Floor Statements

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, one thing I have learned in the last couple of years is that everywhere I go the manufacturing community at home keeps bringing up on topic, Chinese competition. Due in large part to China's unfair trade practices; South Carolina alone lost 41,000 jobs in 2003. Most of these jobs were textile and related industries. In the last five and a half years, three million American manufacturing jobs have been lost. Since 1997, the U.S. textile industry has closed more than 250 textile plants in the country and more than 200,000 U.S. textile workers have lost their jobs.

Why is this happening? Why are American manufacturers not able to keep up with the Chinese? It is not because our workforce is intellectually inferior, and I don't believe our workforce is lazy. And it certainly isn't because we haven't invested in the most modern equipment.

It is because China cheats. China's accession agreement to enter the WTO consisted of numerous commitments by China to transition to a market and rules based economy. China has yet to live up to their commitments. The theory of free trade is a great theory, but it only works if other people buy into that theory. It is hard to have free trade if you do not even believe in free speech. Through its unfair trade practices, China continues to steal market share, and the U.S. manufacturing industry is at serious disadvantage.

China's currency, the yuan or renminbi, has been tightly pegged at 8.28 yuan to the U.S. dollar since 1994, which most economists believe to be a severe undervaluation of their currency. Most economists estimate China's currency to be undervalued by as much as 15 to 40 percent. This undervaluation makes China's exports less expensive for foreigners, while making foreign products more expensive for Chinese consumers, resulting in an effective subsidization of Chinese exports and poses a virtual tariff on Chinese imports.

Consequently, since 1994, China's economy has grown dramatically, averaging over 8 percent per year. The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2003 reached a record $125 billion. In 1994, when China first began to peg its currency to the dollar, the United States trade deficit with China was $29.4 billion.

China has been in clear violation of International Monetary Fund, IMF, and world Trade Organization, WTO, commitments by maintaining an unfairly low exchange rate to gain a competitive advantage. IMF Article IV states that members should ``avoid manipulating exchange rates . . . in order . . . to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members.'' The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan commission created by Congress, found in its September 25, 2003 hearing, that: ``China, in violation of both its IMF and WTO obligations, is in fact manipulating its currency for trade advantage'' and recommends that the Treasury Department ``immediately enter into formal negotiations with the Chinese government'' over its undervalued currency. The Commission further ``urges the Congressional leadership to use its legislative powers to force action by the U.S. and Chinese Governments to address this unfair and mercantilist trade practice.''

At this hearing, Fred Bergsten, Ph.D., Director of International Institute of Economics, testified that a revaluation of 20 to 25 percent of the yuan should permit other Asian currencies, including Japan, Taiwan, North Korea, to go up at least partway, maybe 10 percent or so, because with the yuan appreciating, they would be willing to appreciate against the dollar since it would actually create a depreciation of their own currencies against the Chinese currency, their main competitor. If you put all those currency

changes together the result would be a $50 billion reduction in the U.S. current account deficit, which in turn translates to about 500,000 high-paying jobs, mainly in manufacturing in this country.

Senator Charles Schumer and I have introduced legislation that would require China to abide by its international trade agreements and stop manipulating their currency. The goal of this legislation is to remove China's unfair currency advantage and the detrimental impact that it is having in the U.S. and abroad.

Our legislation would require the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately enter into formal negotiations with China to ensure that China initiates a process to adopt a market-based system of currency within 180 days of enactment of this Act. If China refuses to do so, a 27.5 percent tariff will be imposed on all China's exports to the United States in order to reduce the export advantage provided by China's unfairly and illegally valued currency. The President of the United States has the authority to remove the tariff once he certifies to Congress that China has moved to a market-based system of currency valuation.

This legislation works within the framework of international trade laws. Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade allows a member of the World Trade Organization to take ``any action which is considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests,'' particularly ``in a time of war or other emergency in international relations.'' The President has stated a view that many of us hold, that our nation's manufacturing capability is a vital national interest. I know I am not alone when I say that this national interest is threatened by China's unfair currency practices.

Something must be done to alleviate the detrimental economic impact China is having on our manufacturing industry or at the very least, to level the playing field for future generations. I urge the Leadership to allow a vote on this important legislation. I believe it will receive overwhelming bipartisan support and give the Administration one more tool to get the Chinese to uphold their WTO obligations.

As long as we sit by and allow China to maintain its unfair trade advantage, the United States will continue to hemorrhage jobs. Passing this legislation is one step further to ensuring that China abides by the rules.

Madam President, on rollcall vote 67 I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I may take a few minutes, I say to the Senator from Kansas, to explain my relationship to this bill and why I am here today.

No. 1, I want to thank the leadership for allowing the bill to come to the floor. Senator Frist and Senator McConnell and our leadership team has worked hard with Senator Daschle to get an agreement so we could come to the floor and debate what I think is an important issue, and to allow Senator Feinstein to have her say about how we should craft this bill.

In July 1999, this bill was first introduced in the House. I was the author of the bill. Before I came to Congress, I spent some time in the Air Force. Senator DeWine has taken the cause up in the Senate since it was first introduced. I really appreciate all that Mike has done. He has been very sympathetic to what we are trying to do. He was leading the charge in the Senate as this bill was being debated and voted on in the House.

But prior to getting into politics, from 1982 to 1988, I served as a prosecutor and a defense attorney in the U.S. Air Force domestically and overseas. During that experience, I realized at the Federal level there was a gap in law.

We had a case involving a pregnant woman who was beaten up, and her child was lost, and she was almost killed. I looked into the idea of charging the offender with the damage done to the unborn child, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice there was no way to do that. So I was sensitive to it from a prosecutor's point of view early on in my legal career.

When I got to Congress, there was an effort in some States to create unborn victims statutes, and I associated myself with that effort federally. A lot of pro-life people came over and were very supportive of what we are doing. That is true. Pro-life people generally like the idea of protecting unborn children whenever they can.

Pro-choice people are very sensitive to the fact that a woman should decide what to do with her body in an intimate situation like a pregnancy. I understand that debate clearly.

I am a pro-life person, so I have biased there. But having said that, there are pro-life people who hate this bill. It surprised me, but it is true, because in the bill, we wrote it in a way that abortion is not covered at all. As a matter of fact, we preserve, under the current law--under this bill--the right to have a legal abortion, and you cannot prosecute the mother under any circumstances.

There are cases out there where mothers are being prosecuted who abuse drugs and alcohol and do damage to their children. What I wanted to do was to focus on what I thought we all could agree on, to a large extent. The law in abortion and the politics of abortion really do not play well here because we are talking about criminal activity of a third party. I do not know why you would want to give a criminal any more breaks than you had to if they go around beating on pregnant women.

And people say: Well, don't they have to know if the woman is pregnant? No. Why? The law is really common sense. If you attack a woman of childbearing years, you do so at your own peril. If you push somebody, you do not know if they have a severe medical condition. You are liable for the consequences of your actions.

There are plenty of cases that say, if you attack a woman of childbearing years, you do not have to have actual knowledge. You are responsible for the consequences of your illegal act.

In a poll, when people were asked, if a violent, physical attack on a pregnant woman leads to the death of her unborn child, do you think prosecutors should be able to charge the attacker with murder for killing the fetus, 79 percent said yes; 69 percent of pro-choice people, in that poll, said yes.

Why would a pro-choice person support this legislation? It passed three times in the House. The first time we had it up for a vote was September 30, 1999, I believe. Madam President, 254 folks voted for the bill in the House, as I recall. I assure everyone listening to my voice today, there are not 254 pro-life people in the House. Madam President, 52 Democrats have voted for this bill.

The parties tend to split on the issue of abortion, with the Democratic Party being more pro-choice and the Republican Party being more pro-life. But we had Democratic support, and we had pro-choice people supporting this idea that when it comes to criminal activity, we are going to define the unborn in terms that make it hard on the criminal--not hard on the mother.

You can never prosecute a woman for anything she does to her child, no matter how much you would like to, under this bill. I did not want to get into that debate. You can never ever prosecute anybody for receiving medical treatment related to their pregnancy or lawful abortion.

