Floor Statements

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, there is a better day coming. It is a cloudy day right now. We are worried about our families and our troops, but there is a bright day coming. Our American servicemen will give freedom to Iraq, make us more secure. They are a blend of who we are: Rich, poor, black, white, Jew, Gentile, all mixed up into the American military. The strength of our military is they are an optimistic bunch. They are fighting for causes greater than their self-interest. That is why we will win.

Mr. President, we are about to take the Medicare vote of the year 2003. Last year, the Senate cast 52 votes for the plan that this amendment would allow us to consider again. It failed with 52 votes because we were operating under a budget resolution which required us to have 60 votes.

This amendment will allow us to pass the same prescription drug plan that a majority of Senators wanted to do a year ago. The alternative, if we do not pass this amendment, is going to be to adopt the President's prescription drug plan which will require seniors to be in HMOs in order to have access to prescription drugs. I don't believe that is what this Senate wants to do.

The amendment I offer will do two things. It will add $219 billion to the Medicare account; it will put $177 billion over the next 10 years toward deficit reduction. That is a responsible program that will secure a good Medicare prescription drug benefit and make a significant contribution toward deficit reduction.

I close by thanking my colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Stabenow for their great assistance.

Absolutely.

Madam President, I have a housekeeping chore. I would like to submit to the clerk a modification to my amendment and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.

No modification is needed, I am told. Thank you.

Madam President, Social Security is not only hard to solve, it is also hard to get before the Senate. So I apologize for the confusion.

I understand the concern of my colleague from North Dakota. But having a bit of time to talk about Social Security I think is very appropriate.

The budget resolution process is a roadmap to make sure we can understand what we are doing as the year progresses in terms of spending and taxes and what provisions to take up and when. I applaud both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Oklahoma for working together to try to make this as painless on the body as possible. But this amendment, hopefully, can be accepted in some form, either voted on or accepted by the body.

If you are going to have a roadmap for America this year or any other year, it is time we start putting Social Security on that roadmap. Social Security is a system that Democrats and Republicans embrace as being vital to the Nation. It is a system that working Americans pay into every year. Millions of Americans receive a substantial part, if not all, of their retirement income from Social Security, after years of paying into the system.

This amendment is part of this roadmap for America that we are talking about. It lays out some findings and some facts that are not Republican spin, not Democratic spin, but come from the Social Security trustees themselves, the people in charge of telling us, in managing the program--``us'' being the House and the Senate--the state of affairs with Social Security.

We are on the verge of a war. Only God knows what will happen here shortly. But it is my belief, unless there is some major miracle, we will be involved in hostilities with young men and women in harm's way protecting our freedom. I know one thing every Member of the body can agree on is that these young men and women deserve our support and our prayers if ordered into battle. And they will get that support and those prayers in a bipartisan way because what they are doing is very noble, in my opinion, trying to preserve our freedom and bringing about more stability in the Mideast.

We can argue about the nuances of the diplomacy and lack thereof in some people's opinion that got us to being on the brink of war, but once hostilities begin, I am sure everybody will come together and say a prayer for our troops and support our President the best they can.

That same dynamic needs to exist with Social Security, because there is a big, gaping hole in America's domestic agenda. You can talk about the size of the tax cuts, whether we should have one, whether it should be $750 billion or $350 billion or 30 cents or $2 trillion. Whatever opinion you have, I respect, and I have my own about that; and that is a point of debate.

One thing we need to understand and come together on quickly, in my opinion, is certain facts surrounding Social Security.

In 75 years--I know that seems forever. But my predecessor, Senator Thurmond, turned 100 a few months ago. He is going to be a first-time grandfather. Our State's former junior Senator, now senior Senator, is 81. So in South Carolina, 75 years is not long in politics. It seems forever, but it is not, really.

In 75 years, our trustees, the people in charge of the Social Security trust fund, tell us we will be $25.3 trillion short of the money necessary to pay benefits. I want to repeat that. I know there are a lot of important votes to come on ANWR and tax cuts, and this roadmap is about this year; and we are trying get through this day to make sure we can get on with the business of the Senate. And that is the way politics is, probably to a fault sometimes: getting through this day, getting through this amendment, so we can get on with the next event of the next day. We are in the middle of an international crisis, and our hope is we can get through the coming days as quickly as possible and resolve it.

Time is not on our side in solving Social Security structural problems. You could say: Well, 75 years is a long time. But between now and 75 years from now, for the obligations of the trust fund, and the money to pay those obligations, there will be a $25 trillion gap. And I ask, simply, the following question: Where does the money come from?

People want to know how much the war is going to cost--and the occupation. The truth is, it is going to be billions of dollars over several years. As we try to find out where the money comes from to get us through this day and this year, I hope we will start focusing on, in a bipartisan fashion, where does the money come from to keep Social Security solvent?

Seventy-five years from now, if nothing changes--if all we do is run ads against each other and belittle opportunities to fix it in a partisan way; if the Democratic and the Republican parties stay on track, based on the last campaign cycle, of trying to use the Social Security issue as a way to capture power for the moment--then we are going to allow one of the best programs in the history of the Nation not only to become insolvent but create a financial crisis in this country that we have not experienced, ever.

Another date I would like to point out: In 2042, which seems forever, but it is not, a problem occurs with Social Security. Seventy-five years from now, the unfunded liability in obligation will be $25.3 trillion. But before you get to that point in time, the next major event, according to the trustee report released yesterday, is 2042.

What happens in 2042? In 2042, the amount of money available to pay benefits will be such that benefits will be reduced for the average recipient by 28 percent. I want to say that again. If we do nothing different, if we just collect the same amount of money, and get the same growth rates, in 2042 you are going to reduce benefits for everybody on Social Security by 28 percent. The other option is, according to the trustees, raise payroll taxes of the workforce in existence then by 50 percent. These are two very dramatic and unacceptable options, in my opinion.

Now, in 2042, I doubt if I will be here. But if the history of my State stands the test of time, I will be here because I will turn 100 in 2055. If I can do what my predecessor has done, which I very seriously doubt, I will have another term left. I doubt if that will happen in my case, but somebody is going to be here in 2042 from South Carolina and every other State represented here today.

My hope is that during my time in the Senate, I can join with my colleagues of like mind on both sides of the aisle to make life a little better for the American public, the taxpayer, and those who will be doing the job we are engaged in today a little better than the trustees tell us of what is going to happen in 2042.

I would like to recognize certain Members of this body: Senator Gregg, Senator Breaux, and many others, Senator Moynihan, a former Member of the Senate, who have brought ideas to the table, have worked in a bipartisan manner, along with President Bush. I compliment President Clinton for putting the issue of Social Security on the table. I didn't particularly like his solution to better growth rates, but he acknowledged that growth rates were a problem. So there is the foundation being laid in the last couple years to do something constructive.

I compliment everybody in this body who has been part of that process. As a Member of the House for four terms, I tried to be a constructive Member dealing with Social Security over there.

