A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to the deadly terrorist attacks against the people of Spain that occurred on March 11, 2004.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have yet to have a chance to review the amendment of the Senator from California. I object at this point and I expect in the near future I will be happy to accommodate our friend. She can begin her debate and maybe that will help clarify the intention of her amendment.

I still haven't reviewed the amendment. I will do this: I tell my colleague I am happy to enter into time agreements on a lot of amendments but I will state I want to see the amendments first. I know there is a whole package of amendments. I suggest we go under the assumption it will be that. I will grant you that in just a moment.

Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. President, we have entered into a time agreement where the total time consumed on the Boxer amendment will be 20 minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas such time as he desires on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator such time as he may consume from the resolution to complete his statement.

Mr. CORNYN: I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Alan Greenspan said:

Generic capabilities in mathematics, writing, and verbal

skills are key to the ability to learn and to apply new

skills and thus to earn higher real wages overtime. The

avenues to acquiring those skills are many, and one effective

tool we have developed to facilitate the transition to a new

job or profession has been our community colleges. These two-

year institutions have been in the forefront of teaching the

types of skills that build on workers' previous experiences

to create new job skills. Currently almost one in three of

their enrollees are age thirty or older, a statistic that

suggests that these individuals have previous job experience.

I support the job training and community college initiatives the President has endorsed in his State of the Union Message and which Alan Greenspan just referred to. They are a good and positive thing. They provide much of the answer to the global competitiveness we now find with globalization. I believe much of the instruction they provide ought to have been given at the lower levels, but we can't go back and change that. As it is, these programs give many Americans the opportunity to change their job track midstream and to pursue greater dreams and more fulfilling careers.

But that is not enough. If we in Government fail to acknowledge what the outsourcing crisis truly means, if we think more job training alone is a sufficient answer to the problem, we are just fooling ourselves, and we haven't addressed the real problem.

As Ronald Reagan once said:

We've gone astray from first principles. We've lost sight

of the rule that individual freedom and ingenuity are at the

very core of everything we've accomplished. Government's

first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

In America today, we are seeing that all too clearly.

All too many of our states have reached the point where they are simply no longer friendly toward the free market. Why should a business choose to stay in America where they will have to deal with ever expanding red tape and regulation, where they face exponential legal risks in states without real commonsense tort reform and class action reform, where they are virtually guaranteed to pay higher and higher taxes every year?

No, raising taxes won't solve this problem. Job training and educational programs alone won't solve the problem either. The knee- jerk response of many in government, to take more money from the taxpayers so we can throw it around, doesn't work.

The only way we will solve the problem is when we in the Federal Government work in concert with those in the states to effect fundamental change in our government's attitude toward business and the free market--not just for the benefit of business or indeed for an abstract free market, but for the benefit of everybody in this country who wants to work and wants to find a job. We must once again value the principles of free trade and competition. We must encourage success and innovation, and not punish it. We must renew that old American conviction that protecting freedom, not restricting it, is the highest goal of government.

The vision of America as a free market paradise is a very real one, not just the stuff of the so-called overexuberant economists. I strongly believe we have the best workforce in the world, the most dedicated people you can find. We have in this country innovators and thinkers, we have doctors and scientists, and we have all the resources they need. We have people who started businesses in their garage and now create things that change the very way we live and communicate. We have young people who are ready to follow in their footsteps. That is, simply stated, the foundation for a thriving free market economy. It is all right here.

We still hear the voices of those who say the bureaucrats really know best, and government will take care of you if you will give us more and more of your tax dollars. But the truth is the people across this land know that government doesn't know best, and they know government cannot create prosperity; that instead prosperity is created by the entrepreneurs and risk takers, and the people who work hard every day to provide for their families.

The truth is, instead of raising taxes, we ought to reduce the tax burden on the American people by eliminating the tax increases that come with the expiration of the tax cuts this Congress previously passed. There are people, some of whom are in this very body, who still honestly believe we can sue, tax, and regulate our way to economic growth and prosperity.

Finally, I want to say I realize we are in an election season, and there are some who have pinned their political prospects on America doing badly, on unemployment remaining high. When they see that the facts are against the trend they want, that the economy is actually doing better, their only hope for their political prospects is to talk about a ``jobless recovery.'' Well, the economy is recovering; it is creating jobs. But it will not continue to do so if we reverse the policies that have brought us to where we are today. We must ensure that the taxpayers keep more of the money they earn, so they can save it or invest it in a small business--which is a great job-creating engine in this country--the small businesses that proliferate in this Nation, which provide jobs by huge numbers to the American people.

I simply believe we should not let ourselves lose confidence in what has brought us here today. There are those who think they will benefit politically from trash-talking the American economy, from causing a loss of confidence by the American people, from saying that we are no longer the land of opportunity and freedom. But the truth is there are people who are dying to come into this country because they see this nation as their only hope and only opportunity. There are not people knocking down the doors to try to leave this country, because the truth is people are voting with their feet. They understand America remains the last, best hope of freedom-loving people everywhere.

For those who want an opportunity to achieve part of the American dream in the free market system we have in this country--not a government command-and-control system, but a free market system is one that best allows them to achieve those hopes and dreams--they recognize that system is what we need to preserve, not defeat. The effect of passing this amendment and others that would raise taxes on the American people would defeat that system.

I hope we don't listen to the nay-sayers, that we don't believe those who would have us lose confidence in our economic system, because I think that provides the best opportunity for a bright future for all the American people.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I love everybody in this Senate, but I want to finish this bill this week. My guess is we have a few amendments in the pipeline and we have considered one amendment today and we are not quite finished with it. That is not the kind of discipline we need to finish it. I ask, how much time remains on the resolution on both sides?

I plan on yielding back some time, as I have said. Unfortunately, we started this amendment at 9:30 and we have been on it now for a couple of hours. It is an interesting amendment, but it is not that interesting. I am troubled. I have 6 hours and 50 minutes. Mr. President, I yield back 4 hours off of our time on the resolution.

I plan on yielding back additional time. I came in today thinking we should have 10 minutes on each side on every amendment today. I don't want to cut people off from being able to debate their amendments. My colleague from North Dakota is correctly wanting to have time agreements on a multitude of amendments. I am willing to enter into those, but I am insisting on being able to see the

amendment. I know my colleague from North Dakota is trying to get them. A lot of people say I want a time agreement, but they are rewriting the amendment as we speak. That is not fair. We need to have both sides be able to analyze the amendments so we will know what we are debating, especially if we are going to be in a very truncated timeframe. If I am debating an amendment and I say it increases taxes by $24 billion, I want to be accurate. I actually insist on accuracy. It bothers me if we are not accurate.

Mr. President, I am going to speak on the Boxer amendment for a moment. We had a time limit of 20 minutes on each side on the Boxer amendment. It was breached very significantly primarily on the Democrat side, and maybe a little bit on our side. This is an amendment that says we want to do some things to create jobs domestically, but in effect it says we want to sock it to the people creating jobs by increasing their taxes.

Then it says we will give tax credits if you do such and such. It is a tax-spend amendment, $24 billion of increased taxes. Incidentally, the taxes we are assuming for next year--and this has an $8 billion tax increase for 2005. What we are assuming in the budget for 2005 is $2.6 billion for child credit and $5.4 billion on marriage penalty. So this could eliminate the child credit and the marriage penalty. I find it to be a very flawed concept.

Also, I can't help but think the repercussions they would have if we actually did some of what is contemplated in this amendment. We are going to sock it to companies that have runaway plants. I wonder if ``runaway plants'' is defined by Microsoft or by Intel or General Electric or some of our great multinationals we have in this country. If we are going to tax them at rates that are greatly to the disadvantage to their competitors, this amendment is more or less saying we would like your headquarters, Intel, to be in China, or maybe we should have Microsoft's headquarters in Japan. Our Tax Code actually encouraged the location of Chrysler to be in Germany, and this amendment would make it worse: Let's export jobs and headquarters overseas. This may be well intended, it may be a political amendment, but its economic consequence would be a disaster.

The Finance Committee is working on a FSC/ETI bill that has broad bipartisan support. The essence of it is to be WTO compliant and also to assist manufacturers. I do not happen to agree with preferential corporate rates for manufacturers vis-a-vis other corporations, but it has a lot of positive provisions to help make us competitive with particularly our European allies. That bill has bipartisan support. We ought to pass it.

I think the proposal that has been discussed for the last 3 hours would be very detrimental. It is a big tax increase, and since the only tax change we are contemplating is keeping the tax laws as they are for American families, I am afraid this will be a big hit on American families.

At the appropriate time, I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

Mr. President, the next order of business is the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we set the Boxer amendment aside and consider the amendment of Senator Sarbanes.

Not on my time.

That will be more than acceptable. I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes equally divided on the Sarbanes amendment.

I will agree with that, Mr. President. I amend my request to include the Dorgan amendment to be 20 minutes equally divided.

How much time remains on the amendment?

Does the Senator from Mississippi mind if I make a couple of additional comments and I will be happy to yield him additional time if he wishes.

I know some people think we never do enough anywhere. Basically they will want to increase spending everywhere. In this particular area we are increasing spending a lot.

The Department of Homeland Security has a 15-percent increase, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is counting bioshield. That is kind of hard to compute. Take bioshield out. It is a 10-percent increase--a 10-percent increase. Secretary Ridge wants to reallocate some of it into higher threat areas. I know some people want to use homeland security as basically revenue sharing and give more money to every city in the area, or every county in the area, maybe every police department or fire department and say this is for homeland security. Secretary Ridge said we should reallocate some of these moneys. It is still a big increase. Actually, it is the largest percentage increase of any of our major departments, and we should direct this toward the high critical threat area. I compliment him for that.

I also say this is money wasted. A lot of money is being wasted. Maybe a little tightening might be in order.

The District of Columbia used this to outfit leather jackets on the police side; in Maryland, money is used to buy the Prince George's County prosecutor's office a security system.

This is homeland security, but this is all in one pot. We can try to pretend this is going to this or that, but, frankly, we are giving so much money to the appropriators. But we are expecting at least a 10- percent increase going to homeland security.

