuts would occur. According to the Social Security
trustees, those benefit cuts would be 27 cents on the dollar 37 years
from now. But then we say Congress should do something about it and not
wait until then. We say Congress should take action to address the
Social Security solvency. Now, I do not know how much more
straightforward we can make it.

When I would go into those townhall meetings--and people had read a
lot about this in the papers, and they had heard a lot about it on the
news--and I would explain to them what I have just explained, in some
cases people were aghast. I think in the morning papers we see
chronicled on the front pages the new results of additional feelings of
the American mood about this. People have been very much helped by
Social Security, and they do not want to see benefit cuts.
In the 70-plus years that this system has been in existence, it has
not been an investment program. It has been a social safety net
program. Indeed, in 1950, 40 percent of our senior citizens in this
country--over a half a century ago--40 percent of them were living in
poverty. Today, only 10 percent of senior citizens are living in
poverty. A major reason for that improvement in the condition of senior
citizens is the fact that they have something to fall back on; that is,
they are guaranteed Social Security benefits.
In an ideal world, if you are a retiree, what would you like to have?
You would like to have one-third of your total income, as a retiree, to
be on your pension plan. You would like another third of your income to
be from your savings. The remaining third you would like from Social
Security.
But what happens if you were an employee of WorldCom, as some of our
Floridians were, or an employee of Enron, as some of our Floridians
were, or an employee of Eastern Airlines, as some of our Floridians
were? They do not have a pension. And what meager savings they had are
now eaten up. The sad truth is that too many senior citizens in this
country today, in the year 2005 in fact, are subsisting, existing on
their Social Security benefits.
Now, we have to stand up and stand right by our seniors. So that is
why I offer a commonsense sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for what
I believe is a really important amendment because it sets the terms of
this debate on Social Security. What is the intention of the Congress
of the United States? Are we going to embrace a plan for Social
Security that involves massive new borrowing, massive new debt, and
steep benefit cuts? Is that the answer? Or is there another way?
I believe, and I have stated publicly, there is a kernel of a good
idea to what the President has proposed. I know many do not share that,
but I do think there is a kernel of a good idea.
I also believe we have a challenge in Social Security. I do not
believe it is as acute as the President has presented it because I
think the forecasts that it is all based on are overly pessimistic.
They are saying economic growth in America for the next 75 years is
only going to be 1.8 percent a year, when in the past 75 years,
economic growth has been 3.4 percent. I don't buy it. I don't believe
it. I think they vastly underestimate the productivity growth of the
American economy. In fact, productivity is a key component of their
economic growth estimate, and productivity growth has been far in
excess of what they are saying productivity growth is going to be for
the next 75 years. First of all, I have very little confidence in any
forecast of 10 years, much less a forecast of 75 years.
With that said, the amendment of the Senator from Florida says, yes,
we should move to bring solvency to Social Security, but we should not
do it by massive new borrowing, and we should not do it by steep
benefit cuts. That is what the President's plan is. The President's
plan is to divert money out of Social Security. That is on top of what
he is doing in his budget because, remember, in his budget he is taking
every penny of Social Security over the next 10 years--$2.5 trillion--
and using it to pay for other things. This is after he says there is a
shortfall in Social Security.
In the next action, he sends us a budget to take $2.5 trillion in
Social Security money and use it to pay for something else. He says, I
am not done; I have another idea; let's take another $750 billion out
of Social Security to start private accounts. But that is the tip of
the iceberg, because the $750 billion of additional taking from Social

[[Page S2678]]

Security to start private accounts is just the first 10-year cost. The
20-year cost is $4.4 trillion. Others have estimated approaching $5
trillion.

I have taken a somewhat more conservative estimate. The President
says, Borrow every dime of it. When we already have record deficits, we
already have debt that is growing out of control. He says, Don't worry;
just borrow more money.
That is a reckless course. Why is it reckless? Because much of this
borrowing is coming from abroad, coming from China, Japan, and South
Korea. We have increased the foreign holdings of our debt just in the
first 3 years of this administration by almost 100 percent. It is going
up geometrically every year.
We have seen two warning shots about the danger of doing that. First,
from South Korea. They said, Gee, we are beginning to worry about
loaning so much money to the United States. We are going to diversify
out-of-dollar denominated assets. What happened? The stock market
plunged 170 points in 1 day. The dollar went down again. It already
went down 33 percent against the Euro in the last 3 years.
We have a problem. The problem is that if there was a precipitous
drop in the dollar, the policy options open to this country would be
very severe. It would require a dramatic increase in interest rates,
steep cuts in spending, dramatic tax increases. That is what is known
as the perfect storm. That is the risk being run by this reckless
policy of deficits and debt and deficits and debt and borrow and spend
and borrow and spend, which, for some reason, our friends on the other
side of the aisle have gotten into as a pattern of running the fiscal
affairs of this country.
The deficit has skyrocketed during this President's term, and here is
the course he has us on. Publicly held debt, $3.3 trillion when he took
office. They are now saying $9.4 trillion by 2015. The President's
answer on Social Security is to cut the benefits dramatically--26
percent by 2042, 46 percent by 2075. That is at the heart of the
President's plan: to cut benefits steeply, and then to establish these
private accounts by borrowing trillions of dollars.
Here is how the private accounts would work. I find people are really
stunned when I explain how they work, because this is not the way the
President explains it. The President says you can put aside money in
your private account and earn, potentially, a higher rate of return. As
far as he goes with that description, it is accurate. But he has left
out something very, very important, because he assumes that money that
is in your private account was loaned to you by the Social Security
trust fund, and they expect to be paid back. They expect to be paid
back with interest.
Has anybody ever heard the President describe the plan in that way?
That is how it works. I have spent hours with his people and they have
assured me that is how it works.
Here is an example. If you set aside $1,000 a year for 40 years and
you earn 6.5 percent on that money, at the end of the period, you would
have $92,000 in your private account. That sounds pretty good. The
problem is that they assume that thousand dollars a year was loaned to
you from the Social Security trust fund, and you owe it back with
interest. If you pay it back with 5.8 percent interest, which is what
the actuaries say would be required, you would owe back $78,000. But
you don't pay it back out of our private account under the President's
plan; you owe it back by further reducing your already cut Social
Security benefits. That is how it works.

What happens if you don't get a 6.5 percent rate of return? What
happens if you only get a 5 percent rate of return? Guess what? Under
that example, you would have $64,000 in your account, but you would
still owe back $78,000. I know when I describe this to people, they
cannot believe it. I thought the President said, That is your account,
your name is on it, nobody can take it from you. That is true, but he
has left out this little additional fact: He assumes in his plan that
this money was loaned to you by the Social Security trust fund. That
thousand dollars a year, which came out of your Social Security payroll
tax--the theory is--would have been in the Social Security trust fund
earning a rate of return there. So their assumption is that you owe the
money back, but you don't pay it back out of your individual account;
you pay it back by taking a further reduction in your already cut
Social Security benefits. That is how it works.
I will tell you, people are going to be mighty surprised to find out
that is how it works. That is not the way it has been described. That
is not what people have been told. They have been told that is their
account, their name is on the account, nobody can take it away from
them. All of that is true, but it leaves out something. It leaves out
the rest of the story. The rest of the story is, yes, but you owe it
back. That money was, in effect, loaned to you by the Social Security
trust fund. So goes the President's theory. Therefore, you have to pay
it back to the Social Security trust fund--the money loaned to you--and
you have to pay it back with interest.
Unfortunately, if you don't get a higher rate of return on your
invested assets, you could wind up owing back more than is in your
account. That can very easily happen because this assumes you have a 5-
percent rate of return on your investment.

I wrote an op-ed piece with Senator Lindsey Graham of the other side
of the aisle saying there is a bipartisan approach to Social Security;
we do have a problem; we do have a challenge; we ought to get together
to solve it; and the sooner the better. I believe that, and I am
prepared to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle to do
that. But I am not prepared, and I will not be part of a plan that
involves massive new debt. Count me out. I will fight that with every
fiber in my being because I think it is reckless for the United States
and the economic security of the country.
With that, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan. How
much time would the Senator like?
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would appreciate 5 minutes to offer an
amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 5 minutes. If the Senator would like
more time, I am happy to yield additional time as well.
Ms. STABENOW. Let's say 5 minutes, and we will see.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this time off the resolution or the
amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Michigan is offering an amendment at
this time?
Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield her time off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 147

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from North
Dakota for his incredible leadership on this issue and speaking about
what is responsible and what should be the priorities for our country.
I understand the senior Senator from Iowa is also waiting to speak. I
appreciate him allowing me to offer this amendment first.
As we are talking about priorities, of course our first priority is
to keep Social Security secure for the future. Putting Social Security
first is one of the very first amendments we will be voting on today.
But we also have another priority which is to keep Americans safe. And
that is what my amendment will do.
My amendment will restore the $1.6 billion in cuts to first responder
services that are included in this budget resolution as proposed by the
President. It also will put $1.6 billion towards paying down the
national debt. These are two worthy goals: pay down the national debt
and restore the resources we need at a minimum to keep us where we are
in terms of the resources for our communities to keep us safe.
I am very concerned that 4 years past 9/11/2001 when I visit my
police chiefs around the State of Michigan and I speak with fire
departments and first responders, almost all of them tell me they have
fewer officers today than they did on 9/11/2001. I think the public
would be shocked to understand that. I know I was shocked. They expect
more from us than that, with all of the alerts and codes and concerns
that have been raised--and legitimate concerns that have been raised--
about what is happening in terms of terrorism, to know that we have
fewer police officers on

[[Page S2679]]

the streets now than before the attack on 9/11 is simply reckless and
irresponsible.
I am very concerned that we are seeing cuts in a number of very
important programs.
I am told I need to send the amendment to the desk. I apologize for
not having done that sooner, Mr. President. I send the amendment to the
desk, and then I will continue. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators
Levin, Mikulski, Kerry, Corzine, Harkin, Biden, Pryor, Clinton, and
Akaka as cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending
amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr.
Levin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Akaka, proposes an
amendment numbered 147.

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

(Purpose: To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by
providing the necessary resources to our firefighters, police, EMS
workers and other first responders by restoring $1.626 billion in cuts
to first responder programs, including, $298 million to the State
Homeland Security grant program, $79 million to the Urban Area Security
Initiative, $226 million for firefighter assistance grants, $486
million for the COPS program and $537 million for the Byrne Justice
Assistance grants. The amendment is fully offset by closing tax
loopholes that will generate $3.2 billion in revenue, half of which
will be used to restore the $1.6 billion in first responder program
cuts, and the remaining $1.6 billion will be put towards reducing the
deficit)

On page 3 line 10, increase the amount by $451,000,000.
On page 3 line 11, increase the amount by $1,145,000,000.
On page 3 line 12, increase the amount by $850,000,000.
On page 3 line 13, increase the amount by $521,000,000.
On page 3 line 14, increase the amount by $285,000,000.
On page 3 line 19, increase the amount by $451,000,000.
On page 3 line 20, increase the amount by $1,145,000,000.
On page 3 line 21, increase the amount by $850,000,000.
On page 4 line 1, increase the amount by $521,000,000.
On page 4 line 2, increase the amount by $285,000,000.
On page 4 line 7, increase the amount by $1,626,000,000.
On page 4 line 16, increase the amount by $225,000,000.
On page 4 line 17, increase the amount by $572,000,000.
On page 4 line 18, increase the amount by $425,000,000.
On page 4 line 19, increase the amount by $261,000,000.
On page 4 line 20, increase the amount by $143,000,000.
On page 4 line 24, increase the amount by $226,000,000.
On page 4 line 25, increase the amount by $573,000,000.
On page 5 line 1, increase the amount by $425,000,000.
On page 5 line 2, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
On page 5 line 3, increase the amount by $142,000,000.
On page 5 line 7, decrease the amount by $226,000,000.
On page 5 line 8, decrease the amount by $799,000,000.
On page 5 line 9, decrease the amount by $1,224,000,000.
On page 5 line 10, decrease the amount by $1,484,000,000.
On page 5 line 11, decrease the amount by $1,626,000,000.
On page 5 line 15, decrease the amount by $226,000,000.
On page 5 line 16, decrease the amount by $799,000,000.
On page 5 line 17, decrease the amount by $1,224,000,000.
On page 5 line 18, decrease the amount by $1,484,000,000.
On page 5 line 19, decrease the amount by $1,626,000,000.
On page 16 line 15, increase the amount by $603,000,000.
On page 16 line 16, increase the amount by $49,000,000.
On page 16 line 20, increase the amount by $275,000,000.
On page 16 line 24, increase the amount by $196,000,000.
On page 17 line 3, increase the amount by $83,000,000.
On page 23 line 16, increase the amount by $1,023,000,000.
On page 23 line 17, increase the amount by $176,000,000.
On page 23 line 21, increase the amount by $297,000,000.
On page 23 line 25, increase the amount by $229,000,000.
On page 24 line 4, increase the amount by $178,000,000.
On page 24 line 8, increase the amount by $143,000,000.
On page 30 line 16, decrease the amount by $451,000,000.
On page 30 line 17, decrease the amount by $3,252,000,000.
On page 48 line 6, increase the amount by $1,626,000,000.
On page 48 line 7, increase the amount by $225,000,000.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am so concerned about this. I
appreciate being reminded that I needed to send the amendment to the
desk. This is so serious.
This morning I had a meeting with our city council members from
around the State of Michigan. I hear stories about the fact that one
police department cannot talk to the city next to them or, in some
cases, the police department cannot talk to the fire department. The
whole question of communications and interoperability and the training
that is needed to go with that is absolutely critical.
This is not the time to be cutting first responder dollars to our
communities. We ought to be, in fact, increasing those dollars because
when the terrorist experts talk to us, they do not say if we are
attacked in the future, they say when we will be attacked in the
future. So it is absolutely irresponsible to be cutting the dollars for
our local police, fire departments, and emergency responders. We need
to make homeland security a priority. That is what my amendment does.
I remind my colleagues that 2 years ago, we received a report that
was authored by a blue ribbon panel chaired by former Republican
Senator Warren Rudman. Their findings were daunting about the
inadequacies in our homeland security efforts. They indicated that we
needed a total of $98.4 billion over the next 5 years to truly be able
to tell the families we represent that we have done everything possible
to keep them safe. But instead of adding those dollars to make sure the
radio equipment is there and the officers are there and to make sure
the training is available, what is happening is we are seeing a $1.6
billion cut. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
We should not be ignoring this panel's recommendations. We should, in
fact, be following them. As I said before, after 9/11, I did meetings
all around Michigan. To a person, I was told that they did not have the
resources they needed, and then coming back to them in the last year, I
have asked, How is it going? They said we are worse off than we were
before, which makes absolutely no sense.
I will add one important point, given the current situation as it
relates to violence in our courthouses, that we should recognize is in
this budget cut. The Byrne grants, which my amendment restores, can be
used to hire, equip, and train additional law enforcement personnel in
our courthouses. With the recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the
time to be cutting resources to our courthouses. All we have to do is
look around, look at the headlines day after day, watch the news on
television, listen on the radio and we know there has been a series of
ongoing violent efforts in our country. Now is not the time to be
cutting back on police or fire, whether it is to prepare for a
terrorist attack or to keep our citizens safe today. When the President
talks about overwhelming cuts, basically eliminating the COPS Program
which has been so important in putting police officers on the streets,
this makes absolutely no sense.
I have supported funding for our military men and women who are
serving us so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan because we said it is
important that we come together and provide the resources that are
necessary. We have done that on a bipartisan basis. We need to do the
same thing for our men and women who are on the home front who are
working hard every day to keep us safe. That is what my amendment will
do.
I would like to provide several examples of the deficiencies the
Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders detailed in the Rudman
report:
On average, our fire departments have only half the number of radios

[[Page S2680]]

needed on a shift, and only enough breathing apparatuses for one-third
of their firefighters.
Police departments across America do not have the protective gear to
respond to a weapons of mass destruction attack.
Our public health laboratories lack the basic equipment to respond to
a chemical and biological attack and most report that they are
overwhelmed with testing requests.
Finally, our first responders do not have the equipment they need to
determine what kind of hazardous material they may be facing.
Why have we ignored this panel's recommendations? The
administration's support for first responders has been on a steady
decline. For example, last year funding for Michigan's State Homeland
Security grants program dropped from $47 million to $29.7 million, In
this budget, the administration eliminates the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Training Program, cutting another $400 million from our first
responders.
I have spoken with police and fire chiefs across my State, and to a
person they all tell me that they have fewer police officers and
firefighters on their forces than they did before 9/11 because of
funding cuts.
During a series of 11 meetings in the summer of 2003 I met with first
responders and community leaders in Michigan. They told me in no
uncertain terms that they are woefully underfunded and underequipped.
Over the last year and a half, they have continued to remind me of that
fact. The situation in Michigan is of particular importance to me but
this is not solely a Michigan problem. This is a national problem and
one that has been ignored for far too long.
My amendment would restore the cuts to the first responder services
in the President's Department of Homeland Security budget. The
amendment is fully offset and will also help reduce the deficit. The
amendment is paid for by closing tax loopholes that were originally
included in the Senate version of the FSC/ETI bill, but were taken out
in the final conference bill. Closing these loopholes will generate
$3.2 billion in revenue, half of which will be used to restore the $1.6
billion in first responder program cuts, and the remaining $1.6 billion
will be put towards reducing the deficit.
The assistance to firefighters grants, the State Homeland Security
grants and the Urban Area Security Initiative are critically important.
Also important are the COPS Program and the Byrne justice assistance
grants. While some may not think these services help keep our homeland
secure against terrorism, I believe that every police officer we put on
the street with the proper training is one more set of eyes that could
stop a terrorist attack from ever happening or respond to one, God
forbid we are attacked again.
The President's cuts to these programs not only impair our ability to
prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but are a more fundamental
assault on the safety of our communities.
These programs help in unexpected ways. For example, Byrne grants,
which my amendment restores, can be used to hire, train, and equip
additional law enforcement personnel in our courthouses. With the
recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the time to cut the resources
that keep our citizens safe.
The COPS Program has brought results in Michigan and the rest of the
Nation. COPS grants have put more officers on our streets and in our
schools to make our communities safer. These officers have helped
reduce crime throughout the country. According to the Department of
Justice, every $1 increase per resident of COPS grant funding
contributes to a decline of 10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes
per 100,000 residents.
When it comes to providing funding for our military men and women in
Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided the resources necessary.
Unfortunately, we have not done the same when it comes to protecting us
here at home. When it comes to protecting our communities, we should
not be penny wise and pound foolish. Therefore, we must strengthen our
resolve and do whatever it takes to keep us safe.
Can we tell our fellow Americans that we have provided our first
responders with the equipment and training they need to respond quickly
to a terrorist incident and prevent loss of life? If we cut $1.6
billion from the men and women on the front lines of our homeland
security, the answer must be no.
I remind my colleagues that when you call 9-1-1, you do not get
someone at the Homeland Security Department in Washington, DC. You get
your local police or fire department. Local police and firefighters are
ready and waiting to try to stop a terrorist attack or help save lives
if one happens.
If we do not adopt this amendment, I believe we are not doing
everything we can to keep our country safe.
I urge my colleagues, before they vote on this amendment, to ask
themselves are we doing enough here at home to keep us safe?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 144

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to respond to Senator Conrad's
amendment, the pay-go amendment he brings up as it relates to fixing
Social Security. But before I get into my remarks, I wish to call
attention to some points raised by Senator Conrad. I do not dispute
anything he said, but I would like to give some refinement of some
statistics he has given.
Recently he spoke about the decline in the value of the dollar. His
figures were accurate, as far as the decline of the dollar. But also
where he starts, there has been a decline of the dollar, but I think we
ought to point out to the people of this country that from 1995 until
the year 2002, we had a 50-percent increase in the value of the dollar.
When we go back to 1995, the middle of the Clinton administration, we
will find that we had a dollar lower in value than presently. Then we
had the increase in the value of the dollar, and now we have had a 30-
percent decline in the value of the dollar. The value of the dollar
still is much higher than it was in 1995.
Another point I wish to make is on his dissertation on the estimate
of the trustees of what the growth of the economy, of the growth of
productivity will be over the next 75 years. He would say that over the
next 75 years, the growth of the economy, as the trustees put it, at
1.6 percent is too pessimistic, and consequently maybe the situation
over the next 75 years of the Social Security system is not as bleak as
the trustees might be led to believe. That is because he would point
out that the average productivity of the economy over the last 40
years, from 1960 to the year 2000, was 1.76. So the point being made by
the opposition is that the growth of the economy has really averaged
more than what the trustees say it will over the next 75 years, so
somehow we might not have anything to worry about.

If you take subsets of the years from 1960 until the year 2000, you
will find from 1960 to the year 1975 we had a growth of productivity of
2.4 percent. But if you look at the period of time from 1975 until the
year 2000, you would see that productivity growth was 1.38, to compare
with what the trustees had used for the next 75 years.
So I don't think it is right to point out what the trustees have used
as a figure because, compared to the last 25 years, it is not
pessimistic whatsoever. You could even make an argument that maybe it
is too optimistic.
As we listen to these figures, I hope there will be an effort on the
part of my colleagues to study these figures and not just to take these
charts at face value, because they may not tell the entire story.
Having pointed that out, I would like to speak about the amendment of
Senator Conrad, not reinstating the pay-go rules until Congress
addresses the Social Security issue. Stop to think what sort of
proposition this really is. The amendment says we should not do
anything else to deal with overspending by Congress until we address
the Social Security issue. Unfortunately, no one I am aware of who
supports this amendment has a plan before Congress to fix Social
Security. So we have an amendment that says, in a sense, don't do
anything until we fix

[[Page S2681]]

Social Security but those who support this amendment don't have a plan
to fix Social Security. So, as I see this amendment, this is an
amendment to just simply do nothing--not do anything about a plan to
keep spending under control or, if you can't do that, then under this
amendment you can't do anything about Social Security.
Due to the retirement of the baby boomers, Social Security will face
rising deficits in just a little bit more than a decade. In fact, some
people, including me, can legitimately say that this problem really
starts in 3 years, when baby boomers start retiring, because their
retirement is going to lessen the amount of surplus going from the
payroll tax into the Social Security trust fund, which really becomes a
problem when we have negative cash flow, just 13 years down the road.
Because Americans are living longer and having fewer children, there
are going to be in the future fewer workers to support each
beneficiary. That means that Social Security will face rising deficits
long after baby boomers are retired and gone. There is widespread
agreement that Social Security is facing a significant financial
problem.
We could lay out 10 different charts here that would demonstrate the
problems of Social Security. I do not think there is a single Democrat
or single Republican who would have any disagreement with the problems
of Social Security, now or for the next 75 years. It is mathematical
and we ought to be able to find a mathematical solution to it.
But when it comes to finding a solution, there is very little
agreement on what needs to be done to address this problem. President
Bush has made saving Social Security one of his top priorities this
year. We ought to thank the President for doing it, because now we are
in a position 3 years away from where baby boomers are retiring. We can
look at this issue very dispassionately, not under a crisis
environment. This is the period of time to deal with these problems. If
President Bush had not raised this issue in the minds of the American
people, we would not be dealing with it in Congress.
I have to say, as chairman of the committee that has to deal with
this, I wish there was not a Social Security problem. Maybe people
could say, Senator Grassley, you are chairman of this committee; why
didn't you deal with this 2 or 3 years ago, or 4 or 5 years ago?
There are some things you could spend a lot of time on and not get
anywhere, if you don't have any colleagues who want to deal with it.
But President Bush, using the bully pulpit of the Presidency, has
raised this in the minds of people now. Polls show the vast majority of
the people know this is a problem Congress ought to deal with. So we
ought to praise the President for helping us along a very difficult
road here in the Congress, dealing with something that we would not
otherwise even be talking about. So it is one of his top priorities,
and we ought to thank him for making this a top priority. He should be
commended for his leadership.
There are a lot of Members in this body who are now fully committed
to saving Social Security and doing it this year. So, as chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee, I must be ever mindful of the concerns of
my colleagues and the rules of the Senate. Social Security improvement
is one of the most politically sensitive issues Congress can ever deal
with. That is why the last time it was dealt with was in 1983. That is
22 years ago.
President Clinton brought this issue to the attention of the American
people and to the Congress by his very well-thought-out statement: Save
Social Security first--before you do anything else. He even referred to
Social Security as a crisis. Somehow, according to my colleagues here,
when President Bush says Social Security is in a crisis, that is wrong.
But I didn't hear those same people, in 1998 or 1997, when President
Clinton said it was a crisis, ``save Social Security first,'' saying
that there was anything wrong with calling it a crisis back then. Well,
if it was a crisis then, it is more of a crisis now.
I don't care whether it is a crisis, a problem or a challenge, it is
something we need to deal with and deal with today. That is because if
we deal with it today, this year, as opposed to next year, it is $600
billion less of a problem, because it costs $600 billion more on a
cumulative basis over the next 75 years to deal with it next year
instead of dealing with it this year.
President Clinton raised this issue, and even brought up the issue of
investing in the stock market as an example. But then, all of a sudden,
it was dropped like a hot potato, and it was not brought up again until
President Bush brought it before us.
This is a very sensitive issue, one dealt with every 20 years. We
ought to deal with it now. We ought to welcome the opportunity to deal
with it. We can deal with it in a calm atmosphere, not the crisis of
1983 when we were borrowing money from Medicare to keep Social Security
checks going, or when we as a Congress put--I don't know whether it was
$10 billion or $20 billion, but we put billions of dollars from general
revenue into the trust fund to keep checks going. Prior to that, a lot
of people were saying, I will never increase taxes, I will never cut
benefits. But you know what happens when you are in a crisis; you end
up doing both.
We have an opportunity to do this in the calm and correct way, such
as the promise Congress made 28 years ago--not in 1935, not in the
original contract where these promises were made. These promises we
can't keep today were made 28 years ago. We have a chance to correct
them and we ought to take advantage of that opportunity.
Of course, as we are dealing with this sensitive issue, we are all
mindful that the Senate's rules require at least 60 votes to reform
Social Security; that is, assuming that you would have a filibuster and
you would have to overcome the filibuster. As a result of anything
which is going to get done, we have to build strong bipartisan support
if we are to succeed. Consequently, even if every Republican would vote
for Social Security, that would be 55 votes, and you aren't going to
get all of one party going in the same direction. We have to have
bipartisanship to get anything done.
To begin the process of building bipartisanship and support for
Social Security, I have met with the ranking Democratic member of the
committee. I do that on a regular basis, not just on Social Security
but on everything before our committee. We are going to try to find
some common ground. We usually do. Everything should be on the table
for discussion. We should consider all of our options. Developing a
plan to protect and improve Social Security will be a complex and
challenging task. It will require the support of both Democrats and
Republicans. If we make a commitment to build a strong bipartisan
consensus, we can break down partisan roadblocks that threaten the
future of Social Security, but the first step is to agree on the nature
of the problem.
As I said, if I laid out 10 different charts with different aspects
of the problems of Social Security, nobody would dispute them. It is
quantifiable, it is mathematical, and hence the agreement.
We have had in this debate, though, some critics who would muddy the
water claiming that the Social Security problem is due to tax cuts that
Congress enacted in 2001 and 2003. I don't quite understand how cutting
the income tax has anything to do with the trust fund being in trouble,
because we have followed the pattern that was laid out by Franklin
Delano Roosevelt in 1935; that he wanted a payroll tax, money
designated for Social Security so that there is a relationship between
what you pay into it with what you get out, so that it would be an
insurance program and not be a welfare program.

Maybe today, welfare doesn't receive the public's lack of respect it
did in the 1930s. In the 1930s, it was a shame to be on welfare. Maybe
today it is not. That is part of our problem with our society as a
whole.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to be very careful that people who
received Social Security checks were not seen as being on welfare. They
weren't on welfare because they paid into it. They were buying
insurance when they did that.
Arguing that the cutting of the income tax has something to do with
taking money out of the Social Security trust fund would be the same as
saying we are going to put this income tax into the trust fund and get
away from the principle of a direct relationship between what you pay
in and you

[[Page S2682]]

get out in interest and principal, and, consequently, have it lean more
toward being a welfare program.
The Social Security problem has nothing to do with the tax cuts of
2001 and 2003. The critics say that repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts for the rich would cover the Social Security deficit. But
according to the Congressional Budget Office, by the year 2050, the
cost of extending the tax cuts, if you wanted to say it had something
to do with the Social Security problem and make it a welfare program
instead of an insurance program, would be 0.7 percent of gross domestic
product.
As you can see by this chart, the Social Security deficit is in fact
1.4 percent of gross domestic product. In other words, repealing the
tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich, would cover only half of the
Social Security deficit in the year 2050.
If you want to start figuring that way, then turn the Social Security
program into a welfare program where you get away from the principle
set by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that there had to be a relationship
between what you pay in and what you draw out so that you weren't on
welfare, so you didn't have the shame of welfare of the 1930s.
Moreover, the sustained use of general revenue to fund Social
Security would destroy the historical link between individual benefits
and contributions, thereby turning Social Security into another tax-
and-spend welfare program. The figures being used by critics do not
come from the Congressional Budget Office. They were made up by a
liberal think tank often quoted here on the floor of the Senate. The
critics' figures are also based upon what we call present-value
calculations. Such calculations now would assume that a dollar of
additional taxes collected today will pay about $17 of Social Security
benefits down the road 50 years.
How could this be? These present-value calculations assume that all
the money the Government collects from repealing the tax cuts would
somehow be saved and be invested in interest-bearing assets, paying 5.8
percent a year in interest. There is simply no way for our Government
to make this kind of investment. History shows that the Government
spends every dollar of taxes it collects.
In fact, I often have said in the Senate I might be willing to
increase taxes if I thought every dollar collected would go to the
bottom line to reduce it. But what I find in the Congress, you raise
taxes $1 and it gives Congress permission to spend $1.10 or $1.20 and
sometimes even more. I have never run into anyone in Congress who wants
higher taxes who has ever told me how high taxes have to be to satisfy
their appetite to spend money. Until I can find out how high taxes have
to be, I will be very squeamish about raising taxes and somehow
reducing the deficit.
The only way to prevent the Government from spending the tax cuts
they would propose would be to put them in personal accounts.
Unfortunately, those who claim the tax cuts would pay for Social
Security are the very same ones who oppose personal accounts.
There are a number of ways to address the Social Security long-term
deficits. One such proposal would change the benefit formula from wage
indexing to price indexing. Some critics of price indexing claim it
would increase poverty among seniors. This point has been made in the
Senate, but it is based on a number of erroneous assumptions.
First, critics say if you go back in time, reducing today's average
benefit level to the level that would have been paid in 1940, benefits
would be lower and poverty would be higher. What sort of spurious
comparison is that? In 1940, the average retirement benefit was 40
percent of the poverty level. In 1960, the average retirement benefit
for Social Security was about 60 percent of the poverty level. Today,
the average retirement benefit is about 120 percent of the poverty
level. So it is just this simple: no one is going to index benefits
back to 1940. But that is the argument being made by our colleagues.
The proposal that has been put forward would adjust, instead, today's
benefits going forward into the future, not backward.
I also point out that many of the price indexing proposals include a
new minimum benefit for low wage workers. An analysis by the Social
Security Administration shows that a minimum benefit would actually
reduce poverty more than current law does. So no one should be fooled
by these spurious comparisons going back to 1940. It is almost
laughable that someone would make that argument in the Senate.
The President has made Social Security a priority issue, and Congress
should take advantage of this Presidential leadership. The chance to
fix Social Security problems may not come again in 10 years. They will
come for sure in 10 years because if we do not do anything, we get to
the point of a crisis where people who want to increase taxes will not
have a problem getting their heart's desire of raising taxes. But you
will also do what no one wants to do: change the benefits. So we should
not miss this opportunity.
President Bush needs to keep using the spotlight to educate the
public about why we need to take action on Social Security. We want a
safe and secure retirement for every American. That is part of the
social fabric of America. It is kind of like Grandpa Grassley. I am 71.
I draw Social Security benefits. I am benefiting from a very good deal
from the New Deal of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt--a good deal
for me, my mom and dad, my grandparents. But for Carrie Grassley, 9
years old, my granddaughter, it is going to be a raw deal because
doing nothing around here is not an option. Doing nothing is a
guaranteed benefit cut for Carrie Grassley.

It is kind of a moral issue, whether Grandma and Grandpa Grassley
today ought to be concerned about a secure retirement for our children
and grandchildren. Do we want to be selfish? I don't think I have a
right to be selfish. I believe I need to be concerned about the next
generation. We have that opportunity now. Are we going to take
advantage of it?
Social Security is a successful program. It definitely is a part of
the social fabric of America. These young people who are our pages are
paying in dramatically for me to receive my Social Security check. Even
if we did something today and they get 100 percent of the benefits that
are promised today, they are still getting maybe not a raw deal but not
as good as the deal I have. For sure, if we do nothing, 70 percent of
those benefits is a raw deal. We have an opportunity to do something
about it.
There has been a lot of attention brought to personal accounts by the
other side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle has had a free
ride on the question of solvency of Social Security. What about keeping
promises to Carrie Grassley and the young pages so they can have what
we have. What about everything else dealing with Social Security. Do
they have a responsibility? After all, we all get paid $160,000 a year.
You mean you cannot come to the table to negotiate with Chuck Grassley
on a problem we all agree ought to be done with or without personal
accounts? But don't figure you are negotiating in good faith if you
say, before you sit down at the table, you can't have everything on the
table. That is what negotiations are about.
The other side has had the luxury of the public's attention on
personal accounts, and they are clouding that issue. This has given
them the opportunity to avoid these tough issues of providing for
Social Security for the pages or for Carrie Grassley. I don't think
they can get away with it very long.
I hope by this summer my committee is able to meet and report out a
Social Security bill. It is my intention to do that. Will I get the
cooperation to do that? One person cannot provide the votes, but we
ought to have that sort of discussion and see what we can do to bring
it before the Senate.
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. 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, I want to respond briefly to the chairman
of the Finance Committee. Let me first say how much I welcome the tone
and the content of his remarks. The chairman of the Finance Committee
is exactly right. We need to work together

[[Page S2683]]

to face the challenge in Social Security, and, frankly, the even much
bigger challenge in Medicare because, as I indicated this morning, the
shortfall in Medicare is eight times the shortfall in Social Security.
We also need to address these ballooning budget deficits and this
massive growth of debt. All of these things need to be dealt with.
I also believe tax reform needs to be part of this mix. Why? Because
the tax system we currently have is hemorrhaging revenue. The Revenue
Service tells us the tax gap, the difference between what is owed and
what is being paid, is over $300 billion a year. By all accounts, that
is a conservative estimate. So before anybody talks about a tax
increase for anybody, we ought to be talking about closing this massive
tax gap--the difference between what is owed and what is being paid.
Senator Grassley made a number of references to the amendment I have
offered that I think are not a correct characterization of my
amendment. I understand he said the amendment I have offered would not
do anything to address overspending by Congress until we fix Social
Security. And his characterization of my amendment is that it says
don't do anything until we fix Social Security.
That is not what my amendment says. That is not what my amendment
does. My amendment says, let's put Social Security as the top priority.
Let's save Social Security first. It does not say ``only.'' It says
``first.'' It says very simply: No new spending or no new tax cuts
until Social Security is solvent, unless they are paid for.
Boy, there is a novel idea out here. You are going to pay for
something. You can have all the tax cuts you want if you pay for them
with spending reductions or other revenue. You can have all the new
spending you want if you pay for it by reductions elsewhere in spending
or new revenue.
My amendment says you cannot have new spending or new tax cuts unless
you pay for them or if you are able to come out here and get a
supermajority vote. Otherwise, you have to wait until we put forward a
plan that restores the solvency to Social Security. I think that is a
pretty good idea. That is what my amendment does.
My colleague from North Dakota is in the Chamber.
Can I ask the timekeeper where we are with respect to the time
between now and 2:15 on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. So 21\1/2\ minutes on this side.
What is remaining on the other side, if I could ask?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-eight minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Twenty-eight minutes. I understand Senator DeMint is
coming to offer an amendment. We will need a little bit of time to
respond to that.
So how much time will the Senator need?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would ask for 10 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield 10 minutes to
the Senator from North Dakota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to support the amendment offered
by my colleague, Senator Conrad, which, in effect, says: Save Social
Security first. Make Social Security a priority when we evaluate what
we want to do around here. There are a whole series of options that we
face: increase spending, cut taxes or do both of these things. What my
colleague is saying is, save Social Security. Save Social Security
first.
I also intend to support the amendment offered by my colleague from
Florida, Mr. Nelson. Senator Nelson's amendment is a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment that Congress should reject any Social Security plan
that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.
Now, why is Senator Nelson offering that amendment? Well, because we
have the memorandum that was leaked from the White House in January
that outlined the plan that the President's chief strategist on Social
Security was offering. The plan was relatively simple. The plan is,
borrow a lot of money up front, anywhere from $1 to $5 trillion,
depending on how long a time you measure it. Borrow a lot of money. Put
it in the stock market. Change the indexing formula in Social Security
to cut benefits. Then you have borrowed money in the stock market, with
Social Security benefit cuts. Then you just sit back and wait and hope
that everything is going to be all right.
At the end of that memorandum from the White House it says this,
which is very revealing: It says, ``This is the first time in six
decades we have had an opportunity to win on Social Security.'' We know
what that means. They go back to Alf Landon, when they debated this
Social Security bill in the 1930s. They did not like it then. Some
still do not like it. They would like to take it apart.
Now, the President began at his State of the Union Address, and
around the State of the Union Address other members of the
administration said the Social Security system is in crisis. They used
the terms, ``bankrupt,'' ``flat broke,'' ``busted.'' None of that is
true.
It is the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that
Social Security, as a program, will be solvent until President George
W. Bush is 106 years old. Let me say that again. The Congressional
Budget Office says the Social Security system will be fully solvent
until President George W. Bush is 106 years old. Now, they did not say
the ``Bush, 106 years old'' piece. They just described how many years
it would be solvent. I have calculated, then, the President would be
106 years old at that point.
Is that a crisis? No, it is not a crisis. People are living longer,
healthier lives. We may have to make some adjustments to Social
Security, but it does not require major surgery, and it is not a
justification for President Bush's plan to begin taking Social Security
apart, creating privatized accounts. It is not a justification for
that.
Now, in many ways, this is about values. I respect those who believe
Social Security should never have been adopted. I do not agree with
them. I respect their right to take that viewpoint. I respect those who
want to take the Social Security system apart right now. I do not agree
with that either, but I respect their right to make that case.
But it seems to me if you go back to 1935 at a time in this country
when 50 percent of America's senior citizens were living in poverty,
this country decided: We cannot have that. We are not going to allow
that to happen. So we created an insurance program. Yes, it is
insurance not investments. The FICA, the tax that is taken out of your
check every month--the ``I'' in FICA is insurance. That is what it
means, insurance. It is the program that would always be there. You
could count on it. It is guaranteed. It is not the risk piece. The
antithesis of security is risk. It is the portion of retirement
security that will be there. That is what it was created for. The woman
who received the first Social Security check in 1940 and the tens of
millions of American senior citizens who have received Social Security
since have, in many cases, been lifted out of poverty by this single
act. Some say, well, it is something that should never have been done.
One of the leading voices on the far right says Social Security is a
soft underbelly of the liberal welfare state. That describes the
mindset of people who don't want the Social Security program to exist,
the kind of people who voted against it in the 1930s.

