Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to mark a sad occasion that is underway in my home State of Idaho. We are burying one of our soldiers who was killed during the war in Iraq, and I wanted to take a few moments to share my thoughts with you about SGT Richard Carl. While I was not privileged to know him personally during his short 26 years, he has come alive for me through the memories that you have shared in the past few days. He is remembered as a son to Richard and Karen, a husband to Audrey, a father to 3-year-old Ealy Ann and 18-month-old Dominick, and a friend to many, many others.

It is a weighty job--the one we, as a nation, ask of people like Sergeant Carl. It brings uncertainty and sacrifice, not just for the troops, but for their families and loved ones. But our Nation is built on the foundations laid by good people like Sergeant Carl, and it is through their sacrifice, that their children and our children will inherit a free nation.

Such lofty language pales against the stark reality that confronts us today at this service. In the last few days, news articles have brought a quiet, brave family man to the attention of many Idahoans. I have been touched by the memories of good deeds, unheralded kindness, and a good heart. One memory frequently mentioned was that he was always helping someone else, and that is a remarkable legacy to leave. In his duty to his country, he died helping someone else--in this case, an injured Iraqi child who needed to be taken to a hospital. We cannot find the words to express the full extent of the debt that we owe to Sergeant Carl and so many other young men and women who have served our country to the fullest measure.

In his wife Audrey's words, ``Our family is dealing with this loss as well as can be expected. Richard was a good man, and while he was not known to the world, he played an important role. We are so proud of his contributions to our nation and his role in making the world a better place. He will never be forgotten.''

We are honored to have him remembered as an Idahoan. We are blessed to have had him here, even for the short time, and I am confident that those who knew him will make certain that his children have the opportunity to know their father through those memories. Sergeant Carl and so many others who have sacrificed for our freedoms will continue in my thoughts and prayers and in our Nation's grateful hearts.

national former prisoner of war recognition day

Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the importance of U.S. relations with Taiwan.

Most Americans have been focused on the two media showpiece events in recent weeks--the conflict in Iraq and the SARS pandemic. I would note to the Senate that our relations with Taiwan--a key strategic ally for the United States and a critical regional trading partner--should not be overlooked.

In addition to its strategic role with the U.S., Taiwan has a strong market-based economy and burgeoning multi-party democratic system. It has helped lead the modernization of Southeast Asia by demonstrating the importance of respecting civil liberties and the rule of law.

A component of U.S. efforts to ensure regional stability is to maintain strong relations with Taiwan, including assurances to protect the island against military attacks. To support this effort, the U.S. has a tradition of providing military assistance to Taiwan for the purpose of its self-defense. In recent years, this assistance has primarily been in the form of sales of aircraft and advanced warning radars to the Taiwanese government. Most recently, the Bush administration announced it would sell Taiwan a new assortment of defense articles, including diesel submarines, P-3C anti-submarine aircraft, and Kidd-class destroyers. I support this decision because it recognizes the legitimate self-defense requirements of Taiwan, but does not destabilize the sensitive relations between Taipei and Beijing.

The Key to ensuring peace and stability in the region is to promote healthy U.S. relations with Taiwan and support efforts to encourage the People's Republic of China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully. We should continue to pursue a means of supporting Taiwan without harming U.S. interests in China.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of the pending budget conference report occur at 4 p.m. today, with the time until then divided equally for debate.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the conference report. I think it is important we put into perspective the debate we are having today. You heard a lot of talk, if you listened to this debate, about the potential danger of tax relief at a time like this in our economy. You heard a lot of talk about skyrocketing deficits and what is the responsibility or the cause of those deficits, and the circumstances around which this budget has been brought to the floor.

I wish to step back a bit and look at my personal experience in Congress as an example of what it is we are really looking at, what the perspective is with regard to this debate.

I ran for Congress in 1993. At that time, we had massive deficits, in the neighborhood of $200 billion, $300 billion, $400 billion, $500 billion, and had been having those deficits for years. I ran on a balanced budget platform. I argued for a lot of other issues, but one of the main issues I talked about was the need to balance our Federal budget. I got elected, got here to Washington, and have been involved in a debate over a budget each year since I served in Congress. Now I am in my 11th year.

In each year, what happens is, whoever is the leadership in Congress proposes a budget. The budget can be a 5-year budget, which is what we used to have, or a 10-year budget, such as the one before us. The important point to note about all these budgets is the year that counts, particularly with regard to spending, is the first year of the budget.

Yes, we are here talking about a 10-year budget, but next year we will be back in front of the Congress with a new budget, and the first year of that new budget will not necessarily be the same year, the same as the second year of this year's budget. In other words, we do not just adopt this 10-year budget and then go on from there and live with the budget constraints contained in each of those 10 years. We do a new budget every year. So what really counts is the first year of the budget. It is important for people listening to this debate to understand that dynamic in order to understand what is really being said by those who are arguing about what should be the policy of this budget.

It is true that with regard to tax relief, once tax relief is adopted, it is permanent until a Congress changes it, and it plays out for a period of years. But it is the spending side of the budget that gets changed, especially the discretionary spending side of the budget that gets changed and redone by Congress every year. You have to look very carefully at the spending proposal. What happens, frankly, is that those who want to see more Federal spending, those who want to see our economy basically nationalized, with the Federal Government controlling ever-increasing aspects of the economy and spending ever-increasing dollars, frontload the spending into that first year of the budget. Then they have very prudent spending patterns in the second through the tenth year of the budget or the second through the fifth year of the budget, knowing they can come back next year with a new first year and change the whole spending dynamic.

The debate we are in right now is just another aspect of the traditional debate we have been having in Washington for the last couple of decades between those who do not want to see tax relief and those who want to see tax relief, and between those who want to see the Federal spending increase versus those who want to hold spending down.

We have heard a lot of talk, as I have said, about budgets and deficits. There has been a lot of accusation made about who caused the deficit that we face. President Bush, as you know, when he first became President proposed major tax relief which this Congress adopted. It was adopted for a 10-year timespan and will expire at the end of 10 years from the day it was adopted in 2001, if it is not continued.

That tax relief has provided needed relief to the American people. That tax relief is today being attacked on this floor as a cause of the budget deficits when, in reality, I think most Americans are very well aware we have had dramatic increases in spending required by the attack on 9/11 by terrorists against our Nation and the significant increases in spending on homeland security, by the war in Iraq, and the increased spending for our national security that has been driven by the need to make sure we have the strongest military we can to protect and preserve our Nation against terrorists and rogue nations overseas.

We have seen spending increases in other categories that have been far beyond the growth of the economy. In the categories discussed by Senators on this floor today--education, health care, the environment-- spending has gone through the roof for very good reasons: the defense of the war on terrorism, the defense of our homelands, the defense of our Nation. Nevertheless, spending has skyrocketed at the same time the economy has collapsed. So we see revenue going down at a time when spending is going up. That is what is causing these deficits. It was not President Bush's tax relief.

We can argue about whether giving tax relief is going to actually in a dynamic economy strengthen revenues or reduce revenues, and I would like to talk about that a little bit in a minute. The fact is, wherever one comes down on that debate, the true core of the causes of the deficits we are dealing with right now was not the tax relief; it was the increases in spending and the collapse of the economy we have seen not only in the United States but across this globe.

There has been a lot of talk about the fact we really have an obsession with tax cuts. There is definitely a strong commitment on the part of many of us to obtain tax relief because we believe strongly that it is through proper management of the tax collection side of our budget that we will provide the economic stimulus to our Nation that is needed. But if there is an obsession on the one side for tax relief, then it must also be said there is an obsession on the other side with spending.

Those very Senators who stand on the floor and talk about the fact we cannot support increased tax relief, we cannot have more tax relief, are the very same ones who when we debated this budget in the Senate they proposed over 80 amendments. There were over 80 amendments that we dealt with. If we tally up the increased spending that was proposed in the bevy of amendments when we considered this budget, it was almost an additional trillion dollars of spending that was proposed.

This budget is a lean budget, but it is one that meets the needs of this Nation in the critical areas that we must address. Again, we are having that age-old battle between whether we should keep taxes low and, in fact, even reduce them further or whether we should keep taxes high and stop tax cuts from being made and allow previous tax relief to expire and thereby let taxes go up so we can sustain higher levels of Federal spending in the budget. That is what this debate is about.

