Floor Statements

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, for anyone to believe repealing a tax cut already signed into law is not a tax increase is a serious mistake.

Second, this is a provision that would cut payroll taxes. To suggest that will not undermine the strength of the Social Security trust fund is also a mistake. We cannot pretend that payroll taxes do not go into the Social Security trust fund.

And third, if my colleagues are really concerned about deficits, then we need to do two things: We need to encourage economic growth, and this amendment will not do that; second, we need to control spending.

As my colleague from New Hampshire has made clear, we are in a theater of spending right now: increasing spending, increasing debts, and deficits. This isn't the approach we should be taking.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

I had not calculated it. Twenty minutes.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. As a new Member of the Senate, I bring to this body, as do many of my colleagues, experience having served in what we like to refer to as the ``other body,'' the House of Representatives. Prior to that service, I worked in what we sometimes refer to as the ``real world'' in manufacturing, having been trained as a mechanical engineer.

Engineers often try to develop solutions to problems by arguing from first principles, and that means simply that you work from the most basic understanding of a problem you wish to address. Once you come to terms with the central element of that problem, you are far better able to craft a meaningful and effective solution.

What the astute listener might ask is: What does this have to do with the Federal budget? And to that I reply, if you really want to put together an effective budget and a meaningful budget that will serve us well, we need to remind ourselves exactly what this budget resolution is for.

As we listen to much of the budget debate, one might understand or come to assume that the budget resolution establishes funding levels for every conceivable Federal program, every line item in the budget; that it rewrote the Tax Code; that it modernized Medicare, all in and of itself without even having the benefit of the President's signature. Of course, this is not the case, even though the rhetoric we hear might suggest otherwise.

So what is the budget resolution? It is simply a blueprint. It is a vision the Congress puts forward of where we imagine our budget priorities should be this year and in future years. We try to set priorities for taxes and for spending, try to estimate what we are going to collect into the Federal coffers, and try to set priorities for modernizing programs like Medicare or Social Security. Above all, it reflects a set of priorities.

For example, listening to the debate this morning, one might get the impression it actually authorizes oil exploration in northern Alaska. That is simply not the case. What the budget resolution as written would do is allow the Senate Energy Committee to write legislation that would then be debated on the Senate floor. It would still have to pass the Senate to allow exploration or production in northern Alaska to take place. The budget simply provides the mechanism allowing that legislation to be written and then later brought to the floor.

Our goal in this debate should be to reflect the right set of priorities in our country. To be sure, this is a $2 trillion budget we are talking about. If I or any of my colleagues were writing a $2 trillion budget, I am sure someone somewhere would find something in that $2 trillion budget they might disagree with, and I understand that. Any Member of the Senate, any citizen of our country, can find something in our Federal budget they are not comfortable with, that they do not like, that they would disagree with, a program they would change. But if we want to do the work of the American people in the Senate, we need to put together that budget blueprint. We need to set those priorities, and I would hope those priorities would be consistent.

As we listen to the debate over the next few days, unfortunately we will hear a lot that is not consistent. We will hear individuals talk about their concern for the Federal deficit, and then they will step forward and vote for an amendment that raises domestic spending and increases the deficit. We will hear individuals raise concerns about the cost of military action at this historic time. But after raising concerns about those costs, those individuals will then step forward and vote for amendments that raise domestic spending.

We will hear Members raise concerns about economic growth, and then instead of stepping forward to propose or support a package that lays the foundation for future economic growth, what will they do? They will step forward and they will vote to raise domestic spending. There is a pattern, to be sure.

We are in challenging and difficult times, and we have work in front of us that will require us to make difficult choices and to set the right priorities for our country.

Why do we need this budget in the first place? We need this budget, as I suggested before, to enable us to get our work done. I talked about the budget allowing the Energy Committee to come forward with legislation crafting a comprehensive energy policy that might include exploration in northern Alaska. The budget will also set an overall limit on discretionary spending. This year, I think the goal put forward in the budget resolution is approximately $784 billion. But we need to set that goal, that cap, that target, so the other spending committees, the

Appropriations Committee in particular, can then move the spending bills forward.

This is not insignificant. Last year, we failed to pass a budget in the Senate and we paid for it. We paid for it because as a result we could not get the work of the country done. We ended up completing that work, not in September, October, November, or December of last year, but in January of this year. That is simply wrong. That is why we need a budget. The budget lays the foundation for critical legislation, and not just a comprehensive energy bill. If we want to modernize Medicare, pass a prescription drug benefit for retirees in this country, we are going to need a budget resolution. If we want to pass an economic growth package that helps lay the foundation for job creation in America, we are going to need a budget resolution.