In Virginia, a small volunteer fire department spent $350,000 on a custom-made fire boat. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments used some of the money for janitorial services. The District of Columbia Hospital Association shows a formula that guaranteed every city hospital a share of an $8 million grant. Prince George's homeland security funds, instead of buying protective gear for police officers, they chose to purchase a half-million-dollar digital camera system used for mug shots. The District of Columbia, Leslie Hotaling, director of the District's Department of Public Works said, ``If we can tie it to 9/11 and build capacity into our core functioning, let's do it.'' Her agency spent more than $55,000 on basic training courses such as map reading and handling problem employees.

My point is that Secertary Ridge requested--and he has a very difficult and challenging job--10 percent more money for the Department of Homeland Security, and we have provided it for them. He wants to reallocate some of it to higher priority areas. I think we are trying to give that to him to fulfill that function. Senator Cochran manages this appropriations bill, and he does it very well.

I urge our colleagues to vote no on the Sarbanes amendment.

Also, I failed to add this amendment raises taxes by $2.9 billion. It is another big tax increase.

The only taxes we are really assuming in the next couple of years are family-friendly tax cuts. Maybe that means the 20-percent tax credit won't continue to be as broad as it is. Maybe it means the child credit won't be extended.

I urge our colleagues not to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I will speak on time off the resolution.

My colleague keeps coming back saying we want to sock it to the wealthy. You don't do that in a budget resolution. You tell the committee to raise more taxes. I will tell you that all we are assuming the committee is going to do is extend present law. This would make it so you can't do that. That means low-income people are going to see a tax increase, if we don't extend present law. That is what we are assuming we are going to do.

I know my colleagues would like to raise the 35-percent rate. That is what corporations pay. A lot of us really do not think individuals will pay more

than Exxon. How about a little fairness?

I tell my colleagues that this idea of tax and spend, we are always going to tax that person behind the tree, it is going to be that multimillionaire, that is not the way the Budget Committee works and that is not the way the Finance Committee works.

We have defeated these amendments. I hope we will continue to defeat the amendments that sock it to them by raising taxes and increasing spending.

I hope our colleagues will realize it is not going anywhere, and then maybe we can eliminate a lot of these amendments so we can get some business done.

I am trying to cooperate with my colleague from North Dakota. But we are making very little progress. I know there are a lot of amendments. I am trying to be fair to all colleagues if they wish to debate their amendments. But this idea of spending 3 hours on 2 amendments is not very productive. I hope we will be more successful in moving a little more quickly through amendments, especially ones that are so close to being repetitive.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will make a couple of comments and maybe Senator Gregg may want to speak. He is more knowledgeable about this program than I am.

What is very clear to me to see is that this amendment is another one of these amendments on which we had the pleasure of voting. This will increase spending, yes, and it will also increase taxes. We have had that debate several times. I guess we will have it several more times. I am happy to debate it.

Some think individuals should pay more than corporations. I don't. I think that is bad tax policy. I think the power to tax is the power to destroy. If you have to work more than half the time for the Government, then you lose your personal freedom.

Looking at the COPS Program, I remember the objective of the COPS Program was to have 100,000 new cops on the street. According to the figures I was just handed, we have 118,000 as a result of the COPS Program, a program that started with an enormous Federal subsidy, I believe. I have to refresh my memory, but I believe the Federal Government pays 75 percent of the costs of the first year and then something like 50 percent the next year and maybe 25 percent the third year. Then it is on the community.

In other words, local police are supposed to be paid by local communities. But we said we would give them an additional incentive to hire additional police officers basically by a big subsidy, but that subsidy would curtail and it would be the responsibility of the community, certainly entirely by the fourth year.

Some want to keep it forever. As Will Rogers once said: All Federal programs have something in common: a beginning, a middle, and no ending.

We accomplished the objective, I guess, but yet some people want to continue it. I have no doubt there are lots of cities that would say, Hey, we would love for you to pay three-fourths of the cost of a new police officer, because they have people retiring, they have people leaving, and so on. So, yes, we would love to have the Federal Government come in and pay three-fourths of it.

I question, How long are we supposed to do that? I do not think that is really the Federal Government's responsibility. Maybe it was a little easier to do when we had enormous surpluses. We do not have those surpluses today. And this really is not the Federal Government's responsibility to be putting police officers in every city.

I know we had a city in Oklahoma--I am trying to remember the name of the city--that had no police officers. Yet when the COPS Program came in, they thought: We need to have a police officer. We are going to have the Federal Government pay three-fourths of the cost of our police officer for the first year. Oh, we have to get him a car--and on and on. It was almost comical because they never had a police officer in this town. It probably had a population of 65 or something.

But my point is, we have significant increases for the Department of Justice. We have significant increases to help the FBI, to help law enforcement. I do not think this is that high of a priority for us to try to be subsidizing police departments all across the country. Nor do I think it is good economics to say, oh, well, we are going to have the upper whatever percent. Everybody knows. I guess I will repeat this every time. All this amendment does is raise taxes. And all we have on the assumption in the budget resolution is that middle-income taxpayers are going to get to keep present law. Now, if that goes away because of a tax increase, the middle-income taxpayers better look out because their taxes are going up by this multitude of amendments.

Incidentally, if it makes any difference, we are counting how many tax-and-spend amendments are being offered. And we assume it is going to be the millionaires. That is not the way it works. You tell the Finance Committee: raise more money, and the Finance Committee is going to raise taxes. And you know with this President we are not going to be raising marginal rates. The marginal top rate is 35 percent. When Bill Clinton was elected, it was 31 percent. He took it up to 39.6 percent. It took us this long to get it at 35 percent.

Who benefits from that? Entrepreneurs, people who are growing, building, and expanding their businesses. When they expand, they create jobs. Let's not stifle economic growth by some of these ridiculous expansions to try to grow Government.

I think these amendments are getting a little redundant, maybe a little bit repetitive. If our colleagues want to finish, I do not know why we have to have so many of them.

But I urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

I will be very brief. I was looking at some additional information about the COPS Program. The grant programs administered through the COPS Program were 100 percent earmarked in 2004 appropriations bills. The administration feels the earmarking has gotten out of hand and seeks to eliminate funding in favor of a new grant program located in another account. This new account consolidates almost all State and local law enforcement grant programs and activities. Rather than have the programs spread out over a half dozen accounts, it assumes consolidation in one account called justice assistance. A lot of the old COPS Program is included in the new Justice Assistance Program. Maybe it won't be quite so directed by Congress. Maybe it will be more appropriate.

I don't know if it is the Federal Government's responsibility to hire hundreds more police officers in North Dakota or Oklahoma. I happen to be one who says: We all have to do our fair share. I just don't know that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to be putting police officers in every little town in America.

We have accomplished our objective in hiring and training 118,000 police officers. We should say a job well done and not continue this program forever.

Mr. President, I believe we have an agreement to next consider an amendment by our colleague and friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. We are almost ready to enter into a time limitation, but I need to consult with the chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe. At this point we will not, but I understand there has been a general agreement for 20 minutes equally divided or 20 minutes a side. Is the Senator from New Jersey willing to have a time agreement? I cannot enter into it at this moment, but is he looking for 20 minutes each or 20 minutes a side?

Mr. President, I won't make the request now. I am telling our colleagues, the Senator from North Dakota has about 5 hours, maybe a little less now.

I ask the Chair, how many hours remain?

Mr. President, I am trying to be fair to everybody, but if colleagues keep coming down and taking 40 minutes or an hour on their amendments, that means a lot of people are going to get zero debate on their amendments. I don't want them to be mad at me, nor do I want them to be mad at my colleague from North Dakota. People will have to be restrained in their request or else people later in the queue will have very little debate time. I will leave it at that. I cannot enter into a time agreement. I will be happy to talk to Senator Inhofe. He may be more than happy to do that.

Mr. President, I concur with everything my colleague and friend Senator Conrad said. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and take up the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. President, I also want to compliment my colleague from Nebraska. I very much appreciate his comments concerning having partisan work on the budget. I have had the pleasure of working with the Senator from Nebraska. We are very good friends. I hope his basketball team goes in defeat today against the University of Oklahoma. I wanted to make sure he is aware that could happen. You never know.

Senator Inhofe, I believe, wants to speak on the Superfund amendment offered by our colleague from New Jersey. In a moment, I will ask to set this amendment aside, and we will take up an additional amendment. But let me make a couple of comments.

This is a tax increase. We have had a lot of tax increases. This assumes it is going to be reauthorized. I hope and expect it will be authorized. But the taxes shouldn't be increased until it is reauthorized. That should be done by the authorizers. Chairman Inhofe is chairman of that committee. I want to protect his rights. When he returns to the Senate Chamber, I will give him ample time on whatever amendment we are considering to fully debate the Lautenberg amendment. I am willing to consider additional amendments.

I tell our colleagues again we have spent a lot of time debating. We need to be moving more amendments or else other people are going to be squeezed on time.

I believe the Senator from Iowa has an amendment. It is all right with me if we go to that amendment.

The Senator from Connecticut, I believe, has an amendment. We are happy to consider that amendment.

I want to notify our colleagues time is running and we are going to have a very late night tonight and, unfortunately, maybe tomorrow. I happen to think it is possible to finish this tonight, but it will take people not offering amendments. It will take people not making long speeches. I don't want to stifle debate. I enjoy debate. But it is important to get our work done. I see a fairly lengthy list of amendments yet to be handled.

I am willing to set aside the Lautenberg amendment for the amendment of the Senator from Iowa.

I guess I will not set it aside. I asked unanimous consent to set aside the Dorgan amendment to consider the Lautenberg amendment but it was not sent to the desk. We will save a spot for Senator Lautenberg to introduce the amendment.

I appreciate that.

If my colleague will yield.

Mr. President, I think it would be most appropriate if the Senator from New Jersey did not offer his amendment.

I will compliment my colleague from New Jersey for his amendment if he does not offer it. I will oppose it strenuously if it is sent to the desk. I urge my colleague to withhold, if he can.

Our colleague from Kentucky wants to be heard on the amendment from our friend from Iowa. I need to consult with him before we enter into a time agreement. I am perfectly willing to enter into a time agreement on several amendments.

As I understand the Senator from Iowa, he raises taxes only $80 billion over this period of time, so if we give a minute per billions, this would be 40 minutes a side. I am not sure. I would be willing to do 15 minutes a side, but I need to consult with a couple of colleagues. I am not positive what this amendment does, if it has a reserve fund or if it just is a direct tax increase and assumes spending.