For over 30 years, in the State of California, two things have coexisted: the Roe v. Wade rights of a woman and a statute that will allow you to do what is happening in California today--prosecute a person for doing damage to the mother and the unborn child, such as the Laci Peterson case.

This has been a long journey. This July will be the fifth anniversary of the time that I introduced this bill. Back in 1999, I remember saying on the floor of the House there will be a case where a pregnant woman is brutalized and she loses her child and it will be front-page news.

The reason I said that then is, having been a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I understand the following: There are a lot of good people in this world, but there are some mean people, too. This happens more than you would ever want to believe. The No. 1 cause of death among pregnant women in the District of Columbia is murder. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, pregnant women have things come their way because of their pregnancy that shocks the conscience.

In Arkansas, there are three people sitting on death row today because they were hired by the boyfriend, who didn't want to pay child support, to kidnap his girlfriend, who wanted to

have the child, took her off to a remote area and beat her within an inch of her life with the express purpose of killing the child. And when she was on the floor, she begged for two things: Her own life and her baby's life. Those people under Arkansas law were charged with two crimes, making them eligible for the death penalty. They deserve to be.

Under this bill, you cannot get the death penalty. The reason I chose not to include the death penalty is, I did not want to get into the death penalty debate because people of goodwill and good reasoning may disagree with the State imposing that punishment. The Senator from California cares as much about pregnant women as anybody here. This is not about who cares about women and who is trying to do this or that. Her amendment may not be written the way she would like. I would oppose it, if it was changed.

It happens in America more times than you would ever believe that pregnant women are the victim of violent assault and their children get killed or severely injured.

That concept can and does exist with the idea that a woman, early on in the pregnancy, can choose whether to carry that child. These are two concepts the law recognizes that exist side by side.

Why do 84 percent of the people believe a criminal should be prosecuted twice, not once? Because it really does violate common decency. If a woman chooses to have a baby and she loses her baby because of a violent act, most of us, a large percentage of us, want to whack the person who did it as hard as we can. And we don't want to get into the debate about abortion. We want to make sure the prosecutor has the tools to bring about the most severe and just verdict possible.

This bill excludes abortion. It excludes the death penalty for political reasons and legal reasons. Pro-life people have criticized me because in this bill, in their opinion, I am legalizing abortion. This bill doesn't legalize abortion. This bill doesn't ban abortion. This bill says: If you are a criminal and you attack a pregnant woman and you hurt her kid, you will get the full force of the law.

What is going on in California? In 1999, when I said there will be a woman out there who suffers brutally and loses her child and we will all know about it because it will be front page news, I never dreamed it would happen so quickly. I never dreamed it would be so vicious. The authorities investigating the Laci Peterson crime have two pieces of evidence to offer the jury: The decomposed body of the mother and the decomposed unborn child late in the pregnancy. It is important the jury know about both. It is important the criminal be held accountable for both. We will debate abortion another day.

Sixteen States define life under the same legal terms I chose when we wrote this bill. That is as to the criminal world, if the pregnancy comes to an end and the unborn child's right to develop comes to an end because of third-party criminal activity, we are going to hold you legally responsible at the earliest onset of pregnancy. The Roe v. Wade standard makes no sense. Why give a criminal a benefit of the legitimate debate of abortion?

Thirteen States define it in stages. California, I think by law, defines the unborn victim statute at the sixth week of pregnancy. Some States, one or two, have the term ``viability.'' There is a sliding scale. But the dominant way to define this in State law is the way we have chosen to define it in this bill. This chart illustrates how the States break out.

There is another situation I would ask you to think about. Let's say there is a woman on death row. She is pregnant for whatever reason. How many people would let the execution go forward knowing the woman is pregnant? Think about that. What good would it do to allow the execution to go forward if you knew the woman was pregnant? Would you wait?

Here is what I suggest to you, if any State or the Federal Government decided to impose the death penalty on a woman who was pregnant during any stage of the pregnancy, there would be a riot in the street--among pro-choice people, too, because what good would it do at any stage of the pregnancy to have the State kill the kid? You are not enhancing Roe v. Wade. You are not advancing the abortion debate. You are doing something you don't need to do.

The definition that was used in the Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000, which I was involved in drafting, is the same definition that is in this bill about the unborn child. It passed 417 to nothing. To me, that makes perfect sense. Four hundred seventeen pro-life people do not exist in the House of Representatives. But when faced with the question, should the State wait if a woman is pregnant, even at the earliest stages of pregnancy, 417 people said yes.

The reason I mention this to you is, when it comes time to prosecute people who unlawfully attack a woman at the earliest stage of pregnancy, why should they get a pass? What good have you done? It does not change the abortion debate. Roe v. Wade rights still exist. All you have done is allow someone to interrupt another person's life, take something of value, and they get a pass because you are mixing concepts that don't need to be mixed. That is why over 50 pro-choice people voted for this bill in the House.

That is why if we ever get to final passage, we are going to have a bipartisan coming together of pro-life and pro-choice people to say one thing loud and clear: If you attack a woman of childbearing years where Federal law applies, you do so at your peril, and you are going to suffer the full consequences of your action. And the full consequences of that action could be the loss of the child and the loss of the mother or a combination thereof.

Why not sentence enhancement? I think there is a reason under the law that no State has gone down this road. Sentence enhancement would say the following: You get a stiffer penalty if the woman is pregnant, but you don't talk about the consequences in terms of the victim's life. That is an artificial distinction that I think denies justice.

This was a statement by Kent Willis, executive director of ACLU, and I disagree with this statement:

That baby was not a murder victim.

He was talking about the Laci Peterson case, the son Connor. I think Connor was a murder victim. The point I guess I am trying to make is that when people talk about what happens to them, the law, wherever it can, should address the full range of what really happened to them.

There is another case you don't know about because it didn't get nearly the publicity, but it is just as real. It is a good example of why we need this statute.

Michael Lenz and his wife were expecting their first child. She worked in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. She was in the midstages of her pregnancy. She went to work early the day of the bombing to show an ultrasound to her colleagues of their baby. That was going on at the moment the bomb goes off. She was killed. Michael Lenz III was killed. They had already named their little baby boy.

The father came before my committee when I was in the House to testify for this bill. He said: I am no expert on abortion, but here is what happened to my family. My wife was killed, and at the same moment I lost my son, Michael Lenz III.

The reason they lost their son is not because of Roe v. Wade rights; it was because of a third party crazy man, a criminal, who destroyed many lives that day. When you look at the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing case, when it came time in Federal court, you don't find a place for Michael Lenz III. If this bill had been law, there would have been 22 people, not 21 people, that would have been before the court. I cannot say it any better than that.

In terms of Michael Lenz and all the other victims who testified in support of this legislation, sentence enhancement doesn't speak to what happened to them. From a prosecutor's point of view, it makes all the difference in the world to have two charges facing the accused versus one. It gives you more leverage than you could ever dream of. Ladies and gentlemen, in cases like this, it is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Will the Chair notify me when I have used 4 minutes?

Mr. President, I wish to speak to how the bill was drafted and why.

Senator DeWine articulated it well. You have to prove the pregnancy, and we defined the pregnancy like 16 other States. That is the dominant way of defining the child for the purpose of this statute. Thirteen States have a different view of it. In California, I think the law is at 6 weeks. If you can prove the child is beyond 6 weeks--not viable but beyond 6 weeks--the law kicks in.

In 1999, when we first drafted this statute--Senator DeWine was carrying it in the Senate, I carried it in the House, and we are finally coming together to have a vote--it never made sense to me, if you believe this is not about abortion--because it is not; we wrote it so it is not--why would you give a criminal a break who destroyed a family's life in two ways, not one?

You are not going to prosecute medical researchers under this statute. You have to hurt the mother. This is not about medical research. It is not about abortion. It is about criminals who attack pregnant women.

Why would you give the criminal a break at 3 weeks? You could prove the baby has been around for 3 weeks. The criminal just totally gets away with it.