As I said, this is about values, what is important to us. Some come
to the floor and say the most important thing, by far, is to eliminate
the death tax--a tax which doesn't exist, incidentally. There is no
death tax in America. There is a tax on inherited wealth. I spoke
yesterday about that. Warren Buffett, the world's second richest man,
makes the point that if the majority party gets its way with respect to
the ``death tax'' and exempting dividends from taxation and so on, the
world's second richest man will be paying one-tenth the tax rate that
the receptionist in his office pays. That is from him, not me. Warren
Buffett says under their plan he would end up paying a 3-percent tax,
and the receptionist in his office, with the payroll taxes, would end
up paying a 30-percent tax.
I asked the question yesterday, why do we have the philosophy in the
Chamber that seems to say let's tax

[[Page S2684]]

work, but let's exempt investment? Is work less worthy? Is it really
less worthy? Don't we value work? Don't we honor work? Don't we connect
effort and reward? There are some who come to the Chamber and say,
look, there are priorities that are more important than Social
Security. Cutting the tax on dividends and interest on passive income,
eliminating the so-called death tax--despite the fact that there is no
death tax--they spend money to do that. That is more important to them
than the Social Security program.
I happen to think the Social Security program works well, and has for
a long while and will continue for a long while. It will be solvent for
75 years with any kind of reasonable economic growth, with no changes.
But assuming we get a pessimistic rate of growth for 75 years, 1.9
percent compared to the 3.4 percent we had in the previous 75 years,
assume, as the actuaries do, that we have an anemic growth of 1.9
percent, then we would have to make adjustments.
But that is not a pretext for what President Bush wants to do. What
he wants to do is simple. He said it in 1978 when he ran for Congress.
In 1978, when he ran for Congress, he said that Social Security will be
broke in 10 years. He meant 1988. Of course, that didn't happen. It
wasn't true at the time. He said Social Security will be broke in 10
years and we ought to go to privatized accounts.
So this is not new. It is not even about economics. It is about a
philosophy, about a decision and a desire to take apart the Social
Security program. The question for this Congress is: Does Social
Security have merit and worth for this country? Has it improved this
country? Is it a part of this country's decisionmaking over the last
century that has improved America?
In my judgment, the answer is yes. We have done a lot of things
together. We decided in the last century about a lot of issues. Some of
them were hard. We had people die in the streets of this country who
demonstrated for the right for workers to organize. People literally
died in the streets as a result of violence over the issue of whether
American workers should be allowed to organize. Should they expect to
be able to work in safe workplaces, safe plants. Should we have child
labor laws. Should we have a minimum wage. Should we stop companies
from dumping chemicals and sewage into the water and the air. And in
the panoply of all of those decisions, one was to say it is intolerable
that half of our senior citizens live in poverty. These are the people
who helped build our country, the people who understood about going to
a barnraising for the neighbor, about building a community, starting a
church in a small town, about trying to raise a family by raising a
crop, and hoping that crop produces something you can sell in the fall
to keep your family over the winter. Yes, the people who worked in the
factories, as well, that began to mass-produce products. These are the
workers of America who helped build this great country of ours. We
decided it is intolerable that one-half of them, when they reach their
declining income years and retirement, should live in poverty; it is
intolerable, as good as this country is.
So we contribute each month from our paycheck--all workers do--into a
fund called Social Security. There are a lot of things you don't know
about growing old. You don't know about your health. You don't know
which of your relatives will survive to be helpful to you when you grow
old. But you do know this: If you work and if you had an investment
from your paycheck in the required number of quarters, Social Security
will be there for you. You do know that. That is important.
Because we know that and because we now have nearly 70 years of
experience with this program, we ought to understand that this ranks
right near the top of the things we need to do to make this a better
country: Preserve, strengthen, and nurture the Social Security system
for the long term.
I oppose the President's proposal. I think it is a proposal that will
begin to take apart the Social Security program. I support the
amendments that will be offered and voted on this afternoon. Those
amendments make good sense and they move us in the direction of
deciding the following: We are going to strengthen and preserve Social
Security for the long term. It ranks as a priority, the highest
priority for this Congress.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for Senator Stabenow's amendment to restore funding for our first
responders, including local law enforcement. I am proud to cosponsor
this amendment. We cannot continue to cut justice assistance program
funding, particularly Byrne grant, local law enforcement block grants,
and COPS funding.
The Byrne Grant Program, which was merged last year with the LLEBG
program in a move I did not support, is vital to the efforts of local
law enforcement in Montana to combat methamphetamine and other illicit
drugs. I have heard this again and again and again, from local law
enforcement agencies to the Montana Narcotics Officers Association to
the Governor's office to the attorney general's office. The Byrne
program helps communities hire additional local law enforcement,
operate drug task forces, and send local law enforcement to drug
training.
Unfortunately, the President's budget proposes an elimination of the
Byrne Grant Program. This combined with cuts proposed by the President
to the high intensity drug trafficking area HIDTA, program and other
justice assistance programs, would be a disaster for Montana. It would
set the clock back years in our efforts to fight the rapid spread of
methamphetamine in Montana.
According to the Montana Board of Crime Control, this is what will
happen to Montana if the President's fiscal year 2006 budget is
enacted:
1. Montana will lose its multijurisdiction drug enforcement capacity,
including seven multijurisdictional drug task forces. This means that
already stretched local law enforcement agencies will have to do what
they can to address drug enforcement at the local level, without
broader support from the drug task forces.
2. Montana will lose 33 drug enforcement offices throughout the
State.
3. Montana will experience a significant increase in drug
availability, manufacturing and trafficking and drug-related crime.
4. Montana would experience an increase in clandestine labs that
manufacture methamphetamine.
5. Montana would experience a reduction in the amounts of illegal
drugs and guns removed from our communities.
6. Montana would experience the elimination of funds for rural law
enforcement agencies' manpower, equipment, and training.
The above impacts translate to a complete loss of rural drug
enforcement in Montana and are only the tip of the iceberg. The
manufacturing, trafficking, drug addiction, and crime will have a
ripple effect throughout the State in our public health and correction
systems and the courts, negatively affecting public safety and the
quality of life in Montana.
The Byrne program and similar programs support the majority of pro-
active drug enforcement in the 56 counties of my State. This is because
we are spread so thin across a vast area with a small population and an
international border--Byrne is essential to us.
To protect our kids and our communities--our homeland--we have to
continue aggressive drug enforcement across Montana. We have to
continue teaching hundreds of classes to the good citizens helping to
stop the spread of drugs like meth, including realtors, retailers,
civil groups, and other local law enforcement agencies. Byrne funding
is the difference between stopping a few street level drug sales and
stopping drug manufacturing and distribution on a much larger scale.
Working hand-in-hand with Byrne Grant Program funding is the COPS
Program. The COPS Program helps pay for all meth lab cleanups in
Montana, protecting children and others from the harmful health impacts
of the chemicals used to make meth. Additionally, the COPS Program
helps provide for more law enforcement in drug enforcement units, while
maintaining enough police officers patrolling our streets.
According to the president of the Montana Association of Chiefs of
Police, COPS funding is necessary to maintain an adequate number of
police in the field to protect our communities. He has told me that
without COPS funding, the number of crimes,

[[Page S2685]]

especially violent crimes, will begin to rise again. And currently,
there is no other alternative to the COPS Program. He tells me that the
COPS Program is one of those programs that works, one of those programs
that is directly responsible for protecting our communities, for
getting the officers out on the street to protect us all.
In short, the Byrne and COPS Programs represent a relatively minor
Federal investment in our local communities that pays huge dividends in
terms of the health and safety of our citizens. We are also talking
about communities that cannot foot the bill by themselves, particularly
in a rural, low-population State like Montana. We just can't kid
ourselves that the money will magically appear elsewhere.
I guarantee that Montana is not the only State that will suffer a
dramatic loss in drug enforcement capability under the President's
proposed budget. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the
important amendment of the Senator from Michigan. We cannot shortchange
our law enforcement--stopping the spread of illegal drugs is important
to the security of our homeland, too.
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. 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, if I could have an update on the time
situation both on the amendment and on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining. The
majority has 28\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. That is on the amendment. And on the resolution?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the resolution, the majority has 15 hours,
the minority has 14 hours.
Mr. CONRAD. I assume the time in quorum calls is being charged
equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not. The Chair corrects himself. The
unanimous consent request that was agreed to does equally share quorum
call time.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Maybe someone who is listening to
these proceedings can hear me outside this Chamber. Hopefully, Senator
DeMint is either on his way to the floor or will be shortly because we
have the time until 2:15 p.m. At 2:15 p.m., we will be turning the
attention of the Chamber to Senator Lindsey Graham. So on Senator
DeMint's amendment, if he is to have much time, it would have to come
before 2:15 or the time after 2:15 will have to be shared.
I hope somebody is listening to this and will advise Senator DeMint
that if he wants to have as much time as possible before the votes that
are scheduled, he should come soon.
I thank the Chair. 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. 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, I have been advised that Senator DeMint
may not be here soon to discuss his amendment. So I am going to respond
to his amendment before he has laid it down. We have been advised of
what the amendment is. I think if I do not do that, my time will run
out, and there will not be any chance to respond.
Senator DeMint's amendment says just this:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject
any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a
massive increase in debt, and a failure to act would result
in massive debt, deep benefit cuts, and tax increases.

I agree with the first clause of the Senator's amendment. In fact, it
is an amendment I support. Senator Nelson's amendment says roughly the
same, that we should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep
benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt. But the additional clause
of the Senator's amendment says ``and a failure to act would result in
massive debt,'' I agree with that. ``Deep benefit cuts,'' I agree with
that. ``And tax increases,'' I cannot agree with that because it is
just not accurate. It is not accurate.
The way it works, when we get out to 2052, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, and Social Security can only meet 78
percent of its obligations, what happens at that point is the benefits
are reduced by that shortfall amount. There is no tax increase that is
triggered. The benefits are cut.

Try as I might, I want to be able to support the Senator's amendment
because the first clause is exactly right. We should reject any Social
Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or massive increase in
debt. That is, unfortunately, what the President's plan does. But when
he goes on and says, ``. . . and a failure to act would result in
massive debt, deep benefit cuts, and tax increases,'' it just as a
matter of fact is not true.
I understand there maybe is a sense that will happen, but, in fact,
what does happen is when you get to that point, 2052, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, and Social Security can only meet 78
percent of its obligations, the benefits are cut by that amount of the
shortfall. There is no tax increase that is triggered.
I just cannot support something that is not factually accurate. I
wish the Senator were here. I wish he would be open to changing his
amendment because if we just state it in a factually accurate way, I
would be happy to support it. But I cannot support something that is
factually not the case.
We have an ongoing problem here. The ongoing problem is that this
budget in this conversation is utterly detached from reality. It is
detached from reality because we are running massive record budget
deficits, and the party in the majority comes with a budget that just
increases the debt each and every year, by their own calculation, by
over $600 billion.
Maybe somebody could bring me the chart from their own budget
document that shows what their own calculation is of what this budget
does.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues on the majority side of the
aisle, do they really want to support a budget that at a time of record
deficits and burgeoning debt says more of the same?
I know the rhetoric on the other side is this budget is fiscally
responsible, it cuts the deficit in half over 5 years. But the only way
it reduces the deficit over 5 years is it leaves out things. It leaves
out war costs, it leaves out the need to fix the alternative minimum
tax, it leaves out the President's Social Security proposal.

Here is what the budget before us does, according to their own
document. This is on page 5. It shows the increases in the debt that
would result if this budget is adopted: a $669 billion increase in the
debt this year; next year it increases the debt $636 billion; the next
year it increases the debt $624 billion; the next year it increases the
debt $622 billion; the next year it increases the debt $611 billion.
This is not my document. This is in the budget resolution before us,
and it says this is a blueprint to increase the debt $3 trillion. Is
that what we should be doing? Is that really the blueprint to
strengthen America's economic security? I do not believe so. I think
that would be a profound mistake.
Mr. President, what is the time remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(Purpose: Sense of the Senate that failing to address the financial
condition of Social Security will result in masive debt, deep benefit
cuts and tax increases)

Amendment No. 150

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 150.

[[Page S2686]]

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
Mr. CONRAD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject
any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a
massive increase in debt, and a failure to act would result
in massive debt, deep benefit cuts and tax increases.

Mr. CONRAD. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I am encouraged by the debate today that
recognizes, as we consider our budget, that Social Security and its
future is an important part of budget considerations. My amendment
today recognizes that if we do nothing with Social Security, which
seems to be the intent of some in this Chamber, that will only result
in deep benefit cuts or massive increases in debt, and a failure to act
now will result in not keeping our promise to today's and tomorrow's
seniors.
We need to address the challenge of Social Security. It is first a
promise we must keep. Those who suggest that we need to cut benefits on
today's seniors or even tomorrow's workers should consider the promise
we made to seniors. Those who suggest that we do not have a problem
with Social Security until the year 2042 do not recognize the facts
that our own Social Security Administration is giving us year after
year.
We can see clearly that the current level of payroll taxes that comes
from our workers' paychecks every month will fund Social Security as it
is today only through the year 2018. After 2018, the amount of money
that will be required in addition to payroll taxes increases
dramatically through 2079, and continues to grow beyond that day.
I think it is inconceivable that in this Chamber today people are
telling us we can push this problem down to the next generation and not
address it. What will happen under current law with Social Security, if
we continue along the same road we are traveling today, is in 2018 we
will begin to pull massive amounts of money from our general fund,
taking money from our defense, from our education system, from our road
system, and many of the Nation's priorities will have to move from the
general fund to keep promised benefits to seniors. Beyond this point,
we will continue to redeem the IOUs in the Social Security trust fund.
I want to get back to the trust fund in a minute because I am afraid
those who still believe there is money in the trust fund probably still
believe there is a Santa Claus. But if we use all the IOUs in this
trust fund, what will happen in this year that is talked about on this
floor today is in 2042 under current Social Security law, benefits for
tomorrow's retirees will be cut by over 125 percent in order to be paid
for by payroll taxes.
The call by our President and many of the leadership on the
Republican side now to address this issue today is to avoid this cut in
benefits in the future. It is unfair to tell the young workers of today
that if they continue to pay into their Social Security benefits
through their payroll taxes they will get a Social Security benefit
equal to those receiving it today. It is, frankly, not true.

I believe we can reform and save and strengthen our Social Security
system without cutting benefits, and without raising payroll taxes. In
fact, I believe it is the responsibility of this Senate, this Congress,
and this President to do exactly that.
There are bills that have been proposed that will begin to say what
people save, what people are putting into Social Security, not taking
money out of Social Security but to save the money that is going into
Social Security for tomorrow's workers.
If we only today began the process of saving the current Social
Security surplus--let me address that quickly--for the next 13 years or
so, which this line here represents, this year it is like $100 billion
of money that is coming in for Social Security that is being spent on
other programs. If all we did until 2018 was to save the Social
Security surplus within the Social Security system, we would create a
stronger Social Security system that has real savings in it.
The problem with Social Security today is not that taxes are too low,
or that benefits are too high, but the problem with Social Security is
we have been taking money from workers for years and not saving it. We
have been spending it on other things. Now the general fund owes the
Social Security system well over $1 trillion.
The proposal by the President, and by many in the House and the
Senate today, is to begin to save part of what people are putting into
Social Security, allow that money to earn interest, compound interest,
and to grow so that over a period of years we will transform Social
Security from a political promise with nothing but IOUs into a secure
and a guaranteed retirement income for tomorrow's seniors.
My amendment does something very simple. It recognizes that if we do
what has been proposed by many today, that we ignore Social Security,
that we push it to the next generation, it will result in either
significant benefit cuts or massive, large increases in payroll taxes
or huge transfers from our general fund, which will affect many of the
Nation's other priorities.
It is a simple request to ask my colleagues to recognize the problem.
I appreciate the President's efforts to tell the American people we
have a problem that needs to be solved. I appreciate his willingness to
consider saving Social Security by saving payroll taxes that are being
paid already by workers.
I ask for consideration of this amendment. I believe it is important
for the American people to know that doing nothing to address Social
Security will hurt every American and will hurt our country as a whole.
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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 152

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have an amendment I will send to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for himself
and Mr. Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 152.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the urgent need
for legislation to ensure the long term viability of the Social
Security program)

At the end of title V, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY
RESTRUCTURING.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) Social Security is the foundation of retirement income
for most Americans;
(2) preserving and strengthening the long term viability of
Social Security is a vital national priority and is essential
for the retirement security of today's working Americans,
current and future retirees, and their families;
(3) Social Security faces significant fiscal and
demographic pressures;
(4) the nonpartisan Office of the Chief Actuary at the
Social Security Administration reports that--
(A) the number of workers paying taxes to support each
Social Security beneficiary has dropped from 16.5 in 1950 to
3.3 in 2002;
(B) within a generation there will be only 2 workers to
support each retiree, which will substantially increase the
financial burden on American workers;
(C) without structural reform, the Social Security system,
beginning in 2018, will pay out more in benefits than it will
collect in taxes;
(D) without structural reform, the Social Security trust
fund will be exhausted in 2042, and Social Security tax
revenue in 2042 will only cover 73 percent of promised
benefits, and will decrease to 68 percent by 2078;
(E) without structural reform, future Congresses may have
to raise payroll taxes 50 percent over the next 75 years to
pay full benefits on time, resulting in payroll tax rates of
as much as 16.9 percent by 2042 and 18.3 percent by 2078;

[[Page S2687]]

(F) without structural reform, Social Security's total cash
shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be more than
$25,000,000,000,000 in constant 2004 dollars or
$3,700,000,000,000 measured in present value terms; and
(G) absent structural reforms, spending on Social Security
will increase from 4.3 percent of gross domestic product in
2004 to 6.6 percent in 2078; and
(5) the Congressional Budget Office, the Government
Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service,
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and the
President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security have all
warned that failure to enact fiscally responsible Social
Security reform quickly will result in 1 or more of the
following:
(A) Higher tax rates.
(B) Lower Social Security benefit levels.
(C) Increased Federal debt or less spending on other
federal programs.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the President, the Congress, and the American people
including seniors, workers, women, minorities, and disabled
persons should work together at the earliest opportunity to
enact legislation to achieve a solvent and permanently
sustainable Social Security system;
(2) Social Security reform--
(A) must protect current and near retirees from any changes
to Social Security benefits;
(B) must reduce the pressure on future taxpayers and on
other budgetary priorities;
(C) must provide benefit levels that adequately reflect
individual contributions to the Social Security system; and
(D) must preserve and strengthen the safety net for
vulnerable populations including the disabled and survivors;
and
(3) the Senate should honor section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990.
Mr. GRAHAM. How much time do we have on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes on each side.
Mr. GRAHAM. I will try to be brief. I see the Senator from North
Dakota, Mr. Conrad, has come to the floor.
First, I thank Senator Conrad, who has been a good ally in trying to
define the problems the country faces. There are about $40-something
trillion in promises we have made to the public through different
entitlement programs and there is not money to pay those promises. That
is what gets us here.
It is time for the country to come to grips with the idea we promised
a lot of retirement benefits, we promised a lot of medical benefits,
Medicaid benefits for people who are disabled and poor people, and we
do not have the revenue streams over time to support those benefits. So
2 years ago Senator Conrad and myself worked on a resolution trying to
define the problem. There are many different views of whether it is a
problem or a crisis, how to fix it, where the accounts fit in, should
we borrow the money, should we raise revenue.
Quickly, I believe that without restructuring benefits and
restructuring taxes you cannot get there from here. I know a lot of
people do not want to hear that, but in 2018 we begin to pay out more
in benefits than we collect in taxes, and it only gets worse over time
because when I was born in 1955 there were 16 workers for every
retiree. Today there are 3\1/2\, and 20 or 30 years from now there will
be 2. So it is nobody's fault. It is not the Democrat or Republican
Party's fault.
The fact is, there has been a huge demographic change in the country
called the baby boom. It is a big elephant working its way through the
system. We need to adjust for it, and we need to make promises in the
future, starting now, that we can afford to make and that are honest
promises.
My goal, and I believe this about Senator Conrad, is to restructure
Social Security and other entitlements in a fiscally responsible way so
future generations do not live in fear of the check not coming, the
benefit not being there, and we are willing to make some hard
decisions. But this amendment is not about those hard decisions. This
amendment is about, Where do we stand as a nation vis-a-vis Social
Security.

If I may, I will read some of the findings:

(1) Social Security is the foundation of retirement income
for most Americans;

Not only is that a true statement, it is an essential statement for
us to make as a body, Republican and Democrat, because half the seniors
today who receive a Social Security check would be in poverty if it
were not for the Social Security check. So it is the foundation of
retirement income for many Americans.

(2) preserving and strengthening the long term viability of
Social Security is a vital national priority and is essential
for the retirement security of today's working Americans,
current and future retirees, and their families;

I think we can all agree on that. We did 2 years ago. The word
``crisis'' or ``problem'' is not in there. ``Vital national priority''
is because for millions of Americans this is what you count on when you
retire.

(3) Social Security faces significant fiscal and
demographic pressures;

What does that mean? It means what I said before. Senator Conrad and
I agreed 2 years ago that in 1950 there were 16\1/2\ workers for every
retiree; in 2002, 3.3. And over time it comes down to two workers per
retiree because families are smaller.

(C) without structural reform, the Social Security system,
beginning in 2018, will pay out more in benefits than it will
collect in taxes;

And that 2018 number varies: 6 months, 12 months. That is the right
timeframe. What does that mean for average Americans? It means for the
first time in the history of this system, the first time ever, we will
pay more out in benefits than we collect in taxes. It is true that we
have collected more in taxes than we have paid in benefits, and we put
them in Treasury notes and borrowed the money to operate the
Government. I do not like it. To Senator Conrad's credit, he does not
like it either. That has been the practice of both parties here. But
that is not the reason Social Security is going to run out of money.
If you took all the notes and redeemed them and put the money back in
the system, you buy solvency for a period of time, but by no means do
you fix the problem. So 2018 is an important date. It is a historic
date. It is the first time in the history of this program we pay out
more in benefits than we collect in taxes.
Now, what does that mean over time?

(D) without structural reform, the Social Security trust
fund will be exhausted in 2042, and Social Security tax
revenue in 2042 will only cover 73 percent of promised
benefits, and will decrease to 68 percent by 2078;

Now, the definition of ``bankruptcy'' we can argue about, but it is
usually an inability to pay the obligations when they come due. In
2042, it is not bankrupt in terms of no money to be paid. In 2042,
according to the Social Security Administration, only 73 percent of the
benefits will be paid. So to do nothing means that we start paying more
than we collect and eventually we have to cut benefits across the
board. And by 2078, 68 percent of the benefits are able to be paid.

There are millions of Americans who could not suffer that in their
retirement life because when these cuts come by doing nothing, they
come across the board. They do not treat somebody who makes $30,000
differently than they treat somebody who is in the Senate who now makes
$160,000. I think we should try to avoid that in a bipartisan way.

(E) without structural reform, future Congresses may have
to raise payroll taxes 50 percent over the next 75 years to
pay full benefits on time, resulting in payroll tax rates of
as much as 16.9 percent by 2042 and 18.3 percent by 2078;

What that means is if you want to restore full benefits, you are
going to have to go and get more money because from 2018 to 2042 you
tap all the reserves. At 2042 you have a scheduled benefit cut. To
avoid it, you have to bring new money to the table. And if you did it
by raising payroll taxes, you would have a massive tax increase in
payroll tax rates, which would make us less competitive in a global
economy against China and everyone else because the payroll tax is a
significant problem for business. But it is the way we fund Social
Security, and we should not raise it unless we absolutely have to. To
do nothing means it is going to be raised in a dramatic fashion.

(F) without structural reform, Social Security's total cash
shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be more than
$25,000,000,000,000 in constant 2004 dollars or
$3,700,000,000,000 [in 2004 dollars] measured in present
value terms;

In English that means you need $3.7 trillion of new money today to
get this thing solvent to 2075. And we are talking about trying to take
1 percent out of the Medicaid program. How do you get $3.7 trillion of
new money put in the system today to keep Social Security solvent for
the next 75 years? I

[[Page S2688]]

don't know how to do that without some sacrifice. There is a way to do
it, and we will talk about that, I guess, down the road. But that is a
fact. We are $3.7 trillion short of the money we need to keep this
system afloat until 2075.

(G) absent structural reforms, spending on Social Security
will increase from 4.3 percent of gross domestic product in
2004 to 6.6 percent in 2078;

When you add Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security together, it is
25 percent of the gross domestic product.
Now, listen to this: In 2080, 25 percent of the gross domestic
product will be spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Right
now, the entire Federal budget, everything we spend, is 20 percent.
These three programs will outpace what we spend on the entire
Government if we do nothing. So is this a problem? To me it is. I
probably will not be around in 2078, but I don't want to pass on to
people who are going to be around in 2078 a huge problem they can never
work themselves out of.

(5) the Congressional Budget Office, the Government
Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service,
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and the
President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security have all
warned that failure to enact fiscally responsible Social
Security reform quickly will result in 1 or more of the
following:
(A) Higher tax rates.

That is one way to avoid the benefit cuts. We talked about that.

(B) Lower Social Security benefit levels.

To not put new money in means you reduce benefits across the board.

(C) Increased Federal debt or less spending on other
federal programs.

That is what you would need to do if you did not raise the taxes:
borrow money, cut other programs.
The sense of the Senate--this is what we agreed to by voice vote.
Everything I have read to you was agreed to by voice vote 2 years ago.
It is not preferring one solution over another. It is not saying where
accounts are good or bad or that indexing is good or bad. It is
defining the problem in responsible terms, picking dates that other
people have told us exist, being honest about the unfunded liability,
being honest about the consequences of doing nothing. And from this I
hope we can find a way to do something in a bipartisan fashion.
The sense of the Senate says:

(1) the President, the Congress, and the American people
including seniors, workers, women, minorities, and disabled
persons should work together at the earliest opportunity to
enact legislation to achieve a solvent and permanently
sustainable Social Security system;
(2) Social Security reform--
(A) must protect current and near retirees from any changes
to Social Security benefits;

I think we all agree with that.

(B) must reduce the pressure on future taxpayers and on
other budgetary priorities;
(C) must provide benefit levels that adequately reflect
individual contributions to the Social Security system; and
(D) must preserve and strengthen the safety net for
vulnerable populations including the disabled and survivors;
and
(3) the Senate should honor section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990.

I hope we can still agree on this because this is as true now as it
was 2 years ago. It is more important than it was 2 years ago to define
the problems in honest terms without prejudicing any solution proposal.
I want to publicly thank Senator Conrad for stepping to the plate, as
he has in the past, to put on the table that Social Security has a
problem. We have done a joint op-ed piece defining this problem, and
for that I am grateful.
I will reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me address the amendment of the
Senator. Let me say, I am generally supportive of this amendment. I
think it lays out accurately our overall situation. The fact is, we
have a challenge in Social Security, not a crisis in the sense that
Social Security checks are not going to be written tomorrow or next
month or next year.
But the longer term problem we have is the demographic problem. That
is the reality. The sooner we deal with it, the better. It is also
important for people to understand that this demographic challenge is
not just in Social Security. In fact, we have a much bigger challenge
in Medicare; the shortfall there is eight times the shortfall in Social
Security.
There are two things I want to indicate about this amendment that
trouble me and I thought were going to be changed. Let me just
indicate, on page 3:

Without structural reform, Social Security's total cash
shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be more than
$25 trillion in constant 2004 dollars or $3.7 trillion
measured in present value terms.

I thought the $25 trillion was going to be taken out and $3.7
trillion, which was in our op-ed, was going to be the number.
Mr. GRAHAM. Using 2004 dollars would be very acceptable.
Mr. CONRAD. You are willing to strike that one phrase?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate that.
The one other thing I wanted to mention was, on page 4, it says:

The President, the Congress, and the American people
including seniors, workers, women, minorities, and disabled
persons should work together at the earliest opportunity to
enact legislation to achieve a solvent and permanently
sustainable Social Security system.

I raise the issue about ``permanently.'' I do so for this reason. I
know we included that word before. I would like to do that as well.
Here is the problem I have with the word. I don't want to send an
incorrect signal about my own intentions. The fundamental problem I
have is, to do it permanently, one has to have some projection of long-
term economic growth, and the long-term economic growth one has to have
a projection of is forever. I have very little confidence in these
long-term projections.
As the Senator knows well, the underlying projection is that the
economy is only going to grow 1.8 to 1.9 percent every year for the
next 75 years when, in fact, the economy has grown over the last 75
years by 3.4 percent.
This shows pictorially what I am talking about. I am very troubled
with this long-term forecast. The Social Security Administration
assumes growth of the economy is going to slow considerably after 2015.
They have a long-term assumption of economic growth, on this red line,
of 1.8 percent. That is what they are saying the growth is going to be
over the next 75 years. Yet here is what we have seen, going back to
1950. The green bars on the chart are what economic growth has actually
been. The red line is what they are projecting going forward. You can
see their projection going forward is much lower economic growth than
we have actually experienced over the last 55 years.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. As I understand this chart, each column is a 5-year
period; is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. There has been no 5-year period since 1950--none during
that period--in which the growth of long-term GDP has been at or below
the line they are projecting; is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. So we have exceeded it in each of these 5-year periods
over that 55-year span?
Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. I know they make very conservative assumptions, but it
seems to be clear that their projection is apart from reality. I have
seen projections into the future that don't parallel this assumption of
the 1.8 percent. They go low in terms of the assumption of what growth
is going to be as we move out into the future.
Mr. CONRAD. The reason for their very pessimistic forecast is they
are looking at productivity growth and new entrants to the workforce as
the two drivers of economic growth going forward. They have a very low
number for new entrants into the workforce because of the demographic
change. I think we can all understand that. But they also have a very
low number of productivity growth for the next 75 years--1.6 percent a
year of productivity growth. The fact is, productivity growth has been
about double that in the last 5 years. So I, frankly, don't believe the
75-year forecast. That doesn't mean, by the way, that we don't have a
challenge. I want to be clear. It reduces the challenge, and if these
projections are wrong and they are overly pessimistic, it makes a
substantial difference in how big the problem is. We

[[Page S2689]]

are still left with a challenge of this demographic change.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. Not only how big the problem is, but I guess when the
problem would occur, how soon it would be upon us.
Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely.
Mr. SARBANES. The better we do on the growth compared to
projections----
Mr. CONRAD. It pushes the problem forward. For example, the
Congressional Budget Office had told us that the trust fund would go
cash negative in 2018. Now, they have updated their forecast to say,
no, we won't go cash negative until 2020, because economic growth has
been stronger than the underlying forecast. A big reason for that is
productivity growth has been much stronger than the underlying
forecast. So I think it is very important that we be clear.
That is why the word ``permanently'' gives me heartburn in the sense
that we are trying to forecast forevermore, and I just flatout don't
believe this forecast for 75 years. I want to make clear that we still
have a challenge. We still need to address this problem because we have
the demographic problem. That is one reason I have tried to talk to my
colleagues about not just Social Security but Medicare and the budget
deficit and Medicaid, because it is all these things coming together
that really presents us with a challenge. It is real.
In any event, I don't know what the Senator's disposition is on the
word ``permanently,'' if he would be willing to change that or maybe he
is wedded to that. I don't know.
Mr. GRAHAM. I want to stick with what we did 2 years ago. I will
comment why, and I will wait until the Senator gets through.
Mr. CONRAD. I have tried to be clear on the problem I have with that
one word. That said, because I support the thrust of this, I intend to
support it. I want to make clear that I believe we should be looking
toward 75-year solvency because I think the forecasts are so murky, and
we would make a real advance if we were to secure 75-year solvency.
With that said, I think the overall direction of the amendment is good.
I ask the Chair, where are we in time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
majority has 9 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I will yield 7 minutes to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks to Senator
Graham for a moment, if I could get his attention. I wanted to direct
some remarks to the Senator. First, I wish to thank the Senator. I
think what he is doing here is quite different than what we have been
getting from this White House. The Senator is being very careful to
essentially say, let's get together and work together to solve the
problem.
I also believe that the word ``permanently'' is a little naive. I
don't mind it, but the point is, nothing is permanent around here
except we are going to die one day. We cannot bind future Congresses. I
get the Senator's point that we want to make sure this challenge is
met. Believe me, I intend to meet it. I intend to meet it without
putting us in debt, and the Senator is totally silent on that; I
appreciate that. This country is in debt now $7.7 trillion. This
administration has turned it around. We started to balance the budget,
pay back Social Security. It has been turned around.
We have the highest debt ever. A child born today has about $40,000
worth of debt on his or her back. This is painful for our country: $7.7
trillion of debt is $1 million a day for 21,000 years. That is what it
is. I appreciate the fact that unlike the President's plan, the Senator
from South Carolina does not talk about borrowing those staggering sums
of money because there are a lot of us who will not do that to the
American people. They are being burdened enough with this debt now.
The Senator is also silent on privatization. My hat is off to him on
that because, as we know, the Democrats are saying, if you want to
privatize this system, the only way you are going to do that is to put
us deeper in debt, and you are going to take an overhead of one-half of
1 percent and turn it into a 20-percent overhead. That is according to
a University of Chicago study.
I so appreciate that the Senator does not mention borrowing because
we are staggering in red ink, and he does not mention privatization
because it is a nonstarter. When you privatize, you take a guaranteed
benefit and turn it into a guaranteed gamble. I have nothing against
Wall Street, I once worked on Wall Street. I was a stockbroker.
Sometimes it works out great, but you cannot count on it, not at all.
So why would we take a system that has worked perfectly and turn it
into a gamble, except if we really wanted to get some of that money
away from the trust fund and into the hands of Wall Street.
I was in the House of Representatives in 1983, and I supported two
icons in politics: Ronald Reagan, a Republican icon, and Tip O'Neill, a
Democratic icon. They followed the spirit of the approach of Senator
Graham, which is we get together because, guess what. The people are
more important than the politics.

We have a President who is doing his round of townhall meetings all
across this great Nation. I think it is great. He is working hard to
sell his privatization plan, to tell people they better listen to him
or else they are going to be sorry. But do you know what the President
did not count on? That the people understand what Social Security is.
So you can do a song and dance about privatization, you can talk
about it in poetry, you can talk about an ownership society, but they
are not fooled because this is what the people know: They pay a portion
of their check over to the Social Security trust fund, and when they
retire, they get a safety net retirement. It is safe, and it is sure.
It has never defaulted. It is there.
And guess what. If the head of household dies and there are kids,
they get a benefit. A lot of my constituents understand this. My own
husband's father died when he was 10 years old. His mother had three
kids. She was a stay-at-home mom. What would she do? Social Security.
One of those kids, my husband's brother, was mentally disabled. What
would she do? Social Security.
I praise my friend for not talking about putting this country into
deeper debt--we are not going to go there--and for not mentioning
privatization because we are not going to go there. We are not going to
take money out of the trust fund and give it to Wall Street. We are not
going to have a Social Security system that has an overhead cost one-
half of 1 percent and turn it into a 20-percent overhead and turn it
into a gamble. We are not going to do it.
The people are smart. They get it. I do not care how many townhall
meetings any of us has, this is one the people understand. I have my
own townhall meetings. The people get it, whether they are Republicans,
Democrats, or Independents. They say Social Security works and why
would we turn our back on it.
Watch out for the word ``reform.'' If it is truly reform, we should
do it. But if it is repeal, which is what privatization is, we are not
going to do it.
Again, with the same reservations that my friend has, I read this
amendment and I say, bravo, we can talk, if we are not going to borrow.
We can talk, if we are not going to privatize. We can talk, if we are
not going to set up a two-tier system that hurts people. We can talk.
And we can do what we did in the eighties. I was proud to stand with my
President at that time, Ronald Reagan, and my Speaker at that time, Tip
O'Neill, these icons who got behind a very simple plan.
And by the way, there are many civil ways. My friend has outlined
one. We can step to the plate on this challenge.
Let's stop using the word ``crisis'' because you are not fooling
anybody. Mr. President, 22 years ago the Cato Institute put out a
paper. They said: Make people think it is a crisis as soon as you can.
If they think it is a crisis, they may accept the end of Social
Security. Tell them it is an iceberg coming.
That is what the White House secret little memo did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds, and then I will
stop.