I appreciate the suggestion by my colleague from North Dakota. I would like to have an assumption that no amendment gets over 10 minutes on each side. I mentioned that would be my desire at the beginning of the day. That is still my desire. That would be ample time for discussion. That would be my hope. I hope the standard amendment does not receive more than 10 minutes a side. That would be my thought. Maybe we can do that for the amendment of the Senator from Iowa.

I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside and to consider an amendment to be offered by our colleague from Iowa.

Mr. President, I just checked with Senator McConnell, who I think might be involved in leading the opposition, and he has no objection. So I ask unanimous consent that the time allotted for the amendment of the Senator from Iowa be 30 minutes, equally divided--the time allotted from the beginning of the debate on the amendment.

The Senator is correct.

I thank the Chair. How much time would the Senator need?

Mr. Chairman, might we agree to a time on her amendment of 30 minutes equally divided?

Then 40 minutes equally divided? Is that what the Senator is seeking?

Yes, 40 minutes equally divided.

I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from California at this point, just for her side.

Madam President, I yield an additional 20 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from California.

Madam President, I say to the Senator from California, I would be happy to yield time off the resolution to the Senator from Michigan so it would not come out of her time.

I could yield 10 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from Michigan. How much time does the Senator from New Jersey seek?

I am happy to yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from New Jersey.

I yield an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey off the resolution.

Madam President, I am happy to yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan off the resolution.

Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume off the resolution.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for this very important amendment. It is becoming increasingly clear jobs are very much an endangered species in this economy. It is the No. 1 subject. When I go home and go from town to town, the No. 1 subject is economic opportunities, jobs, economic growth, and a deepening concern that we are not seeing the kind of economic growth and job opportunities all of us would like.

We saw yesterday in the very steep selloff in the stock market an increasing concern that economic growth is already stalling out.

We have seen in the jobs reports that job growth is badly lagging behind what all of us would like to see, and badly lagging behind what we have seen in other recessions.

On March 9 in the New York Times, Paul Krugman, the noted economist, had this headlined article: ``Promises, Promises.'' The subheadline was ``Wishful Thinking on Jobs.'' He went back and looked at the job history from 1999 to 2004 and then looked at the forecasts of the administration. He pointed out that back in 2002, the administration said by this time, or January of 2005, we would have 138 million jobs. Obviously we do not have 138 million jobs. We are at 130 million jobs now.

Then in 2003 they refined that estimate and lowered it substantially and said, Well, no, we will not have 138 million jobs; we will have 135 million jobs. Now this year they revised the estimate again and said, Whoops, we were wrong again. We are not going to have 135 million jobs; we are going to have 132.7 million jobs. As of the end of February, we are nowhere close to that. We are at 130.2 million jobs.

I will go to this chart that shows what has happened in every recession since World War II. In every one of these recessions, we have seen on average, 17 months after the business cycle peaked, the job recovery really took off. That has been the pattern of the nine recessions since World War II.

Let's compare it to what is happening this time. That is the black line. Here we are 36 months since the business cycle peaked and we still see almost no jobs recovery. Something is wrong and it is seriously wrong. We are now 5.4 million jobs short of the typical recovery going all the way back to World War II. Look at nine previous recessions. In those other recessions, the job market was soaring by this time. Not now. Something is wrong.

Even when the administration dramatically altered and lowered their projection of jobs by January of next year, they still said there would be 2.6 million more jobs by the end of 2004 than 2003. If that forecast is to come true, they will have to generate 520,000 jobs a month between now and the end of the year. The most recent month was not 520,000 jobs; it was not 420,000 jobs; it was not 120,000 jobs; it was 21,000 jobs and every one of them was a Government job. There was no growth in the private sector. Something is wrong.

I would be happy to yield.

That was Mr. Mankiw, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

He did say that. It is a rather remarkable statement. He thought it was good for the country that jobs were outsourced overseas.

I think he has regretted that remark, but that is what he said. He is the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. He is the same person who said there were going to be 2.6 million more jobs in 2004 than the jobs we saw in 2003. We can see that to achieve that goal, they would have to be generating 520,000 jobs a month. In February, they had 21,000, and not a single one of them in the private sector.

If we think about it, the President says his tax policies are working. If his tax policies were working, the jobs that would be generated would not be in the Government. The Government jobs are not developed by his tax plan. One would expect he would be generating jobs in the private sector, and yet if we look at February there were no new jobs in the private sector. The only new jobs that were created were Government jobs, and it was only 21,000.

By the way, they would have to add 128,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with the new people coming into the job market, just to stay even. In February there were only 21,000 new jobs, and none of them in the private sector--all of them in Government. As I say, that is 500,000 jobs short of the necessary number of new jobs that would have to be generated to meet the President's chief economic adviser's forecast.

If we just think in our own lives who do we know who is out of work, and I started thinking about my extended family and my close friends, and you start adding up the number of people who are out of work, in my own family there are people who are highly educated, have had really excellent careers who now are approaching 60 years of age, are out of work and finding it extraordinarily difficult to find new work. These are people with advanced degrees who have had very successful careers, and yet, because of outsourcing, because of this job weakness, they are out of work and cannot find new jobs. Not only do we see it in these statistics, but there is another statistic that also tells us something is wrong, and that is the wage growth of production workers is now starting to fall behind inflation. I think that is why people feel under so much pressure.

The Senator from California mentioned the number of people who have given up looking for work. Once one gets past a certain point, they are no longer counted as unemployed because they have been unemployed so long they are no longer included in the statistics. Being out of work is not just a statistic; it is not just a number on a page; it is a real person living a real life with a real family who has lost hope, who has lost an opportunity, who has lost a chance. That is why I think there is such growing concern about what is happening.

I had a gentleman who is an executive in the machine tool industry who told me, Senator, at this stage of a recovery our order books ought to be full. They are not. Something is happening that is structurally different than previous recoveries. He said he believes the jobs are being created, but the jobs are being created in China, in India, in Mexico. They are not being created in America.

That is why I have to say I believe the amendment of the Senator from California is important. We need to be much more aggressive and proactive at creating job opportunity in this country.

The Senator from California is offering amendments to provide incentives for businesses to create jobs in America. She is also paying for it, which is the responsible thing to do, instead of just sticking it onto the debt. I might remind my colleagues that the budget resolution before us runs up the debt by almost $3 trillion over the next 5 years, and at the worst possible time, right before the baby boomers retire.

I will be happy to yield.

I would say in response to the inquiry of the Senator, in terms of what I found at home, North Dakota has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Nation. We have a very low rate of unemployment in our State. Yet job anxiety is growing there. Why? It is not because the unemployment rate is high; it is because good jobs are not available. It is because people who are more highly educated, more highly trained, are not able to get jobs commensurate with their training and education, and this is creating a whole level of people who are what we would call underemployed--underemployed based on their previous job experiences, underemployed in terms of their education and training.

I say to my colleagues, there was a cartoon in the New Yorker magazine that my wife drew to my attention the other day. The cartoon was two guys who kind of looked like deadbeat guys.

One guy says to the other: You know, you are out of work, aren't you?

He said to the gentleman: I have quit looking. I understand that's good for the economy.

No, it is not good for the economy. That I think is what is increasingly of concern to people. These are middle-class people, people with good education, with good training, who had good jobs.

I have a relative who was very advanced in a major corporation and his entire division was laid off. These are very highly skilled people, very highly trained, very highly paid. They found all of their jobs were being shipped to India. To add insult to injury, they were asked to go to India to train the people to take their jobs.

I want to pick up on a point the Senator was asking about; that is, what are the implications of these massive deficits, both budget and trade?

The Senator mentioned yesterday we just got the latest month's trade deficit, $43 billion. Over a year, obviously, that would be a trade deficit of over $500 billion. At the same time we are running a budget deficit of nearly $500 billion.

This article from the Washington Post of January 26 caught my eye about the long-term effects of these massive deficits, both budget and trade. I think these are warning signals to us all. We are on a dangerous course with these massive deficits. This is what the article said: Currency Traders Fretting Over That Dependency.

The dependency they are talking about is these massive deficits, the trade deficit the Senator from Maryland referenced and the budget deficit.

The currency traders, those who trade currency for their living, are concerned over that dependency, the dependency on borrowing--

They have been selling dollars fast and buying euros

[that's the European currency] furiously. The fear is that

foreigners will tire of financing America's appetites.

Foreign investors will dump U.S. assets, especially stocks

and bonds, sending financial markets plummeting. Interest

rates will shoot up to entice them back. Heavily invested

Americans will not be able to keep up with rising interest

payments. Inflation, bankruptcies, and economic malaise will

follow.

If we look at what has happened to the value of the dollar against the euro in the last 2 years, it ought to sober us up about these deficits. The dollar has declined more than 30 percent in value against the European currency in just the last 2 years.

I note Warren Buffett, who, as I understand it, is the second wealthiest man in the world, second wealthiest American as well, worth tens of billions of dollars, has now placed a major bet against the value of the U.S. dollar.

He has made a $12 billion bet against the value of the dollar in part because of the economic weakness of our country reflected in these massive budget and trade deficits.

I believe deeply we have to get serious about the budget deficit and the trade deficit. Why is it the Comptroller General of the United States is warning us these deficits are too large? Why is it the International Monetary Fund is warning us of the danger of these deficits, that they will put upward pressure on interest rates, which will choke off economic growth, which will choke off job creation, and leave us in an even weaker position?

Again, I say this is why I believe the amendment of the Senator from California is so important. It is an insurance policy to prepare for the economic weakness we are already seeing, the job losses we are already experiencing, and to help us prepare for what might yet come.

I am happy to yield.

Madam President, I think it is undeniably the case. Something is very wrong with the economic strategy we are pursuing as a Nation. We see the evidence in the job market as clearly as it can be seen. The fact is we are now 5 million jobs behind what we would normally see in a recovery.

Looking at the nine recessions since World War II--I will put that chart back up--this should tell us something is off the track. This is the average job recovery of the nine recessions since World War II that you can see 17 months after the peak of the business cycle peak. We see that, for the average for every one of the 9 major recessions since World War II, the job recovery started soaring 17 months after the business cycle peaked. In this case, we are 36 months past the business cycle peak, and we still do not see job recovery occurring.

