Floor Statements

Mr. President, we have apparently resolved what everybody is going to have for dinner. Apparently it is beef. We haven't resolved who is going to stand on the floor of the Senate this morning and support our farmers and ranchers who produce that beef. That is the question--not what we are eating for dinner. Who is going to stand for the farmers and ranchers on this issue?

It took a nanosecond to hear that we are protectionist this morning. Every thoughtful discussion turns into a thoughtless discussion in a nanosecond around here when it deals with trade, because instantly the subject of protection comes up and the word ``protectionism'' is used. God forbid that someone should be accused in this Chamber of the Senate of standing up to protect the economic interests of this country. It happens precious few times.

But let me be somebody who says, if that is the charge, I plead guilty. I want to protect our economic interests. I don't want to build walls around this country. I believe expanded trade is helpful. But I also want to stand up for the economic interest of this country when it is at stake.

Let me say one other thing, as I have been listening here. Let us stop walking hat in hand to the Japanese and asking for favors. Let us stop killing another tree to send one more letter to the Japanese. Last year, they had a $74 billion trade surplus with us. Because we had one Canadian cow found in the State of Washington with BSE, the Japanese don't want to eat American beef.

Now we have people who say somehow the Japanese will be more confident to eat American beef, if we allow Canadian cattle to come into this country--cattle from a country where investigations have shown that the feed supply has prohibited animal materials. My colleague Senator Conrad described it. In December, the Vancouver Sun reported that officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found prohibited animal materials in 141 of 70 samples. Of the feed that was tested, 58 percent was found to have had prohibited animal materials.

So somehow you are going to give the Japanese confidence by allowing Canadian cattle to come into this country on the heels of four examples of mad cow disease in Canada? I don't think so.

I know there is a lot of passion about this issue. Canada is a great big, old, wonderful country with great neighbors. They are a wonderful neighbor of ours. We share thousands of miles of common border. I am heartbroken for the Canadian ranchers. I know it must be tough for them. I wish them no ill will at all. I regret that they have found examples of mad cow disease in Canada. But they have.

Our responsibility is to stand up for the interests of American producers, American farmers, and ranchers. That is our job.

Listen. You all read the papers last summer. The President was going to go to Canada. The speculation last summer was that in discussions with Canada there would be a promise that border would be opened after the election. We all read that--not once, several times. Sure enough, the election comes and goes, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture decides that the border has to be opened. Canada meets every test.

It turns out they don't meet every test. It turns out this is not about sound science. This is about let us pretend. Frankly, some say let us pretend that everything is fine; that there is rigorous testing in Canada; that the testing meets all the requirements; that there is no difficulty, no problems; and, if we allow under the conditions set by the United States Department of Agriculture the import of beef and live animals from Canada, somehow things will turn out fine for us. But, of course, that is not the case. We know that is not the case.

My colleague Senator Conrad offers this Chamber this morning an opportunity to cast a vote on this issue. I know we have already heard about protectionism, and we have heard this is tough on packing companies, which is another part of this, obviously. But the question for the Congress is, Will it stand up for the interests of American producers? Will it be something that will make it harder to get into international export markets once again with our beef?

I think that it is time--long past the time--for this Congress to cast a vote in support of America's interests here, in support of our country's interests, and our producers' interests.

I can think of dozens of debates on the floor of the Senate where in every circumstance where you talk about the interests of American producers, somehow foreign policy is overwhelming. All of this mishmash, this soft-headed nonsense, of course, comes from the State Department, and from all those in this Chamber who stand up on cue and say, Yes, sir, yes, sir, we certainly don't want to be accused of protectionism when it comes to economic interests. Let us find a high board, and dive right off that old high board.

On this issue, Senator Conrad says he is not ready to dive, nor am I, nor I think are many in this Chamber ready to simply decide the economic interests of this country, the interests of farmers and ranchers, are to be sacrificed in this circumstance.

A few days before Christmas of 2003, the one instance of BSE, or mad cow disease, was discovered in this country. It wasn't an American cow; it was a Canadian cow sent to this country from Canada. The consequences of that are dramatic, and they have been significant. But, my colleague, as I listened to his opening statement today, described consequences far more severe than that in Europe.

We ought to move with some caution here and with some concern. We ought to move reasonably slowly to make sure we know what we are doing. But that has not been the case with USDA. And, in part, it is because the packing companies are putting on the pressure. It is partly, I think, because the President went to Canada last summer and made some representations. In part, it is because they say they are meeting all these tests. But my colleague Senator Conrad has taken the mask off all of that.

How does one describe a response to what my colleague Senator Conrad has said, my colleague Senator Johnson has said, and what I have said-- that the tests in Canada as reported by the Canadian news and by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found prohibited animal materials in 58 percent of the cattle feed tested?

I have not heard one person respond to that. Is there a response? If so, I would be happy to yield to someone to offer me a response. Is there anyone here who wants to respond to the proposition that 58 percent of the feed that has been tested, as reported in Canada, had animal parts in it? Is there no response? Doesn't it matter? Don't we care? Or, is this the case where we should ignore the evidence and decide that we came to the Chamber with our own preconceived conditions, opinions, and our own desire to support the President and USDA, and we have to vote that way?

Although I am not going to be on the floor for the entire debate, I hope at some point someone might respond to that proposition.

Evidence is a pretty difficult thing sometimes. The evidence here is compelling and clear. We have people saying that Canada meets all the tests, and then we have the evidence. They don't.

When my colleague Senator Byrd one day was speaking on the floor, he said that the caterpillar, the squirrel, and the eagle, seeing the Earth from exactly the same spot, saw it differently. The caterpillar climbs on a clump of grass, and says, I can see the world. And on the exact same spot, the squirrel climbs the tree and says, I see the world. And at exactly the same spot, the eagle flies overhead, and says, I see the world. All three look at the same spot and see different things. It happens.

But you can't look at the spot Senator Conrad asks you to look at today and see something different. You can't. The demonstration of that is there is no answer to the proposition that the feed testing in Canada is woefully inadequate. And if you believe that--and apparently you do, because nobody is contesting that--then opening that border at this point, in my judgment, compromises the interests of farmers and ranchers in this country.

Why on Earth would we decide to do that? In whose interest are we here serving? Why would we decide to put someone else's interest first?

There is nothing to be ashamed of, in my judgment, for standing up for this country's interest for a change. Perhaps once, just once today, on this vote we will see evidence of an interest of doing that here in the Senate.

Let me conclude one more time by saying this is not about ``protectionism.'' That is the kind of nonsense thrown around in every trade debate. But it is about protecting America's economic interests. That is what we come to the Senate to do. My hope is

when we finally cast this vote, we will have done so this morning.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I did not quite understand the last portion of the unanimous consent request. I understand Senator Byrd shall be recognized for 10 minutes, and then what transpires?

My understanding is Senator Byrd will take 10 minutes. I have no objection to the vote at 3:25, but I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified and I be recognized following Senator Byrd's comments.

Mr. President, we are dealing with the bankruptcy bill. I am going to send an amendment to the desk. I ask the pending amendment be set aside so my amendment may be considered.

I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send that amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin, who joins me as a cosponsor of the amendment.

The bankruptcy reform bill on the floor of the Senate today ostensibly deals with the subject of those who would attempt to cheat with respect to filing bankruptcy. We have had a lot of discussion on the floor about the abuse of bankruptcy. There is no question about that; there is some of that. It is called cheating. But there is another form of cheating going on now to which very little attention is paid, and my amendment attempts to deal with it.

I am going to put up a chart that shows $2 million dollars on a table, in a room somewhere in Iraq. These are Americans holding this cash. This cash is to be deposited in a plastic bag to pay contractors in Iraq. The contractors are told ``bring a bag and we will fill your bag with cash.'' That is the way you pay bills over there.

This particular picture was given to us by this gentleman here, who was working in Iraq. He said it was like the Wild West; just bring your bag and fill it with cash.

His testimony, which we heard at a hearing of the Democratic Policy Committee, followed the testimony of others that we have received about the massive waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting that has been going in Iraq. The American taxpayers are taking it on the chin, but none of the authorizing committees of jurisdiction in the U.S. Senate are holding hearings about this.

Well, the Democratic Policy Committee has held some oversight hearings. The testimony at the hearings is absolutely devastating.

Halliburton charges for 42,000 meals to be served in a day to American soldiers. It is determined, however, that the company is only serving 14,000 meals a day. So they are charging the taxpayer for 42,000 meals to be served to soldiers when in fact they are only serving 14,000 meals.