The temptation to achieve political power is great when the Senate and the House are so closely divided. Every issue is looked upon as the issue that can get you back in the majority or the issue that may cost you the majority. My concern is that if we have that approach to reforming and solving Social Security--I know the Senator from North Dakota who is managing the minority side of the bill is a fine Member who loves his country as much as I do--if we keep this partisan atmosphere going that has existed in the past and has been bipartisan in the demagoguery, we will run into a problem. So in 2042, I would like us to avoid what is coming our way. The only way to do is to start now.

Another date the Social Security trustees tell us is a very important date is 2018. I have gone from 75 years now to 2042 to 2018. What happens in 2018? In 2018, for the first time in the history of the program, we will pay more in benefits than we collect in taxes. What is going on here? There are a lot of young folks working in the Senate-- pages, interns. We are really talking about their future more than anything else.

In 2018, we pay out more in benefits than we collect in taxes. What is wrong with Social Security? Why is it mounting up this unfunded obligation? Why are we beginning to pay more in benefits than we collect in taxes? Why do we have to cut benefits in 2042, and why are we $25 trillion short in the money to pay everybody 75 years from now?

Well, it is not a Republican or a Democratic problem in terms of politics. It is just the way the country has changed. I was born in 1955. In 1950, a few years before I was born, there were 16.5 workers to every retiree. According to the trustees, in 1950, there were 16.5 people working paying Social Security taxes for every retiree. Today there are 3.3 workers to every retiree. Twenty years from now, there are going to be two workers for every retiree. That is not a Republican problem. It is not a Democratic caused problem. That is not because we can't get along up here. That is because the ratios have changed. There is no reason to believe they will go back the other way.

My father and mother are deceased now, but I think in my mother's family there were nine members of her family, and my father had eight. I am not married. I don't have any kids. My sister has one. I sort of reflect what is going on in the world. I hope to help solve the problem later down the road. If I do what Senator Thurmond has done, 23 years from now, I would have my first child. I doubt if that will happen, either.

But as we kind of mark these points in time and make it personal, the problem is that the demographic changes in America have put Social Security at risk. It is nobody's fault, but it is everyone's problem. You cannot keep the program solvent when the ratio has gone from 16.5 workers to 1 in 1950 to 20 years from now being 2 to 1. There is just not enough money coming into the system.

Now, when you talk about Social Security spending and what to do and the idea that we are spending Social Security surpluses to run the Government,

you get everybody upset. And they should be. I came to the House in 1995. One of the first things we tried to do was isolate Social Security money surpluses and make sure we did not use the Social Security dollars paid into the system to run the Government. That has been a practice that has been going on for 30 or 40 years. Both parties have engaged in that practice.

Every year we collect more in Social Security taxes than we pay in benefits. That extra money is called surplus. We have borrowed that extra cash, given the trust fund IOUs that have to be redeemed in the future. That has allowed us to grow this Government without a direct tax on people.

That is a bad practice. It is not good government. It is not good business. For several years we have been able to avoid doing that in a bipartisan way.

You remember in the last debate there was the lockbox. Let's put everything related to Social Security in this lockbox. In my last campaign for the Senate, I constantly heard it: If you just left Social Security money alone and you didn't take it out to run the Government, if you kept it in a lockbox and left it alone, most of these problems would go away.

That is not true. As much as you would like to believe that, that is not true. If you took every penny collected from Social Security and you dedicated it totally to the trust fund and totally to the benefits to be paid, you are still $25 trillion short in 75 years. It still runs out of money in 2042. The problem is that two workers paying into the system will not be able to support the massive number of baby boomers coming into the system.

Having said that, I would like to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do a better job of protecting Social Security. I don't believe there is any party that has been in power for the last 40 years that could look the American public in the eye and say that they have not been guilty of using the surpluses in some fashion for other than Social Security.

In September of last year, I wrote a letter to the Social Security Administration asking 17 questions. Here is one of the questions I asked: Some have proposed a Social Security lockbox; would a lockbox, by itself, extend the solvency of Social Security beyond the year Social Security is expected to become insolvent? In a nutshell they said, the implementation of a Social Security lockbox would not alter this commitment and thus would have no direct effect on the future solvency of Social Security.

Having said that, I do believe we should isolate Social Security dollars and dedicate those dollars to the payment of Social Security trust fund obligations. That is just good government. But please do not tell your constituents back home that will fix this problem because it most certainly will not.

After having heard my rendition, there is probably not much good news you have heard yet. The good news: there is a way, in my opinion, to make up the $25 trillion shortfall over 75 years, to change the fact that you will have to reduce benefits by 2042 by 28 percent--that is all the money you will have to pay benefits by then--and to even change the dynamic of paying more out in benefits than you collect in taxes by 2018.

The good news--just like everything else in Washington, there is a bad news/good news part of what I am about to say--is that the growth rates for Social Security, the amount of return you get on your FICA tax dollars or Social Security tax dollars taken out of your paycheck for younger workers, people born in the 1980s, it is less than 2 percent. If you happen to be a minority in this country, born in the 1980s, it is less than 1 percent.

Let me say that again. This is not Lindsey Graham saying that. The Social Security trustees have reported back to me in this letter.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

They have laid out the rates of return for people born after 1980.

As I have told you, they are less than 2 percent. Over time, they go down because the problem, over time, gets worse. As you pay into the system as a young worker, the obligations of the system get greater, and there really will be no rate of return. As a matter of fact, by 2042, not only does your money not work for you, it is not enough to pay benefits to people who are already in the system.

Here is the good news. If we could, in a bipartisan fashion, work together, I am confident we could construct a program for younger workers--voluntary in nature--that would allow them to take part of the money they pay into Social Security, invest it in a different system-- equity and nonequity, depending on what they want to do--that will dramatically outpace a 1.8 percent return.

Here is what I suggest to you as reality. If you had a business and you wanted to sell an annuity to young people in America, and you laid out the program of that annuity and it mirrored Social Security, nobody in the country would invest in it simply because they can get a better rate of return leaving it in a checking account.

Now, everything about Social Security is not total retirement. There is a component of Social Security that pays for people who have been disabled and injured. That aspect of the program is extremely important also.

But to have a better business view of Social Security is necessary. If we could achieve better growth rates--and the trustees tell us that if you achieve better growth rates, every dollar in additional growth, every time the fund beats that 1.8 or 1.6 rate of return, that extra dollar allows benefits to be paid without raising taxes.

We are going to argue about the tax cut and how to stimulate the economy. I remember in my last campaign, when I presented this idea, the ad was that ``Lindsey Graham is going to take your Social Security tax dollars and put them in Enron stock.'' Well, I didn't wake up one day and think investing in Enron with Social Security was a good idea. That is not what this program is designed to do.

There is bipartisan support for personal accounts, allowing individual Americans the opportunity, if they choose, to invest in plans to get better growth rates. There are visitors here from all over the country, most likely, and I welcome them here. One thing about being a Member of the Senate, or the House, or a Federal employee in any fashion, is that you have the opportunity, if you choose, to invest in the Thrift Savings Plan. It is a pretty good deal. I, as a Senator, can invest up to about $10,000 of my salary into a thrift plan. It is a Government-sponsored plan, administered by the private sector, where I can choose between three or four different investment options, based on the risk I want to take. There are stock funds, mutual funds, bond/ stock funds, Treasury notes, which I can choose based on the risk I want to take.