At this point, we are now 5.4 million jobs short of the typical recovery for all of the recessions since World War II. If that doesn't tell us something is wrong--and the President's forecasts over and over have had to be revised on jobs. Again, this just appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday. In 2002, the President said by the end of this year there would be 138 million jobs in the country. He revised that in 2003 and said, Whoops, we were wrong in 2002. There will only be 135 million jobs by the end of 2004. At the beginning of this year, they revised their estimates again, and said, Whoops, we were wrong again. There are only going to be 132.7 million jobs by the end of the year, and even now we see we are nowhere close to that forecast. They have been wrong in 2002, wrong in 2003, and it looks like they are going to be wrong again. Their forecast, looking at this year, would have to add 500,000 jobs a month, and in February only 21,000 new jobs were created, a half million behind their forecast for that month, and not a single one of the new jobs is in the private sector. Every one of them was a Government job.

The strategy is not working. I don't know what could be more clear. I think it should tell us it is time for a new game plan.

I think what the Senator from California has offered is entirely constructive and it is the beginning of a plan. What this country needs is a plan. We need a program to go forward.

I thank my colleagues.

At this point, I will yield the floor. I have a colleague who has been very patiently waiting.

Mr. President, how much time would the Senator from Connecticut like?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.

Reserving the right to object.

Might we also lock in the Dorgan amendment? We have a copy of that amendment, and we have gotten an agreement on our side to have 20 minutes equally divided on that amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland off the resolution.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use off the resolution.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. The amendment of the Senator from Maryland does two things: It restores the cuts to firefighters that have been made in this budget, and it reduces the deficit. It reduces the deficit. We have record deficits. The amendment of the Senator from Maryland is a twofer. He restores the cuts to firefighters, the first responders. We know from the disaster of September 11 that one of the biggest failings was our first responders, including our firefighters, who could not communicate with each other. They had units from different jurisdictions and they couldn't communicate. That has to be fixed. That costs money.

The Senator from Maryland has offered an amendment to restore the cuts to firefighters. That makes sense.

Second, he reduces the deficit. To pay for it, he takes a tiny fraction of the tax cut going to the wealthiest 1 percent in this country, those earning over $337,000 a year. The total cost of the tax cuts for that group in 2005 is $45 billion. The Senator from Maryland reduces the deficit and restores the cuts to firefighters by using 1.6 percent of that money over four years.

This amendment is a serious amendment and it deserves support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself time off the resolution.

Mr. President, I heard my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, say that this would increase taxes on those who earn over $1 million a year. The cost of the tax cuts, in 2005, to those earning over $1 million a year, is $27 billion.

I point out to my colleague that when it is a question of job creation, it is an interesting fact. It is true that during the Clinton administration the top marginal rate was increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. And guess what happened to economic activity and job creation. We had 22 million jobs created in this country with the 39.6- percent rate. Now we are down to 35 percent, and under this President 3 million jobs have been lost.

If we go back to the Clinton years, the fact is, he put increased revenue into place, cut spending; and we went from 22.6 percent of GDP down to 19 percent of GDP on spending, and raised revenue, because President Clinton inherited from the previous President Bush the same mess this President Bush is creating: record budget deficits. The previous record, before this President, was in his father's administration.

When President Clinton came in, he faced a $290 billion budget deficit. He put in place a 5-year plan that cut spending, raised revenue, balanced the budget, stopped the raid on Social Security. And guess what. We had 22 million jobs created, with the longest economic expansion in the Nation's history, the lowest unemployment in 30 years, and the lowest inflation in 30 years.

Now we have this alternative plan, which is to run the biggest deficits in history, run up the debt, and lose 3 million jobs. I would take the Clinton economic years over the economic years of this administration.

I want to say, my office was visited this week by State and local officials from back home. They told us the proposed levels in the Republican budget resolution for law enforcement and for the COPS Program is going to do serious damage to law enforcement in our State. That was the message they delivered.

The President's budget cuts the COPS Program 94 percent. It is the COPS Program that has put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America, including several hundred in my home State. Why we would cut the COPS Program when we face a terrorist threat eludes me.

I think the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota deserves our support.

Mr. President, could the Chair update us in terms of the time status on the Dorgan amendment.

I don't know if the chairman seeks to use time now on that amendment.

I yield an additional minute off the resolution.

Mr. President, I think it is important to note at this time the situation we face. It is important for our colleagues to understand. Senator Nickles could yield back all the rest of his time. I would then have 4 hours 46 minutes left. But he would have a right to half of that time. So it is important for colleagues to understand, when we say there are 4 hours 46 minutes left on our side, no, there really are not in a functional way. The chairman would verify that.

I understand he is unable to enter into a time agreement at this moment on this amendment because he has to communicate with the committee chairman, but I am saying to other colleagues who are listening, please understand, we are rapidly approaching the time when we have far more requests for time than we have time. The dislocation that occurs here is people hear I have 4 hours 46 minutes left. All the chairman has to do is give back his remaining hour 50 minutes, and then he has rights to half of my time. So instead of 4 hours 46 minutes, I would then have 2 hours 23 minutes. I now have pending requests for 4 hours of time. It doesn't fit together.

We have to ask restraint on the part of our colleagues. I understand we can't enter into a time agreement on this amendment. Senator Lautenberg

has been very gracious in saying he will live with whatever time agreement we can produce. Perhaps the best we can do now is to have Senator Lautenberg proceed and at the earliest possible convenience of the chairman, if we can enter into a time agreement on this one and subsequent amendments that are pending, I think we could make real progress.

Will the Senator withhold for one moment? I would ask the Senator not to send his amendment up. I want to make sure we don't do that. I listened to what the chairman said. I will yield to the Senator time off the resolution. I yield the Senator 20 minutes off the resolution and ask he not send the amendment to the desk at this time.

Mr. President, for a moment I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are going to try to not let time be wasted in quorum calls because time is such a precious commodity at this point. I will take a moment to talk about the budget resolution before us and what I think are the deficiencies of that resolution.

Let me put up this first chart that shows the operating deficits under the budget resolution that is before us. The hard reality is, the budget resolution before us will add nearly $3 trillion to the debt in just the next 5 years. Already we have record budget deficits. This year the Congressional Budget Office is saying the deficit will be nearly $500 billion. But that does not tell the whole story.

Actually, on an operating basis the deficit is even larger because nearly $160 billion of Social Security money is being used for other purposes as well. So if one looked at an operating basis, the true deficit would be the $477 billion plus another $160 billion. That is approaching $650 billion on a $2.3 trillion budget. That is a big budget deficit by any objective measure.

Here it is, $638 billion. As we see it, under the resolution that is before us, this operating deficit never gets below $500 billion as far as the eye can see.

Some are saying this budget resolution will cut the deficit in half in 3 years. Well, that is a certain definition of deficit that does not reveal the full story. It does not talk about how much is actually being added to the debt. The reason for the difference is one includes Social Security trust funds and one does not.

Right now the Social Security trust funds are running very large and growing surpluses. Under the budget resolution before us, all of that Social Security money is being taken over the next 5 years to pay for other things.

When the chairman of the committee talks about cutting the deficit in half in the next 3 years and cutting it in an even larger way by the fifth year, here is what his assumptions are: He says in the fifth year the deficit will be down to $202 billion. Here are the things he is leaving out: Under his resolution, he is also going to take $235 billion from Social Security, every penny of which has to be paid back and there is no plan to do it. He is taking $22 billion out of the Medicare trust fund, every penny of which has to be paid back and he has no plan to do that.

In addition, it would cost $55 billion to fix the alternative minimum tax in that year. The alternative minimum tax is the old millionaires' tax that is rapidly becoming a middle-class tax trap.

Why do I say that? Well, right now only 3 million people are affected by the alternative minimum tax. By the end of this 10-year budget period, there are going to be 40 million people. Those people who thought they were going to get a tax cut are in for a rude surprise.

On top of that, he leaves out the residual war cost in that fifth year which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be $30 billion. So instead of adding to the debt by $202 billion, which one might conclude when he says he is going to run a deficit of that amount for that year, we see he is actually going to be adding to the debt by $545 billion.

Still lots of things are left out. For example, on war costs, in the President's budget he has no funding for the war in Iraq, no funding for the war in Afghanistan, no funding for the war on terror past September 30 of this year. To the chairman's credit, he has put in $30 billion, although interestingly enough he does not add it to his deficit totals. So it is magic money. It is money that is on paper, says it is available, but he does not count it.

Look at what the Congressional Budget Office tells us ought to be the money set aside for war costs. They say $280 billion is what it is going to cost over this next period of time. The chairman has $30 billion in his budget resolution, although he does not really provide the money, he does not count it in his deficit calculations. It is, as I say, magic money: Now you see it, now you don't. The President has no money.

So I go back to this calculation of what this budget resolution adds to the debt and what kind of operating deficits it runs, and they are much larger than is being revealed. Here is what I mean. From 2004 to 2005, it will add $612 billion to the debt. The next year, $569 billion is added to the debt. These are not my numbers. This is from the chairman's own mark. These are from his documents. The third year it adds $552 billion to the debt. The fourth year, $563 billion to the debt; the fifth year another $563 billion to the debt. That is a cumulative total of nearly $3 trillion to the debt, and all at the worst possible time, right before the baby boomers retire.

I know my colleague from Idaho is waiting so I am going to wrap this up, and I know Senator Nelson is seeking time as well. This is a final point I think is important to understand: The deficit on a unified basis, when Social Security is included and other things are left out, is going down. That is misleading us as to our true fiscal condition because the additions to the debt are basically stable, but if I examine the chairman's proposal he is actually adding to the deficit beyond what would occur if we did nothing in this Chamber.

I hope my colleagues are listening. The chairman's budget adds to the deficit in each of the next 5 years by $177 billion over and above what would happen if we did nothing. If we just put the Government on automatic pilot, we would have $177 billion less in deficit over the next 5 years than if we passed this budget resolution.

I hope my colleagues study this document very carefully because I think it conceals much of the true financial condition of our country.

I yield the floor, because I know colleagues are seeking time.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska is seeking time. How much time would he desire?

I yield five minutes off the resolution to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for taking the time. I also thank him very much for being flexible about when to come so we can keep the business flowing and not have dead time. I appreciate very much his accommodating the managers.

Senator Lautenberg never sent the amendment up.

