Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up my amendment 607 on behalf of myself and Senator Chafee and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader admonished that we act with common sense and be reasonable. So in acting with common sense and being reasonable, this amendment eliminates the tax cuts from this measure because the country cannot afford it.

At the very moment we are running at a $500 billion or more deficit-- which is a $500 billion stimulus, incidentally--we have just adopted a budget that calls for a $600 billion deficit stimulus each year for 10 years. What we are really engaged in is a pollster charade whereby the pollsters admonish tax cuts have to be voted for in order to get reelected.

This country cannot afford the tax cuts, and it is time we looked upon the

needs of the country rather than the needs of the campaign.

I yield what time I have remaining to my distinguished colleague, Senator Chafee.

Mr. President, I had 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, it is fortuitous that the distinguished Presiding Officer is the forerunner of the position: If we are going to cut taxes only $350 billion, you are going to lose his vote. The debate has ensued from $756 billion to $350 billion to try to make for a compromise of $550 billion in tax cuts. But the most responsible voices say at this particular time: No tax cuts.

The present Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Alan Greenspan, says: No tax cuts. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the New York Times, dated May 1, 2003.

Mr. President, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, the former Secretary of the Treasury, Bob Rubin, as well as the former Secretary of Commerce, Pete Peterson, call for no new tax cuts. They took this stand in an article in the New York Times on April 9, 2003. The position they take is that budget deficits matter. There is no question that we had a conscience with respect to deficits. The economists at the Federal Reserve have said that every $100 billion in deficits raises the interest rate a quarter of a percent, and our friends at the Brookings Institution say, no, every $100 billion in deficits raises the interest rate one-half to 1 percentage point.

The point is, look at what we are doing. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a chart of the budget realities.

Mr. President, during that 30-year period under six Presidents, with the cost of World War II, the cost of Korea, the cost of Vietnam, the sum total of deficits over that 30-year period under Republican and Democratic Presidents was only $358 billion. Last year, without the cost of Iraq, it was $428 billion. We now are on course for a deficit this year of $600 billion.

If there is any doubt about it, I ask unanimous consent to print page 4 of the conference report budget resolution.

Mr. President, you can see that the debt rises during the 10-year period from 2003 to 2013. Mr. President I want you to particularly listen to this--the debt rises from $6 trillion to $12 trillion. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer remembers well how we had the balanced budget amendment running around here for 15 years.

Remember back in 1994, the Republicans stood on the Capitol steps and said: Government is going to be different; we have a contract; we are not going to run any deficits; we are going to have a balanced budget. This particular budget passed the U.S. House of Representatives without a single Democratic vote, all Republicans.

In the Senate, there was only one Democratic vote, the Senator from Georgia. Otherwise, Vice President Cheney had to come in and adopt this course of $6 trillion to $12 trillion. That is $600 billion a year in deficits each year for 10 years.

The Chair can see I am trying to gain the attention, for Heaven's sake, of this body to where we can get down to reality so that we do not just willy-nilly go on and not even pay for the war.

I put up an amendment to pay for the war. I could get no support for that. We tell GIs to go into Iraq and we hope they do not get killed, and the reason is we want them to hurry back so we can give them the bill. This generation, this Congress, this Government, aren't going to pay for the war.

Now what happens? Treasury Secretary Snow says: Wait a minute now, you have to stimulate, you have to stimulate. Of course, we had that back when President Reagan started that nonsense of tax cuts. That is what President George Herbert Walker Bush called voodoo, and I will never forget

the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Dole. He was against all of this growth and voodoo. He said: There is good news and bad news.

I said: Senator, what is the good news?

He said: The good news is a busload of supply siders have just driven over the cliff.

I said: Well, what is the bad news?

He said: There was one empty chair.

He was talking about Jack Kemp. We were against supply side and voodoo. But two years ago, we had voodoo 2, with President George Walker Bush's tax cut, which the distinguished Presiding Officer helped pass. Now let us see what President Bush's newest tax cuts, voodoo 3, will do.

Secretary Snow said a dividend cut would boost stocks by 10 percent. But, look, stocks are up 14 percent since March 11. Do you believe you are getting rich? Do you see all the jobs busting out all over?

On the contrary, you see Robert Samuelson talking about ``Stubborn Stagnation.'' I ask unanimous consent that article from this morning's Washington Post be printed in the Record.

We all know it is not going to stimulate anything in that we already have a $428 billion budget deficit this year that is stimulus, plus $600 billion next year. We have over $1 trillion in stimulation. That is why Alan Greenspan says we do not need any further stimulation, and adding $30 billion or $40 billion more is not going to do it. But let's assume that it does. It is not going to stimulate Peoria. It is going to stimulate Shanghai.

What has happened is, and Mr. Samuelson talks about this, is that we have made it too expensive to do business with our high standard of living. Before one can open, for example, Jones Manufacturing in the United States, you have to meet requirements for clean air, clean water, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closing, parental leave, safe working place, safe machinery, just go right on down the list.

You can go down to Mexico for $1 an hour, $2 an hour, or you can go to China for 50 cents an hour. So they are going like gang busters there. We have a tremendous imbalance of trade--a $500 billion imbalance. We are going out of business. We have to get with reality. We cannot treat foreign trade as foreign aid any longer. We have to get a competitive trade policy. We have to cut out the tax benefits companies have when they go overseas, and instead include tax benefits for manufacturing in this country.

We have to straighten out many other items dealing with trade. There is no question that we have to say to the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation that they shall not finance any product that does not have at least 80 percent U.S. content; that we ought to prohibit the sale in interstate commerce of any manufactured product by an individual 12 years of age or younger. We have to require the Buy America provision not just in defense but in homeland security. We have to get what Senator Dole tried to do 10 years ago with the World Trade Organization judicial body to review the WTO determinations. There are a lot of things we have proposed.

I ask unanimous consent that this article of mine from the State newspaper in Columbia last week be printed in the Record.

Now is the time to sober up and approach it the way we did in 1993. When Governor Clinton was first elected, he invited the best of the best in financial minds to Little Rock. Greenspan went. The Governor was advised: you are going to not only have to cut spending when you take office, you are going to have to raise taxes. And we did.

The chairman of the Finance Committee, Bob Packwood, said: I will give you my home if this works. Newt Gingrich said: This is going to put us into a depression.

John Kasich, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said: I will change parties and become a Democrat if this thing works. Oh, it was going to be disastrous.

The disaster turned out to be 8 years of the strongest economy. We paid the bills, putting Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. We created 22 million jobs. Now with President Bush's voodoo 2 that we passed in 2001, we are just more in debt. And the Democratic proposal just announced is nothing but Bush lite. You can either have the Bush proposed program of $756 billion in tax cuts, or $550 billion in tax cuts from the House, or Bush lite of $150 billion. None of them are going to stimulate anything.

Since the President has taken office, the country has lost 2.6 million jobs already. Don't you think we ought to stop now and get a hold of ourselves and realize what we have with all of these deficits; that interest rates are bound to go up, as well as the cost of a car, home payments, the cost of a washing machine, the cost of a refrigerator, and everything else? America is seeing this because back home every mayor is having to cut back, every Governor is having to cut back. They are having to release prisoners from the penitentiary. They are having to charge children to ride on the schoolbus. They are doing any and everything to try to get fiscal discipline back into their particular budgets.

But up here, we're like drunken sailors, saying oh, no, do not worry about it. We have to get reelected next year. To dickens with the needs of the country. It is the needs of the campaign, and we have to have tax cuts. So there we go. We have a big argument around here whether it should be $750 billion or $550 billion or $150 billion in tax cuts. And the best of minds say: Wait a minute, we are in trouble.

As Mr. Samuelson says, we have financial stagnation. We have the threat right this minute of deflation, and we are not creating jobs at all. We have a deficit in the balance of trade in not only hard manufacturing, but in high tech, high tech the motor of growth.

Again, with respect to the service economy, the Wall Street Journal this last week, said:

U.S. financial-services companies plan to transfer 500,000,

or 8 percent, of total industry employment to foreign

countries.

I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

We are going out of business, and the discussion here is between $350 billion and $550 billion in tax cuts, and all they want to know is who can do the most? I can go home next year and run for reelection and say: Look what I have done. I have given you a tax cut-- when we do not have any taxes to cut. We are running a $600 billion deficit in the Republican budget, when the Republicans are supposed to be financially responsible.

