Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of Women's History Month during which we as a Nation reflect on the momentous contributions women have made over the course of American history. Throughout our history, women have played vital roles that have helped initiate and guide important social, economic and political change, which has helped to solidify the greatness and prosperity of this Nation. I also want to, in turn, acknowledge that, while great strides have been made, there are still many barriers to equality that must be overcome.

This year's theme for Women's History Month is Women: Builders of Communities and Dreams. This theme recognizes the efforts of women in laying the foundation for greater equality and in building and buttressing movements that have resulted in profound change.

Of course, the foundation of all of our lives begins with our own communities, homes and families. We must not forget to honor the contributions of the women closest to us in their roles as mothers, grandmothers, wives, sisters, daughters, friends, and mentors--who transform and nurture us on a daily basis. As mothers and grandmothers, women spend each and every day building healthy, educated, productive, and happy families.

Building families goes hand in hand with building communities and a better society as a whole. Women have been at the forefront of this Nation's major social movements. One example is Anne Hutchinson, who in 1637 was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony because her beliefs ran contrary to Puritan teachings. Her courageous stand in the face of persecution helped lay the groundwork for religious freedom as a right. Even when their own rights were severely restricted, women rose up to fight for the rights of others. During the abolitionist movement, the social reform movement, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement, women emerged as leaders in the drive to make our society fairer and better for all Americans. During the civil rights movement, courageous women such as Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Ella Baker helped break down the walls of racism and ensure that equal justice was had by all regardless of the color of their skin.

The State of Maryland has a rich history of such leaders, including Harriet Tubman, who courageously led a shackled people to freedom via the Underground Railroad; Margaret Brent, who became America's first woman lawyer and landholder; and Clara Barton, founder and first president of the American Red Cross. Likewise, equality in the field of medicine was facilitated with the aid of Mary Elizabeth Garret and Martha Carey Thomas, whose financial support led to the establishment of the Johns Hopkins Medical School, after it was promised that women would not be excluded from admission. We in Maryland are particularly proud of Senator Barbara Mikulski who is Maryland's first female Senator and has served longer than any other woman currently in the Senate. In fact, it was Senator Mikulski who sponsored legislation establishing National Women's History Week, the precursor to Woman's History Month, in 1981. Maryland is also the birthplace of another distinguished public servant, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, whose historic political career took root in the State of Maryland. Leader Pelosi, who hails from a legendary political family in Baltimore, is the first woman in our Nation's history to lead a major political party in Congress. And, in 2006, Maryland leads the country in the number of women serving in the State legislature.

Over the last 50 years, more women have entered the workforce and attained rights previously unavailable.

But this does not mean that, as a Nation, we have erased the adversity and discrimination that continues to stifle equality. According to the U.S. Census, women who work full time, year-round, earned 76 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned. Gaps in health care coverage affect millions of Americans and women, especially those living in poverty, face significant barriers to receiving care. Access to preventative measures unique to ensuring a woman's health, such as screenings for breast and cervical cancer, has been harder to achieve in recent years and participation rates for such screenings have declined since 2001. Such inequalities are very troubling, and we must continue to work to ensure that these disparities are eradicated for the sake of future generations.

It is a privilege to commemorate and appreciate the women who have made an indelible impact on our lives and the history of this country. I encourage my colleagues to take Women's History Month as a time to reflect on the contributions of women, but also as a time to redouble our efforts to ensure that these achievements are retained and to work toward the goal of full equality.

Yes, that would be fine.

I thank the Senator. Does that leave the Senator with enough time for his other purposes?

Madam President, I thank the Senator very much.

Amendment No. 3103

Madam President, I offer amendment No. 3103.

Madam President, this amendment is to restore funding for function 300 Natural Resources and Environment, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman and Senator Reed of Rhode Island be added as cosponsors.

If the Chair would tell me when 1 minute is left on my time, I would be most appreciative.

Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is to restore funding for a number of important environmental programs under function 300. The President's budget request and the chairman's mark on the resolution cut funding for water resources, conservation and land management, recreational resources, pollution control and abatement, and other natural resources and environmental activities by nearly $3 billion from the baseline, or almost 10 percent. This amendment would seek to add $2.9 billion to bring the function 300 total back up to baseline. It is offset with revenues from the closing of corporate tax loopholes.

We have a list of possibilities, many of which have passed the Senate before and have been strongly supported by very large majorities in this body. Let me just give a few examples of the kinds of programs we are trying to at least provide some additional support for, although it falls short of what the need is; but we are trying to get back to baseline.

The Army Corps of Engineers civil works program, flood control, navigation, storm protection, environmental restoration--I hardly need, in the aftermath of Katrina, to emphasize the importance of such programs. The EPA budget has been sharply cut, including nearly $200 million from the clean water State revolving loan fund, which is now in this budget at the lowest funding level ever for clean water infrastructure. It has been cut by nearly 50 percent from the 2004 level because there has been a steady decline, and, of course, this impacts every State's and every community's ability to upgrade their waste water infrastructure and meet Clean Water Act requirements.

The National Park Service is being cut. Our National Parks have a desperate need for funding in order to carry out their activities.

Madam President, the National Park Service is falling well short of what they need in order to sustain the park system. NOAA is being cut in this budget, including the National Marine Fisheries Service. There is a lot of emphasis on our oceans. Two commissions have studied it. Yet the Oceans Commission says we are falling well short of any real commitment there. The NOAA budget is cut, the Fish and Wildlife Service budget, and the Forest Service. This amendment seeks to at least bring back this funding to function 300 for all of these very important environmental and natural resource problems to baseline, to current funding levels.

I very much hope my colleagues will support this amendment and contribute to protecting the environment and health of our Nation's citizens, helping to ensure that we have clean water and that we breathe clean air.

Mr. President, I know we want to proceed with our business, but if I could just be recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their very gracious remarks and all of my colleagues for their expressions of respect and affection.

My colleague, Senator Mikulski, said I was the longest serving Senator in Maryland's history. I want you to know, it is a little bit like being like Cal Ripken; every day you go to work, you set a new record--one more day than the day before.

It has been, obviously, one of the great focuses and joys of my life to be able to work here in the Senate with all my colleagues. I am extremely grateful to all of you.

I will just close with this story, because I am still here until the 3rd of January 2007. So there is still time to go.

But I once got an award. My mother was there at this dinner. This was a few years ago. And they asked her to speak as well. So she got up to speak, and she said how honored she was they had given this recognition to her son, and so forth, and how much she appreciated it. And then she closed her remarks by saying: He has been a good boy--so far.

I carry that comment with me.

Thank you all very much.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, this amendment raises the function 300 back to baseline. I have a letter here. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record. It is from a number of the leading environmental organizations.

I will quote one paragraph:

The cuts proposed in the Senate budget resolution would

undermine the progress that has been made on protecting our

natural resources. Funding for drinking water and clean water

infrastructure has been cut to dangerous levels; clean up of

toxic sites around the country will continue to slow down;

species and land preservation for future generations will

struggle forward; the condition of our national parks would

continue to deteriorate; our ocean resources would linger on

the brink of collapse; and farmers and ranchers seeking

assistance to improve environmental quality will be turned

away.

Don't let these things happen. Support this amendment.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. The United States did not get all the changes it wanted made with respect to the Human Rights Council, but very significant changes were made. And under Secretary Burns, they have indicated that the administration intends to work with those changes to try to improve that situation. We have a real problem with respect to that Human Rights Council. But changes are being made. They are being made in the right direction.

I very much oppose this amendment. I hope my colleagues will vote against it.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Will the Senator yield?

This borrow-and-spend policy which the other side of the aisle is pursuing is the direct cause of the runup in the national debt, is it not? This chart which shows the incredible expansion of the national debt is the consequence of pursuing this policy. We are running record budget deficits, is that correct, I ask the Senator?

Will the Senator yield?

This also reflects or demonstrates a sense of priorities.

