Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are having a crisis in the West. Actually, we are having a crisis anywhere that there are people who raise livestock. The crisis comes about as a result of neither fair trade nor free trade--in fact, the elimination of both. This bill is designed to make a correction in that. It is a clarification. I do not think the clarification would be necessary if enforcement were done, but this bill will clearly set out that a part of the problem can be solved.

Part of the crisis that particularly the small farmers and ranchers who raise livestock have is the drought we are having in the West. We are in the fourth year of a drought right now. That is resulting in a lot of for sale and auction signs going up on ranches. This is partly because they are not getting the proper price for their product. It is a controlled market; it is not a free market.

To bring it to a level that more people would understand, imagine trying to sell a house where the U.S. tradition might have changed so that everybody worked through a realtor, or at least 80 percent of the people worked through a realtor, and the realtor did not really show the house to other people. The realtor bought the house and then put it on the market themselves. The realtor had the capability to set the market price because of the other houses they owned.

That is what is happening with captive supply. There are a lot of technicalities to it. I sincerely hope my colleagues will take a look at it and understand it a little bit. It is very difficult. It is very detailed. It is very complicated to understand, but it is very important to understand. It is important to understand on behalf of the ranchers and consumers.

Now, one would think that if the price were being driven down for the rancher, those of us buying meat at the supermarket would get it for less. But if one tracks the price the ranchers are getting and the price the consumers are paying when the price goes down for the rancher, everything stays level for the consumer. So where is the money going? It is staying in the middle somewhere. We know where it is staying, and we know why it is staying, and it is control of the market. We do not usually allow that in the United States, but in this instance we allow it.

So 80 percent of the market is controlled by four packers, and they set the price. They set it in a way that the rancher has no control over it whatsoever. So the ones suffering this drought and suffering all the risk are the ones receiving the least money from the entire process. We do not believe in that in America. My bill is designed to change that.

Packers who practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the current law, but this law is not being enforced. What we are left with is unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced, and the cost to enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time consuming, today I propose the Senate take action.

Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a country road. No one pays attention to the sign unless the driver is sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it--like a police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying any attention to because the police are too busy doing something else.

The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road, it is a speed bump. It does not just warn cars to go slower, it makes it more difficult for them to speed. Does it solve the whole problem? No, but it is one speed bump on the way to solving the problem.

My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong. Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. Now, in other businesses, that sounds like how we already operate. But it is not the way the packer operates. Producers are only given a contract that says they will get a certain dollar above the average at the time of the slaughter. And then if the person who controls the market drives the price down, the average can be well below what they ever anticipated it would be.

Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on the factors they do control.

Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements. In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. That would be pretty unique if they knew what the prices were on the products, particularly when it is captive supply. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice. The key is they have the access to do so.

I have worked on a number of bills and we have had success getting them through the Senate, and then the lobbying effort in conference knocks them out. That has sincerely convinced me there is a controlled market. Every attempt we make to provide a little speed bump is taken out and it is usually in conference. It usually passes the House, passes the Senate--not in identical form--but it has trouble in the conference committee. That is because there are a lot more lobbyists for the packers than there are for the small ranchers and livestock producers.

My bill also limits the size of the contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or

30 swine. It does not limit the number of contracts that will be offered by any individual. This key portion prevents small- and medium- sized livestock producers like those found in Wyoming from being shut out of deals containing thousands of livestock per contract. The more animals you have in the contract, the less likely it is that people can freely participate in the bidding process. It eliminates people.

We are sticking a small number of animals in each contract, but lots of contracts will help us to arrive at a more fair price for the livestock. Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation, and undue preferences, the things mentioned in that 1921 act.

These are not the only benefits in my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. He is not guessing what he will sell it for; he has an exact price. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock.

This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic. We tried a number of things to get price discovery so that the producers out there would have an idea what the true market is, whether it is being bought from other producers or being bought out of the captive supply. Every attempt we have made has been thwarted. They have found ways to put little loopholes in regulations so they do not have to report prices. That is not fair. It does not provide an open market.

Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home State. I wish I had time to share some of the heartrending stories of the way they have been taken to the cleaners on these unique contracts they are forced to sign if they want to be able to sell their product.

The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium ones, should have a fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business and protect the consumers. If there was a fluctuation out here on the other end where the consumer is, we might not have quite the same concern, but the consumer is not getting the benefit of this fixed market. So we need to change the fixed market.

We need to change captive supply. My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing, and that is formula price contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field. It will help the economy of the entire United States. I ask for your help on this bill. We will be circulating some letters and further explanations so that we can have cosponsors; and pass the bill unanimously, I hope. I know that is a little difficult to obtain around here, but this is a very important issue and every State has livestock producers. It is time we took care of the livestock producers in a way that did not cost us a lot through enforcement.

I would love to see improved enforcement. I know there are other priority issues on enforcement, particularly since September 11, so I have tried to bring a little speed bump to provide accurate pricing. I ask for your help on the bill.

To reiterate:

Whenever there is a crisis the media has always served to focus the Nation's attention on the problem and who has been affected by it. Then it has been up to us, in the Congress, to review the problem and determine whether or not there was anything we could do to ease the suffering and repair the damage to someone's property and their livelihood.

Most of the time, when the media spots a crisis it is of such a magnitude that the pictures we see of the suffering are devastating and powerful. The images clearly cry out to us to take action and do what we can to restore, as much as possible, the lives of these people to normalcy.

We have all seen in these past few days the pictures of the devastating tornadoes that have wreaked havoc wherever they have touched down. Story after story has appeared in print and on television showing property destroyed, places of business torn in pieces, jobs in jeopardy and lives forever changed by the fury of a few moments of severe weather. Tornadoes do not last a long time, but they leave a path of devastation in their wake that leaves those affected by it forever changed.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of those who have been so affected and our hopes that they will be able to put their lives back together and go on as difficult as that will be to do.

As we view the devastation of those tornadoes, there are those in my State who have seen their livelihoods drastically affected by weather and unfair market policy, but they have not been so visible to us because we have not seen their faces on the nightly news or read their stories in the national newspapers. That is because not everyone who has seen their livelihood so drastically affected can be portrayed with quite the same kind of powerful images that depict those who have been touched by the ravages of severe weather patterns. Some problems that destroy livelihoods and weaken industries are far more subtle and more difficult to track.

Instead of being destroyed by a single blow, the industry I am referring to is being slowly put to death by the cruelest of methods-- thousands of small cuts brought on by the lethal combination of several years of drought, ambiguous regulations that are too easily taken advantage of and the lax enforcement of existing law which has allowed for the manipulation of the system to one group's advantage.

Our Nation's ranching industry is in trouble, and, due to the slower pace with which it has been affected, the only stark images we will see of the intensity of the problem are the ``for sale'' or ``up for auction'' signs that acknowledge the closing of a family owned ranch and the end of a family's dream that lasted for generations as the land and the business was handed down for many, many years.

Right now, as I speak, if you are a rancher in the West, you have two major problems affecting your ability to earn a living and provide for your family. The first is the continuing drought which has made it so difficult for ranchers to tend their cattle and provide them with good, affordable grazing.

The second is a regulatory nightmare that has held livestock producers captive by the chains of unfair and manipulative contracts. It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed, and which brings me to the floor today as I offer legislation to break the chains and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be traded in open, public markets.

So, what is this regulation that is destroying the health of our family ranchers? It's a practice called ``captive supply,'' a business practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West.

If you have not heard about the problem, I must point out that our ranchers have tried to bring it to our attention, but we have not fully focused on their needs. Whenever I travel to Wyoming, or hold a town meeting, or go over the week's mail that I receive from my constituents, I hear the cries for help from our ranchers in Wyoming, and throughout the West. One by one, and without exception, they are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years.

I could bring a stack of letters that come from people all across my State

about the problems they face. But, in the interest of time, I will read a small excerpt from one that will give you an idea of how bad things are in the ranching industry as our ranchers try to deal with captive supply.

A letter I received from a rancher in Lingle said that the issue of captive supply needed to be reviewed and addressed because it was ``slowly but surely putting small farmers/feeders out of business.'' He then added:

Until the existing laws are enforced in this area of

illegal activities, all other plans or laws will be of very

little consequence.

So what is captive supply and how is it harming our Nation's ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have a consistent supply of livestock for their slaughterlines.

The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a constant stream of production and control costs.

But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the problem lies.

The packing industry is highly concentrated. Four companies control more than half of all U.S. hog slaughter and more than 80 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughter. Using captive supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers that have not aligned with specific packers.

We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the Senate floor, but the amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did not survive the conference committee on the farm bill. However, the problems caused by captive supplies are alive and well, just as Wyoming producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and still do, I do not think that banning packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to control cattle and other livestock.

Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to the delivery of cattle one week or more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set.

As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula pricing are much more common than forward contracts.

In fact, the data published by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service indicates that in the first week of May 2003, 39,149 of the cattle slaughtered were sold through a forward contract. By comparison, 207,955 of the cattle slaughtered were marketed through formula pricing marketing agreements. Packers were using five times as many formula pricing marketing agreements as forward contracts to purchase their slaughter cattle. As we can see, packers use more marketing agreements because of the advantages those ambiguous contracts give them over producers.

In the same week, 36,899 of the cattle slaughtered were directly owned by packers. These numbers demonstrate that the problem of captive supply is far more extensive than just packer ownership. In the first week of May, packer owned cattle only comprised 13 percent of captive cattle slaughtered. This is why we must act to solve the entire captive supply problem.

I realize it may be difficult to grasp the seriousness of the situation if you are not familiar with the cattle market. Most of us have not signed a contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of the problem, let's explore how you would sell a house using a formula-priced contract in a market structured like the current livestock market.

It is May, and you know you will be selling your home in September. As a wise seller, you want to find a buyer for your home before that time. It turns out that other people do not really buy homes from each other anymore. In fact, four main companies have taken over 80 percent of all real estate transactions. You really have no choice but to deal with one of these companies.