If we do nothing, if we let the current law stay as it is and have no tax relief and have no additional spending, we will still see deficits in the neighborhood of $200 billion in the budget year 2004 we are working on. So, again, I think it is important to set the parameters.

If we look at the proposals of the one side who are now objecting to the President's tax relief, they also have a stimulus package. Their stimulus package, however, does not contain so much tax relief. It contains mostly spending, on the theory, apparently, that we can spend ourselves into prosperity by having the Federal Government put a massive focus on spending to strengthen our economy.

We simply disagree with that. Notably, the spending in this stimulus package is frontloaded. Recall what I talked about with regard to how these budgets work. It is the first year of the budget that we really have to focus on on the spending side, and the frontloaded spending in the alternative stimulus package that is proposed results in a deficit, if it were to be adopted, that is even higher than the deficit that is contained with the President's tax relief proposal in this budget. According to the analysis, the deficit would be $382 billion, but it would not be because of tax relief. It would be because of spending. That is the key difference, again, in the debate we are having today.

There has been some discussion about the fact that we did not get a budget last year, and why we did not get a budget. The Senator from North Dakota asked some of us who voted against what he calls a 2-year budget that was proposed last year, why we voted against it. Well, I will tell my colleagues, it was the same old debate. That proposal, though it was not actually a full-blown budget, was one which extended the caps and it extended the point of order for the budget points of order that we need as protection in this budget and had some increased spending in some categories. The spending

proposals were, once again, too high. They were far beyond what the President had proposed in his budget that was focused on building a path back toward balance.

The reason we voted against it was because we did not believe in the spending levels they had proposed. With regard to those important budget protections, the extended caps on the budget and the budget points of order and the like, we did later on adopt those and extend them into April of this year. It is those spending caps and budget points of order that this budget now proposes to put back into place.

There has also been some talk about whether the manner in which this budget is being brought forth with the reconciliation instructions, being different between the House and the Senate, is proper. Frankly, I have looked at it. As I see it, it is very straightforward. The reconciliation instructions provide for $550 billion of tax relief over the next 10 years. With regard to that proposed tax relief, it is very clear that with the current support in opposition to that proposal, the Senate cannot pass that kind of tax relief. So it is proposed in this budget reconciliation that the Senate committee cannot exceed $350 billion, as the Senate committee puts together the tax package contemplated by this budget, and the House committee cannot exceed the $550 billion. The reconciliation between those two numbers will occur when the tax committee in the House and the tax committee in the Senate write the actual detailed tax language and they seek, if those bills are passed, to conference those bills.

It is a very normal and standard approach, in my opinion, of bringing together the differences between the House and the Senate, letting that debate be resolved at a time when the House and the Senate have put the details to the tax packages.

As has been said many times, what we are adopting today is a budget. It creates a number for tax relief. It does not say what kind of tax relief will occur. There are proposals and I am going to talk about those proposals, but the budget that we are talking about allows the House and the Senate tax committees to write their own proposals. We do not know what they are likely to adopt--well, let me say we think we know what they are likely to focus on, but we do not know the details of how they will adopt it.

I will talk about the tax relief argument for a minute. It has been said again today, multiple times, that we are talking about tax relief for the wealthy. As I said, I have served in Congress now for over 10 years, and during each of those 10 years--the 6 years I served in the House and going on 5 years I have now served in the Senate--we have had debates over tax relief. We have had tax relief proposals of all different kinds, everything from proposals to reduce the income tax rates to proposals to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to proposals for child tax credits, and so forth. Every single time that a proposal for tax relief has been made, since I have served in this Congress, it has been attacked as tax relief for the wealthy. Even the proposal to eliminate the marriage tax penalty was attacked as tax cuts for the wealthy.

Why? Because that is something that seems to work when people do not look at the details behind what kinds of tax relief are being proposed.

Well, what kind of tax relief is being proposed by the President? First, he is proposing that we accelerate the tax cuts that were put into place in 2001. That includes expansion of the 10-percent bracket, hardly a tax cut on the wealthy; acceleration of the 2006 rate schedule; acceleration of the 15-percent bracket; and an increase in the standard deduction for married filing jointly, hardly tax cuts for the wealthy; acceleration of the child credit increase, hardly tax relief for the wealthy; an increase in the AMT exemption amount. There is one where people from all different categories could get caught up in it but particularly I hear about this one from small business owners. I certainly hope all small business owners in America and others are not considered to be wealthy simply because they own their own business.

It also includes an increase in the expensing options for small businesses and other businesses, all businesses.

Mr. President, I have just been notified I can now make a unanimous consent request, and I will do so.

Maybe 5 minutes.

I do not expect to go more than another 5 minutes.

I am not authorized to make that agreement at this point. Should I forego making the unanimous consent request?

The point I was making is that the first thing the President was talking about doing was accelerating the tax relief that was implemented in 2001, tax relief which was attacked then for being a tax cut on the wealthy but certainly was not so.

The other thing the President has proposed is to make all of that tax relief permanent. That would be making the elimination of the marriage tax penalty permanent, making the elimination of the estate tax permanent, making the increase in the expansion of the 10-percent bracket and the other tax relief provided for all taxpayers in America permanent. These proposals benefit every taxpayer in America. On a percentage basis, they favor those in the lower income brackets far more than those in the upper income brackets.

The bottom line is, whether you use percentages or numbers, people can play with the numbers and say this is a tax cut for wealthy or middle income or whatever, but on a percentage basis these tax relief proposals benefit those in the lower income tax brackets more than any other bracket.

In order to facilitate our effort to conclude this debate at the 4 p.m. time, I will forego the remainder of my comments.

I conclude by pointing out this is another angle on the traditional debate we have virtually every year between those who want to see spending maintained and increased and those who want to see the Federal budget controlled and implement tax relief. The American people can see through these arguments. The American people understand the value and stimulus tax relief can provide to the economy of this Nation at a time when our economy dramatically needs the right kind of fiscal policy to be adopted by this Congress.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?

I believe what I said was that, as I had been here over 10 years, we debated that proposal several times and every time it has been debated it has been attacked as a tax cut for the wealthy. I can tell you from my own personal experience, that is the case. In fact, today it is part of the proposal being talked about and it is being attacked as a tax cut for the wealthy.

We will take a look at that and see why the vote was different.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act. This bill would require the Federal Government to pay the same filing fees and costs associated with state water rights adjudications as is currently required of States and private parties.

To establish relative rights to water--water that is the lifeblood of many States, particularly in the West--States must conduct lengthy, complicated, and expensive proceedings in water rights' adjudications. In 1952, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring Federal claims to be adjudicated in these State proceedings by adopting the McCarran Amendment. The McCarran Amendment waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and requires the Federal Government to submit to State court jurisdiction and to file water rights' claims in State general adjudication proceedings.

These Federal claims are typically among the most complicated and largest of claims in State adjudications, and Federal agencies are often the primary beneficiary of adjudication proceedings where states officially quantify and record their water rights. However, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court held that, under existing law, the U.S. need not pay fees for processing Federal claims.

When the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the proceedings unfairly shifts to other water users and often delays completion of the adjudications by diminishing the resources necessary to complete them. Delays in completing adjudications result in the inability to protect private and public property interests or determine how much unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important environmental and economic development priorities.

Additionally, because they are not subject to fees and costs like other water users in the adjudication, Federal agencies can file questionable claims without facing court costs, inflating the number of their claims for future negotiation purposes. This creates an unlevel playing field favoring the Federal agencies and places a further financial and resources burden on the system.

I recognize the Federal Government has a legitimate right to some water rights; however, the Federal Government should play by the same rules as the States and other private users. The Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act is legislation that remedies this situation by subjecting the United States, when party to a general adjudication, to the same fees and costs as State and private users in water rights adjudications.

This measure has the full support of the Western States Water Council and the Western Governor's Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting water users, taxpayers, the States, and welcome their co- sponsorship.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act. This bill would require the Federal Government to pay the same filing fees and costs associated with state water rights adjudications as is currently required of States and private parties.