We hear about the payment of $7,500 a month to lease SUV vehicles. We hear about the ordering of 50,000 pounds of nails, that turn out to be of the wrong size, and just get dumped by the side of the road. We hear about $40 to $45 a case for soda pop.

A senior manager from the Defense Department, who used to be in charge of providing fuel for vehicles in war zones, testified that Halliburton was charging $1 more per gallon for gasoline than they should have. There are overcharges adding up to $61 million on that issue alone.

One fellow came to a DPC hearing and he held up towels. He worked for a subsidiary of Halliburton. He ordered towels because the soldiers needed the towels and they got a requisition order. Guess what. KBR, Halliburton's subsidiary, charged nearly double the cost of regular towels because they insisted on having the KBR logo embroidered on the towels. So the U.S. taxpayer gets soaked because the company wants their logo on the towels. It is extraordinary what is happening here, and nobody seems to care that much.

We heard of contractors that were driving $85,000 brand new trucks in the country of Iraq, and whenever they had flat tires or a plugged fuel lines, they abandoned the vehicles and just bought new ones. The American taxpayer is paying for all of that, and nobody seems to care.

Well, in the years of 1940 and 1941, Harry Truman, as we were about to enter World War II, got into his car and drove around this country touring air bases and military installations. He came back and suggested a special committee be impaneled in Congress. That committee became known as the Truman Committee, and was active for several years. They saved, by today's accounts, somewhere close to $15 billion by exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. That was a Democratic Senator working at a time when there was a Democrat in the White House. He didn't care whether anyone was embarrassed. On behalf of the American taxpayer, he insisted that we get to the bottom of waste, fraud, and abuse.

I offer today an amendment that would establish a special bipartisan committee of the Senate on war, reconstruction, and contracting. Four members of the committee would be selected from the majority and three members from the minority. It would have subpoena power, and it would put a magnifying glass on the massive amounts of money being wasted, being abused, and in some cases simply being defrauded from the American taxpayer. We owe it to the American taxpayers to do this.

We have pending right now before this body another request for $82 billion. Most of that is to provide resources for the soldiers, not all of it but most of it. In addition to that, there is some $15 billion to this yet unspent for the reconstruction of Iraq. That is American taxpayers' money which is in the pipeline.

You hear about all of this waste, fraud, abuse, and the whistleblowers, and then you ask, Who is minding the store? Who is looking after all this?

Another witness testified at the hearing we held recently about a company

that went to Iraq. Two guys went to Iraq with no experience and no money. They just showed up. They wanted to be a contracting company. Guess what. They won a contract, all right. They had delivered to them $2 million in cash, and they were suddenly a security contractor at the airport. Then their employees turned whistleblowers on them. They said the company was taking forklifts, repainting them, and selling them back, and setting up front companies offshore so they could buy and sell at overinflated charges. A couple of employees turned whistleblowers and they were threatened to be killed for doing it. That company, I am told, got over $100 million in contracting in the country of Iraq.

One final point: Do you know that when the allegation was made that this contractor was ripping off the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was a U.S. creation and represented us in Iraq, the U.S. Justice Department failed to intervene under the False Claims Act because they said defrauding the Coalition Provisional Authority is not the same as defrauding the American taxpayer. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. This amendment would address that as well, by specifying that the investigation called for in this amendment should include the Coalition Provisional Authority spending.

I have the amendment at the desk. I said I offered it on behalf of my colleague, Senator Durbin, and myself, and I hope others as we move along. I understand this is not strictly a bankruptcy amendment, but we must waste no more time to establish a committee by which there is real oversight in the matter of contracting abuses that waste billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I would be happy to do so.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia be added as a cosponsor.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

I see the hour of 3:25 has arrived. I believe by a previous order we have other business. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my amendment, and hopefully we will have a vote on it at some point in the future.

Amendment No. 38

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Durbin amendment.

Mr. President, I listened with some interest to my colleague and his description of the bankruptcy bill. I have felt for some long while, and have voted that way in the Senate, that the pendulum swung a bit too far in bankruptcy and needed to be adjusted some. I believe the last time we voted in the Senate was 5 years ago.

But I am concerned there is an effort on the floor of the Senate to turn back every single amendment that is being offered, believing that the only body of thought that has any merit at all is that which came out of the committee; that all of the proposals that are offered on the floor of the Senate somehow are without merit; that the adjustments or the approaches that might be helpful to some people who are more vulnerable are provisions without merit.

They may find, it seems to me, if they turn back all of these amendments, that there might not be so much support for the bankruptcy bill as there has been in the past.

Let me talk for a moment about this issue of credit cards. My colleague just spoke about the credit card companies. First of all, let me admit, I think there have been abusive bankruptcies. There is no question about that. It is one of the reasons I believe the pendulum was swung a bit too far and probably should be brought back a bit. But there are two sides to all of this as well.

We have credit card companies these days that blizzard this country with credit cards, wall to wall. Go to a college campus and take a look at every mailbox. Credit card companies want to offer credit cards to people who have no income and no jobs. They say: Take our credit card. Take a second credit card. Take a third and a fourth.

My son was age 10 when he got a preapproved credit card, a submission from Diners Club. He was 10 years old. So I called Diners Club. I said: It's a good thing I got ahold of it before my son did. He would have probably been in France.

I guess a 10-year-old couldn't travel. But the fact is, he probably would have been interested in doing something with that credit card.

They said: Well, it was a mistake.

It was not a mistake. And it is not just Diners Club. Go through the whole list of credit cards. It is not a mistake that they are sending credit cards to people who have no income, people who have no jobs, people who do not have a prospect of income. Do you know why it is not a mistake? Because they take these giant mailing lists and they ship these preapproved credit cards to everybody, understanding that some people are going to get them who should not get them, and they won't pay, and so they will just figure out how to deal with all that with higher charges to everybody else, and at some point they will get relief from Congress, even, on bankruptcy issues.

It is not just credit cards. Go down the street someday and see the picture window that beckons you, in big red color type, that says: Hey, come over here. Buy our product. We'll give you a zero-percent interest rate until next August. Before you get home, we will send you a rebate check. Come on, buy it. It doesn't matter whether you can afford it or not, buy our product.

Turn on the television set in the morning and hear the advertisement from the company that says: Bad credit? Come and see us. You have not been paying your bills? You have a problem on your credit report? Come and see us. We have credit available for you.

So there are two sides to all of this as well. Those who are blizzarding and papering this country with credit cards and debt, those who know better, even as they do it, ought not come to this Congress and say: Well, now we have some problems. Now we have some defaults. We want you to tighten the bankruptcy laws.

I think if the majority decides that in every circumstance every amendment that is going to be offered in the Senate on these issues is going to be turned away, perhaps they will not have the robust vote on bankruptcy reform they expect.

Social Security

Mr. President, I think this issue of bankruptcy in some ways ties to another very significant issue that we are debating in the Congress and will be debating across the country for months; this issue of Social Security. There are so many millions of Americans--tens of millions of Americans--often women, often in their seventies, eighties, and nineties, often living alone, whose only source of income is a Social Security payment each and every month. It is the difference between their ability to live, to eat food, to buy prescription drugs, to pay rent, and their not having the ability to do those things.

You go back to 1935, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security bill. Fifty percent of America's senior citizens who reached retirement age were living in poverty. In this great country of ours, one-half of our elderly were living in poverty.

What a wonderful country this is in which to live. There is no question about that. We share this globe with 6 billion people--6 billion of them. It is only us who have the opportunity to live in this country. Six billion people are our neighbors. One-half of them have never made a telephone call. One-half of them live on less than $2 a day. A billion and a half people do not have access to clean, potable water every day. We are lucky enough to live here.

But just think, 70 years ago, in this great country, as we were building and creating and expanding our country, one-half of the people who reached retirement age were living in poverty. They helped build this country. They worked hard. They went to work every day. They did not complain. They did the best they could and reached that period of their lives where they had a declining income situation because they were not working anymore. They were retired and living in poverty.

Well, this country did something about that, and it ought to be proud of it. Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed a bill called Social Security. Yes, the same people who are now skeptical about Social Security back then attacked him unmercifully. Social Security was decried as creeping socialism. It was decried as Government interference. The fact is, the Social Security Program created an insurance program that all workers paid into for the purpose of providing a stable insurance policy upon retirement that would always be there, a guaranteed benefit upon retirement that you could count on. And like that, the poverty rate among America's senior citizens went from 50 percent to now slightly less than 10 percent.