One of them offers you a contract, stating you will receive $10,000 over the average price of what other, similar homes are selling for in your area in September. To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you have just been practically forced to sign a contract that doesn't specify how much you will receive for your house.

That tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach becomes full-fledged panic when you close the deal in September. You see, the four real estate companies have been planning ahead. They decide to pull away from the market. All the homes selling in September that are not contracted to the companies flood the market and the price for homes in your area drops $12,000. By trying to manage your risk, you sold your home for $2,000 below average.

As a homeowner, you would be outraged, wouldn't you? You would want to know why anyone had the ability to legally take advantage of you. Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are.

Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and (b):

It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to

livestock . . . to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory,

or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or

advantage to any particular person or locality in any

respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any

undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any

respect.

Packers who practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time-consuming, today I propose that the Senate take action.

Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a country road. No one pays the sign any attention unless the driver is sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it--like a police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It does not just warn cars to go slower, it makes it much more difficult for them to speed.

My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong.

Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed, base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price

after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements.

In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so.

My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It does not limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract.

Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock.

This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic.

Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home State. The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business.

My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing--formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 196, the digital and wireless technology program legislation. Under the consent agreement reached, there will be 1 hour for debate prior to the vote on passage. Senators should therefore expect a vote at approximately 12 noon today. Following that vote, the Senate may consider any other legislative or executive items ready for action.

The two leaders have been working on an agreement to allow for the consideration of several judicial nominations, and it is possible that those nominations would be considered today. The Senate may also resume consideration of the Owen nomination during today's session. As a reminder, a cloture motion was filed with respect to Priscilla Owen to be a U.S. circuit court judge for the Fifth Circuit. That cloture vote will occur tomorrow.

Finally, there are a number of other legislative matters that also may be considered this week, including the State Department authorization and the bioshield bill.

I will check with the leader and see if that cannot be arranged.

As in executive session, I now ask unanimous consent that Executive Calendar No. 35, John Roberts, be

recommitted to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, today I offer a bill that will make a very small change in our Cuba policy. It deals only with travel provisions to Cuba.

I have been watching Cuba since the 1960s. I went to George Washington University, and I was there at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba throughout the years. I am reminded of something my dad used to say, which was that if you keep on doing what you always have been doing, you are going to wind up getting what you already got. That is kind of the situation with Cuba. We have been trying the same thing for over 40 years, and it hasn't worked.

I am suggesting just a small change to maybe get a few more people in there to increase conversation with people who understand the way the United States works and the way Cuba works and how they ought to drift more rapidly toward where we are.

In recent weeks, as we shared the joy of the Iraqi people as they were liberated from the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein, we also felt the pain of those in Cuba who had dared to speak out in a vain but valiant effort to demand those same freedoms for themselves. As they did, 75 Cuban citizens were arrested and received harsh sentences--some for more than 20 years--all for the crime of yearning to be free. Once again, Castro has shown himself to be his own worst enemy when it comes to Cuba's image overseas, and so, when faced with an outcry from around the world about his actions, he quickly tried to blame the United States for his own actions. It was a hard sell at best, and, given the reactions we've seen from all sides of this issue, I don't think anyone is buying it.

Still, Castro's cruelty might tempt us to tighten the already strong restrictions on the relations between our two countries, but I hope we will not do that. If we increase the diplomatic pressure on the Cuban government that is now emanating from every corner of the world, we might be successful in bringing about a better way of life for the Cuban people.

If, however, we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial assistance to their families in Cuba, and end the people to people exchanges that have been so successful, and stop the sale of agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we will not be hurting the Cuban government nearly as badly as we will be hurting the Cuban people by diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and reducing the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two countries.

If we allow more and freer travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and dialogue, we take away Castro's ability to blame the hardships of the Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the better we try to make things for the Cuban people, the more we will reduce the level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by Fidel Castro.

I have often heard it said that it is foolish to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. In a way, that is what we are doing in Cuba. We are continuing to try to exert pressure from our side and, as we do, we are giving Castro a scapegoat to blame for the poor living conditions in his country in the process. It's time for a different policy, one that goes further than embargoes and replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a new one that will more effectively help us to achieve our goals in that country.

Today, Senators Dorgan, Baucus, and Bingaman and I are introducing the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

Our bill is very straightfoward. It states that the President shall not prohibit, either directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or transactions incident to such travel.

In 1958 the Supreme Court affirmed or Constitutional right to travel, but the U.S. government then prohibited Americans from spending money in Cuba. We simply said, okay, you have a right to travel, but try traveling without spending a dime.

Most of us know that certain people can and do continue to travel to Cuba. Cuban Americans can apply for a license to travel for humanitarian reasons to visit ailing family members and such, but not always conveniently.

The way I got involved in this whole process was a Cuban American from Jackson, WY, who had been in Cuba visiting his family, doing his one visit a year. As he left and was on the plane coming back to Wyoming, one of his

parents died. He could not go back there for a year. That is not a good situation for any family.

Educational groups can apply for licenses to travel for scholarly reasons, for educational opportunities and conferences. Members of the U.S. Government can travel for fact-finding reasons, but for the average American, that process is too complicated.

Even with the proper licenses, the regulations on where you can go and whom you can talk to are confusing, misleading, and frustrating. Each year the Office of Foreign Assets Control levies fines on travelers who followed the law to the best of their ability. Fines and punishments were imposed without guidelines and seemingly at the whim of a nameless bureaucrat.

I must ask my colleagues, why are we continuing to support a policy that was basically implemented 40 years ago? Why are we supporting a policy that has had little effect on the Government we oppose? Why do we not improve our policy so that it will improve conditions for the Cuban people and their image of the United States?

The bill we are introducing today makes real change in our policy toward Cuba that will lead to a real change for the people of Cuba. What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for their plight than for them to hear it from their friends and their extended family in the United States, or let them hear it from the American people who will go there?

The people of this country are our best ambassadors, and we should let them show the people of Cuba what we as a nation are all about. One thing we should not do is to play into Castro's hand by enacting stricter and more stringent regulations and create a situation where the United States is easy to blame for the problems in Cuba. Unilateral sanctions will not improve human rights for Cuban citizens. The rest of the world is not doing what we are doing. Cuba is being supplied by the rest of the world with everything they need.

Open dialog and exchange of ideas and commerce can move a country toward democracy. What better way to share the rewards of democracy than through people-to-people exchanges? We cannot stop that program. If the United States Government continues on its current course to put an economic stranglehold on the Cuban Government, the people of Cuba will suffer. Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods but the flow of ideas. Ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to change in any nation.

Some may ask why we want to increase dialog right now, why open the door to Cuba when Castro is behaving so poorly? No one is denying that the actions of Castro and his government are deplorable, as is his refusal to provide basic human rights to his people. But if we truly believe Castro is a dictator with no good intentions, how can we say we should wait for him to behave before we engage? He controls the entire media in Cuba. The entire message that is coming out, unless we have people interacting, is his message. Keeping the door closed and hollering at Castro on the other side does not do anything.

Mr. President, today I offer a bill that will make a very small change in our Cuba policy. It deals only with travel provisions to Cuba.

I have been watching Cuba since the 1960s. I went to George Washington University, and I was there at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba throughout the years. I am reminded of something my dad used to say, which was that if you keep on doing what you always have been doing, you are going to wind up getting what you already got. That is kind of the situation with Cuba. We have been trying the same thing for over 40 years, and it hasn't worked.

I am suggesting just a small change to maybe get a few more people in there to increase conversation with people who understand the way the United States works and the way Cuba works and how they ought to drift more rapidly toward where we are.

In recent weeks, as we shared the joy of the Iraqi people as they were liberated from the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein, we also felt the pain of those in Cuba who had dared to speak out in a vain but valiant effort to demand those same freedoms for themselves. As they did, 75 Cuban citizens were arrested and received harsh sentences--some for more than 20 years--all for the crime of yearning to be free. Once again, Castro has shown himself to be his own worst enemy when it comes to Cuba's image overseas, and so, when faced with an outcry from around the world about his actions, he quickly tried to blame the United States for his own actions. It was a hard sell at best, and, given the reactions we've seen from all sides of this issue, I don't think anyone is buying it.

Still, Castro's cruelty might tempt us to tighten the already strong restrictions on the relations between our two countries, but I hope we will not do that. If we increase the diplomatic pressure on the Cuban government that is now emanating from every corner of the world, we might be successful in bringing about a better way of life for the Cuban people.

If, however, we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial assistance to their families in Cuba, and end the people to people exchanges that have been so successful, and stop the sale of agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we will not be hurting the Cuban government nearly as badly as we will be hurting the Cuban people by diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and reducing the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two countries.

If we allow more and freer travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and dialogue, we take away Castro's ability to blame the hardships of the Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the better we try to make things for the Cuban people, the more we will reduce the level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by Fidel Castro.

I have often heard it said that it is foolish to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. In a way, that is what we are doing in Cuba. We are continuing to try to exert pressure from our side and, as we do, we are giving Castro a scapegoat to blame for the poor living conditions in his country in the process. It's time for a different policy, one that goes further than embargoes and replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a new one that will more effectively help us to achieve our goals in that country.

Today, Senators Dorgan, Baucus, and Bingaman and I are introducing the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

Our bill is very straightfoward. It states that the President shall not prohibit, either directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or transactions incident to such travel.

In 1958 the Supreme Court affirmed or Constitutional right to travel, but the U.S. government then prohibited Americans from spending money in Cuba. We simply said, okay, you have a right to travel, but try traveling without spending a dime.

Most of us know that certain people can and do continue to travel to Cuba. Cuban Americans can apply for a license to travel for humanitarian reasons to visit ailing family members and such, but not always conveniently.

The way I got involved in this whole process was a Cuban American from Jackson, WY, who had been in Cuba visiting his family, doing his one visit a year. As he left and was on the plane coming back to Wyoming, one of his

parents died. He could not go back there for a year. That is not a good situation for any family.