We never heard of $600 billion deficits. You folks came to town and said, Look, we not only want a $600 billion

deficit, we want it each year, every year, for the next 10 years. It is the budget on page 4. People don't see that.

I can see the Presiding Officer is going to call my time. He has been very courteous. I will be glad to yield him time when he can take the floor and answer these things because I have not been able to find a good answer.

I am trying to sober them up. Let's put the Government on a pay-as- you-go basis. Let's start getting competitive in industry and manufacturing and create real jobs. Let's start rebuilding--not Bosnia, not Afghanistan, not Iraq--but rebuilding the United States of America. That is the need of the hour.

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

Mr. President, March marked the 32nd consecutive month, since July 2000), that manufacturing employment has declined in the United States. This is the longest consecutive monthly decline in the post

World War II era. Already, more than 2 million manufacturing jobs are gone.

In South Carolina, we have seen a steady erosion of our manufacturing job base, and if we don't come up with new concepts to create and maintain domestic manufacturing jobs, America will go out of business.

For all of 2002, industrial production fell 0.6 percent following a 3.5 percent decline in 2001. That represented the first back-to-back annual declines in industrial output since 1974-1975.

Quite frankly, this is unacceptable.

We must act to save our manufacturing jobs. Earlier this Congress, I introduced S. 592, the ``Save American Manufacturing Act of 2003,'' that seeks to eliminate the tax incentives for off-shore production. Today, I introduce complementary legislation to provide tax incentives to produce in the United States.

The legislation I'm introducing today would provide tax benefits to domestic producers. These tax incentives would become increasingly beneficial as the percentage of manufacturing done in the United States increases. Conversely, as the percentage of domestic production decreases the incentives would also decrease.

This mechanism will provide a strong incentive for manufacturers to maintain U.S. production and to return runaway production to the United States.

Our communities, our industries and our workers are being harmed by the erosion of our manufacturing base. Today's legislation is one additional way that we can provide assistance to these vital groups.

This legislation is the companion to H.R. 1769 introduced earlier this session in the House by Representatives Rangel and Crane.

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

Mr. President, March marked the 32nd consecutive month, since July 2000), that manufacturing employment has declined in the United States. This is the longest consecutive monthly decline in the post

World War II era. Already, more than 2 million manufacturing jobs are gone.

In South Carolina, we have seen a steady erosion of our manufacturing job base, and if we don't come up with new concepts to create and maintain domestic manufacturing jobs, America will go out of business.

For all of 2002, industrial production fell 0.6 percent following a 3.5 percent decline in 2001. That represented the first back-to-back annual declines in industrial output since 1974-1975.

Quite frankly, this is unacceptable.

We must act to save our manufacturing jobs. Earlier this Congress, I introduced S. 592, the ``Save American Manufacturing Act of 2003,'' that seeks to eliminate the tax incentives for off-shore production. Today, I introduce complementary legislation to provide tax incentives to produce in the United States.

The legislation I'm introducing today would provide tax benefits to domestic producers. These tax incentives would become increasingly beneficial as the percentage of manufacturing done in the United States increases. Conversely, as the percentage of domestic production decreases the incentives would also decrease.

This mechanism will provide a strong incentive for manufacturers to maintain U.S. production and to return runaway production to the United States.

Our communities, our industries and our workers are being harmed by the erosion of our manufacturing base. Today's legislation is one additional way that we can provide assistance to these vital groups.

This legislation is the companion to H.R. 1769 introduced earlier this session in the House by Representatives Rangel and Crane.

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Allen for bringing this legislation, S. 196, to the floor today. As many of you know, this bill had its genesis with our former colleague, Senator Max Cleland.

Senator Cleland knew that access to the Internet is no longer a luxury, but a necessity, and he wanted to make sure that all of our institutions of higher learning could provide their students with access to the most current technologies. That is why he introduced this legislation last Congress and I am glad that Senator Allen and I can bring Senator Cleland's vision to fruition today.

After all, according to a 2000 study, African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans constitute one-quarter of the total U.S. workforce and 30 percent of the college-age population. Yet, members of these minorities comprise only 7 percent of the U.S. computer and information science labor force; 6 percent of the engineering workforce; and less than 2 percent of the computer science faculty. These statistics are all the more important because 60 percent of all jobs require information technology skills. Furthermore, jobs in information technology pay significantly higher salaries than jobs in noninformation technology fields.

So you can see, technology is rapidly advancing and we are increasingly growing dependent on it. Being digitally connected is becoming ever more critical to economic and educational advancement. Now that a multitude of Americans regularly use the Internet to conduct daily activities, people who lack access to these tools are at an increasing disadvantage. Consequently, it is crucial that all institutions of higher education provide their students with access to the most current information technology.

Unfortunately, however, due to economic constraints, many minority- serving institutions are unable to provide adequate access to the Internet and other information technology tools and applications. According to a 2000 study completed by the Department of Commerce and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, while 98 percent of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, have a campus network, half of

those surveyed did not have computers available in the location most accessible to students, their dormitories. Additionally, most HBCUs do not have high-speed connectivity to the Internet, and only 3 percent of these colleges and university indicated that financial aid was available to help their students close the computer ownership gap.

While minority-serving institutions are making progress in upgrading their network capacity, progress is not quick enough. In his testimony before the Commerce Committee on February 13, 2003, Dr. Ricardo Fernandez, president of Herbert H. Lehman College in New York City explained the challenge these institutions face:

At my own institution . . . we are struggling to provide

network access to students and faculty. Providing fiber and

copper cabling, switches, and routers to every building and

classroom is simply very expensive for us and cost

prohibitive. . . . At the pace that we are moving, the

technology we are installing may well be obsolete before the

project is finished.

S. 196, the Digital and Wireless Technology Program Act of 2003, seeks to help institutions such as Lehman College or the eight eligible South Carolina colleges and universities by authorizing a program at the National Science Foundation to bring digital technologies to minority-serving institutions. These funds could be used for a variety of activities from campus wiring, to equipment upgrades, and to technology training. We need to pass this bill now so these colleges and universities--and their students--don't have to wait until the technology is obsolete before they get it.

Working with Senator Allen and Senator McCain, we have made several changes to the bill before we brought it to the floor. At the request of the HELP Committee, we have clarified that training grants under S. 196 would be used for technology-related training and professional development. By narrowing the scope of the training, however, we do not think we would narrow the scope of the bill. Infrastructure projects like wiring classrooms or dorms could still be eligible for funding under this bill if they fit into an overall program to strengthen an institution's technological capacity.

We have also tried to address some concerns about the NSF's peer review process. I have said it before, peer review is all well and good--if you are one of the peers. Too often, the institutions that S. 196 is trying to serve are left out of NSF's peer review process. We hope that NSF, working with the advisory council established under section 4, will develop a fair and equitable process for reviewing these grants. To that end, we have added a requirement that any peer review panel should include members from eligible institutions.

Finally, we have instructed NSF to review the program with an eye toward insuring that grant recipients have demonstrated the need for this assistance so that we can address the most trenchant problems first. In addition, the grants should go to a wide variety of institutions, large and small, throughout the country.

I thank Senator Allen and Senator McCain for helping us move this legislation. I thank the staff who worked on this bill, particularly Allison McMahan, Chan Lieu, and Jean Toal Eisen of my Commerce Committee staff and Floyd DesChamps of the majority staff. Moreover, I commend my friend Max Cleland for bringing this issue to the Senate's attention. I look forward to the passage of S. 196.

Mr. President, this is not a conference report, because we never conferred. This is not a concurrent resolution, because we never concurred. To stimulate the economy, the Republicans doubled the debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion, which will wreck the economy.

This budget is a fraud.

Madam President, I want to recognize the students of Carolina Forest High School in Myrtle Beach, SC, who will be visiting Washington in late April to compete in the national finals of the ``We The People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. Right now the students are conducting research and preparing for the contest, which will test their knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights against 1,200 students from across the country. They have earned the trip by showing they were the best of the best in my State, all the more remarkable considering the school graduated its first class just 3 years ago.

Obviously, I hope my fellow South Carolinians win it all, but, whatever happens, we are all winners from this contest. When young people, on their own, want to understand the fundamental principles and values of our democracy, they are more likely to vote. They are more likely to participate in political life. They are more likely to take serious the civic duties that this Nation needs of our citizens. I wish these young South Carolinians the best of luck and thank them for their efforts.