All of these funds are supported by the Government in the sense that we are going to stand behind them and not let them collapse. It is even better than that. The Government puts in 50 cents on the dollar up to the $10,000 I put in, and they do the same for every Federal employee.

I suggest something like that should exist for the average working person in this country because under the current tax system, the average American will pay more in Social Security taxes than in any other form of tax, because this comes out of our paycheck--6.5 percent--no matter what our income is, up to a certain level.

For middle- and low-income workers struggling to get by, 6.5 percent--I think that is the correct number--comes out of your paycheck to go into the Social Security trust fund. For younger workers, we are taking that money from you. We are giving you no options to invest it. We are controlling it for you, and you are going to get that 2 percent--eventually less than 1 percent--over time.

I think that is wrong for the people paying taxes. But here is the big crime of it all: That system locks in failure for Social Security. Some Senate, somehow, someday--if we don't do something relatively soon--is going to be dealing with a trust fund that is $25 trillion short of the money necessary to pay the obligation, and it is going to be dealing with a trust fund from which somebody gets a letter one day saying: That check you got last month will be reduced by 28 percent, and I am sorry we don't have the money to pay you.

I don't know who will be occupying this seat then--I doubt if it will be me--but I would like to take some of that burden off their shoulders and off the working families and the working people in this country, in terms of taking their money and getting a better rate of return for it.

So the hope and purpose of this amendment is to put into the record this year, 2003, let it be said--if there is a record that stands the test of time, let it be said that in 2003 the Senate will soon adopt facts that I think are irrefutable, nonpartisan in nature, that lay out the future of Social Security solvency in a very honest, dramatic, and chilling way.

I congratulate my colleagues who are willing to accept this amendment as part of the roadmap for the budget this year. The facts are real. They are not going to go away unless we make things happen differently.

One thing I remember from President Clinton--and it was a good line-- is that

the definition of insanity is doing an event the same way and expecting different results. So I think it is insane politically for us to keep this system in place expecting different results to fall out of the sky. They will not fall out of the sky.

Our freedom is about to be strengthened because some young man and woman chose to volunteer to serve their country and risk their life for our freedom. You can debate all you would like whether this is an appropriate thing to do. But they have taken on that sacrifice, and they will accept the order, if given, to go forward. That model is the model that has kept us free for over 200 years--average, everyday Americans who are willing to do their part, willing to risk their sons and daughters, their own lives, to make sure the next generation can have the blessings of liberty that we have enjoyed.

There was an interview I heard today of a family with twin sons serving in the same Marine unit, both of them ready to go tomorrow, if that is the day chosen. The mom and the dad were very worried but bursting with pride about the fact that both of their sons have chosen to serve in the Marine Corps and both of them are on the tip of the spear. What they were trying to tell the commentator was that they are proud of them because they are willing to serve their country and protect their way of life. The parents mentioned the fact that their hope is that life will be better for their kids than it was for them, and that truly is the American dream. That is what keeps us all going, trying to make sure that we pass on to the next generation a future with a possibility, with hard work, to be better than the one we have experienced.

I can say with all the confidence in the world that if we don't act soon, and act decisively, and if we are not willing to sacrifice politically and make some structural reforms to Social Security, we are committing political malpractice, and the future of Social Security is dismal and the ability to maintain the system is going to be unbelievably costly, and you can wind up with a Social Security pension plan and the military, and no money to do anything else. That is what awaits us as a nation.

But I am just as confident that we will rise to the occasion, and I cannot see how right now--it is beyond my ability as a political person to see how all this is going to come together. I am telling you that, based on faith, I know it will. The problems facing our troops--there are so many scenarios that face them in the aftermath of Iraq. There are thousands of different scenarios of ``what if that'' and ``what if that.'' I can only tell you I have the same faith that at the end of the day we will be successful and at the end of the day the sacrifices will be made.

Unfortunately, some people, most likely, will lose their lives or be injured. We are going to get through this thing at the end of the day stronger rather than weaker. We are doing the right thing.

I have faith in our troops and in our President that the dictator, Saddam Hussein, will be gone soon. I have faith that this body, starting this year--I hope it is this year--will come together to address the looming problems that face Social Security. This amendment lays out those problems. It puts it as part of the road map for this year's budget and, at the end, it encourages all to work together with the President to come up with solutions to avoid raising taxes and cutting benefits. It is a small step that will hopefully get us to the right place one day.

I am standing on the shoulders of people who have gone before me who have addressed problems of Social Security, such as Senator Moynihan and other Senators in this body from both parties. I do not know how long I will be here. Only the Good Lord and the voters know that. I can tell my colleagues one thing for certain: While I am here--I consider it to be an honor to be here--I want to do as many constructive activities for my country as possible. I think one of the best things I can do is to come up with an approach my colleagues from the other side can buy into, which means a give and take, to put in place a plan that begins to turn around the dynamics that are facing Social Security.

The good news is if we work together, if we start now, we can beat this problem, we can solve this problem. The bad news is if we continue to do what we have done for the past decade, we are going to pass on to the next generation of political leaders and taxpayers a dismal picture. I would argue that would be the first time in the history of the country that political leaders passed on a country that was diminished, not enhanced. I am confident we will not be the first ones to make that mistake.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator. I thought that was a fairly eloquent rendition of where we find ourselves. But I would like to add to it and respond to my good friend, really, the senior Senator from South Carolina. If anyone has earned that title, Senator Hollings has. He is the senior Senator from South Carolina.

But there is a difference between what the Senator from North Dakota and the senior Senator from South Carolina were saying that I think is important.

The purpose in my offering this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is to take facts that have been reported by the Social Security Administration and make them part of this year's roadmap when we decide what to do to get through the budget process this year and to remind the Senate and get the Senate to focus on the short- and long-term problems our Nation faces.

``Poppycock.'' I don't know what it means, but it is often used by my good friend from South Carolina, the senior Senator. It sounds good. Everything he says is intriguing to me, just by his speaking style. But I do want to respond to the gist of what he was saying. The sham and the fraud which I think has been going on, which has been going on for years, is to suggest there is an easy solution. It is to suggest if you just left Social Security alone, didn't use it for tax cuts or didn't use it for spending, everything would be OK. My senior Senator doesn't want to talk about 2042. I do. The reason I want to talk about 2018 and 2042 is I believe the reason I am here today is to pass on to the next generation a country very sound and very fit. If we do not address the problem of having two workers for every retiree, versus 16.5 when I was born, then we are going to fail and commit political malpractice.

I think it is political malpractice to suggest that if you just let Social Security alone, the problem will go away. Here is what the Social Security trustees said about that solution:

The implementation of a Social Security lockbox would not

alter this commitment and thus would have no direct effect on

the future solvency of Social Security.

As to the Senator from North Dakota, he is telling us, telling me, that now is not the time to cut taxes because of a variety of reasons, and one would be it will put pressure on the Social Security trust fund beyond the pressure that exists today.

People on my side would say that additional spending in the past, when the Democrats were in control, took money out of Social Security to put pressure on the trust fund.