Educational groups can apply for licenses to travel for scholarly reasons, for educational opportunities and conferences. Members of the U.S. Government can travel for fact-finding reasons, but for the average American, that process is too complicated.

Even with the proper licenses, the regulations on where you can go and whom you can talk to are confusing, misleading, and frustrating. Each year the Office of Foreign Assets Control levies fines on travelers who followed the law to the best of their ability. Fines and punishments were imposed without guidelines and seemingly at the whim of a nameless bureaucrat.

I must ask my colleagues, why are we continuing to support a policy that was basically implemented 40 years ago? Why are we supporting a policy that has had little effect on the Government we oppose? Why do we not improve our policy so that it will improve conditions for the Cuban people and their image of the United States?

The bill we are introducing today makes real change in our policy toward Cuba that will lead to a real change for the people of Cuba. What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for their plight than for them to hear it from their friends and their extended family in the United States, or let them hear it from the American people who will go there?

The people of this country are our best ambassadors, and we should let them show the people of Cuba what we as a nation are all about. One thing we should not do is to play into Castro's hand by enacting stricter and more stringent regulations and create a situation where the United States is easy to blame for the problems in Cuba. Unilateral sanctions will not improve human rights for Cuban citizens. The rest of the world is not doing what we are doing. Cuba is being supplied by the rest of the world with everything they need.

Open dialog and exchange of ideas and commerce can move a country toward democracy. What better way to share the rewards of democracy than through people-to-people exchanges? We cannot stop that program. If the United States Government continues on its current course to put an economic stranglehold on the Cuban Government, the people of Cuba will suffer. Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods but the flow of ideas. Ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to change in any nation.

Some may ask why we want to increase dialog right now, why open the door to Cuba when Castro is behaving so poorly? No one is denying that the actions of Castro and his government are deplorable, as is his refusal to provide basic human rights to his people. But if we truly believe Castro is a dictator with no good intentions, how can we say we should wait for him to behave before we engage? He controls the entire media in Cuba. The entire message that is coming out, unless we have people interacting, is his message. Keeping the door closed and hollering at Castro on the other side does not do anything.

Mr. President, like so many of us in the Senate and the House, I try to get home as often as I can, not just because I miss the scenery, but because I would miss the opportunity to meet with my constituents as they share their perspective with me on the issues that concern them. I think of it as harvesting good old Wyoming common sense. After I get as much as I can, I bring it back with me to share with my colleagues.

One of my constituents, Mr. Wallace Ulrich of Moose, WY gave me a copy of his presentation on Operation Iraqi Freedom that he shared with two groups of High School students at Jackson Hole High School in Jackson, WY.

In his remarks, Wally addresses several issues about the conflict and his thoughts about them. To begin with, he correctly points out that no one is pro-war, but that responsible nations are occasionally called to step up and take action when a wrong cannot be solved or addressed through diplomatic measures.

Saddam Hussein created just such a situation when he failed to abide by the agreements signed by his government at the end of Operation Desert Storm and refused to fully comply with the terms of several United Nations resolutions. It was only when a long diplomatic effort failed to produce the necessary results that the United States had to ensure that Iraq was disarmed and no longer a threat to the peace loving world.

I hope all my colleagues will take a moment to read what Wally had to say to our young people in Jackson, WY. He has an interesting point of view and he presents his position well. I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 12 minutes.

Madam President, I come to you today on behalf of students and 4-H members and Scouts around the world. Start counting backwards from 10 to zero: 10, 9, 8, 7--and depending on the context, people will instantly be reminded of their youth, sitting in front of a dimly lit television, watching a rocket take flight as we began the study of space flight and space travel. We were much younger then and all around me kids from all over the State and all around the country were excited and fascinated by the new age of rocketry and, later, space travel.

When Russia launched its Sputnik, it created a sensation, and their success, spurred on by the climate of the cold war, challenged us in the United States to reach for the skies.

Wyoming isn't called the Pioneer State for nothing, and so my classmates and I were determined we would do everything we could to learn about this new branch of science and involve ourselves in the race for space. It was not too long after that President John F. Kennedy issued a challenge to the Nation to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth.

What seemed to be against all the odds soon became reality when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, taking a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind.

Even today, those of us who saw those events firsthand on the television will never forget what a miracle it was. It fired our imaginations as it taught the Nation a powerful lesson: If we can make this impossible dream come true for the Nation, of what more are we capable if we dare to try? Perhaps that lesson is what made our Nation what it is today and why we have continued to defy the odds of what is possible for us as a nation, and even for each of us as individuals.

Then came September 11 and we, as a nation, faced another challenge. The call for increased security that resulted from those cowardly and cruel attacks has had some unforeseen consequences, however.

One of them was brought to my attention when a constituent called to share his concern regarding the future of his favorite hobby, model rocketry. He said some of the restrictions of the Homeland Security Act could make it more difficult, if not impossible, for him and his fellow enthusiasts to purchase fuel for their model rockets.

As I looked into his problem, I was surprised to see that the use of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, better known as APCP, had caught the eye of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Although it had been regulated in the past by its placement on the explosives list, the ATF had considered consumer rocket motors as propellant-activated devices and exempt from any ATF permit requirements.

Then, in 1997, the ATF decided to regulate rocket motors that contained more than 62.5 grams of APCP. Those that contained less than that amount were still exempt, but those that contained more would not be available for interstate purchase and transport without a permit.

Since many rocket enthusiasts travel from State to State to participate in their events, this provision could have made for a lot of needless redtape. To avoid it, many of those participating in this hobby carried their rocket bodies to the events and purchased the rocket motors from vendors at the local launch. With a little ingenuity and cooperation from local vendors, most rocketeers legally avoided the need to purchase and obtain permits.

Now the provisions of the Homeland Security Act have created a new problem. Under the new law, a permit will be required for all rocket motors containing more than 62.5 grams of APCP, whether or not the motor is used in or out of State. And that begins on May 24 of this year--a problem rapidly approaching. The new law creates a problem where there was none before and imposes a solution that will only create unnecessary hardship for those who are studying about rockets or pursuing a hobby as a model rocket enthusiast.

According to the U.S. Product Safety Commission, a rocket motor with less than 62.5 grams of APCP can be used by minors without adult supervision. That is the U.S. Product Safety Commission: 62.5 grams or less can be used by minors without adult supervision. It could not be very bad. Now a rocket with any more than that requires adult supervision and a permit. Such an arbitrary limit makes no sense when it means a 62-gram rocket can be used by your children out playing in a field with their friends, while another gram of fuel puts it in a category that requires adult supervision, Federal intervention, attention, inspection, and expensive, cumbersome permits.

The permit that is required costs $100, and it requires the submission of fingerprints, a photograph, and a background check. Although the homeland security bill tried to introduce a limited permit that could be obtained for $25 and a background check, the newly designed permit is restricted to intrastate use and purchase only and would not have any use for rocketeers who travel to events in other States.

My concern about the impact of these regulations, and the process necessary to obtain permits, and the bureaucracy that would be necessary to do that, and to fulfill the requirements for background checks is that it will certainly slow the participation of our young adults in studying rockets and pursuing their dreams of space travel.

As I learned from my own experience--and I was one of those rocket people back at the time of Sputnik--the study of rockets had a ripple effect throughout my own education. It taught me a lot about math, when we had to calculate the amount of fuel we needed and the rate at which the rocket would travel at speed-calculating heights, figuring trajectories, figuring the amount of Gs that would be on a passenger. It taught us about the study of weather, as we would examine reports about our own launch date and temperature and cloud cover that would affect our ability to observe the

launch, and weather balloons for measuring the winds aloft, to better tell where it would go, and to make the calculations about how high we were able to fly on any particular day.

We invented much. When I started doing rockets, there were not the model rockets available at the hobby shops. We had to have the motors turned out at the local shop, after we designed them for the proper characteristics. It led to a lot of invention.

It also expanded our horizons, as our experiences with rockets translated to our own lives. My friends and I often thought, if we could master the skies and heavens with our rockets, what more would we be able to do in our daily lives? It is an answer we are still developing as we each pursue paths in life--some very far away from rockets.

As we grow older, we all want to make sure our children and our grandchildren have it better than we did. This is one area in which they will not have it better than we did--in fact, may not have it at all--if we fail to act. If we fail to come up with a reasonable compromise on this issue, we will have failed to fuel the dreams of the next generation in a vital field of science by our shortsighted efforts to regulate the fuel of the rockets.

Our children will not be the only ones affected by this provision, however. The impact of this regulation will also be felt by the trucking industry which was recently told that it would be liable for the prevention of the possession of explosives by prohibited persons who are their employees. As some shippers do not currently do extensive background checks on their employees, they have decided to stop shipping the motors, including these rocket motors, at all.

Although some companies will continue to ship rocket motors, they will charge very high hazardous material fees that would hit the consumers in the pocketbook. Small businesses will be hit hard by the fees which will have to be paid by the consumer, and even larger and more successful businesses will be unable to avoid the one-two punch of the permit process and the higher transportation and delivery fees.

Even small businesses in other countries will feel the pinch. I was surprised to receive a call from the president of the United Kingdom's largest model rocket group. He thanked me for my interest in the issue because the U.S. ships most of the model rockets used in the United Kingdom. The supply of model rocket motors in other countries is limited, and their hobby is intricately linked with ours.

To remedy these problems, I introduced S. 724 last week. My bill provides an exemption for permit requirements for the purchase and transport of rocket motors, including those with more than 62.5 grams of APCP.

In section 845 of the Federal explosives law, my bill provides an exemption from explosives permit requirements for the components of rocket motors. This exemption is similar to the exemption in the same section enjoyed by antique firearms users for black powder, as black powder also makes the explosives list. The limit there is 50 pounds; quite a bit different than 62.5 grams.

The current language has been tightened up from the original draft to ensure that the exemption is only provided for valid uses. The language specifies that the exemption only applies to nondetonable rocket propellant--a very important word. There are some high-energy APCP composites that have additional chemicals in their composition that make them detonate instead of burning at a moderate rate. These are not used in amateur or sport rocketry and are not exempt under my language.