The Feinstein amendment--as much as I like Senator Feinstein, and she is truly one of my favorites--nobody goes this way because this is not the way you would want to go if you are prosecuting criminals. You do not want to ignore the reality of what happened to this family and to these victims. This is not about abortion. If it was abortion law, you would not have any prosecutions except until the late terms of the abortion. Why would you let a criminal do that? This is not about a mother's right to choose. Under the statute, you cannot prosecute the woman at any time. You cannot do anything about abortion rights because the statute protects lawful abortions.

For 30-something years in California, they had the ability to prosecute criminals who attacked pregnant women and have Roe v. Wade rights. Look in the phonebook anyplace in California and you will find people who will provide a lawful abortion. Look at the criminal law and you will find a statute that allows people to be put in jail who attack a pregnant woman and do damage to her unborn child at the 6-week period.

My point is, when criminals attack pregnant women, don't play this game of the abortion debate. Don't bring it over here. The reason we voted 417 to 0 in the House was to prevent an execution of a pregnant woman at the earliest stages of pregnancy. It does no good to kill the chance of that child to grow to render justice to the mother.

With a vote of 417 to 0, the House adopted the same definition as this statute because the purpose of that statute was to prevent the State from executing a woman who we know to be pregnant at the early stages of a pregnancy. The reason being, it does no good. It does not advance Roe v. Wade. It just does something you do not need to do to render justice. You do need the ability to bring two prosecutions at the earliest stages of pregnancy to render justice for those who choose to violently assault pregnant women. No medical researcher is going to be harmed. We will have the stem cell debate. The Roe v. Wade rights that exist today are not going to be eroded. They have existed in conjunction with these statutes for years and years, and that debate will go on for years and years. But here is what is likely to happen.

There will be, unfortunately, human nature being what it is, another assault against a pregnant woman where Federal jurisdiction would exist if we have this statute. It is going to happen because people are mean, people are cruel, and they need to be dealt with when they are mean and cruel.

The Senate enhancement option has been rejected by everybody who looked at this because it does not render justice. It creates a legal fiction that is not necessary and destroys the whole purpose of this statute.

I mentioned the Arkansas case. Three teenagers were prosecuted for beating up a pregnant woman for the purpose of making sure one of them did not have to pay child support. They are not on death row. I misspoke. One of them received 40 years, one received life imprisonment. It was a capital statute, but it was not a death penalty case. I was wrong. I apologize.

Five more seconds.

The Laci Peterson case is a death penalty case because there are two victims.

All we are saying is Federal law should address reality. When Michael Lenz lost his wife in the Oklahoma City bombing incident, he also lost his son, Michael Lenz III. All I am asking for is that justice be rendered in cases such as that. When somebody chooses to destroy a family--the mother and the unborn child--let them pay a severe price, and let's debate abortion another day, another time, and not interject it into a statute where it should not be interjected.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator DeWine for yielding. I will be brief.

We just rejected the idea Roe v. Wade rights should be used by criminals to avoid prosecution for their criminal activity that results in the mother being denied to have a child. Roe v. Wade is an honest, genuine debate that exists in this land. Eighty percent of Americans, when polled, believe if a criminal takes the right to have a child away from a mother, they ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for what has happened to that family--damage to the mother and damage to the unborn baby.

Professor Walter Dellinger, a former adviser to President Clinton, said:

. . . although he is a strong advocate for a woman's right to

choose abortion, he sees no major problem with fetal-homicide

laws. ``I don't think they undermine Roe v. Wade,'' he said.

``The legislatures can decide that fetuses are deserving of

protection without having to make any judgment that the

entity being protected has freestanding constitutional

rights. I just think that proposals like this ought to be

considered on their own merit.''

That is all we are asking. Senator Murray has a very long and complicated amendment that deals with domestic violence, family leave, and other issues. South Carolina, to its shame, for lack of a better word, has one of the leading number of domestic violence cases against women. Our legislature is dealing with that. We can do more here. But this should stand on its own.

Just as we said no to Roe v. Wade being an impediment to prosecuting a criminal who attacks a mother who chooses to have a child, we will not let the criminal benefit from Roe v. Wade, nor should we allow an amendment to destroy a bill whose purpose is to put people in jail who attack pregnant women and do damage to the mother and the child.

No good purpose is served by destroying this bill, even though the underlying problem is very real. This bill should stand on its merits. There are more cases such as this than we would all like to admit. We have a chance to do something about it today. Please vote against Senator Murray's amendment.

The Senator from Maine is correct. Nothing in the language of this bill is intended in any way to undermine the legal basis for abortion rights, as expressed by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent decisions.

Based on my extensive experience as a prosecutor in the U.S. Air Force, this legislation would, however, fill a gap in our Federal laws.

The Senator from Maine is correct. There is no legal precedent where a court has concluded that any of these State statutes undermines the legal basis for abortion rights.

The Senator from Maine is correct.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chambliss and Senator Allen be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the word ``and'' on page 2 to lines 4 and 16 of my amendment.

Mr. President, I will give a quick overview and yield to Senator Bunning for as much time as he needs to explain his portion of the amendment. Then we will go to Senator DeWine and Senator Daschle and myself to finish.

I compliment Senator Nickles for helping us work this out. This is the amendment we have been talking about for almost a year now, setting aside some money in the budget to address the health care needs of the Guard and the Reserve.

If you are an activated member of the Guard or Reserve, you go into the military health care system called TRICARE. Your family has eligibility for that system. When you come off active duty, you will go back into your private plan, if you have one. If you are uninsured, there will no plan available for you.

We are trying to allow Guard and Reserve members, by paying a premium out of their pockets, to be full-time members of TRICARE so they will have continuity of health care.

Twenty-five percent of the people who were called to active duty for Guard and Reserve were unable to be deployed because of health care problems. Providing continuity of health care year round would be a good measure. I know this will help retention and recruiting.

There is another aspect of this amendment, thanks to Senator Bunning. What is happening with our Guard and Reserve forces is they are becoming overutilized. There has been a 170-percent increase in Guard and Reserve utilization since 9/11.

The GI bill of rights applies to the Guard and Reserve in a limited fashion. Thanks to Senator Bunning's efforts, that is about to change.

At this time, I would like to yield to Senator Bunning to explain what he is trying to do for the Guard and Reserve members with an amendment in terms of the GI bill.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Bunning on behalf of all the Guard and Reserves. He has made a real difference in their lives. This is long overdue. I appreciate what the Senator has done to make this a better amendment.

I yield 3 minutes to Senator Leahy.

I yield 10 minutes to the chief author of this legislation, Senator DeWine.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, we are all in a thanking mode, and I think it is appropriate that we try to do as much as we can, in a bipartisan fashion, when it comes to the military.

We will have our differences and funding and our differences about priorities in terms of what helps the economy and what helps to control the deficit. But I want to acknowledge the work of Chairman Nickles' staff and him personally for allowing this amendment to be accepted as part of the budget because working together, in a bipartisan fashion, we are going to

carve out about $5.6 billion to be utilized to help alleviate the Guard and Reserve health care problems that currently exist. And Senator Bunning's measured, upgraded GI bill benefits will also be part of the budget. To me, that is a good priority to have made. We have promised to pay for this. I think that is a good statement to have made, too.

Once the authorizing committee gets to work with Senator Warner, and then, hopefully, Senator Stevens, who has been a big champion of this cause, they will appropriate what we do on the authorizing committee, that it will be paid for, and that we can bring this program in under the $5.6 billion amount. Senator McCain and others have ideas of how the employer community can contribute.

But I would like to inform those maybe listening in the Guard and Reserve community that your needs are well understood by this body, and there is a real bipartisan effort to meet those needs.

To those in the Active Forces, I think we have tried to upgrade your benefit package, tried to increase your pay. You have earned every penny of it, and then some. We are trying to improve the quality of life of those people stationed overseas and their families.

This is a team effort. Nothing about the Guard and Reserve takes away from the Active Forces. Forty percent of the people in Iraq, by the end of the year, will be Guard and Reserve members. When a guardsman or reservist is called to active duty, it has its own unique stress. God knows their is stress on our active-duty families who are serving in the military and have their family members in harm's way.