The point is, the current income stream, diverted or not, is not going to save Social Security. We are going to have a $25 trillion shortfall in 75 years. And it does compound on itself. That is the point. The Senator from North Dakota is right. Every day, literally, that we ignore the problem of Social Security, it gets worse by billions. The unfunded liability has grown dramatically as we have been talking, and nobody is going to fix it except people such as us.

Here is why I will support the tax cut. One thing that is for sure, there are two Senators from South Carolina and we are going to cancel each other's vote a lot on taxes. He has his reasons and I have mine. The reason I will vote to cut your taxes is to stimulate the economy.

Where does Social Security money come from? What is the source of Social Security dollars? It is payroll taxes.

Well, who pays payroll taxes? People working.

How do you get a job? Somebody hires you.

How do they pay you? They make a profit.

The economy needs infusion, in my opinion. But I respect the Senator from North Dakota tremendously because he is saying let's put no pressure on Social Security, let's not have a tax cut. I respectfully disagree. I believe a tax cut will help stimulate the economy, making the economy and payroll taxes stronger, not weaker. But I respect him tremendously because he has bought into the big picture. We disagree about what to do today. We may disagree about spending plans tomorrow. But the Senator from North Dakota has bought into the big picture. He understands what faces our Nation.

As we argue about how to fix problems each year with the trust fund, I encourage him to work with me and others to come up with an overall solution that will hit the problem head on. This is a cancer that needs to be treated--and not with a Band-Aid. The problem we are facing as a Nation is we would not have enough money coming into the system, if it was all dedicated, to come close to paying benefits. In 2042--I will mention that date again--28 percent reduction in benefits; 2018, you pay more benefits in taxes. Every day we talk about it, it gets worse.

Having said that, I do believe the Senator from North Dakota and myself

will be able to work on a compromise that reflects accurately the facts facing the trust fund, the problem the Nation faces, and we will disagree about this year's budget and how to have a tax cut or not. But I do wish to work with him in the future because I believe he has got it. I believe he understands it.

With that, I will yield 10 minutes to my colleague, Senator Craig, from Idaho.

If the Senator would like additional time----

Mr. President, if I may, to put a couple things in perspective as we close out the discussion on the amendment, No. 1, I have been able to reach accommodation with the Senator from North Dakota about the language of the amendment. I am willing to accept his changes. I think they are reasonable and helpful.

I encourage my colleagues, we can have disagreements about how to best protect the Social Security trust fund. We can have a debate that we should not cut taxes, that we should make sure that we do nothing in terms of spending or tax cuts that jeopardizes the dollars coming in. That is a legitimate, healthy debate. I believe the best way to protect the trust fund is to create additional jobs and grow the economy so we will have more payroll taxes coming in to shore up the trust fund.

The focus of the amendment is to clarify in this roadmap the status of Social Security, not based on what a Republican thinks or what a Democrat thinks. And here is the summary of that status.

No matter what happens with the current amount of money coming into the system, if it is all protected, or some of it is bled off, if every dollar were to be collected that is going to be paid, it is $25 trillion short to pay bills in the next 75 years. And in 2042, you would have to cut 28 percent of the benefit package or increase taxes by 50 percent. In 2018, you would pay more in benefits than you collect in taxes. Why is that? The amount of money to be dedicated to this system, if it is all left alone, is nowhere near the amount of money to pay the benefits. It is no one's fault. It is not Senator Hollings' fault, and it is not my fault. The problem is we went from 16.5 workers paying into the system in 1950 to 20 years from now having two to one. There are just not enough people paying taxes to take care of the baby boomers.

One thing I am trying to make crystal clear is, there is no easy fix. The demagoguery must stop now. Those who say a tax cut this year or a spending plan next year is the problem with Social Security are missing the boat and engaging in conduct that is going to prevent us from ever finding a solution that works.

My belief is that you grow the economy to help Social Security. The belief of the Senator from North Dakota is that you don't do anything to jeopardize the trust fund this year through a tax cut. I respect that. I just disagree.

I hope if there is a vote in any fashion on this amendment, that my colleagues would allow the product that the Senator from North Dakota and I have come up with to be part of the record because it is vitally important that the Senate incorporate information from the Social Security trustees that tells us exactly the future of Social Security and its status so that there will be something we can agree on and we can start working toward a solution sooner rather than later. If we can't agree on the basis, if we can't put into the budget resolution what the Social Security trustees are telling us about the status of the fund in 2018 and 2042 and the structural problems, if we can't do that because somebody wants to make a point about the tax cuts for political advantage, how in the world are we ever going to solve this problem?

I hope the Senate will overcome the temptation to kind of punch and counterpunch on the debate about taxes or any other debate and put in the record the real facts about Social Security, a record that has been established between myself and the Senator from North Dakota. It would be a great day, a small step forward to finally come to grips with the problems that Social Security faces.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe an effort is being made between my office and Senator Hollings' to work something out we can all live with. I ask him to take that into consideration. There are negotiations going on as we speak.

No, I do not object.

Mr. President, simply put, a couple things: My senior Senator seems to suggest we did something in the 1980s that has made Social Security sound. Social Security has surpluses today, but every day that goes by, those surpluses are not enough to pay the bills that are due and yet to come. Here is what the Social Security Administration told us yesterday: There are 3.3 workers to every retiree in 2002. Twenty years

from now, it goes 2 to 1. They told us yesterday that without structural reform--I emphasize again, structural reform does not include leaving Social Security current dollars alone. If you leave every dollar owed to Social Security alone and do nothing else, it still runs out of money in 2042. It is $25 trillion short in 2075. That is not the problem. People who say that are not being forthright about the problem.

Having said that, I join my colleague from South Carolina and the Senator from North Dakota to try to make sure we preserve Social Security, keep it strong and healthy until we can find a structural reform. He has made an argument that cutting taxes reduces the family's income. The point is that payroll taxes are the income for Social Security. We are in a depressed economy right now.

We are trying--at least I am trying--to take some dollars and invest them back into the families and businesses of America, to create additional jobs, to strengthen the revenue flow, and to protect the revenue flow of Social Security.

My friend from North Dakota doesn't believe it will work. I totally respect him. But it is very difficult to be lectured to by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about needing to be good stewards with taxpayer dollars. I came to Congress in 1994. When I came here, there were deficits as far as the eye could see. We had not balanced the budget in 30 years. We were able to balance the budget and cut taxes twice. Now, because of war, recession, and other problems, we have a debt. The debt, compared to the gross domestic product, is very small as compared to years past. But it is still a debt, and it is a real problem, and we need to work together to solve that debt, and we will.

I am asking my colleagues today, whatever you think about the tax cut, or other proposals that my party may present today or tomorrow, please do not prevent us from having in the Record for the country to see the true state of affairs with Social Security. My amendment doesn't fix the problem; it identifies it. I have been able to work with the Senator from North Dakota to put it into the Record. Today could be a good day--a day that the Senate agrees on the outyear problems of Social Security and begins to define it in a nonpartisan way or today could be the same old politics, where the political moment prevents us from talking honestly and openly about the looming problem of Social Security.