To establish relative rights to water--water that is the lifeblood of many States, particularly in the West--States must conduct lengthy, complicated, and expensive proceedings in water rights' adjudications. In 1952, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring Federal claims to be adjudicated in these State proceedings by adopting the McCarran Amendment. The McCarran Amendment waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and requires the Federal Government to submit to State court jurisdiction and to file water rights' claims in State general adjudication proceedings.

These Federal claims are typically among the most complicated and largest of claims in State adjudications, and Federal agencies are often the primary beneficiary of adjudication proceedings where states officially quantify and record their water rights. However, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court held that, under existing law, the U.S. need not pay fees for processing Federal claims.

When the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the proceedings unfairly shifts to other water users and often delays completion of the adjudications by diminishing the resources necessary to complete them. Delays in completing adjudications result in the inability to protect private and public property interests or determine how much unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important environmental and economic development priorities.

Additionally, because they are not subject to fees and costs like other water users in the adjudication, Federal agencies can file questionable claims without facing court costs, inflating the number of their claims for future negotiation purposes. This creates an unlevel playing field favoring the Federal agencies and places a further financial and resources burden on the system.

I recognize the Federal Government has a legitimate right to some water rights; however, the Federal Government should play by the same rules as the States and other private users. The Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act is legislation that remedies this situation by subjecting the United States, when party to a general adjudication, to the same fees and costs as State and private users in water rights adjudications.

This measure has the full support of the Western States Water Council and the Western Governor's Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting water users, taxpayers, the States, and welcome their co- sponsorship.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate today with my colleague from Texas and others who have joined us and will in the future to take the time set aside by our leadership to talk about our troops and to give them the thanks of a grateful Nation as they fight in Iraq to protect our freedom.

Today I want to begin by sharing another vignette, this one is from the Army Times written by Robert Hodierne and Jane McHugh. It is about a heroic act that occurred in Iraq during some of the early days of the fighting. This is a picture with the wrong name on it. I will explain. When it was first reported, it said ``Joseph DeWitt.'' But after further evaluation--this picture made it on the front page of a number of newspapers around the country, and people started checking into it.

It was actually Joseph P. Dwyer, age 26, who is still in the field in Iraq. A few days ago, when this report I will discuss was written, he was still 80 miles outside of Baghdad with his division, the 3rd Infantry. What we see is obvious. It is one of our soldiers carrying a young Iraqi boy to safety. But there is a story behind this picture that illustrates the bravery and commitment of our troops in Iraq, not just to cause a regime change and to overthrow Saddam Hussein and restore peace and freedom in Iraq and peace and freedom in the world, but also to do so in a way that causes the least amount of collateral damage.

I will stop before I go into this vignette to make a point. There are

many nations in the world that, when war begins, would not pay attention to the collateral damage, the injuries of innocent civilians. Saddam Hussein, as we know, has killed tens of thousands of innocent people just for the accomplishment of an objective of war.

But our Nation, as we conduct this battle, is conducting it in a way that literally puts our men and women in the military at greater risk because of the decision to try to reduce the risk presented by the war to those who are innocent. I think it is important for us to note that our men and women in the armed services are incurring this greater risk because of our commitment and theirs to make sure that we do not injure one unnecessary person as we conduct this war.

You can see here a young grimy soldier in full battle gear. You can see the level of concern on his face as he carries this wounded young Iraqi boy to safety. What is the story behind this picture? As I have indicated, Joseph Dwyer is 26, and he is still with the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq. Until just a few days ago, he didn't really have a clue how famous he was. His name was misidentified in the first prints of the picture. By the time he was identified, his picture was one that people around the world had seen. When he was told about it, his reaction was that he laughed out loud. For a few moments, he could not stop laughing. He said afterward that he was both amused and embarrassed at the notoriety he had achieved. ``Really, I was just one of a group of guys. I wasn't standing out more than anyone else,'' he said during this telephone conversation during some rare down time.

Dwyer has lived for the past 6 years in Wagram, NC, where his parents moved after his father retired as a New York transit policeman. This young man's family has been in law enforcement. His father is a retired policeman. He grew up in Mt. Sinai on New York's Long Island. His three older brothers are New York City policemen. If you think about that and remember 9/11, he had three brothers who were New York City policemen when he found out the news about what was happening on 9/11. None of his brothers was lost on 9/11, but one of them lost a partner on 9/11. That is how close the casualties came to his personal family.

He said: ``I mean everybody lost someone, a lot of good people.'' He said he was sure for a long time that he had lost someone too. He believed one of his brothers had probably been killed. He said: ``I thought he was gone.'' But when he talked to his brother on the night of September 11 and learned he was safe, Dwyer said: ``I knew I had to do something.'' So 2 days later he enlisted in the Army and became a medic. He said: ``It was just what I could do at the time.''

People from across America jumped in and did what they could after 9/ 11. This young man joined the Army to help protect and defend the United States interests and is now doing that in Iraq. On Tuesday morning, when the now-famous image of Dwyer was taken, his unit, the 3rd Squadron of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, had been ambushed repeatedly the night before as they worked their way along the north side of the Euphrates River. Just as the Sun was rising, they were ambushed again by Iraqi troops firing from tree lines on both sides of the road. The Americans fired back with everything they had and called in airstrikes to help them. In the middle of this firefight, an Iraqi family was caught in the crossfire. When the fighting stopped, the father of the family came running out screaming that his family needed help. Dwyer says: ``It came over that there was a family that had some injuries. We went down there. It was kind of hectic at first. . . . We didn't know what was going on. Who was friendly and who wasn't.''

Here is an example of how our troops are putting themselves in harm's way because of their interest in making sure that we reduce the casualties to innocent people.

``We didn't want to get too close to the village, knowing that there could be possible enemy there,'' he went on. ``We saw him with the child. He came running out to where we had the hospital set up.''

Then he and some other soldiers, guns at the ready, bolted from their cover to help. Dwyer reached the father and grabbed his son from him, cradling the young boy in a protective embrace as he raced back to safer ground. That is when Army Times photographer Warren Zinn snapped this picture.

The boy, who is about 4 years old, ``grabbed right onto me, that was the weird thing,'' Dwyer said. ``The kid was doing all right. I could feel him breathing real hard, and I was just carrying him and he didn't cry one bit and you know he was a cute little kid. He was scared, though, you could tell. You know, for the father to trust us to take his child over and know that we would take care of him, maybe it's just me being optimistic, but I think it was a good feeling knowing he trusted us to take his child. It was a little kid. I have little nieces and nephews back home. . . . It was just a kid, it wasn't an enemy. This is what I signed up to do, to help people.''

That day was the first time Dwyer treated any wounded. The little boy had a broken left leg, but Dwyer says he is going to make a quick recovery. Though gratifying as the encounter may have been, it left him with lingering concerns. He wishes he could talk to the family.

``I wonder how they felt about us,'' he said. ``I mean, if I was in their position and this was going on, I'd be mad at me, you know, for being here. I don't know. I wouldn't mind being able to talk to him, that's for sure.''

Dwyer nevertheless is glad to be in Iraq. ``I know that people are going to be better for it. The whole world will be. I hope being here is positive because we are a caring group of people out here. If they find out, that would be great. Maybe they'd stop shooting.''

Mr. President, here we have one more specific example of an act of bravery, heroism, which is happening time and time again in Iraq. As we see the scenes on TV of the bombs exploding and the troops moving, we think about our troops being engaged in battle, but we don't think about the fact that, as they are engaged in battle, they are also doing everything they can to help those who are innocent, who didn't start or cause this war, to be protected from harm's way.

I conclude my remarks by again expressing on my behalf, and I believe on behalf of the entire Senate and the Congress, and, frankly, the United States people, our thanks to our men and women in the armed services for the service they are giving.

I spoke in the Chamber a few days ago about an Idahoan who has given the extreme sacrifice. He lost his life in this battle. We will have, unfortunately, more stories like that. As a nation, we give our thoughts and our prayers and our grateful thanks to the men and women in our Armed Forces who are putting their lives on the line for our freedom.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas.

Madam President, I also stand with the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Nebraska--really, all the Senators--to take this opportunity to share our feelings about the support we have for our troops while they are engaged in this difficult battle in Iraq.