If I might clarify, I can understand why this may be surprising. We were not able to arrive at a time agreement because you needed to talk to the chairman. We thought it would be more appropriate to withhold sending the amendment to the desk until you had a chance to consult with your chairman.

We thought that would be more fair to you.

If we could enter into a time agreement on the Harkin amendment, that would help substantially.

We have a lot of amendments that the chairman might feel that way about.

Could we get a general understanding of what it is we will try to achieve in terms of a time agreement on this amendment so the Senator from Iowa has some understanding of what we would be talking about, 20 minutes equally divided, as we discussed earlier?

Could we say initially that in terms of the advice for our colleagues that we try to make this 30 minutes equally divided, with an understanding that it may be altered somewhat when you have a chance to consult? It would just help those who are managing the amendment to divide up the time in a way that might make things go faster.

I yield to the Senator from Iowa 15 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. President, just for our understanding, the time used so far would be charged to the amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. President, I appreciate that. I am so sorry. I was sure Senator Nickles had seen this amendment. I don't think there is anything surprising. It is essentially a jobs amendment, initiatives that have been introduced by other Senators. We packaged it in one package.

I ask Senator Conrad if he wants me to take time by discussing Senator Corzine's amendment and making other remarks or take time off the managers' time? Either way he wants it.

I was hopeful, when I spoke last night, that I could have 20 to 30 minutes for the entire amendment. That would be fine for me.

No, no, 30 minutes on my side, or 20 minutes on my side.

No, 20 minutes a side.

I thank my colleague very much. I have been looking forward to offering this amendment. I hope at the appropriate moment in time I will be able to send it to the desk.

Mr. President, if you were to go out all over this country and ask most of our constituents from every State in the Union what is on their minds, they are going to say it is the economy; it is jobs; it is their security. In this particular budget we should do much more to ensure that jobs are created and that our families are protected. So what we do in this amendment, which we pay for, is a number of initiatives which will help us create and retain jobs in this great country.

First of all, I want to give my colleagues a sense of why this is so important. The amendment I am offering is cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Sarbanes, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Durbin, Levin and Dodd. I see Senator Kohl is here. I am hopeful he will want to make a few comments as well.

Let me paint a picture of where we are. I think the best way to do it is just show a series of charts, that are very clear:

Private sector jobs decline: Three million jobs lost since

January 2001.

We see the incredible graph that just shows, essentially, almost a straight line down. We did see in February we had a little increase of 21,000 jobs, as I understand it, in the public sector. There is very little in the private sector.

I will if I can reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Corzine amendment and send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, let me continue with the story that is not a very happy story about job loss. We have seen 3 million jobs lost in the last 3\1/2\ years. We see unemployment for 27 weeks or longer. We see that 1.9 million workers are unemployed for more than 6 months. We have statistics that say although the unemployment rate looks to be 5.6 percent, in reality it is over 9 percent if you factor in the people who have given up their search for jobs. We see the smallest share of the population at work since 1994, with 62.2 percent of the population unemployed. These are startling statistics.

Manufacturing jobs in America: From 1993 to 2000, 385,000 manufacturing jobs created; and from 2001 to 2003, 2.785 thousand jobs lost. That is 75,270 jobs lost per month. For my people in California, we have seen an enormous drop in manufacturing jobs.

I want to show my colleagues the context of this job loss if we look back to other administrations. This is the average number of jobs created or lost per month. Under Ronald Reagan, we had 165,000 jobs per month; under George H. Bush, we had 47,604 jobs created every month; under Bill Clinton, we had 236,625 jobs created per month; and under George W. Bush, 58,815 jobs per month on average lost.

By any standard, this is a unique time. We have a chance to do something about it with this budget resolution.

California jobs: From 1993 to 2000, under the Clinton administration, 25,644 jobs were created per month in my State of 35 million people. Under George W. Bush, 284,900 jobs lost. That is 7,913 jobs lost per month. Nearly 8,000 jobs are lost per month in my State. That is about 8,000 family members coming home to tell their families they are in big trouble. We ought to do something about it. The good news is we can do something about it with this amendment I offered.

I want to show one more chart.

President Bush promised a whole different story--promises, promises, wishful thinking on jobs. The Bush administration has consistently over-predicted job growth for 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Today, I read in the paper that the President is going to appoint a manufacturing jobs czar. He came to a decision about the individual he wants to appoint. We have learned that this particular individual built a plant in China. Whether he will continue with that nomination, I do not know, but clearly that sends a very mixed signal, to be polite about it.

Let me talk for a moment about the amendment I am offering to protect America's jobs.

How much time do I have remaining?

Thank you.

Our amendment creates a $24 billion job reserve fund for the following purposes:

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, $110 million cost; Advanced Technology Program, $125 million cost; Federal science at $1 billion cost; new manufacturing jobs tax credit at $7 billion cost; small business health insurance tax credit at $14 billion cost; stop jobs from moving overseas and end the runaway plant tax break, which saves $2 billion; the Dodd amendment with no Federal funds for outsourcing, no cost; worker notification, which is Senator Daschle's amendment in relation to jobs moving overseas, no cost; and worker assistance and trade adjustment expansion for service workers and expanded health insurance, $2 billion.

The way we pay for this amendment is the following: We end the runaway plant tax break, which brings in $2 billion, and we reduce tax breaks for millionaires, which brings in another $1 billion.

I want to spend just a moment explaining why I think that is fair. If you earn over $1 million, under the Bush tax cut you are going to get a refund of about $140,000 every single year.

Let me rephrase that. You are going to get a tax cut of $127,000 every single year. We reduce that refund to $85,000 for a very noble purpose. That purpose is to get America back to work and to help our middle-class families.

I think if you ask the average person in your State, just from what I can tell by looking at polls and talking to people, they will say even if they were in that millionaire category, we will have a stronger economy and more people working by not giving millionaires $127,000 a year from their taxes.

We reduce it to $85,000. Let us talk about that. They will now get back $85,000. How much is that? That is 7.5 times the annual income of a minimum-wage worker, just in the millionaire tax cut. We are, in fact, cutting it to $85,000, but that is 7.5 times the annual income of a minimum-wage worker. It is also two times the median household income. If you are a millionaire and get back $85,000 a year instead of $127,000, you are still getting back every year twice the median household income and 7.5 times the annual income of a minimum-wage worker.

I want to briefly tell you about each of these job creation plans.

Be providing a tax credit for creating new manufacturing jobs--this is a tax credit that goes to businesses that create jobs in manufacturing, originally sponsored by Senator John Kerry--the manufacturing jobs tax credit gives the tax cut to companies that create a new factory job in 2004, 2005 and 2006. This is a good thing for business. It is a great thing for workers. It is a good way to deal with this issue.

We increase the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. It sets aside $110 million of the reserve fund for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. In 2003, this program helped create or retain 35,000 jobs.

The administration only asks for $13 million in 2004, and it is requesting only $39 million for 2005. They say they care about jobs, but they ought to do more, and $110 million will create a lot more jobs.

For the Advanced Technology Program, this amendment sets aside $140 million in the reserve fund. The administration proposes zeroing out this ATP program. The ATP helps companies get to market and grow, and that means jobs. Of the first 33 small companies to complete ATP programs, 60 percent doubled in size, and 4 grew more than 1,000 percent. The ATP program bridges the gap between the research lab and the marketplace. We need to see that go up to this $140 million level. I might say, even with that, it is still less than we have spent in the past on the program. George Bush, in 2005, requests zero for this important program.

Then we have Federal research and development, which is so key, at the National Science Foundation. It falls $1 billion short of what is called for in the bill we passed 5 years ago. It is very important. When President Bush says he increases Federal research by 5 percent, the problem for our Nation's researchers and research institutions is that increase is largely targeted for weapons development. However, we have other things we need to do which will create jobs, as well. That is the purpose of this amendment.

The health insurance tax credit for small business is clear. If business pays health insurance for its people, we think they ought to get a tax break. That is the kind of tax break we believe in on this side of the aisle because it is to encourage businesses to help employees with their health care.

We end tax subsidies to U.S. companies that send plants overseas. This is a Dorgan-Mikulski idea. This amendment includes language bringing to an end tax subsidies for employers that ship production of goods abroad. This part brings $2 billion.

We prohibit Federal funds from being used for offshore jobs. This is Senator Dodd's amendment that passed the Senate 70 to 26. When we give State and local governments Federal funds and when we decide to issue contracts, the jobs ought to stay here.

In my own State, the Defense Department wanted to buy rice for Iraq. Instead of buying it from California, which has the best rice in the world, they bought it from a foreign country. That is my farmers, taxpayer dollars, and all my people's dollars going into the war effort. We give a contract on rice to a foreign country when the sons and daughters of our farmers and our people are going to war. I don't get it.

This is an important amendment. We are improving the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and extending it to service workers. That means help for people who are pushed out of a job because of trade agreements.

I will save some time for colleagues. How much time remains?

I yield 4 minutes to Senator Kohl.

I thank the Senator for asking this question. I have never known that we have offered such a comprehensive jobs amendment on a budget resolution. These are not ordinary times.

My friend is right when he asked this question. If we go back over time to Herbert Hoover in the Depression years in the 1930s, that is the only time we have actually lost jobs. We have created jobs under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and now we are down to this and we have seen 3 million jobs lost. We need a jobs amendment.

Clearly, we give tax breaks in this amendment to small businesses that pay or help pay for their employees' health benefits.

When we talk to people, they are scared about the cost of health insurance. They are frightened. They are frightened that the costs are going up, that they may lose it, not to mention their entanglements with HMOs that want to walk away.

We say to employers, employees, we will help if, in fact, you pay for your employees' health care, or at least part of it.

We also give a manufacturing jobs tax credit. And this is Senator Kerry's idea.

Madam President, do I have a remaining minute on my time?

I thank my friend.

So I say to my friend from Arkansas--because I would like to continue this give-and-take--what we are seeing is a devastating change in what has been known as economic progress in America--a devastating change--something we have not seen since Herbert Hoover. This is serious business.

For our small businesses that are creating whatever jobs are being created--although we still are not seeing a net increase in those jobs--we need them to get help. So in this amendment not only do we suggest a reserve fund to help our workers, but we suggest tax credits and tax breaks to our businesses that create manufacturing jobs. For every job they create, they get a tax credit, and also for those businesses that pay for health care for workers.

So I think the question was right on the mark.