I am hopeful this will be a different day because, if not, we have lost the opportunity to do something constructive to fix Social Security. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota working with me. I hope I can reach an agreement with my senior Senator from South Carolina to define the problem in honest terms, without anybody putting their spin on it, because the wording comes from the Social Security Administration. If I fail, I deeply regret the fact that I was not able to achieve this small first step. I am hopeful that, working together, we can achieve this small first step. That is all I know to say.

This is a great exercise in what this country faces. I am trying to use the Social Security trustees' report to define the problem. I don't want the demagoguery of the moment to keep us from doing that, because the country loses in the debate of the moment. There are honest differences. Let's do something constructive and define the problem in the terms given by the Social Security trustees.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

After having reviewed the documents, I am willing to agree to the modifications as offered by my senior Senator and the modification offered by the Senator from North Dakota. I am willing to do that. I think it is a good first step.

Senator Harkin is right. This is a difficult situation. I am often asked at town meetings: Why should the government be involved in the regulation of abortion? It is a personal matter. I suppose it depends upon who you believe the interested parties are. Obviously, the interested parties are the mother, but many in the country believe there is another party to the decision process, and the unborn child. Someone has to speak for the unborn child.

In a country where people are free to express themselves, that they would outlaw abortion--I find it amazing people who believe it is a woman's right to choose would idly sit by and not petition the government to change that. The converse is true. This is why we are here. This is part of democracy, defining what the law of the land is in terms of the beginning of life, the taking of life, and the terminating of a life.

I don't find it odd at all we have these debates. This is exactly what a democracy is built upon--the rule of law. There are no understandings about the basics of life--when it begins, who can terminate it, under what conditions it can be terminated. If it is left to everyone's whim and personal desire, that is chaos.

What we are trying to do in a very reasoned way, with much emotion behind the reason, is give our views about how the government, society, should deal with the issue of when life begins, what is life, and who has the right to terminate it, and under what circumstances. To me, that is the essence of the rule of law. I look forward to hearing my colleagues express themselves. I do disagree with the concept that the government has no role in determining when life begins, how it should be ended, and who can end it, in a democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been in the Senate now for a couple of months at most--it seems longer--and I am bearing witness to a change in the Constitution I never envisioned I would be a witness to.

The minority on the other side, not all of them because some of them voted to allow Miguel Estrada a vote up or down, are, in effect, changing the Constitution. We can have an academic debate whether it is legal or not, but there are five situations in the Constitution where the Framers required a supermajority vote. Confirming a judge was not one of them. We are witnessing and we are part of a change to our Constitution by the fact that they are filibustering this judge requiring 60 votes to confirm a judge.

Why is this happening? What is going on? It is not about the way questions were answered. It is not about getting memos that no Solicitor General would allow to be released on their watch, Democrat or Republican. This is a calculated effort by our friends on the other side post-2002 election to go after our President.

They had a meeting before Miguel Estrada had a hearing, and their meeting was about: You are laying down too much for President Bush. You need to stand up to him.

They made a calculated decision to stand up to him by going after his judges. They are, in effect, changing the Constitution, and this is wrong. It is wrong politically and it is wrong constitutionally. Whether it is illegal, I do not know, but I know it is going to hurt our country and history will judge us poorly for allowing this to happen.

This is an effort to go after the President in a way that no other party has ever gone after a President before, and we will pay a price as a nation if this is successful.

I know my colleagues are better than this. I know they are capable of doing better than this because I can read what they said on other occasions when the shoe was on the other foot.

When I came to the Chamber a few minutes ago, the Senator from Massachusetts was giving us a history lesson about the role of the Senate and the President in confirming judges. This is what he said on March 7, 2000: Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power is not concentrated to any branch of the Government. The President was given the authority to nominate Federal judges with the advice

and consent of the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President, not against him, in the process. In recent years, however, by refusing to take timely action on so many of the President's nominees, the Senate has abdicated its responsibility.

He was right then. He could see at that moment the problems that were being created for this country if we overly played politics with judicial nominations. He is wrong today because he is blinded by the politics of 2002.

We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues do not like them, do not like their answers, do not like the way they are behaving, do not like the advice they are getting--I am adding this now--vote against them, but give them a vote. That was Senator Kennedy, February 3, 1998.

If Senators want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I respect that. State their reasons. I respect that. But do not hold up a qualified judicial nominee.

Senator Leahy said: I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether somebody I opposed or somebody I support. I thought the Senate should do its duty by giving them a vote.

They were right then. They could see clearly.

Yes.

Absolutely.

I will be glad to do that. Could I, in turn, ask the Senator a question?

Is Senator Leahy willing to answer my question?

South Carolina.

Absolutely. Rather than taking the time, I will put it in the Record.

Absolutely, I will. I do not have it, but if somebody will give it to me.

I do not want to misquote the Senator. I do not want to put words in his mouth. I do not want to take one part of his quote to suggest it means something that it really does not.

My question simply put: In June 1998, was the Senator trying to tell the Senate that it is wrong to filibuster a judge?

Mr. President, I am now going to read a June 18, 1998 statement of the Senator from Vermont involving Clarence Sundram and other judges who were subject to discussion on that day:

If Senators are opposed to any judge, bring them up and

vote against them. But don't do an anonymous hold, which

diminishes the credibility and respect of the whole U.S.

Senate.

I have had judicial nominations by both Democrats and

Republican Presidents that I intended to oppose. But I fought

like mad to make sure they at least got a chance to be on the

floor for a vote.

I have stated over and over again on this floor that I

would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I

would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge,

whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt

the Senate should do its duty.

If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him

or her down. But don't hold them to this anonymous

unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of

Senators really shame all Senators.

My statement is simply this: We are bearing witness to a constitutional change. And having looked at the statement of Senator Leahy and his present conduct, we are bearing witness to a change on his part. He was right in 1998 to oppose the filibusters. He is wrong today to engage in one.

Will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. President, it is fair to say, like many other States, this nomination has not gone unnoticed by the media in my State of South Carolina--I have been called worse things than being from North Carolina. Both the Spartanburg Herald Journal and Post & Courier of Charleston have called for an end to this filibuster, and there is one aspect of the Spartanburg Herald Journal editorial I would like to ask the senior Senator from Utah about, and it goes as follows:

No reasonable Congress ought to be seeking such material--

And talking about legal memorandum written by a lawyer to a client--

as a letter from all living former Solicitors General

attests. . . . They don't want those lawyers to be worrying

about how their memos will impact future attempts to win

judicial seats.

Does the Senator from Utah agree that if we start taking memos prepared by lawyers to their clients and bring those memos out in a fashion as to whether or not a person is qualified to serve one day in the future in the judiciary that it may change work product and it will be very bad for the Justice Department lawyers to have to be thinking about those things? Does the Senator agree this is a road none of us should want to go down?

Mr. President, this will be a tough act to follow. The Senator from Alabama has done a wonderful job going through the nuances of where we find ourselves and explained the career of Miguel Estrada better than I could possibly do and has talked about the factors that bring us here at 1:10 in the morning.