Madam President, I have known Hootie Johnson for the past 50 years and yes, there is no one more well thought of, more popular, more respected in South Carolina.

A star football hero in college, he came on as a natural leader in the banking business. He is one with this so-called vision, leading the way to integration, opportunity and, yes, as head of Augusta National having women play the course. I have read extreme nonsense from every angle critical of Hootie and withheld public comment because I knew coming from the State it would lack a certain amount of credibility. Now, Sally Jenkins in this morning's Washington Post has responded for me in her column ``Hootie and the Blowhard''. I ask that it be printed in the Record.

The article follows:

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Gregg to introduce the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act of 2003. Senator Gregg and I introduced this bill last session, and it was reported favorably by the Commerce Committee, but time did not permit action to be completed on the bill before the end of the Congress. My colleagues and I will work hard to pass this important piece of legislation during the 108th Congress.

I would like to thank our cosponsors, 24 in all, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Inouye, Jack Reed, Breaux, DeWine, Sarbanes, Biden, Kennedy, Mikulski, Cochran, Murray, Corzine, Collins, Dodd, Levin, Bill Nelson, Wyden, Lieberman, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Cantwell, and Chafee for their strong support of this bill, which marks another important chapter of our thirty year effort to put coastal and ocean issues at the forefront of environmental policy.

I am also proud to say that the bill is strongly supported by The Trust for Public Land, Coastal States Organization, The Nature Conservancy, Land Trust Alliance, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, American Sportfishing Association, and the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. I understand that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy will also endorse this approach.

When I was Governor of South Carolina over 30 years ago, I experienced first hand the need for Federal direction and assistance to the States to enable them to effectively and sustainably manage coastal development. My experiences during a series of coastal hearings and continued research in the Senate led me to write the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which provided clear policy objectives for states to establish coordinated coastal zone management programs to help balance coastal development with protection.

But we appear to need more tools to help States continue the job we started in 1972. In the year 2003, as our population grows, more and more people are moving to the coast to enjoy its beauty and recreational opportunities. In fact, by 2010, an estimated 60 percent of Americans will live along our coasts, which represent less than 17 percent of our land area. More than 3,000 people move to coastal areas everyday, and 14 of the Nation's 20 largest cities are on the coast, and are five times more densely populated than the interior of the country. As these good folks move to take advantage of coastal living, we have to be careful that we don't destroy the natural resources and quality of life that draw them to our shores. Big changes are coming to all of our coastal counties, and we must make some careful and smart decisions if we want to keep the very resources we depend on.

In particular, estuaries and wetlands have many unique attributes that make them important to both our natural resources and our economy. Estuaries, and the watersheds that flow into them, support fisheries and wildlife and contribute immensely to the coastal area economies. But these ecologically and economically important watersheds are also under the most threat from land development and conversion away from their natural state. Coastal urbanization trends are particularly strong in the southeastern areas. In my State alone, the Forest Service has estimated natural forests of the coastal plain will decrease by 1.9 million acres in the next 40 years--a 35 percent loss of South Carolina's forests. These findings and future trends tell me that for the good of our coastal communities we need some fast, targeted action to protect ecologically important coastal areas most threatened with development or conversion.

Now more than ever, the pressures of urbanization and pollution along our nation's coasts threaten to impair watersheds, impact wildlife habitat and cause irreparable damage to the fragile coastal ecology. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that some areas of the country are seeing some improvement from the heavily polluted status of the past, but predicts that the more pristine areas like the Southeast, which has some of the best water quality in the Nation, will experience degradation of water quality due primarily to runoff of pollutants from rapid development in our coastal watersheds. This is very bad news for the shrimpers, oystermen, and recreational users who depend on these waters for their livelihood and quality of life.

We see strong signals of what continuing down this path will bring us: beach and shellfish closings, fish kills, and human health impacts. The National Research Council reports that over the next 20 years over 70 percent of our estuaries will experience more low oxygen--or ``eutrophic''--conditions, such as the Gulf ``Dead Zone.'' If this trend continues, our coastal economies will suffer and perhaps never recover. I know in my state the economy would falter greatly from the lack of fishing, shrimping and tourism opportunities, and this is true up and down the Atlantic coast, which contains 37 percent of the Nation's estuarine areas.

The good news is that there are ways we can make a difference, and we have some good models we can turn to. I am proud to say my home State of South Carolina is a leader in this area. The past decade I have led an extensive cooperative conservation effort, bringing together the State of South Carolina, private landowners, groups like the Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and federal partners like NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the ACE Basin. It is now the largest pristine estuarine reserve on the East Coast, a 350,000-acre area at the convergence of the Edisto, Ashepoo and Combahee Rivers, which comprises many ecologically important habitats that are home to many fish and bird species, including a number of endangered species. An outcome of these efforts is that the ACE Basin, already home to a National Wildlife Refuge, was declared a National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1992, and has been growing in size ever since. In building the ACE Basin, the partners worked creatively and in a coordinated manner, and we successfully obtained land acquisition funds through a variety of

federal sources, including the Forest Legacy Program.

What became clear, however, is that there is no Federal program explicitly setting aside funding for conservation of coastal lands, where the needs are clearly the greatest. That is exactly what the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act of 2003 will do. It authorizes a competitive matching grant program in NOAA to enable states to permanently protect important coastal areas.

Under this NOAA program, coastal states can compete for matching funds of up to 75 percent to acquire land or easements for the protection of endangered coastal areas that have considerable conservation, recreation, ecological, historical or aesthetic values threatened by development or conversion. The bill also provides funding for a regional watershed demonstration project that can be used as a model for future watershed-scale programs. The program is authorized at $60 million for fiscal year 2004 and beyond, with an additional $5 million for the regional watershed demonstration project.

By establishing a plan for the preservation of our coastal areas, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act will build on the foundation laid down by the CZMA, all in stride with the changing times, growing number of people, and limited resources available today. When it comes to the environment, rules and regulations sometimes can't do it all. Sometimes cooperative actions work better and we can turn to models that encourage joint conservation projects among folks who all want the same thing--sustainable coasts.

Partnership programs among federal government, state agencies, local governments, private landowners and non-profits, like the ACE Basin Project, work and we need to encourage these partnerships in all our coastal areas if we are to prevent degradation of our coastal resources. The good news is that we can make a difference today by providing the funding for land conservation partnerships provided for by the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. I am proud to be a sponsor of this bill, which will not only improve the quality of the coastal areas and marine life it supports, but also sustain surrounding communities and their way of life.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Gregg to introduce the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act of 2003. Senator Gregg and I introduced this bill last session, and it was reported favorably by the Commerce Committee, but time did not permit action to be completed on the bill before the end of the Congress. My colleagues and I will work hard to pass this important piece of legislation during the 108th Congress.

I would like to thank our cosponsors, 24 in all, Senators Kerry, Snowe, Inouye, Jack Reed, Breaux, DeWine, Sarbanes, Biden, Kennedy, Mikulski, Cochran, Murray, Corzine, Collins, Dodd, Levin, Bill Nelson, Wyden, Lieberman, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Cantwell, and Chafee for their strong support of this bill, which marks another important chapter of our thirty year effort to put coastal and ocean issues at the forefront of environmental policy.

I am also proud to say that the bill is strongly supported by The Trust for Public Land, Coastal States Organization, The Nature Conservancy, Land Trust Alliance, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, American Sportfishing Association, and the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. I understand that the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy will also endorse this approach.

When I was Governor of South Carolina over 30 years ago, I experienced first hand the need for Federal direction and assistance to the States to enable them to effectively and sustainably manage coastal development. My experiences during a series of coastal hearings and continued research in the Senate led me to write the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which provided clear policy objectives for states to establish coordinated coastal zone management programs to help balance coastal development with protection.

But we appear to need more tools to help States continue the job we started in 1972. In the year 2003, as our population grows, more and more people are moving to the coast to enjoy its beauty and recreational opportunities. In fact, by 2010, an estimated 60 percent of Americans will live along our coasts, which represent less than 17 percent of our land area. More than 3,000 people move to coastal areas everyday, and 14 of the Nation's 20 largest cities are on the coast, and are five times more densely populated than the interior of the country. As these good folks move to take advantage of coastal living, we have to be careful that we don't destroy the natural resources and quality of life that draw them to our shores. Big changes are coming to all of our coastal counties, and we must make some careful and smart decisions if we want to keep the very resources we depend on.