To take the amendment we were just considering, the Murray amendment, and then the Santorum amendment, the Murray amendment sought to avoid increasing the deficit by adding money for the community development block grant. All of the State and local governments are petitioning Congress for this. It is desperation time for them. She was prepared to pay for it by closing some corporate tax loopholes, all of which have previously been approved by the Senate, as I understand it.

So in terms of priorities, in effect, we are saying: Support the Community Development Block Grant Program, but pay for it by closing these corporate tax loopholes; that is a higher priority. You do not raise the deficit, and you do not increase the debt by that amount. Is that correct, I ask the Senator?

I inquire of the Senator, when the Bush administration came in in 2001, wasn't the Federal budget in surplus?

Will the Senator yield for a question? Isn't more and more of this debt we are running into being held overseas rather than here at

home? Hasn't there been a shift in who holds the debt, so we are becoming increasingly dependent upon strangers to finance this deficit and this debt? Is that correct?

Absolutely stunning.

Yes.

Furthermore, doesn't this budget make it clear their prime priority on the other side is to provide these tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy? The consequence of that is either we run up the deficit and debt or we cut programs that are badly needed across the country, particularly for working people.

So the priority that is being established is tax cuts first and foremost, which upon analysis are seen to benefit--I understand the tax breaks for millionaires that have passed under the Bush administration, the people with more than $1 million of income each year, amount to $41 billion in the coming year--$41 billion. The community development block grant proposal was for $984 million, one-fortieth of the amount going out in the tax cuts.

So those are the priorities that are being established here--the tax cut first and foremost--and the consequence is, you run up the deficit and cut programs which are badly needed by ordinary citizens all across America.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, would the Senator agree with me that it is very fitting that the debt limit discussion should be inserted right in the middle of discussion of the budget resolution since this budget resolution will add very substantially to the deficit and drive the debt up even further, requiring this vote that is going to come to raise the debt ceiling? What is the amount by which the debt ceiling will be raised?

It underscores the deeper hole that these budgets are driving us to over the last 5 years, does it not?

Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the pending legislation, which would raise the Federal debt limit by $781 billion. The fact that we are considering this legislation illustrates how deeply the policies of this administration have plunged us into deficits and debt. This President has supported, and continues to support, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which are not paid for and which will continue to run up deficits and debt as far as the eye can see. I am very concerned that if the President continues to pursue this reckless fiscal policy, our Nation's long-term economic strength will be seriously compromised.

Despite the fact that the President signed into law legislation increasing the debt limit less than a year and a half ago, the Treasury Department has now informed us that it will need to borrow even more to keep the Government functioning. The legislation we are considering today would allow Federal debt to grow to $8.965 trillion, truly a staggering sum.

When President Bush took office, he promised that his fiscal policies would include ``maximum possible debt retirement.'' At that time, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting that our net debt to the public would decline to $36 billion by 2008, when this President leaves office. Now, instead of achieving ``maximum possible debt retirement,'' the President is asking for historically high debt increases. In fact, the CBO is now projecting that publicly held debt will rise to nearly $5.5 trillion in 2008--almost 40 percent of our GDP. Gross Federal debt, which includes our commitments to Social Security and Medicare, will be $9.6 trillion by the time this President leaves office.

You do not need a very long memory to recall that a few short years ago, under President Clinton, we made some very hard choices on taxes and spending--restraining spending and raising some taxes, primarily on upper-income people--and we were able to turn around the Nation's fiscal status and begin to pay down our debt.

When President Bush took office in 2001, the statutory debt limit stood at $5.95 trillion and had not been raised since 1997. The administration is now asking for the fourth increase in the debt limit since this President took office. The limit was raised by $450 billion in 2002, by $984 billion in 2003, and by $800 billion in 2004. Now the President is asking for an increase of $781 billion--for a total increase of more than $3 trillion since 2001.