All I can add to it is that I am new to the body. I was hoping my first engagement with the Senate would be about Social Security and talking about saving that system. But I find myself in the middle of something very historic; that is the filibustering of a circuit court of appeals judge--apparently, the only time in the history of our Nation such tactics have been employed. And you ask yourself, Why? What has gotten us here? Why have they chosen to do this?

One thing about being a Presiding Officer of the Senate is you get to learn a lot and hear a lot. One thing I have learned is that in the past the abuses of the judicial nomination process have sometimes been striking, and apparently both sides have engaged in some practices that just really do not seem right.

There are all kinds of cases where judges were never given a chance to be voted on and left in committee for years. And people did not like one judge, and they decided to make sure they never got a vote. And they were in the majority. It goes on and on and on. I guess that is politics. I do not suggest that the Republican party, in the past, has not done some things that were probably unfair to people, too.

But what we are about to engage in will become the mother of all abuses. It will take the country in a direction that it need not go in terms of judicial nominations. And the country, I hope, will wake up and listen a little closer to what we are doing over time. Editorial writers are beginning to write, and they are beginning to understand what is at stake. And from a Republican point of view, it is very unusual to have all these papers siding with us and criticizing our friends on the other side. That is normally not the case. What we are doing does affect the future of the country in a very dramatic way.

A courtroom--unlike the business of politics that we all chose to engage in--is a place for quiet reflection. All of us here as Senators have something in common. Our goal is to get 50 plus one vote, or 50 percent of the vote plus one. We engage in a business that is

loud, expensive, nasty, and sometimes unpleasant but very important and very rewarding. Our objective, when it comes to election years, is to convince people to vote for us, call attention to what we have done, to how we are different from our opponent, and that we are better for your family and your business than the other person running. We have a big deal made about it, and we spend a lot of money, and we beat each other up, and the public votes and they get to express themselves. The majority wins.

Well, the courtroom is a different place. Our Founding Fathers understood that. There has to be someplace in a democracy where somebody who feels they have been wronged by a large group has a place to go other than the ballot box, because the ballot box sometimes is not the best place to ensure that justice is done in an individual case. So in our system the weak can sue the strong. They can go to a court, be judged by a jury of their peers, and the case will be presided over by somebody with a lifetime appointment, who doesn't have any polls to worry about, or any particular constituency to please. The only person to be pleased is Lady Justice.

The appeals process sends the case forward, and the courtroom itself, in terms of a trial, can be a pretty loud place, because you have witnesses, and a lot of testimony, and a lot of cross-examination. It can be a very flamboyant place. But whether or not that case will withstand scrutiny is determined by a panel of judges at the appeals level. And there is no quieter place in our legal system than the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court itself. People who are there for life listen to very well-constructed arguments by lawyers, who look at the precedents involved in the case, look at the Constitution, and try to render a fair verdict.

Our Founding Fathers understood that the judiciary needs to be an independent, separate branch of Government, immune, as much as it can be, from popular opinion, so that the unpopular may have a just verdict, or they may not get one otherwise.

Unfortunately, in this particular instance, the political trends to be set, if this filibuster is successful, will do great damage to the process of trying to pick qualified men and women to serve in this capacity in the future. The Constitution recognizes that the independent judiciary also needs a check and balance. Our judges at the Federal level are nominated by the President, the executive branch, and the Constitution has conferred upon this body the advise and consent role, a check and balance to the executive branch.

The Constitution envisioned supermajority votes of the Senate in a very few cases, and confirming a judge is not one of them. The Constitution envisions that nominees of any particular President will come to this body, and the Constitution envisions that a majority vote will determine the fate of that nominee.

The Senate rules, over time, have allowed the minority to be able to stop any particular matter, unless the majority can gather 60 votes. That is not part of the Constitution; that is part of the way the Senate works. For some reason, our friends on the Democratic side have chosen to filibuster a circuit court of appeals nominee for the first time in the history of our country. They have chosen Miguel Estrada for some reason. Well, I am not privy to their caucus conversations, but I have a feeling this goes back to last year's election. The Republican party picked up seats in last year's senatorial election that even we could not have envisioned as a party 2 years ago. Something happened in the 2002 election that allowed us to get 51 seats.

For every Member of the body, there is probably a different opinion as to what did happen in 2002. I argue to my friends on the other side that 100 years from now people will not write much about the 2002 election; they really won't care to know why Lindsey Graham got elected with nine other Republican freshman Senators. Unless I can do the Senator Thurmond thing, I will be long gone myself. But they will care and they will write about what happened to our country if we filibuster controversial judicial nominees as a matter of political practice. That will have taken us down a road that no one, so far, has gone down.

I am afraid that road would be a very unpleasant journey for our Nation. I think our friends on the other side of the aisle lost seats in 2002 because we had a popular Republican President, serving right after one of the most horrific events of our time--the tragedy of 9/ 11--a President Americans liked and trusted to make hard decisions. He was able to make the case to enough American voters in the 2002 election that the Senate in the hands of our Democratic colleagues was not producing in an appropriate fashion.

Now, I know people will disagree with that analysis, but that is what I believe. In my campaign, we talked about a homeland security bill that was held up because of special interest labor union politics. We talked about an antiterrorism insurance bill that would allow people to build buildings without having to absorb the risk of a terrorist attack by themselves because of legal provisions that trial lawyers wanted.

Also, we talked about judges who could not get a vote on the Senate floor. I am convinced that resonated, that after 9/11 people wanted us to work together and, rightly or wrongly, enough people in the country believed the Democratic-controlled Senate was not working as an efficient body and helping a President the public liked and wanted to be successful.

Right after the election in November, we had a special election in Louisiana in December. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were able to hold a seat. I argue that the momentum of the 2002 election was a moment in time, and that those in the Democratic Party who believe they must stand up to George W. Bush at every turn and take him on personally with every agenda he has control of must understand there is a limit to that strategy. The limit to that strategy has to be the common good. I argue that we have gone into an area where the common good is not being served. That the filibustering of Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is not only unprecedented, I believe it is part of an overall strategy. I believe-- and I hope I am wrong--that we will see this happen time and again this year; that this is part of a strategy by our friends on the other side to further obstruct the ability of the President to move judicial nominees through the system.

By employing this tactic, they have set a course that will be hard to turn. Politics being what it is, people have long memories, and there will come a day when a Democrat will occupy the White House and the Republican Party will be in the minority in the Senate, and it will be talked about: Remember what they did to Miguel Estrada.

There is a certain part of politics that appeals to our basic instincts, not the common good, and I hope, and I literally pray, that our friends on the other side of the aisle will find a different tactic to take to make their points of view known about President Bush's agenda, including judges, rather than engaging in a tactic that will basically supplant the constitutional role of confirming judges by requiring Senates of the future to have to gather 60 votes to confirm a controversial judicial nominee.

This tactic will hurt us all. This tactic will belittle and demean the judicial nomination process. This tactic will change the constitutional process we have lived with for well over 200 years in confirming judges. This tactic will allow a bitter minority of the greatest body in democratic history to act in a way that will make it very hard for good men and women to serve. And that bitter minority one day may be a Republican minority.