In particular, estuaries and wetlands have many unique attributes that make them important to both our natural resources and our economy. Estuaries, and the watersheds that flow into them, support fisheries and wildlife and contribute immensely to the coastal area economies. But these ecologically and economically important watersheds are also under the most threat from land development and conversion away from their natural state. Coastal urbanization trends are particularly strong in the southeastern areas. In my State alone, the Forest Service has estimated natural forests of the coastal plain will decrease by 1.9 million acres in the next 40 years--a 35 percent loss of South Carolina's forests. These findings and future trends tell me that for the good of our coastal communities we need some fast, targeted action to protect ecologically important coastal areas most threatened with development or conversion.

Now more than ever, the pressures of urbanization and pollution along our nation's coasts threaten to impair watersheds, impact wildlife habitat and cause irreparable damage to the fragile coastal ecology. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that some areas of the country are seeing some improvement from the heavily polluted status of the past, but predicts that the more pristine areas like the Southeast, which has some of the best water quality in the Nation, will experience degradation of water quality due primarily to runoff of pollutants from rapid development in our coastal watersheds. This is very bad news for the shrimpers, oystermen, and recreational users who depend on these waters for their livelihood and quality of life.

We see strong signals of what continuing down this path will bring us: beach and shellfish closings, fish kills, and human health impacts. The National Research Council reports that over the next 20 years over 70 percent of our estuaries will experience more low oxygen--or ``eutrophic''--conditions, such as the Gulf ``Dead Zone.'' If this trend continues, our coastal economies will suffer and perhaps never recover. I know in my state the economy would falter greatly from the lack of fishing, shrimping and tourism opportunities, and this is true up and down the Atlantic coast, which contains 37 percent of the Nation's estuarine areas.

The good news is that there are ways we can make a difference, and we have some good models we can turn to. I am proud to say my home State of South Carolina is a leader in this area. The past decade I have led an extensive cooperative conservation effort, bringing together the State of South Carolina, private landowners, groups like the Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and federal partners like NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the ACE Basin. It is now the largest pristine estuarine reserve on the East Coast, a 350,000-acre area at the convergence of the Edisto, Ashepoo and Combahee Rivers, which comprises many ecologically important habitats that are home to many fish and bird species, including a number of endangered species. An outcome of these efforts is that the ACE Basin, already home to a National Wildlife Refuge, was declared a National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1992, and has been growing in size ever since. In building the ACE Basin, the partners worked creatively and in a coordinated manner, and we successfully obtained land acquisition funds through a variety of

federal sources, including the Forest Legacy Program.

What became clear, however, is that there is no Federal program explicitly setting aside funding for conservation of coastal lands, where the needs are clearly the greatest. That is exactly what the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act of 2003 will do. It authorizes a competitive matching grant program in NOAA to enable states to permanently protect important coastal areas.

Under this NOAA program, coastal states can compete for matching funds of up to 75 percent to acquire land or easements for the protection of endangered coastal areas that have considerable conservation, recreation, ecological, historical or aesthetic values threatened by development or conversion. The bill also provides funding for a regional watershed demonstration project that can be used as a model for future watershed-scale programs. The program is authorized at $60 million for fiscal year 2004 and beyond, with an additional $5 million for the regional watershed demonstration project.

By establishing a plan for the preservation of our coastal areas, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act will build on the foundation laid down by the CZMA, all in stride with the changing times, growing number of people, and limited resources available today. When it comes to the environment, rules and regulations sometimes can't do it all. Sometimes cooperative actions work better and we can turn to models that encourage joint conservation projects among folks who all want the same thing--sustainable coasts.

Partnership programs among federal government, state agencies, local governments, private landowners and non-profits, like the ACE Basin Project, work and we need to encourage these partnerships in all our coastal areas if we are to prevent degradation of our coastal resources. The good news is that we can make a difference today by providing the funding for land conservation partnerships provided for by the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. I am proud to be a sponsor of this bill, which will not only improve the quality of the coastal areas and marine life it supports, but also sustain surrounding communities and their way of life.

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

Will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?

There is no one I admire more than my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, but he is off base. The father of homeland security studied it way better than Governor Ridge. We have been holding the hearings on all of these things, and you can see they have no idea what is going on in that so-called Department of Homeland Security.

We brought the Attorney General up, and he said: Well, the Office of Domestic Preparedness is transferred over. Then you go, by gosh, to the homeland security people, and you cannot find the money.

What the ranking member for homeland security is doing is bringing together all the chaos. We are the ones having the Coast Guard hearings for 30-some years up here. We are the ones who have been handling the Office of Domestic Preparedness. We are the ones who have been knowing the needs.

This does not add a red penny but says here is how these needs should be responded to and it is an emergency.

I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his particular amendment. He is trying to do the right thing. He is being charged with doing the wrong thing. It is the same thing as the Breaux amendment.

I remember one time they told me I had an impediment in my speech, and I asked: What was that? They said: The trouble with you, Senator, is that you can't listen.

The trouble with my friends on the other side is they didn't listen to the Breaux amendment.

Now we are getting it clearer with the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the present amendment be set aside temporarily so I can call this amendment up.

I call up the amendment and ask the clerk to report the sense of the Senate.

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

Mr. President, right to the point, the comment was made just a minute ago about taxes. I wish I could introduce a tax measure because I introduced one way back in January to pay for the war. The reason I rise now with a sense of the Senate is because under the rules, any revenue measure should arise in the House of Representatives. So I am asking that we have at least a sense of the Senate to break this syndrome of not paying for anything.

A minute ago our distinguished colleague handling the bill said, ``We are concerned.'' They are not a bit concerned about deficits, I can tell you that. We spent a half trillion dollars last year we didn't pay for. Under the President's budget we just passed--another half a trillion dollars in deficits this year. And the President projects to spend nearly $600 billion next year, unpaid for. The particular budget we just passed increases the debt, the national debt, from approximately $6 trillion to $12 trillion. We double the debt in the next 10 years and we are going merrily along, not paying for anything.

We all say the Pledge of Allegiance. We run around with our flags in our lapels. We all have a moment of silence for the troops in Iraq. It is a sincere demonstration. But then you have to question the sincerity when we will not pay for anything.

We are sending that GI into Iraq, and we are saying we hope you don't get killed. And the reason we hope you don't get killed is we want you to hurry back so we can give you the bill. We aren't going to pay for it.

What we need, and Carl Rove has told us, is a tax cut so we can get elected next year. We are not concerned about the needs of the country. We are concerned only about the needs of the campaign. I hope this sense-of-the-Senate amendment will engender support for the troops.

The articles on the front page of the business section of the New York Times today explain why this is necessary.

I ask unanimous consent to print the two articles, ``Sour Mood Pervades the Economic Front,'' and, ``A Year-long Decline in the Dollar Is Little Help in the U.S. Trade Gap.''

I quote hurriedly, Mr. President, just to emphasize, if you please, the problem we are really getting this generation in:

A growing number of analysts are skeptical that the economy

will snap back quickly after the shooting subsides. The

aftershocks of the stock market bubble still appear to

inhibit investor confidence and corporate spending. ``We have

had three consecutive quarters of below-trend growth,'' said

William C. Dudley, chief United States economist at Goldman

Sachs. ``To explain all that on the basis of the war in Iraq

seems to be a stretch.''

Moving along:

But consumer surveys suggest that Americans have curbed

their urge to shop. The most recent poll, by ABC News and

Money magazine, released on Tuesday, showed that consumer

confidence remained near its lowest point in nine years. . .

.

. . . surveys of business sentiment by regional banks have

been extremely gloomy. . . .The Philadelphia Feds survey of

manufacturers showed deteriorating conditions in several

areas. Companies in the region reported that new orders and

hiring declined sharply in March, and that its broadest

measure of manufacturing conditions had plunged.

There is also the statement that we have lost 600,000 jobs since November.

On Tuesday, a closely watched index of manufacturing

activity by the Institute of Supply Management . . . [f]or

the first time in five months . . . suggested that factories

were contracting rather than expanding.

Then, Mr. President, jumping right to that next article, because you can see we have always depended on the foreigners to pay for our debt-- they have been carrying over a third of our debts--I quote, again:

Last month, according to a report by Morgan Stanley,

foreign investors' demand for Treasury securities suddenly

slackened.