[[Page S2690]]

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 30
seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. The people are smart. They know there are some people
around here who have been trying to get rid of Social Security for
decades. We cannot trust this matter to people who have wanted to do
away with Social Security. The President himself said in 1978 that
Social Security will go broke by 1988 unless it is privatized. He was
wrong then; he is wrong now. He said in the year 2000 that people act
as if Social Security is a Federal program or something. How do we
trust someone who does not know Social Security is a Federal program
where people pay their insurance, they pay for it, and they get back
what they put in, plus a safety net?
I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank my friend, Senator Graham,
for offering us something that I think many of us will be able to vote
for.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi will state his
inquiry.
Mr. LOTT. How is the time divided between now and 3 p.m.?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 3 minutes,
and the Senator from South Carolina has 9 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Mississippi 4
minutes.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks before we start this
series of votes at 3 o'clock. I understand there will be several
stacked votes, four or five at that time.
First, I remind my colleagues that this is an important process. This
is a process where we pass a budget resolution. This is a blueprint
that we are trying to put in place of how we will proceed the rest of
this year and even, depending on the enforcement mechanisms, next year.
This is not written in stone. This is not the Ten Commandments. This is
an outline. This is a blueprint. These are aggregate numbers.
I must say, ashamedly, for 2 of the last 3 years we did not have a
budget. I think that is one reason we had such a mess at the end of the
session last year. I admit, it was an election year, but we need to
have some guidelines of what are we expected to do at Commerce, how can
we do a better job at the Transportation Security Administration, how
much money is going to be available, what is going to be available at
the Finance Committee, what are we going to do with our entitlement
programs and tax policy? One way or the other, what are the
appropriators going to do?
I hope my colleagues will not get too overwrought and too much into
the details. I do not like a lot of this budget proposal. I do not like
a lot of what the President proposed, but I will have my opportunity to
make my case and I will have my opportunity to vote for or against
parts of it. This is just the beginning. This is the kickoff.
By the way, it should be a bipartisan effort to get this budget
resolution in place.
I think the committee has done a good job. First, it cuts the deficit
in half within 5 years. We have been dealing with increased defense
needs. We have been trying to figure out all the needs of homeland
security. We had economic problems, and the deficit has gone up. Now it
is time we begin to do something about it. We need to begin to control
spending, and we need to be careful about our tax policy which can hurt
the economy if we have raised taxes or if we cut taxes even in the
wrong way versus cutting taxes in a way that gives incentive for
growth.
This budget starts in the right direction of reducing the deficit. It
fully funds the President's request for defense and homeland security.
I guess we need to do that. The numbers are adequate in both areas. I
would like to see some more in defense. And I do not like the mix in
the President's budget for defense. But that is not what we will decide
here.

This bill maintains job-creating tax policy and it strengthens budget
enforcement tools. Because we did not have a budget resolution last
year, and 2 years before that, we have been losing our ability to
impose some budget and fiscal restraint. This resolution does provide
outlines that will take us into doing more, and doing a better job at
education, energy, welfare, and pension policy, all of which we need to
do.
I hope we will be careful. Let's not get too hot with the rhetoric
this week. When we get to Thursday night or Friday, we will pass a
budget resolution and move forward.
With regard to the amendments, I was interested to see we got some
amendments on Social Security. This may be good. Is this a sign that
Democrats are going to join us and we are going to have a serious
discussion? Senator Lindsey Graham has his neck way out there, so far
out I am not about to join him where he is right now, but he is trying
to get us going, get engaged in this discussion. A lot of people say we
can't do this, we can't talk about any kind of restraint in growth and
benefits. We can't do anything about age. Oh, no, we can't do anything
with personal savings account.
If you listen to what they are saying, it is we don't want to do
anything but raise Social Security taxes again. We have done that too
many times.
My time is gone. I urge my colleagues: Vote against these points of
order. This would be the exact wrong way to get started toward Social
Security reform and getting a budget resolution. I will have more to
say about all this later.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. I want to leave this debate on a positive note. Senator
Conrad has been a pleasure to work with. We have some philosophical
differences. Maybe we can bridge those gaps. Senator Lott was talking
about my political career. I hope it is secure, but I know Social
Security is not. I am not worried about that now, because most people
at home have appreciated the effort on my part, and others, to bring
honesty to the table.
Why did I pick the word permanent? Why did we pick the word
permanent? Everything Senator Conrad said about budget forecasting is
absolutely true. I think we need to understand that when we say words
such as ``permanent,'' what I am trying to do is give the American
public reassurance that we, as Republicans and Democrats, are going to
do the same thing with Social Security that happens when you buy life
insurance or you buy car insurance or you buy fire insurance; that is,
when you need it, if something happens, it is going to be there. You
wouldn't buy a policy from some company that could say: You are good
for 10 years; After that, I am not so sure.
What we are trying to do is make a pledge and a promise to the
American people that we will permanently take care of this program. We
will make the adjustments as we need to, whenever they come and however
they come. Our pledge is to make honest promises, keep those promises
and I want to tell you why it is important.

Senator Boxer commented about her family situation. The good news is
that Social Security has affected so many lives in a positive way. When
I was 21, my mother died--she was 52--of Hodgkin's disease. When I was
22, a year later, my father died. He was 69. We all thought he would go
first, but you never know in life. We owned small businesses, a liquor
store, restaurant, and pool hall. Everything I learned about politics I
learned there, and it served me well.
But when my parents died, the businesses folded. I had a 13-year-old
sister. We moved in with an aunt and uncle who worked in the textile
mills; they never made over $25,000. Survivor benefits mattered to my
family. Without that money, it would have been tough for our family. So
I know as well as anyone in this body that Social Security has a
purpose. That is a good purpose. We ought to focus on making sure in
the future, families like mine, who are worse off, have what we can
afford to give them and what we promise to give them we will give them
in a permanent fashion.
As to how we get there, I am openminded. Senator Lott mentioned, if
you don't want to go into deficit and set up accounts, I will work with
you.

[[Page S2691]]

But the accounts make sense to me, because younger workers, born after
1980, get a 1.4 percent rate of return on their Social Security
investments. I know we can beat that without becoming a day trader. I
know we can do a better job than that. But I am not going to prejudge
anybody's plan. My promise to you is if you want to permanently solve
the Social Security problem, to make sure that people in the future can
count on the benefits when their family needs them, I will work with
you.
Senator Conrad has been great to work with. I hope we can build upon
what we have done today and find a solution that will protect the
safety net.

Amendment No. 152, As Modified

I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Give me a moment to get settled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 152), as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title V, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY
RESTRUCTURING.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) Social Security is the foundation of retirement income
for most Americans;
(2) preserving and strengthening the long term viability of
Social Security is a vital national priority and is essential
for the retirement security of today's working Americans,
current and future retirees, and their families;
(3) Social Security faces significant fiscal and
demographic pressures;
(4) the nonpartisan Office of the Chief Actuary at the
Social Security Administration reports that--
(A) the number of workers paying taxes to support each
Social Security beneficiary has dropped from 16.5 in 1950 to
3.3 in 2002;
(B) within a generation there will be only 2 workers to
support each retiree, which will substantially increase the
financial burden on American workers;
(C) without structural reform, the Social Security system,
beginning in 2018, will pay out more in benefits than it will
collect in taxes;
(D) without structural reform, the Social Security trust
fund will be exhausted in 2042, and Social Security tax
revenue in 2042 will only cover 73 percent of promised
benefits, and will decrease to 68 percent by 2078;
(E) without structural reform, future Congresses may have
to raise payroll taxes 50 percent over the next 75 years to
pay full benefits on time, resulting in payroll tax rates of
as much as 16.9 percent by 2042 and 18.3 percent by 2078;
(F) without structural reform, Social Security's total cash
shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be
$3,700,000,000,000 measured in present value terms; and
(G) absent structural reforms, spending on Social Security
will increase from 4.3 percent of gross domestic product in
2004 to 6.6 percent in 2078; and
(5) the Congressional Budget Office, the Government
Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service,
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and the
President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security have all
warned that failure to enact fiscally responsible Social
Security reform quickly will result in 1 or more of the
following:
(A) Higher tax rates.
(B) Lower Social Security benefit levels.
(C) Increased Federal debt or less spending on other
federal programs.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the President, the Congress, and the American people
including seniors, workers, women, minorities, and disabled
persons should work together at the earliest opportunity to
enact legislation to achieve a solvent and permanently
sustainable Social Security system;
(2) Social Security reform--
(A) must protect current and near retirees from any changes
to Social Security benefits;
(B) must reduce the pressure on future taxpayers and on
other budgetary priorities;
(C) must provide benefit levels that adequately reflect
individual contributions to the Social Security system; and
(D) must preserve and strengthen the safety net for
vulnerable populations including the disabled and survivors;
and
(3) the Senate should honor section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, could you advise us on the time remaining
on the two sides of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 3 minutes.
The Senator from South Carolina has 1 minute.
Mr. CONRAD. If the Chair would advise me at the end of 2 minutes, I
would be appreciative.
Let me again say to Senator Graham, I appreciate this effort. I
appreciate the amendment he has offered. I have already indicated I
intend to support this amendment because I think it lays out in some
reasonable way the challenge we face.
On this question of permanency, I agree with him. We certainly do not
want a Social Security solution that leaves people in doubt that they
are actually going to get their Social Security benefits. At the same
time, when we use the word ``permanently,'' I don't want to have people
left with the understanding that this is based on a forecast
forevermore. The reason I do not is because that might lead to improper
conclusions about what we are doing.
These long-term forecasts I have seen over and over are a problem.
Let me say why that is the case. The underlying forecast by the Social
Security trust fund is that economic growth going forward is going to
be 1.8 percent a year. That is the underlying forecast. Every year for
the next 75 years, they are saying the economy is only going to grow at
1.8 percent.
If we look back over the last 55 years, these green bars show how
much the economy has actually grown, and in no time--at no time over
the last 55 years, in 5-year increments, have we had economic growth
that was as low as their forecast of how much the economy is going to
grow over the next 75 years. So I have grave doubts about the accuracy
of this forecast.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator from North Dakota's comments are well made.
``Permanent'' to me is to do whatever we need to do at whatever point
in time to secure the safety net, starting today. Senator Conrad is
right; we should have started yesterday dealing with all these
problems. Social Security is only a small slice of it.
This budget sense of the Senate I hope will bring us together in
honestly defining the problem. I am not asking anybody to prejudice an
outcome, as to how they would solve the problem. But now we have on
paper what the problem is for America. Working together, I think we can
solve it. If we do not, we know what happens. In that regard I think
this is a good step forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me close by saying I support this
amendment. I think it is a good-faith effort by the Senator to describe
the problem in an accurate and honest way. For that reason, I intend to
support it. I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
I would like to conclude by saying thank you to the Senator across
the aisle. I think he has done a great service to all of us who are
trying to address this problem. When we wrote an op-ed together, we
said there is a problem here. There is a challenge. We need to work
together to address it. We should not take on massive new debt to do
it. But we ought to consider all the options before us.
I thank my colleague and I urge my colleagues in the body to support
his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin

[[Page S2692]]

Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The amendment (No. 152), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 144

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided before
a vote in relation to the Conrad amendment.
Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment before us is very simple. It
says: Social Security first. Very simply, the amendment says: No new
mandatory spending or tax cuts until Social Security is solvent, unless
the new spending or the new tax cuts are paid for or they can get a
supermajority in the Senate.
It is a matter of priorities. This says: Social Security first. No
new spending, no new tax cuts until Social Security is solvent, unless
those amendments are paid for or they get a supermajority vote here in
the Chamber.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 12 seconds to the Senator from
Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very proud to be joining my
colleague on this amendment. For all of us who have talked about Social
Security, this is the way to put it first in the budget process. This
is the way to secure it for 75 years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment has a lot of problems. But
three of the major ones are, first, it creates a precedent of mixing
the general fund with the Social Security fund, which is a big mistake.
Second, it treats entitlements entirely different than it treats tax
cuts, which is a big mistake. And third, it is brought forward by a
party which says there is no Social Security problem and, therefore, we
will never have a tax cut because they will not admit there is a
problem. It is essentially a stalking-horse for doing nothing on the
issue of relieving American taxpayers of the burden which they have
under the present tax system at any time in the future.
As we know, we need major tax reform. So it would be a huge mistake
to put this point of order in place.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 144.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--55

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 144) was rejected.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, that vote took 20 minutes. This time does
not count against the underlying budget resolution. When we have a
series of stacked votes such as this, if people do not vote within the
10-minute framework of the vote, we are talking about extending the
timeframe of the resolution by the time we run over the vote. So if we
have 20 or 30 votes and we are adding 10 minutes to every one of those
votes--which we will have before we finish, believe me--we are talking
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 hours of additional time we will be in session on this
resolution, which means a lot of us, or all of us, are going to be here
very late on Friday night.
It is up to us whether we discipline ourselves, but hopefully folks
can stay within the 10-minute timeframe we have set up. That is why
Senator Conrad and I decided to stack these votes, so we could move
this process along. We would like to continue to work in that
framework.

Amendment No. 150

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided with a
vote on the DeMint amendment No. 150. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from South
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my amendment expresses the sense of the
Senate that if we do nothing as a body to address the Social Security
issue, it will result in massive debt, benefit cuts for future
retirees, as well as large payroll tax increases. The big question
today, and the difference in my amendment and another amendment, is
whether we need to address it now or push this off until 2042.
It is clear by any measure, if we look at what the Social Security
actuaries are saying, that in 2018 we will begin to move billions of
dollars from the general fund to support Social Security benefits.
The time to act for Social Security change and reform to save and
strengthen Social Security is now, and we can do that best by beginning
to save the Social Security surplus and to save part of what people are
putting into the Social Security system.
I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, which simply says
if we do nothing, the American people will pay for generations. This
amendment is deciding whether we are proposing something for the next
election or the next generation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield time to myself.
I would support the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina if
the amendment did what the Senator just described. That is not what the
amendment does. It says, in pertinent part:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject
any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or
massive increase in debt . . .

I agree with that absolutely. Then it goes on to say:

. . . and a failure to act would result in massive debt, deep
benefit cuts and tax increases.

That part of it is just inaccurate and here is why. When we get to
2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and Social Security
can only meet 78 percent of its obligations, the result is deep benefit
cuts. There are no tax increases that are triggered by the law at that
point. What happens is deep benefit cuts.
I would just say and urge my colleagues, I think you have to oppose
this amendment because, frankly, it states something that is just not
accurate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S2693]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any other Senator in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner

NAYS--43

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Voinovich
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Landrieu

The amendment (No. 150) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 145

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided before
a vote in relation to the amendment of the senior Senator from Florida.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we had the announcement of the vote as 56
and 46; from the math I learned in North Dakota, that adds up to 102.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-three.
Mr. CONRAD. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate
on the same subject and I don't see how anybody can disagree with it.

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject
any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a
massive increase in debt, and a failure to act by 2042 would
result in deep benefit cuts; therefore Congress should take
action . . .

This does not say wait until 2042. It says ``a failure to act by 2042
would result in deep benefit cuts'' which is exactly what the Social
Security Administration and CBO have told us; that if we do not act by
2042 they are going to pay only 73 cents on the dollar. CBO says that
date is 10 years later, 2052. Out of an abundance of caution, I have
stated the earlier date.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, although this amendment certainly on its
face could be deemed to have some reasonable points, it appears to be
missing a fairly large chunk of the issue. It says there should not be
any required deep benefit cuts. I think we would all like to accomplish
that. It says there shouldn't be any massive increase in debt. We
certainly all would want to require that. But it doesn't mention taxes.
As a practical matter, the implication is that taxes could be increased
rather dramatically.
By silence on that issue, I think basically the other side is saying
with this amendment we are ready to raise taxes a lot, especially on
younger, working Americans, which would be a serious mistake.
Therefore, I suggest we vote against this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--50

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 145) was rejected.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, is
recognized.

Amendment No. 147

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Stabenow
amendment. It increases spending and taxes. The total amount of dollars
allocated in 2002 to 2005 to the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness was $11.2 billion. The total amount spent
is $6.1 billion. That means we have $5.2 billion still available. Only
55 percent first responder grant dollars have been used. Still billions
of dollars remain. In the name of fiscal responsibility, I urge you to
join me in voting no on the Stabenow amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, is
recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is about keeping our
families safe and our communities safe. It would restore the $1.6
billion in cuts to first responders, our police, firefighters, and
emergency workers. These cuts are included in the President's budget
and in this mark.
With this amendment, we would restore those funds, as well as add
$1.6 billion to reduce the deficit. There is an offset we are proposing
that we close tax loopholes that were dropped from last year's FSC bill
in order to pay for this.
In my State of Michigan, and I am sure in your States as well, every
police chief told me they have fewer officers on the streets today than
on 9/11/2001. This is wrong. They are counting on us to provide them
the resources in partnership with them to keep our citizens safe. Also,
the Byrne grants we restored will provide for additional law
enforcement personnel in our county courthouses, where we have seen
recent violence.
I urge that we adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy

[[Page S2694]]

Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--54

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 147) was rejected.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time
is subtracted equally from both sides.
The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 158

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment at the conclusion
of my remarks. It will be cosponsored by my colleagues as follows:
Senators Clinton, Specter, Corzine, Murray, Rockefeller, Carper,
Schumer, Durbin, Lautenberg, Kerry, Dorgan, and Obama.
Adoption of my amendment will provide a measure of financial
stability to our Nation's passenger railroad--Amtrak. My amendment will
also provide a measure of certainty regarding the continuation of rail
service in our country to Amtrak's 25 million annual passengers and its
almost 20,000 employees.
Let me be clear: this is not a Democratic amendment or a Republican
amendment. It is an American amendment. It is an amendment to help
rural America and urban America alike.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act for the current fiscal year provided
Amtrak with a subsidy of roughly $1.2 billion. That level of funding is
anticipated to allow Amtrak to continue to operate for the remainder of
this fiscal year, though its cash reserves are expected to continue to
deteriorate during that time.
For fiscal year 2006, President Bush's budget seeks the complete
elimination of direct subsidies to Amtrak. The request for Amtrak as we
know it is zero--not a penny. The only funding that the administration
has requested for inter-city passenger rail service is $360 million,
which would be set aside solely for the purpose of ensuring the
continuation of existing local commuter rail services that depend on
the use of Amtrak property, once Amtrak, as a company, has ceased to
operate.
Recently, there has been a great deal of press attention regarding
the fact that the administration has proposed to push Amtrak into
bankruptcy. Indeed, page 243 of the President's budget is quite
explicit regarding the administration's plan.

It states that, ``with no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter
bankruptcy.''
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has recently held a spate of
press conferences and stated that President Bush is a strong supporter
of passenger rail service in our country. Well, all I can say is that
the President has found a very strange way to show his support. By
eliminating the annual Federal subsidy to Amtrak in its entirety,
President Bush has threatened to leave 25 million passengers standing
at the platform. He is threatening to push those 25 million passengers
onto our already congested highways and runways and he is threatening
to isolate dozens of communities across the nation who do not have air
service and are now being threatened with being eliminated from the
national railroad map.
The budget resolution before us assumes that overall domestic
discretionary funding will be at the level requested by the President.
As such, it also presumes enactment of the President's budget proposals
for transportation, including the complete elimination of Amtrak's
funding.
This amendment would increase the funding for function 400, the
transportation function by $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2006. When
combined with the $360 million that the President has requested for the
continuation of commuter services in the event of Amtrak's termination,
my amendment would bring total rail passenger funding up to $1.4
billion in 2006. My amendment would increase the cap over discretionary
spending by the commensurate $1.04 billion. The amendment would be
completely offset by an increase in revenues through the closing of
corporate tax loopholes.
Some of my colleagues may be wondering how I arrived at the funding
figure of $1.4 billion for Amtrak for 2006. My answer is as follows:
When President Bush submitted his budget request for fiscal year 2005,
has asked for only $900 million for 2005. But in that same budget, the
President recognized that funding should grow to $1.4 billion in 2006
and beyond. So, my proposal to bring Amtrak to $1.4 billion in 2006 is
precisely the same number that President Bush had budgeted for Amtrak
for 2006 just 1 year ago.

This is an important point because certain Senators might be of the
misimpression that enacting President Bush's reform bill for Amtrak
might result in actual budgetary savings. In fact, the administration
has said that if Congress does enact its reform bill, it would be
inclined to request far more funding for Amtrak than the railroad
currently receives. In an interview with National Public Radio
recently, Secretary Mineta said that the administration would be
inclined to request between $1.5 and $2 billion for Amtrak. That
funding range compares to the $1.2 billion we provided in fiscal year
2005. The budget resolution that we are currently debating, of course,
includes none of that increase for a reformed Amtrak.
Senator Gregg, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee,
has not parroted the Bush administration's budget for all spending
items. To his credit, Senator Gregg has set aside $50 billion for
fiscal year 2006 for the cost of the on-going conflict in Iraq. It was
the Bush administration's agenda to ignore the costs of the Iraq war
and instead request this funding through a supplemental appropriations
act. Senator Gregg, to his credit, said that his budget would not
engage in such an indefensible policy. We know that we are going to
have to pay for the ongoing conflict in Iraq in 2006 and Senator Gregg
has appropriately set the money aside for that purpose.
This situation should be no different with Amtrak. The Bush
administration's current budget proposes zero dollars for Amtrak's
direct subsidy needs in 2006, and zero dollars for every year
thereafter. Secretary Mineta, when traveling around the country, has
said that the Bush administration will consider requesting adequate
funding for Amtrak as part of a supplemental  appropriations bill.

So, the choice before the Senate could not be clearer. If Senators
really desire all Amtrak service to come to an immediate and grinding
halt for lack of a Federal subsidy in 2006, vote against my amendment.
But, if Senators want to pass a realistic budget that recognizes that,
with or without reform legislation, continuing Amtrak service will
require continued Federal subsidies in 2006, Senators should vote for
my amendment.
The elimination of Amtrak's subsidy is not a recipe for a streamlined
railroad. It is not a recipe for a more efficient railroad. It is a
recipe for a dead railroad.
Across the Northeast corridor--the busiest urban transportation
corridor in the Nation--the elimination of Amtrak's premier service
would be a transportation disaster. Amtrak serves 13 million passengers
each year over the Northeast corridor. The highways along this
corridor--principally Interstate 95--and the runways along this
corridor are already congested beyond words. Imagine for a moment the
congestion that will result when an additional 13 million Americans are
pushed onto those highways and runways. You are talking about both a
transportation and economic disaster.
Elimination of Amtrak service would have disastrous results in both
rural and urban America. There are over 120 communities all across the
Nation that receive regularly scheduled Amtrak service but no air
service whatsoever.

[[Page S2695]]

Several of these communities have seen their bus service eliminated as
a result of a national shrinking of the Greyhound network. Amtrak's
termination would result in dozens of these communities across the
nation being isolated from the national transportation network.
Senators should not be fooled by the provision in the President's
budget that calls for $360 million for commuter rail services in the
Northeast corridor. These funds cannot be used as a matter of law to
maintain Amtrak services on the Northeast corridor. They can only be
used to maintain local commuter rail services like New Jersey Transit
or the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority that operate
over the Northeast corridor. And those funds can only be used as a
matter of law to maintain those services and they can only be used in
the event that Amtrak ceases operation. Not one penny of the $360
million requested for this purpose can be used to maintain Amtrak
service for the 13 million passengers that depend on that service.

President Bush has proposed a series of so-called ``reforms'' for
Amtrak that principally take the form of passing Amtrak's costs onto
the States. These proposals come on top of other proposals in the
President's budget, such as so-called reforms in the Medicaid Program
that are designed to push additional costs of that program onto the
States. As Senators are aware, the Nation's Governors traveled to
Washington, DC, earlier this month. Many of those Governors visited
their congressional delegations. I doubt that even one of them spoke
favorably about the President's plans to push Amtrak's costs onto the
States. But whether you agree with President Bush's Amtrak reform
proposals or not, I would suggest that all Senators should support this
amendment. There may be several disagreements over the merits of these
so-called reform proposals. But one thing that is beyond question is
that you cannot reform a dead railroad. And that is what the budget
before us calls for--a dead, dead, dead railroad.
We should provide some stability and some peace of mind to the 25
million passengers who use Amtrak every year. We should provide some
stability and peace of mind to the 20,000 Amtrak employees spread
across the Nation, so that they will know that they will have
employment at the end of the current year. We should provide some
stability to Amtrak's finances so that the House and the Senate and the
administration can have a meaningful debate over whether Amtrak should
be reformed without the distraction of the near-term risk of the
railroad lapsing into bankruptcy.
I encourage all Members to vote for my amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be
added as original cosponsors to those names that I have already read:
Senators Kohl, Kennedy, Jeffords, and Lieberman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 158

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk the amendment to which I
have already referred.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, and
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Specter, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Carper, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered
158.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 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 reject the President's proposal to eliminate Amtrak and to
provide adequate funding of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2006 to
preserve a national intercity passenger rail system and to offset these
costs by closing corporate tax loopholes)

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
On page 15, line 15, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
On page 15, line 16, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
On page 48, line 6, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
On page 48, line 7, increase the amount by $1,040,000,000.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the following speakers have indicated an
interest in making statements concerning their support for the
amendment: Senators Clinton, Corzine, Carper, Schumer, and Dorgan.
I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from New
York may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, thank you, once again, to my friend from
West Virginia for offering this important amendment.
It is somewhat hard to believe we have to offer this amendment. There
should not be a debate about the importance of Amtrak and national
passenger rail service, but there is, so once again we are making the
case and asking the support of our colleagues in this body on behalf of
Amtrak.
As Senator Byrd pointed out, the President's budget and this budget
resolution does not provide a penny for the continued operation of
Amtrak. It provides just enough money to shut the trains down, but
there is very little thought given as to the consequences of shutting
the trains down, of ending the services that Amtrak offers, and the
impact on the regional rail services that, in addition to Amtrak,
provide so much support for our national transportation system.
I know there are members of the administration and even of the
Congress arguing that Amtrak should not receive another penny because
it is not self-sufficient. I have to respectfully ask, are the airlines
self-sufficient? We keep bailing them out. Are the highway systems
self-sufficient? We continue the development and maintenance of
highways, transit systems, buses. No form of transportation is self-
sufficient.
We have a fundamental decision to make which apparently the
administration is making by this budget request that we give up on
national rail for passenger travel. That is a very shortsighted
position and a critical mistake.
I ask my colleagues to think back to the days after September 11. Our
airports were shut down. The bridges going in and out of Manhattan were
shut down. The only way in and out of Manhattan was Amtrak. That was
it. If we could not have moved through the Amtrak system in and out of
Manhattan, we would not have had any contact, any continuing
communication, any movement of people.
I am amazed we have such a short memory. I am also amazed we do not
recognize the benefits that Amtrak offers in providing this service to
so many commuters and passengers. In fiscal year 2004 Amtrak broke the
25 million passenger record. That was an extraordinary accomplishment.
I give David Gunn and the leadership team he brought in, which is
turning Amtrak around, tremendous credit. The record of 25 million was
a million greater than 2003, which itself was a record.
So we are making progress in running a railroad that meets people's
needs. The new Acela trains are a great gift, moving us back and forth
between Washington and New York in a little over 3 hours. I obviously
have a very personal interest in this because New Yorkers rely on rail
more than perhaps any other citizens in our country. Penn Station on
34th street in Manhattan is the busiest passenger rail station in our
country, servicing almost 9 million passengers who boarded Amtrak
trains there in 2004. Our Albany Rensselaer Station is the 10th busiest
in the country. Much of our upstate economy depends upon Amtrak. We
also have the busiest commuter rail system in the country. I have to
point out we are putting our commuter rail system on the path to
obliteration as well as Amtrak because our commuter rails operate on
Amtrak rail lines. They use Amtrak tracks. Much of the system would not
be able to operate if they did not share expenses, share maintenance,
with Amtrak. So we are not just writing the

[[Page S2696]]

death warrant for Amtrak but also writing the death warrant for
commuter rail.

Why are we doing this? Some are ideologically opposed to passenger
rail. We might as well be ideologically opposed to air travel, if we
say if you cannot make a profit you go out of business. In many
instances it is the combination of Government funding and passenger use
that works around the world. Why do we think we can be different?
The effect of this policy the administration has embedded in its
budget will be so far reaching that I don't think people have stopped
and considered the impact on the economy, the impact on our
transportation infrastructure.
I was talking to one of the people who is quite an expert in
railroads who said if you take Amtrak off the tracks, Amtrak is no
longer responsible, the burden of keeping the tracks will fall
completely on the freight companies. The freight companies have not
done that good a job of keeping up their tracks and we will have all
these bottlenecks that have a ripple effect through the economy, the
likes of which we did not contemplate.
This has long-term effects on our economy, on our homeland security.
To remove this necessary form of transportation at a time when we face
all of these dangers and risks is extremely shortsighted.
What is going to happen with our airports and our highways? Amtrak
right now accounts for 50 percent of the Washington, DC-New York air
and rail market and 35 percent of the Boston-New York travel market.
Are we going to put all of these passengers into our airports which, as
anyone who has traveled lately knows, are pretty chaotic to start with?
Are we going to add them to the highways and to the congestion? What
are we thinking about? I wish we would take a deep breath.
The administration says it would like to reform Amtrak. I am very
impressed with the steps David Gunn has taken. If the idea of reform is
transferring the costs for funding Amtrak on to the States, that is a
nonstarter. We will be burdening the States with expenses they cannot
meet now. We will be thinking of cutting Medicaid, cutting housing. We
will cut community development block grants and then say, by the way,
pick up the costs of keeping your economy and business travel going by
paying for Amtrak. I don't know any State that can accommodate that
kind of hit.
I hope we will take the moment to support Senator Byrd's amendment.
It is the right approach to take. I am the first to say if we can do
some smart reforms in the context of keeping the railroad operating,
let's do it. But what are the smart reforms? David Gunn has said if he
can have some money for capital investments, we would cut the amount of
time for commuting between Washington, DC, New York, and Boston. We
could have high-speed rail along the east coast. We would make some of
the routes that are not now a very effective means for transporting
passengers much more so because we would make the investments that are
necessary in the underlying infrastructure.
I join very happily with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator
from West Virginia. I hope on both sides of the aisle all Members will
think hard about this amendment. I cannot stress strongly enough the
impact on the Northeast of killing Amtrak.
For people who say, well, I live a long way from there, what
difference does it make, the financial engine that the Northeast still
is, that provides the funds for so much of what we offer to other
States far from New York, far from West Virginia, far from Boston, far
from the east coast, will be at risk. This is a necessary part of our
financial engine in the Northeast, particularly in New York.
I respectfully request every single Member to vote in your own self-
interests. Vote for passenger rail. Vote for the economic benefits that
it necessarily provides. But vote for the Byrd amendment and make us
once again supportive of passenger rail as part of our overall
transportation infrastructure.
Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague and the Presiding
Officer for this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New
York for her very lucid, cogent, and persuasive statement. And I thank
her for her support of this amendment. I thank her very much.
Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr.
Bennett, is prepared to speak on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from New York
with great interest, and the Senator from West Virginia. If I thought
for one moment that the administration's budget would, in fact, kill
Amtrak or eliminate passenger rail service in the Northeast corridor or
other corridors around the country, where it is prospering, I would be
the first to stand up and oppose the administration's position.
I agree absolutely that rail passenger service in highly congested
areas such as the Northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is not
only important, it is essential. And I agree absolutely with the
statement that says we could not absorb on our highways and our
airplanes the number of passengers that would be forced there if Amtrak
were to disappear.
The Senator from New York spoke about what happened after 9/11, and
she said Amtrak was the only way out of Manhattan. As the bridges were
closed, you could not drive out. The airports were closed. You could
not fly out. You could not walk out. The only way New York City was
connected--Manhattan Island, at least--with the rest of the country was
by train. And it would be an absolute tragedy, it would be absolutely
insane to shut that down. But as I understand the administration's
position, they have no plans to shut that down. Indeed, they are
willing to subsidize, as they have subsidized in the past because of
all of the reasons that have been cited on the Senate floor, that kind
of rail passenger traffic.
But let me take you to another part of the Amtrak system that does
not enjoy the same kind of patronage as the Acela train that goes high
speed from Washington to New York City, and which I have taken with
great satisfaction. Let me take you to my home State of Utah. We have
Amtrak service in Utah.
On one occasion, a family friend notified my wife and me that she was
coming to Salt Lake City on Amtrak and would we meet her train. And we
said: ``Why, of course. We will be happy to meet her train.'' We were a
little less happy when we discovered that the train was arriving at
2:30 in the morning, and that this was its only stop, this was the only
time. There was not an alternative time because the timing of the
trains coming through, 2:30 in the morning was the only time this train
came through Utah.
We went down to the depot or the terminal, and I was a little bit
struck by how shabby it had become through misuse over the years. But
we were there. She came. We met her. I counted the number of people who
got off the train with her, and it was fewer than you could count on
the fingers of your two hands.
There are fewer than 100 people a week that come into that station in
Salt Lake. After 9/11, there would have been no disruption whatsoever
of people traveling in and out of Salt Lake if Amtrak were not there.
That terminal we went to that night was somewhat old and dilapidated
and a bit shabby, but is now refurbished, lovely, big, and disconnected
from Amtrak.
The current Amtrak terminal is a Quonset hut because the real estate
on which the old terminal sat was too valuable and it is part of a
shopping center and real estate development activity. And when that
train comes in to disgorge its two or three passengers per night--and
it is not every night; the schedule only comes through three times a
week--the passengers who get off get off in a Quonset hut. There is no
taxi service there. It is in a part of town that is not easy to walk to
and from. It has fallen into disuse not because the administration has
not been subsidizing it enough, not because Amtrak has not had a big
enough capital budget, but because rail passenger service across very
large numbers of miles between cities that do not naturally connect to
each other simply does not make sense.

[[Page S2697]]

Amtrak in the Northeast corridor makes all the sense in the world,
and we must do everything we can to make sure we preserve it. In the
Cascades there is Amtrak service that makes sense. In California there
is Amtrak service that makes sense. There are a number of places where
Amtrak makes sense, and we must preserve it in those places. The
administration, in this budget, as I understand it, has provided for
$360 million that would go to the Surface Transportation Board that
would be available to reimburse Amtrak in those areas where it needs it
to keep the kind of service that has been described here on the Senate
floor.

Now, I have given this speech before in committee--this is the first
time I have done it on the floor--and every time I do, I get a flurry
of letters. They are all from the same people. And they all object.
Their objections all come down to nostalgia for the rail service that
we all knew when we were young--or at least that I knew when I was
young. I am sure there are many Members of the Senate here who have no
memory of it at all.
I have great memories of rail travel: full trains, dining rooms with
crisp, white linen on them, and silver tea sets and china and long
trips across the country. If you were taking a train trip across the
country from Salt Lake to New York, you better allocate several days
for that. You better take along a pretty good library of books to read.
But you'll love the scenery. Then, you were willing to take the time.
You were willing to relax. It was a wonderful way to travel.
Americans don't like to travel that way anymore. It makes no sense to
kid ourselves that a national railway system similar to the Europeans'
makes sense in the United States. Look at the difference in distances.
The Northeast corridor from Washington to Boston would cover three or
four national frontiers in Europe. You would visit three or four
countries traveling that far in Europe. And it makes tremendous sense
with the high density of population over there for them to have a
national railway system. But when you are dealing with a nation the
size of Belgium, you are dealing with something rather different from a
nation the size of the United States.
Now, I have a particular personal history with this. I was working in
the Department of Transportation in the Nixon administration as the
head of congressional relations. The distinguished Presiding Officer
was the voice on the other end of the phone when I called the White
House, as he was working for Bryce Harlow in charge of congressional
relations. I was not always able to get hold of Bryce Harlow, but I
could always get hold of Lamar Alexander. The decision to shut down
passenger travel as we had known it for close to 100 years in the
United States was made in the Nixon administration, and it was my
responsibility to sell the Congress on the concept of Amtrak. Because
railroads were required by law to maintain passenger traffic on their
whole system, and the railroads were hemorrhaging red ink over this
issue, our Department came up with the idea of creating a single
National Railroad Passenger Corporation. That is the formal name of
Amtrak. Amtrak was the name that was created by the image makers after
the Congress acted.
It was my responsibility, along with my team, to come to the Congress
and convince them that it made sense to shrink rail passenger service
to this skeletal fashion. The outcry was enormous: You can't do that.
Look at the towns that will no longer be served if you shrink it down
to this skeletal system.
I remember one Governor traveled all the way to Washington to protest
to us. And then we pointed out to that particular Governor that the
number of people who got on the trains in his State could be picked up
with chauffeur-driven limousines and driven to the nearest town where
they wanted to go in the name of rail service, and it would cost a
fraction of the amount that was being spent on rail service. When the
Governor looked at the reality of what was really happening and got
away from the nostalgia of passenger rail service, he himself, having
not taken a train in many years, looked at us and said: You know, this
really doesn't make any sense.