I hope that reason will prevail; that we can reach a compromise of some sort that will allow everybody to walk away from this in good faith and say they fought the good fight and that Miguel Estrada will have a vote up or down, and that this tactic of filibustering, requiring a supermajority vote for judicial nominees, will give way for the sake of the common good.

It has been amazing to me to see the transformation of the arguments against Miguel Estrada and how they have changed over time. Being a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can recall being shocked by hearing the phrase from someone--and I cannot remember who--``he's not Hispanic

enough.'' Obviously, I am not Hispanic, and I do not know what being ``Hispanic enough'' means. It was a phrase that just really did not sound nice, was not befitting of the experience we are all in, and was used to explain the fact that Miguel Estrada, by going to a private school, somehow did not share the Hispanic experience. That sounded offensive, and it was offensive. Nobody says it anymore, and that is the good news.

When the Hispanic groups that came out against Mr. Estrada's nomination first rallied around this cause, they were pretty hard on him as a person. Once one understands who he is and what he has gone through, it really is unfair to be hard on him as a person because he is a good person and he has overcome obstacles that everybody should be proud of, that I could only imagine.

He truly has lived the American dream. He made something of himself in the most difficult of circumstances. We do not hear much about that anymore. As a matter of fact, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that this has nothing to do with his ethnic background. Good. Because it should not. It should be about who is qualified. We should enjoy and relish the fact that diversity is part of the American dream, and that for the first time, we will have a Hispanic member on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second highest court in the land. That would be a good thing for America, and we should rejoice in it if it does happen.

Then the attacks moved to a different level: He has never been a judge. When I first heard that, it made me wonder. To be on the circuit court of appeals, maybe it is a good thing to be a judge before you get promoted. Then I learned that Justice Rehnquist and untold numbers of men and women serving in the Federal judiciary were promoted to very important positions without ever having any previous judicial experience, which makes sense because being a judge is a cocktail of several items: Temperament, intellect, the ability to understand human behavior, the ability to reason and to have a kind and compassionate disposition. That is what I am looking for, and people can bring those qualities to the table without ever having worn a robe.

That argument, that he has never been a judge, fell by the wayside when the untold numbers of judges who never had any experience before came forward. So he is like so many others. It makes no sense to say no because of that.

The next argument is he is ideologically driven; that there is something about this man that would not allow him to look at my case or your case or anyone else's case fairly because he is so driven by his ideology that he cannot see justice, that he cannot see facts, and he cannot see prior decisions. I am assuming this ideology is one of some extreme view of the law that only a radical conservative could have; that he is ideologically not equipped to serve in such an important job.

That has to be analyzed in terms of the man's life. It is easy to say something, but it should be a requirement that it be true. I will just offer one fact for people to consider. If he is so ideologically driven that he cannot fairly render justice, how in the world could he have worked for the Bill Clinton administration? I would argue that any ideologically driven conservative would have had a hard time working for Bill Clinton. Not only did Miguel Estrada work in the Clinton administration's Justice Department, he performed in an outstanding manner.

One of the gentlemen who accused him of being ideologically driven happened to be the person who rated his performance, and during the reporting periods involved, he said he was an outstanding lawyer who always applied the law and the facts based on reason and not personal agendas.

The idea that Miguel Estrada is some right-wing ideologue makes absolutely no sense, and he is being supported by the people who know him the best--by Democrats and Republicans who understand that he is a man of great credentials. I will assure my colleagues of one thing, if you do not believe anything else I have said, that the American Bar Association is never going to unanimously support somebody who is an ideologue on the conservative side, and he received a most highly coveted rating, well qualified, by the American Bar Association. That argument that he is an ideologue that cannot see reason is stupid.

The next one is: We do not know enough about him and the only way we are only going to know about him is for us, our friends on the other side, to have access to all the memoranda he has ever written as a lawyer when he worked for the Department of Justice.

There is a reason that all the Solicitors General have come out unanimously against the idea of producing legal memorandum in that Department to the Congress. Nobody would want the lawyers who worked for them, who advise them with written or oral opinions, to have that work product disclosed to the public in a fashion that would change people's opinions and change the way they would advise. If it ever becomes the law of the land, if this case results in internal memos written by lawyers to clients, if that becomes part of how a judge is chosen, then I would argue that Government lawyers who have any aspirations of being a judge are going to find themselves in a very difficult circumstance.

There is a reason that every Solicitor General living today has said that the memos requested by our friends on the other side should not be released. What I find most astonishing is that the last administration, and some who know me understand that I was probably not their biggest fan, time and time again used privilege after privilege, mostly made up, to protect everything they touched. I thought they abused the privilege doctrines, but here is something we should all be able to agree upon: That when a lawyer writes a memo to a client, that should stay between the client and the lawyer. And if the client does not want the memo released, for the good of us all, for the sake of the attorney-client privilege, for the sake of good government, that request should be denied. We do not know enough about him because we really have not had a chance to talk to him.

I was in the Judiciary Committee. The man was there all day. There is a volume that was produced from the hearings. He has been around for a year and a half. He has answered questions. I think he has given good answers. This is not about not knowing enough about him, not being able to answer the questions that were not properly asked, because the people who want this information are going to vote no anyway.

This is about conservative versus liberal. This is about politics. This is about trying to rectify the losses in 2002. I am convinced that our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided that the only way they can get back into the game is to oppose President Bush. Instead of learning from the 2002 elections that obstruction was not the way to a majority, I think they have blinders on now in that they have engaged in a political dynamic that not only will not allow them to regain the majority of this body but could do irreparable damage to our country in the future.

I know that each and every one of them believes that there is a high purpose for what they are doing; they love their country as much as I do and would disagree with my assessment. But this I am sure of: if this filibuster is successful, 100 years from now we will have changed the way business is done in the Senate in regard to confirming controversial judicial nominees. And 100 years from now, people, if they could, would come back to each and every one of us and say: Why did you do that? I wish you would have not done that. We are paying a price for your desire to get a political advantage that you could not even envision.

I am hopeful that over time there will be Members on the other side of the aisle sufficient enough in number who will say: I will not engage in this practice to the point that I am legitimizing a filibuster of a circuit court nominee that will set in motion forces of the future that will change the way the Constitution works.

I am hopeful we will eventually get enough votes not to confirm Miguel Estrada but to allow a vote to be had to confirm Miguel Estrada. If that vote is had, he will win, I am convinced. For the sake of the future of this country, I hope that some time in the near future this tempting practice of making

it hard for President Bush to get forward any judicial nominee our friends on the other side do not like will be abandoned because I am convinced they will look back in their political career with great regret that they ever did this.

Several of them are on record of having said in the past, just give him a vote. I will never engage in a filibuster of a judge because I think it is wrong, I think it is bad for the country. When Senator Leahy said it, he was right. When Senator Kennedy said it, he was right. When Senator Feinstein said it, she was right. At the time they saw very clearly the consequences of what could happen.