While our Nation fights the war on terrorism, taking on even more demanding and dangerous tasks, and is now actually headed into heated battle in the Arabian Peninsula, it is important that we remember just how important the United States military is to preserving and protecting our national security.

Each of us in the Senate and those we represent throughout the country owe a sincere debt of gratitude to the brave men and women in uniform. Our soldiers, sailors, and marines serve us with unselfish courage and epitomize the term ``hero.''

I will point out another brave group of men and women serving in harm's way. These are the thousands of our guardsmen and reservists who have been called to duty here in America and abroad.

On a sad note, I would like to share with my colleagues my heartfelt sadness over the death of Air National Guardsman Major Gregory Stone, from Idaho, who was killed on March 23.

Major Stone, serving as liaison with the Army's 101st Airborne Division in

Kuwait, was one of the victims of the grenade attack on the officers' tents at Camp Pennsylvania. Major Stone leaves behind two sons, Evan, age 11, and Joshua, age 7, and an entire community, State, and Nation in grief.

Major Stone's father said:

My son died to allow the guy who killed him to believe in

what he believed.

As we know right now, it appears it is very possible that the cowardly attack that killed Major Stone may have been perpetrated by another fellow soldier. That is being investigated at the moment.

Major Stone, an Oregon native, was one of six Idaho Air National Guard members working as liaisons with the Army's 101st Airborne Division in Kuwait. He worked for 2 years at the Air Expeditionary Force Battlelab in Mountain Home, ID, as the lab's B-1 bomber expert. Since September, he was an independent assessor with the company that does contract work for the lab.

One of his colleagues, MAJ Thomas G. Westall, U.S. Air Force, Retired, said:

He paid the highest sacrifice for being a good soldier.

Major Stone is just one of those brave Americans who will be called upon to pay the highest sacrifice for our freedom. I commend him and all of those in our military who are putting their lives on the line to protect our freedom, and I express the gratitude of a grateful country for their service.

Idahoans, as all Americans have a long-standing tradition of service in our Nation's Armed Forces. As each of my colleagues here can attest, our States have called forward their best and bravest to protect our security and preserve our liberties. Idaho has a contingent of guardsmen, reservists, and mainline forces in the Persian Gulf and engaged in the war on terrorism.

The Gunfighters of Mountain Home Air Force Base are among the best trained forces in our military because they train at the world-class ordnance training facility in Southwest Idaho. Mountain Home offers the Air Force one of the best training bases in the world. With its good weather and unobstructed air space, our pilots can train almost year- round. As Air Force pilots from around the country can attest, the training range in Idaho keeps them on the cutting edge of combat effectiveness.

The Idaho Reserve and National Guard provide another vital military presence in our State. These citizen soldiers provide a critical service to our State and to our Nation. The Idaho Army National Guard, with 28 units throughout the State, has 3,500 members and, during the past year, has provided personnel for active duty service throughout the world. Very recently, elements of the Idaho Army National Guard completed an extended rotation in the Balkans.

The Air Guard, which has its headquarters at Gowen Field, has seen its share of active duty as well, most recently being called to service following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Air Guard's equipment includes C-130 transports, as well as the very capable close in support fighter, the A-10.

Units of the Army and Navy Reserve are also very active in Idaho. The Army Reserve has 11 units in the State with 750 personnel assigned while the Navy Reserve has approximately 250 members. Many reservists, from a host of specialities and backgrounds, ranging from civil affairs to logistics, have been called to active duty during the past year.

Each Idahoan in uniform has a demanding responsibility, and I am grateful for all they do. And right now, over 100,000 reservists nationwide have been placed on active service.

For the foreseeable future, our Armed Forces will be dealing with more and more demands. We are facing uncertainly in the Persian Gulf, and threats worldwide continue to loom. It will be difficult and tough duty for these brave people, but I have complete confidence in their ability to meet the tasks ahead. And I also know, that Idaho, with its long tradition of military service, will continue to play an important role in the defense of our Nation.

Many Americans have expressed their heartfelt appreciation of our troops. It is indeed tragic that the lives of many men and women are now being put in harm's way because Iraqi leaders would not to conform to international resolution that would have brought a peaceful end to this conflict. Sadly, we are seeing Iraq refuse to voluntarily end its support of terrorism and stop the threat from the weapons of mass destruction Iraq possesses.

My heart and my prayers are with our troops and their families. This is a time for support of all of those brave Americans being put at risk to defend our national security. We will win this conflict and end the multiple threats of weapons, terrorism, and continued instability in the Middle East the Iraqi dictator represents.

Every generation of Americans has faced the need to protect our freedoms, and we live in a new age where innocent Americans have died at the hands of terrorists. Our President has made the difficult decision that our national security is on the line and I fully support his decision.

Our President and the men and women in our Armed Forces will protect our freedom and continue to make out nation secure. We owe them our support, our prayers, and our hopes that this conflict is over as soon as possible.

There is much more I could say, but I conclude my remarks by, once again, coming back to the importance that I place on this Senate giving time each day, as we are now doing, to commend the men and women in uniform, whether they be our active military, or our guardsmen or reservists, for putting their lives on the line for our freedom.

Every generation in America has had the opportunity, in some context or another, to defend our freedom. And these brave men and women are being called upon to risk the greatest sacrifice so we in America and people throughout the globe can continue to have the freedoms which we cherish so greatly.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I also appreciate Senator Sarbanes and the other Senators in the Chamber who are so involved in working on this critical issue. Our water infrastructure needs in this Nation are crying out for attention. This is one of those areas we have to address in the budget. We have the kind of need that requires us to be focused and unified.

I am very pleased we were able to come together on an amendment today that will help us begin the process of addressing the crying need in our Nation's infrastructure for water systems.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important issue. This week we are going to be discussing a number of critical issues, as has already been mentioned by a number of those who have spoken. It is expected that the possibility of war with Iraq will come closer, if not become a reality, sometime in the near future. At the same time, we are debating probably the biggest economic issue, and the biggest issue for the management of this country, that the Senate will deal with this year, as we put together the budget resolution. In that context, I will basically give a brief overview of how we got to where we are, where it is that we are, and the decisions we will be making.

Many people will remember that a few short years ago we were talking about major surpluses across the board and for as far as we could see into the future. In fact, I have in front of me a projection that was based back in January of 2001, which estimated that in this budget year that we are working on right now, the 2004 budget year, the surplus was projected to be around $396 billion. This same sheet shows what the projection today is as opposed to what was projected in the year 2001, and the projection is around a $199 billion deficit. In other words, just for the budget year in which we are working, the projections over the last essentially 2-plus years have gone from a projection of a $396 billion surplus to a $199 billion deficit.

Now, what caused that? We will hear a lot of debate about what caused it. In fact, it has already been said today that President Bush's tax cut from a few years ago caused it, that President Bush's economic policies have caused it. In reality, we are going to see some of the numbers that have been put together.

What happened is that on 9/11 the United States was attacked by terrorists and people saw the World Trade Center collapse. People saw what happened very vividly as the United States responded to the fact that we were at war with terrorists. Following that, there were massive increases of spending at the Federal level; spending required to respond to the 9/11 attacks; spending required to address the war against terrorism, for example, the war which we have fought already in Afghanistan; spending to deal with our homeland security; spending to deal with strengthening our national security and preparing ourselves to be sure that America and Americans are safe throughout the world as we deal with an increasingly dangerous world.

In addition to that, spending has gone up on health care. Spending has been driven up in a number of the other social areas of our budget. We saw very little relief, if not in fact dramatic increasing pressures, for spending in the last 2 years. At the same time, the economy collapsed.

I will put up our first chart. We have seen this chart already today, but this chart shows that at the same time our spending started to go through the roof, as spending started to go up dramatically, revenue, which is the blue line, dropped off dramatically. The revenue dropped off dramatically for a number of reasons. It has been said that the revenue dropped off because of President Bush's tax cut. In part, that is true, because although that tax cut was phased in over 10 years and although most of that tax cut has not even occurred yet and cannot be the responsibility of these declines in revenue, a part of it was. There was tax relief, and as a result of that tax relief there was some decline in revenue. However, let's go to the next chart.