They stopped buying that debt. I tell you, this is very dangerous to us because we are going to have to increase the interest rates, when deficits matter, according to Alan Greenspan. All my colleagues want to object, and they run around with the litany that: We are worried about deficits.

The truth is, we are not worried about deficits. This $80 billion bill before us--there is no money for it. We are going to borrow to support the troops, and then want the troops to come back and let them pay for it.

Let me read some more:

In addition to the changes in portfolios, the pace of

foreigners' direct investment . . . has slowed. The euro zone

has outpaced the United States as a target for foreign direct

investment for six consecutive quarters, according to figures

compiled by Morgan Stanley.

So they are investing back in Europe rather than the United States, which was always their first preference.

With national savings near zero, almost all new investment

by American businesses would essentially be financed with

foreign money. ``The only way we can grow is to get capital

from abroad,'' said Stephen S. Roach, chief economist of

Morgan Stanley. ``What we're seeing now are some early

warning signs of how this will play out over the next several

years.''

. . . foreigners hold about 35 percent of the nation's

outstanding debt. The Treasury's borrowing requirements seem

likely to balloon as a result of the Iraq war, the sluggish

economy and President Bush's tax cut. If demand for that debt

falls at the same time, interest costs could rise.

``We're asking the world to give us too much of their

surplus savings,'' Mr. Roach said. ``That's just not a

sustainable way to run the economy, period.''

I wish I had the time to read it all, but it is not Hollings just trying to pass a tax. I would rather be tax and spend than spend and wreck. We can't get this crowd off the deficit barley corn. If we can't sober them up with a war, when troops are dying in Iraq and the amounts that we appropriate we can't even pay for--I don't know how it is ever going to happen.

We have always paid for all of our wars. For the Revolution War, they put on a property tax. Back in the Civil War, they put a tax on dividends and estates; for World War I, they raised

the marginal tax rate to 77 percent; World War II, 94 percent; Vietnam, 77 percent. That is the last time--and I was here--that we balanced the budget, that we paid our way, under President Lyndon Johnson, guns and butter. The tax rate was 77 percent.

Now it has already been cut to 38.5 percent, and they want to cut it further in the budget that just passed. And to say, Why do we have deficits? and to use the statement that we are concerned about deficits--that is nonsense. There is no concern. This place has run amok. And if we can't get a sense of the Senate that we are willing to pay for the war, we are just going to have to quit, we are not doing the people's job at all.

The party of Lincoln that passed in order to pay for the Civil War the estate tax and the dividend tax, this party of Lincoln today, in 2003, says: Let's go to war. And the first order of business is to eliminate the estate tax, eliminate the dividend tax, and talk about stimulus, stimulus, growth, growth.

Do you know that in 200 years of American history, with all the wars--World War II, right on through, Korea, Vietnam--we never had a $100 billion interest cost on our debt. But, by gosh, along came President Reagan. George Walker Herbert Bush called it voodoo. And under voodoo we went not only to $100 billion, but we went to $200 billion in interest costs. And then we went to $400 billion under President Bush's father.

Then, under President Clinton, we eliminated the deficit. It took 8 years to eliminate that $400 billion deficit, but we raised taxes, which I am asking us to do, at least to pay for the war--not for any other program. I have a value-added tax. Mr. President, that is S. 112.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this particular chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before I forget, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record: ``No Excuse for Tax Cuts,'' by E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Right to the point, we got voodoo II here the year before last with George W. Bush's tax cuts, and we are jumping back to $400 billion deficits. And now we are asking, with the budget that we passed, for voodoo III, to really run $700 billion deficits.

I wish they would hear that and listen to me. They have no idea. The interest costs--the distinguished Presiding Officer, you come from a responsible State. In the State of Texas, I can tell you, you have to pay the bill. In fact, in my State, you cannot run for Governor unless you promise to pay the bill.

But it has gotten so that now the Republicans have taken over, and you can't run for the Senate unless you promise not to pay--not to pay--the bill. They are taking over in this miasma of growth, growth. The only thing that grows is the national debt, the interest costs, the waste. There has been $300 to $400 billion waste since voodoo 1. There it is.

We could pay for all of these particular needs--there is $80 billion here for the war--if we had a pay-as-you-go government up here in Washington. But they back off onto that deficit barley corn. They have no intent of paying for anything. Tax cuts, tax cuts, says Karl Rove. You have to do it in order to get reelected. And it is a dirty shame. It is a dirty shame.

I have been in government now for 50 years, and I have to say, immodestly, I have been the longest serving member of the Budget Committee. I have been chairman of that Budget Committee. As Governor of South Carolina, I got the Standard & Poors' and Moody's AAA credit rating for our State.

As a Senator, I voted for the balanced budget. And we cut the deficit when I was chairman of that Budget Committee, and those kinds of things. I got together with Senator Gramm and Senator Rudman, and we had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to systematically cut $35 billion a year. We just passed a budget that increases the deficit by $350 billion, and they are fighting over at the White House to make sure they get more than $350 billion in tax cuts.

This sense of the Senate merely says to the President: You submit your program. And if you don't, we have tax revenues to pay for this war. And don't say the revenues are going to ruin the economy because it will take a year for the value-added tax to be implemented by the Internal Revenue Service. So if we pass this now, we are telling the market, like we did back in 1993, that we are going to start getting rid of the deficits, and paying down the debt.

We said, for 8 years: Pay down the debt. Pay down the debt. We don't say that any longer. We are just saying, we are concerned about deficits.

I can tell, my time is up. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for yielding me this time. I appreciate it very much.

I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia be added as a cosponsor on that amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a crucial issue that is affecting our competitiveness in the world economy. Since that first flight in 1903 when the Wright brothers took off on our great journey, the United States has piloted the course of aerospace and aviation technology development. Now that leading role is being threatened. The European Union has embarked on an ambitious plan to dominate the industry that historically we have led. Last year, for the first time, Airbus surpassed Boeing, by grabbing 54 percent of the market share in terms of aircraft units.

Air travel is critical to our competitiveness in the global economy. The movement of passengers and goods throughout our nation feeds American business and keeps us close to our families and friends. The impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy exceeds $900 billion a year, which is 9 percent of

the Gross National Product. In terms of jobs, civil aviation employs 11 million Americans. We can not sit idle as this important industry is threatened.

To compete we must have the most advanced and safest technology; yet the Air Traffic Management System in the United States is still reliant on ground-based technology that was developed over 30 years ago. Congress, FAA, NASA and the aviation industry must work together to update this system to accommodate future aviation demand and to take advantage of satellite navigation and advances in aircraft avionics. Historically upgrades to air traffic management have been slow and often come in over budget. We must focus on creating the next generation of air traffic management technology in a more efficient and effective manner that will enhance safety and increase capacity.

Aerospace and aviation advancement are also dependent upon a well- trained and skilled workforce. According to the Commission Report on Aerospace, 26 percent of the science, engineering and manufacturing workforce will be eligible to retire in the next five years. New entrants to the aerospace industry are at a historical low as the number of layoffs have increased. In order to maintain our dominance in aerospace, we must continue to foster a qualified workforce.

Our international competitors have been persistent in providing government support to aerospace research and aeronautical advancement. The subsidies offered by our foreign competitors, hinder the U.S. companies that often bear the majority of the burden for research and development. In order to give our companies a competitive advantage and to ensure that advances in aviation and aerospace technology continue, Congress must invest ample resources in fundamental aeronautical research. The President's FY 04 budget proposal cuts investment in FAA and NASA research, engineering and development. This will only hasten our descent in this industry. During this time of competing interests for the Federal dollar we cannot be too quick to divest ourselves from needed research that will renew our aviation business and maintain our global dominance.

To turn an idea into a product, the process is often tedious and long. NASA and FAA must promote technological advancement and enable American industry to bring their products to market. Collaboration with government and industry is critical to ensure that research efforts lead to viable products that will enhance our aerospace and aviation industry.

As we reflect on the last 100 years of advancement in the aviation and aerospace fields we cannot help to be proud of our accomplishments. But, we cannot afford to be content with those successes. We must look higher, faster, and farther than we have before--that is the American prerogative. And so with the help of my colleagues Senators Brownback, Rockefeller, Inouye, Cantwell and Kerry, I have crafted legislation to increase aeronautical research, nurture our industry's workforce, and ensure a collaborative partnership between government and private industry with the goal of ensuring the ``Second Century of Flight'' is as exciting and awe inspiring as the first.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a crucial issue that is affecting our competitiveness in the world economy. Since that first flight in 1903 when the Wright brothers took off on our great journey, the United States has piloted the course of aerospace and aviation technology development. Now that leading role is being threatened. The European Union has embarked on an ambitious plan to dominate the industry that historically we have led. Last year, for the first time, Airbus surpassed Boeing, by grabbing 54 percent of the market share in terms of aircraft units.