This program has lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. It has worked, and worked well. And as this Congress now talks about bankruptcy legislation, let us talk about the issue of that which has prevented so many people from having to file bankruptcy, and that is the Social Security Program that has provided stable, predictable, consistent, and dependable revenue from an insurance program when people retired from their jobs. It has worked, and worked well for over 70 years.

There were some who did not like it in the 1930s and 1940s. They were aggressively opposed to Social Security. Their ideas live on even today. They would like to take the Social Security system apart because they believe it is, in the words of one of the far right conservatives, the ``soft underbelly of the liberal welfare state.'' Those are his direct words.

In 1978, President George W. Bush ran for Congress in Texas, and he said: Social Security will be broke in 10 years. So in 1978, President Bush said Social Security would be flat busted in 10 years, by 1988. Of course, he was not accurate. But he said back then we should go to private accounts in Social Security.

Now, all that says to me is that this is not about economics for this President. It is about philosophy. I am not critical of him for that. He has every right to believe the Social Security system is somehow unworthy, ought to be taken apart, that it ought to be changed to a system of private accounts. The President has the right to believe that. He believed it back in 1978, and he manifested that belief even now as President.

But let's understand, then, that this is not about economics, it is about philosophy. In fact, there is a memorandum dated January 3, which comes from the chief strategist in the White House about Social Security, and let me quote from it. This is from Peter Wehner, who is the chief strategist in the White House on Social Security planning:

I don't need to tell you that this will be one of the most

important conservative undertakings of modern times.

Interesting, isn't it? The first paragraph describes what is happening in the President's proposal, about Social Security as ``one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times.'' And if accomplished, it will be ``one of the most significant conservative governing achievements ever.'' Again, describing this issue as a ``conservative undertaking.'' Its success is a ``conservative governing achievement.'' And then he connects it to the commitment to the ownership society, control for individuals over their own lives, and so on.

He says:

If we borrow $1-2 trillion to cover transition costs--

That is the first place this shows up, which is an acknowledgment that everybody understands, that the President never talks about, that in order to go to transitions to private accounts, you have to borrow money--$1 to $2 trillion. That would be borrowing money on top of the largest debt this country has ever experienced. We have the largest fiscal policy deficit in history. We have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country right now. On top of that, the President would propose a $1 to $3 trillion--this says $2 trillion--but $1 to $3 trillion borrowing in order to set up private accounts. It is: Borrow money, put it in the stock market, cut benefits in the underlying Social Security Program--I will get to that in a moment in this memorandum--and hope that somehow it will all come out all right.

Let me read what is the most telling piece in the White House memorandum about the Social Security plan:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

It is clear what he is saying. The White House memorandum of the strategy, No. 1, in the front end calls it a conservative undertaking, not just some policy debate about something that will strengthen the country, a conservative undertaking. Then he said:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

What is that battle? Go back to Alf Landon in the 1930s, who decried Social Security, and bring it back every decade since; the fact is that there are those who have never wanted Social Security, never liked Social Security, believe it is some sort of Government intrusion in people's lives and they have always wanted to basically get rid of it. That is the battle.

The White House says:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

Well, who wins when we decide to begin taking apart one of the most successful things that we have ever done in our history to lift people out of poverty? When you work you pay an insurance premium in your paycheck. It is called FICA and the ``I'' is for insurance. That is what it stands for. You put it in this fund, and when you retire, Social Security payments will be there for you. They don't belong to someone else, they belong to you. They are yours. And it is not just the old age benefit or the retirement benefit. If along the way you are disabled, there are disability benefits. If along the way the principal wage earner dies and you have children under the age of 18, there are survivor benefits. All of that is available to those workers who are paying these premiums month after month.

It is really interesting and--for me at least--a bit disturbing that we have turned in this country to a debate about me, me, me, and me: When is it my turn? How about me? Forget about the other guy, how about me?

I think both political parties contribute to this country. The notion of self-reliance, coming from the pioneers on the homestead, breaking sod, building log cabins, rolling up their sleeves, doing for themselves, herding cattle on the open range, hard work every day, self-reliance, I understand all that. It is a wonderful ethic that helped build this country. But there is more than that, much more than that because those pioneers on the prairie, the pioneers who homesteaded the prairies where I come from in southwestern North Dakota knew there was more than self-reliance and rolling up your sleeves and handling it yourself. It was also about building a community, building your churches and roads and schools and building the rural electric co- ops to move electricity to the farms. It was about fighting things that were more than just yourself, being a part of something bigger than yourself, fighting for women's rights, worker rights, for equal rights, for minority rights. All of that is also a part of the legacy that has improved this country and lifted it.

Now we come back to this mantra almost every day--centered now around Social Security--what about me, what about mine. I want mine right now.

The Social Security system in many ways is a compact between the generations. It is a compact from my kids to me to my parents and has been for over 70 years. Some people say: Compacts don't matter. Promises don't matter. None of this matters. What matters is what is me, mine, right now, ownership.

I don't know. I wonder sometimes if this country would be the kind of country it is if that attitude prevailed in every circumstance. There are things that we do alone that represent initiative and self-reliance that are very important, that represent the incentive to build and to do better, the incentive for success. But there are other things equally important that represent the things we do together that have helped build a great society, helped build great communities of interest and helped pull each other up as a society. To sacrifice one for the other injures opportunities in this country's future.

I have never quite understood if there is someone in this Chamber who believes there is something more important than their kids. I guess not. Most of us would aspire to do anything for our children. We love our children. We want life to be better for our children.

But following that, we also believe that when our parents reach that period in their life where we call them elderly and they have less income than they used to have and less ability to meet their daily needs and to pay for the high cost of prescription drugs and pay the rent and buy the groceries, all the things they are required to do, that we want to reach out and help them. We believe helping our parents and our grandparents is something that is important as a part of this country's responsibilities. That is what the Social Security system has been about.

We are going to have a lot of discussion about Social Security, and it is going to go from coast to coast. The President has a big old airplane, a 747, a big fat one with a hump on the nose. He has unlimited fuel, and good for him. I respect him. He is our President. He has a right to believe as he does on these issues. He is going to sell this all across the country. But we, too, have an opportunity and a responsibility. I believe strongly that what we have done to build opportunity has included the creation of a Social Security system that I know works.

Our late colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Moynihan used to say that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. My hope is as the President travels around the country, and as we debate here in the Congress, my hope is that we can agree on the basic set of facts.

The facts are contrary to the President's assertion in the State of the

Union Address. In the year 2018, the Social Security system will not be taking in less money than it spends. That was the allegation the President made. Not true, just flat not true. According to Social Security actuaries, if we have a very low rate of economic growth, much below that which we experienced in the previous 75 years, if we have that low rate of economic growth, by the year 2042, we will have less revenue coming in to the Social Security system from both payroll taxes and accrued interest on the assets than we will need to be paying out. The Congressional Budget Office says that year is 2052. That is almost a half century from now.

Pick the one you like. In any event, we do not have a crisis in Social Security. It is not going to take major surgery or a major adjustment to make Social Security whole for the long term. Our job ought to be to work together to find a way to strengthen and preserve Social Security for the long term and then strengthen and improve on the other two elements of retirement security. One is pensions, and that is to encourage more employers to offer pensions because only half of American workers are now covered. The second is private investment accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s outside of Social Security and pensions.

We can, should, and--I hope--will do much more in incentivizing those kinds of investments. But job No. 1 for us ought to be to preserve the basic Social Security system. We can do that. We surely will do that. But first we have to turn back the philosophy of those who write memorandums from the White House and who are the chief strategists, who create the White House plan on Social Security, who say:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one we can win. . . .

Meaning they have never liked it. They didn't support it in the first place, and they would love to begin taking it apart first by creating private accounts; second by, in this memorandum, describing the change in indexing which will cut everyone's benefit in the Social Security Program.

I wanted to make one additional comment. I understand some colleagues are waiting. I intend to offer an amendment on the bankruptcy bill-- hopefully tomorrow morning--that deals with something extraneous to bankruptcy but an issue that is important and timely.

At a hearing this morning, the Defense Department told me we are spending $4.9 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration has included zero in its next year's budget for that purpose. But they are asking for an emergency supplemental to fund it.