More times than not, when you are called to active duty, your pay goes down. There are provisions in our Federal law that will allow some renegotiating of loans but, at the end of the day, it is a very stressful event financially for families.

This one aspect, health care, is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. As I stated before, about one in four people called from the Reserve and Guard community to active duty are not able to be deployed immediately because of health care problems. The No. 1 disqualifying event is dental problems.

When you think about it, a lot of private plans do not have a dental component to it. So by allowing Guard and Reserve members to be part of the military health care system year round, whether they are deployed or not, I think readiness goes up dramatically.

When we look at writing this bill, that would be one of the selling points. I was in Iraq last summer with a delegation of Senators. The Presiding Officer was with us. It was a wonderful opportunity to understand how difficult service overseas can be and how stressful it is being in harm's way. You come away with a great sense of pride about all those serving our country. As the Presiding Officer will recall, we had nine C-130 flights in Afghanistan and Iraq. Eight of the nine crews were Guard crews. The last was a Reserve crew. All the 130 crews were from the Guard and Reserve community. That duplicates itself in many other areas--MPs, civil affairs. There is a heavy reliance on Guard and Reserves.

I remember on one of the flights the pilot and the copilot were going to be first-time dads. One person worked for Southwestern Bell. Southwestern Bell voluntarily extended health care coverage for the family, even though he was called back to duty, so that person's wife did not have to change doctors or hospitals. The copilot was a realtor and he didn't have such an opportunity. So his wife had to change doctors and hospitals late in the pregnancy, and it was a very stressful event.

One thing about providing full-time TRICARE eligibility to those who want to pay the premium, we are asking guardsmen and reservists to contribute to the cost. That is only fair, and it is a very good deal. They will be contributing out of their pocket, like their active-duty counterparts. One of the benefits is, your family doesn't have to bounce around from one health care provider to another, even when you change plans. Some people have been deployed already three times. The likelihood of their utilization in the future is greater, not less. Adopting this amendment as part of the budget allows us to take some money to meet those needs.

I need to say this about Senators Daschle and Leahy and Clinton, and our other Democratic sponsors: We wouldn't be here without Senator Daschle. I don't know how to say it any clearer. We would not have made it this far if he had not taken on this cause and pushed as hard as he could push. He has been around here a lot longer than I have. It really did matter. He and I may vote differently for the rest of the week, but I have great admiration for him as a person and we will vote together today. At the end of the week he may have a different view about what the budget does for the country, but we will have agreement on this, that the Guard and Reserve community is one step closer to getting the help they deserve. I publicly acknowledge that and thank him. It has been a very pleasurable, enjoyable experience. We are not there yet, but we are closer than when we began.

I am the only Member of the Senate who is in the Reserves. I recently got promoted and made a joke about that, showing how stressed out we are in the military if I am promoted. I am proud of my service. I have never been in harm's way.

The one thing I got from that experience, having been on Active Duty for 6\1/2\ years, serving overseas--I was in the Guard as a support person in Alaska, doing legal work for families and military members being deployed--I know how stressful it is for families left behind and how stressful it is for the pilots and their crews.

Here we are 10 years later plus, involved in another major operation to fight the enemies of this country who, if they had their way, little girls wouldn't to go school and there would be only one way to worship God. It would be their way. And if you differed, you would die.

This is a huge event we are undertaking, the war on terrorism. The Guard and Reserve community is playing a bigger role than ever.

The cold war dynamic with the Guard and Reserve has changed with the war on terrorism. They are indispensable. That will not change anytime soon. The stress on the forces is as great as it has ever been in my military career, and the benefit package has not been changed substantially in 30 years. Now is the time to come together, Republicans and Democrats, and put on the table new benefits for those serving their country in a very patriotic and unselfish way.

With that, I yield to the minority leader and my colleague on this effort, Senator Daschle.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Yes. I will try to yield part of it back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lincoln, Dayton, Murray, Murkowski, and Mikulski be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, as Senator Daschle has described, this will be offset. This will be budget-friendly, and it will be a huge deal to military Reserve and Guard families who are sacrificing much for their country. It will help build a better support network. If you are called to active duty for the Guard and Reserve, there is no daycare center on base because there is no base in which to go. There is no counseling service because you are sometimes in a rural community far away from military bases.

This continuity of health care would help dramatically. I urge its adoption.

I thank Senator Nickles for making this possible. I look forward to writing good legislation to help the Guard and Reserve families.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on this amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our chairman. I thank the chairman, Senator Warner, for doing something that is not easy. We pride ourselves on trying to be fiscal conservatives and taking care of the country's needs and the President's budget request for the military. I applaud our chairman, Senator Warner, for offering this amendment to make sure we can get the money the President thinks we need to defend the Nation.

One thing I have learned about this whole process is I would not want Senator Nickles' job. It is very hard to put a budget together which does what we need to do for the economy and for defense of the Nation and other domestic priorities.

But I know where this debate is going. It won't be long before we will have an amendment to counter this amendment saying, all right, we will agree that the military needs more money. I am glad we agree with that, because they do. But then they will start arguing, let us pay for it; let us be fiscally responsible, and let us take money from this group to pay for it. We are going to get into a partisan fight in the name of fiscal responsibility that probably doesn't have a whole lot to do with fiscal responsibility. I think that is sad but we know it is coming.

Let me say this: The No. 1 job of being a Senator, in my opinion, is to make sure we can defend America. We can have all the fights about how you create jobs, and I would argue to my friend--I will be glad to speak on this proposal--if you are worried about losing jobs in America, then you need to be more friendly to people who are trying to create jobs in America. You are not a very friendly crowd to job creation with your proposals. But we will talk about that down the road. I know it is coming.

Let me say this: It is good news for the men and women in uniform at this point in time because we have bipartisan support to make sure there is budget authority to defend America. I thank the chairman on their behalf. I look forward to the debate to come about this issue in terms of domestic politics. But I hope we don't get unnecessarily off script for the men and women who depend on us making sure they have the equipment when we ask them to fight the war. They probably don't appreciate a lot of the fussing and fighting.

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

Mr. President, I would like to start by saying I believe our colleagues who scheduled this debate today have done a great service to this body and to the American people. The topic of the United States in the world and specifically the United States in the war on terror is of great importance to the American people. They deserve to have the kind of elevated discussion we are giving this evening.

This should not be a partisan issue. Rather, it is an issue of our national and personal security. Never in our Nation's history have we been so dependent on credible intelligence for our safety and security as we are today.

The real test all of us will face as policymakers on behalf of the people of the United States will be how wise we are in identifying the problems we need to address and how willing we are to cast away the anchor of the status quo and initiate real reforms. In both of those efforts, one of our strongest assets will be our American intelligence.

If we were to ask any person who has a reasonable knowledge of the capabilities of terrorists and the extent of America's vulnerability the question, what is the likelihood the United States of America will suffer another successful terrorist attack on our homeland within the next 5 years, the consensus answer is certainly going to be almost a 100 percent likelihood of a successful attack.

That is a sad but true fact. It is a sad but true fact which is unnecessary. In part, it is unnecessary because we need to initiate the reforms within our intelligence community. Reforms we have learned from the experience of September 11, and learned again in the war against Iraq and, I suggest, we will learn again in the incidents that have led up to the events in Haiti, the lack of transforming our intelligence community to a set of agencies that can effectively understand, interpret, and then assist policymakers in making decisions that will make us more secure, those reforms have not been made.

It is also unfortunately true there has been a lack of accountability. We have had major intelligence failures in the last 3 years. Yet, as of today, virtually no one has been held accountable for those. What signal does that send to our agency and our adversaries, that we are willing to tolerate performance that is less than acceptable, or to benefit by performance which is beyond the call of duty, and the former is not sanctioned and the latter is not recognized.

What I think we are facing this evening is a series of deficits that will prove as significant to the future of the American people as the skyrocketing budget deficit of this administration will be to our economic future. These deficits include a deficit in judgment. The reality is in the spring of 2002, the United States and our coalition partners had the terrorist group which had perpetrated the tragedy of September 11 on the ropes in Afghanistan. But a decision was made in the early spring--a decision which military officials

close to its implementation describe as an ending of the war on terror in Afghanistan and a substitution of a manhunt in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a redirection of American intelligence and military personnel and resources to commence the war in Iraq.