One by one, the Governors withdrew their objection to the creation of
what is now Amtrak. We need to have the same kind of understanding here
that brought us to the creation of Amtrak in the first place. There are
parts of the country where Amtrak is essential and must be maintained.
I will be the first Senator to stand here and defend it, and I will be
a Senator from Utah who votes for appropriations for Amtrak for New
Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington State, California,
and other places where it makes some sense. I agree that the Federal
Government should subsidize that if it cannot make it on its own
because it makes a contribution that is essential. But I cannot, under
any condition, defend the expenditures of maintaining a national
network in the name of saying we are connected all over the country
with a set of rails and saying isn't that wonderful that you can get on
the train and go all the way across the country when it is very clear
that nobody wants to in any kind of quantity that makes any kind of
sense.
I will be happy to contribute that portion of Amtrak's budget that
goes to maintain rail service in Utah to the State of New Jersey, where
they need it, and, if necessary, in Utah, we can come up with one bus
per week, which has enough capacity to handle all of the Amtrak
passengers who come through our State.
So for that reason, I am opposed to this amendment, because, in my
view, it is attempting to maintain something that has passed from our
history, actually to the detriment of that which is needed in our
future. Let's get over the nostalgia of the old national railway
system, and let's focus on the need to have an intelligent passenger
railway system in the corridors where it contributes enormously to
cutting down on congestion, pollution, and delay.
For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I urge our fellow
Senators to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator
from North Dakota wish?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am advantaged from having heard twice
today the proposition by the Senator from Utah--once in committee and
now on the floor of the Senate. I always enjoy his presentations. I
confess--and perhaps others will, too--to some nostalgia. We used to
name trains. In my hometown, the train that came through was called the
Galloping Goose. I used to watch that train come in to pick up the
cream cans. I loved the Galloping Goose. I admit to some nostalgia, but
this debate is not about nostalgia.
There is a story about a guy who, in 1896, went to Waco, TX, where a
railroad company was going to destroy a couple of locomotives they were
done using. They decided to put on an extravaganza. They were going to
run the locomotives together, and 40,000 people showed up to watch.
They ran them together in a demonstrated train wreck, and metal flew,
as did sparks and steam and fire.
There was a boy named Joe Connolly--this is a great story about Joe.
He discovered that people would come to watch a train wreck. Joe
Connolly thought, I am going to sponsor train wrecks. He was a guy from
Iowa. He sponsored 71 train wrecks in his career. His last train wreck
was in 1932 at the Iowa State Fair. He built 3,000 feet of track, got
two old locomotives that were about to be abandoned, and ran them
together at 50 miles an hour. He had people pay from miles around to
see the train wreck. They called him ``head-on Joe Connolly'' because
he sponsored 71 train wrecks. What a great story.
You don't have to go to an Iowa State Fair to see a train wreck these
days. You can see it right here in the middle of this budget document.
That is why Senator Byrd is on the floor with his amendment. He says
that Amtrak is worthy, that rail passenger service in this country
ought to be a national enterprise. I fully agree. We will always have
rail passenger service connecting Boston to Florida because there are
millions of people living on that eastern corridor. So that will be

[[Page S2698]]

self-sufficient--rail passenger service on the eastern corridor of the
United States. The question is: Will we be able to maintain a national
rail passenger system? Is it worthy to do so? I believe the answer is
yes. Senator Byrd believes the answer is yes.
We have a train that comes through my part of the country. It goes
from Chicago, up to Minneapolis, over to Fargo, up north all the way to
Seattle, down to Portland. It is called the Empire Builder. It has been
around for decades. When it comes through the State of North Dakota, it
picks up nearly 90,000 people in a year. For them, traveling on the
Empire Builder is not nostalgia, it is necessary. It is one part of a
transportation system in a rural State that doesn't have very many
transportation systems.
We don't have the kind of aviation service, commercial air service,
they have in Chicago, for example. We don't have the bus service they
have in New York. But the fact is, we have Amtrak coming through our
part of the country as part of a national rail passenger service. I
don't object at all to subsidizing it. Every other country in the world
that has rail passenger service subsidizes the service. In fact, we
subsidize every other kind of transportation service in this country,
so why all of a sudden do we decide that somehow rail passenger service
is unworthy of our support?
My colleague from Utah used the term ``mass transit'' this morning
when describing Amtrak. Amtrak is not mass transit. I support mass
transit, and we don't have any in North Dakota. We don't have a subway
in Bismarck or in Fargo, or light rail. I support mass transit because
I believe we ought to do that for the major cities of our country. This
is not mass transit. Amtrak is rail passenger service that has been, in
my judgment, spectacularly successful. Despite that, we have always had
people who want to disband it, take it apart, get rid of it. Why?
Because they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. This
service has great value for our country. The relatively small subsidy
that is required to retain a national rail passenger system is dwarfed
by the subsidies in many other areas of transportation.
I understand why some would apply a profitability test to everything.
I said to my colleague from Utah this morning that my guess is when
they built the four-lane interstate highway system, somebody might have
said there is a segment that we question: from Dickinson, ND, to Beach,
ND, through the western badlands of North Dakota. There are not many
people living there, and there is probably not so much traffic on that
four-lane interstate highway. Or perhaps from Beach, ND, to Miles City,
MT, or Billings--there is not enough traffic out there, not enough
people living there to justify putting in four lanes. You know
something? The country understood this was all about bridges--a bridge
from here to there. So, too, is Amtrak and the Empire Builder a bridge
from here to there. We understand that it stops in my State because it
goes from Chicago to Seattle. It picks up nearly 90,000 people,
including retired people, in the State of North Dakota.
Look, I think this is a bargain by any stretch. I support the Byrd
amendment because I believe it is the right thing for this country to
do.
It is all about choices. It is always, with respect to this budget
when it comes to the floor of the Senate, about choices. I am
absolutely surprised at some of the choices that are made and then very
surprised at some of the issues other people think are unworthy for
this country's enterprise.
Rail passenger service is a service that I think is important to our
country. If one decides that this is all about profit and loss and not
about a national transportation system that includes rail passenger
service than I understand. We will have locomotives, we will have
electric trains, we will have Acela trains running from Boston to
Florida, and God bless them. We will wave at them as they go by, and
good for all of them.
This country can, will, and should do much better and did do much
better a couple of decades ago by creating a system that works. I have
ridden Amtrak many times, and I like riding Amtrak. I hope that when
the dust settles around here, we will have decided, once again, as a
Congress that having a national rail passenger system is worthy.
I know the President believes differently. I had the president and
CEO of Amtrak come into my office. I wanted to talk with him about what
was happening and what was necessary. He made it plain--and I
understood it before he came in--that if the President's recommendation
is adopted, there will simply be no national rail passenger system.
Amtrak, as we know it, will not exist.
That is a choice that perhaps the majority of Congress might want to
make. I hope they will not choose to make that choice, but that is what
the Byrd amendment is about. That is why it is on the floor of the
Senate, and that is why it is important.
I came over to speak on this amendment because I believe an important
part of this country is its transportation system, the ability of
people to move around and to get around, to have access. And one part
of that having a national rail passenger system that works. Yes, it
requires a subsidy, and I believe that is appropriate. I am perfectly
willing to do as every other industrialized country has done, and that
is subsidize rail passenger service. It is not a large subsidy relative
to everything else we do in the Chamber of the Senate.
My hope is, as I said, when the dust settles, we will decide to
reject the recommendations of the President and this Budget Committee
and continue to fund the national rail passenger system.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North
Dakota for his very timely, succinct, and persuasive statement. I thank
him very much for his support of this amendment.
I believe Mr. Corzine wishes to have some time yielded. How much time
does the Senator desire?
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I think it should be about 7 or 8 minutes
at most.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the very able Senator
and look forward to hearing his statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from West
Virginia for his strong leadership in doing something that makes a
statement about an issue that holds our Nation together. I can promise
that it holds New Jersey together. I respect the Senator from Utah
recognizing this is a vital economic, environmental, national defense--
almost any kind of variable one wants to describe--element in New
Jersey's overall transportation system, but I think the point that
needs to be made is that this is really true nationally. Senator Byrd's
$1.4 billion in funding for Amtrak puts it in a position to continue to
be that asset. I wish to speak about that a little bit.
All of us know that the transportation section of the budget that is
before us mirrors President Bush's proposal, a plan that, on its
surface, intends to shut down Amtrak. By the way, it does not do that
with a lot of finesse. It does that across the board, whether it is in
places where people might argue it is absolutely essential in the
Northeast corridor, as well as in those places where maybe it is
nostalgia that is driving it. I would argue that it is in those areas
where we are trying to unite us as a nation.
Without the funding provided in the Byrd amendment, Amtrak will enter
into bankruptcy, and it will be through the bankruptcy actions that
reform is taken as opposed to where it should be, which is in the
committees on the Hill, in the Congress.
Federal funding for Amtrak provides roughly one-third of what is
needed to operate that national transportation system each year. Not
all of it--one-third. It includes addressing pressing capital needs.
The rest comes from ticket revenues and other sources, such as real
estate. Without Federal funding, Amtrak will not be able to operate,
and we will be into bankruptcy/reform under that format. I do not think
that is the way to go. I do not think, if the American people saw it in
such a stark choice mode, they would support it. I hope the Senate will
support the Byrd amendment because it will make a huge difference.

[[Page S2699]]

No other element of our transportation system stands without
subsidization. None. Zero. We are now debating, what is it, a $284
billion--a lot of us like to say it is a lot higher--subsidization of
other elements of our transportation system. I am all for that.
Highways, mass transit. But this is an important linkage for our
economy, it is an important ingredient in protecting our environment,
and it is essential to pulling together the economic strength of this
country. And in times of great need, such as we saw on 9/11, it is also
one of those backstops, one of those redundancies we are now building
in all other kinds of places in our economy. We need to take that and
drive it.
I will say there is much overlap in the Amtrak system with a whole
host of other commuter agencies and activities, other mass transit
systems. I give you an example. In New Jersey, there are about 4
million people who board Amtrak trains every year. Actually, we are
wrong on that number. It is slightly higher. But there are over 100,000
riders of New Jersey Transit every day who use the same rail. Every day
when people go to work in our financial services industry in New York
or whether they go to the various elements of a very diversified
economy in Philadelphia, they get on New Jersey Transit trains that
actually use the same railway.

If Amtrak were to go bankrupt, we are going to be sitting with not
mass transit but mess transit. We are going to have a huge, incredible
outpouring jamming up two of our major cities in this country and all
of that great corridor, the State of New Jersey.
It is just incomprehensible that we do not understand how we have to
take a holistic view of how our transportation system works, and
putting it at risk is just not a credible way to go about reform. That
is why I am so pleased Senator Byrd has taken on this leadership role
with regard to protecting the funding that will protect the 25 million
passengers who ride Amtrak every year and gosh knows how many people
who ride these other transportation systems that feed into it or
parallel it or are on top of the Amtrak system. We really ought to
think about an organized view about how we reform Amtrak as opposed to
the blunderbuss approach of putting it into bankruptcy and using that
as a basis of reform.
There is also another problem with this approach, in my view. The
Presiding Officer might recognize this from his days of trying to lead
a State. Transferring problems from Washington to our States where we
already have huge budget problems does not seem to be an appropriate
format for how we are going to resolve issues. New Jersey Transit,
which I already talked about how important the Amtrak system is for its
functioning, is going to get funding one way or the other. Otherwise,
we are going to have a highway system that is completely clogged. The
quality of life of commuters will deteriorate enormously.
So what is going to happen if this funding for Amtrak does not come
through? Jersey transit fares are going to go up, and the State budgets
that are already deeply in debt are going to have additional burdens
imposed upon them. This is just one more shifting of responsibilities
from the Federal Government here in Washington, decisions that we take,
and pushing them off to State and local governments--in this case, the
State government.

We need to get realistic about the importance of this transportation
system, the importance of making sure that we fund it properly so we
can continue to expand the number of riders that are at this point 25
million--that is up a million, year over year, and a similar amount the
year before--and make sure that intercity rail service has the strength
and the vitality that will allow it to help grow our economy and keep
it thriving and healthy as we go forward. The Byrd amendment would
provide the funding necessary to keep Amtrak out of bankruptcy, keep
our economy flowing, keep our Nation tied together.
By the way, I grew up in one of those small towns in the Midwest
where one of those Wabash Cannonballs came and people got on those
trains and rode to St. Louis and Indianapolis and another train that
went north-south to Chicago. It was an important element in keeping our
Nation tied together. Those of us who live in New Jersey need to
understand that there is an important networking that needs to occur in
this Nation.
I think this Byrd amendment makes that statement about us being one
Nation. It is important for the economics of many of our communities
where there are densely populated areas. It is fundamental to that
transportation system, the economic system, the environmental system.
Let me say I think it is important for national security.
I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment and let's move
forward with real reform. Let's not do it through bankruptcy.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1\1/
2\ hours for debate on the Amtrack amendment this evening, with the
understanding that the debate began at 5:10, with 60 minutes under the
control of the minority and 30 minutes allocated to the majority;
provided further that following that debate the Senate proceed to the
consideration of the ANWR amendment to be offered by Senator Reid, or
his designee, and that there be 2 hours for debate this evening equally
divided in the usual form. I ask unanimous consent that following that
debate there be 1 hour of debate in relation to an amendment relating
to veterans to be offered by the minority.
I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes
consideration of the budget on Wednesday that Senator Feinstein be
recognized to speak 20 minutes; provided further that following that
debate, the Senate proceed to an additional 90 minutes of debate
equally divided in the usual form in relationship to the ANWR
amendment; provided further that the Senate will then have 45 minutes
equally divided for debate relative to a further amendment on veterans
to be offered by Senator Gregg or his designee, and the previously
offered amendment on veterans.
I also ask unanimous consent that following that debate the Senate
proceed to an amendment offered by Senator Specter relative to NIH, and
there be 45 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form.
I finally ask unanimous consent that following that debate the Senate
proceed to vote in relationship to the pending Amtrak amendment, to be
followed by a vote in relation to the ANWR amendment, with no
amendments in order to either of those amendments prior to the votes.
I further ask that at the end of the time running this evening
relative to the veterans amendment, that Senator Harkin be recognized
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I might say to the chairman of the
committee, we also are trying to slot additional votes, if we can make
that clear to our colleagues, and the votes would start at about 1
o'clock tomorrow afternoon. We are hoping to have five votes lined up
at that time. I think it is important to say that for planning purposes
of our colleagues. That is the intention of the managers of this bill.
We would slot these times, as has been indicated in the agreement. That
intention would be, in addition to the two votes on Amtrak and ANWR,
there would be two votes on veterans and a vote on NIH starting at 1
o'clock tomorrow.
That is the intention. It is not fully spelled out in this agreement
because we do not have language on those amendments at this time. But
for the information of our colleagues, that is the intention of the
managers.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. That is our
intention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the two managers would be willing to
put the 1 o'clock beginning of the votes into a unanimous consent
request so that we can depend on that hour.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I amend the request to reflect the fact
that the votes cited in the request would begin at 1 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.

[[Page S2700]]

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators
Levin, Biden, and Chafee be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his
statement. I yield such time as he may wish to have--I understand he
wants about 10 minutes--to the very distinguished Senator, Mr.
Lautenberg.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, who has long been an advocate and supporter
for Amtrak. It is so fitting that he rises at this point in time to say
let's face up to this. We need more money. To do anything that would
eliminate funding and practically assure bankruptcy, which we have just
dealt with in a long debate, for this important national facility--I
look at what is being proposed, and it is a surprise, in view of our
need for better security, for a balance in the modes of transportation,
which we desperately need.
In the last couple of weeks I have met with railroad people, freight
railroad people. I met with aviation people. We had the heads of these
companies, the CEOs in, talking to us about what their needs were and
how they needed more money to finance their expansion to keep up with
their demand.
When it comes to Amtrak, there is not really the support that there
ought to be. This is a national facility, call it what you will. We
talk about the Northeast corridor, but that is not the whole ball game
because the Northeast corridor depends on its operation being part of
the whole infrastructure of a rail system.
I refer to a piece I authored not too long ago. I start saying:

Imagine hundreds of thousands more cars on our crowded
highways, more hours stuck in traffic jams, more travelers in
our busy airports, more oil imported from the Middle East.

One cannot be in one location in this country or another without
understanding that traffic jams are more the norm, and we have to do
whatever we can to relieve that congestion, to relieve ourselves from
the pollution that emits from all that traffic, cars sitting one behind
the other.
If that is what we want to see, then here we are, looking at the
closing of Amtrak. It is a pretty grim future for millions of
Americans, under the proposal made by President Bush. This
irresponsible plan would stop our Nation's passenger rail system dead
in its tracks. The Bush administration wants to eliminate all Federal
funding for Amtrak, bankrupt our Nation's national passenger rail
system, and shift more of the cost of new service toward cash-strapped
States.
My colleague, the senior Senator from New Jersey, just talked about
that and the impact it would have. The administration wants to
eliminate all Federal funding. It would be a disaster. The shortsighted
proposal would strand 850,000 commuters who depend on Amtrak and its
services to get to work each and every day. It would worsen congestion,
as I said, on our roads and in our skies.
Anybody who stays abreast of what is happening in our transportation
system knows that we have closed the gap, the distances between
airplanes, because there are too many out there under the old system. I
am not suggesting it is not safe or anything of that nature, but the
fact is we are putting it into overload. It is hard to get more
airplanes up there. The sky, surprising to some, is a finite facility
and we cannot keep putting more airplanes up there.

The impact in New Jersey and the New York metropolitan area would be
devastating, where so much of our financial well-being develops, the
marketplace and whatever. The heaviest population in the country is in
my home State of New Jersey, and it spreads through the other States
nearby, whether it is New York or Connecticut or Pennsylvania. Amtrak
carries 4 million passengers a year in the New York metropolitan area,
and it is the lifeline of our transportation system.
Instead of killing Amtrak, we should help provide the kind of top
quality passenger rail system our country needs and deserves. We have
never been willing to do that. We have never put the funds in it
needed, from the point in time in the early 1970s when Amtrak became a
quasi-government organization. We have never put the funding in there
to bring this up to the kind of system that should be operating.
Go to Brussels, Belgium, where the NATO headquarters exists. Try to
get to Paris, about 200 miles away. You cannot get an airplane to take
that trip. You get into a train in the middle of town and a hour and 20
minutes later you are in Paris, 200 miles away. If we had that kind of
service in some of these heavily crowded corridors, not just the
Northeast corridor but from Chicago to St. Louis, for example, from Las
Vegas, NV, to Los Angeles, some of these other places--if we could get
high-speed rail there we could substantially reduce the number of
airplanes that fill our skies. We could save money, save pollution,
save congestion, and do ourselves a good service.
Since the Federal Government created Amtrak 34 years ago to relieve
the private railroads of passenger service, we have invested less than
$1 billion a year in infrastructure and operations, not nearly enough
for a world-class system. Germany, with its modern high-speed rail
system, and where the President recently visited, invested $9 billion
in passenger rail service in 2003 alone. Even Estonia spends more than
twice per capita than United States on passenger rail.
Americans need a world-class rail system and Amtrak has been working
hard to provide it. Over the last 2 years, Amtrak has cut its costs
significantly, trimmed its staff by 20 percent, increased the number of
trains by 20 percent, and launched a multiyear plan to repair long-
neglected infrastructure needs.
Amtrak ridership, by the way, reached a record 25 million persons in
2004; the equivalent of 125,000 fully booked 757 airplanes.
More Americans are taking the train not only out of necessity but
because they appreciate the kind of service and comfort that Amtrak can
provide.
The tragic events of 9/11--I remember the day vividly from the
apartment I live in on the Hudson River. It is practically right across
from the World Trade Center. When we witnessed this catastrophe taking
place, we thought about what the consequences might be; what might
happen the next day, the day after or the year after. Aviation, much to
our surprise and regrettably, was shut down completely. And Amtrak was
the facility that people had to use to get from Washington. A special
train was set up to carry people from Congress up to New York to get
some idea as to what took place.
We were reminded that we couldn't rely exclusively on airlines
because this country's commercial aviation system was totally shut
down. Amtrak trains kept running and carried many stranded airline
passengers back to their families, to their great anxiety and concern.
Amtrak provided a spectacular service in those days.
Today, everybody knows that when you go to the airport there are long
lines because of security searches, making rail travel, or any kind of
travel, an increasingly attractive option, but not automobile traffic.
On a personal note of experience, the other day I left our office in
the Hart Building and headed for Washington's Reagan National Airport.
It took us almost an hour to arrive at the airport. Then we got to the
security line, and that was over a half-hour long.
If we totaled the time, excluding the flight time of the first one I
missed and the waiting time for the second one that I had to catch, it
would easily have been longer than it would have taken by rail.
If we could do for rail what we know is being done in other countries
and shorten the ride between here and, let's say, Newark or New York to
a 2-hour ride, we would relieve our skies, we would relieve our
highways of all kinds of congestion, pollution--you name it--and cost.
But we have never made the investment.
All transportation infrastructure costs money, including highways and
airports, and States cannot bear the cost.
But while the Bush administration proposes $50 billion in Federal
funds for

[[Page S2701]]

highways and airports this year--over $50 billion--there is not one
dime reserved for inner-city passenger rail infrastructure. It is a
crime not to do that.
Even though there is no money in the budget, the Bush administration
promises to pay half the cost of future rail infrastructure projects.
But the Federal Government currently picks up 80 percent of the cost
for highways and airport infrastructure.
Since 1982, we have spent $696 billion on highways and aviation
compared to $21.5 billion on rail. We have to level this playing field
to make rail more competitive. It is a vital asset for our country.
Even in the more remote communities serviced by rail, I know in
conversation with colleagues they appreciate the service they get.
We need to help Amtrak improve service on its existing viable routes
and expand to other markets where travelers deserve a choice. Instead,
the Bush administration wants to leave the passengers stranded with its
own version of what the rail passenger asset should look like.
In quick summary, we make a terrible mistake to turn our back on
something as vital as intercity rail service. I hope we are not going
to let it stand as it is presently projected. The Senator from West
Virginia has proposed slightly over $1 billion to be added to the $360
million the President has proposed for traffic service that will give
us a start on what we have to do to finally put Amtrak in the kind of
condition that can develop the technology we see in so many other
places, rapid transportation, and avoid having all of us line up at the
airports and on the highways and wait anxiously to see when our turn
will come to take our seat and start our travel.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Who yields time?
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I start by asking unanimous consent
Senator Inouye's name be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I start today by going back in time to the
first time I ever rode a train. I was about 6 or 7 years old, visiting
my grandparents in Beaver, WV, a bedroom community outside of Beckley,
WV. The fellow who had been the delegate in the West Virginia
legislature for Raleigh County, WV, which is where my grandparents
lived and where I was born, was Robert Byrd. By that time he had left
the West Virginia legislature and was serving in the Senate after
having served in the House.
The first time I ever rode a train was a B&O Railroad train that
stopped in front of my grandparents' house and picked me and my sister
up and drove a couple hundred yards on a train of which my grandfather
was a crew member.
It is ironic that some 50 years later I stand in the Senate to
support the amendment offered by Senator Byrd to support continuing
passenger rail service. He is literally from the same place I was born.
My first personal experience in riding a train goes back to his old
representative district and certainly his Senate district. I say to
Senator Byrd, thank you very much for the leadership you have shown for
bringing us to the Senate today to express our support for passenger
rail service in the 21st century.
Fast forward a little bit to 1970. I was a naval flight officer on my
first couple of tours in Southeast Asia. I remember picking up one day
a Newsweek or Time and reading that somebody in the Congress had worked
with the Nixon administration to create a passenger rail service for
our country. At the time, the private railroads could not make money
carrying people. They wanted to be relieved of that responsibility and
only carry commodities, not people, from place to place in this
country. An agreement was struck whereby if the for-profit private
railroads would contribute their old rolling stock, their old
locomotives, their old passenger cars, their old dining cars, and old
track bed from Washington to Boston, overhead wires and old signaling
system, old repair shops and old terminals, and kick in a little bit of
money on top of that, we would somehow come up with a new passenger
rail service called Amtrak.

After that couple of years and a couple of years of subsidy from the
Federal Government, this new entity called Amtrak would start making
money, something the private sector cannot do in carrying people. A
couple years went by, and after running those old trains on the old
tracks, with the old overhead rail wire and the old maintenance shop
and the old signalling system and not a whole lot of Federal support to
improve the capital infrastructure, Amtrak didn't make money.
If you look across the world at countries where they invest a lot of
money in their passenger rail system, they don't make money either.
They don't pay for the full cost of their passenger systems out of the
fare box any more than we have been able to do.
Since 1970, passenger rail service, intercity passenger rail service
in this country has been starved for capital. Railroads are inherently
capital intensive. Passenger rail, as freight rail, needs significant
capital investments and we have literally starved Amtrak for capital
investments since its creation. And that continues today.
What has changed since 1970? Among the things that have changed, we
import a lot more oil today. I don't recall exactly what we were
importing as a percentage of consumption in 1970. It was not much. This
year almost 60 percent of the oil we use in America will come from
places outside the United States.
Our trade deficit in 1970 was not much at all. We were pretty much in
balance. In the month of January of this year, our trade deficit
reached about $60 billion in 1 month. Back to 1990, that is twice our
trade deficit in 1990, and a quarter of our trade deficit each month
and year is attributed to oil imports. One of the things that changed
since 1970 is a greater trade deficit and greater dependence on foreign
oil.
What else? Congestion on our roads and in our airports. Today, riding
down I-95 to catch the train to come down here, bumper-to-bumper
traffic. I-95 was a parking lot through Delaware. And that is not the
only interstate highway that was a parking lot this morning or this
afternoon. The same is true of roads across our country. The same is
true of airports across our country.
What else is the difference from 1970? The quality of air is a little
bit better. Not as good as it can be and not as good as it would be if
we got more people to get out of their cars and take transit.
The other thing that is different, 25 million people rode intercity
passenger rail in this country last year. That is not commuters; that
is people who rode Amtrak. That is the highest number we have ever seen
in the last 35 years.
My friends, if we try to cobble up enough money for Amtrak to live
another year and run the old business model we have worked with for a
number of years, that is not good enough. We shouldn't do it. I don't
know if the administration is serious about trying to force Amtrak into
bankruptcy, but I would suggest we go down two tracks. I suggest one
track we go down, we adopt the amendment to provide a reasonable amount
of money to run the trains in the Northeast corridor and across the
country, but also do the necessary work that is needed under a 5-year
capital investment plan to fix tracks, fix overhead wires, and fix
signaling systems, and be able to run the trains to their capacity and
on time.
At the same time we do that, we need to have a debate and a good
robust discussion on what the future of passenger rail service should
be in this country. I am not sure exactly what the future business
model for Amtrak ought to be, but I suggest that it include a couple of
these things: One, a focus on providing high-speed passenger rail
service in distantly populated corridors, not only in the Northeast
corridor from New York to Boston, but densely populated corridors in
the Southeast, the west coast, hubs from Chicago. There are corridors
we could exploit for passenger rail where folks travel 200 or 300 or
400 miles.
Today, another thing that is different from 1970 is that 75 percent
of the people in America live within 50 miles of one of our coasts.
Think about that. Seventy-five percent of the people in America today
live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. There are all kinds of
densely populated quarters that could be well served by intercity
passenger rail.

[[Page S2702]]

Another aspect of the business model, aside from developing high-
speed rail service in densely populated quarters, can be what I call
trains that people pay a premium to ride because they like to ride
them, because it is a neat thing to do, because it is convenient.
The Auto Train. People get on the Auto Train. They got on it about an
hour ago, just south of Washington, DC. They pay a lot of money to ride
a train down to Orlando, FL. They have great food on the train, watch
movies, sleep on the train. It is a nice train, modern and convenient.
They will get off tomorrow morning near Orlando, FL, and have their
cars right there with them to go wherever they want to go. There are
trains out on the west coast--Pacific Starlight--where people will pay
extra money just for the beauty of the ride. Some trains across the
great northern part of this country are the same.
Amtrak can make money actually running some of those trains. Amtrak
can make money carrying people in a high-speed Acela Express in the
Northeast corridor. Amtrak can make money carrying the mail. Amtrak can
make money renting the Northeast corridor to freight for their uses, to
rent out part of the right-of-way to the folks who want to run other
kinds of information through the right-of-way.
Those are some elements of a business plan that I think might make
some sense for passenger rail in the 21st century. Freight railroads
need to be a part of that. We need to be investing in the freight
railroads as well.
The last thing I will say is this. Senator Schumer is here to comment
as well. I will finish and add this comment. A friend of mine, a senior
official in the Bush administration, said to me a couple years ago,
knowing of my interest in passenger rail service, that we should follow
the airline model. With passenger rail service, we should do the same
kind of model we follow with respect to the airlines. And I said, with
tongue in cheek: Does that mean we ought to follow the Pan Am model?
Should we follow the Eastern Airlines model? Should we follow Braniff?
Should we follow U.S. Air? Should we follow United? Is that the model
we should follow into bankruptcy, because they have all gone bankrupt?
And now the administration is suggesting a path that will lead to
bankruptcy for Amtrak. The Surface Transportation Board, if they were
given $300 million--they can't run the Northeast corridor. That is not
their ability. That is not their talent.
This does not make sense. What does make sense is going forward on
two tracks. I would suggest we adopt this amendment and we
simultaneously have a full and robust and rich debate on this floor and
in committees and elsewhere to decide what 21st century passenger rail
service ought to be in this Nation.
Last word. In a country where almost 60 percent of the oil we are
using in this year comes from other places around the world, where,
frankly, a lot of people don't like us, and I am convinced they take
our money to hurt us, keep this in mind: To carry 1 ton of freight by
rail from Washington DC, to Boston, MA, uses 1 gallon of diesel fuel.
Let me say that again. To carry 1 ton of freight by rail from
Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, takes 1 gallon of diesel fuel. In a
country that is awash in foreign oil and that has huge trade deficits,
a lot of which are attributable to our dependency on foreign oil, we
are foolish to ignore that reality.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate my good friend from Georgia recognizing me.
I am here to rise in strong support of the Byrd amendment. First, I
thank our leader and our colleague and friend, Senator Robert C. Byrd,
for offering this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this
amendment. It is one of the most vital amendments we will vote on this
week in terms of the budget. Much has already been said, but I just
want to add my voice to the importance of Amtrak.
If you live in the Northeast, if you live in New York State, you know
how important Amtrak is, not only the train that goes from Boston to
New York and then to Washington, but the line that goes from New York
City to Albany and then to Montreal.
For the capital region of Albany, for over a million people, Amtrak
is the No. 1 way to get to nearby cities, the route that goes from
Buffalo across to Albany and then to Boston. All of them are well
traveled and well used and meet any national test in terms of
transportation. In New York, 10 million New Yorkers use Amtrak, and
large numbers of people depend on Amtrak.
This affects all of America. I know it has been said before, but let
me say it again. If we were to close Amtrak, and in our most densely
populated area, the Northeast corridor, people used planes only, you
would have congestion in New York City, in Boston, in Philadelphia, in
Washington. It you lived, say, in Chicago or Los Angeles, or
Albuquerque, you may say: What do I care? The reason is, once the
traffic backs up on the east coast corridor, it then backs up to
Cleveland, to Detroit, to Chicago, and down to Dallas, and all the way
to California. We would choke not only our rail system, which is
probably the intention of the amendment, but we would choke our entire
transportation system. The roads, densely populated by trucks and cars
already, would become more crowded. That means traffic jams would
increase. That means pollution would increase. That means time per
worker to get something done, efficiency and productivity, would go
down. As I mentioned, our air service would become a total mess. So for
the relatively small subsidy that Amtrak gets, it keeps our
transportation system in the whole country humming.
Europe does not have the kind of delays--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Western Europe is about the only place as crowded and uses as much
transportation as the United States. But the delays at the airports are
so much lower. Why? Because they have a well, efficient, and subsidized
system of rail. You go from London to Paris, you take the Chunnel
train. You go from Paris to Lyon or Frankfurt, you take the Train a
Grand Vitesse. It is just ridiculous that we are thinking of cutting it
here.
Now, if you say we are against subsidies, well, agricultural
subsidies are a similar subsidy. And there is sort of a balance.
Believe me, my State, particularly now with the new laws we passed for
dairy and apples, benefits from agriculture subsidies. They are cut 5
percent. Amtrak is eliminated. Why is that? If you are against
subsidies, you are against subsidies.

I would urge the President and the people supporting this budget: OK,
cut Amtrak 5 percent like you cut agriculture. Maybe together we can
fight to restore even that 5 percent. But it is not a question of
subsidy.
Then we get boxed in. People talk about: Well, what about the trains
that are hardly used that go through large swatches of the country
where they are not used? Well, the bottom line is, people from areas
where Amtrak is heavily used depend on the votes of some of those
folks. If we could get a guarantee from the White House and from this
body that only in the areas where Amtrak is highly used we would
continue to support it, and eliminate the rest, that is something to
consider. But they do a ``beggar thy neighbor'' argument. They say: Cut
the subsidies out West or in the South, and then we will not support
Amtrak anywhere. And that gives us virtually no support. It is
untenable and it is unfair.
One other issue. It affects my city, and that is the issue of
terrorism. After 9/11 our airspace was shut down, but New York was not
closed to the rest of the country because we had Amtrak. God forbid
another terrorist incident occurs. Let's say, God forbid, somebody uses
MANPAD shoulder-held missiles and shoots down planes in 20 places in
the United States of America. Again, God forbid, if we did not have a
rail system, this country would come to a screeching halt. So after 9/
11, the rationale is even more important than it was before 9/11. And
the whole idea we will send Amtrak into bankruptcy and then we will fix
it will cause chaos--

[[Page S2703]]

chaos in New York, chaos in the Northeast, chaos in America.
This is no way to run a country. This is no way to run a
transportation system. No business man or woman who knows how to get
things done would make this kind of proposal. I think what we find with
this proposal is what we find with a lot of things these days: a small
band of ideologues who really do not look at practicalities. Ideologues
of the right, ideologues of the left--they have all their genius given
to them directly from the heavens, and they do not look at
practicalities.
These ideologues say: Amtrak, subsidy, bad. And then, because Amtrak
has less political support, people go along. Are we cutting the subsidy
for roads? Are we cutting the subsidy for airports? The same ideologues
say those are bad, too. But we are in the anomalous position where we
are caught between the ideologues on the one hand and the practicality
of political support on the other, and we get stuck. There is no
consistency, no practicality, no understanding of the need of a modern
nation.
So I hope we will vote for Senator Byrd's amendment. Will it take
Amtrak to great new heights? No. Will it allow it to continue and grow?
Yes. With the changes made by Mr. Gunn, who everybody understands is an
excellent manager and who doesn't like to waste a nickel, we can make
Amtrak better.
I hope that on this amendment, instead of the knee-jerk reaction to
vote down all amendments, which we have seen a lot, people will look at
the amendment and at the consequences of doing what is in the budget,
and I hope we will support the Byrd amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleagues from New York and Delaware.
Many believe Amtrak is a critical service for the northeastern
corridor. Amtrak is an important passenger rail service for the
Midwest. In my State of Illinois, we have three different Amtrak lines
that are vitally important to my State. Each year, about 3 million
passengers ride Amtrak in the State of Illinois. They are young and
old, many college students.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Again, there are 3 million passengers a year in Illinois
that include the young and old who ride Amtrak for a variety of
reasons. I live in the State capital. State employees go back and forth
on the trains from Springfield to Chicago. A lot of baseball fans
heading up to see the Cubs and Sox and the Cardinals down in St. Louis
ride on Amtrak. During a school year, you cannot board an Amtrak train
without finding scores of students going to Southern Illinois
University, University of Illinois, Illinois State University, or
Quincy University. It is a critical service for our State. Two-thousand
people in my State work on Amtrak.
If the administration has its way and closes down Amtrak, as
Secretary Mineta and the President have suggested, or threatened, it is
going to have a devastating impact on Illinois. What happens when the
Amtrak trains go away? If they do--and I hope it never happens--if they
do, the answer is obvious: more cars on the highway.