The APCP my bill refers to, which is found in model rockets, burns but does not explode. In addition, the language in my bill does not exempt rockets that carry various components of weaponry.

On the transportation issue, it appears that some companies are only shipping those articles that are specifically mentioned as exempt from explosives requirements under section 845. My bill provides the exemption for rocket motor components under this section, giving shippers a clear exemption to resume shipping rocket motors.

I have been joined by Senators Bennett, Inhofe, Coleman, Crapo, Burns, Allard, and Santorum in introducing this bill.

Some of my other colleagues have expressed concern that this legislation goes too far. They have questioned me about the possibility of individuals stockpiling APCP to build a bomb.

First, I would contend that the ATF does not appear concerned about this possibility. Under their proposed 62.5-gram exemption, an individual would be able to buy as many rocket motors as they wanted that were under 62.5 grams.

A rocket motor is fairly simple. I ask unanimous consent to show a three-dimensional object on the floor.

I have one of those 62.5 gram rocket motors here. This is what is allowed to be bought in as much quantity as you want. But a quarter of an inch bigger than this and you can't have it without $100 and a special permit. It is very simple, the fuel with the hole through the center. When you buy them, the APCP comes in this chunk that is removable from the rest of the rocket motor parts.

If the ATF considers APCP a dangerous explosive, then their 62.5 gram exemption itself is dangerous. The ATF is basically saying it is OK to buy as many sticks of dynamite as you want, but we won't let you have a whole box. I reiterate that rocket motors compare more to flares than to dynamite. Hundreds of hours are spent constructing these rockets.

A lot of work goes into the rocket body. Nobody wants to blow theirs apart. So they are a safe form of fuel.

Simply put, my legislation is designed to allow another generation to experience the thrills and excitement of model rocketry. It is being introduced to correct a change in the law that Congress never intended. When we voted to take action to prevent the actions of terrorists, we never intended to prevent our children from pursuing projects in science class, hobbyists from pursuing their hobbies, and our families from engaging in father-son or mother-daughter or any mixture of projects that promote learning and the pursuit of the frontiers of space. If you have never been to a rocketry event or seen a rocket launch in person, I urge you to do so if the opportunity ever presents itself. If you have gone to one of those events, you will remember how it left you looking towards the heavens, mindful of your dreams, and feeling encouraged to pursue them.

That is not a bad gift to give our children and theirs. It is extensive throughout the world, I can tell, from the calls I have gotten about this since I got involved in it.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort which will have a great impact on our lives in the years to come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need.

I do feel the need to make comments that when I got up this morning I had no idea I would need to make. I have listened to the debate in the Chamber this morning, and I think there are some corrections that need to be made for my colleagues and the people of America. We have made it sound as if we are debating an emergency supplemental budget. We are not. We are debating the regular budget of the United States of America for the next year, the year that begins October 1, 2004--not yesterday, not today, October 1, 2004. We have been working on this all year because it is the regular budget. It is not the emergency supplemental budget. This is our regular work.

Why are we doing our regular work? We are doing our regular work because

we are expecting America to do its regular work today. Everyone would like to be listening to the radio or the television or picking up the latest news, however they possibly can, but for most of America that is not possible because they are doing their job. They are making America work. They are making sure that the planes are flying, the trains are moving, the trucks are going, the manufacturing is happening.

Why is that important? Because those are the jobs that are providing the materials to keep America safe. Those are the people doing the jobs that help us live our everyday lives and to fight a war. America is not supposed to stop working today. We are not supposed to stop working today. We will do an emergency supplemental budget. I have heard the people here say we should be working on that this minute. How many people here know how long that war is going to go on? By tomorrow we will have a better idea. By Monday we will have an even better idea.

Now, somebody said there is not a penny in this budget for this war. Maybe there should have been a penny in the last budget for this war-- the budget that never got done on this floor. That budget should have considered this war.

Well, instead we went ahead and we did an appropriation. But we didn't do the appropriation last October 1 when the statute says we are supposed to have it done. We did not do that until the end of January. We did not get the conference done until February. And the President was not able to sign the bill until February 20. That is when we got last year's work done because we did not do our regular work on the time schedule that we are required--required by statute--to do. The statute says we will finish this budget by April 15. That does not just mean the debate in this Chamber, that means the conference committee and the final approval by April 15. Who knows how long that will take. But we need to do our regular work just as we expect everybody else in this country to do their regular work. It is essential to the operation of this great country.

We will get an emergency supplemental budget. An emergency supplemental budget is different from this budget. This budget is a 10- year budget. We are trying to anticipate the needs of the country for 10 years and put a little plan out there so that we can plan for 10 years. An emergency supplemental bill is for an emergency that is happening at the time of the debate of the emergency. It is supposed to cover it to the best of our ability at that time.

Now, we do not do very well in our budgeting process. We got to spend a lot of time last year getting on corporations in this country for bad accounting. Well, I am the only accountant in the Senate, and I do not think the corporations are the only ones that should have been embarrassed. When I look at this budgeting process, I am delighted I got to be on the Budget Committee this year. I have had comments on the budget before, and there are some changes that need to be made. They can't be made until we do the regular work of passing this regular budget, but there are things on which we need to be working.

Usually budgets are divided into categories. They are not just one type of a budget. There is usually a capital budget, where you plan for the buildings, the maintenance, and the replacement. We do not do that. We do everything as though it were a one-time cost. But that is another topic for another time.

I have talked a lot in this Chamber about the need to reduce the national debt. We do have a national debt, a scary national debt that was scarier before; it will be scarier yet to come. We can see that from what we know about the dollars. But it is important for us--and both sides agree--that we need to balance the budget as soon as we can and we need to pay down the national debt as soon as we can to have better security in this country.

One of the difficulties when we debated the balanced budget constitutional amendment 6 years ago when I first got here--it was the first debate I was in. People will recall that we did not pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, that we lost that by one vote. There were some provisions in there for emergencies. This would be one of those emergencies.

But when we are paying down the national debt, it can be done in a rather simple manner if we start with a small amount, plan it into the budget, and then when we reduce that national debt by that amount, just like you make a house payment--and this needs to be done over a 30-year period just like a house payment--when you make that payment, you do not spend the interest you saved.

You add that interest to the payment and make the payment bigger. Then you can start, as with a house payment, with a relatively small amount, and wind up with making a big payment in the end. It is pretty difficult. I would like to have some charts to show that.

But when I have talked about that, and the fact that we could pay off the national debt in a 30-year period, I have also mentioned there are emergencies. Emergencies would work just like a house loan as well. Emergencies would be that second mortgage you have to take out every once in a while. It would not be a 30-year loan plan; it would have to be a short-loan plan, but it would have to be taken care of, too.

On our budgeting, I want to talk about emergencies because another pet peeve of mine with emergencies is, we know in this country every year there will be about $6 billion spent on emergencies. Some of them are drought, some of them are tornadoes. There are lots of different kinds of disasters that happen in this country.

We do not know where disasters will happen. We cannot prevent disasters from happening. But we know those disasters are going to cost about $6 billion. It is something we ought to build into the budget. I am hoping I can sell 51 people on doing that.

War is different. It isn't something we know will happen each and every year. It is something that happens once in a while. We would prefer if it never happened.

There were comments that in this budget there isn't a dime for this war. I have explained why there isn't. But I do want to point out to the people of America, when we sent those troops over there, we sent them with supplies, we sent them with ammunition, we sent them with arms. That is the best equipped army we have ever had in the field in the history of the United States. You cannot send them there without paying for it. So getting them there, having them equipped, having them in a war is included in what we have done.

Now, how long it lasts, and what happens afterwards, we are going to get a supplemental budget on that. But we are not going to get the supplemental budget today. Hopefully, they will hold off a day or two, at least, to see what kind of a war we have over there. Daily, the ability to predict will be better, the ability to predict the expense will be better. That is why we do emergency supplemental budgets.

We just had an amendment that was offered that deals with homeland security and some additional expenses on that. We started putting that in as a specific item this year. We have been doing homeland security for the history of the country, but because of September 11, that became ever more critical and we needed to have a department for homeland security. We escalated homeland security to the point of having its own department with its own security.

Now, for those of my colleagues, or anyone else who might be listening, you will recall we spent an awful lot of time, last year, talking about the need for homeland security. And it got delayed and it got delayed and it got filibustered and it got delayed. And now the side that delayed it is trying to look as if they are the prime homeland security folks. It is not fair.

We can try and outspend each other to try to show we are more dedicated to homeland security than the other side. I think the way the debate has gone in the past shows how that works.

We do have a department for homeland security. The Department of Homeland Security has said what moneys they think are needed. That is in the package. As the alerts change, we may get supplementary requests on homeland security. We will have to respond to those. Hopefully, they will not get built into the budget as an every-year expense, just like war.

One of the reasons we budget for war through an emergency supplemental budget is because we do not want it built into the base. We do not want the

American people to anticipate we are going to have war every year, and it is going to be the same cost. That is not good budgeting. The regular budget has the regular items in it that you do on a regular basis. It isn't a war budget. Wars are not done on a regular basis in a regular way for a regular expense, and hopefully they never will.

Now, on homeland security, there were some comments about the need to do more for the cities and the counties and the States. I want to do more for the cities and the counties and the States.

I used to be a mayor. I was the mayor of a boomtown in Wyoming that just about quadrupled in size while I was mayor. There were a lot of things that had to be taken care of, additional sewer, water, streets, basic things, increasing the fire department, increasing the police department. I did not do that on my own. The community did not do it on its own. It had help. It had help from the bottom to the State.

The Feds did not get into it much. That is because every expense in this country is not a Federal expense. Some of the expenses are a local expense. The benefits go to the people at the local level. The people at the local level understand those benefits better. They provide for them, for the most part, themselves. I kind of object to us giving people the impression that we do that.