This was more than a year before the war actually started. If you will read the front page of this past Sunday's New York Times, it talks about the fact that we are now, 2 years later, beginning to reintensify our efforts in Afghanistan, and we are returning to Afghanistan those very military and intelligence resources that were shifted to Iraq in the beginning of the spring of 2002.

So the consequence of making a decision that our greater enemy was Saddam Hussein than the enemy which had already shown the capability, the will, and the presence in the United States to effectively strike us on September 11 has been to allow our greater enemy to become yet stronger.

Al-Qaida is a powerful network today. It is a powerful network which is less hierarchical, more entrepreneurial, more diffuse, more difficult to attack--especially as al-Qaida cells form alliances with other radical Islamic groups. We missed the opportunity in the spring of 2002 to have cut off the head of this snake because we exercised unacceptably poor judgment as to which was the greater danger to the people of the United States.

What is the report card on that decision of judgment? I quote from a statement made by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. George Tenet, on Tuesday of last week. This is what the leader of our American intelligence community said:

. . . We have made notable strides. But do not

misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that al-Qaida is

defeated. It is not. We are still at war. This is a learning

organization that remains committed to attacking the United

States, its friends and allies.

Continuing to quote from the director of the CIA:

Successive blows to al-Qaida's central leadership has

transformed the organization into a loose collection of

regional networks that operate almost autonomously. These

regional components have demonstrated their operational

prowess in the past year.

The sites of their attacks span the entire reach of al-

Qaida--Morocco, Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia.

And al-Qaida seeks to influence the regional networks with

operational training, consultations, and money. . . .

You should not take the fact that these attacks occurred abroad to mean the threat to the United States homeland has waned. As al-Qaida and associated groups undertook these attacks overseas, detainees consistently talked about the importance the group still attaches to striking the main enemy: the United States.

In conclusion, the Director of Central Intelligence made this chilling observation:

The steady growth of Osama bin Laden's anti-U.S. sentiment

through the wider Sunni extremist movement, and the broad

dissemination of al-Qaida's destructive expertise, ensure

that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable

future--with or without al-Qaida in the picture.

That is the residue of the decision to allow the snake of al-Qaida to regenerate itself because we determined that the greater enemy to the United States--the enemy which had the greater capability to threaten the people of the United States of America--was Saddam Hussein. We have paid and we will pay a significant price for that flawed judgment.

There is also a deficit in credibility. Once the administration made the decision at least as early as the spring of 2002--and probably earlier--it used incredible information to convince the Congress and the American people to support that invasion.

To pick one example which has been widely reported, the administration knew, or should have known, that it was using misleading information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, about yellow cake from Niger, about the existence of tubes which could be used for centrifuges to make nuclear products, and about the connections of Saddam Hussein's regime with the tragedy of 9/11.

On several occasions, it was a leading figure within the administration, including the Vice President of the United States, who went to the intelligence agencies, asked for further information on the specific charge relative to Saddam Hussein's status as a producer and user of weapons of mass destruction, received from the intelligence agencies a report indicating it was a fabrication, and yet the administration continued to recycle incredible misinformation.

The administration's fondness for calling Iraq the new front in the war on terror has become a self-fulfilling proposition. There is little, if any, evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida and that terrorist networks were active in the sections of Iraq that were controlled by Saddam Hussein.

What now? Now we have created chaos in Iraq, and in spite of the bravery and professionalism of our troops, we have seen a situation in which the terrorist organizations which did not exist in Iraq prior to the war have now become serious threats to the stability of that country and to the lives of American fighting men and women.

This is how the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, VADM Lowell Jacoby, described the situation in Iraq when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday of last week:

Foreign fighters who have entered Iraq since the end of the

war have carried out some of the most significant attacks,

including suicide bombings. Left unchecked, Iraq has the

potential to serve as a training ground for the next

generation of terrorists.

There was minimal to no al-Qaida influence in Iraq before the war. Now, and this is credible, al-Qaida has found a new base of operations in Iraq. There is also a deficit of trust in the American people. This great democracy has had, as one of its fundamental values, that the people of America will serve their role as citizens only if they are fully informed about the operations of their Government. But why does this administration not want to let the people know the truth about our foreign policy and about the decisionmaking that takes place in forming that foreign policy?

This President lacks a basic respect for the common sense of the American people and relies excessively on secrecy, not to protect the national interests but to avoid political embarrassment.

I cochaired the House-Senate joint inquiry into the intelligence failures that preceded September 11. Our joint committee produced a lengthy report, some 800 pages, which focused on, among other things, the findings relative to the support which one or more foreign governments had provided to some, if not all, of the 19 terrorists.

The executive branch, after 7 months of examining our report, insisted on censoring the 27 pages of our report that contain the most important findings about that foreign support. It reached this level of absurdity. The Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, responding to media speculation that it was his government mentioned in those 27 pages, pleaded with the President and his administration that the full report be released. ``How can I defend my kingdom against attacks of treacherous nature unless I can know what is the basis of those attacks?'' It was not just the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Foreign Minister of the Kingdom flew to Washington to plead for the declassification, for the release of this information so that he could also defend the honor of the Kingdom.

The President refused that request even before the Foreign Minister had reached the White House. Are we supposed to believe there wasn't some coordination of efforts, that there were private assurances of maintaining the status quo despite public pleas for release?

This President has shown that he does not believe the American people have the right nor the ability to effectively utilize information which will help them to understand who to hold accountable and to participate in reforms necessary for their security.

These are some of the deficits we have seen as a result of the events before and particularly after September 11, that we have seen in the preparation for the war in Iraq, and which we may well see repeated in the circumstances leading up to the current anarchy that grips Haiti.

Again, I conclude by saying how pleased I am that Senator Kyl and other colleagues have given us the chance to have this discussion. We, too, have a responsibility to the American people to offer them the best security

that the Government can provide. There is no cave, there is no spider hole that we will be able to hide in to escape that responsibility should there be another terrorist attack on our homeland and we have not utilized the information of our previous failures to make our Nation more secure.

Let us look in the mirror. The face we see will share the responsibility for the loss of life and for the deficits I have outlined which are unacceptable in our democratic society.

Before I conclude, I would like to say that I believe the value of this debate has indicated the value of similar debates on other issues that have wide public concern. I will soon seek unanimous consent that we schedule time for a debate of this nature on the floor of the Senate on a regular basis for the remainder of this session.

I propose that the next issue to be discussed be our budget deficit, the inheritance of debt that we are going to leave to our people. The suggestion made recently by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board that we make tax cuts permanent while we also cut benefits for Social Security and Medicare could help in framing the choices that we will have in dealing with this budget deficit.

The American people deserve from this, the greatest deliberative body in the world, to pay attention to their future. They deserve to know that we serve their interests with sound judgment, with credibility, and with respect for those who have given us the opportunity to serve them.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today the Senate Armed Services Committee met to vote on several military and civilian nominations before the committee. Included on the list of military nominations was that of my own to be Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve.

While I take my responsibility as a member of this committee which holds oversight authority over the United States military very seriously, I would like to note for the record that I abstained from the voice vote on this subject to avoid the impression of a conflict of interests.

Mr. President, I must say this has been a very interesting first year in the Senate. Our country has been challenged in many ways. I have listened to this debate about the highway bill. If I were a citizen of Oklahoma, I would be pretty proud. You have two Senators down here expressing different points of view but in a very articulate way.

The problems Senator Inhofe related in Oklahoma are very real in South Carolina. We are billions short of the money we need for bridges and roads. It is an honest-to-God legitimate problem. This is not about getting reelected. When people say that, I disassociate myself with that. This is about trying to do some good for the country economically.

One good thing about the highway bill that needs to be said more is, it is not just about jobs. That is very important. But another thing for sure, these jobs are going to be here. When you pave these roads and you build these bridges, most of the time, if not all the time, Americans are going to be doing the jobs.