I would be glad if my friend has any other questions.

I am happy to yield.

Absolutely.

This health care tax credit is very important as well.

In my State, my small businesses that do the right thing by their employees are being hurt. We ought to recognize if you do the right thing, you ought to get rewarded for it. So that is why we do this.

I say to my friend, he is right; this jobs amendment helps workers and helps businesses. It is a balanced approach.

Here is how we encourage the creation of American jobs: We provide tax credits to companies that create new jobs. We provide tax credits to help small businesses pay for health insurance. We expand funding to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program, which really helps small businesses in an enormous way. What we do with these programs is we help them go from the research part of things to the marketing part of things. It has been a huge success.

Unfortunately, the President has zeroed out the ATP. I cannot understand it. This is something our businesspeople really want.

Also, as to basic scientific research, we see it in the budget, but it is mostly for defense weapons programs. We do not have it on the civilian side.

Again, coming from a State--I am sure your State has them, as well-- with very entrepreneurial people, who really can take off from scientific research, it is very important.

I say to my friend, we pay for this. We pay for this by ending--this is Senator Dorgan's idea--we end the tax break for companies that move offshore. Oh, yes, they are creating jobs, but they are creating jobs offshore. And we pay for it by saying to the millionaires--people who make over $1 million a year--we are saying to those folks: Instead of getting $127,000 a year back, can you take $85,000 a year back? That is still 7.5 times more than a worker at the minimum wage.

So this is a golden moment for this Senate to come together across party lines on behalf of our small businesses, on behalf of our workers, and create jobs.

I have already shown my colleague the historic proportions of this moment in history in which we find ourselves: the worst record since Herbert Hoover, the only Presidency since Herbert Hoover not to create jobs. This is an extraordinary moment. We need to take a moment to realize if a millionaire gets back $85,000 instead of $127,000, that is not a great sacrifice to make for putting people to work, for giving a lift to small business.

Madam President, I thank my friend because he is exactly right. This outsourcing is a very tough issue. I say to my friend, before he goes to his committee hearing, I met a young man in California who had an excellent job as a computer program manager. He is a newlywed and very excited about his life. He finds out he is being fired, not because he is not a good employee--he is a great employee, terrific--but because his job is being outsourced to another country. And the person over there is going to get a quarter of what he makes. Now, here is the real kicker. He is told he has to train his replacement.

I have to say, this is what is happening all over America. If we cannot take a stand in this budget which reflects all of our priorities as a nation, if we cannot take a stand for America's workers and America's small businesses, I do not know why we are here. What are we here for?

I ask my friend again to look at this chart which shows that the smallest share of the population is at work since 1994. This is not a good chart when you translate it into real lives of real people--and we know the stories in our States: a mother wakes up worried because her company says it no longer will pay health care--that is why we give a health care tax credit in this amendment--a gentleman, as I described, is told by his boss: You are losing your job. It is being outsourced, and you have to train your replacement. This is what is happening in America.

I know some colleagues are here who would like to be heard on this amendment, which I am very pleased about.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Washington Post article from today: ``Bush Choice for Manufacturing Post in Question.''

Madam President, I will only read the first paragraph, and then I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey, Senator Corzine.

Here is what it says:

Six months after promising to create an office to help the

nation's struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on

someone to head it, but the nomination was being reconsidered

last night after Democrats revealed that this candidate had

opened a factory in China.

Now, I ask you, what signal are we sending to the workers of America, to the businesses of America, when the President's No. 1 choice for manufacturing czar has opened a business in China?

So if you put together this fact with this fact, with the chart I showed you that illustrates the worst problem in job creation since Herbert Hoover, we have an explosive situation on our hands. The vote on this amendment should not be about parties; it should be about our people, whether they are in Alaska, Wyoming, New Jersey, Michigan, or California.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and ask, after yielding that time, how much time would be remaining on my side?

I yield Senator Corzine 3 minutes and Senator Stabenow 4 minutes.

Excellent. So how much time will the Senator yield off the resolution?

I thank the Senator.

Will the Senator yield for a question before his time expires?

When my friend goes home to New Jersey and talks to people, does he find what I find; that people are anxious, they are insecure, they are concerned about retaining their job, retaining a good job, retaining health benefits? What I find is, even if people have good jobs, they are fearful of the cost of health insurance.

As the Senator knows, in our Democratic jobs alternative, we give a tax credit to businesses that pay for all or part of health insurance. I wondered if my friend has that same sense when he goes to talk to his people at home?

I ask my friend if he will yield an additional minute to the Senator.

If the Senator will yield, he is so right. Consumer confidence is almost everything in our economy, which is a consumer- based economy.

I took economics, so I have an economics background from my college years. But my friend practiced economics and did very well at it. What he says is so important. If your next-door neighbor is suffering because of a loss of jobs or downward pressure on job income, it has a contagious impact. A lot of this lack of consumer confidence is what we are seeing today.

I wish to ask my friend another question that has to do with the fact we paid for this amendment. We paid for this in two ways. First, we eliminate the tax loophole for companies that send their jobs overseas. That brings in $2 billion to pay for this reserve fund for jobs. We also say to millionaires, we know you are going to get back $127,000-- and people who earn more than that will get exponentially more--so instead of getting back $127,000, you get $85,000. That difference is more than a minimum-wage worker's salary for an entire year.

As my friend looks as his people in New Jersey and knows the median income level there, do you think this is a fair thing we do here, ask everybody to sacrifice?

To reiterate, we are saying to the millionaires of this country, we are proud of you, that you got the American dream; and you worked for it--most of them did, not all of them. Can't you make that sacrifice so we can put people to work and turn around these numbers?

Look at this chart. We talked about this before, going back to Ronald Reagan. We haven't seen this kind of deal since Herbert Hoover. Looking at New Jersey and the people making over $1 million who would be impacted, does my friend not believe we pay for this in a fair way?

I have one more question and that is it. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Mikulski and Dorgan be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

I ask for that as well.

When we look at the promises made and the reality, I would like my friend----

I will wait on that. I thank my friend from New Jersey.

Will my friend yield for a moment?

She was right on target about this manufacturing czar, this potential nominee, who may be a very lovely gentleman; nonetheless, what a poor choice. We should be rewarding people and companies that create jobs for the American people.

You know, I wish the world well. I want Iraq to have democracy and the Haitians to have democracy. I want the people of Afghanistan to thrive. Lord knows, we spend enough money there to help them. What about people at home? Isn't that our first responsibility?

I am telling you, when I have to hear stories from constituents who say, Not only was I laid off and my job is going to be outsourced to a foreign country but I have to train my replacement--I say somebody may call that outsourcing; I call it painful. I call it wrong.

My friend from Nevada wants me to get to the question and I will.

When this gentleman moves his jobs to China, does he not get a tax advantage? And are we not closing that loophole--it is the Dorgan idea--and does my friend support that, as well as the other items on this list?

Will my friend yield for a quick question before my colleague continues? I find this give-and-take very helpful.

I read an economic report that said although the jobless rate is officially at 5.6 percent, if one factors in the people who have given up, it is well over 9 percent. I wonder if my friend could comment on that, because he talked about how important it is to just keep up with the people who are coming in. What about the people who have given up?

Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?

I thank Senator Sarbanes and Senator Conrad for their enormous contribution in support of this amendment, which is really an amendment that is made up by the contribution of various members of the Democratic caucus, including Senator Dodd, who has just come to the floor. An important amendment ensuring Federal contracts should not be outsourced passed this Chamber with flying colors. It is important. As a matter of fact, I met with my local elected officials and I asked, Do you have any idea whether any of your department jobs are outsourced? They looked at me, and said, I don't know. I will go back and make sure tax dollars aren't being used to create jobs overseas.

I thank my friend for his contribution to this amendment. I want to ask my friend a question. It has to do with this whole notion of the anxiety in this country. I think anyone watching this debate understands there are many reasons for people to feel anxious. They feel anxious when there are deficits as far as the eye can see. It is stunning to think back to 3\1/2\ years ago. There were surpluses as far as the eye could see. What mismanagement.

I say to my friend the shocking part is--and when I was an economics major a long time ago we thought when there were big deficits it would create a lot of jobs. Here we have a circumstance where you have runaway deficits, runaway debt, and no job creation whatsoever. In fact, there is a net job loss.

I want to say to my friend from North Dakota, when he talks about the budget deficit, the trade deficit, the twin deficits, there is also the job deficit. Now you have the tripling. I think my friend made a good point when he talked about people being laid off and then having to train their replacement workers. I met such a gentleman who was a newlywed. He had a job as a computer program manager and he had to train his replacement. I cannot tell you the look on this man's face. He is leaving my State. He thought for sure this could never happen in the Golden State. As we know, it is happening in California and all over this country.

This is a stunning moment in history. That is why this amendment is so important.

The budget document is in fact the priority of the country. If we turn our back on the people of this country who need to work for a living, we shouldn't be here, to be honest, because that has to be an essential part of what we do to protect the country, from the standpoint of defense, protect workers and make sure they have jobs.

I want to ask my colleague this point about the anxiety in the land. I think what is feeding it is when your next-door neighbor loses a job, or someone in your family loses a job, you begin to feel anxious. When your next-door neighbor loses his health insurance or pension, you begin to get anxious yourself. Then when you pick up the papers--I put a lot of this together last night, and you can read this. ``Analysts Gloomy Over Job Creation''; ``Growth In Jobs Is Still Sluggish''; ``Job Growth Falls Short of Forecast''; ``Jobs Slump''; ``Fewer Small Businesses Plan To Hire''.

I am saying to my friend I think all of this is creating an anxiety in the land.

I will ask this question: Given everything we said--it is not rhetoric; it is reality; we have shown the numbers. They are real. We have talked about real families. We have seen what is happening. I ask my friend, is not this the time, if there was ever a time, we should say to the American people whom we care about and their families, their ability to have a quality of life, their ability to educate their children and send them to college, and their ability to look at the future with hope and optimism--wouldn't it be the moment we should be united as Republicans and Democrats and Independents here today in passing the amendment we put forward which not only will stimulate jobs directly but will stimulate small businesses by giving them the tax credits they deserve, so they can pay for health care insurance or create jobs? I ask my friend, is this not the moment in time to make this a priority for this Senate across party lines?

Three minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague. I know there are other Members who want to be heard on these matters. I will try to be brief.