The Senate may well appear chaotic under any circumstances, but without a budget we are even more so. I do think it is important to note the minority in this case has not offered any comprehensive alternative to the budget. We will hear debate and criticism of the pending resolution that is before this body, but no comprehensive alternative. This is similar to last year when the minority, then in the majority, failed to offer and pass a comprehensive budget. As a result, not only were we completing last year's business this past January, but we were unable to pass a prescription drug benefit under Medicare and other work before the Senate was delayed. The budget resolution is critical to being able to get our work done in Congress.

What is in the budget resolution that is before us? What are the priorities we have laid out that have been put together by the hard work of the chairman of the Budget Committee and the members of the Budget Committee? Given the challenge of these times, I think it is a very strong package. The overall spending level, $784 billion, represents a growth in discretionary spending of a little bit less than 4.5 percent.

There is a basic principle at work, and that is we should not be expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. We should not be increasing domestic spending any faster than an average family budget is increasing.

On the defense side, we all know the challenges we face, the priorities we need to set in defense spending. Defense spending has increased approximately 3.8 percent. Homeland security, where we need to make investments in new technology and new ways of identifying threats to this country, has been increased over 25 percent in order to help first responders--police and firefighters--around the country.

As with defense and homeland security, we have to set priorities throughout the budget. If the Federal spending level is increasing by 4 or 4.5 percent, not every program can receive a 10 or 20 percent increase. Priorities need to be set.

On veterans health care, we step forward to provide an increase of $1 billion in this budget; on education, a 4.5 percent increase, including $1 billion for special education, which is an enormous unfunded Federal mandate on cities and towns around the country. In science, space, and technology research, the budget provides for an additional 5.5 percent over last year. Setting priorities in important areas; that is what putting together a good budget is all about.

This budget will allow us to modernize Medicare, to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, something that is essential if we are going to deliver on our commitment to a modernized health care system for our retirees.

As we have heard and will continue to hear over the next couple of days, this budget allows for an economic growth package to help get our economy moving, to help create incentives to entrepreneurs and risk takers across the country to create new economic opportunity and to create new jobs.

I think it is the right set of priorities. I think it makes sense to put together a package that focuses on economic growth. I think it is the right thing to do to make sure we are not expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government any faster than the average family might be expanding its budget.

To be sure, we will hear people argue about the level of spending and we will have amendments to increase Federal spending in a number of areas. The fact of the matter is, we would hear those arguments and have that debate no matter what the spending level in this budget resolution was. If it was at $794 billion, we would have similar amendments to increase Federal spending. If it was at $800 billion, $810 billion, or $820 billion, we would have the same amendments to expand the size and scope of the Federal Government, because some legislators find it more difficult than others to set priorities and to control the size and scope of that spending. Now more than ever we need to set priorities.

We have heard and will continue to hear a lot of discussion in this budget debate about the deficit. It needs to be addressed. We cannot ignore it. In order to do the right thing regarding the deficit, we have to understand why it is there. Why do we have a deficit?

I just talked about spending growth. Growth in spending, expansion of the size and scope of the Federal Government, that alone is responsible for 25 percent of the deficit we have projected for the coming fiscal year and over the coming 10 years.

We had surpluses after a long period of expansion that began in the early 1980s, with a sharp brief interruption in 1991. Revenues increased year after year. We had record revenue growth because we had strong economic growth. That enabled us to balance the budget. Coupled with control of growth in spending, we were able to balance the budget. Some say the surpluses then just provided incentives to ramp up the spending level again. As we have seen over the last 5 or 6 years, the growth in discretionary spending has been at near historic levels.

At the same time, we had unprecedented defense and homeland security needs that had to be dealt with in the wake of September 11. With the recent economic downturn, we have seen unemployment costs increase once again. So new spending has been responsible for about 25 percent of the deficit. An even larger portion, almost half of the deficit, has been caused by the slowdown in the economy and the drop in revenues. This is unfortunate, but we all understand we are in slow economic times.

The result has not been created by tax cuts. Despite the rhetoric, the Tax Relief Act signed into law in 2001 was responsible for less than 25 percent of the deficit we will see in the coming year. It was the slowdown in the economy, cutting Federal revenues by over $150 billion over the last year, that resulted in 50 percent of the deficit we see today. That is why it is important we include in this resolution an allowance for an economic growth package. The economy has slowed down.

We need to understand why it slowed down. It is not because of inflation. It has not been because of a slowdown in consumer spending. American consumer spending has been surprisingly robust over the last 18 months. It has not been a credit squeeze like we had in 1991. This economic slowdown has been driven by and led by a slowdown in business investment. Businesses are reluctant to go out and spend additional capital on improvements to plants and equipment, on improvements of productivity and expansion of their facilities. We know of the slowdown in technology investment. That has led this slowdown in the economy.

If we want to do something about it--and I think we all care about the economic growth in this country--if we want to do something, we have to address the reason for the slowdown, to address the sharp downturn in business investment. That is what the economic package of the President has put forward and what this budget resolution attempts to do.