These figures demonstrate how seriously our economic situation has deteriorated under this administration. Let me just emphasize that point with one further example. When the President took office, he inherited a 10-year surplus estimated at $5.6 trillion. Now, when you factor in some of the costs we know are coming, such as the continuing costs of the war in Iraq and the cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax, plus the cost of some of the President's proposals, such as making his tax cuts permanent and continuing his defense buildup, the projections are for a $3.5 trillion deficit over the next 10 years, a reversal of $9.1 trillion. That is a seismic shift in our position.

Much of this shift is a direct result of the reckless fiscal policies pursued by the President during his first term and his singular focus on providing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, even at a time of war. And the President is seeking to increase our debt burden by permanently extending many of these tax cuts, utterly ignoring the fact that these massive tax cuts for the rich have led to budget deficits so large that they could jeopardize our future economic strength.

In part, my concern for our economic future stems from a change in international economic position of the United States. Two decades ago, the United States was a creditor nation internationally, by about 10 percent of our GDP. Now, because of the deterioration of our position over those intervening two decades, we are a debtor nation, to the tune of almost 25 percent of our GDP. At the end of fiscal year 2001, 31 percent of the outstanding Federal Government debt was held by foreign lenders. Over the succeeding 4 years, borrowing from abroad accounted for more than 80 percent of the increase in our Government debt.

The international financial position of the United States reminds me of Tennessee Williams's Blanche DuBois in ``A Streetcar Named Desire,'' who said: ``I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.'' That is what has happened to the United States in the international economic scene. We have deteriorated into a debtor status so that we are now dependent upon the kindness of strangers. That is not where the world's leading power should find itself.

This dramatic change in our economic situation comes at a time when the United States is facing a demographic tidal wave as the baby boom generation approaches retirement. When President Bush first took office, that retirement was almost a decade away. But time has run out. The first of the baby boomers will begin to retire in 2008, on this President's watch. Unfortunately, rather than prepare for the obligations we know are coming, this President has squandered every opportunity to save for the future.

Moreover, his policy of deficit-financed tax cuts makes us less able to make needed investments today. Every increase in the Government's debt means we are siphoning off resources that could be used for other purposes simply to pay the interest on that debt. Net interest payments on our debt are expected to consume more than $1 trillion over the next 5 years. Instead of making investments in education, in health care, in transportation, we are paying billions of dollars in interest costs that would not have existed in the absence of the reckless fiscal policy of this administration.

Not only do these policies jeopardize our current and future economic strength, they place a tremendous burden on our children and grandchildren who will have to pay off this debt. By cutting taxes for the wealthiest, the President is really raising taxes on everyone, including our children and grandchildren, by leaving them with the responsibility for paying off this enormous debt.

It is unfortunate that this administration has demonstrated such a single-minded focus on cutting taxes, regardless of the very serious change in

our economic situation and our country's current and future needs. The fact that the President is calling for permanent tax cuts at the same time the Congress is being asked to add almost $800 billion to the Federal debt ceiling is beyond reckless--it places in jeopardy our future economic strength and the economic security of all Americans.

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

Mr. President, I take it the parliamentary situation is such that it is in order for me to now be recognized?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, at the very outset, let me say I have closely followed Senator Conrad's remarks on the budget. It is something I have done each year he has

served as the ranking member on the Budget Committee. As always, I found his presentation to be both clear and insightful. For anyone who cares deeply about fiscal responsibility, as he does, the picture he has painted of America's fiscal condition is deeply troubling. I express my own deep appreciation to Senator Conrad, as I think people all across the country should do, for seeking to focus attention on this important problem.

Day by day, we have different issues which grab the headlines and the public's attention, but, meanwhile, this deteriorating situation of America moving further and further down into a fiscal box goes on. The implications of that are very far reaching.

Senator Conrad has sought to call our attention to that, to focus our attention upon it, and to make us come to grips with this challenge. I commend him for what I think has been a very important public service.

As we set out to consider the budget for fiscal year 2007, I think it is necessary for all of us to recognize the budget resolution is, in a very basic sense, the most important document we will deal with in this Congress.

The budget contains within it literally hundreds and hundreds of decisions that are critical to our national life. Each time it comes before us, it puts to us the questions: What are our values? What are our priorities? What are we trying to accomplish as a society?