I have held hearings--my colleague from Illinois has attended those, and I believe my colleague from Florida has as well--on the subject of contracting in Iraq. There is massive waste, fraud, and abuse going on. I will describe a couple of things that have been testified to. Somebody orders 50,000 pounds of nails to be sent to Iraq for construction contracts. It turns out they are the wrong size. You know what happens? They are dumped on the ground--50,000 pounds of nails on the ground in Iraq that are the wrong size. People driving $85,000 brand new trucks. If they run out of gas or something happens to them, they leave the truck and let somebody torch it. Halliburton is alleged to be billing us for serving 42,000 meals a day to our soldiers when, in fact, they are only serving 14,000 meals. They are overbilling us by 28,000 meals a day. It is unbelievable, the massive waste, fraud, and abuse going on.

At a hearing a couple of weeks ago, we had people with pictures that showed they have massive cash in vaults and they say if you are going to pay contractors, tell them to bring a bag and we will fill it with cash. We are talking about the massive wasting of taxpayers' money going to these sole-source contracts for billions of dollars and nobody cares.

My colleague from Illinois introduced a piece of legislation last year on this subject. I talked to him yesterday about an amendment I wanted to introduce on this bill and am going to introduce in the morning, and he will join me. This is a very important issue.

I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.

My understanding is, I believe there was only one in the House, and the bulk of that was to defend the company called Halliburton--and there were no such hearings by the standing committees in the Senate. Essentially, there has been no interest in looking at this kind of abuse. The Senator from Illinois was at a DPC hearing we held. We had a guy there who used to purchase towels. He purchased hand towels for soldiers. He held up the towels. He showed us that they are nearly three times the price of the towels they purchased for U.S. soldiers. Why? Because the company wanted its logo on the towel. So they buy a towel with a company logo on it for the soldiers and nearly double-bill the American taxpayer. This is a small issue in itself, but it is an example of what is going on, pervasively.

The Senator from Illinois is correct. President Truman got in his car, as a matter of fact, and began driving around the country to military installations to see what was going on. He came back and said there is something rotten here; a massive amount of waste is going on. He convinced Congress to create the Truman Commission, which was an investigative committee. And he was a Democrat, and there was a Democrat in the White House, but that didn't stop him from investigating.

In this circumstance today, we have a Republican in the White House, Republicans controlling the House and Senate, and they have no interest in doing any oversight hearings. Our colleagues asked the committee: Will you do an oversight hearing on the issues? The answer is no. I have additional examples. How about $7,500 a month rent for an SUV in Iraq? How about Halliburton charging a dollar more for every gallon of gas, compared to what the Department of Defense could have obtained from its own supply office? How about two guys who show up in Iraq having no money and very little experience and decide they are going to be contractors? They decide to bid on contracts, and they win one. Somebody delivers a suitcase full of $2 million in cash and they are off and running. They soon got over $100 million in contracts. Some of their employees became whistleblowers because they said what was going on was crooked. These people were taking forklift trucks off an airport they were supposed to secure, taking them to a warehouse and repainting them and selling them back. They sold them to the Coalition Provisional Authority. Who is that? The American taxpayer. The Justice Department says it won't join in a false claims action because defrauding the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq is not the same as defrauding the American taxpayers. It is unbelievable, the lengths to which some of these people will go to avoid looking truth in the eye.

There is massive waste, fraud, and abuse. Billions of dollars is being abused and wasted and nobody seems to give a whit about it. Senator Durbin

from Illinois introduced legislation, which I was happy to support, in the last Congress on this subject. I don't believe that got a hearing and certainly didn't get to the President's desk. My sense is that in any way we can, in every way we can, on behalf of the American taxpayer, we need to do this. It undermines our support for American soldiers if we don't have oversight. Do you think American soldiers want to be stuck in Iraq doing what their country asked them to do only to find out that those serving them meals are overbilling by 28,000 meals a day, or are double-charging for hauling gasoline in? This makes no sense. The minute you raise any of these things with the one party in this town, they say you are being totally partisan. Well, no, I think we are being a little bit like Harry Truman here. He had the guts to look truth in the eye and say when something going on is rotten, when the American taxpayers are being bilked, tax money is being pilfered, somebody ought to stand up and stop it.

I intend to offer this amendment in the morning. I am proud of the work my colleague has done as well. I have spoken longer than I intended. The Senator from Florida wishes to speak. Let me say that I will be back in the morning to offer this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Senator Inouye joins me in sponsoring this measure.

It is well known that tribal governments serve as the primary instruments of law enforcement and emergency response for the more than fifty million acres of land that comprise Indian country.

More than twenty-five Indian tribes have jurisdiction over lands that are either adjacent to international borders or are directly accessible to an international border by boat. These lands consist of over 260 miles of the 7,400 miles of the international borders the United States shares with Canada and Mexico.

But it is not only tribes located on or near international borders or waters that have a role to play in protecting the Nation's strategic assets. Energy resources located on tribal lands make up a significant snare of the United States' energy resources. Tribal governments hold title to 30 percent of the coal resources west of the Mississippi River, 37 percent of potential uranium resources, and three percent of known oil and gas resources in the United States.

There is also extensive infrastructure located on or near tribal lands that is critical to our Nation's security--including dams, hydroelectric facilities, nuclear power generating plants, oil and gas pipelines, transportation corridors of railroads and highway systems, and communications towers.

Like other governments, tribal governments need the necessary resources to develop their capacities to respond to threats of terrorism including access to information and information warning systems, law enforcement data bases, and health alert systems related to the possible use of chemical and biological warfare.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides the authority for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the various duties and responsibilities of the Department and its employees. Many provisions of the Act reference State and local governments, but unfortunately, Indian tribal governments were erroneously included in the definition of ``local government'' in the Act as if tribal governments were political subdivisions of each State.

The Federal government has long recognized that Indian tribes are separate, I distinct sovereigns, with which the United States has a government-to-government relationship. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently sustained this status and the United States' relationship with the tribal governments. The United States' policy of tribal self- governance and self-determination has proven to be the most successful for Indian tribes.

The measure that I introduce today would treat Indian tribes as the separate political entities that they are, consistent with the Federal policy of tribal self-governance and self-determination. The bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by removing Indian tribes from the definition of ``local government'' and instead including the terms ``Indian tribe'' and ``tribal government'' in the appropriate

places where the terms ``State'' and ``local governments'' are used.

This bill would also explicitly vest the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the discretionary authority to provide direct funding to Indian tribal governments. Because Indian tribes are already eligible for funding by virtue of their inclusion in the definition of ``local government,'' this bill will not require additional funding nor will it divert any resources away from States or local governments.

It is clear that Indian tribal governments have a vital role to play in the protection of our Nation's security, and I would urge my colleagues to give their favorable consideration to this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Senator Inouye joins me in sponsoring this measure.

It is well known that tribal governments serve as the primary instruments of law enforcement and emergency response for the more than fifty million acres of land that comprise Indian country.

More than twenty-five Indian tribes have jurisdiction over lands that are either adjacent to international borders or are directly accessible to an international border by boat. These lands consist of over 260 miles of the 7,400 miles of the international borders the United States shares with Canada and Mexico.

But it is not only tribes located on or near international borders or waters that have a role to play in protecting the Nation's strategic assets. Energy resources located on tribal lands make up a significant snare of the United States' energy resources. Tribal governments hold title to 30 percent of the coal resources west of the Mississippi River, 37 percent of potential uranium resources, and three percent of known oil and gas resources in the United States.

There is also extensive infrastructure located on or near tribal lands that is critical to our Nation's security--including dams, hydroelectric facilities, nuclear power generating plants, oil and gas pipelines, transportation corridors of railroads and highway systems, and communications towers.

Like other governments, tribal governments need the necessary resources to develop their capacities to respond to threats of terrorism including access to information and information warning systems, law enforcement data bases, and health alert systems related to the possible use of chemical and biological warfare.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides the authority for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the various duties and responsibilities of the Department and its employees. Many provisions of the Act reference State and local governments, but unfortunately, Indian tribal governments were erroneously included in the definition of ``local government'' in the Act as if tribal governments were political subdivisions of each State.

The Federal government has long recognized that Indian tribes are separate, I distinct sovereigns, with which the United States has a government-to-government relationship. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently sustained this status and the United States' relationship with the tribal governments. The United States' policy of tribal self- governance and self-determination has proven to be the most successful for Indian tribes.

The measure that I introduce today would treat Indian tribes as the separate political entities that they are, consistent with the Federal policy of tribal self-governance and self-determination. The bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by removing Indian tribes from the definition of ``local government'' and instead including the terms ``Indian tribe'' and ``tribal government'' in the appropriate

places where the terms ``State'' and ``local governments'' are used.