I know the cities and the counties and the States are hurting out there. We want to work with them to make things as easy as possible. But that should not make the budget the prime spot for bailing everything out. Yes, we have a responsibility. Yes, we need to take care of it. But we talk about these things as though the Federal Government were the prime supplier of everything.

Education is the most important thing after defense. But education is one of those areas where we try to make it look like we do a lot, and like we could do a lot more. And we can. But we used to provide about 7 percent of the money. I think we are up to about 8.6 percent now of the money that is spent for schools. It is really the people paying the taxes to their schools who get the schools. And we add a little bit to it. A lot of it is some new programs we think are pretty fancy and sound good, and we think they will help education.

But with that 8.6 percent that we provide for education, we force more than 50 percent of the paperwork. We keep them so busy doing paperwork, they cannot do the job of working with the kids they ought to be doing.

Now, we tried to change that in the No Child Left Behind legislation. I think we made a good start on it. There is more that we can do. There is more that we will do at the Federal level. But I wish we would not give everybody the impression that the Federal Government provides everything because it leads them to expecting the Federal Government to provide everything, when, in fact, they ought to be giving themselves more credit for the job they are doing. And looking around their community--I don't care how big of a city you are in, I don't care if you are in New York City--there is still a community, the people you know around you.

I think one of the things that happened with September 11 is that sense of community increased. People suddenly became more interested in their neighbors and helping their neighbors.

There is a tremendous amount that can be done with community. That is where it starts. We are beginning to get the impression that the Federal Government prints the money so the Federal Government can provide all of the money that is necessary. We could, if we wanted to, go broke. So we have to solve the problems at all levels and not immediately escalate every cost to a Federal cost.

The final thing that has been brought up a number of times over the last day, and particularly today, is the economic package the President has suggested. There have been comments that we should not be doing an economic package. Of course, they don't like to call it an economic package. There are no ideas for stimulus coming from the people calling it a tax cut. They don't want to talk about the economic package right now.

Let me tell you what the budget process is. The budget process is where we say what the goals are for the next year for the regular operation of the country--not the emergency, not the war, the regular operation. One of the things we have said is that the economy is down. We need to do whatever we can to boost that economy. It is one of the things we have to worry about. It is one of the things we in Congress have to worry about.

How do you go about doing that? Well, one of the things is to do a budget. A budget is not a vote on the economic package. The budget is the vote on the possibilities we have for the next year. It sets down rules that govern how we will pass legislation the rest of this year. I don't want anybody to get the impression that we are passing an economic package this week. We need to pass the budget so the consideration of an economic package can go on. We need to pass that. But the real debate on the economic package comes when the economic package comes up.

If we chip away at it here and chip away at it there and put it into other things that we think are our priorities, then we have limited the possibilities for a solid economic plan for America. Most of that tactic is designed to get to the rhetoric that the tax cut will go to the rich.

It is a plan to get jobs, and jobs will go to everybody--not just new jobs, but keeping the job they have now. That is really the biggest concern people have. Those who have a job want to make sure they keep it. Those who do not want to make sure they have one.

That is what we want to do with an economic plan. We are trying to figure out the best possible economic plan we can put together. The President has said it needs to be $726 billion. I think we have $698 billion in the package, but that is an upper limit, not an actual package, not the final result. What we need to do is pass the regular budget so we can do the regular authorization work and the regular debate so we can get to appropriations by October 1. That is how long of a timeframe we are working on.

Why do we need to work on it now? Why should we, like the rest of America, keep working today? Because we have a job to do that includes this budget, a whole bunch of authorization bills, and then finally 13 appropriations bills. Now 13 appropriations bills normally take us 1 to 2 weeks per bill. So you can see if we are going to have that done by what the statute says, October 1, what the administration is relying on of October 1, we need to be meeting a timeframe right now. Statutorily it says this has to be done by April 15. That is just the budget part. That isn't where we even get to what the dollars per specific item are.

Last year we didn't have a budget. That kept us from getting the authorizations done. That kept us from getting the appropriations done timely. We didn't get them voted on until the end of July. We didn't get them conferenced until February, and we did not get them signed until February 20, which was very shortly after the conference was done. That is the earliest the President could sign them, February 20. People are talking about how No Child Left Behind doesn't have enough money. Well, how would they know whether they have enough money or not? None of it was released until February 20.

We cannot get in that position again. This Budget Committee is determined to make sure we will get it done in a timely manner and that as soon as there is a supplemental budget--and I do hope it is a couple of days into this so there is a better indication of how long it is going to take, what it is going to cost, how much damage has been done over there--then we will seriously look at that supplemental bill. But in the meantime, like the rest of America, I hope we will keep on doing our regular work while they do their regular work, so America and the war can be successful.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Kansas to introduce an amendment.

Amendment No. 282

It was my understanding that we were going to go back and forth on the introduction. It was our turn to have an introduction of an amendment. That is why we did that. We will wait for the introduction.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. President, I explained earlier why the emergency supplemental was not a part of the regular budget process. I want to share one paragraph from a CRS report:

Based on an examination of previous CRS reviews of funding

for wars and other major military operations, it appears,

with one possible exception, that Presidents have not

requested and Congress has not provided funding for wars in

advance of the start of operations. Rather, administrations

have requested funding after operations have begun and

Congress has subsequently appropriated money to meet specific

documented budget requirements.

I yield the floor, reserving the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, On Monday, March 17, the attention of the world was focused on Washington, DC and the White House. The President was about to speak to the Nation about Saddam Hussein and the refusal of the Government of Iraq to live up to its signed agreements and the resolutions of the United Nations to eliminate their stock of weapons of mass destruction. In the 15 or so minutes that followed, our President made clear his determination to take action and resolve the situation in Iraq. He said he was going to end forever the evil presence of a dictator in Iraq who had done nothing during his reign but abuse his power as he pursued his dreams of glory and increased power and prestige while showing little regard for the health and welfare of his own people.

As the President spoke with passion and conviction on the need to rid the world of Hussein's dictatorship, he cut through the rhetoric and the misleading positions and promises that had been so often heard during the past few years. He made it clear that this was an ultimatum of more than words--action was sure to follow if his words were left unheeded. He did everything he could to make it abundantly clear to Saddam Hussein and the people of the world that such evil would not be allowed to stand. He stated a final deadline.

Soon after he spoke, the movement of our troops intensified as an international coalition took up their positions surrounding Iraq as we all waited for Saddam Hussein's response. There could be only one acceptable response to the President's message. Saddam had to leave Iraq, relinquish his power, and take his sons and family with him. Anything less would be unacceptable.

Now we have our answer. A deadline has been set which has come and gone. In response our troops are now advancing into Iraq and heading for its capital of Baghdad. A series of events that began years ago with our defense of Kuwait will now end where it must--with the removal of Saddam Hussein and an end to his brutal dictatorship.

As our troops head further into Iraq, they will be heading into unknown dangers and trouble that cannot be accurately predicted, though they have been trained and will be prepared for it.

Will Saddam Hussein try to use chemical weapons to prolong his hold on power? What has he hidden from the team of inspectors that he may now want to unleash? These and so many other questions will be in the minds of our troops as they come closer and closer to Iraq's capital city. The rewards that will come with our success will be great. But, as we know from our past experiences, the sacrifices that may lie ahead may be equally as great.

War is a very dangerous business and Wyoming is no stranger to the kind of sacrifice it sometimes requires from those who serve in our military. Down through the years, the people of Wyoming have always answered the call to protect and preserve the peace and answer the threat of any enemy of our Nation, wherever it has led them. Many paid the ultimate price.

In 1991, when Saddam Hussein decided to attack Kuwait and drain that country of its supplies and resources, our Armed Forces were there to respond to the cry for help that came from Kuwait.

Joining in as part of that effort was one of Wyoming's own, Manuel Davila. Manuel was a brave young man, a father, and a nice guy who had a kind word for everyone he met. He was the kind of person you would want on your side if there were tough times ahead. There were tough times on the horizon as this battle began and we were fortunate to have brave men and women like Manuel on our side.

I watched Manuel grow up because he came from my home town. He loved his life and he loved Wyoming. But he loved freedom more. When he was called on to bring the freedoms he loved to people he had never met, he did not hesitate. He traded his beloved blue skies and mountaintops of Wyoming for the flat dessert and skies darkened by Saddam Hussein's desperate attempts to delay the end of his occupation by setting every oil well he could on fire. He traded the sweet smell of Wyoming's clean mountain air for the use of a gas mask and the threat of exposure to the Iraqi war machine's stock of gas and chemical weapons.

Sadly, he was one who didn't come home from that war. But he did leave behind a legacy of standing up for what you believe in, keeping your word, and never allowing evil to win by failing to act or by doing so little in response it was as if you did nothing at all.

Then came September 11, and another round of attacks by a madman fueled by hatred and a mad desire for power. Once again we looked to our sons and daughters to respond and to end the threat of terrorism once and for all. The bravest and best of Wyoming and many other States were soon on the front lines, ready to put their training into action. As they did, one of the first lost was Jonn J. Edmunds, a young man from Cheyenne, who was killed as our Nation took action against those who supported and planned the terrorist attacks of that terrible day.

Now, as we stand here together in prayerful support of our Armed Forces, I have no doubt that Manuel and Jonn and all the others who have served so bravely in our military over the years would be proud of their comrades and their liberation of Iraq which is finally at hand.

Soon Iraq will be welcomed back into the family of nations and the rights so cherished by our Nation and our people will be part of the daily routine in Iraq, too. By our actions we are showing the world that the rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are a part of our own Declaration of Independence, were intended to be claimed not just by the people of our own Nation. They are to be rightfully claimed by people all over the world as well.

As we wait for today's news from Iraq, we are fully aware of the seriousness of the challenge that lies before us--its difficulty and its magnitude. For the first time since I was a young boy we are facing an enemy who is faceless and nameless and may have operatives who sympathize with him who may strike us on our own soil. With the exception of Pearl Harbor, we have never faced that kind of a threat in our lives. September 11 changed that and we must now all be more vigilant for in a very real sense we are all part of the war effort-- just as we were in the days of World War II.