It is within the budget that we set our priorities. We make these judgments: how much of our resources to commit, how much to raise through the taxing system, how large a deficit to run. All of these are very basic questions, and the priorities set among these programs determine the direction of our national life.

Now, I think in order to judge the current budget and to develop some informed and responsible answers, we need to place that budget in the fiscal and economic context in which the Nation now finds itself.

You do not need a very long memory to recall that a few short years ago, under President Clinton, as he was moving through his second term, after we, the President and the majority in Congress, had made some very hard choices on taxes and spending, restraining spending and raising some taxes, primarily on upper-income people--we were able to turn around the Nation's fiscal status.

In 1998, the Federal Government reported its first surplus in the budget since the 1960s. When President Bush took office, we were in our third straight year of a surplus in the Federal budget, and we were projecting surpluses over the next 10 years of $5.6 trillion--five and a half trillion dollars in surpluses projected over a 10-year period.

Obviously, this was a pretty healthy position to be in. It would have, of course, allowed the Nation to pay down the large national debt that had been accumulated as we moved through the 1980s and into the 1990s. But in what I predict history will write as a gross irresponsibility, President Bush, in effect, squandered the projected surpluses by instituting irresponsible and reckless tax cuts--tax cuts whose overwhelming beneficiaries were those at the very top of the income and wealth scale. These were not broad-based tax cuts. These were tax cuts whose benefits, upon analysis, were seen to be focused very much on the top few percent of the income scale.

When the President submitted his first budget proposal, he asserted:

We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget

deficits, even if the economy softens.

``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.''

The following year, with a budget already in deficit, the President advocated for yet another tax cut--yet another--promising that ``our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' In fact, the President's budget that year, 2002, stated the deficits would be so short term that today--as he was looking ahead--the Government would be back in surplus.

Now, let's look at what has happened. Exactly the opposite of what the President predicted has happened. Under the irresponsible fiscal policy that this President has pursued, we have run deficits each and every year since 2001.

In 2002, the deficit was $158 billion. President Bush inherited a surplus in 2001 of $128 billion. The three previous years had had surpluses as well, and then there was a $158 billion deficit in 2002. The deficit rose to $378 billion in 2003, rose again in 2004 to $413 billion, fell slightly in 2005 to $319 billion, and is now projected to go back up again in 2006 to $371 billion. Far from being small and short term, these deficits are at record levels.

This chart shows the deterioration in the Nation's fiscal position over the last 35 years. As we see, the budget went into the red more and more and more. In fact, in 1992, we had the previous record deficit of $289 billion. Then there were the years I referred to when we came out of deficit and ran a surplus. Now we have dived back into deficit, thanks primarily to the excessive tax cut and other factors, including the slowing of the economy and the involvement in Iraq. We ran a record deficit in 2004 of $413 billion. What an extraordinary deterioration in fiscal position to go from here to there.

The deficits would be even larger if we were not using the Social Security trust fund each year to mask the cost of the President's policies. When we do a unified budget, we include in it any surplus or deficit in the Social Security trust fund, and the Social Security trust fund has been running a positive balance. That offsets the picture of the deficits, but it is not a totally accurate picture.

The President has submitted a budget this year that would cause our Nation's fiscal health to continue to deteriorate. Regrettably, the President's budget does not even tell the whole story. It fails to account for very significant and substantial obligations overseas and for significant and substantial obligations at home. I want to give two examples of that. There are others. We could develop a longer list. But for purposes of illustration in terms of dealing with a budget that is not fully transparent and fully accountable, I will give two examples.

From the very start of the war in Iraq, the administration has not reflected its true cost in the budget and in the budget submissions. In retrospect, one is given pause by the fact that the very day the bombing started on Baghdad in March of 2003, we were debating the budget resolution on the floor of the Senate--3 years ago.