This next chart is another way of looking at the same thing. Again, the blue is revenue and the red is spending. The revenue since 2000 has gone down precipitously. The spending in Washington has not. This is another way of showing we are facing the dual problem of increasing pressures on spending and reducing our falling revenue to support the Federal budget.

Why did the fall-off on revenue happen? This chart shows what happened in our economy. This is the Nasdaq. Starting in 2001, it hit about 5,000. It is now down to--when the chart was

made--around 1,200 and is hovering in that neighborhood today, about a 75-percent reduction in the values just on this market. The same type of charts could be put here for the New York Stock Exchange or for other exchanges across the world which have seen worldwide dramatic reductions in economic activities.

Virtually everyone who pays any attention to the economy these days knows the bubble popped and the economy went into a serious collapse. Many have called it recession. We have held dozens of hearings in Washington to understand what happened, why it happened, and how soon we will be able to climb out. People know about the Enron debacle, the WorldCom debacle, and the loss of confidence the American people have in our markets today, which loss of consumer confidence has generated further difficulty in the economy. People are also aware we are potentially going to have to go to war in Iraq. That cloud over the economy itself is generating the kind of lack of confidence in economic activity that causes us to have difficulty in seeing a rebound in the markets.

The next chart shows what it was that caused us to see the dramatic change in our deficit. This chart shows the year 2004. There are charts that can predict it out for 10 years and add in some of the proposed stimulus package. But this chart shows what caused us to end up where we are today in the budget.

Over half of the problem we are facing is what I have been discussing, the weak economy and changes in the estimates of what revenue will be coming into the Federal Government through our current tax and revenue structure. As I indicated, a portion is attributable to tax relief, although this is static scoring, and if one looks at what tax relief does to the economy, I suspect that number will go down dramatically. Static scoring shows nothing but 100 percent loss of revenue for any tax dollar relief.

But we know when there is tax relief, that causes an impact in the economy. That dollar is not spent by the Federal Government but spent somewhere else, and if the relief is effectively projected, it could be significant. So this number could be reduced significantly. But even if we use static scoring and say a tax cut reduces revenue, dollar for dollar for the Federal Government, only 19 percent of what we look at now is attributable to the tax relief we passed a few years ago in the Senate and the House. That is another 6 percent for tax relief not attributable to the vote a few years ago and the increased spending.

Take just the increased spending that has been caused in Congress by September 11, the war on terrorism, the need to beef up our national security, the increases in health care costs, and a number of other cost drivers we have in our budget. Take the increased spending and the collapse of the economy. It represents 75 percent of why we are where we are.

I suspect during the week we will hear how President Bush's economic plan caused us to be where we are. Here are the facts. There will be a lot of projections and a lot of charts, but nothing can change the reality of what happened on September 11, what our response to it has been, and what happened in the economy following that. That, in a nutshell, is what caused us to end up where we are.

With that explanation of what happened, we get to a situation where this economy has put forward a budget. I will be rough in my numbers because I don't have the charts in front of me. If we do nothing, if this committee simply says we will keep Federal spending at its current levels--we will not drive it up or down, we will not reduce taxes or increase taxes, we will take current law as it now sits--someone could give me a more accurate number, but it is in the neighborhood of $150 to $200 billion of deficit, if we do nothing.

The question is, Should we do something? Should we cut spending in an effort to keep the difference down? Should we raise taxes? I don't believe there is anyone who is suggesting raising taxes right now is a good idea. But there are those who are suggesting because of this, because the economy is no longer contributing what it was contributing before, and because if we learned any lesson in the last few years, it is that the way to get out of these economic difficulties in the Federal budget is to have a strong, flexible, dynamic, vibrant, resilient economy--if we want to do something to make this gray part of the chart get stronger and become better in terms of generating revenue for the Federal Government, then we should have some kind of a stimulus package.

So the debate comes around: Should we cut spending? Should we freeze spending? Should we keep spending controlled? Should we reduce taxes? Should we have a stimulus package? And if so, what, and how?

Looking at the spending side of this equation, the spending drivers in this budget are the beef-up in our national security. In fact, these numbers do not even include the possibility of a war with Iraq. I will talk about that in a moment. The increase in our national security spending, the increase in the costs of fighting the war on terrorism, the increases in homeland security, and the increases in health care-- and there are a few others--are the main drivers of the increases in costs in this budget. I don't believe there are very many in the Senate, or in America, who would say right now is the time to cut defense spending or right now is the time to cut homeland security spending. We can hold the line, and we are going to do that, and this budget does put significant pressure on holding those lines, but there is not a lot of room in the circumstances we see right now to reduce those spending areas, although we will work our hardest to do so. I believe we will do so in a bipartisan fashion to get to the right numbers on the budget.

To make a quick aside, I have fought for a balanced budget amendment for years. I still believe we should have one. As I and others have fought for a balanced budget amendment, one of the examples for exceptions we have always acknowledged is we could see a situation where we would need to tolerate deficits for a period of time if we were facing war or a national emergency declared by the President. Today I believe those circumstances face us. I believe we are at war today with terrorists. I believe it is very possible we will be at war with Iraq soon. And I believe we face a national emergency in terms of our homeland security needs. Those are the unfortunate realities that cause us to have very little flexibility on the spending side of this budget, although again I say we are going to do everything we can to bring it under control on the spending side.

The question is, What do we do then, after we have done everything we can on the spending side? By the way, contrary to some of the arguments heard today, the budget proposed works its way back to a balance. It takes 10 years to do so. I am very disheartened by the fact, with the spending pressures we see and with the revenue drop-off we have seen, that our projections are going to take us 10 years to get back into balance. The fact is, this budget balances over the 10-year period.

What do we do when we look at this revenue side? The question is, Do we do nothing? There are those who have advocated today that we should not have any tax relief. One argument is, have no tax relief until we know what the cost of the war is. Another argument is, have no tax relief because we should not have tax relief when we face this kind of spending pressure in the budget. And when we face these kinds of problems we have talked about that legitimately cause us to have to increase expenditures in major categories, we should not be looking at tax relief.

There is another side of the argument, and that side of the argument is, unless we do something to give a basic boost, a shot in the arm, a revitalization to our economy, we will see the grow-back of this weakened economy be much slower. It gets back to that argument about dynamic scoring, of what a tax cut really will do. That is one of the reasons President Bush has proposed--and this Budget Committee has proposed to the Congress--that we have tax relief.

As our chairman of the Budget Committee has indicated, this Budget Committee does not write the tax bill. We simply tell the rest of the Congress, and in this case the Finance Committee, how much money we are willing to budget for them to utilize in establishing a tax cut. Then the Finance Committee can come together and, in

its best wisdom, craft the most effective tax cut designed, in their opinion, to do the best for our economy.

That having been said, there are proposals out there. The President made his proposal. This budget accommodates the President's proposal. The President's proposal is to do basically three things.

It is to take the tax cut that we passed in the year 2000 and make it permanent. Most people in the country never quite understood why it was that Congress would pass a tax cut and make it only last for 10 years, phase it in over 10 years, and then have it expire basically as soon as it is phased in. It has to do with some interesting procedural requirements on the floor of the Senate which I will not get into now, but the fact is the tax cut which was implemented a few years ago will expire in 10 years, and the first part of the President's plan is to make it permanent.

The second part is to say we should not phase it in over 10 years. We should accelerate it and implement it all now.

The third part has a number of pieces, but the core of it is elimination of double taxation on dividends.

Let's put up the next chart.

There is a big attack on this. Frankly, in all these areas the attack starts out--you will hear this said dozens of times in the next few days--it is a tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans.

I have been in Congress now 10 years. I served 6 years in the House, 4 years in the Senate. I am in my fifth year in the Senate. Over that 10 years, in virtually every year I and others like me who want to see taxes cut and reduced, when we have fought for tax relief, every single solitary time that we proposed a tax cut of any kind or nature, it has been attacked as a tax cut for the wealthy. Every time. Even when all we did was propose the marriage tax penalty elimination, it was attacked as a tax cut for the wealthy.