This bill would also explicitly vest the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the discretionary authority to provide direct funding to Indian tribal governments. Because Indian tribes are already eligible for funding by virtue of their inclusion in the definition of ``local government,'' this bill will not require additional funding nor will it divert any resources away from States or local governments.

It is clear that Indian tribal governments have a vital role to play in the protection of our Nation's security, and I would urge my colleagues to give their favorable consideration to this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Madam President, as we begin to debate the budget sent to us by President Bush, there will be a lot of discussion in the Chamber about spending restraints, about being conservative, and so on. The budget sent to us by President Bush proposes the highest budget deficit in the history of our country. I will be going to a hearing later this morning on the proposal to spend $82 billion more on Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not in the budget. It is an emergency request.

The President's proposed budget, with a deficit well over $400 billion in history, is short by somewhere around $80 billion that will be spent on an emergency in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it also uses the Social Security trust fund, which could not be used for other purposes. So the real budget deficit is around $650 billion, which is a very serious problem. Our fiscal policy is off track, and we need to get it on track.

We are going to talk about spending issues as we go along in this budget process. There will be some discussion about big issues, and some about small issues.

Let me talk for a moment about two issues that represent, I think, a profound waste of taxpayers' money.

Let me introduce you to Fat Albert. This is an AEROSAT blimp, an AEROSAT balloon. Fat Albert has been around for some while. In fact, Fat Albert is tethered about 20,000 feet above the ground with thousands of feet of cable, and it is used with camera equipment to send television signals into Cuba to tell the Cuban people how wonderful life is in our country. Of course, they know how wonderful life is in our country, which is why they get on a boat to try to cross the waters to come to America. And if they decide not to get on the boat, they can simply tune into a Miami radio station and hear a little about America. But we are sending television signals into Cuba through TV Marti, which has been funded by the American taxpayers for 16 years.

We are broadcasting television signals which no one can see because Castro easily jams the signal. We did for a long while televise it from 3 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock in the morning. My guess is that, even if the signals got through, there aren't a lot of Cuban people up at 3 o'clock in the morning watching television. But, nonetheless, the signals don't get through because they are jammed by the Cuban Government.

For 16 years, despite the fact that we are broadcasting signals which no one can see, we have spent $189 million broadcasting signals from Fat Albert, tethered 20,000 feet above the ground, to Cubans who can't see it.

This year, what does the budget request? The budget request is to double the funding for TV Marti. It is unbelievable. People will not understand this when they look back and say, Wait a second; they spent nearly a quarter of $1 billion sending television signals no one could see for over 16 years? They will say, do you mean that at a time with record deficits the President wanted to double the budget for television signals no one can see?

Fat Albert once got loose with 20,000 feet of tethered cable following it. Fat Albert wandered into the Everglades. So the thing gets loose and goes over the Everglades, and they are chasing it with helicopters. Finally, it lands on the top of some trees in the Everglades. They had to find a way to get it off. Helicopters had to come down and commandos rappelled down to salvage the equipment. It is a comedy of errors.

But the administration has a plan now. They have decided they are going to get rid of Fat Albert, or maybe continue to use it but only part time. Now they want to buy an airplane for $8 million so they can send an airplane up to send television signals to TV Marti to the Cuban people who can't see them; $8 million for the airplane, $11 million for the broadcast, and $2 million for maintenance on the plane.

It is like Katy bar the door; it is as if there is no deficit.

It is unbelievable to me that we are going to continue to spend money we do not have on something we do not need, and send television signals from an aerostat balloon and now an airplane that viewers cannot see. This does not pass the laugh test.

I am no fan of Fidel Castro. I want the Cuban people to be free. I want democracy to come to Cuba.

But our country has decided, with China and with North Vietnam, both Communist countries, the best way to move a Communist country in the right direction is through travel and trade, through engagement. We have followed that rule with Communist China and Communist Vietnam, encouraging people to travel there and encouraging trade with both. The sole exception is with Cuba, where we have had an embargo for over 40 years. Fidel Castro has lived through 10 U.S. Presidencies. His message to the Cuban people is, of course, Our economy is in tatters; we have a 500-pound gorilla with its fist around our neck with an embargo.

The quicker way to remove Castro from office, in my judgment, is to open trade and travel to Cuba. Nonetheless, the administration does not want to do that.

So we have travel restrictions in Cuba. I have held up a poster of Joni Scott who went to Cuba to distribute free Bibles on the street corners in Havana. Do you know what happened to her? She got discovered by the U.S. Treasury Department and they slapped her with a $10,000 fine. I held up a picture of Joan Sloat who was a retired senior bicyclist who joined a Canadian bicycle troop to go biking in Cuba. They tracked her down as she was by her son's bedside, dying of brain cancer, and they decided to slap her with a big fine and then decided to attach her Social Security payments.

They are so obsessed in this administration with the issue of Cuba it does not matter how much money they waste. We have something called the Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, down in the Treasury Department. It is supposed to be tracking the financing of terrorist organizations. Do you know what? They have nearly twice as many people working on tracking Americans suspected of taking a vacation in Cuba than they do tracking terrorists' moneys that are supporting Osama bin Laden's organization. It is unthinkable that is what they are doing, but that is what they are doing.

On top of all of that obsession, what we have is a program called Television Marti which does not work, which wastes every dollar it spends, and the President says, Let's double the funding, at a time when we have the highest budget deficit in the history of this country.

There are some areas of Federal spending that ought to be abolished. I, along with my colleague Senator Wyden and others, will offer legislation to abolish this spending. It is unbelievable.

I didn't mention that on October 10, 2003, the President held a Rose Garden event to say he was going to supplement the efforts of Fat Albert to send signals to the Cubans because they are jammed, by taking a high-tech airplane, called a Commando Solo C-130. There are only a handful in the world and we have used them in big trouble spots in the world to be able to broadcast emergency signals to people. But the President announced he was going

to use a National Guard Commando Solo C-130 to broadcast signals into Cuba. So they have been using Defense Department funds to broadcast signals to Cuba that are jammed. It is not enough, apparently, to broadcast signals from a big old aerostat balloon that the Cuban people cannot see, now we have a highly sophisticated C-130. And now even that is not enough. Now they want to buy a new airplane in this budget.

My hope is there are enough people in the Congress who understand waste is waste, not Republican waste or Democratic waste. Just waste. When it does not stand the test of common sense, and it does not even stand the basic laugh test with this kind of spending, my hope is Members of the Senate will join and decide this is the sort of thing that ought to be abolished.

One final point. I don't come here to try to abolish Radio Marti, although I don't think it is necessary. Radio Marti is broadcasting radio signals into Florida. They are often not jammed. The Cuban people receive them. I have been to Cuba and talked to the dissidents. They receive Radio Marti's broadcast. I don't propose we abolish it. But they do not see the Television Marti broadcast. We still have expensive studio space, pay expensive salaries, have aerosat balloons and now airplanes to broadcast it, despite the fact we know it is a complete, total waste of money. We know better than this. We ought to understand it and abolish it in this year's budget submitted by the President.

Let me mention one other area of spending that desperately needs to be abolished in this budget. It is not giant; it is $8 million. But take $11 million for Fat Albert and the new airplane and Television Marti and $8 million here and there, and pretty soon we have a significant amount of money.

Last year and this year, the President recommended we build additional nuclear weapons--begin planning the design--and they especially talked about the earth-penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon. Last year, the Congress said no. The President put it in his budget again this year. He wants $8 million to revive the project to create new earth-penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapons. The implication of creating a designer nuclear weapon is, we do not have enough nuclear weapons at the moment and they are perfectly usable if we find someone crawled in a cave or carrying on operations in a cave that we want to get to that we cannot get to.

If a country like ours is to send a signal to the rest of the world that we do not have enough nuclear weapons, that we believe we should design more nuclear weapons, that designer nuclear weapons make sense, and that nuclear weapons are usable, that is exactly the wrong signal to send to anyone in this world. The exclusive opportunity and requirement for us is to send a signal to the world that nuclear weapons should never again be used in anger under any circumstance.

We have thousands of them. The loss of one would cause an apoplectic seizure among the cities in our country. There was a time when it was thought one nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal was stolen and it caused a great seizure among intelligence organizations and others because were a terrorist able to steal one nuclear weapon and threaten to detonate one nuclear weapon in a major American city, we are not talking about 100 deaths or 1,000 deaths, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths. The loss of one nuclear weapon would be devastating if it got into the hands of terrorists.