Air travel is critical to our competitiveness in the global economy. The movement of passengers and goods throughout our nation feeds American business and keeps us close to our families and friends. The impact of civil aviation on the U.S. economy exceeds $900 billion a year, which is 9 percent of

the Gross National Product. In terms of jobs, civil aviation employs 11 million Americans. We can not sit idle as this important industry is threatened.

To compete we must have the most advanced and safest technology; yet the Air Traffic Management System in the United States is still reliant on ground-based technology that was developed over 30 years ago. Congress, FAA, NASA and the aviation industry must work together to update this system to accommodate future aviation demand and to take advantage of satellite navigation and advances in aircraft avionics. Historically upgrades to air traffic management have been slow and often come in over budget. We must focus on creating the next generation of air traffic management technology in a more efficient and effective manner that will enhance safety and increase capacity.

Aerospace and aviation advancement are also dependent upon a well- trained and skilled workforce. According to the Commission Report on Aerospace, 26 percent of the science, engineering and manufacturing workforce will be eligible to retire in the next five years. New entrants to the aerospace industry are at a historical low as the number of layoffs have increased. In order to maintain our dominance in aerospace, we must continue to foster a qualified workforce.

Our international competitors have been persistent in providing government support to aerospace research and aeronautical advancement. The subsidies offered by our foreign competitors, hinder the U.S. companies that often bear the majority of the burden for research and development. In order to give our companies a competitive advantage and to ensure that advances in aviation and aerospace technology continue, Congress must invest ample resources in fundamental aeronautical research. The President's FY 04 budget proposal cuts investment in FAA and NASA research, engineering and development. This will only hasten our descent in this industry. During this time of competing interests for the Federal dollar we cannot be too quick to divest ourselves from needed research that will renew our aviation business and maintain our global dominance.

To turn an idea into a product, the process is often tedious and long. NASA and FAA must promote technological advancement and enable American industry to bring their products to market. Collaboration with government and industry is critical to ensure that research efforts lead to viable products that will enhance our aerospace and aviation industry.

As we reflect on the last 100 years of advancement in the aviation and aerospace fields we cannot help to be proud of our accomplishments. But, we cannot afford to be content with those successes. We must look higher, faster, and farther than we have before--that is the American prerogative. And so with the help of my colleagues Senators Brownback, Rockefeller, Inouye, Cantwell and Kerry, I have crafted legislation to increase aeronautical research, nurture our industry's workforce, and ensure a collaborative partnership between government and private industry with the goal of ensuring the ``Second Century of Flight'' is as exciting and awe inspiring as the first.

Madam President, port security is much like the weather: Everybody talks about it, but we haven't done anything about it. The fact is, we are in a crisis, in an emergency. If anything would respond to an emergency supplemental, port security would.

I just had a word with the distinguished chairman. The chairman believes there are pots of money. I wanted to make sure I wasn't duplicating everything. I have in my hand the particular reported emergency supplemental. On page 20, what we find is the Department of Homeland Security; you have the various items, as you can see, listed beginning at that second paragraph, where they get $1.135 billion. I said: Well, we have $1.135 billion we can get for port security.

Then I looked at the breakdown. The $580 million for the Coast Guard has been spent. The Coast Guard has been waiting on this money. They are deployed in the Gulf. The distinguished Commander in Chief only 2 days ago, in Philadelphia, emphasized what a magnificent job the Coast Guard was doing in the gulf, around the clock, doubling up their effort. So this is for reimbursement of that $580 million.

We have the rest of the year to deal with, and we have an authorization bill trying to deal with it. But that is not the appropriation. I do not think we can wait for an authorization appropriation and then go through the rest of the spring and summer with the Coast Guard unfunded. So that $580 million is not for the Coast Guard for the rest of the year but that is to reimburse it.

Otherwise, the $215 million you see under the $1.135 billion is for terrorism; the $120 million goes to the Transportation Security Administration. That is for aviation, that is the overtime for screeners and everything else of that kind; $65 million of that is for overtime of the Customs and Border Patrol; $10 million is for the Secret Service; $10 million for the vulnerability assessment; and $15 million for emergency support teams. That is just a little over a billion some-odd million, which takes up the amount on page 20 of the Department of Homeland Security.

There are not any pots of money that we can take from. That has been a concern of the Senator from South Carolina. In the past, we spoke with one voice. This is not a partisan amendment whatsoever; 100 Senators, all Republicans and all Democrats, voted for port security. This is only $1 billion of the $2.8 billion that we authorized. We have only had, of that authorized and appropriated, some $93 million that has been released. They are now trying to complete this and compete for $105 million, but then they will run out of money.

Right to the point, we have to join forces together and take care of one of the finest entities you have ever seen.

Let me divert for a second and talk about the ports of America. There are some 365 ports; 55 of those are major ports. We didn't want to rush in last year and just start throwing money at the problem. They have to get a concerted plan for each of the ports, particularly those that have been designated major ports and are subject to serious terrorist action.

We have put the money up. They have completed five ports. They will only complete some six or seven additional, so it will be about nine by the end of the fiscal year under the present circumstance.

That is totally unacceptable. We can't be running around waiting to get through by 2009, planning for port security with al-Qaida, with the terrorists, with the most vulnerable target you could possibly imagine.

Let's go to Philadelphia. Osama bin Laden has 10 vessels, according to Lloyd's of London, and he controls 10 more. He easily knows terrorists who can crew those vessels. It was his ship that went into Mombasa, the port in Kenya, and blew up the embassy at Nairobi and the one at Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. So he knows about ship operations. He is intimate with it. He could easily put his crew in. He could get a shift on a particular ship of Exxon, let's say, going up the Delaware River to the port in Philadelphia, and just before they get there, they can take the crew and captain, throw them overboard, kill them, or whatever, just as they did in New York and at the Pentagon. Then they can blow that ship up at that tank farm in Philadelphia.

We have studied this. The eastern seaboard would close down. I have seen port security war games--there has been a lot of work done on this. This is not just an amendment of the moment. On the contrary, we find out from Booz Allen Hamilton in their particular study--it is too voluminous to have printed in the Record at this point--that the eastern seaboard could close down. And what would happen if they would have to close down the stock market and everything else? There would be total chaos just from one particular incident of that kind.

So we know the jeopardy that we experience here. We have to take care of these ports. We also have to take care of the waterway systems such as the Golden Gate Bridge and those other things.

We tried to get $2 billion for 2 years and in the supplemental and budget we just passed, we passed unanimously, $1 billion. This is just what we voted on a week before last, $1 billion.

I know my distinguished chairman is going to say we don't have any money. We have money, come on. Here we are already $232 billion in the red that we borrowed, and that stopped the first week in March. So for the month we have just been saying it is $232 billion public debt to the penny that the Secretary of Treasury puts out. That will go up, up, and away. We will get a kicker here in 14 days with the April 15 tax returns, but then just as we had in 2001, we were in the black on June 1, we passed a tax cut on June 8, and on June 28 we were $50 billion in the red. And by September 10, 2001, it was $99 billion in the red.

Everyone says: Well, 9/11 caused the deficit. No. It is the fact that we have been having voodoo tax cuts that caused the deficit to balloon. The distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate knows what voodoo is because that is what Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush called President Reagan's tax cuts that were supposed to grow and grow the economy.

You only have to turn to this morning's paper and look at the cartoon to see that with so-called growth, the only thing growing are these deficits. And they are going up, up, and away.

So let's not start getting frugal and careful. Let's do get responsible and vote for the money that gives our ports

a start at security. You have the Coast Guard. You have the Drug Enforcement Administration. You have the Customs. You have the various other entities of the State port administrations. You have the FBI.

We are trying to coordinate them all under the particular plan. It has to be approved by the Transportation Security Administration before any money is disbursed. This is not just sending back grants and that kind of thing--unless and until we can get this money here to help out these local folks.