We have other options. We could do nothing. At the end of the day, if you watch the votes carefully, you will see that there are a number of Members of this body who would just as soon do nothing. They do not support an economic growth package. They will argue they do not want to increase the deficit. That means do nothing, do not spend any additional money, do not put together an economic growth package. I do not think with the economy as slow as it is, the American people want us to say we are going to do nothing to try to get job creation back on track.

We could spend more money and there will be a series of amendments to

this budget resolution to do just that. Some will be offered by those who decry the short-term deficit, or the deficit that we have had over the last year. But they will offer amendments to spend more money and ultimately increase the deficit. The idea that we could spend ourselves out of a recession is ridiculous. It is absurd on its face.

We have extended unemployment insurance. That was the right thing to do and it is an important thing to do. But in and of itself, spending more on unemployment insurance will not rekindle economic growth. We need to recognize that in order to create incentives for entrepreneurs and risk takers to spur job creation, we need to look at the Tax Code. That is where the growth package comes forward.

Is it a big package? Relatively speaking, not at all. It represents less than 2.5 percent of our Nation's revenue collections over the next 10 years. But it is focused on making the Tax Code more fair: by getting rid of the double taxation on dividends; by giving small businesses incentives to invest in plants, equipment and the modest increases I spoke of; and by tripling the amount small businesses could expense over time. It tries to deal with the economic slowdown by recognizing the first principles of why the economy has slowed down in the first place.

This budget sets forward a realistic, reasonable and common-sense limit on Federal spending. It sets priorities even within those areas for veterans health care, special education, science and technology, homeland security, and our national defense. It allows us to modernize Medicare and add an important prescription drug benefit. It also sets forward principles for an economic growth package we all know is needed in America.

It is a strong resolution. With all due respect to the chairman of the Budget Committee, it is probably not a perfect resolution. I served for 6 years on the Budget Committee in the House, and I am the first to admit there is no such thing. But it is a strong set of priorities for America. It reflects common sense when you look at the economic realities, the budget realities and the national security realities we have.

America was built on a foundation that rests on individual liberty. From that very first principle comes our country's commitment to property rights, to free markets, and to open trade. As we conclude this debate on the budget in the coming days, I hope our budget resolution will reflect the importance of these ideas; that it will include provisions necessary to strengthen our economy, but that it will balance the needs of our Government with the rights of individuals. These are not just fanciful ideas, but are bedrock principles that enabled America to build the strongest economy the world has ever known. They make us strong today and will keep us strong tomorrow.

Although I am just beginning my service in the Senate, I hope it will be marked by a consistent and enduring commitment to these ideas. I can think of no better way to serve my State and my country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, contrary to popular belief, this motto, which appears on a number of postal buildings, is not the official motto of the United States Postal Service. But it certainly could have been this past winter in the Granite State, where we suffered through some of the coldest temperatures and heaviest snowfalls in recent memory.

In spite of these challenges, Postal Services employees in New Hampshire have achieved record performance. On-time First-Class overnight mail service is at all-time record levels, and customer satisfaction is at 98 percent. In addition, New Hampshire's Postal employees re the safest in the Northeast and among the safest in the nation. Under ordinary working conditions, these achievements would be impressive. When you consider the bone chilling cold and seemingly relentless snows of these past few months, these achievements are even more remarkable and indicative of the dedication and commitment of New Hampshire's Postal employees.

While the New Hampshire District of the United States Postal Service has always been among the national leaders in serving and satisfying their customers, I want to publicly thank each of New Hampshire's 4,000 Postal employees for their tireless efforts, especially over these past few months: the employees are the processing and distribution plants who made sure that the mail was ready for timely dispatch despite the concelled flights and closed roads caused by the inclement weather, the maintenance people who kept the sorting machines running efficiently as well as the employees who maintained the vehicles so that mail could be transported safely and on time; letter carriers that withstood the cold, brutal weather and traversed through mountains of snow to provide delivery to their customers; and the clerks in the post offices who cheerfully greeted customers and gladly handed over mail rendered undeliverable in areas with impassible roads.

I also would like to give a well-deserved thank you to the postal customers in our great state who worked so hard to maintain safe access to their mail receptacles. Clearly, mail service this past winter was a team effort requiring patience and cooperation among and between Postal employees and New Hampshire's Postal customers. Once again, New Hampshire's hardy residents and Postal employees delivered.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, to extend our congratulations to Mr. David B. Harrity on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Dave has had an exemplary career in Federal service, devoting more than 34 years to our Nation. Because of his dedication to duty, Dave rose through the ranks at HUD and retires today as director of the New Hampshire field office. Dave's accomplishments are not limited to his decades of Federal service, but extend to the difference he has made in the lives of countless citizens. His years of leadership and generosity have helped make Manchester, NH, the strong and vibrant community it is today.