One of the reasons we have had a kind of jobless recovery is that the jobs that are being created are being created overseas. When you look at trying to create a domestic opportunity for somebody to go to work, a bill such as this is an excellent opportunity for people to go to work.

Whether or not it busts the budget, I have had a fascinating opportunity, sitting in the chair for the last hour, to try to figure all that out. Senator Nickles is going to be sorely missed by this body. I find him to be an extremely smart, capable person. Senator Grassley and Senator Nickles are very good friends. I like them both. Senator Grassley took the floor about the bill being paid for.

Here is where I come down. The President has made a decision for the first time in his Presidency to threaten to veto a bill if it goes above $256 billion. To the defense of the people in the Senate, there has been a little bit of bait and switch here. The White House at one point in time was not so inflexible in growing the number. I don't know what has happened there, but something has happened. My best guess is that the President sees a trend that is pretty disturbing to our party and maybe the country in general. We have lost sight of our fiscal responsibilities. The deficit is larger than anyone would like. It is going to grow.

The things we have done in the past have all been necessary. A prescription drug benefit can save you money because if you keep people out of the hospital with a prescription drug, that is a lot better than having to treat them in the hospital. But at the end of the day I voted no on that bill because I believed that by the way we set it up, utilization rates would go through the roof.

I am totally convinced that the marketplace works in two ways: It can bring out the best in people or the worst. If you have a dollar copayment, if you make under $12,000 a year as a senior--and a lot of people are in that situation--your payment under the Medicare prescription drug bill is $1. That is it. I just really believe that people are going to start using drugs at a higher rate and that if you are in the middle of the pack, as a middle-income senior, this is not that great a deal. The donut hole will be filled in because of political pressure. The means test is a great idea and the health savings accounts is a great idea, if we can hang on to them.

At the end of day, my fear was that the Medicare bill would not be $395 billion; it would explode. Even in my wildest dreams, I never believed it would explode by some $130 billion in a week. So the estimate of 395 is now 534.

Let me tell people in South Carolina about these estimates. It is a guess at best. It is an educated guess. The deficit is an educated guess. Two years ago we had trillions of dollars of surpluses as far as the eye could see over a 10-year period. The truth is, you really can't govern based on what is going to happen 10 years from now because you really don't know. You can govern pretty well if you will watch every year or every couple years where you are and project down the road and not let this thing get out of hand.

The highway bill is not like the farm bill. The farm bill was special-interest driven even more than the highway bill. I wound up voting for the farm bill. The amount of money we spent on the farm bill was more than I felt comfortable with, but I wound up voting for it because I am trying to get my legs here as a new Senator.

Senator Inhofe and Senator Grassley were the two leading proponents of the tax cuts. I am very glad I voted for the tax cuts because I think they have helped the American economy. But we are going to have to make a decision in

light of everything we have done in the last year--the war, the tax cuts, because it does take money away from the budget in the short term, but it has helped the economy--how far do we go down this road, no pun intended.

I guess I have made a decision. I have made a decision that the President's desire to not see this bill grow over 256 is probably a good decision. You hate to do it on a bill where so many people have worked so hard to address legitimate needs and to clean up the mess of highway funding. Senator Inhofe, his colleagues, and his ranking member should take great pride in the fact that they have taken the funding of highways that was kind of a hodgepodge and made it more professional. You brought money back into the highway trust fund that should have been there all along. You have taken interest payments on highway trust fund moneys that went to the general revenue and you have brought them back. I congratulate you for trying to build a stronger fund because we need a stronger fund.

Here is the really hard part for me as a conservative. The average person in my State works until about May, or now almost June, to pay taxes. If you are out there working for a living, when you add up your State tax and local tax and Federal tax and you look at your pay, it takes you almost half the year before you start working for yourself. So the last thing I want to do is come up here and put another burden on people.

The worst thing I could do is come up here and lie to people. This is the truth: Our highway funding needs are far in excess of the money coming in from the gas tax, the mass transit taxes. We are trying to get more money back into the pot, and I don't want to use general revenue.

The reason I don't want to use general revenue is that it would be a bad principle. If you start using general revenue to fund highways, then you will just have total budget chaos. The authors of this bill have tried to avoid that as best they can. They put money back into the fund. In their opinion, it is not enough.

We are at war. The Senate highway bill is increased by 43 percent. I am sure every penny could be used in a legitimate manner. But when you do the family budget and when you do your budget back home at a business entity, to raise one area by 43 percent would be a very difficult task to do to keep the budget balanced. As much as I would like to get money into Oklahoma and South Carolina in a more robust fashion, I don't believe a 43 percent increase, given our financial dilemma up here with the war and other problems, is going to be fiscally sound.

With the President's increase of 18 percent and 43--I hope we can reach a compromise. The House version of 70 percent is not going to happen. The key issue is, how can you get more money in the trust funds without raising taxes? Down the road, I don't see how you do that. So some time in the near future, America is going to have to come to grips with a couple of competing concepts. The war on terrorism was unexpected in many ways, in terms of its scope and cost. Maybe it should not have been, but it was. Every day we are trying to get better in fighting that war. We have spent a lot of money we did not plan to spend but couldn't afford not to spend. That is on the deficit.

The recession is finally over. That has been hurting our revenues. As I see it, as a fairly new Member of this body, future budgeting is going to be tough to get this thing back to balance in my lifetime. We are going to have to do some things we have never done before. I think there have been a lot of creative things done to the trust fund to make it more solvent in the future.

This is a bridge too far for me. I want to build bridges, but there are too many being built given our other needs right now. Probably, over time, conservatives are going to have to come to grips with a gas tax increase, which is going to be the only legitimate and honest way to make up the shortfalls in terms of our highway needs in this country. You can play with the numbers all day long, but a legitimate, honest debate over whether we need new revenue has been had in this bill. The question is how to do it.

I think this bill borrows money. This bill is not paid for. The point of order is legitimate. I am not blaming anybody because the needs are real. But some day, somehow, somewhere, we are going to have to start saying no to something. The President has chosen to say no to this approach to highway funding.

This President has not vetoed a bill since he has been in office. Whether or not he will veto this particular bill, I don't know. But his letter was correct in terms of his concerns about the way we are going as a Nation, in terms of spending. I hope and pray we can work out a compromise between the House and Senate and the President that will do most of the things Senator Inhofe would like to do, because those are legitimate concerns. They will not be able to get everything they want, given the amount of money we have to spend. That is probably true of people in South Carolina who voted for me or did not vote for me. This year, you are not going to get everything you would like because times are tough.

My hope is if we cannot do a 6-year bill we can agree on, which will withstand the highway road building projects in a way that will allow things to go forward, we will come back next year after the election and look at some long-term solutions. That is my hope. At the end of the day, I think the President will veto this bill, and it will be a debate that probably needs to be had about how far you can go before you literally not only break the bank but make it impossible for the bank to be restored.

I know a lot of people have worked long and hard. Senator Grassley was given the job of trying to come up with some offsets, and he is right, it is hard to do. I think Senator Inhofe has looked at the highway trust fund every way you can look at it to try to make it more sound and secure and to get legitimate revenue into the pot. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the amount of money we are going to spend has a deficit component, in my opinion. I may be wrong. But the President sees it that way. The politics of this bill is probably the most important decision we will make this year in terms of domestic spending. If we can resolve this issue in a way that maintains budget integrity and gets money out into the country to create jobs, we have set a good tone for the rest of the year. But if the political discourse about this bill at the end of the day divides us along many lines, and creates an us-versus-them attitude and we try to say one side is good and the other side is bad--that is about where we are right now--the prospect of a consensus down the road to maintain the fiscal discipline we need to balance the budget one day I think will be lost. I don't know how it happened, but it has happened.

All the forces that are in play post-9/11 and before are coming together on this bill--the obligation of the country to defend itself, the obligation of the country to make itself economically viable by improving infrastructure, the moral duty for one generation not to put so many burdens on the next so that they cannot survive, making hard decisions that are inconsistent with some of the things you have said as a politician in the past, like raising taxes--all of those concepts are coming to bear on this bill. To me, this bill and how we resolve it is a test of character as much as it is of anything else.