When I talk about security at the port, let me talk about the actual practice before 9/11. Operators of ports were not concerned with security. It was about No. 10 or 20 on their list of concerns. As a result, the FBI has found that between $12 and $24 billion in theft is going through the ports of America every year. They just added that into the cost of doing business.

The name of the game in port operation is swiftness, speed, expedition; get the cargo in, get it out, don't let it stay on the dock. It costs those ships at the dock $15,000 to $20,000 a day. So they try to compete with each other on speed, and it is a healthy competition.

But now they have to change their attitude--and I don't have any lobbyists looking out for port security. I wish they would hire the airline lobbyists. We gave out $1 billion--just gave the money--$1 billion for airlines. We gave them another $1 billion just for the cost of security. But $1 billion was just because they did not know how to run the airlines.

And now we are going to talk about $1 billion for all the ports of America. I hope I can get the help of the distinguished Senator from Texas. She has a very dangerous situation in Houston. You can come 50 miles up that river, and those gas plants on either side--propane plants and otherwise--you could blow it. And according to these studies by Booz Allen, it blows down the economy for a year. We are playing around with the airlines not having enough business so we give them $1 billion. And we give them another $1 billion for the security.

This particular amendment--which should be bipartisan because this is what we all voted for last year--is just exactly what is needed.

Go to the expenditure of that $1 billion, and it calls for $93 million to remain available until December 31 for the Coast Guard. That is $50 million for port vulnerability. That is the boarding equipment and everything else of that kind with respect to those assessments.

There is $7 million for the purchase of radiation detection equipment. And there is some $36 million for the maritime safety and security teams.

We know every plane that approaches the United States of America. We have alerts, and they respond. But we do not know with respect to the ships themselves.

So we need not only a transponder arrangement, but we have to have at least, at the 12 major ports, the equipment to receive the message. We don't have that. Even if they all had transponders like the aircraft in America, we don't have the equipment within the Coast Guard to identify them.

So this $57 million is for radar coverage of two-thirds of the United States with positioning systems to pick up that broadcast. A third, of course, goes into the internal river system, such as the Mississippi River and everything else for which the Coast Guard is responsible. That is exactly what is needed in the Coast Guard.

I felt bad two days ago when I was watching the President on TV, and the nearest thing we have to port security at the Port of Philadelphia was his Coast Guard jacket. He had all the Coasties standing behind him, but they didn't have any money in their pockets. They were dead broke, I can tell you that right now. If you don't believe it, just read the headline in this morning's Washington Post: ``Traditional Coast Guard Duties Suffer, Study Says.''

[Admiral] Collins said President Bush's $6.8 billion budget

request for the Coast Guard represents a $1.6 billion

increase over the agency's initial fiscal 2002 budget. He

said that by fiscal 2004, the Coast Guard will have increased

its workforce by 4,100 people since Sept. 11, 2001. . . .

But he said:

I assure you that nothing is more important to the United

States Coast Guard than to be ready to perform all of these

missions with distinction and with excellence.

I quote from the this particular article:

After questioning from lawmakers, [Admiral] Collins

conceded the 42,000-person Coast Guard has more challenges

than resources to meet them. He said some equipment and

personnel will have to be diverted from more traditional

roles to homeland security efforts, although partnerships

with the Navy and foreign governments could help take up the

slack.

And they are working on those.

We have had hearings with Admiral Loy, and now with Admiral Collins, and with Commissioner Bonner of the Customs Service. We have gone overseas to try to streamline this issue so that we can actually inspect the cargo and facilitate it when it comes to port here in the United States. And he has worked that out with some 17 ports; that is, Commissioner Bonner. You have to give him credit. We have all been working. We have not just sat around pouting and sucking our thumbs waiting for the money. But here it says:

Do we have more business than we have resources?

The answer is:

Yes, Collins said. We are challenged like never before to

do all that America wants us to do.

The GAO cataloged a 60 percent decline in Coast Guard hours

spent on drug interdiction. . . . [They got] a 38 percent

decline in fisheries enforcement. . . .

And I could go on. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the entire article printed in the Record.

So, Madam President, we are not just for ports, and are going to come and get a lot of money, and ride in on an emergency supplemental. We begin with this fact: this is an emergency. We have these folks working around the clock.

And let me continue, before I yield, to make sure that we have outlined exactly what we need the amount for.

Now, there is an additional amount for customs and border protection of $160 million. That is broken down with $110 million for the deployment and installation of port screening equipment. We have $110 million for the radiation detection equipment at U.S. ports. Already, the railroads at the tunnels have that particular radiation equipment. So when it goes into the tunnel, they know, bam, that train has to stop, there is radiation there. We do not have that equipment at ports.

And we get the poor Coast Guard captains at the port, or these young lieutenants in their twenties, with all of this responsibility. If something went awry in one of the ports of America this afternoon, the captain of the port, some 20-year-old lieutenant, would be in charge and be the responsible one. And he has not been given the resources.

Congress has outlined his responsibility in law, but by way of appropriation, they have not given him the help. And he is trying to get the Customs and the DEA, the Ports Authority, the Immigration Service, the sheriff's department, the FBI--he is trying to get them all together.

We have done that, for example. I can show where it has been done in our own backyard. I won't include the entire report in the Record, but you can see the particular work involved and the deliberateness now. It is not just to put money in. It is detailed. That is $50 million of the $160 million for the evaluation, implementation, and coordination by the Transportation Security Administration to secure the systems of transportation such as the container security initiative. That container security initiative is exactly what I was talking about. The Commissioner of Customs is already overseas and making arrangements with 17 different ports so far. But then you have for the cargo and employees, the standards, the good conduct, the inspection equipment, the computers and everything else. That fleshes out that particular $160 million. What I just referred to was under the Customs and border protection.

Now to the Transportation Security Administration. For an additional amount of salaries and expenses, it is $680 million, but that is one half of what we authorized. The $600 million will be available for port security grants. It is just like during the Walter Mondale campaign, when he asked, Where is the beef? Well, where is the beef in your port security measure, Senator? I say this is the beef. This is the one thing the ports are really interested in so they can finance the different endeavors going on.

The weekend before last we raised the alert to orange. At that particular time, we had everybody fighting over the same personnel. Secretary Rumsfeld wanted them in Iraq, and my National Guard and my Reserves are gone. My Reserves are in the C-17 field in my own backyard. They have been going since September 12, 2001, around the clock, 8-hour shifts. There are three teams. I have been there to the hangar and visited with them. They have been doing a magnificent job. But they are concerned because some of them are mechanics, security officers, that kind of thing. So the Governor of South Carolina, on this orange alert the week before last, had to get patrol officers to place around the port of Charleston. I saw it myself. That is the kind of strain and stress from the emergency we are in.

But $30 million is for the worker identification card. That was a tough one for us. We worked with the unions on the background checks, and they are ready to move quickly. Now the unions said, you put that in law. You know how it is when they recommend somebody for a judge, then sit another 3 months before the FBI gets around to them. That is the situation here with all of these security personnel. Anybody who enters that secure area has to have a criminal background check. That is the money that is needed there. It is not in the emergency bill.

Otherwise, there is $50 million for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to flesh out their Operation Safe Commerce which is the Coast Guard assessment in the Register. The Coast Guard submitted into the Federal Register exactly what it would cost to get these assessments and things going. I ask unanimous consent to print that in the Record.

You can see this is not going to solve the problem, but it shows an awareness of the Congress of what they have mandated in law. We have required these local communities to do lots of things, and they haven't done anything about it. And we need this money. It is an emergency.

The Senate and the House last year said it would cost $2.8 billion. The Senate just the week before last in the budget resolution said $1 billion at least for this year. And we are trying our best to do that with this particular amendment, just put the money to where the mouth is.

I yield to our distinguished chairman.

I thought the amendment was called up by Senator Reid.

I want to respond.

Right to the point, the distinguished chairman says that, yes, he generally agrees, and he talks knowingly of the importance of the ports and the need for security. He knows because Alaska has coastlines. We have ANWR that we have all been debating. I wish they would read the book on John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller made his money not on oil, but on the delivery of oil. This is the delivery of ANWR and oil out of Alaska at the Port of Valdez, which has no security whatever. It is a typical port, just like in my hometown, that wasn't interested in port security. But after 9/11 things changed, and we are just bringing them in now and getting those plans promulgated.