Mr. President, I will show you a chart. I have great respect for my friend from Wyoming. He is a knowledgeable and good Member of this institution, and he cares deeply about these issues.

I cannot help but note, of course, out of all the States--if I am wrong maybe someone will correct me--one of the single lowest job loss of the 50 States has been the State of Wyoming, according to the analysis we have on job losses in manufacturing.

Mr. President, 1,200 jobs have been lost in Wyoming. I am sorry about those losses, but when you compare that to States of similar size-- neighboring States--Utah has lost 15,000, Colorado has lost 38,000, Texas has lost 156,000, Maine has lost 15,000. I am not even mentioning large States. Iowa has lost 26,000, Missouri has lost 40,000, Arkansas has lost 29,000, Oklahoma has lost 26,000.

The point is, we are watching a hemorrhaging on jobs. No one likes to recite all the bad news, but reality says you have to know the facts if you are going to set policy.

Unfortunately, no matter what the conditions are in this country, the administration has one answer: cut taxes for the wealthy. When we had a surplus: cut taxes. When we are in a recession: we need to cut taxes. Job growth is weak: we need to cut taxes. It is a Johnny-one-note, no matter what the economic circumstances are.

All of us who are involved in supporting Senator Boxer's amendment are pointing out that this is maybe the critical issue at this hour. People across the country are worried deeply about job creation. They are worried about jobs leaving the country. They are worried about companies making that decision, and doing so either through tax incentives, where we actually encourage, through the Tax Code, to outsource, or actually using Federal taxpayer money.

I express my appreciation to 75 of my colleagues in this Chamber who, last week--Democrats and Republicans--joined on the amendment I offered that would prohibit the use of Federal taxpayer money to subsidize the outsourcing of jobs.

If a private company, with their money, wants to outsource, I cannot do much about that. But I do not believe you ought to incentivize that decision by offering someone a tax break to do it or providing direct Federal subsidies to do it. We think we ought to be doing everything we can to encourage job growth at home. That does not make you an isolationist. That does not make you a protectionist. It just indicates to us how serious we think this potential problem is.

It is not just us who say this. I would take note that a few days ago, in the Washington Post, in a front-page article was the story of Clintwood, VA, and the loss of 270 jobs. Does anyone think a year or 2 or 5 years ago the loss of 270 jobs in Clintwood, VA, would have merited a front-page story in the leading newspaper in this city or area? I doubt it. Yet the Washington Post, obviously, has some sensibilities about what people care about in this area. And the loss of 270 jobs in one small town in Virginia, that got sent overseas by Travelocity, is yet one more piece of evidence that people are worried about what is going on in this country, particularly when it is occurring because we encourage it through our Tax Code or through direct subsidies.

I am glad the President finally decided to suggest we have a manufacturing czar. But to fail to check to find out if the person you are apparently going to nominate is involved in exporting jobs to a facility in China indicates a lack of sensitivity about this issue. In fact, the other day I read where the administration now is going to do everything it can to fight the efforts some of us are making to slow down the outsourcing of jobs in the country, particularly when outsourcing occurs through Federal subsidies and through tax incentives.

We do not think the Federal Government ought to be in the business of promoting job exportation to another country or suggesting that somehow it is all the same, that it does not make a difference if you have the loss of a product being produced here or a service being performed here and it is now

going overseas, watching someone's job go overseas.

You cannot stop it in every case. We are realists. We understand that. But Senator Boxer has put together a very good amendment which, in part, highlights the outsourcing issue. She goes into other areas as well.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is being cut by 63 percent. I listened to the President the other day say: I am against outsourcing. What we need to be doing is investing----

Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I just would note that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program is a significant program that helps U.S. manufacturers, small manufacturers with everything from plant modernization to employee training. This cut means that 11,000 small manufacturers are not going to receive services, and 28,000 employees will either be laid off or not hired.

So even if you agree with the President that we ought to not be talking about outsourcing, not be talking about manufacturing job loss, that we ought to be investing in small businesses, what is he doing when he cuts 63 percent of the budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program? That is a complete reversal of his rhetoric on these issues.

He also tries to eliminate entirely the Advanced Technology Program, which spurs cutting-edge research in solving manufacturing problems and increasing competitiveness. Here we are eliminating that program altogether and slashing by more than 50 percent the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.

That is what we do not understand. He is opposed to doing anything about outsourcing. He is opposed to doing anything to provide tax relief for small manufacturers who need help. And he is going to cut the budget in the two areas that can make a significant difference to our manufacturers.

I applaud the Senator from California for offering her amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President. I rise in support of this amendment to help the Nation's firefighters safely do their jobs.

Specifically, this amendment does three things. First, it restores funding to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which I authored in 2000 with Senators DeWine, Levin, and Warner. This law stands as the first federal grant program explicitly designed to help firefighters throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and needed personnel.

Second, this amendment provides funding for the implementation of the SAFER Act. This law, which I authored with Senator Warner and was enacted last November, authorizes a federal grant program to hire an expected 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years.

Finally, this amendment allocates much-needed funding for deficit reduction. The Senate budget resolution, which largely reflects President Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies, adds a staggering $2.86 trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years.

Mr. President, $2.86 trillion dollars! These numbers are totally mind-boggling. The Republicans have always claimed that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Under their Senate Budget resolution, however, $612 billion will be added to the gross debt from 2004 to 2005; the next year $569 billion will be added; the next year $553 billion; the next year $553 billion; the next year $563 billion; and the next year $564 billion will be added to the debt. Despite the claims of President Bush and the Budget Committee majority, I see no significant progress being made at reducing the increases to the debt. In fact, we've gone from record surpluses to record deficits in only 3 years!

The offset we are proposing to pay for this amendment is a reduction in the tax cuts benefiting individuals with annual incomes over $1 million. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Senate budget resolution calls for tax cuts which are extremely beneficial to the wealthiest Americans such as accelerating the repeal of the estate tax by 1 year, and making permanent the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. With the deficit exploding, the country still vulnerable to terrorist attack, and our Nation's firefighters in need of the resources necessary to respond to emergencies and to save lives, it is only right that the top one-tenth of one percent of the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share for homeland security.

In fact, Mr. President, homeland security is exactly what this amendment is all about. The defenders on our home front are not dressed in combat fatigues. They do not drive tanks on the streets of the Nation's cities. They wear firefighter uniforms, and they drive fire engines. They risk their lives to keep us safe just like our troops overseas, and I for one appreciate their efforts greatly.

I know that the fire service has men and women who are willing to do whatever it takes to get their jobs done. We have first-rate firefighters throughout the Nation, but they are underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and underequiped to deal with many emergencies that may arise.

The responsibilities of America's firefighters have changed. They have certainly come a long way from the ``bucket brigades'' in colonial America, where two rows of people would stretch from the town well to the fire, passing buckets of water back and forth until the fire was extinguished.

Today, firefighters must do more. They still have their traditional responsibilities of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. Now the fire service has new homeland security responsibilities, such as responding to biological and radiological agents.

The reality, however, is that cash-strapped States and cities simply do not have the resources--financial as well as personnel--needed to single-handedly safeguard their populations. Nor do they have the fiscal reserves necessary to deal with heightened warning levels for any extended period of time.

According to a national Needs Assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. The study found that:

Using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope.

Using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of non-local resources to handle the situation.

An estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties, most of them serving smaller communities.

Finally, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. Many fire departments often fail to respond to fires with sufficient personnel to safely initiate an interior attack on a structural fire.

These statistics are startling. The risks that firefighters are expected to respond to have far outgrown the ability of city governments to equip firefighters to do what we are asking them to do. This situation demands immediate action by the Senate to address these concerns.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to helping firefighters. Secretary Ridge of the Department of Homeland Security talks about training and equipping first responders yet the President's Budget and the Senate budget resolution cuts the FIRE Act grant program by $250 million. This amendment will restore these funds to their authorized level of $900 million for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, the FIRE Act grant program has been one of the most successful initiatives in recent years. I am currently working closely with Senator DeWine to reauthorize this program for the future. The need is certainly out there in all regions of the country urban and rural, large cities and small communities, North and South, East and West--for these competitive, merit-based grants that assist fire departments with their heaviest burdens. For Fiscal Year 2003, the program received approximately 19,950 applications from fire departments across the nation, totaling $2.5 billion in grant requests, while only $750 million in federal funding was available for such grants.

A January 31, 2003 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that 99 percent of program participants were satisfied with the program's ability to meet the needs of their department. In addition, 97 percent of the participants reported that the program had ``a positive impact on their ability to handle fire and fire-related incidents.'' The report concluded that ``overall, the results of our survey and our analysis reflect that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program was highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the nation.'' The FIRE Act grant program is truly a success story, and it deserves the Senate's full support.

It is surprising to me then that President Bush and the Senate budget resolution would slash $250 million from this very successful program. It is also surprising to me that President Bush would show images of firefighters in a campaign advertisement when his budget, as well as the Senate budget resolution, provides not one cent for the SAFER Act, which would fund 75,000 new firefighters over the next seven years. It makes no sense.

The need for additional firefighters on our Nation's streets is great. According to National Fire Protection Association standards, a minimum of four firefighters is required to initiate an interior attack on a house fire. And 73 percent of departments serving populations between 10,000 and 25,000 lack such personnel.

For fire departments serving populations between 25,000 and 50,000, the number climbs to 82 percent.

For fire departments serving populations between 50,000 and 100,000, 76 percent lack the minimum of four firefighters.

And 56 percent of fire departments protecting 100,000 and 250,000 people also do not have the necessary four firefighters.

Then it is 41 percent for departments serving 250,000 and 500,000 people, 40 percent for departments protecting populations between 500,000 and one million people, and 0 percent for departments protecting at least one million people.

Just as the FIRE Act provides the equipment and training resources for firefighters to do their job, the SAFER Act complements it by also providing the human resources to meet the challenge of an extended war against terrorism. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the nation's workforce has steadily declined. Today in the United States there is one firefighter for every 280 citizens. We have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and police officers.

We need to turn the trend around now more than ever. Understaffing is dangerous for the public and for firefighters. Chronic understaffing means that many firefighters do not have the backup and on-the-ground support they need to do their jobs safely. The sad consequence is that about every three days we lose a firefighter in the line of duty. On some days, the losses are unimaginably high. Firefighters need reinforcements, and the Congress should be prepared to give them all the help they need. This amendment therefore provides funding for the SAFER Act at its FY2005 authorized level of $1.03 billion.