Of course, since the war had just started at that time, the budget resolution before us did not contain funding for that war. Instead, the President came along and submitted a request for an emergency supplemental appropriation to cover the initial war cost. That is not out of the ordinary. The budget had been submitted. The war had not been started. The money was not included for the war. I noted at the time that the money requested in the emergency supplemental appropriations was clearly only a downpayment and that much more would be needed to cover the full cost of the war and of the reconstruction. I am frank to say to my colleagues, I fully expected that the President would include those costs in his next budget submission. In other words, I expected that, having now become involved, the costs of that involvement would be reflected in subsequent budget submissions, and yet the President's budgets in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 did not include a single cent for the ongoing cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the President continued to ask for funding for Iraq and Afghanistan outside of the regular budget process.

This year the President has included a placeholder of $50 billion in his budget. Even for the administration, after 2 years of not recognizing these costs, it finally hit home that they had to do something. So they put, as it were, a placeholder of $50 billion in the budget that was submitted, when everyone knows that significantly more than that figure will be needed. This is not responsible budgeting. The President is refusing to own up to the true cost of his policies.

Let me turn to a domestic issue which is not fully reflected in the budget but, again, as we know, is going to happen. That is the cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax. This tax was put in place as part of our Tax Code in order to require that very wealthy people, who are using various exemptions and deductions in the Tax Code to avoid paying any taxes at all, would

pay at least a certain amount of tax. It was an effort to assure some equity and fairness in the workings of the tax system. What has happened is that the threshold levels of the alternative minimum tax have not been adjusted for inflation. As a consequence, this tax is beginning to affect middle-class Americans to whom it was never intended to apply. We have adjusted it in previous years. It is clear it will need to be adjusted again at a significant cost. But those costs are not reflected in the budget the President has submitted to us.

When these two items are taken into account, plus the deficits the President is projecting on the basis of his revenue and spending programs, we are now projecting a 10-year deficit of $3.5 trillion. Think about that. When the President came into office we were projecting a surplus over 10 years of $5.6 trillion. Now we are projecting a $3.5 trillion deficit. This is a deterioration in fiscal position of over $9 trillion. Because of these annual budget deficits, which we are running and are projected to continue to run, the debt of the country is projected to explode. It is now projected to rise to $11.8 trillion, almost $12 trillion, in gross Federal debt by the year 2011.

Look at this incredible runup in debt that has happened since 2001. We have moved up in an escalating way. We are at $8.6 trillion in 2006. We are projected to go to almost $12 trillion by 2011. Net interest payments on this debt are expected to consume more than $1 trillion over the next 5 years. These are just the interest payments on the debt. Each dollar that we pay in interest is one less dollar that we can invest in key areas that will help to keep our economy competitive in the future. We face a global competition. Other nations are investing in workforce training, physical infrastructure, transportation networks, research and development. If we fail to rise to that competitive challenge, we are going to fall behind, not move ahead.

These debt figures, some say, are just numbers. It is hard to get your imagination around $12 trillion in debt. But these numbers all reflect real obligations. These will have to be paid off by the next generation and the generation after them through higher taxes and a reduced standard of living. As the New York Times put it in an editorial entitled ``The Pain That is Yet to Come'':

America cannot escape the consequences of its debt

indefinitely. The effects may be sudden or gradual, but

either way they mean a weaker economy than would otherwise be

the case.

This debt has another troubling aspect to it as well. We are financing this deficit by mortgaging our financial future to foreign lenders. The United States, in roughly a quarter of a century, has gone from being the world's largest creditor nation to being the world's largest debtor nation. In my view, there is a basic contradiction between being the world's largest debtor nation and asserting a role as the world's leading nation.

Our international deficit, called our current account deficit, was nearly $800 billion last year, over 7 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. In effect, we rely on over $2 billion of foreign inflow into the country each and every day. Warren Buffett was recently quoted as saying:

Right now the rest of the world owns 3 trillion more of us

than we own of them. In my view it will create political

turmoil at some point. Pretty soon I think there will be a

big adjustment.

This large adjustment could come in the form of higher interest rates here at home, a sudden crash in the value of the dollar or a sharp drop in our stock and bond markets. We don't know exactly what will happen because we are not in control of our own economy. Much of that control is in the hands of others overseas.