Who in the world thinks that is the answer to America's
transportation future? Right now, communities across Illinois are
begging me for more money to widen and build highways because already
the congestion is out of control. Now comes the discussion of
eliminating national passenger service, so 3 million train passengers
in Illinois will be in a car--or maybe 1\1/2\ million if 2 people ride
together--adding to the congestion, adding to the pollution, adding to
more dependence on foreign oil.
What is this White House thinking? Instead of walking away from
Amtrak, this administration and other administrations should walk
toward Amtrak, realizing that it is one of the key elements of
transportation in America.
We don't think twice about subsidizing highway transportation--trucks
and cars. We do it all the time by building these highways and bridges
that we are going to need. We don't think twice about subsidizing
airlines in this country. We do it, and I voted for it because airline
travel is critically important to our economy. Why in the world do we
draw the line when it comes to this rail service and say this is an
anachronism that would not work and should not have a penny of subsidy,
that if it takes a subsidy, we should do away with it? That is
shortsighted.
It is not surprising to me that a President from the State of Texas,
with limited Amtrak service, doesn't appreciate what Amtrak means to
many States. In Illinois, our State contributes $12 million a year to
Amtrak. That is the State subsidy to Amtrak, which I think is a
demonstration of their good will to keep Amtrak running--about 90
percent of the operating costs for the three routes I mentioned
earlier, and more than $70 million over the last decade, in addition to
a quarter of the cost of the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. Illinois,
despite a big deficit, is willing to pay its fair share. Should the
Federal Government not be willing to do the same?
Secretary Mineta is a friend of mine; we served in the House
together. He came to Chicago recently and said: I want to make it
clear, we don't want to close down Amtrak. If we wanted to do that, we
would do nothing. That means no subsidy. Amtrak would go away with no
subsidy. We should work to improve Amtrak. They have made great
progress over the last several years. But capital investments in Amtrak
today mean better, more reliable service, faster trains, more people
using the trains, and fewer people on the highways. Walking away from
Amtrak will not achieve that goal.
I hope we can put together a bipartisan coalition to support Senator
Byrd and the amendment he is offering on behalf of Amtrak. I think the
Senator from West Virginia and the bipartisan group that supports
Amtrak are going to keep this service in place so we can make certain
that the millions of people in Illinois and across the U.S. will
continue to find Amtrak a reliable train service.
Mr. President, at this point, if I am not mistaken, unanimous consent
suggests that we are moving to a discussion or debate on the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is time remaining on this amendment
under the control of the majority.
Mr. DURBIN. Of the majority?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, 17 minutes by the majority.
Mr. DURBIN. On the Amtrak amendment. Is there time remaining on the
minority side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield back all the time I have remaining to the
Chair in the hopes of speeding up this debate and bringing it to a
prompt conclusion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, let me repeat what I said earlier. As I
have listened to my friends talk about this amendment, I know of no one
on this side who wants to shut down Amtrak. I know of no one in the
administration who wants to destroy Amtrak. I know of no one who thinks
that it would make sense to stop running trains in those corridors
where people depend upon them for their daily activities. I hear all of
the doomsday talk. I dismiss it because I don't know of anybody who is
planning to do the terrible things they are accused of.
I do want to respond to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, on
one comment he made about the necessity for keeping a national rail
system. He said, if we don't keep running trains in all of these States
that don't have big population centers, that depend upon Amtrak the way
New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania do, we will lose their
political support.
Apparently, he didn't hear what I had to say, so I will repeat it. I
am a Senator from Utah who supports Amtrak, who believes it is
essential for the Nation to have Amtrak in the Northeast corridor and
other heavily populated areas. I would be glad to donate to Amtrak the
cost of running a train through Utah or running several trains through
Utah. I am not going to disappoint many of my constituents because they
don't ride the trains. I am

[[Page S2704]]

not so parochial as to say that the only reason I would support Amtrak
is because there is a train in my State. When I look at the number of
people who are on the train, I look at the number of people who use the
train, I realize that a train in my State is a waste of money. A train
in my State makes no sense. I have watched the service shrink, as I
said before, with the number of people who ride it. I have watched the
terminal go from a large terminal that had great nostalgia and history
down to a smaller one, to a corner of that one, until today it is quite
literally a Quonset hut. Because there are so few people going through
it, there is so little use of it that you want to conserve as much
money as you can in the capital structure that supports it.

So let us not say that the reason we have to maintain the fiction of
a national railway system is for political support that can support the
areas where the railway system is really needed. Let's give those of us
who come from other States enough credit of being smart enough to
realize that shutting down Amtrak in the Northeast corridor would be a
stupid thing to do, but keeping Amtrak running across areas of the
country bigger than the areas across Europe all by themselves, where
nobody uses the service, is also a stupid thing to do.
This is not an all-or-nothing discussion. This is not a debate
between killing Amtrak and putting 15 million people on the Northeast
corridor on the highways or keeping rail service available all across
the Nation. This is a question of saying after 30 years of watching the
subsidies fail to produce a system that makes sense, it is time to
redraw the nature of the system. And this is the administration's way
of getting our attention.
If, in fact, we find out during the appropriations process that the
administration wants to kill Amtrak, that the administration really
wants to destroy service in the Northeast corridor, I will be the first
to come to the floor and stand with my friends from New Jersey, New
York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland and say this is a stupid
thing to do. And I will vote for appropriations, I will vote for
subsidies for Amtrak in those areas, as I always have. But do not
assume the reason I always have is because there is a train running
through my State. Indeed, I have always voted in that fashion saying
that you ought to get rid of the train that is running through my State
so that you have more money available to solve the problems in the
Northeast corridor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time we have
to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the
funding for Amtrak. I have joined Senator Byrd on the Byrd-Specter
amendment to provide $1.4 billion for Amtrak which is, in my judgment,
absolutely essential for the welfare of the United States of America.
The hallmark of an industrial society is having urban transportation.
The Amtrak issue has been before the Congress virtually every year
since I was elected in 1980. I recall one of the early meetings in the
office of Senator Howard Baker, who was then the majority leader, where
Amtrak had been zeroed out. In those days, it was funded between $600
million and $700 million. We were discussing the issue with David
Stockman, who was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
His argument was Amtrak will go to bankruptcy and the line between
Boston and Washington would be saved.
It seemed to me there would be enormous problems. You would not be
able to land at National Airport, now Reagan Airport, and get through
the Baltimore tunnel. We were able to save Amtrak. We have saved Amtrak
in every year.
There is an enormous amount of work which needs to be done on
Amtrak's infrastructure, fleet, and equipment. Amtrak is setting record
ridership, and as the congestion of our airports and highways continues
to increase, it would be a grave mistake to cut back.
On February 10 of this year, 35 Senators, including 8 Republicans,
wrote to Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad expressing our deep
concern regarding the President's proposed elimination of Amtrak
funding in the 2006 budget proposal and setting forth in detail the
reasons Amtrak should be funded.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to Chairman
Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, February 10, 2005.
Hon. Judd Gregg,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC
Hon. Kent Conrad,
Ranking Member, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad: We are writing to
express our deep concern regarding the President's proposed
elimination of funding Amtrak in his 2006 Budget proposal. At
a time when Amtrak is setting ridership records and as
congestion at our airports and on the highways continues to
increase, we believe it would be a grave mistake to cut the
essential federal funds that keep Amtrak operating. Without
such funds or other intervening action, Amtrak would quickly
enter bankruptcy and shutdown of all Amtrak services, leaving
millions of riders and thousands of communities without
access to the essential and convenient transportation that
Amtrak provides.
Therefore, we ask that you provide sufficient funding in
the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution to sustain Amtrak's
national network of passenger rail service. Amtrak's 5-year
Strategic Plan, which was approved by Amtrak's Board of
Directors on June 10, 2004, specifies that approximately $1.8
billion will be required for fiscal year 2006 to provide safe
and efficient operation of the railroad. In addition, the
most recent reauthorization proposal from the Administration
would require a funding level of at least $1.5 billion for
fiscal year 2006, according to the Department of
Transportation Inspector General.
Where Amtrak service is available, Americans ride the train
and are doing so in record numbers. Despite a sluggish
domestic travel industry. Amtrak carried more than 25 million
passengers nationwide. If Amtrak had the same opportunity to
receive Federal infrastructure investments as highway and
aviation interests, with a federal match comparable to funds
available to those modes of transportation, many more
communities would avail themselves of passenger rail service.
Amtrak has made real progress reforming itself over the
last few years by reducing its operating costs to help fund
needed capital improvements. Over the last 30 months, Amtrak
CEO and President David Gunn has cut operating costs, reduced
the employee headcount from slightly less than 25,000 to just
under 20,000 employees, has increased the number of trains it
operates by 20%, and implemented internal reforms designed to
control costs and improve efficiencies. Amtrak's core
operating expenses are now less than they were in 2000.
There is an enormous amount of work needed on the
infrastructure, fleet and equipment Amtrak owns and operates.
Amtrak cannot continue to defer this important work
without jeopardizing safety and reliability of its
operations or putting at risk service that is relied on by
hundreds of thousands of commuter and intercity passengers
each day.
Please consider our request for adequate funding for Amtrak
in preparing the FY 2006 Budget Resolution.
Sincerely,
Conrad Burns,
Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Arlen Specter,
Lincoln Chafee,
Charles Schumer,
Jon S. Corzine,
Byron L. Dorgan,
Ron Wyden,
Frank R. Lautenberg,
Max Baucus,
Joe Biden,
Paul Sarbanes,
Herb Kohl,
Joe Lieberman,
Barbara H. Mikulski,
Norm Coleman,
Tom Carper,
Barbara Boxer,
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Patrick Leahy,
Dick Durbin,
Rick Santorum,
Susan Collins,
Evan Bayh,
Mark Dayton,
John F. Kerry,
Jay Rockefeller,
Jack Reed,
Chris Dodd,
Ted Kennedy,
Olympia Snowe,
Jim Jeffords,
Barack Obama,
Carl Levin,
Debbie Stabenow.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support adequate
funding for Amtrak. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

[[Page S2705]]

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Byrd for standing up
for the future of our Nation's national passenger rail service system
with this amendment.
For the past 4 years, this administration has acted in a thoroughly
cynical way on Amtrak. Each year they have requested less funding than
the railroad needs to operate and improve its services, and then they
pillory Amtrak when it falls short of truly impossible goals.
David Gunn, the CEO of Amtrak since 2003, has stated numerous times
to Congress and administration officials that to put Amtrak on solid
financial footing and increase ridership, key capital improvements are
desperately needed, and would cost an estimated $1.8 billion a year.
In fact, Amtrak's 5-year strategic plan calls for $1.8 billion this
year, but the Bush administration simply refuses to request it from
Congress, because they are bent on destroying the railroad.
Compared to the railroad investments made by our major economic
competitors like Japan and Germany--each of which invests nearly 20
percent of its total transportation budget on rail or between $3-4
billion each year--Mr. Gunn's request for $1.8 billion--or 2 percent of
the Federal Government's transportation budget--doesn't seem
outrageous.
Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving over 500 stations
in 46 States. It has over 22,000 miles of track and 20,000 employees.
Amtrak's request for $1.8 billion doesn't even come close to rivaling
the amount the Federal Government spends on highways and air travel.
Last year, we invested $34 billion for highways, and provided airlines
with $14 billion to subsidize air travel.
Yet despite Amtrak's clear and compelling needs, the administration
has proposed only $900 million in each of the past 2 years, forcing
Congress to scramble to provide a ``barebones'' budget of $1.2 billion
needed to prevent the railroad from shutting down.
As a result, instead of being able to focus on a long-range plan of
restructuring and reform, Amtrak has been forced into a permanent plan
of crisis management.
They have been forced into accepting short-sighted capital investment
deferrals and bookmaking wizardry simply to keep the railroad afloat.
They haven't had any choice, and they are barely holding on.
As anyone in the transportation industry will testify, repairs
delayed only become more costly in the future. Yet that is what Amtrak
has been forced to do because of chronic underinvestment.
Despite these hardships, Mr. Gunn and his Amtrak team have had some
successes, and we should acknowledge them.
First, they were able to increase ridership by 4 percent during
fiscal year 2004, for a total ridership of over 25 million nationwide.
In addition, measured against domestic airlines, Amtrak has moved
into 8th place in total ridership and 1st place in terms of on-time
performance.
After undermining Amtrak's efforts to make critical capital
investments and improve services in recent years, the administration
now simply proposes to eliminate funding altogether.
In fact, the administration's budget itself advises that Amtrak will
be forced into bankruptcy, and some sort of restructuring will take
place.
What we see again and again from this administration is the call for
reform, without the resources to achieve it. It doesn't work in
education, and it won't work with the Nation's passenger rail system.
If the administration's plan--bankruptcy were--to happen, all of
Amtrak's assets its stations, its track, its railroad cars, its
locomotives--will be sold at fire-sale prices to pay off its creditors.
Among the assets that could be permanently removed from the Nation's
transportation network are:
2,141 railroad cars; 425 locomotives; 20 high-speed train sets; 97
miles of high speed track in Michigan; 62 miles of track between
Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, MA; 104 miles of high speed
track in Pennsylvania; and the 363 miles of Northeast Corridor track
connecting Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
Make no mistake, if these assets are pulled from the Nation's
passenger rail system, no one will be able to put it back together
again. Travel will be permanently undermined, to the detriment of our
economic competitiveness, the quality of our environment, and our
national security.
The administration suggests that perhaps the governors will step in.
But what will they step into? The States individually, and
collectively, don't have the resources to acquire an operate the
system.
Even if they did, they haven't been consulted about such a proposal.
Not a single State has come forward to express any interest in assuming
the financial or legal responsibility for operating an interstate rail
service.
Can you imagine if the administration had proposed to eliminate the
FAA and suggested that perhaps the Governors should take it over?
This budget is a serious danger to the stability of our nation's
transportation system. The Senate should reject the Bush
administration's mindless plan of forcing Amtrak into bankruptcy.
A safe, reliable, and efficient national transportation system
demands that Congress act responsibly on passenger rail issues, even if
the administration continues to refuse to do so.
What if we have to shut down the national air traffic control system,
as we did after 9/11, or if key parts or our Interstate system are
compromised by terrorist attacks, as they may well be?
Shouldn't the mere possibility of one or more of these crises force
us to recognize the importance of maintaining a viable national rail
network?
The Senate should reject the administration's irresponsible passenger
rail bankruptcy plan, and pass the Byrd amendment to ensure that
America's transportation network remains strong and flexible for the
future.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
supporting additional funding for passenger rail. As we all know, the
administration eliminated funding for Amtrak in its fiscal year 2006
budget. I believe that this is a shortsighted policy that could strand
travelers throughout the country, including those who rely on passenger
rail in my State.
I am supporting this amendment, which would add $1.4 billion to the
budget for Amtrak because rail service is so important to travelers in
Wisconsin. I have long fought to ensure that intercity rail service
exists in the Midwest. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by
Wisconsin's secretary of transportation, Frank Busalacchi, who is
currently serving as the chairman of the States for Passenger Rail
Coalition. Rail makes up an important portion of our intermodal system
in Wisconsin. In January of this year, a total of 37,445 passengers
used Amtrak's Hiawatha Service between Milwaukee and Chicago. That is
37,000 fewer cars on our roads, reducing congestion and pollution. So
many times, when you hear commuter rail, we think of only the Northeast
corridor. I want to assure the people of Wisconsin that I know this is
not the case, and that I will fight to ensure that the corridors in
Wisconsin are not shut down.
I support reforms in Amtrak, and look forward to working with Amtrak,
with the administration, and with my colleagues to enact meaningful
reform. But we cannot move forward on reform if Amtrak has been forced
to abandon its services in other areas. The Northeast is not the only
region in the country that relies on a viable rail system--now is not
the time to force the more than 540,000 people who used Amtrak in
Wisconsin on to our overburdened roads and airports. I urge my
colleagues to support Senator Byrd's amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Byrd's
amendment to the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution to increase funding
for Amtrak. The budget resolution before us today effectively zero's
out Amtrak's funding in accordance with the President Bush's perilous
strategy of bankrupting Amtrak as a means of reform. This is a
disastrous plan that will shut down all Amtrak operations across the
country and severely limit Congress's abilities to provide intercity
passenger rail service in the future.
Senator Byrd's amendment would increase funding for Amtrak by $1.04
billion. This would be in addition to the $360 million included in the
budget to

[[Page S2706]]

maintain commuter service operated by Amtrak in the case of bankruptcy.
Amtrak would receive a total of $1.4 billion to fund railroad
operations and meet capital needs. While this number is less than
Amtrak has said it needs, it should allow Amtrak to continue its
operations and maintain much of the progress the company continues to
make on repairing and replacing worn-out capital assets. The increased
spending requested by this amendment is offset by closing corporate tax
loopholes.
It is essential that we provide adequate funding for Amtrak so that
the railroad can maintain and improve the operations of the national
system and make critically needed investments to return rolling stock
and infrastructure to a state of good repair while Congress addresses
the larger questions surrounding Amtrak's future through the
reauthorization process. As the cochairman of the Commerce Committee,
Amtrak's authorizing committee, I look forward to working with my
Chairman, Senator Stevens, and with our Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation and Merchant Marine Chairman, Senator Lott, on ways we
can improve Amtrak's service, costs, and structure. But, we must act
today to ensure that adequate funding is reserved in this year's budget
to avert any future crisis, to ensure the preservation of passenger
rail as an alternative for the American traveling public, and to let
Amtrak's employees and creditors know that Congress will not leave them
out in the cold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 8 minutes 40 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania if he
would be in a position to either yield back the time on the Amtrak
debate or reserve the time and allow us to begin the debate on the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I believe is next in the
unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Illinois giving me the option.
Since I do not have the authority to waive, I choose option 2.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
time on this Amtrak amendment on the majority side be reserved and that
we now be allowed to go forward on the allocated time for the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to make clear, since the chairman
of the committee came to the floor, that there were 8 minutes remaining
on the Amtrak debate on the majority side, and I protected that 8
minutes so it would not be surrendered. Under the unanimous consent
agreement, we now move to the debate on the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. I hope that meets with his approval. If it does not, I will be
happy to work with the majority on that question.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was created in the administration
of President Eisenhower. This Republican President decided in the 1950s
that there were parts of the United States so important for future
generations that they should be protected. One of those parts was the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
There has been a lot of debate about the future of that refuge. It is
a place in our Nation that has a special significance to many people.
There are Native Americans who live there and count on this refuge for
their sustenance, maintaining their tradition, really protecting their
lifestyle. There are others who see this Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge from a much different perspective, and that is why we continue
to debate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The reason we are considering it on the budget resolution is because
a decision has been made, and that decision, made by those who wish to
see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas, is
that they no longer want to follow the regular rules of the Senate
because the regular rules of the Senate allow us to debate for a period
of time.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield for a question.
Mr. STEVENS. Are regular rules of the Senate to filibuster a bill? I
do not understand what the Senator is saying. The only reason this is
in the budget resolution is because he and others have threatened to
filibuster it.
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator have a question?
Mr. STEVENS. That is my question. Would the Senator guarantee us an
up-or-down vote if we do not keep it in this resolution?
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Alaska. He has certainly been
here a lot longer than I have. He understands the rules of the Senate
far better than I do, and under the regular order of the Senate, we
allow debate to protect the rights of the minority. I think the Senator
is well aware of that fact. It is really what makes the Senate unique.
And the fact that now the Senator from Alaska wants to raise this issue
on the budget resolution is because he wants to in some way go around
the regular order of the Senate and to win with 51 votes an issue which
may require 60 votes if it was debated in the regular order. I think
the Senator would concede the fact that what he is doing is
extraordinary, that he is asking for this Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge--
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield there?
Mr. DURBIN. Not at this point because I think we have divided time
for debate.
Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to charge it against my time.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator will have ample opportunity to use his own
time. I will not yield at this time. I would like to not be interrupted
for a few minutes, and then we can have a conversation.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator state his party never tried to put an
item in the budget resolution--
Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator asking a question? If not, I do not yield
the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I am asking the Senator a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor, and
he may yield for a question if he so desires.
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield for a question, a brief question, but I have
a certain amount of time to use here and I would like to use it.
Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator saying his party has never used the same
procedure to put in a budget resolution an item so it would avoid a
filibuster?
Mr. DURBIN. In my response to the question, I am not saying in the
history of the Senate this never occurred. But I will say to the
Senator from Alaska, he knows as well as anyone who has been in this
Chamber for a period of time that this is not the usual order of
Senate. This is an extraordinary procedural move being made by the
Senator from Alaska because he has had a difficulty passing this
important bill that he would like to see passed. I think that is a fact
of life.
What I would like to address for a moment, though, is the merit of
the issue. Think about it for a minute. When we ask the Bush
administration, What is your energy policy for America, they tell us
the centerpiece for their energy policy for America is drilling for oil
and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Surely you must believe, if you think that is truly the centerpiece,
there must be an extraordinary trove of oil and gas there that will
sustain America for a lengthy period of time.
Let's look at the facts. The facts tell us quite the opposite. In
fact, what we now find is when we look at the oil production that we
can anticipate from the coastal plain that is being debated here, it
would peak at 0.26 billion barrels a year in the year 2027, when the
U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that Americans will
consume about 10.2 billion barrels of oil annually. The Arctic Refuge
oil would provide about 2.5 percent of America's annual need in that 1
year--2.5 percent; and that is the peak year for oil production,
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
If we are talking about a source of oil which in its best and peak
year is producing 2.5 percent of our oil needs in America, how in the
world can this be the centerpiece of our energy policy for America?
Frankly, it is not and should not be. It has become a separate issue.
For those from the State of Alaska, the two Senators here who are
passionately committed to this, I can understand the nature of their
commitment.

[[Page S2707]]

Oil and gas exploration in Alaska has been very profitable, not only
for the companies involved but for many people in Alaska. But for those
of us who are trying to look at a balanced energy picture, there are
some serious questions here as to why we would decide to go forward in
a wildlife refuge established almost 50 years ago and say we have
reached such a desperate point in America when it comes to energy that
we have no choice but to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
For years I have come to the floor questioning this decision by the
Bush administration. I have been told from time to time by those on the
other side that I don't know what I am talking about because I have
never been there; I have never seen the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
After having been told that for a number of years, I decided to do
something about it. I went there. I went there 2 years ago and camped
out 2 nights in the refuge with my son and some friends, to take a look
at what the refuge was. We went there in August. It was an
amazing experience, one of the most beautiful pieces of real estate on
this Earth. Although there are some who come and disparage it and say
it doesn't offer that much, I think it is extraordinary. I think
President Eisenhower was right in setting it aside as a wildlife
refuge.

When you take a look at the area where oil exploration and drilling
have been allowed, you can see as you fly over the dramatic difference.
The landscape is scarred with roads and activities in those areas not
protected as a wildlife refuge. On the side of the river where the
wildlife refuge exists, it is quite different. It is as God made it and
it still stands today. It is significantly different.
The administration and its supporters for drilling in the Arctic
Refuge have claimed the drilling can be done in an environmentally
sound manner. I recently heard one of the Secretaries say we would use
ice roads which would disappear when the spring thaw came around; you
would never even know they had been used. They noted that the United
States has the highest environmental standards and the most advanced
technology in the world.
That may be true. But toxic spills and air pollution from permanent
year-round operations are currently wreaking havoc on many areas of
Alaska's fragile North Slope. Once part of the largest intact
wilderness area in the United States, Alaska's North Slope now hosts
one of the world's largest industrial complexes, spanning a thousand
square miles of once pristine arctic tundra.
Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oil fields include the following: 28 oil
production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater treatment
and powerplants; 38 gravel mines; 223 production and exploratory gravel
drill pads; 500 miles of road; 1,800 miles of pipeline; 4,800
exploration and production wells. All of this activity is taking place
in an exceptionally fragile region.
Any physical disturbance--bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration,
spills of oil and other toxic substances--can scar the land for
decades. The National Academy of Sciences concluded it is likely that
the most disturbed habitat will never be restored and the damage to
more than 9,000 acres by oilfield roads and gravel pads is likely to
remain for centuries.
At risk in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the home for nearly
200 wildlife species including polar bears, musk oxen, and caribou.
While I was there camping in the ANWR we saw one of these musk oxen. It
was an amazing sight. During the summer, nearly 135 bird species,
including millions of tundra swans, snowy owls, eider ducks and shore
birds, are among those that rely on the area for sustenance before
migrating south for the winter.
No matter how careful oil companies are, oil exploration and
production are not environmentally sensitive practices.
Exploration and production would not be confined to a limited area;
it would range across many separate fields, affecting wildlife habitat
on hundreds of thousands acres interspersed between sprawling oil
facilities and pipelines.
Habitat would be further disrupted by industrial activity associated
with airports, permanent production and support facilities, housing,
and the gravel roads needed to connect drilling sites.
All this industrial activity would fragment the coastal plain,
disrupting critical birthing, denning and breeding areas.
Each year, the oil industry spills ten of thousands of gallons of
crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope.
From 1996 to 2004, there were some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9
million gallons of diesel fuel, oil, acid, biocide, ethylene glycol,
drilling fluid and other materials.
In the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more
severe and lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel,
for instance--the most frequently spilled substance on the North
Slope--is acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed,
tundra vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills.
Then there is the issue of air pollution. Each year, oil operations
on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 70,000 tons of nitrogen oxides,
which contribute to smog and acid rain. North Slope oil facilities also
release greenhouse gases emitting anywhere from 7 to 40 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide and 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane.
Plumes of pollution from Prudhoe Bay have been detected in Barrow,
Alaska, nearly 200 miles away.
The City of Nuiqsut Council in 2001 noted, ``the impact of oil and
gas development on our village has been far reaching. This has affected
our day-to-day lives in several ways. Our ability to hunt and gather
traditional food has been severely impacted by development.''
Increased cases of asthma have also developed in villages subject to
the air pollution posed by development.
Hazardous waste contaminates water and wetlands despite advances in
waste disposal methods where drilling wastes are ground up and re-
injected.
In 2000 British Petroleum was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and
criminal fines and establish a new environmental management program
because its contractors had illegally disposed of hazardous wastes
containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. These crimes only came to
light because a whistle-blower reported them to the EPA.
If the United States were in a situation, a desperate situation where
our economy was teetering near collapse, where we worried if businesses
and jobs would continue because of energy shortages, where there was a
serious question about the national security of America, I suppose the
case could be made that even drilling in a wildlife refuge, even
drilling in part of this world that we promised would never be touched,
is warranted. That is not the case when it comes to the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. The amount of oil and energy that could be gleaned
from this area is minuscule in terms of America's security demands.
The damage that could be done to this area would be permanent. It
would change it forever.
You have to ask yourself, if we have not reached such a desperate
moment in our history where we have to go to a wildlife refuge and
drill for oil, why are we doing it?
Some argue that many oil companies with their leases would make
money. Some argue it would be good for the economy in some parts of
Alaska. But I look at it from a different perspective, perhaps from a
national perspective.
It is interesting to me that this energy bill which makes the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge the centerpiece of the administration's energy
policy--a region which at its peak year could only produce 2.5 percent
of the oil we needed--is the same Energy bill that refuses to even
consider fuel efficiency and fuel economy of the cars and trucks that
we drive in America. If we are worried about our dependence on foreign
fuel--and we should be--aren't we doing the obvious? Why are we not
saying that we are going to create incentives and standards so that we
produce trucks and cars for America which will be more fuel-efficient
vehicles? We have done this before.
In 1975, we faced an energy crisis. Congress ignored the big three
automakers, and many who opposed them,

[[Page S2708]]

and said we are going to pass a standard to double the fuel efficiency
of vehicles on the road in America. We went from 14 miles a gallon
average fuel efficiency over 10 years to almost 28 miles a gallon. Some
said it couldn't be done technologically. Some said we had no right to
do it legally. We did it. More fuel-efficient vehicles were on the
road, with less dependence on foreign oil.
What has happened since 1985 when those new standards were
implemented? Exactly nothing. We have failed to rise to the challenge
of fuel efficiency and fuel economy on cars and trucks in America. In
fact, we created a gaping loophole for trucks saying they wouldn't be
bound by the same fleet fuel average, and SUVs drove right into that
loophole. Now there are SUVs all over the highway, with limited gas
mileage burning fuel, adding to the air pollution, increasing our
dependence on foreign oil. If we improved slightly the efficiency of
cars and trucks, fuel efficiency over the next few years, this debate
would be totally unnecessary. We wouldn't have to be talking about
drilling in a wildlife refuge. We wouldn't have to be talking about
drilling offshore in California or Florida or other States. We would be
doing the right thing for our environment and reducing our dependence
on foreign oil.

But this administration will not even entertain the possibility of
asking them to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. ``Let the
marketplace work its will,'' is what we hear over and over again. We
have seen ample demonstration of the marketplace at work as we find
larger, heavier vehicles on the road consuming more fuel and getting
fewer miles per gallon. That is the trend for our future.
In our desperation, we import more oil to feed gas-guzzling vehicles,
and we turn our back on the obvious needs to conserve energy--not just
in the vehicles we drive but in our everyday lives and in our business
concerns as well.
I come to this debate wondering if we have reached such a desperate
point that we have to drill in a wildlife refuge set aside for my
children, my grandchildren, and generations beyond. Have we reached the
point when it comes to America's energy security where we have no
choice but to go into these areas that are so important and so pristine
and engage in drilling and production techniques that will leave scars
on the landscape forever?
From my point of view, we have not. There is a lot more that we can
do--simple, honest approaches to this problem which will meet our
Nation's energy needs without sacrificing some of the valuable
resources and treasures such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I don't know how this vote will come out on this issue. It is likely
to be very close. But having been there and seen what the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge represents, this Senator is going to oppose
this effort to drill in ANWR.
I think we should show real leadership, leadership that calls for
conservation, renewable fuels, and better fuel efficiency. And with
that fuel efficiency there will be no need to compromise the integrity
of such important areas in America as the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have listened with interest to my
friend from Illinois. I am sure he enjoyed his camping experience in
the wildlife refuge. I wish he had been with us about a week ago when
we were in the wildlife refuge and up on the North Slope when the oil
activity was going on. He should remember that oil activity in the area
does not go on in the summertime. It goes on in the wintertime when
there is enough ice that you can drive on ice roads, and we did. You
can drive to a drilling pad that is made of ice, and we did; and know
that when spring comes and the thaw sets in, both the roads and the
drilling pads will disappear. All that will be left from the
exploratory well is a single marker showing where the well was.
The one thing I learned that I had not known before I went up there
and started talking to the people who were paying attention to that
area was where the areas are and the labels that have been drawn.
The Alaska National Petroleum Reserve--that is an area we do not hear
discussed in this debate. But it is there, and we visited that. The
National Petroleum Reserve and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge we
visited as well.
These are very evocative words: the Petroleum Reserve calls up images
of great wells of petroleum being held in reserve just waiting to be
tapped. The wildlife refuge calls up images of something being
protected, that wildlife goes there as a haven to get away from
predators, or the devastation of human activity, and so on. What I
learned in the trip is that the National Petroleum Reserve was drawn on
a map by President Warren Harding in 1923 at the recommendation of the
Navy who said: There is probably some petroleum up here. There was no
scientific examination of the kind we use today.
By today's standard, the idea that there was petroleum there was very
primitive. But the President of the United States, in 1923, drew a line
on a map and created by decree the National Petroleum Reserve.
President Eisenhower, in 1960, drew another line on a map creating
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It was expanded by subsequent
Presidents, first President Johnson and then President Carter.
The interesting thing to me was to discover that there is more
wildlife in the petroleum reserve than there is in the wildlife refuge,
and there is more petroleum in the wildlife refuge than there is in the
petroleum reserve. When the Presidents drew those lines, they didn't
have the advantage of today's information.
The other thing that my friend from Illinois did not mention is that
when President Eisenhower drew those lines he also drew a line around
an area within the creation of the Arctic National Wildlife Range--
refuge now--saying this portion of it is set aside for exploration and
production of oil and gas.
For those who are saying let us not despoil this magnificent area,
let me remind them that this magnificent area was created by a
Presidential declaration and that same declaration said in this portion
of the area we are going to have oil and gas exploration and
production. It was set aside right from the beginning.
I am sure the senior Senator from Alaska will explain the promises
that were made to the people of Alaska for oil and gas production in
that area at the time that designation was set aside, promises that
have not been fulfilled for over a quarter of a century.
The interesting thing for me to discover with respect to these
evocative words and how they don't really describe what happens on the
ground was the discussion of the caribou herd. We have had an awful lot
of rhetoric about the caribou and how the caribou in ANWR must be
protected. The caribou are unaware of the boundaries drawn by the
President. The caribou go where they want to go in the area and the
area includes the petroleum reserve, State land, ANWR, and Canada. The
caribou go across all of those jurisdictions without paying attention
to the names that are given to the land they are wandering over.
It was interesting to talk to some of the people in Barrow, which is
the northern-most city in the United States. They pointed out that when
Prudhoe Bay was opened for exploration and the pipeline was built there
was great concern about the caribou being unable to cross the pipeline.
Overpasses were built over the pipeline to allow the caribou free
access to the other side because they said it will upset the caribou's
migrating habits, it will upset their mating season, it will upset the
calving season if they cannot move freely across. Ultimately, the
compromise was that we will build the overpasses for the caribou.
As this native of Barrow who has lived there all of his life said to
us, the caribou didn't understand that. The caribou don't use the
overpasses. The caribou, when they get to the pipeline, scrunch down
and go under the pipeline and go on with their migration without paying
attention whatever to the oil pipeline.
I was in the Nixon administration when the debate about building the
oil pipeline went on. It was just as bitter as the debate today. We
were told the caribou population would be decimated by this. Go up
there 30 years later and the caribou herds are bigger now than

[[Page S2709]]

they were when the pipeline was built, and by a fairly substantial
margin.
I talked to some of the natives who watch the caribou. They said the
thing that bothers the caribou the most are the mosquitos. They are
terrible in the summer. We find caribou coming on to the gravel oil
pads because if they stand under the oil platform on the gravel, there
are fewer mosquitos.
The caribou like to come around. The caribou are disturbed by human
activity there. The mayor of Barrow said to us, look outside the town
and you find plenty of caribou. The only time caribou get upset by
humans and their activity is when the humans get on snowmobiles and
chase into the caribou herd with rifles and start shooting them. The
caribou don't like that.
But that is the pattern of some of the people who said to us, do not
disrupt our subsistence living culture. There was one Gwich'in Indian
almost in tears as he pled with us, do not disrupt our subsistence
living culture that has gone back 1,000 years. We live on the caribou
and the whale. We don't need the oil. We live on the caribou and the
whale. I thought, if you really want the subsistence living culture, it
goes back 1,000 years, we can give it to you by cutting down the
shipment of diesel fuel that goes to your village, that provides you
with heat and power during the wintertime.
I was more moved by the prayer of the preacher who came to talk at
our meeting who said he thanked God for the caribou and he thanked God
for the oil. He said, God gave us the caribou and God gave us the oil.
And they were meeting in a heated room where they could gather for the
town meeting that we held there under the direction of Senator
Domenici, and then for the church service that was held there.
I asked a question, how is this heated? Where do they get the power
for this? They said, once a year a barge comes through and deposits a
year's supply of diesel fuel. They had a power shortage in that
village. Everything shut down. Helicopters, rescue teams, everything
was set up to try to get to them to restore the power so they weren't
sitting in their homes freezing anymore. And it was diesel fuel.
My friend from Illinois talks about the diesel spills. I think there
are probably more diesel spills connected with the shipping of the fuel
up there to take care of the native villages than there are on the oil
pads and the activities of the oil industry because I saw the lengths
to which the oil industry goes to try to prevent any kind of spills. I
saw trucks driving around with diapers on. That is not literally true,
but it is figuratively true. They had plastic pads under them in case
there was any leakage out of the truck, then it did not get on to the
ice and slip into the tundra. When you are unloading diesel fuel, a
whole year's supply, in the village you will have spills.
I didn't respond to this particular Indian, tell me about your
subsistence living culture, because I didn't want to embarrass him, but
I knew that his subsistence living culture meant getting on a
snowmobile and going after the caribou with the rifles. I thought, the
caribou would much rather have oil engineers giving them some shelter
from the mosquitos rather than this kind of human intervention into
their lives.
A lot has been said about the puny amount of oil this would be. A lot
has been said, economically, we don't need it. All the rest of it. I
came back recognizing how important this is to the people of the State
of Alaska, how important this is to their economy and to their future.
It won't affect the caribou. It won't affect the wildlife. There are
millions of acres they go over without respect to any of this activity.
But if we did not proceed with this, it will significantly affect the
people of Alaska. As a Senator from Utah I don't want to deprive them
of that which is their natural heritage as described by that preacher
when he said God gave us this oil.
It will be extracted in an environmentally friendly fashion. I think
it is time we went ahead and did it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Colorado wish to speak? I guess we
are going to go back and forth.
Mr. SALAZAR. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I would like to speak.
I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I very much appreciate that of the
Senator from Colorado and also I beg the indulgence of my colleagues; I
am going to speak on another subject for about 5 minutes. It is not the
subject at hand. I ask consent my remarks appear apart from the debate
on ANWR.
Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: will that time be charged against
the 2 hours of the Senator's time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be charged against the 2 hours
of debate time on the Democrat side.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise to oppose the reconciliation
instruction in this budget resolution directing the Finance Committee
to cut Medicaid by $15 billion over 5 years. These cuts will tear the
fabric of our Nation's safety net at a time when Medicaid is needed
more than ever. I plan to cosponsor an amendment to strike these
instructions and instead establish a bipartisan Medicaid Commission.
Medicaid is just too important to be subject to arbitrary budget
cuts. It is a critical public program that provides a lifeline of
health coverage and long-term care services to more than 53 million of
our Nation's most vulnerable individuals.
For example, Medicaid ensures access to health coverage for more than
one in four children. Just think of that: one in four. It is the
Nation's largest single purchaser of long-term care services and fills
the gaps in Medicare's coverage for more than 6 million low-income
senior and disabled individuals.
It is an essential provider of health care services for women, the
leading purchaser of family planning services, and it pays for more
than 40 percent of all births in America. Medicaid pays for more than
40 percent of all births in America.
Medicaid funding is a major source of support that keeps the doors
open at thousands of community health centers, public hospitals,
nursing homes, and other facilities.
While Medicaid is a critical component of our health care system, it
is certainly not perfect. For that reason, I am open to talking about
changes in Medicaid. I am open to talking about better accountability,
the need for more State flexibility. And I am willing to consider any
other area where improvements or clarification to existing Medicaid law
is needed.
But we should not cut Medicaid for the sake of meeting an arbitrary
budget number. That is clear. And we should not be cutting Medicaid
under the guise of ``program integrity'' without a better understanding
of what the States are doing--and what that really means--without
knowing whether the activities singled out in the President's budget
are truly abusive--we need to know that, too--and without knowing what
impact these cuts will have on the people who depend on Medicaid--we
don't know that either. So to enact these arbitrary cuts without
knowing and having some semblance of the answers to those questions is
just plain reckless.
Yes, Medicaid costs are growing. Recent cost growth at the State and
Federal level is cause for concern. But most of this cost growth is due
to an increase in enrollment and the same health care cost inflation
that affects every insurance plan.
From 2001 to 2003--this is pretty important--during the last
recession, Medicaid added 7.5 million people to the rolls. It was
during the recession, because of the recession. Most of these people
were insured but lost coverage because their employer dropped coverage
or they could not afford the premiums. These 7.5 million would likely
be uninsured if it were not for Medicaid. This growth in enrollment
shows that Medicaid is doing its job, growing to meet the need when
times are tough.
That is the whole point of Medicaid. And times were tough. We were in
a recession. Employers laid people off. People needed health care, so
they had to go to Medicaid.
Even though Medicaid costs are increasing, just as in Medicare and
the private sector, it is important to keep in mind that Medicaid
growth is lower on a per person basis. A recent study showed that
Medicaid cost growth is 6.1 percent per person, compared to a 12.6-

[[Page S2710]]

percent cost growth for private coverage. The growth in the cost of
health care in Medicaid is half the growth per person under the private
insurance plans which most Americans are offered today. So Medicaid is
not a wasteful program.
We also pay more for Medicaid because of the critical role it plays
in filling Medicare's benefit gaps for seniors and people with
disabilities.
More than 40 percent of all Medicaid spending goes to pay for long-
term care, for prescription drugs, other coverage and cost-sharing for
low-income individuals who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare.
That is 40 percent of Medicare's costs, even though dual eligibles make
up only about 14 percent of all Medicaid enrollees.
In essence, Medicaid picks up the tab for what Medicare should be
covering. The new Medicare drug benefit should provide some new
assistance with costs for the dual-eligibles. However, States will
still be responsible for a substantial share of total spending in the
form of so-called clawback payments.
Medicaid deserves its own policy debate, just like we had with
Medicare. And whatever policy we support must address the root causes
of the challenges facing Medicaid: the growth in enrollment; rising
health care costs; and the increasing cost of providing long term care
and other services to dual eligible beneficiaries.
We need the right diagnosis before we can get the prescription right.
That is why I support creating a bipartisan Medicaid commission to
advise Congress on how to sustain Medicaid well into the future.
By contrast, the budget resolution we are now debating would
constrain us to finding savings that meet a target number--even if that
means cutting services and benefits, shifting costs to states, or
dramatically restructuring the program.
The budget resolution frames these cuts as the amount that is
misspent on so-called waste and abuse in the system. Without a doubt,
everyone wants to make Medicaid more efficient. And everyone agrees
that we need to root out fraud and abuse in Medicaid. In fact, Congress
has acted to root out fraud and abuse in Medicaid every time we have
discovered it. Like with upper payment limits, disproportionate share
hospital payments, and provider taxes.
And we stand ready to correct any misappropriation of federal funds.
But in the case of the administration's proposals, it is not entirely
clear that there is evidence of abuse--or that the policy they have
proposed will address the issue. For example, in the case of the
President's proposal to limit intergovernmental transfers--IGTs--the
Congressional Budget Office failed to score any savings. CBO lacked
sufficient detail on the policy.
In fact, Senator Grassley and I have been asking the Administration
for specific information--for over a year now--about which states are
currently out of compliance with the IGT rules, and how their policy on
IGT enforcement may have changed. But they have not provided the
information that we have requested.
I caution my colleagues in the Senate against buying the
administration's pig in a poke on this issue.
So let's be clear on what the President's proposal would do. It would
change the rules of the game on how states can finance their Medicaid
programs, pure and simple.
And the bottom-line impact on States could be devastating. In
Montana, proposed cuts in the budget resolution would result in a net
loss of more than $133 million Federal dollars from state's Medicaid
program. In human terms, this funding cut could mean a loss of coverage
for 2,800 seniors or more than 12,000 children.
Lost Federal funds could also mean State revenues and jobs created by
Medicaid spending.
For every $1 million Montana spends on Medicaid, more than $4.7
million in new business activity is generated and just over 57 new jobs
are created. Montana can ill afford to lose this business revenue and
economic development.
Beyond the statistics and economic impact statements, there are real
people who will be hurt if we cut Medicaid.
Last month I heard from Kaaren Rizor, director of the Ashland
Community Health Center in Ashland, MT, who told a powerful story about
how Medicaid has helped her community and what cuts might mean for her
center's ability to serve those in need. She wrote:

I can't imagine what our population in Ashland, Montana
would do without Medicaid. Talk about impacting underfunded
Community Health Centers! [Medicaid cuts would] mean
accepting more patients for sliding fee scale discounts with
no means of recouping the cost of their care.
The concept of more Community Health Centers is noble and
good, but we aren't magicians. We can't pull money out of a
hat to survive.
Our clinic has tripled to quadrupled the number of annual
patient encounters. Along with that, we see more and more
families living at 100 percent of poverty. Without Medicaid,
we carry a tremendous burden to see all who come to us,
without the funds to provide quality care.