As the effort to remove the tyranny of Saddam Hussein continues, the fate of both our nations hangs in the balance. The degree of our success in what we set out to do and the aftermath as we work to bring a lasting peace to Iraq will speak volumes to the world about our ability to walk our talk.

When this war is over and Iraq is free, we will have sent a message to all those who would deny their people the basic rights of human existence. The world will no longer tolerate their abuse of power and their refusal to acknowledge or respond to the needs of their people. We will also have ended the regime of a dictator and eliminated his stock of weapons of mass destruction. We will have taken a strong, decisive action which will help to increase the security of our Nation and the world.

Ronald Reagan once said that ``Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have ever made a difference in the world. The marines don't have that problem.''

Neither does the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard or the Merchant Marine. Through their brave and courageous actions on behalf of the people of Iraq, they will do for that country what they did for the people of Kuwait. They will give them their country and their lives back. They will give them the chance to dream again about a better future for their children. They will give those who live under oppression around the world a real reason to hope that someday things will be better for them in their own country.

We all know what brave, remarkable people our soldiers are. They don't see any limits to what they can do because they will never quit until the job is done and the war is won. We owe them

each a debt we will never be able to repay. We can never forget that it is because of them--and not us--that the rights enumerated in our Constitution are guaranteed. Whether it is freedom of religion, the press, or freedom of speech, it has always been the efforts of our soldiers that have provided us with a platform from which to speak, and the ability to exercise these and all our rights. Even those who have spoken out against their efforts have our soldiers to thank for their right to do.

Tonight, when we spend those last few minutes tucking our children into bed, I hope we all take a moment to comfort our children and our grandchildren, and to assure them that things will be all right someday soon. Make sure they know they can sleep peacefully tonight and in the nights to come, because the brave men and women of this Nation, our sons and daughters--and perhaps their own sisters and brothers--are ever vigilant, on guard and have taken a stand on our behalf. We can take a great deal of pride in them all.

As a member of the Senate, I have always been very proud of the way we come together whenever we are faced by a threat, or forced to use our nation's military to answer an attack or address a wrong. As our young men and women head into battle, I know I won't be the only one who will bow his head to pray.

May God bless and protect the men and women of our Armed Forces. May He watch over the Iraqi people and keep them safe from harm as we fight to liberate their country and bring them freedom and peace--a just peace that will recognize their rights and ensure that they have food, medicine, and the essentials of life that have been denied them for too long. May our victory be swift so their wait for relief will not be long. And may all our loved ones return home safely, and in peace.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 20, 2003. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the nomination of Vernon Bernard Parker to be Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Atomic Energy Defense Activities of the Department of Energy, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 20, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Issues Relating to HUD's Proposed Rule on the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 20, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Safer Embassies in Unsafe Places. Witnesses

Mr. Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs & Trade, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.

Major General Charles E. Williams (Ret.), Director, Overseas Buildings Operations, Department of State, Washington, DC.

The Honorable Francis X. Taylor, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Department of State, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 20, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled ``Cargo Containers: The Next Terrorist Target?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

I. Nominations

Priscilla Richmond Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Cormac J. Carney to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; James V. Selna to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Philip P. Simon to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana; Theresa Lazar Springmann to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana; Mary Ellen Coster Williams to be Judge for the Court of Federal Claims; Victor J. Wolski to be Judge for the Court of Federal Claims; Ricardo H. Hinojosa to be U.S. Sentencing Commissioner; Michael E. Horowitz to be U.S. Sentencing Commissioner; Gregory A. White to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio; Thomas Dyson Hurlburt, Jr. to be U.S. Marshal for the Middle District of Florida; Christina Pharo to be U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Florida; Dennise Arthur Williamson to be U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of Florida; Richard Zenos Winget to be U.S. Marshal for the District of Nevada.

II. Committee Business

Committee Rules Subcommittee Organization

III. Bills

S. 330: A bill to further the protection and recognition of veterans' memorials and for other purposes [Campbell].

S. Res. 48: A resolution designating April 2003 as ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month'' [Akaka].

S. Res. 52: A resolution recognizing the social problem of child abuse and neglect, and supporting efforts to enhance public awareness of the problem [Campbell].

S. Res. 58: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should designate the week beginning June 1, 2003, as ``National Citizen Soldier Week'' [Allen].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 20, 2003, for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives' Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to hear the legislative presentations of AMVETS, American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs.

The hearing will take place in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, March 20, 2003 from 10:30 a.m. to 1;00 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 20 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on legislative proposals amending the Clean Air Act regarding fuel additives and renewable fuels.

The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill to address a significant problem in our Nation's healthcare delivery system--the growing shortage of pharmacists. I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in the introduction of the Pharmacy Education Aid Act of 2003.

Why is the shortage of pharmacists in our Nation such an important concern, and why is this legislation necessary? It is because pharmacists are playing an increasingly important role in the delivery of quality healthcare, and our academic institutions are currently unable to supply the needed pharmacists. This critical link in our healthcare system is being stretched precariously thin. In December 2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, issued a report which confirmed the shortage of licensed pharmacists in this country.

I am particularly concerned about the shortage of pharmacists in rural and frontier areas like Wyoming. According to the HHS study, ``a threat to the rural pharmacists supply has more dire implications since in many cases, the pharmacist may be the only available health professional.'' We must do more to increase the number of pharmacists serving rural areas.

As the HHS study highlighted, we must take action now to expand the pipeline for licensed pharmacists. The Pharmacy Education Aid Act of 2003 will do so by increasing the likelihood that an individual will pursue an education as a pharmacist, that the pharmacy schools will be able to provide them with a quality education, and that pharmacists will work in facilities having the hardest time recruiting them.

What does the shortage of pharmacists mean to many Americans? It means the closure of local pharmacies. It means a decrease in patient counseling and education. It also means an increase in the potential for medication errors.

What will the Pharmacy Education Aid Act mean to many Americans-- particularly those in medically underserved areas? It will mean restoring a critical link in their access to quality pharmacy care. It also will mean better healthcare overall.

Last year, the Senate passed this bill unanimously. I look forward to working with my colleagues this year on the speedy passage of this bill out of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and by the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill to address a significant problem in our Nation's healthcare delivery system--the growing shortage of pharmacists. I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in the introduction of the Pharmacy Education Aid Act of 2003.

Why is the shortage of pharmacists in our Nation such an important concern, and why is this legislation necessary? It is because pharmacists are playing an increasingly important role in the delivery of quality healthcare, and our academic institutions are currently unable to supply the needed pharmacists. This critical link in our healthcare system is being stretched precariously thin. In December 2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, issued a report which confirmed the shortage of licensed pharmacists in this country.

I am particularly concerned about the shortage of pharmacists in rural and frontier areas like Wyoming. According to the HHS study, ``a threat to the rural pharmacists supply has more dire implications since in many cases, the pharmacist may be the only available health professional.'' We must do more to increase the number of pharmacists serving rural areas.

As the HHS study highlighted, we must take action now to expand the pipeline for licensed pharmacists. The Pharmacy Education Aid Act of 2003 will do so by increasing the likelihood that an individual will pursue an education as a pharmacist, that the pharmacy schools will be able to provide them with a quality education, and that pharmacists will work in facilities having the hardest time recruiting them.

What does the shortage of pharmacists mean to many Americans? It means the closure of local pharmacies. It means a decrease in patient counseling and education. It also means an increase in the potential for medication errors.

What will the Pharmacy Education Aid Act mean to many Americans-- particularly those in medically underserved areas? It will mean restoring a critical link in their access to quality pharmacy care. It also will mean better healthcare overall.

Last year, the Senate passed this bill unanimously. I look forward to working with my colleagues this year on the speedy passage of this bill out of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and by the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased we are at the point of having the debate now on the budget. It is extremely critical to the operation of the Nation to have this done in a very timely fashion. I appreciate the cooperation on both sides of the aisle to bring it to this point.

I enjoyed the insights and debate we had last week as it congenially went through committee. There was a lot of cooperation, a lot of exploration, a lot of decisionmaking last week that resulted in the budget that is here today so we can begin the floor debate. I look forward to making progress on the budget this week and getting it wrapped up so the authorizing committees can look at the exact projects they have coming, have some kind of idea of the amount of money that is in there and, at the same time, the projects they want to do over the years that are necessary to accomplish. Then, of course, the timely work of the authorizing committees will allow the timely operation of the Appropriations Committee.

Last year we were not able to approve an appropriation until this year, in January. That is supposed to be done in October, not January-- October. We got it done in January. But we ought to be able to get it done in October, before October 1, so all the agencies know what they are operating on for that year so we are not guessing for part of the year and then operating on an appropriation.

All of that ties back into this budget process. The budget process is not the details of where the money goes, but it is the broad blueprint for where it goes. Most importantly, it establishes the rules that people have to operate under when they do authorizing and appropriations.

This is an extremely critical piece of the puzzle. It is a piece designed to be done in relatively rapid fire, so those other parts of the process can be done.

Today I rise in support of the budget resolution as reported by the Budget Committee last Thursday. I do commend the chairman of the committee and my colleagues for developing a fiscally responsible and realistic budget, and for doing it in a timely manner. The hard work of the committee has set the stage for final adoption before the April 15 deadline.

You may not know that the April 15 deadline has only been accomplished four times since 1976. We have a great opportunity to have it accomplished this year. I look forward to doing that.

The resolution as introduced today will not only enable us to win the war on terrorism, to secure the homeland, and to generate long-term economic growth, but it will also provide critical funding for America's children and our national transportation system.

As a new member of the Budget Committee, this has been my first opportunity to work on the Federal budget in depth. The week the President's budget was released I read the entire thing from front to back. Since then, I have studied the summary tables for each of the budget functions and have worked through the costs and benefits of the President's economic growth and development plan. As an accountant and businessman, I believe I have a unique understanding of the President's growth package and the budget, and I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this budget as introduced.