Dave began his service with HUD at its inception in 1965, starting in the Philadelphia field office where he provided assistance to the people of Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey. From there, Dave moved to HUD's Boston regional office where, in 1971, he became the first low-rent housing specialist in New England and worked in close concert with all of the local housing authorities in each of the six New England States.

When HUD created the Executive Identification and Development Program in 1974, Dave was one of only 21 individuals selected from a national competition of more than 700 to participate in the leadership training. After completing and receiving a certificate from the Urban Executive Program of the Sloan Management School at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dave was appointed special assistant to the Regional Administrator in 1975.

In 1978, Dave was tapped to serve as the director of the Housing Development and Management Divisions of the Hartford, CT, HUD Field Office. Dave's team of staff professionals worked closely with HUD customers, providing mortgage insurance, housing subsidies, and management oversight of federally assisted housing. In 1988, Dave moved on to an opportunity with the State of Connecticut's Department of Housing. In this position, he administered HUD's Section 8 Existing Certificate and the Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Programs.

In October of 1992, Dave was appointed Manager of HUD's Manchester office by then-Secretary Jack Kemp. Dave's managerial style has been and continues to be, one of working with, and in support of, local officials to ensure that each city and town in New Hampshire receives the maximum benefit from HUD's programs. While protecting the Federal Government's interests, Dave has instilled in his staff a willingness to find ways to allow local officials to administer HUD's programs in a manner which best meets the specific needs of New Hampshire's residents. Because of Dave's leadership skills, a recent Quality Management Review of the Manchester office resulted in one of the highest overall ratings of any HUD office in the Nation.

Besides the help he provides the men and women of New Hampshire through his service at HUD, Dave's philosophy of giving is reflected in a number of other community activities. He is president of the board of directors of ``The CareGivers, Inc.'' a nonprofit organization serving the Manchester and Nashua areas of the Granite State and whose mission is ``helping the frail, elderly and disabled to maintain their independence and dignity.'' He is also the past president of the New Hampshire Federal Executive Association and is a leader within the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce. As another part of his community participation, Dave serves as a ``Granite State Ambassador,'' greeting visitors to New Hampshire at information kiosks in both the airport and downtown Manchester. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Manchester Rotary Club.

Dave's career has truly been an inspiration to those who look to form a better future through active participation in the community. While Senator Gregg and I trust Dave will enjoy his retirement with his wife Patricia, and being able to spend more time with his daughters Suzanne and Tracey and his grandsons Ryan and Thomas, we also know he will not cease giving of himself in service to his fellow man.

On behalf of the citizens of Manchester and of the Granite State, Senator Gregg and I congratulate David Harrity and thank him for all he has done for his community, the State of New Hampshire, and the Nation.

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

Mr. President, today I join my colleagues and millions around the world to express our enormous sorrow at the loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia and to extend sympathy to the crews' families and friends.

This tragedy, like the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger 17 years ago, has left an empty space in our hearts. We struggle for the words that might help to make sense of the events we witnessed last Saturday.

A return to Earth that we have come to view as ``routine,'' instead has reminded us of the fragility of life. We are all subject to the flaws of man and the vagaries of nature. Yet these seven brave men and women accepted great risk as they strove to expand the intellectual capital of all mankind.

For thousands of years, the heavens have inspired, intrigued, and called us to explore their boundaries. This unending quest for knowledge is the very essence of what makes us human. It is a flame that burns so bright. It burns so bright that not even the depth of this tragedy or the shock of our loss can quench the desire to learn, to seek and to explore.

There is no doubt in my mind that we will move forward to expand and strengthen America's space program. And through the investigation that has just begun, we will find out what caused this accident and then we will fix it. But today, we mourn for those whom we have lost and offer comfort to those who have been left behind.

The astronauts who fly the space shuttle are a unique and unparalleled breed of men and women. They inspire us with courage and intellect, and they sacrifice in service to their country and profession. But perhaps their greatest service of all is rendered when they reach out to future generations and plant the seeds of curiosity in a young student's mind.

I have visited classrooms in the company of astronauts to see faces of children alive with wonder and awe. Like any one of us, our children want to know what it is like in space, what it is like to be a scientist, what it is like to be an explorer.

Seventeen years ago when the Challenger was lost, among the seven astronauts was a teacher from New Hampshire, Christa McAuliffe, who was dedicated to nurturing and inspiring students not just in New Hampshire but all across the country. Her spirit and enthusiasm has been captured for future generations in the Christa McAuliffe Planetarium in Concord,

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during the allotted morning business period, the time used in quorum calls be charged evenly against each side.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 today, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the England nomination, as under the previous order; provided further that the vote occur on the confirmation of the nomination at 2:50 today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 2:30 p.m., with the time equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees, with Members permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.