We have thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons in this country. The estimate is somewhere--of course, it is classified--the estimate range of the Russian stockpile is somewhere perhaps in the area of 15,000 nuclear weapons; ours is something less than that but not much less than that. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons between us and the Russians, with some other countries who have now joined that club who have nuclear weapons but are fewer in number.

The suggestion somehow that we do not have enough nuclear weapons, that we need more nuclear weapons, and that nuclear weapons are usable, especially if we have an issue with people holing up in a cave or strategic materials holed up in a cave, that we cannot get to that, so we can lob in an earth penetrator, a designer bunker buster nuclear weapon, and that we can use it--that message from this country is a devastating message that sets back the opportunity for this country to play a leadership role in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons everywhere, making sure we do not ever have testing of nuclear weapons anywhere. It is our job, our responsibility, to be a world leader on this issue.

Given the new reality of the war on terrorism and what terrorists would like to do with respect to weapons of mass destruction, if our country does not try to do everything humanly possible to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and make people understand it is unthinkable that nuclear weapons will once again be used on this Earth, then we will have failed. Our children and grandchildren will almost certainly see at some point an expansion of those countries that have nuclear weapons, the stealing of a nuclear weapon by a terrorist organization and the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major city in this world and perhaps in this country. We must exert every possible effort to see that does not happen.

Sending a budget that says we need to begin work on designing additional nuclear weapons, new nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons that are designed for specific purposes such as penetrating the Earth and busting caves, with the implication that it is clearly something we could, should, and would use under certain circumstances, is exactly the wrong approach and a dangerous message from this country, especially.

The burden falls on our shoulders to be a leader in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It retards rather than advances those interests to see from this administration talk in some circles that is reckless and recommendations that are counterproductive to suggest we ought to begin, again, building nuclear weapons.

In addition to this recommendation to spend $8 million to revive the project of a nuclear earth-penetrator bunker buster, there is talk of testing nuclear weapons, resuming testing of nuclear weapons which, of course, then would be a green light for others to say, if the United States is going to test, we are going to test.

My hope is we can understand the profound danger that exists if we do not take this proliferation issue seriously and if we do not immediately assume the mantle of responsibility to be the world leader to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. This is not about a nuisance. This is not about a threat. This is about a potential catastrophe unlike anything we have discussed or thought about with respect to weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the wrong people. That is why the responsibility is such an ominous responsibility that falls on our shoulders. It is one that we can meet, in my judgment, but we have to be clear thinking.

We need a President and a Congress, together, that will reject the approach that says we should begin building additional nuclear weapons or begin researching and talking about the need for additional weapons we can use for designer purposes.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined with my colleague Senator Arlen Specter in submitting a resolution yesterday, S. Res. 56, that would designate March as ``Deep-Vein Thrombosis Awareness Month.''

Many Americans are probably unfamiliar with deep-vein thrombosis, DVT, but it is a serious medical condition that occurs in approximately 2 million Americans each year. Given that it is both a common and preventable condition, it is important that more of us know about this disease so we can take steps to stop it.

Americans might be more commonly familiar with deep-vein thrombosis as the condition that can result from sitting in a small space, such as an airline seat, for a long period of time. In fact, this condition is sometimes called ``economy-class syndrome,'' and many airlines now encourage their passengers to get up and move around or otherwise exercise their extremities during cross-country or international flights in order to prevent it.

DVT occurs when a blood clot forms in one of the large veins, usually in the legs, leading to either partially or completely blocked circulation. Too often, this blood clot breaks loose from the wall of the vein and moves to the lungs, where it is called a pulmonary embolism and can cause sudden death.

Deep-vein thrombosis can happen to virtually anyone at any time. In fact, one of our Nation's finest journalists, NBC News correspondent David Bloom, died from a pulmonary embolism caused by DVT in April, 2003, while covering the war in Iraq at the early age of 39. But while David Bloom is one of the more well-known victims of DVT, he is not alone. Up to 200,000 die each year from pulmonary embolisms caused by

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with Senator Shelby, to provide a financial safety net for the families of our young men and women who proudly serve in the Nation's military reserve and National Guard.

Our country is demanding that our military reservists and members of the National Guard play a more crucial and sustained role in supplementing the activities of our traditional Armed Forces than at any other time in our recent history. In response to the Iraq war and homeland security needs, the country has called up hundreds of thousands of our reservists and Guard members for extended tours of duty of up to 18 months.

Today, almost 184,000 National Guardsmen and reservists are on active duty. Military leaders expect the total number of reservists and Guardsmen on active duty for the war on terrorism to remain above 100,000 for the indefinite future.

Since September 11, 2001, more than 2,000 of North Dakota's Guardsmen and reservists have been called to duty and placed in harms way around the globe. One of the issues I hear most often about from those service members and their families is how hard it is for them to make ends meet on their military incomes.

When Guard members or reservists are mobilized, it has an enormous impact not only on their lives, but also on the lives of their loved ones. In many cases when an individual is mobilized, his or her family may experience a serious loss of income. This is because active duty military compensation often falls below what reservists earn in civilian income. In addition, some reservists experienced continuing financial losses after return to civilian life due to neglected businesses or professional practices.

These income losses are often exacerbated by the additional family expenses that are associated with military activation, such as the need for extra day care.

The Pentagon doesn't track the number of reservist families who have to live on diminished incomes during deployment. But it is clearly a significant problem. The Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board says that one-third of all mobilized Reserve component members earn less than their private sector and civilian salaries while on active duty. Other estimates are even higher. For example, 45 percent of reserve officers and 55 percent of enlisted members who were activated for the 1990 Gulf War reported income loss. And a 1998 survey of junior enlisted members of the California National Guard's 40th Infantry Division showed that the great majority risked cutting their household income somewhere between 16 percent and more than 65 percent if they were called to active duty.

The most recent information on mobilization income loss comes from the year 2000. Some 41 percent of Guardsmen and reservists who were mobilized that year reported income losses ranging from $350 to more than $3,000 per month. Self-employed reservists reported an average income loss of $1,800 per month. Physicians and registered nurses in private practice reported an average income loss of as much as $7,000 per month.

Those were big losses. But when that survey was conducted in 2000, reservists were mobilized for an average of only 3.6 months. Today mobilizations of up 14 to 18 months are common. So the cumulative impact of lost wages is much bigger.

The loss of income that reservists and Guardsmen incur when they are ordered to leave their good-paying private sector or civilian jobs to serve their country often creates an unmanageable financial burden that disrupts the lives of their families who are already trying to cope with the emotional stress and hardship caused by the departure of a beloved spouse, father or mother who has been ordered to active duty.

In the mid-1990s the Pentagon tried to deal with this problem by offering members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to buy insurance to guard against their risk of being called to active duty and losing income. The program sold coverage for income losses of up to $5,000 per month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned and executed, and Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail out the program before it was terminated. Since then the private sector has not shown any interest in reviving the mobilization income insurance program. Thus, we need to find another way to deal with the issue. The solution I propose is one suggested by the Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board, that is, an income loss tax credit.

The legislation that Senator Shelby and I are introducing provides a fully refundable, 100-percent income tax credit of up to $20,000 annually to a military reservists on active duty based upon the difference in wages paid in his or her private sector or civilian job and the military wages paid upon mobilization. For this purpose, a qualified military reservist is a member of the National Guard or Ready Reserve who is mobilized and serving for more than 90 days.

In conclusion, we owe a great deal to those Americans who put on their uniforms and serve in the military in the most difficult of circumstances. We can never fully repay that debt. However, we can do much more to remove the immediate financial burden that many reserve and National Guard families experience when a family member is ordered to active duty. This legislation will provide those families with some much-needed financial assistance. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support my efforts to get this tax relief measure enacted into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with Senator Shelby, to provide a financial safety net for the families of our young men and women who proudly serve in the Nation's military reserve and National Guard.

Our country is demanding that our military reservists and members of the National Guard play a more crucial and sustained role in supplementing the activities of our traditional Armed Forces than at any other time in our recent history. In response to the Iraq war and homeland security needs, the country has called up hundreds of thousands of our reservists and Guard members for extended tours of duty of up to 18 months.

Today, almost 184,000 National Guardsmen and reservists are on active duty. Military leaders expect the total number of reservists and Guardsmen on active duty for the war on terrorism to remain above 100,000 for the indefinite future.