We are too close to the 2002 election for some of our friends on the other side of the aisle to see clearly. All they see is a majority lost and a real desire to get it back. Please reflect, please do not be blinded by the political moment. Please do not take our country down a road that we will all regret.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Monday, February 24, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. to conclude a business meeting regarding S. 195, Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003; Several Committee Resolutions on GSA Prospectuses; and Committee Funding Resolution.

The meeting will be held in the President's Room (S. 216).

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

It is my understanding one of the attacks is Mr. Estrada is in fact a rightwing ideolog who may use his political philosophy to shape the law in an unfair way. Is that correct?

Is my understanding correct that it is not only the Senator's suspicion, but they have actually said that? People on the other side have said one of the concerns they have about this gentleman is they are suspicious of his ideology and that he may be inflexible in applying the law in a fair way. Is that correct?

Along those lines, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Will the Senator continue to yield for one more question?

Would the Senator agree with me that if one of the really serious questions about whether or not this man is a rightwing ideolog who couldn't shape the law in a proper fashion--that any rightwing ideolog would have a very difficult time working for the Clinton administration? Would you agree with me about that concept?

Did this gentleman in fact work for the Clinton administration?

Will the Senator agree that for any conservative to be able to work for the Clinton administration and do well shows a tremendous amount of tolerance?

Mr. President, all Americans were saddened by the terrible tragedy last weekend involving the Space Shuttle Columbia. The world has lost seven incredibly talented people who were striving to make this a better planet for us all. Our hearts go out to the families of the astronauts. I hope God will provide them comfort and healing during this difficult time.

For decades, Americans have been proud of our space program and the brave men and women who have led our explorations in space travel. They have been pioneers seeking a better understanding of our own planet and what lies in the deep, dark expanse of space.

In the coming days and weeks our Nation will mourn for the astronauts of the Space Shuttle Columbia as well as the friends and families they left behind. We will also mourn for the thousands of dedicated workers at NASA who are suffering from this painful loss. We will take our time to carefully study and examine what went wrong and then we'll make the necessary corrections and adjustments.

At the appropriate time, we will once again move forward into new frontiers and new missions for space exploration. It is who we are. It is what we do. It is why we are Americans.

Mr. President, twice now we have witnessed the horror of vapor trails separating in the sky.

Twice now we have gazed in shock at photographs of the optimistic faces of seven young heroes, captured as they stood at the brink of one of mankind's greatest adventures.

Twice now we have endured the loss of a space shuttle and its valiant crew: First, Challenger on January 28, 1986, at the start of a landmark voyage dedicated to teaching a new generation about space. Now, 17 years and 4 days later, Columbia on February 1, 2003, at the conclusion of a successful scientific mission.

Both incidents remind us that space exploration is fraught with risk, but also with limitless possibility. Even as we mourn the loss of Columbia's crew of seven brave heroes, including the first astronaut from Israel, we must rededicate ourselves to continuing to pursue knowledge of the heavens and the benefits we derive from our research.

We in Florida feel the losses most intensely. My State is home to the Kennedy Space Center and thousands of the dedicated professionals who work for NASA as well as its contractors. Floridians consider ourselves part of the special family that makes up the space program. We launched the Columbia on its 16-day mission, and we were ready to welcome her crew home.

Now, Floridians are firm in our belief that, just as we did in the 1980s, we must fully explore the causes of Saturday's disaster. We must identify what went wrong and fix it. We must ensure the safety of the remaining three orbiters and future astronauts.

But then we recommit ourselves to returning to space, to resuming launches, to continuing to build the International Space Station, and to forging ahead with missions to Mars and other planets.

We are already hearing cautious voices calling for spacecraft to be piloted by robots, or even insisting that no new money be spent on space. I say that is wrong. On May 25, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy declared it a national goal to land a man on the Moon, he did so with these words: ``If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.''

In the spirit of John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and our other space pioneers, astronauts must once again be sent soaring through the Earth's atmosphere to explore and discover.

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

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

There being no objection the bill was printed in the Record, as follows:

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

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

There being no objection the bill was printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, as the now ranking member on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I must make my fellow Senators aware of the impact of the proposed across-the-board cut in the appropriations for the executive branch for fiscal year 2003 on the Department of Veterans Affairs and its ability to provide health care and benefits to our Nation's veterans.

Yesterday morning we were talking about a 1.6 percent cut, of which VA's share would be over $424 million. But let me put that in context. That would have meant that 125,000 fewer veterans will be seen in VA's hospitals, that 250 benefits claims adjudicators would lose their jobs. And it would mean that a hiring freeze would be in place across the VA. These cuts are being put into place at a time when there are 235,000 veterans waiting over 6 months for an appointment at VA. It takes an average of 200 days for a veterans disability claim to be decided. But today we are talking about a 2.9 percent cut across the board. VA has not computed what this will mean to America's veterans yet.

Let me be more specific, so that my colleagues can understand the consequence of this decision. The proposed 2.9 percent cut would cost the Veterans Health Administration almost $695 million of the $2.4 billion increase VA health care was slated to receive. The VA-HUD Appropriations Committee recognized VA's dire need for health care resources, and responded accordingly in a bipartisan effort last year.

Meanwhile, VA announced just today that in light of rapidly rising numbers of veterans coming to VA for health care and prescription drugs, they will have to cut off enrollment for a certain category of veterans. How can we possibly consider cutting funding now, in the face of such sharply rising demand for VA health care? There are over 44,000 veterans waiting half a year to see a doctor in my home State of Florida right now--this is unacceptable. The system clearly needs higher increases in funding, not decreases.

Mr. President, it is also important to point out that a vital segment of the VA health system will receive a drastic cut as a result of this proposal, VA research. This program is invaluable not only to the veteran community, but to the Nation as a whole. VA research is responsible for advances such as the CT and MRI scans, the cardiac pacemaker, and performing the first kidney transplant. The groundbreaking dynamic of the VA research program also serves to attract leading researchers and physicians to VA. Reducing funding for this program is a true disservice to all Americans.

On the benefits side, this is a true cut. The original Senate- reported amount of $992 million will be reduced by $29 million. VA has been battling a backlog of claims. It has been making some progress. The VA Secretary has set a goal of deciding new claims within 100 days by the end of this fiscal year. He will not meet his target with this appropriation. As I said, FTE will be cut. There will be a hiring freeze. While the Florida office is now doing slightly better than the national average, it still takes 155 days to process a claim.

In addition, the nationwide overtime authorized at various regional offices to process disability claims will be severely curtailed. Currently, each regional office is averaging 40 overtime hours per month. This overtime program has resulted in a reduction in the pending claims backlog. An across- the-board reduction in overtime will mean that veterans will have to wait longer to have their claims reviewed. The accuracy in decisionmaking will drop. We must restore funding before the backlog grows again to unmanageable proportions.

As you all know, the veterans' population is aging rapidly. We are losing over 1,200 World War II veterans per day. While the VA is attempting to make a special effort to adjudicate claims of veterans over the age of 70, every day a veteran dies while his or her claim is awaiting a decision.

I understand that there are many competing demands being placed on the executive branch right now. But in a time when the White House can afford to offer a tax cut of $640 billion, and in time when we are asking the men and women in the military to go back into harm's way, can we really afford to turn our backs on them when they return from war?