The common rhetoric of those who do not support reducing the Federal tax burden begins with ``a tax cut for wealthy Americans,'' because the attack is that any tax cut is going to benefit the wealthy. If you look at the numbers, as to who pays taxes in America, it is primarily those in the upper income brackets who pay by far the largest percentages of the taxes. So if you look at actual dollars, you can make that argument.

But if you look at what is being done in the tax relief proposed by the President on a proportional basis, on a percentage basis, the biggest amount of tax relief is going to those in the lower income brackets.

As this chart shows, those earning from zero to $30,000 will have their taxes reduced by 17 percent. Those earning from $30,000 to $40,000 will have their taxes reduced by 20 percent. In the $40,000 to $50,000 category, the reduction is 14.5 percent.

You can see as you go up in income categories, until you get past the $75,000 to $100,000 figure, the higher percentage reductions are all occurring in the lower brackets. The higher income brackets have the lowest percentage of income reduction.

Again, one could take the actual dollars, but because very few numbers of Americans fit in these categories proportionately, but they make the higher levels of income, a smaller reduction in their taxes is going to give them a higher dollar benefit and people can use dollar numbers to show that. But the reality is that the higher percentage of relief is going to those in the lower income categories. It is pretty much impossible to have a tax cut, unless it is just a tax cut for the lower brackets, that doesn't have some relief across the board, and then allow those to make that argument about the tax cut for the wealthy.

In my opinion, it is class warfare. It is attempting to say those at the upper ends of the income brackets in America should have no tax relief and all tax relief should be favored toward this end, toward the lower income brackets. What happens if you follow that logic is that eventually no tax cut is ever acceptable because the tax down in these categories gets to the point where, no matter what you do with it, unless you eliminate it, it doesn't generate the revenue reductions or doesn't generate the stimulus to the economy that is necessary to get the impact that is desired. That is where we are today. That is why we are seeing these arguments.

I think it is very unfortunate that every time we try to cut taxes in this Congress the first response is that whatever the tax is that is proposed to be reduced, it is a tax cut for the most wealthy Americans.

Let's go back to the chart I just took down. With regard to the proposal that we eliminate double taxation of dividends, Charles Schwab, the founder and chairman of Charles Schwab Company, indicated in a Washington Post commentary on March 11 of this year:

I can't think of any other tax policy that would, at one

stroke, be more beneficial to ordinary investors.

I suspect somebody could say only rich people invest, and therefore this is a tax cut for the wealthy. But I do not think that argument is going to be made too strongly on the floor this week because most Americans are now involved in the markets in one way or another, even if it is only through their retirement plans. But most Americans know it is critical to see things like the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ and others get a boost.

Charles Schwab goes on to say:

The impact [of dividend relief] would be enormous.

I believe in that same commentary he indicated his personal belief to be he would expect to see the stock market rise 10 or 15 percent with a renewed bolt of confidence throughout the entire economy just by doing what the President has proposed with regard to the double taxation of dividends.

We have another financial expert in the country who has weighed in on this issue, Alan Greenspan, on February 12, before the House Financial Services Committee:

In my judgment, the elimination of the double taxation of

dividends will be helpful to everybody.

I think he was responding directly to this notion that it only helps a certain class in society. He was responding to this class warfare argument that continues to be brought up as we try to address tax policy. He said:

There is no question that this particular program will be,

net, a benefit to virtually everyone over the long run, and

that's one of the reasons I strongly support it.

The reason it is strongly supported by these experts is because today, as has been indicated by others who have spoken on the floor, there is very little incentive in a corporation to generate dividends. That is because, if those dividends are paid out, they are taxed twice. As the chairman of the committee indicated, the net tax burden is about 70 percent. Whereas, if the corporation instead incurs debt, and further leverages itself, then it gets a deduction for that debt or it gets a deduction for a portion of the debt costs. So it can actually get a tax benefit for going further into debt, and it pays a tax penalty if it sends out dividends to its shareholders.

What we have seen is corporations increasingly following this path because of the pressure that is put on them by our Tax Code, putting themselves further and further into leveraged positions which I believe is one of the reasons we saw what happened to Enron. That is why Enron had to go through these incredibly complicated sets of transactions to try to mask the amount of debt it was really carrying. It is the same with many other corporations.

If we want to encourage corporate America, which generates strength and jobs for this country and the families which depend on those jobs, if we want to generate pressure in the business community for the kinds of proper decisionmaking that will give us stable, strong businesses that will generate strong and lasting jobs, then we need to address the policies by which we tax them. We need to encourage policies that will support dividend payment rather than debt. That is one of the reasons why you see so many experts saying it is critical for us to move into this new kind of tax policy.

The question is--given it is good policy--can we do it now with this very dire budget situation we face? That is a tough question. It is a tough question for me to answer because in the short term it will cause our deficits to go up, although the amount of that is in discussion and in dispute because some will use static scoring, and some will use dynamic scoring, and we really don't know the dynamics of it.

There will probably be charts here today that show all these projections

have the potential to be widely inaccurate; and we all agree with that. But the fact is, we do know there is a dynamic that occurs when we change our tax policy, and the experts are telling us that dynamic will be beneficial to making our economy more flexible and more resilient.

So the question is, Do we take this stand now? Do we do what is necessary to give a boost to the economy, realizing it may take a period of years for the real strength of it to build us back to where we have made our posture stronger, do we sit tight and do nothing now and hope the economy grows out of it on its own or, as some will probably suggest, do we spend ourselves into prosperity? Does the Federal Government take the position that we need to have a lot of spending, a lot of stimulus in the economy, and we should just not concern ourselves with the deficit but spend ourselves back into a strong position economically?

As you might guess, I strongly reject that ``spend ourselves back into prosperity'' argument. It will probably never be said that way today or throughout this week. But I encourage people who follow this debate to note, when amendments are proposed, do those amendments drive up the deficit or do they not? Do those amendments drive up Federal spending or do they not?

Let's go back to that first chart with the lines, because as we debate amendments on this budget, the amendments will generally have one of two or three impacts. They will either be deficit-neutral, which means they could increase spending by increasing taxes or they could reduce taxes, which is reduce this line, or they could increase spending, which is this line.

I think it is very important for people to pay attention to the amendments that are offered because this whole week I hope we do not get any amendments on the floor that would drive the deficit up with more spending. I would hope we would recognize the deficit increases that are caused by the tax reductions can be addressed with an understanding of the dynamic impact they will have over time.

Just a couple of other arguments I want to address.

It has been said the proposals of this budget spend the Social Security trust fund. I understand what is being said there. Let me clarify what the situation is because I do not believe Americans should go away from this debate believing that somehow the Social Security trust fund is being robbed. The fact is, regardless of whether the tax cut is eliminated from this budget or whether it is put into this budget, the Social Security trust fund, at the end of the 10-year cycle, will be about $4.1 trillion. It will be the same trust fund no matter what happens. Because what occurs is that, in the Social Security trust fund, the excess that comes in from payroll taxes that is not spent out into the Social Security system is a part of that surplus. That surplus is turned into Federal debt instruments.

Then, what are those Federal debt instruments used for? Spending, or for tax relief, or for whatever is a matter for Congress to address. But the fact is, those Federal debt instruments are there, and they are still there to protect Social Security.

My last point. Some have said we should not do anything because we are possibly going to be going to war. Again, the argument there seems to be that tax relief is not wholesome for the economy; therefore, we should not be doing anything to destabilize the economy.

I believe what I have said indicates where I come down on that point, that the fact is we must do something to stimulate and strengthen this economy. The medicine we need is in the President's proposal and is made possible by the projections of this budget.

Although we will face some very expensive and very difficult budget decisions, if the United States goes to war in Iraq, that simply increases the need for us to do our best to make this economy strong and to do what we can, through our tax policy decisions, to put us in the best posture to have a flexible, resilient economy in these difficult world circumstances. So for all these reasons, I encourage this Senate to support this budget.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution.

(The remarks of Mr. Crapo pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 11 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission on Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will encourage the expansion of an often overlooked domestic energy resource that offers a source of revenue for our rural communities and an avenue for cleanup of agricultural waste.