Let me reiterate that I am open to working on improvements to
Medicaid. But we should not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath
water. This program is too important to too many people. And program
cuts or funding caps will have a real impact on real people.
Finally, I would note that the House budget includes reconciled cuts
in these programs that are much deeper than those in the Senate. We
cannot act as though all such savings can somehow be achieved by
wishing away fraud, waste, and abuse. I am deeply concerned about
conference deliberations on this matter.
The amendment to strike this reconciliation instruction and instead
establish a bipartisan Medicaid commission enjoys widespread support
from many Governors, health care providers, and more than 131 national
organizations dedicated to helping the Nation's Medicaid beneficiaries,
among countless others. I applaud the leadership of Senators Smith,
Bingaman, and Coleman in proposing this amendment. I urge my colleagues
to join me and Senators Smith, Bingaman, and Coleman in supporting this
important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I very much appreciate the indulgence of
my good friends from Colorado and Alaska and others who have let me
make this statement which is not on the subject at hand. I thank them
all and yield the floor, and I particularly thank my friend from
Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I yield myself 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today, first of all, to
acknowledge the work of the chairman of the Budget Committee, Chairman
Gregg, as well as Ranking Member Conrad, and the work of their staff in
putting together this very complicated budget that we are debating on
the Senate floor this evening and throughout the week. I know how hard
they are working because last night, even at 10 and 11 o'clock, we were
getting e-mails from the work they are performing. So I thank them for
their hard work on this most important of matters for the U.S. Senate.
Secondly, I also want to say, with respect to the budget resolution
in general, I come from a place in the West which is very far removed
from Washington, DC. As I was growing up on this farm and ranch in the
San Luis Valley, south of Denver by nearly 300 miles, my father and
mother taught me a lot about the most important values of America. One
of those most important values was the value of honesty and the value
of candor.
I grew up in the West where a handshake across a fence line meant
that your word was going to be true. And it meant that you would not
mislead anyone in terms of the direction you were taking with respect
to anything that was important to you or your family, your country, or
your God.
Yet when I look at what has happened here with the President's
budget, the fact of the matter is that the American public is, in fact,
being misled. We are being misled because we have been presented a
budget that continues the fiscal recklessness that I believe future
generations of Americans simply cannot afford.

It would be my fervent hope that as this Senate moves forward dealing
with this budget, and the pay-go amendments that will be offered here
tomorrow, we can, in fact, put this Government back on the kind of
budget of

[[Page S2711]]

conservatism that will truly bring us back to a place where we can, in
fact, pay our debts.
I want to take a minute and speak about the Social Security issue
because that is a major issue that we have been debating in Washington
for some time and which the President has been taking around the
country, to talk about the importance of Social Security changes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
It will just take 1 second.
Mr. SALAZAR. Yes, I say to the great Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, do we understand the distinguished
Senator is speaking on the Democrats' time on ANWR?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is speaking on the budget, but, I say to
the Senator, you are using time that is allotted for ANWR. Does the
Senator understand that?
Mr. SALAZAR. I do.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the Senator.
Let me make several quick points of what is happening, in my view,
with respect to Social Security. I do so because the President of the
United States will actually be, I hear, in my State next week to talk
about the importance of the issue of Social Security. I think it is
important that as the President talks to the people of America, he talk
to the people of America, not simply to groups that are controlled with
making sure that only people who have his point of view are heard on
the issue of Social Security.
In that regard, it is important for the people of America to know the
facts; that is, that Social Security has, in fact, worked, that we have
gone from a time and place in our Nation where we had millions of
people in poverty--50 percent of older Americans who were in poverty--
to a point now where less than 10 percent of older Americans are in
poverty. That is an important fact that I think the President needs to
tell people.
Secondly, he also needs to make sure that he is candid with the
American people, and that when we talk about the issue of solvency for
Social Security, that we are solvent in Social Security. In fact, not
my office, not a Republican office, not a Democratic office, but the
Office of the Congressional Budget Office says that we are solvent
until the year 2052.
So we do not have the kind of emergency crisis on our hands that has
been exaggerated by this President to the American people. The American
people need to have realism with respect to what is happening with
respect to Social Security.
And third, my belief is that the President's proposal on Social
Security will continue to add to the kind of red ink that we already
have in this Government, which is absolutely unwarranted. We need to
recognize that a very significant amount of the current Federal deficit
is being masked by the huge amount of money that is currently being
borrowed from the Social Security surplus.
Over $160 billion a year is borrowed from the Social Security surplus
to mask the size of the deficit. The President's proposal shows that we
have a deficit of $332 billion. But when you take out the omitted costs
for the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the homeland
security efforts, and when you take out the amount that is being
borrowed from the Social Security surplus, the fact is our current
deficit for this fiscal year alone is $579 billion.
When you continue on down the road, in the next fiscal year it goes
up to $584 billion, and so on, to $594 billion. So that is a huge red
sea of ink that is being created for the United States of America that
I do not believe we should pass on to our children or grandchildren.
When you look at what the Social Security transition costs will be,
it would even deepen the deficit further, to the point where we would
have a $621 billion deficit in the outyears. Now, I don't know about
you, but at least when I look at what conservative values are, one of
the things about those values is having fiscal integrity and making
sure that we are paying our debt. We are not doing that today. We don't
have a long-term plan with which to deal with the deficit.
I believe it is the obligation of our National Government to make
sure that we deal with the American people with candor and the kind of
honesty that they deserve.
Madam President, I rise to speak about my support for protecting the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil exploration and development,
and also to oppose any measure included in this year's budget
reconciliation bill to open this land.
At the outset, let me say I have always believed in balance between
the development of our natural resources and at the same time the
protection of our lands. I had the honor of serving as the Executive
Director of the Department of Natural Resources in my State for 4
years, and I worked closely with industry in the development of our oil
and gas resources throughout the State of Colorado. I worked closely
with the proponents of oil and shale development to see where that
resource could be taken in the future. As we move forward in dealing
with the issue of energy, which is important to our country, I strongly
believe we need to achieve that same kind of balance we tried to
achieve during the time I was Director of the Department of Natural
Resources.
Let me say that no matter what happens with ANWR--and I am going to
be opposed to the opening of the Arctic Refuge--no matter what happens
with respect to this issue, which will be debated tonight, tomorrow,
and it will be decided on the floor, it is incumbent upon all of us to
make sure what we are doing is working in a bipartisan manner to create
the kind of Energy bill that will help us get rid of our overdependence
on foreign oil and will help us push forward with a new ethic and era
of renewable resources and conservation.
Beyond this debate, I want to work closely with leaders on both sides
of the aisle, with Senator Bingaman and Chairman Domenici, to make sure
that what we deliver to the President for signature is an energy bill
that has the support of the American people and the support of at least
most of the people in this body.

Let me spend a few minutes talking about the Arctic Refuge. First,
the Arctic Refuge itself, when we think about the amount of land that
would actually be affected, we have heard the figure that it would only
be 2,000 acres. That is the footprint out of this 1.9 million acres, in
area 1002; 2,000 acres would be involved in oil and gas exploration and
drilling activities. The National Academy of Sciences, and others who
have looked at this, believe the amount of land that would be affected
is much greater than those 2,000 acres because you have to put in
pipelines and other facilities that ultimately would end up having a
greater effect than just the 2,000 acres that have been talked about.
Secondly, there are the risks with respect to the transportation of
hazardous materials. The Department of Environmental Conservation for
Alaska last year alone said the current activity on the North Slope
creates over 500 spills a year. So we will see spills and other toxic
substances if this area is opened for exploration and drilling.
Third, we need to all be very candid with respect to the oil we would
get from area 1002. According to the DOE's own energy administration
report dated March 2004, they predicted there would be about 300,000
barrels a day that would be produced by 2015. Their projection showed
that would be about 1 percent of world oil production in that year.
When you look at the fact that that is only 1 percent of the world's
oil production, it means the current energy dependence that we have on
oil and gas that we import from other countries would only be very
marginally affected, by 1 percent. It is predicted that instead of
importing 63 percent of our oil, we would be importing only 62 percent
of our oil.
So for a 1-percent solution, we are saying to the people of America
that we are opening up the Arctic Refuge for exploration and
development. My concern is not only with the opening of the refuge, but
also what it would do with respect to other areas of special
importance, including the over 500 refuges that we have all around our
country, including the National Wildlife Refuges that we have in our
States.
Even the major oil companies, many of whom I have met, and many of

[[Page S2712]]

whom I have worked with--I have friends who work there--they have
expressed their own concern about drilling in the Arctic Refuge. In a
recent New York Times article, dated February 21, the ExxonMobil CEO
was quoted as saying during a previous interview:

I don't know if there is anything in ANWR or not.

There are other leading industry leaders who say they do not believe
that we ought to be opening the Arctic Refuge for exploration or
drilling, in the same kinds of words my colleagues believe we should
move forward. Let me say I do not believe we should take what is such a
precious and unique natural resource and open it for exploration and
drilling, when we know that at the end of the day we are dealing with
only 1 percent of the oil and gas that is needed in this country.

Let me conclude by saying I believe we need a new energy vision that
frees America of our dependence on fossil fuels. We need to provide
adequate resources for research and development and alternative
sources. We need affordable, cleaner, and safer energy, and a policy
that protects special places in wilderness. We need the opening of
areas that do have oil and gas in them, but from my point of view that
does not include the Arctic Refuge.
I believe opening the Arctic would also reinforce the view that we as
a nation lack a commitment to humbling ourselves to the natural wonders
God has bestowed upon this Earth. We are, at the end of the day, merely
stewards of those gifts.
I want to make two quick points here. The budget projections that
have been used in this budget reconciliation measure are, from my point
of view, fantasy. I think to base our Nation's revenue projections on
the opening of the refuge is not candid and not fiscally responsible.
The Department of the Interior's 2006 budget assumes that the Federal
Government will realize $2.4 billion from the first lease sale in
2007--$2.4 billion from the first lease sale in 2007. For the Federal
Government to realize $2.4 billion, the leases would have to sell for
between $4,000 and $6,000 an acre. That is not going to happen. This is
not the fiscally responsible way that we should be moving forward as we
develop the budget for the following year.
Let me conclude by reading this letter written by President Jimmy
Carter concerning the Arctic wildlife area:

Dear Senator Salazar:
This year marks the 25th anniversary of my signing the
Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act into law. I am
proud to have been a part of crafting this landmark
legislation, which is widely recognized as the most extensive
land and wildlife conservation action in American history.
Now it seems possible that some in Congress may try to
subvert parts of ANILCA by inserting a provision in the
fiscal year 2006 budget resolution that is designed to
circumvent normal legislative procedures and allow for oil
drilling and exploration in the coastal plain 1002 area of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have been fortunate
enough to visit the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge as
tens of thousands of caribou passed around me in their
timeless migration into their vital calving and nursery
grounds--the very area targeted for oil development. I have
watched a herd of Musk oxen circle their young to protect
them. But that defensive behavior will not save them from
industrial development. The same is true of the polar bear
and the millions of migratory waterfowl that nest on this
coastal tundra. This is their wilderness home.
I urge Senators to vote for removing any provisions from
the fiscal 2006 budget resolution that would turn over the
Arctic refuge Coastal Plain to oil development. Keeping the
Arctic refuge wild and free of development is part of
fulfilling our moral obligations, not only for the present
but for future generations of Americans who will be grateful
for our foresight and stewardship in protecting their
interests. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter.

How much time do I have, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 19\1/2\ minutes remaining on the
Democratic side.
Mr. SALAZAR. I will take 30 seconds.
At the end of the day, I believe there is a very balanced approach to
how we develop our resources. I am a person who has supported
development of our oil and gas resources. I do not believe the Arctic
Refuge is a place we should go to for development. I say that with all
due respect to my colleagues from Alaska and my colleague from New
Mexico and my other colleagues on the other side of this particular
issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am sorry I did not have a chance to
visit with the Senator from Colorado sooner, but I would like to
disabuse him of two things. The 1002 area is not wilderness, and 1002
is not within the wildlife refuge. That section specifically excludes
it from the wildlife refuge until the period of oil and gas exploration
is over.
There is no question we have a difference of opinion, but I do hope
we will stick to the facts. As a matter of fact, the Senator just read
President Carter's letter. I am writing a response to President Carter
because I also received that letter. I stood in the White House with
him as he signed the bill in 1980. He did not want that bill to come to
him before the election. He asked Congressman Mo Udall to hold it up
until after the election because he believed he could not sign it if he
was reelected. When he was not reelected, he did sign it, and he put
into law the sections that pertain to this area and the overall refuge,
but sections 1002 and 1003 specifically exclude this area from the
refuge until the oil and gas exploration is over.
There has historically been support for utilizing Alaska's oil
interests to serve our national security interests. Senators Mark
Hatfield and Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, who both represented northwestern
States, agreed that the development of the North Slope was vitally
important. They stated that the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act and, in particular, the provision keeping the Coastal
Plain of ANWR open for development was--this is their statement, and
one of them was ``Scoop'' Jackson:

It is crucial to the Nation's attempt to achieve energy
independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are
in Alaska, along with even greater potential. Actions such as
preventing even exploration of the Arctic wildlife range is
an ostrich-like approach that ill serves our Nation in this
time of energy crisis.

That was the statement of two northwestern Senators, including
Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson.
We are now at a critical juncture in terms of our energy dependence.
The United States is at the mercy of the Middle East and others for our
energy needs. As a matter of fact, today OPEC met in Iran to determine
how much oil and at what price they would sell it to us.
Opening of ANWR would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil which we
rely on for over half our oil needs today. This development alone would
reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil by 4 percent, not 1
percent, and would be produced from only 2,000 acres. The 10.4 billion
barrels of oil that is estimated to be in this area translates to 436
billion gallons, and that is enough oil to fill up every car in America
115 times. Let me repeat that.
People say there is not any oil. There is enough oil there to fill up
every car in America 115 times.
At 867,000 barrels a day, it would create 36 million gallons of
gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel, heating oil, medicines, plastics,
surgical devices, and other products vital to our Nation.
There is no question there has been a lot said here that is
misleading. I have in my hand something given to me before I came to
the floor. It is from our colleague John Kerry. It says:

The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the
Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close
to winning.

It goes on to say some things here that are absolutely not true, but
it does pinpoint seven of our colleagues and asks for people to call
them and put pressure on them now. It asks for an emergency donation
right now. What for? We are going to vote tomorrow. I do not know why
they need emergency donations.
Beyond that, it says:

Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife.
For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northwest
Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in
harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred
ground.

They do not even live there. They live on the South Slope of the
Brooks Range. The Gwich'in people have nothing to do with the Arctic.
The only thing they have to do with it is they harvest some of the
caribou that come up the Porcupine River and go up to

[[Page S2713]]

the North Slope about every year. But several years of the last 10
years they have not come up at all because they are hunted so hard by
the Gwich'in people in Canada that there is not enough left of them to
travel. The misinformation here is staggering, really staggering.
Above all, I think we ought to get down to talking about what
Eisenhower did. I was the solicitor of the Interior Department during
the Eisenhower administration. I helped write the order that created
the Arctic Wildlife Range in 1960. It was approved by President
Eisenhower. It created an Arctic Wildlife Range open to oil and gas
exploration and development specifically. When we had the great
argument in the 1980s--really the late seventies, leading into 1980--
about the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, the question
was should that area, the 1.4 million acres in the Arctic, be left open
to oil and gas development as it had been left open by President
Eisenhower's administration.

I fought and fought, and we finally got the agreement with Senator
Jackson and Senator Tsongas that, yes, that would be left open under
two conditions. One, we had to have an environmental impact statement
and, second, we had to have the approval of the President and the
Congress of that impact statement. We have tried now for 24 years--24
years--to have the Congress approve that.
I heard the Senator from Colorado. I have had family connections with
Colorado in the past, and I have great respect for his service in
Colorado. It may interest him to know that I was the first person to
testify in favor of the wilderness before the Senate on behalf of
President Eisenhower. We value wilderness in our State, but this is not
wilderness. It was never wilderness. It was specifically kept out of
wilderness.
Let me put up a chart. I want to point this out to the Senator. This
is the Eisenhower I knew and for whom I worked. It was his World War II
poster.

Talk to the oil workers of America: Your work is vital to
victory . . . our ships . . . our planes . . . our tanks must
have oil. Stick to your job--oil is ammunition.

That is why, in the 1970s, when we tried to get the Alaska oil
pipeline built, there was never even a hint of filibuster. No one, not
one Senator mentioned a filibuster.
Instead, we all knew it was a security aspect that we were dealing
with. It was oil, oil that we needed. We had an embargo from, I think,
November to March. We had no imports of oil.
That could happen again. Again, I point out where they are meeting.
They are meeting today in Iran.
The letter President Carter wrote said:

It seems possible some in Congress may be trying to subvert
parts of ANILCA by inserting provisions in this budget
resolution designed to circumvent normal legislative
procedures.

The only reason we have been doing it is because it has been
filibustered for 24 years--24 years. This is the first chance we have
had, really, to keep it in this resolution. We did try it once before
and when we did it before in the last Congress, no one accused us of
sneaking. That is a sneaky thing to do.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Kerry's flier be printed in the
Record after my remarks, so people can see the depth to which people
are going to accuse us of somehow doing something wrong.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. STEVENS. We are trying to carry out the provisions of the 1980
act that allowed us to explore and develop this 1.5 million acres.
It is a difficult thing for some of us to be accused of trying to
subvert, to circumvent normal legislative procedures.
President Carter indicates that this is a wilderness. It is not a
wilderness. I stood in the White House with him and he acknowledged it
then, the Jackson-Tsongas amendment was in the bill he signed in 1980,
after the election--after the election.
I don't know where you are, President Carter, but I wish you would
tell the truth. Tell the truth to the American public. This is an area
that was left open to exploration.
I have here a chart. I don't know how many people can see it. I hope
the Senator can see it. It shows the wilderness area of the old range,
all of it except that portion that was named wilderness. If you look at
this chart, the new addition made by President Carter was not made
wilderness. There are 18 million acres there; 1.5 million acres were
left for oil and gas exploration and the balance of the 8.6 million
acres is wilderness. We do not oppose that wilderness. That was
wilderness that we accepted as a designation because of the fact the
area that was in the oil and gas province was left open to exploration.
It is not wilderness. The problem is, the people who live on the
North Slope--there was one young lady with me in the press conference
who lives in Kaktovik. It is in the 1002 area, but it is not
wilderness; it is coastal plain and specifically open to oil and gas
exploration.
Madam President, how much time have I used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used approximately 10 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me know when I use 3 more minutes, please.
I want to tell the Senator, one of the friends I had here in the
Senate in days gone by was Senator Jim Buckley. Senator Jim Buckley
left the Senate and became a judge. He is a judge in New York. He sent
me this letter. You read a letter. Let me read you a letter from Judge
Buckley, former Senator Buckley. He wrote this to me on January 24.

Dear Ted, twenty-six years ago, after leaving the Senate--
--

And here it is for everybody to read.

Twenty-six years ago, after leaving the Senate, I was a
lead signatory in full-page ads opposing oil exploration in
the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve that appeared in the New
York Times and the Washington Post. I opposed it because,
based on the information then available, I believed that it
would threaten the survival of the Porcupine caribou herd and
leave huge, long-lasting scars on fragile Arctic lands. Since
then, caribou populations in the areas of Prudhoe Bay and the
Alaskan pipeline have increased, which demonstrates that the
Porcupine herd would not be threatened, and new regulations
limiting activities to the winter months and mandating the
use of ice roads and directional drilling have vastly reduced
the impact of oil operations on the Arctic landscape.
In light of the above, I have revised my views and now urge
approval of oil development in the 1002 Study Area for the
following reasons:
1. With proper management, I don't see that any significant
damage to arctic wildlife would result, and none that
wouldn't rapidly be repaired once operation ceased.
2. While I don't buy the oil companies' claim that only
2,000 acres would be affected, even if all of the 1.5
million-acre Study Area were to lose its pristine quality (it
wouldn't), that would still leave 18.1 million acres of the
ANWR untouched plus another five million acres in two
adjoining Canadian wildlife refuges, or an area about equal
to that of the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont,
and New Hampshire combined. In other words, it is simply
preposterous to claim that oil development in the Study Area
would ``destroy'' the critical values that ANWR is intended
to serve.
3. In light of the above, it is economic and (to a much
lesser degree) strategic masochism to deny ourselves access
to what could prove our largest source of a vital resource.
Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past
13 years (including a recent camping trip on Alaska's North
Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive
to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see the
threat to values I cherish.

There is the man who signed the ads. He started the drive. He
literally was the one who started the drive that everyone else now has
joined, and that is the drive to prevent us from carrying out the
intent of the 1980 Alaska Lands Act.
I will have a lot more to say about this tomorrow. But above all, I
wish people would start telling the truth.
No. 1, it has never been wilderness. No. 2, it has been open to oil
and gas development since the Eisenhower days and remains open. It only
takes the approval of Congress to proceed with that. No. 3, the
Gwich'ins don't live on the North Slope. The Gwich'ins are not
residents of this area. And, No. 4, it has not been harming and would
not harm the caribou. The caribou around the oil pipeline have
increased from 3,000 to over 300,000 in the central Alaska herd.
We are not bad stewards of our lands. We have protected more
wilderness than all the rest of the Nation put together. We have been
good stewards of our land. We have managed our wildlife better than any
other State. It is ridiculous to be put on trial because of a group of
professional, extreme environmentalists who make money.

[[Page S2714]]

Look, Senator Kerry is sending out requests for them: Send money in
now. You need money. You need money to fight this because this is going
to be voted on tomorrow.
It is preposterous. Again, I am sorry I did not get a chance to visit
with my friend from Colorado. I admire Colorado and I know what they
have down there. You should come see our wilderness areas. We have
wilderness areas, a great deal more than you have seen in your life,
more wilderness areas in one State than there is in the whole Nation.
To have people mischaracterize this as wilderness is absolutely
preposterous.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

John Kerry

Dear Friend. We have only 24 to 48 hours to try and save
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the
Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close
to winning. We have to stop them.
I am joining with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) in
offering a critical amendment to stop this sneak attack on
our environment. We will fight on the floor of the Senate,
but we need you by our side.
There are seven key Republican Senators whose votes will
decide the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Before they vote, we need to make sure they know that their
constituents are watching, and that they will not be able to
support drilling without anybody noticing.
Here are two critical steps we can take together to support
our amendment to protect this National Wildlife Refuge:
1. Join the Citizens' Roll Call. First of all, take part in
a massive fast-moving display of citizen support for the
Arctic Refuge. Sign our Cantwell-Kerry Citizens' Roll Call
now.
http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall
.
To make our Citizens' Roll Call impossible to ignore, we
have alerted the media, environmental advocates and my fellow
Senators to a scrolling display of the names and home towns
of the roll call signers. It is posted on our johnkerry.com
website, where we hope to soon add your name and a running
tally of the number of citizens on our Citizens' Roll Call.
2. Bring the fight to the home states of the seven
senators. We need to launch emergency online advertising
campaigns in the home states of those seven critical
senators: Senator Coleman (MN), Senator Smith (OR), Senator
Specter (PA), Senator Martinez (FL), Senator Lugar (IN), and
Senators Gregg and Sununu (NH).
We need your help to bring our Save the Arctic Refuge
message home in these six states. Help us fund an emergency
ad campaign to make sure they know how strongly the people
they represent feel about protecting the Arctic. Please make
an emergency donation right now. <a href='http://
contribute.johnkerry.com/'>http://
contribute.johnkerry.com/</a>.
When Senator Cantwell, myself and other Senators stand up
in support of the Cantwell-Kerry amendment, we will have
powerful arguments on our side. (I have recapped some of
those arguments at the end of this email message.)
But, to win, we need to be able to report directly to our
Senate colleagues that massive numbers of citizens around the
country--and in their own states--are rising up to demand
that the Senate protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
That's why your immediate signature is so critical. <a href='http://
www.johnkerry.com/RollCall'>http://
www.johnkerry.com/RollCall</a>.
The Bush Administration and its oil industry allies want to
send a message that they can drill for oil wherever and
whenever they want to--even if it means targeting a place as
striking, pristine and irreplaceable as the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
They don't care about putting America on a genuine path to
energy independence. If they did, they'd support efforts to
increase energy conservation and to create clean, renewable
sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no
foreign government can seize.
Let me be very direct with you. It is going to take an
immediate and impossible-to-ignore display of grassroots
support to stop them. That's why your decision to sign our
Cantwell-Kerry Amendment Citizens' Roll Call is so crucial.
Thank you for acting quickly on this vital request.
John Kerry.
P.S. Senator Cantwell, who comes from a state in the heart
of the Pacific Northwest, has--at considerable political
risk--courageously stepped forward to join me in leading this
fight. We need you to help us win it.
Here are your save the arctic refuge talking points:
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres
comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact
expanse of arctic and subarctic lands remains protected.
Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent
in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey
scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil
to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies
admit that, even that won't be available for at least 10
years.
An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is
home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden
eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the
Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their
migratory journeys.
Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife.
For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast
Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in
harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred
ground.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Domenici). The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of our time.
I very much respect my colleague from Alaska, not only for his
heroism for our country but also for his leadership on a whole host of
issues. I very much look forward to working with my colleague from
Alaska. I just want to respond to one point my colleague raised. He
went through a very eloquent statement about Alaskan interests and the
legislation and history with respect to this area.
When you read the law specifically from 1980 it says:

Until otherwise provided in law, from 1980, all public
lands within the coastal planes area are withdrawn from all
forms of entry or appropriation under the mining laws and
from operation of the mineral leasing laws of the United
States.

That was in 1980. It happened that they ended up with that consensus
language in that legislation because there was not consensus about what
ought to happen with respect to the ANWR area. Today we are in exactly
the same place.
I suggest to my esteemed colleague from Alaska that we are having
this debate on this floor today as part of the budget reconciliation
measure because we have not yet as a country been able to come to a
consensus on how exactly to treat the area 1002. If we had moved
forward in a manner that would have arrived at a consensus which they
anticipated might have been arrived at when they wrote the legislation
in 1980, we might be in a different place today. But we are not there.
There is still an absolute lack of consensus on the part of this Senate
and the people of the United States about how we ought to move forward
with respect to area 1002.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, had the Senator been there, he would
understand, as I have said, that Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas
said we will go ahead when the Congress and the President approve the
environmental impact statement. Section 1003 spells that out. The land
is not available for gas leasing until we act. That is true. But it is
not wilderness, either. It is not refuge, either. That is the
difference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Who seeks time?
The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to continue with the
discussion about the wilderness and designation within the refuge.
Senator Stevens certainly defined it during his comments, but I think
it is worth a few minutes so people understand what ANWR is, what the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is.
It is this colored section up on the northeastern part of the State.
It is an area in total of 19.6 million acres. It is an area the size of
the State of South Carolina.
Within the refuge itself, there are three different designations. You
have down here in the orange the refuge itself, which is about 10
million acres. You have the wilderness designation area here, which is
8 million acres. Then up here, you have the reserve area, as Senator
Stevens has indicated, that portion, the 1.5 million acres that was set
aside for the purpose of study for exploration of potential oil and
gas.
When we talk about ANWR, there is, I think, a confusion. The Gwich'in
people, who are referred to as living within ANWR, are separated by a
massive mountain range, the Brooks Range, which is here. They are down
here in this section of the refuge, nowhere near the Coastal Plain. The
1002 area has been specifically set aside.
It is important that we talk about the specifics within the refuge
designation, and recognize that as far as wilderness goes, those areas
that are set aside for wilderness will not be subject to any kind of
exploration activity. The area within the refuge will not be subject to
any exploration, or any production activity. It is only this area up
here. It is within this area here that we

[[Page S2715]]

are talking about exploring on 2,000 acres. Out of the total area the
size of the State of South Carolina, we are looking at a coastal plain
about the size of the State of Delaware. And within that size of the
State of Delaware, we are talking about 2,000 acres, or literally the
size of a medium-sized farm in South Dakota.
It helps to put it into perspective when we are talking about oil
exploration on the northern plain.
I want to focus my comments tonight on three areas: energy security,
economic security, and environmental security.
Senator Stevens touched on the energy security component, recognizing
we are currently 58 percent dependent on foreign oil; that we here in
this country are waiting to see what the OPEC nations are going to do
and how that will affect us and our economy.
This dependence is expected to pass the two-thirds mark within 20
years. This is a threat to our national security. We are in a position
to do something positive. We need to recognize that by moving forward
on the domestic level to produce our own resources--our own oil--we can
make a difference.
There have been those who have suggested that the amount of oil
potential up in the Coastal Plain is miniscule; that somehow or other
it is not worth it to explore and to drill in this region.
Let us talk a little bit about what is there for us in terms of the
resources, the jobs that can be created, and the economic benefit with
the potential we have in ANWR right now.
To suggest this amount of oil is not going to help us in this country
is akin to suggesting that all of the oil we receive from east Texas
isn't worth it because it is not able to sustain this country, it is
not able to give us the energy independence we need. That is a
ridiculous argument.
Putting into context where we are getting our oil right now, if we
are 50 percent accurate with our projections of the potential in ANWR,
we are looking at a million barrels a day going into our pipeline. That
is about 25 years worth of oil that we currently receive from Saudi
Arabia. Twenty-five years worth of oil that we are receiving from Saudi
Arabia is equivalent to what we could expect out of ANWR, if we are
half right on our projections.
To suggest somehow this is not something we should do because there
is not enough there is not an argument that makes sense. Giving up
ANWR's likely oil is like saying we as a nation should never have
bothered opening up the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska because Prudhoe
would only supply us with 3 years' supply of oil. In fact, Prudhoe has
provided America up to a quarter of our domestic oil supply for the
past 28 years.
With our recovery methods, when we thought initially Prudhoe was
going to be recovering 35 percent of our oil, we are now up to a
recovery rate of about 65 percent. To suggest that the amount is
minimal is not being realistic.
Let us talk about the economics in terms of our ability to stabilize
our energy crisis: generating more than $30 billion in Federal revenue,
probably several billion dollars within 4 years of opening of ANWR.
Talking about our deficit, as we are dealing with the budget, it
would reduce our payments of deficit--the remainder of our payments of
deficit--because we are not going to be buying as much oil overseas.
Last year alone, we paid nearly $166 billion for oil overseas. That is
a quarter of our trade deficit.
When we talk about $30 billion-plus a year, it is important to
America. The jobs will come. We keep talking about hundreds of
thousands of jobs, but the fact is when we produce domestically,
everybody benefits. The jobs across this Nation will increase.
The other economic benefits, the reason that organized labor is
supporting us, the reason the farmers are supporting us on opening
ANWR, is it stabilizes everything, from the cost of planting in the
springtime to the thousands of products that are made from oil, whether
it is antihistamines, cosmetics, or compact disks, or heart replacement
valves. The list goes on and on, to recognize the economic benefit to
us as a nation of opening ANWR. American farmers last year lost $6.2
billion of income because of higher fuel and fertilization costs.
We recognize we have an opportunity here to make a difference. To
downplay it and say, Well, it is only so many months' worth of oil, or
it is not enough to make a difference--again, if you would suggest the
oil we have received from Texas for these many years is not
significant, if you would suggest the oil we have received, 20 percent
of our domestic supply from the North Slope from Prudhoe Bay, is not
significant, we have to put all of this into perspective.
You have energy security. By producing more of our energy needs here
in the country, you have economic security that ANWR brings.
We also have the environmental side. My colleagues on both sides of
the aisle have talked about the caribou and the effect on the
environment. I live there. My family lives there. I am the last person
in the world who wants to see my State spoiled. I want to make sure
that what we do when it comes to development is going to be done in
balance with our environment. We figured out how to do it up there. We
have been perfecting the Arctic engineering up north for 30 years.
We have seen a tenfold increase in the central Arctic caribou herd
since Prudhoe Bay was opened 30 years ago. Our wildlife studies show
that several herd species have grown. Polar bears were mentioned. With
the science and the technology we have, we use infrared sensing, and we
pinpoint where the bears are denning so we do not go near them.
There is a sensitivity to the environment that we pay attention to.
We are using 3D and now 4D seismic technology so we know where to
explore. We are using underground directional drilling that allows us
to put the plug in and explore out 3 or 4 miles in every direction so
we are not disturbing the surface. We have decreased the size of the
pads 70, 80 percent over the past 30 years.
What this picture shows is an exploration rig that is connected not
by road but connected by ice roads. It was described earlier by Senator
Bennett. This road will disappear in the spring. This pad that this
exploration rig is sitting on disappears in the spring. What is left is
a plug, a cap, in the ground.
I need to make a quick comment about the spills that have been
mentioned by a couple of my colleagues. What they do not mention is
that the companies up North have to report all spills, all spills of
any nonnatural occurring substance, whether this is a spill of
saltwater or anything that is more than a gallon of oil or chemical
such as lubricating oils or hydraulics. The vast majority of oil spills
at Prudhoe Bay have been saltwater used in water floating to enhance
oil recovery, not oil spills.
In 1993, one of the worst years for spills at Prudhoe Bay, there were
160 reported spills, nearly 60,000 gallons of material, but only 2
spills involved oil, and all but 10 gallons were in secondary
containment structures and were easily cleaned up.
We know we have to do it right up there. It is a fragile environment.
It is an environment that we know we must care for. But look at what we
do in Alaska with the toughest environmental safeguards anywhere in the
world. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to come up with more stringent
standards when it comes to development. Alaska will beat them every
time.
I suggest that we need to be global environmentalists. If we are not
taking the oil from ANWR, we will still need it elsewhere. If we do not
take it in an area where we know we are going to monitor it and do it
correctly, it will come to us from across the water, from Russia, from
Venezuela, from Africa, where they did not care for their environment.
To use the phrase of some on the other side, think globally but act
locally. This is a perfect example of where we need to do just that.
I look forward to the rest of the comments from my colleagues and
further debate tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the other side have, and how much
time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side has 16 minutes 37 seconds, and
you have 16 minutes 48 seconds.