Since September 11, 2001, more than 2,000 of North Dakota's Guardsmen and reservists have been called to duty and placed in harms way around the globe. One of the issues I hear most often about from those service members and their families is how hard it is for them to make ends meet on their military incomes.

When Guard members or reservists are mobilized, it has an enormous impact not only on their lives, but also on the lives of their loved ones. In many cases when an individual is mobilized, his or her family may experience a serious loss of income. This is because active duty military compensation often falls below what reservists earn in civilian income. In addition, some reservists experienced continuing financial losses after return to civilian life due to neglected businesses or professional practices.

These income losses are often exacerbated by the additional family expenses that are associated with military activation, such as the need for extra day care.

The Pentagon doesn't track the number of reservist families who have to live on diminished incomes during deployment. But it is clearly a significant problem. The Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board says that one-third of all mobilized Reserve component members earn less than their private sector and civilian salaries while on active duty. Other estimates are even higher. For example, 45 percent of reserve officers and 55 percent of enlisted members who were activated for the 1990 Gulf War reported income loss. And a 1998 survey of junior enlisted members of the California National Guard's 40th Infantry Division showed that the great majority risked cutting their household income somewhere between 16 percent and more than 65 percent if they were called to active duty.

The most recent information on mobilization income loss comes from the year 2000. Some 41 percent of Guardsmen and reservists who were mobilized that year reported income losses ranging from $350 to more than $3,000 per month. Self-employed reservists reported an average income loss of $1,800 per month. Physicians and registered nurses in private practice reported an average income loss of as much as $7,000 per month.

Those were big losses. But when that survey was conducted in 2000, reservists were mobilized for an average of only 3.6 months. Today mobilizations of up 14 to 18 months are common. So the cumulative impact of lost wages is much bigger.

The loss of income that reservists and Guardsmen incur when they are ordered to leave their good-paying private sector or civilian jobs to serve their country often creates an unmanageable financial burden that disrupts the lives of their families who are already trying to cope with the emotional stress and hardship caused by the departure of a beloved spouse, father or mother who has been ordered to active duty.

In the mid-1990s the Pentagon tried to deal with this problem by offering members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to buy insurance to guard against their risk of being called to active duty and losing income. The program sold coverage for income losses of up to $5,000 per month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned and executed, and Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail out the program before it was terminated. Since then the private sector has not shown any interest in reviving the mobilization income insurance program. Thus, we need to find another way to deal with the issue. The solution I propose is one suggested by the Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board, that is, an income loss tax credit.

The legislation that Senator Shelby and I are introducing provides a fully refundable, 100-percent income tax credit of up to $20,000 annually to a military reservists on active duty based upon the difference in wages paid in his or her private sector or civilian job and the military wages paid upon mobilization. For this purpose, a qualified military reservist is a member of the National Guard or Ready Reserve who is mobilized and serving for more than 90 days.

In conclusion, we owe a great deal to those Americans who put on their uniforms and serve in the military in the most difficult of circumstances. We can never fully repay that debt. However, we can do much more to remove the immediate financial burden that many reserve and National Guard families experience when a family member is ordered to active duty. This legislation will provide those families with some much-needed financial assistance. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support my efforts to get this tax relief measure enacted into law as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. President, we are about to embark on a 1-week recess. Many of us will be back in our home States next week. I expect that most of us will hold some kind of event or meeting to talk about Social Security with our constituents. I want to talk about that a bit today.

In the Senate, we deal with all kinds of issues, some big and some small. Sometimes we treat the big issues in a manner that suggests it is a rather small item. Sometimes we take a very small item and blow it up into something we suggest is very large.

On the issue of Social Security, my feeling is people on all sides of this debate understand this is a very big issue with very big consequences for the American people.

It will not be surprising that we will have very aggressive differences of opinion on how we should handle this issue of Social Security. The reason it is brought to our attention at this point is the President is offering a proposal. He says the proposal is not specific, and I agree with that, but it is specific enough for us to understand what he wants to do.

What the President has been saying--and the Vice President as well and others in the administration--is that Social Security is about to be bankrupt, broke, flat busted, and any number of other words to describe that Social Security is about to fail.

As a result, the President says we should do the following: We should borrow a substantial amount of money now, anywhere from $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion or more, invest it in the stock market in private accounts, change the indexing of Social Security, reduce Social Security benefits, and with a combination of the remaining Social Security and his private accounts, people will be better off in the long term.

Social Security was created in 1935. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed that legislation, he talked about the legislation being able to lift people out of a poverty-ridden old age. At that point, one-half of our elderly were living in poverty. That is what was happening to our grandparents: 50 percent in poverty; now it is less than 10 percent. Why? Because Social Security has lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty in the last 70 years.

The President says Social Security needs to be changed because it is about to be bankrupt. With respect, I say to the President that he is wrong. Social Security is not about to be bankrupt. Social Security has some problems that are born of success.

What is the success? In a century, we have increased life expectancy in America from about 46 years of age to 76 years of age. We ought to celebrate that fact. What a successful thing to have happen. Since people are living longer, better lives, we have some strain on the Social Security program. But it is not about to be bankrupt, and it does not require major surgery to fix it. It will require some adjustments as we proceed ahead, but it is not about to be bankrupt or flat busted. And it is not a cause to take apart what I think is one of the most successful programs we have ever developed in this country to lift a large group of Americans out of poverty.

The President is not new to this position of private accounts. In 1978, he ran for Congress in Texas. President George W. Bush, then a candidate for Congress, said in 1978: Social Security will be broke in 10 years. That is when he was a candidate for Congress. What was his remedy for that in 1978? Private accounts. Some things never change very much.

The fact is, the President was wrong in 1978. Social Security did not go belly up in 1988 as he predicted. And the fact is, he was wrong then calling for private accounts in Social Security, and he is wrong now.

I happen to support private investment accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s. I have them and so do many Americans, and we have incentivized them with tax incentives because we believe in encouraging people to invest in the market and to save for retirement. But I do not believe we ought to take a portion of the core insurance program--and that is what Social Security is, an insurance program, not an investment program--that provides the bedrock financial security for retirement.

We pay for Social Security principally through a paycheck deduction called FICA. That is your FICA tax. The I in FICA is for insurance, not investment; insurance, that is what it stands for. It creates an insurance program for which you pay. Yes, part is retirement old-age benefits, some is disability. Another part is for dependents, should the wage earner die.

So it is more than just an old-age benefit. It has always been an insurance program, and never an investment program.

The President says let's try to create an investment program out of Social Security and begin to take it apart.

The suggestion is, of course, that the investment portion of Social Security would always be wonderful.

Will Rogers once said his daddy told him how to do really well. He said his daddy said you should buy stock and hold it until it goes up, and then you should sell it. And he said if it does not go up, do not buy it. So that was Will Rogers's description of how his dad suggested he handle the market.

I suppose there is an element of that suggestion in Social Security because of those who say if one takes Social Security apart and creates private investment accounts, things will be just Nirvana, just fine. But we all know better than that.

I believe there ought to be two major parts to a retirement program. One is Social Security. Make sure it is there--it always has been. Make sure it works. We can do that. The second is the private investments that we now incentivize to the tune of $140 billion each year in tax incentives to encourage people to invest in IRAs and 401(k)s and private pensions. I support both. Strengthen, improve, and keep Social Security, and provide additional incentives for private savings in 401(k)s and IRAs.

I just described President George W. Bush's prediction about bankruptcy in 1978. He said Social Security would be bankrupt in 10 years, by 1988. We have plenty of people who say it is going to go broke, flat busted, on its back, bankrupt. They remind me of the economists who predicted ten of the last two recessions. It is easy enough to walk around and claim these things. However, it is just not accurate to suggest that Social Security is about to go belly up.

What is true is that the taxes collected for Social Security this year are expected to exceed the amount of money we will need to pay out in Social Security by $160 billion. We will have a surplus this coming year in the Social Security accounts of $160 billion. That money will be invested in U.S. Treasury securities.

The President has a fiscal policy that suggests we have large deficits. I understand there are a lot of reasons for it, but I do not understand why we were not a bit more conservative earlier. I stood on the Senate floor 4 years ago, and when the President said, We are going to have 10 years of surplus and we need to start doing big tax cuts right now, I and some others said maybe we should be a little conservative. Maybe we will not have 10 years of surplus. Maybe things will change. Maybe something will happen we do not anticipate. Maybe we ought to be a little conservative. No, Katey, bar the door, let us pass these tax cuts.