It has been well-publicized that our country faces mounting uncertainty in meeting our energy demands. After years of getting little attention, we are now in a period where the development of domestic energy resources has reached a crucial point. I support our efforts to diversify our energy supply resources to ensure our nation's energy security, support our business and agricultural economies, and protect our individual consumers. This time of challenge also offers great opportunities. One of those is the opportunity to encourage a largely untapped resource to provide domestic energy, while also promoting the protection of the environment and rural development. I am speaking about energy derived from agricultural and animal waste sources.

Electricity from biomass and waste sources using modern technology is a renewable resource that can add to our domestic energy supply. The process uses manure and waste products that are heated and converted into biogas that is burned to generate electricity, which is sold into the power grid. This technology is widely accepted in Europe where over 600 systems are in operation today. In this country, the technology is gaining acceptance following numerous successful case studies. This process offers farmers an option for cleaning agricultural waste that is a known source of groundwater contamination and air pollution. The revenue generated from the sale of electricity provides a source of income to offset the cleanup costs, while providing important kilowatts to the power grid.

The bill I am introducing today would extend the 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour production tax credit that is currently available to wind, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste by making it available to all agricultural and animal waste sources.

There have been other bills introduced that would extend the tax credit to additional renewable sources such as solar energy. I encourage these efforts to broaden the definition of renewable sources.

The use of modern technology to generate electricity from waste should not be overlooked. The tax credit is an important incentive to encourage its wider use. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this resolution on behalf of myself and Senator George Allen from Virginia. This resolution underscores a very serious and ongoing problem relating to the illegal subsidies being provided by the Korean Government to Hynix Semiconductor, one of the companies operating in South Korea. With this resolution, my

colleagues and I urge Secretary Evans, our Secretary of the Department of Commerce, and Ambassador Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative, to use all means at their disposal to combat these illegal subsidies in the strongest ways possible under our trade laws.

Since October 2000, the Government of Korea, acting through the banks that it owns and controls, has provided an astounding $16 billion in subsidies to Hynix, a Korean producer of DRAM semiconductors. Hynix is a company with massive debt resulting from the easy lending practices of the Korean banks during the late 1990s. With these preferential loans, Hynix built substantial new capacity and became the third largest DRAM producer in the world.

Starting in late 2000, Hynix's overdevelopment began to catch up with them and Hynix became unable to repay the principal and interest on these massive loans and bonds. Rather than letting Hynix undergo formal bankruptcy and deal with the financial situation it faced, the Korean Government orchestrated no less than five separate bailouts of Hynix. Had it not done so, Hynix would have had to face a restructuring with substantial asset sales, and would have been simply another competitor in the marketplace in a more balanced and fair playing field.

However, these subsidies have permitted Hynix to stay in business with its unrealistic business practices. Hynix, a company that cannot compete in the market on a balanced playing field, in a fair market environment, continues to run its inefficient DRAM plants at full speed, flooding world markets with subsidized products. Despite the subsidies, Hynix continues to lose money--$8 billion over the last 3 years. Yet the Korean Government continues to pour money into this company.

Just 2 months ago there was yet another bailout, amounting to $4.1 billion. This is almost twice Hynix's revenues in all of the year 2002, which amounted to $2.4 billion.

The Korean Government must not be allowed to continue to underwrite the horrendous operating losses of this company as it has done for the past 3 years. It is time for the Korean Government to stop its illegal subsidies. In the highly competitive DRAM market, subsidies of this sort completely distort production and trade.

Every other DRAM company in the world is being crippled by the subsidized DRAM products that Hynix floods the markets with. This has resulted in the worst and longest downturn in the DRAM sector that has ever been experienced by this sector. Nobody can make money in this business if one of the biggest players is being underwritten by the South Korean government treasury. Subsidies of Hynix have had a huge impact on Micron Technology, the last remaining U.S.-based producer of DRAMs. Just last week, Micron announced it was laying off 10 percent of its worldwide workforce. This translates into 1,100 lost jobs in Idaho alone, and 560 lost jobs in the State of Virginia, which is why my colleague, Senator Allen, is joining in this resolution.

This is the first time Micron has had to have layoffs since 1985, and it was only done by the company as a last resort. Hynix subsidies have had a real impact on Micron's bottom line as well. The subsidies have impacted pricing to such an extent that even Micron, one of the most efficient DRAM producers in the world, has lost $2 billion over the past 2 years. We cannot afford to see an important technology like DRAMs lost in the United States because of illegal, predatory foreign government subsidies.

The South Korean government is clearly responsible for the bailouts that have occurred. The creditor bank now owns 67 percent of Hynix, and the government owns the vast majority of the creditor bank. To argue that the government plays no role in this bailout is the height of absurdity.

The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative have the power to remedy this situation and put a stop to more bailouts. We need to use the trade laws we have to the fullest extent possible and countervailing duty should be imposed that offsets the full amount of these subsidies. These sorts of subsidies have absolutely no place in today's global economy, particularly as we are engaged in a round of new trade talks aimed at further liberalizing trade regimes around the world. The injurious and anachronistic policies of the government of South Korea must stop.

In this context, already the European Union and the United States Government are engaged in investigations under our trade laws of the predator conduct of the South Korean government in DRAM markets. We expect decisions on these cases sometime in the next couple of months, and hopefully these cases will establish the necessary groundwork for us to be able to deal as we should in the global community with this kind of unacceptable government subsidy.

The U.S. International Trade Commission has already issued its ruling that Micron Technology has been injured by these illegal activities of the South Korean government. We must now move on to determine the extent of these activities and assure that countervailing duties are identified and applied to the DRAMs that Hynix continues to flood the world markets with.

I want to read a part of the resolution to establish what it is we are asking our Congress to do.

After the whereas clauses, it states:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

concurring, That, No. 1, it is the sense of the Congress that

the actions of the Republic of Korea with respect to the

bailouts of Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. are severely

detrimental to the bilateral friendship and economic

relationships between the United States and Korea; and, No.

2, Congress calls on the Republic of Korea to immediately

cease any further bailouts of Hynix and to immediately comply

with all of its obligations as a member of the World Trade

Organization, including its obligations regarding

subsidies. The Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade

Representative are called on to immediately take such

actions as are necessary to end any further bailouts of

Hynix, including the self-initiation of further trade

cases, the initiation of a further government

investigation of the financial impact of these bailouts,

and the calling of a special subsidies code meeting to

raise legal concerns with this issue and to begin

consultations with Congress regarding appropriate

legislative action to fully deal with the impact of

bailout of Hynix; and, the President is called on to

consult with the European Union regarding joint action

with respect to the unlawful subsidies to Hynix that are

harming the international DRAM semiconductor and

electronics markets.

As I have indicated, we face incredibly difficult times in the DRAM and semiconductor industry as a result of one nation's desire to continually prop up its competitors against all other world competitors--a competitor that has shown it cannot effectively compete without continuous government subsidies.

This is one of the core reasons why we are engaged worldwide in negotiations to reduce government subsidies to inefficient competitors, to stop nations from trying to flood the market with their company's products so that they can drive other, more efficient and more effective competitors out of the market and take those markets from other countries where they properly reside.

I encourage all of my colleagues to strongly support this resolution and send a strong message to the government of South Korea that the bailouts of Hynix must stop.

Mr. President, I was present as the debate took place with regard to the editorial issues that have been raised relating to the Miguel Estrada nomination. The Senator from Nevada raised this issue. In the debate over the Estrada nomination, there are many issues that flow back and forth. One of them is the question of what the public believes, and what the editorial boards across this Nation believe.

The editorial from the New York Times was discussed earlier. I point out that this editorial in the New York Times was one of only a few editorials in the country that supports the position that the Senate should continue with a filibuster of this nomination. In fact, only eight of the editorial boards across this Nation have taken the position of supporting the filibuster of Miguel Estrada's nomination, while fully 51 editorial boards across the Nation support ending the obstruction of this nomination and conclusion of the filibuster and resulting in an up-or-down vote in the Senate on the Estrada nomination, including the Los Angeles Review Journal which on two separate occasions supported Mr. Estrada.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for and respond to a question?

I have been listening to the arguments the Senator has made. I have been listening very carefully to the examples the Senator is pointing out about other nominations in which documents were provided. It is my understanding, however, that the Department of Justice has never disclosed confidential deliberative documents on career lawyers in the Solicitor General's Office. These are documents dealing with recommendations on internal deliberations regarding appeals and certiorari or amicus recommendations in pending cases.