Do we have the ability to set aside our individual hopes and dreams, whatever they may be--whether deficit reduction, highway spending, never having a tax increase, whatever drives your train--can we find some common ground? If we leave the playing field having a veto that was overridden, the consequences to this country, not just the Republican Party, are extremely serious because if we cannot control it on highways, as popular as that might be, how will we ever control it when it comes time to repair Social Security?

That trust fund is $5 trillion short of the money it needs to maintain solvency by 2042. By 2075, that trust fund is $75 trillion short of the money it needs to maintain solvency. Those are numbers beyond comprehension. How did we get into that mess? Both parties, in my opinion, have played games with the real problem of Social Security, because nobody in the past has really wanted to embrace the looming problem Social Security faces. Why? It is very hard in any election cycle to talk about Social Security, because people who are on it get scared to death.

I was born in 1955. There were over 16 workers for every retiree when I was born. Today, there are three workers for every retiree. Twenty years from now, there are going to be two workers for every retiree.

The point I am making is Social Security has a problem that is not created by the Republican or Democratic Party. Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. That is the exclusive source of money coming into Social Security. The highway trust fund is funded by gasoline taxes. If you think the highway bill is a problem, trying to live within these numbers, you have not seen anything yet when it comes to Social Security. The consequences of having 2 workers for every retiree versus 16 for every retiree when I was born are huge.

In 2042, which is not that far away, the only way we can keep the checks coming is to reduce benefits across the board by 28 percent or double taxes. To sit on the sidelines for the next 30 years and argue with each other is unacceptable because after 2042, it gets worse. The highway bill has a similar problem but not nearly as dramatic. I think every dollar we will spend in this highway bill has a legitimate purpose.

If we overspend this year, if we go to 43 percent this year and add to the deficit and not have a fiscally sound plan to save the highway trust fund, we set in motion the forces that come back to haunt us. If we could solve the highway problem in a bipartisan fashion, then maybe we will solve Social Security in a bipartisan fashion. But the truth is that the highway needs, the infrastructure needs of this country cannot be maintained at the current rate of revenue flowing into the trust fund. That problem gets worse over time, not better.

I do not want to pass on every problem on my watch to somebody else. I would like to be thought of as somebody who at least embraced a few problems on my watch in a serious way and did things outside the box. There is nothing outside the box about trying to create offsets. We do that all the time. There has been some outside-the-box thinking about this trust fund and recapturing money, and that will make this trust fund more solvent and more sound over time.

At the end of the day, in my humble opinion, we can't afford, at this point in our Nation's history, with a looming deficit that seems to have no end, a nation at war that seems to have no end in the short term, to increase spending on something as meritorious as highways at this level now this way. That is why I think this vote on this bill will define us for the rest of this year and maybe in years to come.

I am totally convinced of the following: That if the leaders of the House and the Senate sat down with the President, we could find a way to put new money into the trust fund, get through this conflict, and next year talk about some new funding that would be permanent over time. I think that is possible. I hope that happens because the quality of the people with whom we are dealing are capable of doing that. I will not be in that room as a junior member.

I just have one vote, and my vote will be cast for a purpose. It is not to deny anybody a chance to improve their State or for us to improve the economy through better infrastructure. I will vote no, and hopefully the President will have some support for his veto threat. That ``no'' vote is cast to say let's look at a different way, a better way of resolving this issue. This, right now, is sheer, tough politics.

People wonder: If they vote no, will they lose all their highway projects. That won't be up to me. People have to choose the path they think is best to manage their bills and to run the Senate. But I can say for absolute certainty that the best way for me to go home and get reelected is to be me. I am not going to try to change and become something overly opposite of what I ran on. So I believe if I vote no with the proposition that 43 percent is more than the taxpayers can afford right now in terms of retiring the deficit over time, that this is a bridge too far, most people will agree with me.

That is my hope; that is my bet. But if they don't, I am still going to vote no because the reason I was sent here, I assume, was to use the best judgment I can muster. And the best judgment I can muster after having listened to this debate, which I think has been good and healthy, is that this highway bill has been innovative. We have done some things to make the trust fund sound, and the needs are real, but we are going too far. We are putting too much pressure, combined with the other actions that we have taken, on future generations, and somebody sometime has to say: Whoa.

That is what I intend to do--to cast my vote with the idea of let's look at this in a new and different way in light of the rest of our problems.

I yield the floor. Mr. President, I thank you for listening.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of one of my constituents, R. Lewis Shaw and to commend him for his tenure as deputy commissioner for environmental quality control at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control as he leaves after 33 years of service.

Lewis began his career with the department as the district director for the Wateree district office, and later served as chief of the Bureau of Water Supply. Lewis was promoted to deputy commissioner of environmental quality control in 1984 and has provided exemplary leadership since that time. Under Lewis's leadership, the environmental quality control programs have grown to keep pace with national and State initiatives and are considered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to be among the best State environmental programs in the Nation.

Lewis has also been active in shaping national environmental policy over the past two decades by serving on numerous national committees, often as chairman, which advise both the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Congress. He has on several occasions presented testimony to both House and Senate committees regarding the impact of proposed Federal environmental legislation on individual States. Lewis has earned the respect of his counterparts in other States and has served as president of their national association known as the Environmental Council of the States. Lewis is currently the longest serving State environmental program director in the Nation.

A graduate of the University of South Carolina with a degree in chemical engineering, Lewis also earned a graduate degree in environmental engineering from Clemson University, and is a registered professional engineer in South Carolina. Lewis is married to the former Judy Brown and has two children, Jason Shaw and April Shaw McCaskill.

I invite you to join me in thanking R. Lewis Shaw for his service and dedication to the natural resources and the citizens of the State of South Carolina.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. I particularly appreciate his sense of urgency to move forward on these issues and present to the Senate and the American people a set of reforms that will give them greater security.

Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of one of my constituents Bill Workman.

I rise to commend him for his previous work as Mayor of Greenville, SC from 1983 to 1995, his many years of tireless community activities, and his most recent position as vice president of South Carolina District Operations of Piedmont Natural Gas Company. He is scheduled to retire from this position in February 2004.

Mr. Workman also serves as president of the Greenville County Research and Technological Development Corporation and as charter chairman of the Greenville Area Development Corporation.

Over the past few decades, Greenville and upstate South Carolina have slowly been transformed from being a textile capital of the world to a much more diversified economy. Since 1985, engineering, telecommunications, retail and knowledge-based companies have joined manufacturing as major sources of new jobs. There is no doubt Greenville is now one of the Southeast regions' premier cities for business.

Bill Workman played a leading role in this evolution and has made many noteworthy contributions to Greenville and upstate South Carolina.

He served as a past president of the Municipal Association of South Carolina and is a recipient of the Order of the Palmetto, a graduate of Leadership South Carolina, and is listed in Who's Who in America. He was named the 1999 Nelson Mullins Business Person of the Year in Greenville and Volunteer of the Year for 2000-2001 by the South Carolina Economic Developers Association.

Mr. Workman is a graduate of The Citadel and served 2 years active duty. He has worked as a newspaper reporter for the Charleston News and Courier and the Greenville News. He later taught and served as dean of Allied Health Sciences at Greenville Technical College. He served 6 years on the school board of Greenville County and was a founder of the S.C. Literacy Association.

He served as executive assistant for natural resources and economic development for Gov. James B. Edwards. Mr. Workman's selfless efforts also include community economic analyses and siting studies involving hundreds of counties in North America.

He has two sons, three stepdaughters, and three grandchildren and is married to the former Patti Gage Fishburne of Walterboro.

We all appreciate his years of service to his community and wish him the very best in all his future endeavors. Mr. Workman may retire in February from his position with Piedmont Natural Gas, but as his past history has shown, he will never retire from his commitment to making Greenville a great place to live.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. Our bill is non-controversial and will allow the Department of the Interior and the South Florida Water Management District to perform a land exchange for the purpose of constructing the C-111 Spreader Canal Project under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, known as CERP. Both the Department of the Interior and the State of Florida have approved the language of the bill, and Senator Nelson and I hope to expedite passage of the bill through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the full Senate.