[[Page S2716]]

Mr. DOMENICI. And now the time goes to the Democratic side.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yields the floor.
The Senator from Washington is recognized.

Amendment No. 168

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I have
sent an amendment to the desk that I am offering to strike the language
from the budget resolution the reconciliation instructions to the
Energy Committee that assume Arctic drilling. Specifically, under the
instructions, the Energy Committee must report legislation by June 6 at
the latest that produces $2.7 billion in revenue from 2006 until 2007.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend.
Mr. DOMENICI. We object to the amendment. It is not in order. There
is a consent decree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has been advised we cannot accept
your amendment right now without unanimous consent.
Ms. CANTWELL. We had a unanimous consent order earlier to agree to
debate the amendment, and I thought it would be wise to put the
amendment on the desk.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I objected, but I understand this is a
motion to strike the ANWR provisions, and we have no objection. That is
business.
Is that correct, Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized
again. The amendment has been sent to the desk and the clerk will
report.
Ms. CANTWELL. I hope you have no objection, but tomorrow at 1 o'clock
you might object to the amendment, but thank you for allowing us to lay
it down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, and Mr.
Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 168.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that legislation that would open the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, other federal lands, and the Outer
Continental Shelf to oil drilling receives full consideration and
debate in the Senate under regular order, rather than being fast-
tracked under reconciliation procedures; to ensure that receipts from
such drilling destined for the federal treasury are fairly shared with
local jurisdictions; and does not occur unless prohibitions against the
export of Alaskan oil are enacted)

Strike Section 201(a)(4).

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thought for the benefit of my
colleagues we would lay that down tonight so people could understand
the amendment and we could continue debating it in our time this
evening and continue debating it tomorrow. I hope that clarifies issues
for my colleagues.
I start by saying a word to the Senators from Alaska because I think
both Senators from Alaska have been diligent in their concerns for this
issue, in their advocacy for making sure the issues they would like to
represent are heard in this debate, and that the accuracy of
information provided is correct. I certainly applaud them for that.
But, I certainly don't diminish the difference of opinion we might
express tonight as it relates to where this country should go on an
energy policy.
I believe our energy policy must be very aggressive in creating a
future for new energy technology and renewables, in making a
downpayment on getting off of our overdependence on foreign oil, and,
specifically in continuing to diversify off of our country's dependence
on oil in general.
I may have a different opinion about what I think our energy strategy
should be. If the last generation of Americans were smart enough to put
a man on the Moon, this generation of Americans ought to be smart
enough to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. But that assumes
we would pass an energy bill that would outline these policies and that
we would have a debate about them. We have been trying to have this
debate, and we certainly have had disagreements about what the policy
should be.
For the last couple of years, I have expressed concern over our
country's overfocus on fossil fuels, the fact that 60 percent of the
incentives in the Energy bill have focused on fossil fuels. And I think
we should start incentivizing other types of energy supply and move
ahead.

That is why I find this particular process to be an end run on energy
policy and energy discussions. In fact, I think it is somewhat absurd
that we can simply mandate the opening of ANWR by putting language in
the budget, by simply saying: Let's put the revenue in the budget, and
by doing that, we will then start the process for legislating that ANWR
could be opened.
The reason why that is so bothersome to this particular Senator--
think, for example, if in the next budget we put revenue in there
expediting timber sales in our National Forests or basically expediting
the leasing off the coast of Florida for oil production. Or, God
forbid, why don't we put revenue in the resolution recognizing oil
leasing in Yellowstone National Park, even though it is a National
Park? Why don't we do this process by continuing to put revenues in the
budget resolution?
Well, I think the energy debate deserves far more attention than
simply sticking language in the budget resolution demanding the Energy
Committee report a bill capture this revenue. I think that is what
other people have started to see about this proposal. In fact, the New
York Times recently ran a story about this, the refuge drilling, and
basically pointed out:

Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said
including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open
the door for more geological promising prospects off the
coasts of California and Florida.

So my first question is, If we don't stop this now, where does this
stop in the future? I ask my colleagues, both Democrats and
Republicans, if today you are going to allow the opening of ANWR by
simply putting language in the budget requiring that we produce
revenue, where will you go next? And clearly, I do not think the
discussion of opening up leasing off the coast of Florida or the coast
of California or even in ANWR belongs in the budget resolution. I do
not think we should legislate in the budget resolution. To me, the
process of having this debate now is very bothersome. But I understand
there are some who will continue to push this until they find a way to
make this proposal a reality.
I do not think anybody can say our side of the aisle cannot be
concerned about this type of tactic. I simply say, we should vote for
my amendment tomorrow and turn this proposal down and start a real
discussion on the energy bill.
The senior Senator from Alaska, I know, is very concerned that this
not be referred to as a wilderness area. He is right. It is a wildlife
refuge. He is right. It is a wildlife refuge. It is not a wilderness
area. One of my colleagues would like to make it a wilderness area, the
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and he has proposed
legislation to do that. We have had that debate, too. We have had that
debate about as long as we have had this debate about whether we should
open up ANWR to oil drilling.
The fact of the matter is, in 1980, section 1003 of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act specifically prohibited oil
and gas development in the entire refuge or the leasing or development
leading to the production of oil and gas from the range unless
authorized by Congress. So that is what we are here debating: unless
authorized by Congress.
I have given you my reasons why I do not think we should authorize on
the

[[Page S2717]]

budget resolution this significant of an action without discussing
energy policy and the impacts of opening up ANWR on the refuge.
I personally think there are many things we should be doing to attain
our energy future. I think there are many policies that would be far
more interesting to us as a country because a lot of people are trying
to argue that we should do this now because it is an energy supply and
it is national security.

Well, I can tell you, this Senator, along with my fellow west coast
Senators, is outraged over the price of gasoline in America. We are
from a State such as Washington, where we have four refineries, we are
the closest to the supply that you could get, and yet we have some of
the highest gasoline prices in America.
So what this Senator would like to see--just as I have forced and
pushed, and will continue to speak out on market manipulation of
electricity prices--I believe we should do our homework and make sure
we are holding those responsible accountable as to: Why do we have this
diversity of gasoline prices when there is so much available supply
right in our backyard?
I know the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, has asked for
investigations into these high gasoline prices, and threatened to hold
up various nominations over the issue. I have certainly put questions
to various members of the Department of Energy, the Department of
Justice, and to our own State's Governor, and will continue to do so,
because I think the price of gasoline is outrageous.
This particular Senator is not a supporter for opening up the SPRO. I
agree, we should have energy for energy security, an energy supply. I
think people have made that point and made it well. But I want to see
us continue to diversify into other areas. So this Senator will join
the Alaska Senators any day of the week to talk about the development,
the delivery, the execution, and expedited access to Alaska natural
gas. We need to have natural gas. If there is any proposal that
deserves an expedited review by this body, it would be to get that
production to the United States at a faster rate.
Let me remind my colleagues, when security was a national debate in
the 1970s, when we were all at the gasoline line filling up our cars,
waiting, with the most absurd price for gasoline, America took notice.
America took notice of those gas prices and said: What are we going to
do about it? And we had an aggressive plan to get off of our dependence
on home heating oil. We realized the price of oil was so expensive that
it was not smart for America to continue a policy of investing in that
as a delivery source of energy. Now, decades later, we have reduced our
dependence on home heating oil 35 percent. We got the natural gas. We
got the necessary supply. We got it to where people needed it. And we
made a major shift in America. We took the prices that were facing us
and we acted with the certainty about the future we wanted to see in
America, with a cleaner source of energy supply.
So first on my list would be making sure we have the North Slope
natural gas pipeline project moving. We certainly heard today from a
variety of people about renewable fuels.
I should say, by the way, people talk about the drilling in the
Arctic, and we don't know for sure, but economically recoverable oil
might be somewhere between 3.2 and 5 billion barrels. That is generally
what people think. Well, there is at least 35 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas available. So that is the energy equivalent of 6 billion
barrels of oil.
We could continue to look at renewable or nonpetroleum fuel, such as
ethanol made from crops, something the other side of the aisle has also
supported, and look at requirements for renewable content of gasoline.
That would be about 5.1 billion barrels by 2013--again, a source of
cleaner energy that would be important for us in an energy plan.
We can invest in new technology to convert agriculture waste to oil,
something some States are doing on a much smaller scale. But we could
produce as much as 4 billion barrels of a cleaner product on an annual
basis.
I certainly am a fan of making sure that CAFE standards are passed by
Congress. If you think about the CAFE standards and fuel efficiency,
that would help us. We could save 60 billion barrels of oil over the
next 50 years.
Why are we not focusing on that in our proposal for an energy plan?
Just making sure the tires of our transportation system are properly
inflated and educating America on the oil savings of that simple action
could save 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Yet we are out here
discussing a proposal that has been discussed for years, with much
controversy and much concern because of what it focuses on--first, a
refuge wildlife area that was set aside and preserved, and a focus on
oil that some of us, including myself, are saying we need to diversify
off of.
I could go through other examples of renewable technologies, of
energy efficiency technology that could continue to save the equivalent
of another 4.9 billion barrels of oil--something that I know would make
great progress with the building and development sectors of our country
as they add efficiency improvement, and install renewable technologies
and distributed generation. But that is the kind of leadership I think
we should be talking about. We should not be talking about whether we
want to go and open up this wildlife refuge.
If I may, I know my colleagues have put up a few pictures. I would
like to put up a few pictures of the area as well because I think when
the area was first established as a wildlife refuge, people recognized
the uniqueness of the coastal region. The government looked at it as an
area to support wildlife and sustain their migration patterns. We have
heard a lot about that for the last several years, the caribou and
their migration habits. I never thought the Senate would become such
experts on the migration habits of the caribou, but I think both sides
of the aisle have expressed quite a bit of knowledge. I am simply
offering a few pictures of the wildlife that resides on the coastal
plain of the refuge. The reason I am showing these photographs is to
remind my colleagues and individuals that we have choices, and we have
options like this refuge drilling proposal that we have debated before,
and it is fine to debate them. What I object to is the process of
trying to essentially stick authorizing language on a budget bill. That
is a bad precedent and it is trying to limit discussion on an issue
that was never intended to be considered in this way without the Energy
Committee and the Energy Committee debate.
Now, I know some people have talked about the supply of oil we might
get from the refuge. I think that New York Times article was very
interesting in the sense that it said:

Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil
from the refuge would only meet a tiny fraction of America's
needs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the Democratic side has expired.
Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds so I may
finish up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues as we continue this
debate to think about this proposal and the fact that we ought to be
taking ourselves in a different direction, and this proposal will not
provide us the leadership for an energy future that we need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes forty-two seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I had two Senators who wanted to speak.
I have not spoken yet. Would the Senator from Tennessee like to speak
for, say, 4 minutes?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Why doesn't the chairman take the time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will try to leave some time for the two of you.
Tomorrow morning, we have a total of 45 minutes before the vote,
starting somewhere around 9:45. If you don't get your time tonight,
maybe you can call and see how much time you can have then.
Mr. President, let me suggest that the distinguished Senator who just
spoke said she was outraged because the price of gasoline was so high
in her State. I might say to the distinguished Senator, if she is
outraged today, I don't know what she is going to be 3

[[Page S2718]]

years from now because if we don't start doing something, as President
Reagan once said, ``you ain't seen nothing yet.'' That is what I am
going to tell the Senate and people of this country about gasoline
prices.
Let me also suggest that for those who think we are going to solve
this problem with an investigation to see whether there is price fixing
or something like that, let me suggest that is not going to happen.
That has been looked at before. The truth is, this great United States
of America has made a gigantic blunder, and we don't know how to get
out of it. Certainly, one way to get into it deeper is to take a piece
of America, like this 1.5 million acres which is supposed to be
explored for oil and gas--and keep that kind of property closed and not
produce crude oil.
Let me assure everybody here that there is no one who knows how to
get off of crude oil very quickly. In fact, I don't think anybody knows
how America will ever be off of oil as a means of transportation and
for many other things. I hope we get an energy bill that provides
conservation. I hope Americans start driving small cars. I hope we have
hybrids. But for now, I say to my good friend from Colorado, every
single suggestion that anyone has about how we can reduce our
dependency ought to be adopted.
If you think we ought to conserve, conserve. If you think we ought to
produce more crude oil, produce it. None of these potential solutions
are going to be enough because we are now struggling over the fact that
we are importing so much crude oil. I heard a Senator say today that we
might consider ANWR if we were collapsing.
Well, we won't know when we are collapsing, but we are pretty close.
Right now, we are importing about 58 percent of the crude oil from a
world that is in trouble, where some countries are fragile, and war
might occur in others, and here we go along our merry way importing
more and more oil. Petroleum imports are expected to reach 69 percent
in the year 2025. Then we get a chance to produce 1 million barrels a
day, and we are immediately confronted with those who say that is not
very much. Why do we want to produce a million barrels of oil? Well,
you know, this great United States is consuming 20.5 million barrels of
oil a day and is currently only 11th on the scale of the most reserves
on down the line. We are 11th from the top in the amount of oil
reserves we have in our country. That is almost insignificant compared
to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia ranks first in proven world oil reserves
with 260 billion barrels. However, our reserves are only about 21.9
billion barrels.
I say to my good friend from Tennessee, the 1002 area we are
discussing is estimated to have about 10 billion barrels of oil--that
is very probable. Just do the arithmetic. Our country's entire oil
reserves amount to 21.9 billion barrels. This area in ANWR will produce
10 billion barrels. Insignificant they say? Add the two together and we
could have 31 billion barrels in reserves. Again, this property will
comprise 10 billion barrels of it. That is one-third of the reserves of
America that will be up there in Alaska, and we are being told it is
insignificant. That is like saying all the oil we have in America is
insignificant. Why don't we close Texas down? That must be
insignificant. It must be insignificant because we buy it from the
world. As long as the world can supply it, I guess we are going to have
to keep on arguing about ANWR. If there are not any more ANWRs around,
I don't know what we are going to look to.
I can tell you this. ANWR, with the potential for 1 million barrels
of oil a day, will be the most significant onshore production capacity
of any potential new onshore area in the United States--a brand new
one. ANWR is by far the most promising site for onshore oil in the
United States. You might say, since I learned that ANWR is so little,
maybe America doesn't have much oil, and we should just not worry about
having any.
I do not think so. I think we better do everything we can and must
produce as much as we can.
There are so many facts indicating that we are pursuing a path of
economic arrogance--we are absolutely refusing to face reality. Every
time we discuss this issue someone will come and talk about another way
to use less oil, but not to produce more here in America.
I repeat, if you implemented every potential solution that everybody
is suggesting, our tremendous Nation would be in terrible jeopardy for
the next 25 to 50 years. We already are. America, as a powerhouse in
the world for good and for freedom, is totally in jeopardy because we
have not decided that we are going to move in a direction of diverse
energy sources and where we can produce our own.
It is so critical, in my opinion--and I say to the new Senator from
Colorado--I predict that in your first term as Senator, we will be in
the shale oil of Colorado again. We will be there with terrific
research and experimentation saying can we convert that shale to oil
because there sits oil in abundance. But you have to convert it. We
tried it 30 years ago, but oil was not expensive enough. We are in such
a bind, we will even look at that.
Canada will produce oil from tar sands in abundance because we have
to find some way to lessen our dependence while we make a transition to
something else.
I have been on the Budget Committee since a year after the Budget Act
was written. I regret to tell my colleagues that everything that is
used in the budgeting of America--I am going to use a terrible word--
was invented by me. It was invented by me and my staff. The first
reconciliation ever used, we used it. It was a total argument about
whether it was right or wrong. We won on the floor and said it was
right. Every year we would use reconciliation, there would be an
argument about whether it was right.
Reconciliation does not mean the bill that is adopted pursuant to it
or voted pursuant to it is automatic. It still has to get 51 votes, and
it still has to be signed by the President. So for those who think this
is an easy way to get through the process without any of the
legislative and executive input, they are mistaken. But conversely, if
a Budget Committee says we need additional revenue and we would like
the Energy Committee to furnish us with new revenue and then gives the
Energy Committee an instruction that says produce new revenue, for
example produce revenue that flows about like this: 400 million, 600
million, 2 billion in each of these years, that is what the Senate
voted on when we pass a budget.
The instruction comes to the Energy Committee and it says ANWR
receipts will produce a certain amount of money, therefore write a bill
in response to that order. The reconciliation process then, produces
that amount of revenue. That is absolutely legitimate. That is what the
Budget Act has been used for in the last 27 years.
I regret to say there are some who do not think that is how
reconciliation ought to be used, but they lost that argument a long
time ago. That is long past. The Senate wrote an act and we are living
with it. I have already told them over 50 times in the past 20 years:
You said this was a way to avoid filibuster. You said this was a way to
avoid prolonged debate. Now we are using it. That is what we are doing
here. There is absolutely nothing that says it cannot be done.
Whatever questions you have about what else might be done, we will
take them up in their proper time, and if they come up, they come up.
This one we already did. We sent it all the way to the President as a
reconciled bill, and then President Clinton vetoed it after it was
done. If the President had signed the bill, oil from ANWR would
currently be flowing and our dependence on foreign oil would be much
less.
So it seems that these letters being circulated by Senator Kerry and
President Jimmy Carter, those very activist environmentalists, will
have nothing to talk about tomorrow when we win this, and 4 weeks from
now when we produce the bill. They have to understand, we have been
trying for 24 years. A filibuster means we have to have 60 votes,
unless there is a procedure which permits us to do otherwise.

I say to my friend, the Senator from Colorado, this is not simple,
nor is it profound. It is very cumbersome. There is a lot to it, but it
is absolutely proper. It means that if this million barrels of oil a
day is important enough, we

[[Page S2719]]

will do it with a simple majority, but we still have to have a
majority. We will put it in a bill, it will go to the President, and if
the President wants to sign it, he will sign it. If he does not, it
will not become law.
I do not think we ought to be accusing anybody about doing this in a
tricky manner or in some untoward way because such is not the case. It
just is not the case.
Tomorrow I will talk, for those who want to listen, about why we will
do so little harm, if any, to the environment, and why there is no
project, including Prudhoe Bay, that we can go see that shows what this
is going to look like with new technology. There are none. It is
absolutely so different from what we have ever done before that it is
going to be amazing.
I close by saying those of us who went to Alaska saw a production
facility called Alpine. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, did
not go with us. I wish he had. The 96 acres of land at Alpine had upon
it the entire oil production facilities--the oil wells, not one but
several so close together that it looked almost like a row of outhouses
at a public park. Each outhouse has a well in it--that is how little it
was--an oil well. Each oil well had six or eight wells underground.
I will show one of those tomorrow. That little 96 acres had no roads.
Instead, ice roads were built in the winter that simply melt away in
the summer. In the summertime, there are no roads to it because they
have melted. The facility produces 120,000 barrels of oil a day because
under that little piece of property are wells that go down 7,000 feet,
find the oil, and go up 4\1/2\ miles and drain the field. There is
another one that goes down, and there are five new wells sprout out
from under it, and coming out of the wellhead is 3,000 to 4,000, 5,000
barrels a day from one well. They have been getting that for a long
time.
It seems to me that it is rather ironic that we are all here talking
about a crisis. We are suggesting it is not a big enough crisis to
worry about a million barrels a day. We are also suggesting that we
ought to do other things. This Senator has been here a while. First,
this is the proper way to do it. Second, if anybody has another
proposal for a million barrels of American oil, let's have it. It would
be tremendous if we had a few more. If anybody knows how to conserve
and pass through Congress a measure that would cause us to conserve 2
million or 3 million or 4 million barrels a day, put it on the table.
It is not that if we did that we do not need this. We need them both.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice today in support
of the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell. This amendment would
strike the instruction to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
contained in the budget resolution premised on opening the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development and enacting the
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program cost recovery proposal set forth in
the President's Budget for fiscal year 2006. I would like to address
both of these issues.
First, I have concerns regarding the Pick Sloan cost recovery
proposal. Although I have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review
the proposal, I am advised that it could result in significant rate
increases for power users in rural areas of the Upper Midwest and the
Great Plains. The instruction assumes that the provision would increase
revenues by $33 million in fiscal year 2006 and $157 million over the
next 5 years. If the committee should choose not to enact the Pick
Sloan cost recovery proposal, we would be obligated to find these
revenues elsewhere. Given the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee, our
options are few. We have only limited mandatory spending within our
jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over imposition of fees for the use
of public lands. Administration of oil and gas leasing on the Outer
Continental Shelf and the revenues raised from opening areas currently
covered by moratoria is within the jurisdiction of the Energy
Committee. Similarly, the President's budget contains a proposal to
divert revenues from southern Nevada land sales, which falls within our
committee's jurisdiction. All of these are likely to be controversial.
The best way to ensure that the Pick Sloan cost recovery proposal is
not enacted as part of budget reconciliation legislation and the only
way to avoid finding an offset is to support the Cantwell amendment to
strike the instruction, and I think that is clearly the preferred
course of action at this juncture.
Turning now to the Arctic Refuge, there are many reasons--related to
both energy security and environmental concerns--that lead me to
conclude that I cannot support oil and gas leasing and development in
the Arctic Refuge.
The most compelling reason for not opening the Arctic Refuge is that
it will do very little, if anything, to further our national energy
security. If opened, not one drop of oil will come from the Arctic
Refuge for 7 to 12 years. The most recent Energy Information
Administration, EIA, study, ``Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,'' March 2004, assumes that production
will not occur for 10 years. According to EIA, peak production will not
occur for another 10 to 11 years after initial production. Thus, we
will have to wait for 20 years before having the benefit of maximum
production from the Arctic Refuge. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge does
nothing to address near-term shortages or issues of energy security.
More importantly, drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not address our
reliance on imported oil. The United States relies on imports for 58
percent of its current oil supplies. The Energy Information
Administration in March 2004 has estimated that production from the
Arctic Refuge would, at its peak, reduce our reliance on imports by
only 4 percent by the year 2025, based on the mean estimate of
technically recoverable resources.
Unlike other future-looking initiatives that we could undertake now,
drilling in the Refuge would over the long term have no effect on
reducing imports, once the oil resources in the refuge have been
depleted. Unfortunately, the controversy over the Arctic Refuge diverts
attention from the real opportunities to enhance domestic energy
production. Last Congress, we enacted energy tax legislation that I
believe is a good start in addressing our Nation's energy future.
Unlike opening the Arctic Refuge, this legislation is intended to
provide a near-term increase in domestic energy production. Not only
does the legislation include tax provisions that would promote highly
efficient hybrid vehicles and alternative transportation fuels such as
ethanol, make renewable energy more competitive, and enhance energy
efficiency, it would also provide specific incentives to increase oil
and gas production at home. In particular, I am pleased that we were
able to pass the marginal well production tax credit. It is my hope
that this year we will be able to expand upon the energy tax package
that was enacted last Congress and do even more to provide for our
Nation's energy security.

Environmentally sound development of the National Petroleum Reserve--
Alaska provides another opportunity to enhance our domestic energy
security. This is 23.5 million acres of Federal land set aside by
President Harding to secure the Nation's petroleum reserves for the
national security. The area is highly prospective for oil and gas. BLM
conducted lease sales in 1999, 2002, and 2004 that had an extremely
high level of industry interest. Several wells have been drilled that
have encountered oil and gas. The NPRA is estimated to hold a mean
value of 3.1 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil at $24 per
barrel and a mean estimate of 9.3 billion barrels of technically
recoverable oil. While I believe that BLM should take all measures to
conduct leasing in an environmentally sensitive way, and also am of the
view that there are areas of NPRA that should not be developed, the
vast majority of this resource can and should be tapped to enhance our
energy security.
Renewables, energy efficiency and R&D must play an increased role in
meeting our Nation's energy needs. Clean energy from renewable sources
such as the sun, the wind, the ocean, geothermal heat and biomass helps
to diversify our energy portfolio and enhance our energy security with
minimal environmental impact.
In addition, a rational energy strategy should focus on cost-
effective ways to reduce energy demand, not solely on increasing
supply. Energy efficiency

[[Page S2720]]

provides an array of benefits--economic growth, national security,
reliability and environmental protection. Our growth in demand, each
year, for automotive fuels far exceeds any potential new domestic oil
production. That includes any production from the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, even if we were to open it and even if the Arctic
Refuge has more oil than anyone thinks is likely. Because of that
reality, Congress needs to take a serious approach to increasing the
fuel efficiency of our new cars, trucks, and SUVs. We cannot talk
seriously about loosening our dependence on foreign oil without
advancing meaningful improvements in automotive fuel efficiency.
In conclusion, Mr. President, there are many reasons why the coastal
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge need not and should not be
drilled for oil and gas. The environmental sensitivity of this area is
well-known. Opening the Arctic Refuge is not good environmental policy,
but equally important to our Nation, it is far from necessary to our
energy policy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to oil and gas leasing
and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Our dependency on foreign oil is now over 11 million barrels a day--
it is rapidly moving towards 20 million barrels a day. This is
important. Let's assume our dependence will be 19 or 20 million barrels
a day by 2025. The oil produced at ANWR would represent about 5 percent
of what we need to import from foreign sources. That is a lot.
I close by saying 1 million barrels of oil a day equals $18.4 billion
a year in balance of trade dollars. We talked about the merchandise
trade balance. Currently, 25.5 percent of this country's merchandise
trade deficit is from net imports of crude oil and petroleum products.
Everybody is worried about it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for an additional 30 seconds, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We worry about China bringing in all this, but almost
26 percent of the balance of trade is pure oil. We can stop the
imbalance with China and continue to buy oil, and we will have a trade
imbalance that is still going up, and we will be wondering whether we
need a million barrels of oil a day from an area that is supposed to be
explored that some do not even want to allow us to look at. I believe
the time has come. I hope it is tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
There will now be 1 hour of debate evenly divided in the usual form
on an amendment relating to veterans, to be offered by the minority.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be laid aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 149

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 149, which is at
the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Obama, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Levin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, and
Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 149.

Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006 and
to provide for deficit reduction by closing corporate tax loopholes)

On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $5,112,000,000.
On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $1,377,000,000.
On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $109,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $5,112,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $1,377,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $109,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $2,840,000,000.
On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $2,556,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $689,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $2,556,000,000.
On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $688,000,000.
On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $54,000,000.
On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,556,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $3,244,000,000.
On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $3,298,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $3,303,000,000.
On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $3,303,000,000.
On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,556,000,000.
On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $3,244,000,000.
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $3,298,000,000.
On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,303,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $3,303,000,000.
On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $2,840,000,000.
On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $2,556,000,000.
On page 22, line 21, increase the amount by $689,000,000.
On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
On page 23, line 4, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
On page 30, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,112,000,000.
On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by $6,608,000,000.
On page 48, line 6, increase the amount by $2,840,000,000.
On page 48, line 7, increase the amount by $2,556,000,000.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the budget resolution fails veterans. It is
just that simple. I am pleased to stand with my colleagues who joined
me in offering this veterans' health care amendment, which adds $2.85
billion for VA health care.
While I largely agree with the President on the overall amount needed
for VA health care, I take issue with how he chooses to fund the
system. The administration's approach is to ask veterans to pay more
for their care via increased copayments for medications and a new user
fee for middle-income veterans. Our approach, instead, asks for
appropriated dollars. Real money for real veterans' health care needs.
I remain unclear about whether sufficient funding was included to
compensate for these proposals.
Our amendment would add $2.85 billion to the resolution. How was this
amount derived? I stress that nearly all of these amounts come directly
from the President's own budget. According to the administration's own
numbers, VA needs $1.4 billion just to cover medical care inflation and
automatic salary adjustments for health care workers. The level in the
budget resolution before us does not even come close to covering that
amount.
Additionally, VA requires funding to absorb new patient workload,
from new veterans returning home from both Operations Iraqi and
Enduring Freedom and from older veterans who are just now turning to
VA.
The amendment also provides funds to allow for modest increases in
mental health and prosthetics. Again, these numbers follow those sent
forward by the President. While it is broadly acknowledged that VA
could do much more in these areas and others, we recognize that the
budget climate is tight. Mental health and prosthetics must receive at
least modest increases if we are to truly fulfill the promises we made
to these men and women when they were sent to war.
The only new cost that was not included in the President's budget--
and therefore the budget resolution--is funding to allow middle-income
veterans to enroll with VA for care. In January of 2003, the President
cut-off

[[Page S2721]]

enrollment to middle-income veterans. To date, 200,000 veterans have
been turned away. This amendment provides the money to make the system
accessible to all who have served. It is simply wrong to exclude any
men and women who have served our country from VA services, especially
at a time of war.
While some of my colleagues will argue that the President's budget is
a good one for VA, I would like to share some of the comments of the
veterans service organizations. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, with its
2.4 million members, say that:

it is clear that the proper funding of veterans health care
is not an Administration priority.

The Disabled American Veterans has characterized this budget--and
therefore the budget resolution--as:

one of the most tight-fisted, miserly budgets for veterans
programs in recent memory.

Similarly, my colleagues will argue that the President has done more
for VA health care than any President in recent memory. I would
clarify, however, that Congress, through this amendment process, which
has increased veterans health care spending year after year.
Mr. President, I implore you and my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to recognize the great need that exists for veterans' health
care.
I will take time later to discuss more of this.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 23 and a half minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at this very hour, veterans in my home
State of Washington and throughout the country are waiting for the
health care they were promised. They are facing understaffed and
overcrowded VA hospitals and clinics. They are dealing with paperwork.
They are dealing with redtape. They are not getting the service they
were promised.
At this hour, veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other
conflicts are waiting for appointments to see a doctor, waiting for
prescription drugs, and waiting for help with post-traumatic stress
disorder. While they are waiting, new veterans are coming home from
Iraq, from Afghanistan, and they need health care, too.
Every day the system is getting more and more crowded. The waiting
lists are growing longer. We have to do something about it. These brave
men and women were there for us. We have now got to be there for them.
They answered our country's call, and now we have to do our part. That
is why I am on the floor tonight with Senator Akaka, offering an
amendment to increase funding for veterans health care by $2.85
billion.
I am here today with a simple message, which is displayed right here
on this chart: Congress needs to keep its promise to America's
veterans. We need to honor their service and their sacrifice, and we
need to fund health care now. I received many letters from veterans
throughout my State with this simple plea: Keep our promise to
America's veterans. Fund health care now.
Let me say, we have a lot of work to do. If we follow the budget
President Bush proposed last month, we will force veterans out of the
VA system, we will force veterans out of nursing homes, we will force
veterans to pay more in fees and copayments, and we will force veterans
to wait even longer for the care they have earned.
As the daughter of a disabled World War II veteran, as the first
woman in history to serve on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and
as the voice of more than 700,000 brave veterans in the State of
Washington, I cannot let that happen.
I have been fighting for veterans for many years. In fact, just last
week in the Budget Committee I offered an amendment to boost funding
for VA health care. Do you know what some Senators told me? They said:
We have already increased funding for veterans plenty, so we don't need
another dime for veterans health care.
They are wrong. That is not what the veterans in my home State are
telling me.
I want every Senator to know that how you vote on this amendment is a
test of how committed you are to helping America's veterans. With this
vote, we are going to find out who is serious about helping our
veterans and who is just talking.
With this vote, every Senator will have to announce publicly whether
they are making life better for our veterans or whether they are making
excuses. I am here to say let's do the right thing. Let us support this
amendment and keep the promise to those who have served.
For those veterans who are following this debate tonight, let me
recap where it stands.
This month, Congress is deciding how much money to spend on
priorities such as veterans health care. So far, we have only had two
choices, and one is to follow President Bush's approach. He offered a
budget that will impose higher fees and copayments on many veterans. It
will lock the doors of VA to thousands of veterans. It is no wonder
that veterans organizations from coast to coast have denounced that
budget proposal.
Last week, the Senate Budget Committee organized its own budget
proposal. I serve on that committee. I was part of that debate.
The Republican proposal got rid of some of the onerous fees in
President Bush's budget, but they refused to increase funding for
veterans to meet their needs.
I tried to improve that bill in committee with the Murray veterans
health care amendment, but the Republicans blocked my funding and
passed an inaccurate budget on a party-line vote. Now that flawed
budget is here on the Senate floor, and we have one more chance to make
it right.
That is why I am here tonight offering this amendment with Senator
Akaka. Our amendment says let's fund veterans health care based on real
needs.
We know what the needs are because over the past few weeks, the
Nation's largest veterans service organizations came before the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, the committee on which I serve. Leaders
from AMVETS, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans
of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, all told us what they need.
They are not asking for special treatment--just what they were promised
in exchange for serving our country. They told us that veterans are not
getting the help they need. They told us what would happen if we
adopted the President's budget.
For me, veterans health care is a very personal issue. My father
served in World War II, and he returned as a disabled veteran. During
the Vietnam war, I interned in the Seattle VA hospital. I know
firsthand the scars and the wounds that burden our veterans when they
come home.

During the gulf war, when our soldiers were coming home with gulf war
syndrome, I brought the VA Secretary out to Washington State so he
could hear from veterans what I was hearing.
Over the past 2 years when President Bush tried to close the doors at
three VA hospitals in Washington State, I worked with veterans and
community leaders from across our State to keep those facilities open.
I continue to press the VA to open new community clinics in north-
central Washington and in Whatcom County to help our veterans who today
have little access to VA services.
When it comes to VA's health care budget, it has been a battle every
year to get the funding we need. Every year, the President has proposed
a small number for veterans health care, and every year we in Congress
have stepped in to protect our veterans.
I have been convinced for a long time that we need to move VA health
care out of the annual budget process. That is why I have sponsored
legislation to make VA health care funding mandatory, so it is always
there no matter what type of budget games are going on.
Unfortunately, the Republican majority has blocked that commonsense
proposal every year.
So the fight goes on. That is why we are here tonight. This year's
debate started on February 2 when the President unveiled his budget
proposal.
Veterans of Foreign Wars looked at his proposal, and they said:

If the President's budget were approved, waiting time for
basic health care appointments would again skyrocket,
returning us to the era of the six-month waiting period.