From the information I am aware of that the White House has provided in each of the cases that the Senator has listed, there is a very clear difference in each of those cases. Take the situation of Judge Bork to which the Senator was referring. The materials involving Judge Bork were very carefully limited to those that focused on his observations on political questions, such as President Nixon's assertion of the executive privilege or the pocket veto. Never has the Department of Justice allowed access to internal career lawyers' working documents on appeals or on certiorari or amicus recommendations, and that is what I understand the Senator to be requesting.

First, does the Senator understand the distinction that is made between these document explanations that have been made? And does the Senator believe the Senate should start the precedent, which has never been done in this Senate, of asking for access to these career lawyers' deliberations on confidential matters in the Solicitor's Office?

Will the Senator yield further?

If I understand correctly, you are reading that the internal work documents of a career attorney of the Solicitor General's Office in making recommendations on how to handle cases would not be something this Senate should try to investigate or to cause to be disclosed?

In each of the cases you have discussed, either it was specific charges of misconduct about which very narrow documents were disclosed or general comments on politics such as the case of Justice Bork. And if you are agreeing with that, perhaps there is some progress we can make. It is my understanding the demand for disclosure is far broader than what you have just described.

Will the Senator yield further?

If I understand correctly, you are saying, based on the letter, that you indeed are seeking the disclosure of these confidential internal work documents and you believe that letter shows the precedent for disclosure exists, is that correct?

Will the Senator yield?

I understand your position now, which is that you are asking for the disclosure of this broad array of confidential documents.

I assume you are aware that every living former Solicitor General has rejected this request. This letter was signed by Democrats Seth Waxman, Walter Dellinger, and by Republicans, Ken Starr, Charles Fried, Robert Bork, and Archibald Cox for the very reasons we have been talking about.

I want to get at this principle. Is it the correct policy, is it the right thing for us to do in the Senate, to change the practice? I understand you can list a few cases where there were exceptions in the history of handling judicial nominations in this country, but if you look at the thousands, indeed tens of thousands of judicial nominations, the policy and practice of the Senate has been not to delve into the confidential documents for the very reason every former living Solicitor General has said it would compromise the ability of its office to do its work effectively.

Do you believe it is the right policy for the Senate to begin putting some standard on those who would become nominees of any President, Republican or Democrat, to a position in the U.S. Judiciary? Should we open this door and start demanding that the Solicitor General's Office, the Justice Department, and other contacts, or in any other situation, start revealing these confidential internal work documents by career lawyers?

(Mrs. DOLE assumed the Chair.)

Miguel Estrada believes his papers will show support for him. But the principle here is the principle--

It is not just the White House. As I indicated, this is every living former Solicitor General in the United States who is saying this issue goes far beyond the Miguel Estrada nomination. It goes to the core of what the Senate should be dealing with in terms of its investigation of judicial nominees and what they can do to our judicial system and to the Justice Department in that context.

But you indicated also in your answer that Miguel Estrada did not answer the questions asked of him by the Judiciary Committee. I wish to clarify this because I understand he would not reveal the documents that we are discussing.

Were there any other questions which you asked him or which you are aware of that he has not answered?

I will respond and ask a question, how is that?

Not having sat in the hearing, I don't know how much it would trouble me. I can't tell you if a witness would not answer my questions I wouldn't be troubled by it. I don't think that would cause me to try to filibuster the nomination, which is really one of the core issues we are dealing with here. I might vote no because of it. And you are perfectly entitled to vote no if you don't like the answers to your questions. But we are way beyond not liking the answers to questions here. We are seeing a filibuster of a nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It is based, as I understand it, in large part on the fact that confidential documents are not disclosed.

What I am trying to get at is: What else? What I have heard at this point is the nominee did not identify which was his favorite and least favorite Supreme Court case, and that he would not say how he would have judged a particular case until he had read the briefs and studied the matter more carefully. Frankly, I think that makes him a better candidate.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator entertain one more question before he moves on? I do appreciate him allowing me to engage in this discussion with him.

Again, I am trying to make it clear so we understand just exactly what it is that is being said Miguel Estrada has not disclosed. We talked about the documents in the Solicitor General's Office that he prepared as a career attorney. We talked about his failure to identify which was his favorite and least favorite Supreme Court case. And apparently--I was not at the hearing because I don't sit on the Judiciary Committee--he did not answer Senator Kennedy's questions about some current cases to the satisfaction of the Senators.

Is there anything else that is holding him back? Again, the reason I am getting at this is because we are facing a remarkably unique circumstance here, the filibuster of a circuit court nomination on the basis of nondisclosure. I want to get out exactly what that nondisclosure is so we and the American public can understand that. Then we can deal with it on a very focused basis, on a point-by-point basis and, where there is merit on either side, deal with it.

But the general charges, it seems to me, of nondisclosure and not answering questions to the satisfaction of a Senator usually result in a Senator saying I don't like the way the answers were given so I am going to vote no on the nomination. Instead, at this point we are facing a filibuster, which I believe is a serious threat to the manner and the protocol with which the Senate has approached Presidential nominations to the judiciary and is much broader than just the nomination of this individual judge.

So we have two issues which to me are much broader than this specific nomination. The first is whether we should have the Senate start inquiries into confidential Solicitor General documents, and the second is whether the Senate should be stopped from voting on a Presidential nomination by a filibuster when we are dealing with nominations to the judiciary. That will change the way this Senate has operated historically.

You have.

Madam President, reserving the right to object. I will not object if the request for unanimous consent is amended to provide that prior to moving to the legislative calendar, the Senate move no later than 6 p.m. today to a vote on the Estrada nomination, up or down, and then proceed to the legislative calendar under the consideration of both the Republican and Democratic plans.

Madam President, I will not accept that modification to my request.

I object to the previous request.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, it seems to me that we can easily move to any of these other issues that the Senator and his colleagues have been discussing, which we all agree need to be addressed. We can easily move there if your side will agree to give up trying to stop the nomination of this one single judge.

So one could say that those who want to hold the floor and focus on this nomination are willing to delay debate of other issues until we vote on this particular nomination, or that those who are filibustering--which is generally understood by the public as an act of stopping a procedure and moving to a vote--this particular nomination are unwilling to move to these other economic issues.

Would you not agree that it really comes down to the question of whether we want to agree to change the precedent of the Senate and open up investigation into these confidential documents of the Solicitor General's Office?

Mr. President, we rise today to ask the Senate to join us in recognizing the accomplishments of the 2002 Football Program at Boise State University (BSU), in our home State of Idaho. Senator Larry Craig, Congressman Mike Simpson, Congressman C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, and I wish to honor the players, Head Coach Dan Hawkins, his entire staff, the administrators of BSU, the Bronco Athletic Association, and the thousands of BSU fans for the outstanding season. The Broncos of BSU have excelled in both academics and sportsmanship. The team is a source of pride for the university, the city of Boise, and the entire State of Idaho.

The Broncos began the season with optimism and commitment; their hard work was rewarded by the following accomplishments:

2002 Western Athletic Conference (WAC) Champions; 8 wins and no losses in the WAC; an overall record of 12 wins and only 1 loss; the highest overall margin of victory in the history of the WAC of 37.2 points per game; Humanitarian Bowl Champions with a 34 to 16 win over Iowa State University; #1 team in the Nation in team scoring; #1 team in the Nation in total offense; #1 team in the Nation in passing efficiency; #17 team in the Nation in scoring defense; ranked #15 in the Nation in the AP Poll; ranked #12 in the Nation in the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll, and Second longest current winning streak in the country, second only to National Champion Ohio State University.

Through service, the BSU Broncos have taken the energy they generate on the field and spread it throughout the Boise community. Mentoring children, hosting youth football camps, and visiting the Ronald McDonald House are just a few examples of how the BSU Football Program benefits Idaho.

We recognize the extraordinary progress and development of the BSU football program and look to its success as an example of what can be accomplished with leadership, commitment, determination, and, most importantly, teamwork.

We congratulate the football program of Boise State University for the achievements made and look forward to future success and a strong defense of its conference title.