In closing, it is important to recall the important role that firefighters have played in American history since its earliest days. In fact, firefighting can be linked to some of our Nation's most illustrious personages. Benjamin Franklin established the first volunteer fire department in Philadelphia in 1735. George Washington himself was a volunteer firefighter across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, and he imported the first fire engine from England in 1765.

Of course, on September 11, 2001, 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped in the World Trade Center. The role played by those firefighters who lived and died in the line of duty on that tragic day made the Nation proud.

On that day and on every other day, they are the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face because they know that they have a duty to fulfill.

The Congress has a duty to the fire service as well. We must ensure that there is full funding for the FIRE Act and the SAFER Act, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The quote stating that they expected 2.6 million more jobs, was that by the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers?

Is that the same administration official, high economic official, who told us in the annual report, the one President Bush signed off on, that outsourcing jobs was a good thing for America?

Yes.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

I say to the very able Senator from California, who earlier showed a chart about how the rate of people participating in the workforce has dropped, what has happened is you have 4.4 million workers today who are working part time for economic reasons. In other words, they want to work full time but they are only working part time.

When you compute the unemployment rate, they are counted as employed, not as unemployed, but really they are only partially employed.

Then you have another 4.6 million people who are discouraged and not currently looking for work who want to work. So they have been knocked out of the labor force as well.

Actually, there are 13.3 million Americans unemployed, and if you use the broadest measure that the BLS prepares, they report an unemployment rate of 10.3 percent. That is factoring in everybody. That is your broadest measure and that is not usually the figure that is focused on. Ordinarily, when the unemployment rate figure comes down, those other figures shrink as well. But it is not all moving in the right direction.

One of the reasons the unemployment rate figure has dropped just a little bit is because people are dropping out of the workforce and they are not looking for a job or they are being shifted from full-time to part-time work. I think that is one of the reasons why, as the able Senator from North Dakota points out, as he moves around his State, he is encountering more and more people who are concerned about the unemployment problem.

What the administration says is this particular rate is the unemployment rate, but that only tells part of the story. That is only part of the story. You have to, in effect, complete the story by looking at those who are working part time but want a full-time job. Of course, if they have been cut from full time to part time, that makes it more difficult to support their family.

Then there are the people who want a job but they are so discouraged and pessimistic that they have dropped out of the effort to find a job. They don't get counted in that unemployment rate.

Will the Senator yield on that point? The President was in Ohio a day or two ago. Of course, Ohio has been badly hit. They have lost manufacturing jobs and they are being hard hit by, in effect, the flow of jobs overseas.

This morning's paper says we ran a record trade deficit last month of $43 billion. That monthly rate translates into well over a $500 billion annual trade deficit--a $\1/2\ trillion trade deficit. Of course, people say we are exporting goods and that is true. But we are importing far more than we are exporting, so much so, that we have set a record monthly trade deficit figure. That only again reflects the flow of jobs out of this country, overseas, exactly the point the Senator is making. In particular, it is the flow of some very good- paying jobs.

The manufacturing sector has been very hard hit. The Administration set up this post of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. They waited 6 months, they didn't nominate anyone, and now it looks as if the person they are nominating they are not going to go through with because it turns out he was establishing a factory over in China and cutting back on jobs in this country. Can you imagine that?

I thank the Senator from California for her amendment. She is right on target. This is an extremely important amendment. The package she has put together is a very sensible package to try to address this problem.

Will the Senator yield?

I was going to try to get a time limitation because the Senator seemed anxious to do that. I am happy to try to cooperate in that effort. Would 30 minutes equally divided be acceptable, 15 minutes on a side?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment today to fully fund the Assistance to Firefighters grant program, and to fully fund the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Act, which, of course, provides for additional staffing.

As a Co-Chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am pleased to offer this amendment. I certainly underscore and recognize the significant role which my colleague, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, has played on both the firefighter grant program and the SAFER Act.

In his budget for 2005, the President requested only $500 million for the FIRE grant program. This is a cut of close to $250 million, a third of the

funding for this program from the levels established by the Congress over the past two fiscal years. The fully authorized amount for the current fiscal year is $900 million, and this amendment would seek to take the program to that level.

The FIRE grant program is a competitive grant process that funds firefighting equipment, firefighting vehicles, fire prevention, and safety programs. Unlike many other programs directed toward first responders, these funds go directly to local communities and fire departments and do not pass through the States.

The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act, the SAFER Act, would provide 4-year grants to career and volunteer fire departments for firefighter hiring. The Congress authorized this program in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act at a level of $1.03 billion, and this amendment seeks to fund that program at the authorized level.

Regrettably, the budget the President sent to the Congress, despite the fact he signed the legislation contending the authorization of the SAFER Act, contained no money; indeed, no mention of it, as I indicated before, while the budget he sent to the Congress with respect to the firefighter grant program reduces that program from the previously appropriated amounts in two successive fiscal years of approximately $750 million to $500 million.

The need for both of these programs is very strong; indeed, I would say overwhelming. In December of 2002, FEMA and the National Fire Protection Association jointly released the congressionally authorized Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service. The results of this report were startling. Among its findings, the report noted that an estimated 57,000 firefighters lacked protective clothing; half of all fire engines are at least 15 years old; and approximately one-third of firefighters are not equipped with essential self-contained breathing apparatus, one of the most important and basic safety devices for any firefighter.

The need for the SAFER program is equally evident. OSHA has set a standard that dictates that four firefighters are needed to respond to any structural fire, two inside the structure and two outside. The FEMA-National Fire Protection Association Needs Assessment estimates that, on average, close to half of all fire departments in communities of less than 1 million people are forced to respond to emergencies with fewer than the four firefighters mandated by these standards.

The SAFER Act would go a long way in ameliorating this severe staffing shortage and would provide funding for 75,000 new firefighters over the next 7 years.

This amendment, which provides the full funding for both the Assistance to Firefighters grant program and the SAFER Act, will go a long way in preparing our Nation's firefighters for the hazards that face them.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, it is all well and good to run ads on the television that show our firefighters meeting their duty, carrying out their heroic responsibilities. But if we really want to honor our firefighters we need to fund these programs, both to give them the staffing and to provide them the equipment they so desperately need.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, the budget submitted by the President reduces funding for grants to local police, fire and emergency medical agencies from $4.2 billion in the current fiscal year to $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2005, a very substantial cut.

This cut comes despite a June 2003 report entitled ``Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' issued by a commission headed by our former colleague, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. The title of that report, again, is ``Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.''

The President's budget for the firefighter grant program, which provides this badly needed equipment, asks for $500 million. We appropriated $750 million in this year's budget and in the previous year's budget. Yet the President is cutting that figure by one-third. The President's budget provides no funding for the SAFER Act, which this Congress passed last fall, and which provides State, local, and regional agencies with funds to hire firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, rescue workers, ambulance personnel, and hazardous material workers for local fire departments.

These fire departments desperately need these funds. The question is then, as the Senator pointed out, how will they be paid for? Well, the tax cuts that have been received by the top 1 percent are $45 billion annually. A small percentage of that in the single numbers shifted from that purpose to this purpose would enable us to fund these firefighter programs at the fully authorized level.

These are questions of choice, and the choice very directly put by this amendment is whether a portion of these outsized tax reductions for the top 1 percent of the population ought not to be shifted to enable our first responders to get the equipment and staffing, and get the training which they need in order to handle the situations that face them. It is not a sufficient tribute to firefighters, in my judgment, to show them on TV ads carrying out their heroic responsibilities and then to fail to provide them with the resources they so clearly need in order to be able to do the job.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I again underscore the tremendous need for these resources in order for our firefighters to be able to carry out their responsibilities. In June of last year, not even a year ago, the Rudman Commission, headed by our former colleague Warren Rudman, issued a report entitled ``Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' that found budget shortfalls in the tens of billions of dollars. We need to address this issue.

The history of the administration on this matter is regrettably a sorry tale. When we created the Fire Grant Program in 2000, the Bush Administration, when it came in, moved to eliminate the program in its preliminary budgetary vision for fiscal 2002. We had to fight the administration to put the program back in its budget request for that year. In the end, it proposed flat funding the program.

After the attacks of 9/11--and as I noted earlier, we are now seeing television spots showing our firefighters carrying out their heroic responsibilities--Congress appropriated an additional $210 million in emergency spending for the program, recognizing its significance. The administration refused to spend the money initially, and eventually and reluctantly did so after an outcry from the Congress.

In the fiscal year 2003 budget they proposed rolling this Fire Grant Program into the general first responder account. There was great concern in the Congress about dismantling the specific program. We appropriated almost $750 million to the program in its own account.

Last year the President sought to cut it by a third. Last year the Congress--and I give credit to my colleagues for this--restored the funding to close to $750 million.

This year the budget submitted to us again cuts it to $500 million and there is no money for the SAFER Program, even though it had been authorized back in November.

We need these resources. The Rudman Commission has told us in their report, emergency responders are drastically underfunded and dangerously unprepared. We need to change that equation and we can begin the process of doing so by providing the resources to fund these two programs at their authorized level, paying the firefighters the tribute they deserve by giving them the protective tools and the staffing with which to do their job.

Mr. President, I want to point out that the examples the chairman of the committee used for the supposed waste of money, other than one, did not involve firefighters. You can drag all these cats and dogs in from anywhere you want. The only firefighter example that was used was a purchase of a firefighting boat. On the face of it, that may well have been a good expenditure.

In any event, these are competitive grants and the judgment on who gets the grants and for what purpose is made by the administration. To the extent you can site something, the ultimate responsibility for it comes back on the administration.

Furthermore--will the Senator give me 2 minutes?

Furthermore, the Senator says if we are going to get this money, $2.8 billion, you would have to--then he mentions all kinds of possibilities on the tax side. Obviously, we can't direct specific instructions to the tax committee, but we can point out what the opportunities are. The top 1 percent is getting that billion-dollar tax credit. The cost of the Bush tax cut for those making over $337,000 in 2005--the top 1 percent, over a $337,000 income--$45 billion.

We are suggesting very simply that a small portion of that be shifted in order to help address the challenges that confront our firefighters.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.