I would like to speak specifically about the President's economic and growth package for a moment. I have taken the last several weeks to closely analyze that Economic Growth and Jobs Plan because I think we must ensure that each initiative will act as a stimulus and not as just another expenditure. While I have a degree in accounting, you do not need to be an accountant to know we cannot spend our way out of debt. Accounting does not work that way. We either have to increase revenue or decrease spending in order to balance the budget in the coming years.

I had a little lesson right after the first of the year in balancing budgets and the importance of it. The President asked me to go to Brazil and represent the United States at the inauguration of the new President down there. I was delighted to make the trip. It was quite an adventure. They invited heads of state to their inauguration, unlike our inaugurations, and the heads of states around the world do respond. There were 130 countries represented.

They take the credentials on a seniority basis that goes to heads of state and then crown princes and then vice presidents and eventually it gets down to the delegation that we had over there. We were 40th in line, so there were a lot of heads of state there. I had an opportunity to talk to many heads of state. Our delegation had an appointment every hour with a different head of state or with a cabinet member of the new President, and a meeting with the new President.

He is from a leftist government, so it was interesting to find out what he had in mind for his country. One that was particularly critical to him was balancing the budget. He recognized that the future of his country depends on that more than, perhaps, any other item that he can do. He is also interested in moving the programs to as close to the people as possible, giving them flexibility and reducing the bureaucracy.

That sounds like a lot of the issues I have been talking about, and I do not consider myself to be leftist, but I did notice with most of the heads of states to whom I spoke, they did put an emphasis on that balancing of the budget. I am convinced that is what we can do for this country to ensure the future of the country, and the sooner it is possible to do it, the more important it is--but the more sure that we can do it, the more important it is.

Unfortunately, while the Federal Government accounting offices are good at estimating expenditures, they are not very good at projected revenues. They use static numbers. That means that no matter what kind of economic plan we have, those numbers are not going to be reflected in any budget, toward helping to balance the budget at all. Keep that in mind when we are talking about budget here.

The static numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office do not take into account the long-term positive effects of the President's growth package, the effects that would have on the economy. I believe this erroneously skews the debate. Positive results should be reflected along with negative results, and increased revenues should be taken into account when making decisions about an economic growth package.

The answer to improving our economy is not through increased expending of Government programs. You cannot spend yourself into a better economy. Try that on your own budget. It works kind of the same way. You have to do it with the Government by growing tax revenue from the private sector.

As we know from past economic reports, dollars invested by private companies tend to circulate through the private sector nearly twice as much as those spent by the Government on domestic programs. Some of those estimates go up as high as seven times when you spend in the private sector as opposed to spending in the Government sector. For example, when one business buys something, the business that sold it to them receives the money. The business that sold it to them turns around and spends it at another company, which takes it and spends it at another company, which spends it. Some say this action circulates the dollar as many as seven times through the economy--seven taxable times through the economy. That is one of the differences between a government expenditure and a private expenditure.

The result is the efficient use of capital and more Federal revenue. The trick is to get the private sector into that expanded mode fast enough that the tax revenue comes in at greater amounts than had been anticipated. From past times we have seen that providing an economic plan, providing some tax relief, has stimulated the economy. It can do that again. But what we are talking about is the efficient use of capital; where it can be best applied to get the best results.

This does not mean we have to decrease spending for critical programs in order to spur investment. Instead, I believe we must hold our spending in check and then increase revenue by creating an environment that allows businesses to grow and subsequently pay more into the Federal pot.

We need to grow the economy back to where it was before the recession that started 3 years ago, and then was added to by September 11, and then we have to grow it beyond.

When I first got to the Senate, the first item of business was a balanced budget constitutional amendment. We were going to force ourselves to balance the budget. I have to tell you, the constitutional amendment came within one vote of passing--one vote. I have to tell you, that was pressure from the American people, and we paid attention to it in this body and we began balancing the Federal budget. When we did, the economy skyrocketed. That is what can happen if we have a plan for getting back to a balanced budget. We can grow the economy faster than it grows right now.

It wasn't that we cut spending during that time. Lord knows, we did not cut spending. But we increased the revenues. That is the key. It is easier to balance the budget when you rapidly increase the revenues. That is what I think the President's economic growth plan will do. I believe the President's proposal is the most effective engine for spurring that growth.

We need to aid the people and businesses that make up our economic machine and get it moving down the tracks at full speed again. That is the businesses, particularly the small businesses.

The President's economic growth package makes sense. Eliminating the double taxation on dividend income is fair and right, as income should not be taxed twice. The proposal will eliminate the current tax bias against equity investment, and because a little over 50 percent of American households own equities, it will benefit a wide range of income levels.

I have to mention, there are seniors in this country who have done some planning for their retirement, and one of the ways they did that was to pick out companies that pay dividends, and to pick out companies that pay dividends in different months so they get a dividend check each month. I will tell you, those senior citizens know what it is to have their income taxed twice. In fact, they have a lot of instruction on unfair taxation that falls on them.

Further, eliminating the double taxation may encourage investors to reward companies that pay out a healthy dividend, not just by purchasing their stock but by purchasing the stock at a higher multiple of corporate earnings.

I have to tell you, that balance can be paid out. That has to be real money. That cannot be phony accounting. That straightens out some of the accounting process. Look to the dividends.

The President's proposal to accelerate the 2001 tax cuts will rightly put money back into the hands of hard-working taxpayers. I believe the most important acceleration would be the reduction in the highest tax rate because sole proprietorships, partnerships, and subchapter S corporations are taxed at that level.

We talk about it as though it were a few wealthy individuals. I had people talking to me about the unfair double taxation of dividends before the President ever mentioned it. It was coming from Wyoming people who had small businesses who have grown those small businesses and have grown them very successfully. They started to mount as regular corporations rather than subchapter S corporations. They were able to build those businesses. They have very successful businesses with some retained earnings now that could go into some other projects, but they are not about to pay that out if they have to get taxed on it one more time. They already paid the tax. They do not think it is fair to be taxed on it again.

As some of you know, I owned a shoe store in Gillette, WY. So I understand this subchapter S and C corp taxation and know that those C corp small businesses are taxed at a different rate. Subchapter S corporations pay at the individual rate. And for many of those in business, because of the money that is flowing through the corporation--not money they are getting, money flowing through the corporation, money they are putting back into inventory and equipment and buildings so they can grow that company--they are paying taxes on it, if they have it as a subchapter S corporation, and they are paying it at the highest individual rate, which cuts into the amount they can put back into the business.

So, simply put, the more money that corporation has to pay in taxes, the less money they have to invest in inventory, to maintain the building, or, more importantly, to hire more people to take care of customers--jobs.

As such, I think reducing this tax burden on small businesses will be the most effective growth mechanism. I also believe the President's efforts to encourage long-term economic growth, through higher expensing caps for small business expenditures, is extremely helpful and long overdue. Again, the money that they are investing in equipment and buildings would be able to be written off quicker, which would encourage them to go ahead and make those expenditures sooner, which is short-term growth for the economy. Months and years before the President released his growth package, small business owners from Wyoming were asking me for that kind of relief as well.

I have to tell you, it is small business that has been building this country. For the past several years we have had the megamergers, we have had a big company buying up another huge company. The numbers they talk about from those purchases are absolutely astronomical to me. I don't even have the concept for how much money they are talking about. But one of the things I have noticed is, after they make that megamerger, they have what they call a downsizing, or a ``rightsizing.'' I call it laying off people--10,000, 20,000 people laid off.

Until the decline of 3 years ago--and actually up until about a year ago--the

slack from those megamergers was being picked up. Those people were being hired. Those people were being put to work. Those people were given jobs. Where? In small business. Small business was growing the economy. They are able to define a niche and able to provide a need. And they are able to respond to change quickly. That is the advantage of small business.

Fortunately, we have people in this country who are willing to take the risk of developing a special niche, filling a need for this country, and selling the people of this country on that need. That is what has grown the business. A lot of those little businesses have grown into very big businesses, but that is how they started.

That is where we really need to fuel this engine. We need to fuel it from the small business aspect. We have that opportunity. We have that opportunity with the President's economic growth plan. I hope we will take advantage of it.

Small businesses should not bear the brunt of taxes. As corporations struggle to meet income projections and cost reductions, small businesses are the ones providing jobs and putting food on the table for our working families. They are the ones growing the jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy, and we must allow them to grow and prosper.

While I support the President's plan and the package we assumed in the budget resolution, it is important to remember the Budget Committee cannot dictate how the Finance Committee structures the tax package. This resolution simply reconciles the Finance Committee to reduce revenues by $698 billion, which is consistent with the President's growth plan. I urge my colleagues to support the reconciliation package without amendment.

During this uncertain time, we must be mindful of the fiscal impact of the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. These are threats we may not be able to avoid, and we must be prepared to provide the resources necessary to keep the men and women of our armed services safe and strong.

However, I caution my colleagues. We should not add the cost of the war to the baseline of our budget. God willing, this war will be short, if it happens. And we should not treat it as an ongoing expense. We should not put it in as a baseline so that next year we can build from that baseline at even greater expenditures. It has to be treated as a one-time emergency.

Mostly, I fear that the money used this year to fund the war will be swallowed up next year by the spending machines we can't wait to dip into as a new pool of money.

Finally, in closing, I would briefly like to mention another issue that is important to the people of Wyoming and to many Senators who hail from rural States. This issue is drought assistance. During the Budget Committee markup, I worked with my colleagues to include a sense of the Senate that would direct Congress to develop a long-term drought plan and establish a reserve that would fund emergency and disaster assistance to livestock as well as agricultural producers hurt by drought.

I think this provision goes a long way in making a clear statement that we are systematically preparing for the negative impacts of drought and other disasters through a long-term strategy rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

Something that has disturbed me in the budget for our country has to do with our knowledge of impending disasters. We don't know which disasters they are; we don't know where they are going to strike; we don't know what they are going to be or we might be able to do more in the way of prevention. That just isn't the way Mother Nature works. But we do know every year--since I have been here, and looking back several years before that--there are around $6 billion worth of disasters in our country.