What happened? We had a terrorist attack. We have had a war on terror. We have had a war in Iraq. A whole series of things have occurred that have changed the economic fortunes of this country. We went from the largest surpluses in the history of this country to the largest deficits. We are now the biggest debtor country in the world. We have a budget in front of us with budget deficits that I believe are predicted at $427 billion this year. But that is not accurate at all because there is zero money in the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan. I will be going to a hearing in about 10 minutes with Secretary Rumsfeld. They are asking for $82 billion in emergency funding now.

So in the next fiscal year add another $82 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan--we are spending $1 billion a week--and that gets us to roughly a $500 billion estimated deficit next year. Then take the Social Security surplus out of it because we cannot use those surplus funds against the rest of the budget. It ought to be put in a trust fund, not counted. So then there is an honest deficit next year of about $660 billion or so. That is where we are. That is where we start.

So the discussion is not just about Social Security. It is a discussion about values. I think most of us would agree that there are a couple of things in life that are of primary importance to us. One, we will do almost anything for our kids. If there is anything more important to any of us than our kids, I would like to hear what it is.

Second, we care a lot about what happens to grandpa and grandma. When they reach that point in their life where they cannot work anymore, they are dependent on what they might have saved, dependent on Social Security, the question is, How do we as a society make sure that they are not living in poverty as 50 percent of them were in 1935?

Some say there needs to be adjustments in Social Security and we cannot afford that. I say there will need to be some adjustments in Social Security, but it is not major surgery. It is not major adjustments. The question is, if we cannot afford that, it is a matter of priorities. We are going to afford $82 billion just like that in funding, I will hear from Secretary Rumsfeld about in a few moments. We can afford funding for the one I saw this morning that piqued my interest, Television Marti. This is unbelievable.

This morning I was looking through the budget. With Television Marti, for people who do not know it, we broadcast signals to Cuba with an aerostat blimp called Fat Albert. The purpose of using this blimp, Fat Albert, to broadcast television signals into Cuba is to tell the Cuban people how good things are in our country. Of course, they know that from listening to Miami radio stations, but they still want to send them the television signal.

The fact is, Castro jams the television signals. So we broadcast signals to no one. Cubans cannot get it. We have done that for many years. We have spent nearly $200 million, and this year, to broadcast a signal no one receives in Cuba, the President is proposing we double the funding in the budget.

We cannot afford Social Security, we cannot afford this, cannot afford that, but we can double the funding for Television Marti to broadcast signals to no one?

My point is, this is about values and priorities. I noticed in the playbook on the Social Security debate that was given out to those who are supportive of the President's position says--this is the instruction on communication: Do not say that Social Security lifts seniors out of poverty. People do not appreciate all that Social Security does.

That is what one is not supposed to say. But I said that earlier because I believe that is the fact, that Social Security lifts millions of seniors out of poverty. However, for those who support the President's program to take apart part of the Social Security system and go to a privatization system, they say do not say Social Security lifts seniors out of poverty because people do not appreciate all that Social Security does.

I do not see it right here but another piece of the playbook that I found interesting was, do not try to destroy myths. People have certain myths about Social Security. One of the myths that bounces around the Internet every day all day and talk radio is that Members of Congress do not pay Social Security taxes. In fact, that is one of myths that this playbook mentions. When one hears that from people, do not demolish that myth, let them think that. That tends to mess things up a little bit.

There was a leaked memorandum from the White House about 3 weeks ago by the architect of the Social Security plan. The person in the White House who is working on this plan had drafted this memorandum to all the stakeholders in the administration saying, here is what we are wanting to do. The key point to it was this:

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security

battle is one that we can win . . .

The implication of that is quite clear. There are some who have never liked Social Security, never wanted Social Security to exist. They have never had the opportunity to take it apart or repeal it, and this is the first time in six decades that the Social Security battle can be won.

One of the leading spokespersons on the far conservative rightwing said: Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state.

It is not, of course. But that philosophy describes that there are some who simply never liked Social Security, do not believe it ought to exist, and will support any effort to begin taking it apart.

My feeling is what we ought to do is decide as a Congress that there are two responsibilities with respect to retirement security. One is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Social Security system for the long term. According to Social Security actuaries, the Social Security program will pay full benefits from now until the year 2042.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if there are no changes made, the Social Security system will pay full benefits until the year 2052.

According to the analysts, the Social Security program will need no adjustments in the next 75 years if we have the kind of economic growth that is predicted by the President and others, when they say you can get a 6 or 7 percent return in private accounts. If you have the economic growth that produces that kind of return in the private accounts, you have the economic growth that means Social Security will exist without adjustments for the next 75 years. You can't have it both ways. Either we are going to have, as the actuaries predict, dramatically lower economic growth than we have had in the past 75 years, and that is about 3.4 percent average real economic growth, or we are going to have the more pessimistic view of the Social Security actuaries in their recommendations, about 1.9 percent growth. If we have 1.9 percent growth, you would not be able to pay full benefits-- you would only be able to pay 73 percent of the benefits after 2042. But if that is the case, you don't have the economic strengths to produce the corporate profits to lift the stock market to provide the return in private accounts. You can't argue both sides in the same question.

My belief, again, is we should preserve, protect, and strengthen the Social Security system. It works. We know it works. It has lifted so many millions of Americans out of poverty.

Second, yes, in retirement security we ought to do everything possible to say to all Americans who are working: You need to do more than rely on Social Security. It will be there when you are ready to retire, but you need to do more than that. We want you to invest. We want employers to offer retirement plans and we will provide incentives for them to do that for their employees. We want employees to invest in IRAs, we want employees to invest in 401(k) programs, and we are already providing significant incentives there. But I suggest we increase them because it will be a complement to keeping Social Security as the core retirement insurance.

So, as I indicated, there are small matters and big issues before this body. The question of what we do with the Social Security program, strengthen it, preserve it, and extend it as a core social insurance program, or begin to take it apart and change it from an insurance program to an investment program--is a big issue. I stand on the side of believing that Social Security works. It has enriched the lives of senior citizens in this country for decades and will continue to do so for decades.

I also stand here saying that it is in my judgment a meritorious issue for all of us to care a lot about retirement security beyond the Social Security program itself.

The one thing we should do and must do is all begin from the same set of facts. My colleague, the late Senator Moynihan, used to say everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. I hope as we work through and think through this great debate on Social Security that we will at least agree on the basic set of facts. Those facts, I think, if read in a manner that represents a level look, will tell us this Social Security program has been an enormous success for this country and will be in the future as well, if we have the strength and courage to do what is right to preserve it and strengthen it.

I yield the floor and I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reauthorize the Native American Programs Act. This Act provides authority

for the social and economic development grants that are so critical to Indian Country. Senator Inouye joins me in sponsoring this measure.

The Native American Programs Act of 1974 is administered by the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) within the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of the Act is to promote economic and social self-sufficiency by assisting Native American institutions and tribal governments to exercise control and decision making over their own resources; to foster the development of stable, diversified local tribal economies and economic activities that provide jobs, promote economic well-being, and reduce dependency on public funds and social services; and to support access, control and coordination of services and programs that safeguard the health and well-being of native people that are essential to their communities.

The ANA awards annual grants to tribal entities on a competitive basis and provides many native communities with critical startup funds for social, governance, economic, environmental, and cultural programs that are developed by the communities themselves. The program addresses key needs for native communities by helping them begin and expand businesses, enhancing tribal ability to promote natural environments, and preserving and restoring native languages. The Native American Programs Act supports Native American self-governance in the development of economic, social, and governance capacities of Native American communities.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would reauthorize the Native American Programs Act. This Act provides authority

for the social and economic development grants that are so critical to Indian Country. Senator Inouye joins me in sponsoring this measure.

The Native American Programs Act of 1974 is administered by the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) within the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of the Act is to promote economic and social self-sufficiency by assisting Native American institutions and tribal governments to exercise control and decision making over their own resources; to foster the development of stable, diversified local tribal economies and economic activities that provide jobs, promote economic well-being, and reduce dependency on public funds and social services; and to support access, control and coordination of services and programs that safeguard the health and well-being of native people that are essential to their communities.

The ANA awards annual grants to tribal entities on a competitive basis and provides many native communities with critical startup funds for social, governance, economic, environmental, and cultural programs that are developed by the communities themselves. The program addresses key needs for native communities by helping them begin and expand businesses, enhancing tribal ability to promote natural environments, and preserving and restoring native languages. The Native American Programs Act supports Native American self-governance in the development of economic, social, and governance capacities of Native American communities.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I consume.