[[Page S2722]]

That is what the commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
said about the President's budget.
The President's budget would force more than 2 million veterans to
pay a $250 annual fee just to get VA health care. In my book, if you
served our country, if you have already paid your dues, it is insulting
to nickel and dime America's veterans.
The President's plan would also double the copayment for prescription
drugs for thousands of our veterans. It would slash prosthetics
research by $9 million.
The President's budget would eliminate thousands of State-run nursing
home beds. In my home State alone, 300 veterans who honorably served
this country would lose their place in a State nursing home. That is
300 Washington State families being asked to shoulder a new burden, and
that is just wrong.
The President's budget would cut the VA workforce by more than 3,000
people while there is a backlog of more than 700,000 claims. That just
does not make any sense.
We have a huge backlog of claims, with new claims coming in every
day, and now there will be fewer staff to process. That is wrong.
The President's budget would also continue to ban some veterans from
coming to the VA for care. So far, under this flawed policy, nearly
200,000 veterans have been turned away, including more than 3,100
veterans in Washington State.
That is what the President proposed. I have been working with others
to fix that.
I have to tell you that it has been very frustrating. No one in this
administration is willing to say how we are going to take care of our
newest veterans, when they have waiting lists for existing veterans.
I asked the President's budget director on February 9: Where is the
money in your budget to take care of our newest veterans and our
existing veterans? I didn't get an answer. So on February 15, I asked
the Veterans Secretary. I didn't get an answer from him. So the next
day, I asked the Defense Secretary, but I didn't get an answer from him
either.
So I offered an amendment in the Senate Budget Committee last week.
My veterans amendment was defeated on a party-line vote of 10 to 12.
So tonight I am here on the Senate floor with Senator Akaka with a
similar amendment. And now every Senator is going to have to go on the
record either for or against our veterans.
During this debate, you are going to hear Senators say that we have
raised funding for veterans plenty. Other Senators are going to suggest
that we are meeting the needs today. I am going to refute those claims
line by line. But let me say this first: When veterans tell me they are
being left behind and politicians tell me everything is fine, I will
believe the veterans every time.
With that said, I want to look at some of the claims the other side
will make.
One of the arguments you are going to hear from the opponents is that
appropriations for veterans medical care grew by 63 percent from fiscal
year 1995 to fiscal year 2004. That claim is inaccurate because it
leaves out three critical facts.
First of all, the number of veterans who have served has gone up
dramatically over that same period of time, as this chart shows. During
the same year, the number of unique veterans getting care from the VA
has increased by 88 percent.
It is nice that the funding has gone up, but it is nowhere close to
meeting the number of veterans who are getting care at the VA.
Second, the Republican claim is inaccurate because it ignores the
impact of medical inflation.
As this chart shows, over the same timeframe they are talking,
medical inflation has shot up 92 percent, so the increases we have had
so far have not even kept up with medical inflation. It is great that
veterans funding has increased over the years, but it has not even kept
up with inflation.
There is another problem with this excuse that we do not need this
amendment, because every day, as each of us knows, new veterans are
coming back home and seeking care at the VA. If the number of veterans
was going to be stable in the coming years, it would be one thing, but
we all know the number of veterans will keep growing as soldiers come
home from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Washington State alone has sent thousands of brave men and women to
Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several years. Now a large group is
returning home, including 4,000 members of the National Guard. This is
the next generation of veterans.
Congress needs to provide more funding if we are going to keep up
with the growing needs. So we are going to hear some of the opponents
claim that veterans funding has gone up 63 percent so veterans do not
need any more. But when we hear that claim, we need to remember the
number of veterans in the VA system has gone up 88 percent. Medical
inflation has gone up 92 percent. And we are creating new veterans
every single day who need a strong, stable VA to take care of them.
Here is another excuse we will hear from the opponents. They will say
the VA is sitting on nearly $500 million. VA officials in Washington,
DC, may well be holding back money to see what next year may bring, but
that does not mean the funds are not needed at VA hospitals and
clinics. Veterans health networks are already experiencing shortfalls.
As a result, the committee has heard that outpatient clinics have
stopped seeing even the poorest of patients, sending them hundreds of
miles away to other facilities.
I am hearing from veteran leaders in my region that the VA is not
moving forward with new clinics in Whatcom County and north central
Washington because all those dollars are needed for medical care for
existing veterans.
If the VA is sitting on funds we have appropriated, I want those
dollars moved out to help veterans as we intended. It is not an excuse
to block this amendment.
We may also hear opponents claim this budget increases veterans
funding by about $900 million. But when you look at the numbers, the
increase in medical care is less than $80 million.
I have a chart that was produced not by us but by majority staff on
the Committee on Veterans Affairs. I ask unanimous consent to have it
printed in the Record after my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have heard some opponents say we
should not provide another dime in the budget for veterans health care
because we do not know how the Appropriations Committee will spend that
money. I serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and I serve on the
Veterans Appropriations Subcommittee. If the Senate passes our
amendment, then the Appropriations subcommittee will have explicit
instructions that this money is to be spent on veterans health care.
Because I serve on all the committees involved--Appropriations,
Veterans' Affairs--I will be there at every turn to remind my
colleagues of the promise we made.
This amendment is also about making sure our military is strong
today. How we treat our veterans affects our ability to recruit the men
and women we need to serve in our Armed Forces. That is nothing new. It
has actually been true since the founding of our country. On the chart
behind me I have a quote from George Washington in 1789. Washington
said:

The willingness with which our young people are likely to
serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly
proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier
wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

That was President George Washington in 1789.
We have an opportunity tonight with this amendment to do right by our
veterans and to keep our country strong. This amendment will help meet
the growing needs and will ensure that we keep the promise to those who
have answered this country's call. They were there for us when we
needed them, and we need to be there for them.
With this amendment offered by Senator Akaka and myself and many
others, every Senator will have to decide if they are voting for
veterans or against them. I urge every Senator to do the right thing
and vote for our amendment.

Exhibit 1

[[Page S2723]]

PROPOSED VA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2005 Appropriation                                Requested dollar        Requested percent
FY 2006                                  \1\                FY 2006 Request              increase                 increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Services....................................      $19,916,688,000 \2\          $19,995,141,000              $78,453,000                      .39
Medical Administrative..............................            4,437,770,000            4,517,874,000               80,104,000                      1.8
Medical Facilities..................................            3,330,453,000            3,297,669,000             (32,784,000)                    (.99)
Medical Research....................................              402,348,256              393,000,000              (9,348,000)                    (2.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Veterans Health Care......................           28,087,259,256           28,203,684,000              116,425,000                      .41
Construction........................................              700,606,600              816,037,000              115,430,400                     16.5
Comp., Pension, Readjustment, Insurance Programs....           35,182,223,680           36,668,466,000            1,486,242,320                      4.2
Home Loan Program...................................        2,053,234,000 \3\              218,161,000          (1,835,073,000)                     (89)
Administrative and Grants...........................            1,792,702,608            1,677,448,000            (115,254,608)                    (6.4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Appropriations............................           67,816,026,144           67,588,635,000            (227,391,144)                    (.34)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collections.........................................            1,953,020,000            2,588,000,000              634,980,000                     32.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approps. plus Collections.......................           69,769,045,144           70,176,635,000              407,589,856                      .58
===================================================================================================
Approps. plus Collections w/o Home Loan Line           67,715,811,144           69,958,474,000            2,242,662,856                      3.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 0.8% across-the-board rescission to discretionary accounts as directed by section 122 of Public Law 108-447; includes $124 million
supplemental (hurricane) in Public Law 108-324.
\2\ Reflects (1) realignment of funds across medical services, administration and facilities accounts as authorized by section 120 of Public Law 108-
447, and (2) transfer of $125 million from medical services to Administrative and Grants account as authorized by Public Law 108-324.
\3\ Relects annual reestimate, as required by Credit Reform Act, of updated housing subsidy costs for existing loans guaranteed by VA. Estimate
presented with FY 2005 proposed budget was $197,859,000.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. How much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 6 minutes.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about the fact that VA
has so much money that they expect to carry-over nearly $500 million to
next year, as Senator Murray said.
I urge all my colleagues to touch base with the veterans at home and
find out if the VA is really swimming in money.
VA's health networks are already experiencing shortfalls. Let me
share some more specifics.
The Boise facility is facing a $1.8 million deficit. This facility,
like so many others, has a hiring freeze. The facility has seen a
workload increase over 7% for FY 05, but there will be staff
reductions. And at present there is no money for staff education.
Veterans in need of treatment for PTSD or addiction treatment will
have one less place to go due to the VA budget. The Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Program at the Chillicothe VA hospital is being shut
down.
Thirty nursing home beds at the VA hospital in Manchester, NH, will
not be opening. VA officials expect to save $1.3 million by not opening
these beds.
As my good friend, Senator Collins, has pointed out, the hospital in
Togus has a projected $14 million deficit. This Maine facility has a
hiring freeze and cannot replace equipment.
At the Louisville, KY, hospital veterans undergoing a cystoscopy must
lie on a broken table during the procedure. It's been almost a year
that this medical table has been broken--but the VA can't replace it
because they have no money. The facility's only endoscope is broken,
and the facility cannot afford a back-up.
Also at the Louisville, VA, elective surgeries have been cancelled
because of lack of staff due to funding.
So, again, the administration--the same administration putting
forward the budget--is holding back $450 million.
Perhaps they are holding onto this money because they know that the
coming year may be horribly tight if the President's budget is made a
reality.
But the VA facilities which are serving veterans need more funding.
During the Clinton years, the Clinton administration, a Democratic
administration, proposed actual cuts in a veterans budget. In 1998 and
1999, they proposed those cuts. What did Congress do? Did it accept the
budget? Of course it did not. It said: No, Mr. President, you may
propose, but we will dispose. And we did. And we plussed up those
budgets dramatically.
Not once in the past 4 years has the Bush administration proposed
cuts in veterans budgets. They proposed substantial increases. Once
again, Congress came along and said: Mr. President, we don't think
those are quite adequate. And we plussed them up. In the course of the
last 4 years, we have seen relatively dramatic increases in veterans
budgets. Are they necessary? You bet they are necessary.
Here is a perfect example of the medical care budget. From 2001 to
2005, we went from $21 billion to nearly $30 billion. What did we get
in return? More veterans being served. And we now have what is being
called the finest health care delivery system in the United States.
This Congress ought to be darn proud of it. And we are. That is what
we are going to sustain in the budget this Congress will adopt this
week.
What did we do in other benefit areas? We did in the general
mandatory areas exactly the same kind of thing. We looked at the budget
in 2001. It was $25.7 billion. By 2005, it was $37.1 billion.
Necessary? You bet it was necessary. As a result of that, we were able
to expand the capacity of the Veterans' Administration to serve
veterans. And that is what we are about. So that has resulted in the
greatest increase in veterans spending in the history of this country,
to serve a truly needy and necessary population. We have had a 43-
percent increase over 4 years, better than a 10-percent increase.
My colleague from Washington said: Yes, but numbers increased. You
bet they did. They went in the area of enrollment from 4.9 million to
over 7.7 million, and all during that time the quality of health care
went up. We served those in need. We served those in the right
categories. And, most importantly, we increased the timeliness of the
service to the veterans. As a result of that, we also produced quality
care.
Well, I have to tell you that when the President proposed his budget,
there were areas of it I was not satisfied with. Some of my colleagues
were not satisfied with it. The ranking member was not satisfied with
it. And we proposed to make some changes. We are going to see an
amendment offered in a few moments that makes those changes, an
amendment offered by Senator Ensign, myself, Senator Vitter, and
Senator Hutchison that will add another $410 million of budget
resolution to the health care services.
When that is done--the committee has already added more than that--
for the 2005 budget we will have moved that well beyond its area. We
will have seen an increase of 3.7 percent. An additional $1.2 billion
will be provided, and it will be a tremendous amount for incentives in
funding. There will be no reconciliation order. That is new money. That
is real money in the Veterans' Administration.
We do not raise taxes. We do not raise taxes on working veterans such
as our Democrat colleagues do to serve veterans. We believe the budget
pie is big enough to reach in and pull out another $1.2 billion to meet
the necessary services we are about to do.

My colleagues are going to go into greater detail in a few moments to
do so. But what is important about it? We said no to enrollment fees.
We said no to copayments as they relate to prescription drugs. We did
not think those were necessary at this time. Most importantly, the
Veterans Committee, after hearing from all of those service
organizations, as my colleagues have mentioned, recognized not only the
need of current day veterans, but coming out of Iraq there is a whole
new class of veterans. And they, too, have to be served. They are
injured and impaired in unique ways, and they will have to have health
care and service, in

[[Page S2724]]

some instances, for the rest of their lives from this Government and
this country which recognizes the kind of services they did and have
continued to perform.
So not only no copays for prescription drugs, and no enrollment fees,
we have done something else. There is another layer of service out
there to veterans that oftentimes we do not talk about. It is because
it is not as visible. But home in our States it is visible; that is,
the State veterans homes where the State government and the Federal
Government share. This year it was proposed that we reduce the per diem
payment at the Federal level. In my State of Idaho and across the
Nation we would have found truly needy veterans without the kind of
care that we think is necessary, and we said: No, Mr. President, we
don't think at this time we ought to be doing that. Yes, budgets are
tight. Yes, you proposed reasonable increases in a variety of areas.
But what is most important is that we serve the veterans we are serving
today, we add to the enrollment when we can, and we make darn sure we
are doing the right things for those veterans coming home.
Our veterans homes across the Nation provide over 20,000 beds. In my
State it is 268. It is important in my State and across the Nation that
we plus those up where we can and recognize the true need.
There are a good many other areas I could cover that are included in
the President's budget. The President recognized the unique need for
prosthetic care and as a result added $100 million to it, focusing on
the truly injured veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We
recognize that and recognize that portion of the budget and add to it
to strengthen it.
So a lot of work has been done. My colleagues on the other side, I am
sad to say, would suggest there is never enough. This is a tight budget
year. We all recognize that, but we ought not try to cut the budget on
the backs of the veterans. And we are not doing that. A plus-up of $1.2
billion without reconciliation orders in this budget is a significant
increase, one we can all be proud of, one that services our veterans,
as it should, and services those who are in true need today.
Mr. President, can I ask how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 21 minutes 50
seconds left.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me stop at this point and yield to my
colleague from Nevada for the purpose of the offering of an amendment,
further discussion on this important issue of veterans funding, and
then I believe we will be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator
Hutchison, to further discuss this before we close out for the evening.
But I believe we can turn to the Senate tomorrow and ask them to vote
on a very responsible veterans budget as proposed by the Senate.
With that, I yield to Senator Ensign.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 171

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, Senator Craig, Senator Vitter, and Senator Hutchison.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Vitter, and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment
numbered 171.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose to increase Veterans medical care by $410,000,000 in fiscal
year 2006.)

On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $410,000,000.
On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $369,000,000.
On page 22, line 21, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 9, line 15, decrease the amount by $410,000,000.
On page 9, line 16, decrease the amount by $369,000,000.
On page 9, line 20, decrease the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 9, line 24, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we are proposing an amendment today that
will increase the spending on our veterans in this budget by $410
million this year. Some may ask: Why not the amount that the Democrats
have proposed? Well, first, we are in tight budget times. And we are
considering this amendment without raising taxes. We are taking the
money out of the State Department and foreign aid budgets instead of
taking the money out of the pockets of hard working Americans who are
trying to make a living, trying to provide for their families.
We can never spend as much money as the Democrats. There is no
question about that. Every single time we offer an increase in this
budget, the Democrats will try to outbid us. We understand that. We
accept that. We are trying to be fiscally responsible, at the same time
taking care of our veterans and not increasing taxes on working
Americans.
In the Democratic amendment, there is a $6.6 billion tax increase
over the next 3 years--$6.6 billion in new taxes. That is one of the
many amendments they are going to offer on this budget that will
increase taxes. Of that, $2.8 billion goes for veterans care next year.
But $6.6 billion in new taxes.
Senator Murray from the State of Washington talked about some of her
veterans and the problems with some of her veterans. Nevada has
experienced some of the same problems. Nevada is the fastest growing
State in the country.
The problem, Mr. President, is not the amount of money we are
spending, but rather the manner in which we are spending it. By that I
mean that veterans are moving away from the Rustbelt to faster growing
States like Nevada. A large number are moving to the west coast. A lot
to the Sunbelt States. They have chosen to move, but a lot of the VA
facilities are still located in the Rustbelt.
Because of the way Congress works, Senators and Representatives work
hard to keep a lot of money in their States, even though the veterans
have moved away. So while States such as Washington and Nevada may have
VA facilities that are packed to the gills, there are some VA
facilities that have 20 to 30 percent occupancy in their beds. Frankly,
some of them should be closed. This President has, with the CARES
Commission, proposed reallocating some of the funds so that the
veterans with the greatest needs will get the care they deserve. Our
amendment recognizes that you cannot do this overnight. So we recognize
we have to increase spending on veterans care. We have to keep our
promise--the promise we made to the men and women who don the uniform
of the U.S. military and say: I will lay my life on the line to protect
your freedom. All our veterans ask in return is that we take care of
those who come home with medical needs. This amendment is about keeping
that promise to our veterans.
I thank Senator Craig, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
He has done great work on behalf of veterans across America. We really
owe him a debt of gratitude for the work he has done. This is just the
opening chapter, I believe, in ensuring that every veteran gets the
kind of quality medical care they deserve. We have to look at the whole
VA system as we are transforming it, to make sure we best spend the
dollars so that veterans will get the quality care they need. As a
result of veterans coming home from the war, we are going to have to
examine their needs. As we determine those needs, we may have to spend
more. If we have to spend more, I know this body will step up to the
plate and do what is necessary to take care of those heroes who fought
for our freedom.
The $410 million in our amendment will restore funding to maintain
the prescription copays at $7 for veterans. It also restores funding
required to prevent the imposition of a $250 enrollment fee on
veterans. This amendment restores funding required to stop the scale
back of State nursing home per diem payments made by the VA.
It adopts the President's request to spend an additional $100 million
for mental health services.
Many of our homeless veterans are homeless because of mental health
issues. The President has proposed another $100 million, and this
budget will

[[Page S2725]]

now meet that. We also adopt the President's request to spend an
additional $100 million for prosthetics. With all the veterans who have
been wounded in the war, we are going to need at least that much. Next
year, we may have to spend even more than that.
We also adopt the President's request for other nonmedical
discretionary accounts, allowing for a $116 million increased funding
for construction, an increase in disability claims, caseworkers, and
the continued expansion of the National Cemetery System, the largest
such expansion since the Civil War.
Mr. President, I believe strongly that we must keep our word to our
veterans, and we must take care of those men and women who have
sacrificed so much while wearing the uniform of the U.S. military. This
amendment helps keep the promise we have made to our veterans.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for his
amendment. I believe it is responsible and appropriate, as we plus up
this budget, to assure that the veterans are adequately served and that
we adjust appropriately for the new veterans coming in from Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Now I yield to the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to be notified at 7
minutes so that I can yield back the remainder of the time to Senator
Craig.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is notified
that there is a little over 6 minutes left.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, please notify me when I have used 4
minutes. I thank Senator Craig, the chairman of the Veterans Affairs
Committee, and Senator Ensign, a member of that committee. I chair the
Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. It happens that today we
had our hearing on the Veterans Affairs Department, and Secretary
Nicholson came before our committee and talked about what is in the
budget. He said, of course, we have full coverage for the priority 1
through 6 veterans. We have full coverage in the budget for the injured
coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. And we all know that the growth
in the veterans medical care area has been in the other priority
veterans, Nos. 7 and 8. These are people who do not have combat-related
injuries and people who are in upper incomes. When they became covered
a few years ago, really, it was thought by Congress that there would
not be a big surge to get the Veterans Affairs coverage because they,
we thought, had private insurance. But, in fact, that has been the big
surge in medical care coverage for veterans, in those 2 categories, 7
and 8; and 15 percent of those do not have private coverage.
So what we are doing with this amendment is we are saying we are not
going to change anything right now. We are not going to have copays,
and we are not going to have enrollment fees. But I did talk to the
Secretary about making sure that if there is private insurance, that
that insurance would be the first payer in a veterans health care need;
that the private insurance payer would pay first, and Veterans Affairs
would come second so that we could recoup some of the money that could
be going into serving other more needy veterans and try to also keep a
balance in the budget. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying
to increase what is in the budget, and we will do that in this
amendment.
We are, most certainly, going to try to do it in a way that will not
harm any veteran at all. We are not going to have copay increases. We
are not going to have enrollment fees, and we are not going to have a
reduction in the per diem payments for nonservice-connected veterans in
State veterans homes. So we are trying to do the right thing, while
also whittling down the deficits we are facing in our country.
I think Senators Craig and Ensign have a very good amendment. We are
going to do the right thing for veterans always. We will be able to
assure coverage this year with this added $400 million, and we will be
able to come back in next year, if we need more.
Mr. President, I want to mention one other area before I turn the
podium back over to Senator Craig. It is something we will more fully
discuss tomorrow. I wanted to lay down the marker that we will have an
amendment to increase the number of border patrol in this budget. I am
very concerned about the reports from our FBI Director Mueller, who
told Congress that people from countries with ties to al-Qaida are
crossing into the United States through our Mexican border.
Deputy Secretary of Homeland Secretary James Loy, recently said that
intelligence reports say that Al-Qaida is looking at the Mexican border
as a way to put people into the United States for the purpose of
terrorist attacks. So I think we must increase the budget coverage
above the 210 border patrol agents who have been added in the budget
before us. We need to increase that to at least 1,000. Our intelligence
reform bill said that we would have the capability to increase border
patrol by 2,000 per year for the next 5 years. I am going to try,
through an amendment, to increase that to at least 1,000, and we will
do it without busting the top line of the budget.
We think it is very important that we stop people from coming over
our borders illegally. We know we are vulnerable in this Nation right
now. We know we need more places for detention, more Border Patrol
agents, and better technology to secure our borders to the south and
the north. These Border Patrol agents will go throughout the United
States to the Border Patrol centers.
My amendment will be sponsored by Senator Cornyn, Senator Bingaman,
Senator McCain, and Senator Feinstein. These are Senators from border
States who know the problems of illegal immigration firsthand.
It is a very important amendment that we will discuss more fully
tomorrow, but I hope our colleagues will start thinking of ways that we
can assess the priorities and determine that we need at least a
thousand Border Patrol agents in this year's budget and another
thousand next year. But we will do 1,000 at a time, I hope, because
that is what can be absorbed, that is the number that can be trained in
any 1 year.
I hope we will address the Border Patrol issue tomorrow, and I
certainly hope that when we have the competing veterans amendments that
we will take the Craig-Ensign-Vitter-Hutchison amendment that does keep
in mind the priorities of our budget, but also increases the amount
that will be for medical care for our veterans and will not require any
higher copays or registration fees for any of our veterans at this
time.
I yield back my time to Senator Craig.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the time remaining on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is notified
that the Parliamentarian informed the Senator of the wrong time. The
Senator now has 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will close. I think the Senator from
Washington has time left that she would like to use.
I think every Senator who comes to the floor of the Senate to speak
about our veterans is committed without question to assuring to the
veterans community of this country that we will honor their needs. It
is our responsibility.
I happen to disagree with the Senator from Washington. I do not think
we need to raise taxes to meet the necessary needs at this time.
Veterans are hard working, too, and they pay taxes. But there are
additional moneys necessary from what were moneys proposed by the
President, and that is exactly what this amendment does, along with the
additional plus up that the committee itself has accomplished.
When the Ensign-Craig-Vitter-Hutchison amendment is adopted, the net
increase will be over $1.2 billion of new money for the Veterans
Administration to spend. What do we do with that money? I mentioned we
add $100 million for VA prosthetic care. We look seriously at those who
are tremendously injured in body, but we also recognize that there may
be veterans injured not of body but of mind, and mental health programs
are increased.
The Ensign-Craig amendment to the budget resolution will mean an
additional $100 million can be devoted this year to expanding treatment
and services in mental illness for America's veterans who suffer PTSD
as a result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[[Page S2726]]

Also, the budget proposes $43 million to ensure that veterans who
seek emergency care in non-VA facilities are treated exactly the same
as if they had sought care at a VA facility. Clearly, across my large
expansive State of Idaho--it is true of the State of Washington--we
cannot have a veterans hospital or a care center in every community,
and yet veterans live there and emergency care is sometimes necessary.
We assure that they can enter that emergency room door and be treated
prior to moving on to a veterans care facility.
Finally, this budget with the $410 million added by the Ensign-Craig-
Vitter-Hutchison amendment will provide $19 million for the treatment
of homeless veterans. That may sound like a small amount of money, but
it will bring this program up to the $100 million level and help us
build on gains we have already made in reaching out to this incredibly
vulnerable population of veterans.
I can stand on the floor of the Senate tonight with the offering of
this amendment, as chairman of the Veterans Affairs' Committee in the
Senate, working with all of my colleagues and assure them that all of
those gains we talked about earlier that we all share, we recognize,
and we are proud of, whether it be in mandatory spending or whether it
be in health care, are gains that will be sustained by this budget in
2006, that we can build on the strength of those gains and assure that
veterans who are in the categories of 1 through 6 will be truly served.
Those who have service-connected disabilities or problems in other
areas will be served. We recognize that the 20,000 veterans' home beds
across the States will remain open and available to veterans by not
bringing down the per diem. This is a sincerely responsible budget to
deal with America's veterans' needs as we have always done as a
Congress and as we will continue to do in the 2006 budget and into the
future.
A tight budget year? You bet it is. Need we be fiscally responsible?
You bet we should be. Should we raise taxes on the working men and
women of America to accomplish that? No, we should not. What we should
do is exactly what we are doing tonight: reestablishing priorities
within the overall budget and saying here is an area of true need and
care, a responsibility that we have to address, and we are open,
caring, and responsible in addressing it.
I am proud to serve as chairman of the committee. I am proud to work
with my colleague from Texas who is the chairman of the appropriating
committee. With the combination of all of us in a very real and
bipartisan way, we are going to meet the needs of veterans as we always
have, and we are going to meet them with a budget that represents a
3.7-percent increase over last year.
In as tight a fiscal year as we are in, that is a large and
responsible and sensitive increase of which I am proud.
I will yield the floor, and we will be back tomorrow to debate this
important issue as we ask our colleagues to support us in this effort.
I do believe when we look at all the facts and figures, when we look at
the 43-percent increase in veterans spending over the last 4 years,
when we see the increase of veterans going out and the quality of
health care going up and the efficiencies that we have asked the system
to produce--and it has produced it--then this is in itself a truly
responsible and caring budget, and I am proud to be a sponsor of it
along with my colleagues.
We will ask the Senate to support us in this effort. I yield the
floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3 minutes 9 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho, who has assumed
this year the task of chairing the Veterans' Committee, does have a
true compassion for veterans. I appreciate his work and his diligence
on this and all the work he is attempting to do to take care of our
veterans because he shares with all of us a concern of making sure we
take care of those who have served us.
We just have a difference of opinion on the amendment that we have
offered on this side. There are $70 billion worth of tax cuts that are
assumed in this budget. All we are saying with our amendment is let's
assume over $67 billion instead of $70 billion and use that amount for
our veterans.
I am one who believes that when we ask our men and women to serve, we
have to keep a commitment to them that we will be there to take care of
them when they come home. It is part of the cost of war. I agree with
the Senator from Idaho, the chairman of the Veterans' Committee, that
we have increased veterans care. We had to. We have more veterans. We
have increased it 43 percent over the past 4 years. But I remind my
colleagues that the number of veterans needing veterans health care has
increased 88 percent. Medical inflation has increased 92 percent. Even
with the amendment that Republicans have offered, we will not be
meeting the needs of the veterans, the men and women who have served
this country.
I believe we have a responsibility to do that. I believe we cannot
tell the next generation we are asking to serve that we are only going
to take care of 43 percent or 60 percent. We have an obligation to take
care of their health care when they come home.
The amendment offered on this side by Senator Akaka and myself will
assure us we can go home and our tell veterans they have been there for
us and they will not be turned away. They have served us and we should
serve them.
I am one who believes the cost of taking care of veterans is a cost
war. It is not a cost we should pass on to the next generation. It is
not a cost we should ignore. It is a cost that we have a responsibility
to take care of.
I commend the Senator from Idaho for his amendment. I appreciate his
attempt to raise it. But I say we have to make sure that all veterans
are cared for. I believe that is a cost of war and it is a cost we
should assume. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment that was
offered on this side so we can make sure when we go home and face our
veterans, the men and women who are coming home today from Iraq and
Afghanistan will have the services they need. It is the least we can
do.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, amendment No. 153 is a sense of the Senate
expressing the importance of providing treatment to children infected
with HIV/AIDS. I encourage all of my colleagues to read the amendment
and ask that they join as cosponsors to show support for pediatric
treatment of HIV/AIDS. This Congress must not overlook children who are
infected with HIV/AIDS.
Fortunately, Congress has realized that the transmission of HIV/AIDS
is preventable and avoidable. We have supported funding for mother-to-
child transmission, which, when effectively implemented in the United
States, has resulted in the near elimination, less than 2 percent
transmission, of mother-to-child HIV/AIDS transmission. By contrast, in
resource-poor settings, less than 10 percent of pregnant women living
with HIV have access to services to prevent mother-to-child
transmission of HIV. It is inexcusable for us to not do something to
continue to reduce the rate of transmission between mother and child.
With the President's Emergency AIDS Initiative, we have certainly made
some progress, but there is always more to do.
But, we cannot stop at preventing the transmission. We have to ensure
that there is treatment available for children when necessary.
Approximately 2.2 million children under the age of 15 are infected
with the HIV virus, and 1,900 children worldwide are infected with HIV
each day. To date, more than 4 million children worldwide are estimated
to have died from AIDS. We must ensure that HIV-positive children and
children with AIDS are no longer overlooked and that they begin
receiving the treatment and care that they deserve.
Few programs specifically target the treatment of children with HIV/
AIDS in resource-poor countries due to significant challenges in
diagnosing and treating infants and young children with HIV. Such
challenges include: difficulty in diagnosing HIV in infants less than
18 months of age; lack of appropriate and affordable pediatric HIV/

[[Page S2727]]

AIDS medicines; and lack of trained health care providers. When I went
to Guyana two years ago, only one child--one child in the whole
country--was receiving antiretroviral treatment medicine. I know that
more are receiving treatment now, but not many. We have to do more to
change that. We need to ensure that physicians and clinicians are
trained in pediatric care and that safe and effective medicines are
available to infected children who need them to survive.
Ultimately, pediatric treatment cannot be anecdotal. It must be
routine. And we should demand that it be routine. This sense-of-the-
Senate amendment is a step in that direction. It forces us to look at
the facts, and it compels us to do something about it.
Mr. President, today I also join my friend and colleague, Senator
Leahy, in amendment No. 161 that would increase the funding level for
the Child Survival and Maternal Health Program to $660 million. That
would be a $334 million increase over the budgeted level of $326
million.
This is an appropriate and necessary step. And, it is, simply, the
right thing to do.
With regard to today's child survival crises, we know the facts: 130
million children entered the 21st Century unable to read or write;
2,000 children younger that 15 each day are infected with AIDS; 650
million children live in extreme poverty; and over 10 million children
die each year, most from preventable causes and almost all in poor
countries.
According to UNICEF, out of every 100 children born, 30 will most
likely suffer from malnutrition in their first 5 years of life; 26 will
not be immunized against the most basic of childhood diseases; 19 will
lack access to clean, safe drinking water; and 17 will never--ever--go
to school.
How have we responded to this world of ours? How have we responded to
the developing world? We have seemingly come to expect, and indeed,
accept poverty, instability, and epidemic disease as a way of life in
the developing world. The real tragedy is that all of it is avoidable.
We can do something about it. We can do simple things to save
millions of children's lives. Our amendment would help save lives.
I would like to take a few minutes to share some more statistics
about child and maternal mortality. I am often hesitant to recite
statistics here on the floor of the U.S. Senate because when we hear
them repeatedly, it is all too easy to become numb to them--to forget
the human realities that they do, in fact, represent. It is important,
though, for my colleagues and for the American people to listen to some
of these statistics because they are so unbelievable and so tragic and
represent so many lives that could be saved--lives that could be saved
if we would make the appropriate amount of resources available to the
developing countries in such dire need.

Of those 10 million children who die each year worldwide, 3.9 million
occur in the first 28 days of life. These babies don't even have a shot
at living their lives. Yet, two-thirds of these deaths could be
prevented if available and affordable interventions had reached the
children and mothers who needed them.
Malnutrition contributes to 54 percent of all childhood deaths. And,
as many as 3 million children die annually as a result of Vitamin A
deficiency and an estimated 400,000 cases of childhood blindness are
reported each year.
According to World Health Organization estimates, at least 30 million
infants still do not have access to basic immunization services, and
over 4.4 million children died from vaccine preventable diseases in
2001--diseases such as hepatitis, polio, and tetanus. Of all the
vaccine-preventable diseases, measles remains the leading childhood
killer, claiming the lives of 745,000 children--more than half of them
in Africa. Yet, vaccine-preventable deaths could actually be cut in
half by 2005 if these children were receiving proper vaccinations.
Recently, the Lancet, which ran a series of articles last year about
child survival, has launched a series of articles about neonatal death.
Here is what the first few articles reveal: Of the 130 million babies
born every year, about 4 million die in the first 4 weeks of life--the
neonatal period. In poor communities, many babies who die are unnamed
and unrecorded, indicating the perceived inevitability of their death.
[Also], 450 newborn children die every hour, mainly from preventable
causes.
This is unconscionable, and it is an emergency situation. There
really isn't any other way to describe it. Over 10 million children
dying each year from preventable and treatable illnesses is an
emergency.
But this emergency cannot be resolved through short-term, temporary,
piecemeal assistance. If we are to make any real headway in improving
the health of women and children in the long-term, we need to take some
bold and radical steps and be committed to supporting maternal and
child health programs not just now, but next year and the year after
and the year after that. Our funding simply cannot be administered in a
single-dose.

Our amendment would allocate additional money to help avert maternal
and neonatal death and improve maternal health, including the
prevention of obstetric fistulas and other types of injuries and
disabilities resulting from childbirth in unsafe circumstances. The
fact is that all pregnant women are at risk for injuries and childbirth
complications, which is why it is so important to have skilled
attendants--midwives, doctors, or nurses--present at birth. Yet, only
about half of the world's women give birth with a skilled attendant
available.
Child survival and maternal health funding provides resources so that
USAID can provide training and technical assistance in infection
prevention and quality of care, as well as needed equipment and
supplies to bring health facilities up to a level where they can
provide safe and effective emergency pre- and post-natal care. Child
survival interventions work, and they are the most cost-effective tools
we have in the struggle for better global health. We can and should
invest in these programs as they increase developing countries' access
to basic health services--services like vaccinations, immunizations,
micronutrient programs, and vitamin supplements.
If we make this investment and work toward equal access to health
care, we help ensure that mothers receive proper prenatal care, that
children and families receive nutrition counseling and vitamin
supplements, and that children receive the necessary immunizations and
vaccinations to live healthy lives. But tragically, if we fail to make
a sufficient and sustained investment in the development of public
health systems that provide primary care, mothers will continue to die
prematurely during childbirth, children will continue to die from
preventable disease and causes, and life expectancies in these
developing nations will stagnate or perhaps even decrease. That is not
an acceptable future for any of us.
I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I have come to the floor as a cosponsor on
the Sarbanes amendment to the budget to protect funding for the
community development block grant CDBG administered at the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
This program is crucial to the development of low income communities
across America.
As you know, the administration has proposed a plan in the 2006
budget to consolidate 18 existing economic and community development
programs into a single program administered by the Department of
Commerce. The HUD community development block grant program--also
called the CDBG program--is the largest of those 18 programs.
The grants previously awarded under these 18 programs would be
awarded in the name of a single, newly formed strengthening America's
communities, SAC, grant program.
But when examined, it becomes clear that the President's proposal
will mean less assistance for low-income communities and a dismantling
of relationships within a community development infrastructure of
public servants and community-based organizations that we have built
over the last 30 years.
Under the proposal, the total budget for these 18 programs would drop
30 percent from $5.31 billion in 2005 to a proposed $3.71 billion in
2006. That means less money for home ownership, less money for economic
development, less money for communities struggling in changing economy.

[[Page S2728]]

To give you a sense of what that means for State and local
governments, consider that in 2005 the community development block
grant, CDBG, program alone was funded at $4.15 billion, $450 million
more than the $3.7 billion requested for the total 18 programs being
consolidated under the new strengthening America's communities grant
program in 2006.
That is not a consolidation of programs. It is a direct attempt to
dismantle those programs. That is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities
all oppose this.
As those groups have pointed out, the Commerce Department lacks the
capacity to administer the newly proposed program. HUD has 1,100 urban,
suburban, and rural CDBG grantees, constituting a strong infrastructure
for program administration. And, HUD's $4.7 billion CDBG program dwarfs
the Commerce Department's $257 million economic development program.
HUD has skills and experience Commerce lacks.
On March 4, 2005, I wrote a letter to Chairman Gregg and Ranking
Member Conrad supporting full funding for the CDBG and objecting to its
transfer to the Department of Commerce from HUD.
Those who are closest to the needs of low-income communities our
Nation's Governors, community based organizations in Illinois, and
local government officials from Illinois have all come out in support
of the Sarbanes amendment. They know the CDBG program works and have
shared success stories of communities strengthened with CDBG funds.
They respect the public servants that administer the program, and they
have developed a working partnership with them.
In Illinois, communities large and small are making the most of this
assistance.
The city of Chicago, for example, which has already seen its formula
share of CDBG funds reduced by $14 million over the last 3 years, has
focused its CDBG priorities on five specific program areas: affordable
housing, youth programming, health clinics, job training, and support
services to groups with specific needs, such as domestic violence,
emergency food aid, and meals on wheels.
Let me give you a specific example of CDBG funds in action. Mujeres
Latinas en Accion is an organization in Chicago's Pilsen community that
serves Latinas and their families. The total they receive in CDBG funds
both through the city of Chicago and the city of Cicero is close to
$170,000.
Mujeres Latinas en Accion depends on CDBG funds to support services
such as rental assistance for program participants to prevent
homelessness. They also provide comprehensive services for victims of
domestic violence including crisis intervention, court advocacy,
individual counseling, group counseling, 24-hour crisis hotline, and
referrals to shelters. And, the group also uses CDBG funds to provide
services to young people promoting the development of peaceful
relationships, open communication with peers and family, and school
success. The goal of the program is to provide youth a variety of age
appropriate structured activities during nonschool hours to help
prevent teen involvement in gangs, alcohol and drug use, sexual
activity, pregnancy, and other problems facing adolescents in low-
income communities.
In Champaign, IL, CDBG funds have been used to help low-income
families become homeowners, make homes accessible for the disabled,
provide credit counseling, construct emergency and transitional
shelters for the homeless, and provide a broad range of services to
people in need. A number of towns in St. Clair County, IL, are using
CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation grants and loans for their low to
moderate income residents.
As you can see, these proposed cuts in the CDBG program affect big
cities and smaller towns. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley wrote me that,
``significant reductions in CDBG funds . . . would have a serious
effect on the network of community-based organizations throughout the
city which rely on CDBG for their existence. A number of them would
likely close their doors.'' And, in the words of Eric Kellogg, the
mayor of Harvey, IL, population 30,000, ``Many have characterized CDBG
as the best federal domestic program ever enacted because of its
flexibility and adaptability in meeting the needs of a diverse
America.''
The CDBG program works. Let's not destroy it.
I urge my colleagues to support the Sarbanes amendment.

____________________