CERP, which was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, is the framework that guides our efforts to restore America's Everglades. It consists of over 60 major projects that will restore Everglades National Park and other areas of the greater Everglades ecosystem. The C-111 Spreader Canal Project is just one of the 60 component projects of CERP. The C-111 project will provide important environmental benefits to the Southern Glades and Model Lands and more natural sheet flow to Florida Bay while maintaining flood protection for surrounding agricultural and urban areas.

I am also pleased to report that Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who represents the relevant congressional district, and Congressman Jim Davis will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

2004 marks the beginning of the fourth year of CERP implementation and Everglades restoration. We have been hard at work getting through phase one--the planning and organizational phase of such an historic and monumental restoration project. We have now entered into phase two--building the projects that will deliver water to the Everglades and revive the dying ecosystem. As we continue to make progress on what has always been a bipartisan and bicameral project, I want to thank my colleagues for their support for the restoration of America's Everglades. I look forward to our continued work together to bring the River of Grass back to its former glory as the crown jewel of the national parks system.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. Our bill is non-controversial and will allow the Department of the Interior and the South Florida Water Management District to perform a land exchange for the purpose of constructing the C-111 Spreader Canal Project under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, known as CERP. Both the Department of the Interior and the State of Florida have approved the language of the bill, and Senator Nelson and I hope to expedite passage of the bill through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the full Senate.

CERP, which was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, is the framework that guides our efforts to restore America's Everglades. It consists of over 60 major projects that will restore Everglades National Park and other areas of the greater Everglades ecosystem. The C-111 Spreader Canal Project is just one of the 60 component projects of CERP. The C-111 project will provide important environmental benefits to the Southern Glades and Model Lands and more natural sheet flow to Florida Bay while maintaining flood protection for surrounding agricultural and urban areas.

I am also pleased to report that Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who represents the relevant congressional district, and Congressman Jim Davis will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

2004 marks the beginning of the fourth year of CERP implementation and Everglades restoration. We have been hard at work getting through phase one--the planning and organizational phase of such an historic and monumental restoration project. We have now entered into phase two--building the projects that will deliver water to the Everglades and revive the dying ecosystem. As we continue to make progress on what has always been a bipartisan and bicameral project, I want to thank my colleagues for their support for the restoration of America's Everglades. I look forward to our continued work together to bring the River of Grass back to its former glory as the crown jewel of the national parks system.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have been informed that our leadership is working on a method for this proposal to move forward. I admire what the Senator is doing on a personal basis. With that understanding, I object.

Mr. President, I would like the Senator to amend the request he has just propounded so that I might have 15 minutes immediately after Senator Harkin.

I'd like to quote from the November 21st Miami Herald, which editorialized as follows:

The problem: Instead of using the free market to drive down

the costs of prescription drugs, the bill would protect

pharmaceutical companies from competition and pay more than

$100 billion in incentives to employers and insurers in an

attempt to make its flawed logic work. The bill also

threatens to cap future Medicare spending.

True, the measure promises prescription-drug coverage for

low-income seniors not already covered by Medicaid and would

benefit seniors with extremely high prescription costs. But

its coverage for middle-class seniors is modest at best.

That's just not enough benefit for a 10-year price tag of

$400 billion that will add to the skyrocketing Federal

deficit, especially when it doesn't even contain the cost of

prescription drugs.

A better, more logical approach would be to harness the

buying power of the 40 million Medicare seniors to drive down

drug costs. But this bill actually would prohibit the

government from doing so. Instead it would dissect the

country into 10 regions and pay incentives to companies--$12

billion to private insurers and $1.6 billion to HMOs--so

they'll offer prescription-drug coverage.

For the Record, I'd like to make one correction in the otherwise excellent editorial. Under the latest version of the bill, between 10 and 50 regions would be allowed--further dissecting the country.

The last drug benefit endorsed by the AARP was the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act. We all know how seniors felt about that drug benefit, and it was quickly repealed.

If we adopt the proposal before us, we will be turning a deaf ear to history, and to the seniors across the country today who are already telling us--through AARP card burnings, through the messages they are writing on the AARP ``message board'', and through the hundreds and hundreds of calls from seniors we've been receiving over the last week--that we need to get back to work.

This drug ``benefit'' is actually no such thing. It leaves millions of seniors worse off.

Along with many others, I have worked to provide an affordable, comprehensive, reliable prescription drug benefit for our seniors and citizens with disabilities for the last several years.

It is therefore with great regret that I have no choice but to vote against a conference report that does not provide the benefit seniors need, and have been promised.

If the proposal is adopted--and I sincerely hope it is not--it will not be the last chapter. Seniors won't stand for it.

I predict voters will put Congress on the hook in 2006, and we will spend many, many years attempting to fix

this deeply flawed legislation--or will repeal it outright as we did with the catastrophic legislation.

Or we could have the worst of both worlds.

We could repeal the prescription drug benefit because the benefits are too meager, its subsidies of health maintenance organizations are too great, and its delivery system too confusing and disrespectful.

And what would be the price of repealing the drug benefit?

We would leave the privatization of Medicare in place and destroy one of the Federal Governments most effective, efficient and popular programs: traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

In the event the legislation before us does become law, I plan to use my last year in Congress working to fix it. Our seniors need better from us.

Exhibit 1

[From the Miami Herald, Nov. 21, 2003]

When Half a Loaf Isn't Nearly Enough

our opinion: reject the flawed medicare prescription bill

With its $7 million ad campaign to win support for the

Medicare prescription-drug bill, AARP says that the

legislation ``isn't perfect. But millions of Americans can't

afford to wait for perfect.'' We agree with AARP's assessment

of the bill but not its conclusion.

The proposed bill is badly flawed. It delivers too few

benefits to seniors at too big a cost. Americans don't need

perfect, but for $400 billion they deserve a bill that helps

more people and drives down the high costs of prescription

drugs. The proposed bill does little of either. Congress

should reject it and try again.

The problem: Instead of using the free market to drive down

the costs of prescription drugs, the bill would protect

pharmaceutical companies from competition and pay more than

$100 billion in incentives to employers and insurers in an

attempt to make its flawed logic work. The bill also

threatens to cap future Medicare spending.

True, the measure promises prescription-drug coverage for

low-income seniors not already covered by Medicaid and would

benefit seniors with extremely high prescription costs. But

its coverage for middle-class seniors is modest at best.

That's just not enough for a 10-year price tag of $400

billion that will add to the skyrocketing federal deficit,

especially when it doesn't even contain the cost of

prescription drugs.

Don't repeat the past

A better, more logical approach would be to harness the

buying power of the 40 million Medicare seniors to drive down

drug costs. But this bill actually would prohibit the

government from doing so. Instead it would dissect the

country into 10 regions and pay incentives to companies--$12

billion to private insurers and $1.6 billion to HMOs--so

they'll offer prescription-drug coverage.

We've tried such incentives before with HMOs, and

experience shows that they didn't work. Half of the Medicare

Plus Choice plans provided by HMOs have folded, even though

taxpayers still pay more to subsidize a senior in a Medicare

HMO than a senior in traditional Medicare.

The compromise measure also guts provisions that would have

allowed seniors to legally buy prescription-drugs from

Canada, another concession to pharmaceutical companies, some

of which now are retaliating against Canadian wholesalers who

sell to Americans.

The doughnut hole

The standard coverage that the bill offers would only

benefit a senior who spends more than $835 a year, or some

$70 a month, on drugs. Then there's the ``hole in the

doughnut'' coverage gap in which the government's 75-percent

subsidy stops after $2,200 in out-of-pocket cash has been

spent. If out-of-pocket spending reaches $3,600, the subsidy

kicks in again, this time at 95 percent of drug cost.

Deductibles and co-payments are complicated enough without

trying to explain the ``hole in the doughnut'' to elderly

recipients.

AARP and other supporters say that even a flawed benefit is

better than nothing. They reason that once passed, bad

provisions could be changed before they go into effect. But

why fix later what should be fixed now?

Seniors deserve affordable prescription-drug coverage.

Congress should scrap this flawed approach and come up with a

plan that delivers that coverage while driving costs down.