Let me emphasize that this was done totally in conjunction with Secretary Mineta and the Transportation Security Administration. Specifically, Admiral Loy was then head of the Coast Guard when he found those needs out. He reaffirms those needs as the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration.

Now, my distinguished friend talks about things ``wartime related.'' Oh, yes, Iraq is a war, Afghanistan is a war, but here at home is terrorism not a war? What is he talking about? We are responsible for the security and we ran around and did just that--we passed the port security measure 100 to 0 through here, but we didn't put the money behind it. So they haven't had but $93 million distributed out of $29.8 billion that we authorized.

I have served on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for over 30 years. I know about wartime-related expenses. We would not deny in a second the troops in uniform, but the troops out on the line at the ports, at the airports, and different other places in America, we say, well, that is pork, or there just wasn't money back home.

I told you about our Governor. He had to put parole officers around the Port of Charleston last week. That is the way it continues with all these particular ports over America.

This is not a measure to be tabled and say we have other amendments coming. I cannot defend or talk for or against the other amendments coming. I know this particular need. I can tell you here and now, it has been justified by the administration and by Senators, both Republican and Democrat.

We did not say we have all these amendments for the airlines. We just gave them a billion dollars because they did not know how to run an airline. Their troubles were long before 9/11. Many have gone into bankruptcy.

Then we gave them another billion dollars for security, and then we gave them $1.5 billion more to make sure they had $3.5 billion all together, but we will not give money for port security.

Yes, this is going to be spent not in 8 weeks, but in 5\1/2\ months. We have the rest of April, May, June, July, August, and September--5\1/ 2\ months. It is not just that the money is not going to be spent. The ports have been waiting for the money. They have been holding on endeavors. This is not just the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, this is the amendment that should be supported by all for ports in America, but the ports have not learned what the airlines have learned. I am going to try to get them on the line and see if they can't hire the airline lobbyists where they get $3.5 billion for not knowing how to run an airline, and yet when I come forward with this amendment, the Senator says: We have some other amendments coming and, therefore, I do not want to approve this amendment. He says he is going to have to table this one. In other words, we are on a course to table all amendments.

The Senator says this bill is for wartime-related items. The war started on 9/11, the terrorism war, and that is just as serious a war as anything going on in Afghanistan or in Iraq. We just do not have uniforms, and we have taken those frontline troops and have sent them to Iraq. The policemen, the firemen, the Reserve officers, the National Guard--we have drained them all for Iraq, and then all of a sudden act like there is not a terrorism war.

The Senator says this is a wartime-related Defense supplemental. That is what I am talking about: Money to be expended on defense, on home security defense, that we are all worried about, and we act like it is not important at all; that it is just some domestic program we can get to later on. I wish I had a ship. I would run it up some river and blow it up and wake this crowd up, and then the money would come. But right now we have a system where the chairman--I can't even get anybody on the floor, the chairman has told them to stay off the floor--but this chairman is going to table all these amendments.

Since I have the floor, let me talk about paying for these expenses. In January, I offered an amendment to pay for the war. I did not think back in April we were going to be debating and appropriating some $75 billion for the war. We are not paying for the war. We are going to borrow for the war. The distinguished chairman is saying, I am just not going to borrow anymore, like there is some restriction against borrowing in America.

What we have is not a stimulus, and I am going to bring it in to focus. Everybody runs around here cutting taxes. Why? To get reelected. That is Carl Rove's tax cut. That is all it is. It is a Carl Rove tax cut to get reelected. He told the President: To get reelected next year, you have to have a tax cut.

That is outrageous nonsense. We do not have any taxes to cut. We ran a $428 billion last year. We have under the President's budget a $554 billion deficit this year. I say to the distinguished Presiding Officer that does not include the cost of Iraq, which the President says is $75 billion, just for 6 months. God knows what it is for a year. Next year, the deficit will be $569 billion without the cost of the war and the occupation, by that time, I take it, of Baghdad.

What we will have is a $600 billion to $700 billion deficit in the election next year. Tell Carl Rove that. The interest cost, instead of $350 billion, is going to be $400 billion to $500 billion. We are in a meltdown because there is no responsibility.

I resent the idea of my distinguished friend from Alaska acting like ``I am not going to spend the money; I am just trying to get money that could not be spent in the next few months and is not needed'' when we vetted this issue, Republicans and Democrats. We need this money. We need this kind of security, but, oh, no, they will pass $3.5 billion for the airlines, and they will pass nothing for port security. They will pass a tax cut to get reelected next year.

We have a country that will be worse than we inherited. This will be the first time in history that one generation is going to leave the country worse off for the next generation. We always received a better country.

We have to go through these gymnastics up here of playing games for

tax cuts, playing games for the lobbyists and the airlines, and then when they do not have the lobbyists, they act as if this is a casual one and I will just move to table the amendment.

We aren't going to table right now because I have the floor. We are going to talk some more about paying for the war.

I think it is a disgrace that we would send our GIs to Iraq and say: We hope you don't get killed, and the reason we hope you don't get killed is because we want you to hurry back so we can give you the bill. We aren't going to pay for it. We have to have a tax cut so we can get reelected.

We look out for No. 1, not for the fellow on the battlefield. Oh, yes, we have the Flag in the lapel. We recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. We have a moment of silence before we meet in subcommittee and other hearings. We stand up. We are very reverent. There are millions and millions for tribute, but not one red cent for defense. This is homeland defense. That is what it is.

I am sure the distinguished chairman of the party of Lincoln remembers well that Lincoln, to pay for the Civil War, put a tax on dividends; to pay for the Civil War, he put a tax on estates.

Now this party of Lincoln wants to take the tax off dividends and off estates and lecture about the port security that somehow the money is not needed; that we could not spend it; that we have other measures coming along the line and we are going to move to table all the amendments; we have already met in caucus, so we are going to table all the amendments and say: We got this money for the war effort; we did not get it for the terrorism war. That is what the Senator from South Carolina is talking about. We do not have any idea what is happening on the floor of the Senate. It is all politics. It is all applesauce, as Will Rogers said, and we are not paying attention to the real needs.

Here we have a real need, and we have to get the security around the ports of America.

As I said, there are some 55 important ports that terrorists could blow up and close down the economy for 1 year to 2 years. We all know that, but we pass it over because we have a system: We are going to leave this weekend, and we want to make sure we get rid of this bill before the weekend; what he wants to do is move to table these kinds of amendments.

Let me speak about this port security. I ask unanimous consent to print the details of my port security amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print on page 20 and 21 of the supplemental appropriations report, under chapter 5, Department of Homeland Security, the itemizations for the sections listed.

That is a total sum of $1.135 billion, not a thing of what the Senator's amendment encompasses. We have $12 billion to $20 billion that is stolen from the ports, and we are trying our best to change the culture there. We have had good success with respect to the background checks. That was a big holdup on the Senate side.

We worked with the unions and they agreed that we should have background security checks for the workers. So in checking that out, they now are anxious because they said now you have it in law that we have to have the cards, but they are not coming through with the cards in the system. So how can we comply? That is in this Senator's provision for port security. The distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Olympia Snowe, was asking questions at the hearings and Admiral Collins said he was hopeful by the end of fiscal year 2003 we will have 17 of the 55 port plans done.

Here is Admiral Collins's answer:

We have an $11 million recurring base to do port-security

assessments. Part of the feature of the 2004 budget was that

$11 million was moved to the Department, Under Secretary for

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. The same

approach taken with TSA, Transportation Security

Administration also has money to do assessments in other

modes of transportation. They have been centralized. The

funds--as part of the President's budget, those funds have

been centralized in the Under Secretary for Information

Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Although we remain

the executive agent, if you will, of that Under Secretary to

perform in the maritime.

So we have not gotten the money.

It is an $11 million issue. As that new Under Secretary,

who is still filling empty chairs as we speak matures, we

will develop the working relationship, a very collaborative,

congenial relation to date on the issue, no contention. And

we will continue to pursue our assessments.

But then we are only going to have by the end of the year some 17 of the 55 done.

This is an emergency. I implore my colleague from Alaska, the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, get some money into this endeavor. I do not know about these other amendments that are coming along. He knows this better than any Senator in the Senate because I know Alaska, and I know the Senator's record. We do not have that money. That is why I went down and itemized. I knew that I was not going to ask for money that the Senator knew more about than I did, so I had to rehearse myself and break down every particular item in the supplemental appropriation. I did not have the money, so that is why I pointed out where in the billion it comes from.