We do not budget for that. We treat them strictly as emergencies. Anybody in the private business sector who knows there is going to be a huge expenditure builds that into the budget. I am hoping, through a process, we can eventually get to the point where the known emergencies--that is, the known amount of dollars of the emergency-- even though we don't know which they are or where they will occur, that they will be provided for up front as part of the budget.

I yield for a question.

I think our tax system has encouraged companies to get bigger and to enfold more kinds of operations into their current operations, even if they were not compatible with the current operation, just so they could do as you have expressed, avoid some of the double taxation there would be on dividends and also drive up the price of the stock by making these other acquisitions.

Growth, sometimes, of another business will drive up the price of the stock because it increases the number of sales for the host corporation. It did not increase the number of sales for the purchased corporation, but by adding that to the new one or by sticking some other units out there, they can drive up the stock prices. We have seen a number of mechanisms for being able to drive up the stock prices.

I do expect we will see kind of a reversal in the way companies have been doing that. If we can put some plans in place to better stimulate small businesses, we will see some of those big businesses spinning off some of the businesses that they have had before, taking the cash, paying some dividends and increasing the value of their stock based on the true accounting, the cash that they are able to generate. They will be able to do that because they won't have that double taxation burden some of the investors look for, those opportunities. They don't want to receive the dividends. They want to see the increase in stock value instead. So instead of encouraging cash to be distributed so they can put it into the economy, perhaps for smaller business earnings, it is going exactly the opposite way.

The Senator from Alabama is absolutely correct. It will grow a lot of new businesses. It will put it in the hands of people who will be looking for opportunities of small businesses that fill niches, and there will be money available for small businesses through venture capital to be able to get the money to put that idea they have had in place for a long time and actually produce the product, market the product, get it out there where it is providing a service to people and growing the business at the same time. It will change the way people in this country invest. It will improve the way corporations operate.

I thank the Senator for his questions. I urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution as reported by the Senate Budget Committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, ever since I first arrived in the Senate, I have always looked forward to starting each new day with a prayer. Whether that prayer came from one of his excellent books, like One Quiet Moment, or on the Senate Floor, we have all received a great deal of inspiration and encouragement from our Chaplain, Dr. Ogilvie. Each day, as we prayed together on the floor or in our offices, Dr. Ogilvie has helped us to focus on the tasks of the day and the importance of working together as one family to solve the problems we face as a nation. His words have also reminded us of the beliefs of our Founding Fathers and their inherent trust in God for all things.

Looking back over the years he has served in the Senate, Dr. Ogilvie has

helped us through a long list of trials, tribulations and difficulties. In particular, he prayed with us each morning as we began to recover from the pain of the attacks of September 11. As the Chaplain of all the Senate, he took the pain and isolation that some of us felt from those days, and through prayer and understanding, he brought us together as one, the Senate family, and taught us how to console each other and how to help each family member through the pain of that day.

Now, after all he has done for us, Dr. Ogilvie will be leaving to help his own special family and his wife, Mary Jane. Their's is a remarkable story, and someday it may be written, about teamwork, love and happiness. Now she needs his time, his caring and his attention and so he will be working with her, just as she has worked with him as part of his team for all of the years of their marriage, to bring her back to health.

As he prepares to return to California to be with his wife, a lot of us have taken a few moments to think about the difference he has made in our lives, in our staff's lives, and in the every day routines of the Senate.

I have always believed that there was no better gauge of how well you did your job than to measure your results against what you said you wanted to do on your first day in the office. For Dr. Ogilvie, that meant pursuing a role as ``intercessor, trusted prayer partner and faithful counselor to members of the Senate family as they seek to know God and discover His will in the monumental responsibilities entrusted to them.''

I don't think there is any doubt that he has fulfilled his own charge to the letter. He has been a counselor, comforter and a source of strength for us all, no matter our status or rank in the Senate or in each office because those things don't matter to the other members of a family when someone is in need.

One of my favorite moments from the New Testament has to do with the story of the apostles who were in a boat with Jesus Christ when a terrible storm came up all around them. As Christ slept peacefully, the apostles were in the throes of a terrible panic about their situation and what was to become of them. As Christ was awakened and sensed their fear, He stretched out His arms and quelled the seas and the winds and everything around them became peaceful and calm once again.

Our lives are often like that. We see the storm clouds and the very real rough winds and seas that seem like they will batter and demolish the little boat of our life. The thought can often leave us feeling very afraid of what is to become of us. In those moments, Dr. Ogilvie was a constant reminder that the strength of God was never far off, and we were never far from Him. All we needed to do was to imitate Christ, stretch out our arms to God and listen for the peace and calm that is always within us. That is God's gift to the troubled and confused and it always lies within us, in the depths of our hearts and souls. Another of God's gifts was surely Dr. Ogilvie, who has a wonderful talent of helping us to find that small, still place in ourselves where we can find the peace, strength and comfort of God for those times when life seems unfair and our boat feels adrift and lost in the turbulent seas of the world.

After coming to know Dr. Ogilvie over the years, and seeing him in prayer with my staff, and so many others, I have no doubt that a book about our Chaplain and the many ways he has made a difference in our lives would be a very thick one. Every office, and every staff has at least a handful of stories about Dr. Ogilvie and the difference he made in their day or their lives just by being available and joining in prayer--or by being there to listen. To those who are fortunate enough to know him, he has been more than a Chaplain to us--he has been a trusted friend who could always be relied on for a good word of advice or to help with an idea or suggest a different approach to a problem.

We all know that all prayers are answered, it is just a difficult thing when the answer we pray for isn't the one we receive. Through the years, Dr. Ogilvie helped so many of our staff members through the storms of their own lives and he did so with great humility, kindness and a gentleness of spirit.

As I thought about the problems faced by my staff, I remembered the mother of one of my staff members who has a problem with pain. When he found out about it, Dr. Ogilvie called her and personally expressed his support for her and his intention to keep her in his prayers. It meant a lot to his mother and to my staff member to know just how much he could count on and rely on the Chaplain for help.

Another member of my staff had just received the devastating news that both of her parents were ill and facing a crisis in their health. Again, Dr. Ogilvie offered his prayers, his support and his spiritual strength for the battle. When a miracle came to pass and both parents recovered, he was there to express the joy and happiness that he found in another's victory. As the old adage says so well, each person's joy was his own.

Another staff member's wife was battling cancer. Dr. Ogilvie was there again to support and encourage as he prayed with them and helped them to face and battle the illness together.

Those are just a few examples of a long list that I could put together of the times when Dr. Ogilvie joined us in prayer, silently and in the background, helping to strengthen the ties between us and the Lord--because, as he said in his mission statement--it was more than his job, it was his charge from God.

For my own office, we will never forget all that Dr. Ogilvie shared with us when one of our staffers, a young man named Ben, faced the ultimate crisis of his life.

Ben was a remarkable young man, someone you took a liking to as soon as you met him. He had a remarkable spirit that comes from being young and being convinced you can do pretty much anything you want to. I don't think I've ever seen anyone at so young an age that was so full of promise and potential--mixed in with a lot of personality and spirit. We all knew when we met Ben that he was one colt that would be impossible to break--but sometimes the spirited ones make the whole herd run better. Such was the case with Ben.

He had come to us in the middle of a battle with cancer and every day we could sense his joy at the gift he was given of another day, another moment of life. Every day he seemed to be getting better and stronger until one terrible day when he seemed to lose a lot of ground and strength--all of a sudden. That was the day it started to seem clear that he might lose his battle with cancer.

Each day, as Ben battled for his life, we battled to be heard as we prayed in earnest for his recovery. Although each passing day seemed to put that elusive goal further from us, we joined together with Dr. Ogilvie in our prayers for a miracle. Sadly, we didn't get what we prayed for. I still remember the day we got the news we had come to dread but expect. Ben had passed away.

Once again, Dr. Ogilvie was with us, to comfort those of us who had lost a good friend, a hard working colleague, and an all around nice guy who had made a difference in all our lives. As we remembered our past years together many of us wondered why God had taken his future from him and from us at such a young and tender age.

Together with Dr. Ogilvie we prayed for answers to these and to all the questions that haunt those who have lost a loved one.

Those answers will come from God at His own speed and at His own time. For then, and for now, it was enough to have our good friend, Dr. Ogilvie, lead us in prayer and provide the words that resonated in our hearts as he helped us find the strength and courage to support each other as we continued to reach out to his family as they mourned the loss of a special son.

Dr. Ogilvie never said this in his prayers or lectures, but it was so clear from the way he lives his life that he knows it's not about him-- it's about his service and it's about our God. He is God's servant and he continues to serve Him with great strength and an abundance of good cheer and good will. In many ways he's like a beacon of light that helps to light the way we must walk to draw closer to God and His holy heaven.

One of the greatest preachers of our time was Billy Graham. When asked what made for a good preacher he said, ``The test of a preacher is that his congregation goes away saying, not,

``What a lovely sermon!'' but ``I will do something.''

If that is the test, Dr. Ogilvie is one of the best. In fact, I don't think there is a single one of us who met with Dr. Ogilvie to discuss a problem who didn't leave feeling absolutely certain that he or she knew what to do and when to do it.

That was one of Dr. Ogilvie's great gifts. He could listen and provide strength and support while he helped us all to find the answer that was right for us--from the silence and peace that lies within our hearts.

God bless you, Dr. Ogilvie, for you certainly were a blessing to each of us while you were here.

I have always believed that God puts us where He needs us, where He wants us to be found. I have no doubt that He is doing that with you right now. Wherever you go from now on, and whatever path He chooses to have you follow, I have no doubt you will continue to do a good job and represent well He who has sent you. As it teaches us in the Bible, ``you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your Lord.'' God bless you, Dr. Ogilvie, and may you continue to find the joy of your Lord wherever you go and in everyone you meet.