As Blanche DuBois said in Tennessee Williams' play, ``A Streetcar Named Desire'':

We have become utterly dependent on the kindness of

strangers.

``Utterly dependent on the kindness of strangers.'' Obviously, this situation should raise serious concerns about our ability to conduct our foreign policy in the future if we are constrained and limited by the need to keep our creditors willing to lend us money.

Regrettably, in the budget plan submitted this year, the President offers no solution to bringing this national debt under control. In fact, the President is calling for the permanent extension of his tax cuts for the wealthy at a cost of trillions of dollars.

I didn't agree with the President's tax plan in the days in which we had a budget surplus. I felt then it was too large, too heavily weighted toward the wealthy. Some argued--and I thought it had some logic to it--for a short-term targeted tax cut aimed primarily to middle- and working-class Americans and, at the same time, using the surplus to pay down our debt. In other words, to do a combination of those things.

What I opposed and did not understand was the very excessive tax cuts the President put forward then and his continued support today for tax cuts in times of war and enormous budget deficits.

We keep moving along year to year in this way, and we make these budget decisions, and then we go on to other business, but all the time these policies are working to drive us deeper into debt. As I said, much of this debt is held by foreign lenders, and that amount is growing all the time.

At the end of fiscal year 2001, 31 percent of the outstanding Federal Government debt was held by foreign lenders. Over the succeeding 4 years, borrowing from abroad accounted for more than 80 percent of the increase in our Government debt. So we have seen the debt rise and the portion of the debt held by foreign lenders, in percentage terms, rise at a much more rapid rate.

If foreign lenders continue to buy 80 percent of new Federal debt, the Federal Government will owe more than half of the debt to foreign lenders by 2011. That is equivalent to almost 25 percent of our expected gross domestic product. Think of the leverage we are placing in the hands of foreign lenders. And a shift has also occurred from private to Government lenders with respect to where those funds are coming from.

Regrettably, the President's budget also cuts substantially a number of programs designed to help working and middle-income people in this country. For example, Federal education funding has been cut by the largest amount in the 26-year history of the Department of Education. These cuts come at a time when tuition and fee increases have placed college education out of reach for many students. Since 2000, tuition and fees have increased almost 60 percent for public 4-year colleges and 32 percent for private 4-year colleges.

The budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development is, once again, marked by cuts in programs that provide housing services and a healthy home environment for millions of American households. The President has proposed a 20-percent cut in community development block grants, a 25-percent cut in elderly housing, a 50-percent cut in housing for the disabled, and despite everyone's recognition of the essential services provided by our police and firefighters--everyone waxes eloquently about our first responders--the budget proposes to cut funding for community police by close to $400 million and to cut the fire programs by more than half.

Let me try to put this in a little bit of context in terms of the choices being made with respect to priorities.

In fiscal year 2007, the benefit of the President's tax cuts for millionaires, those with incomes over $1 million, will total $41.3 billion. That is the benefit for millionaires resulting from those tax cuts.

I mentioned cuts in education, housing, police, and fire. We could fund all of those programs that I listed--in other words, bring them back up to the current levels--for less than 10 percent of the benefits flowing from that tax cut for millionaires--less than 10 percent. I am not supportive of the bulk of that tax cut. I think it was giving much to those who already had more when we had other pressing needs facing us. But just 10 percent of it would bring education, housing, fire, and police back up to current base levels.

What does it say about our priorities as a nation that we are placing these tax cuts for people at the very top ahead of investments in these programs?

What is said, of course, is: We can't do the programs because we have a deficit. The public needs to ask: Why do we have this deficit? And the reason we

have it is because of the tax cuts. So in terms of setting priorities, the tax cuts were given a higher priority than investments in education or in housing or in stronger police and fire, and I could go through the rest of the budget reflecting the same decisions and the same choice in terms of priorities.

I could develop that list at some length, but let me conclude with one last point. I think the American people have a strong sense of fairness and equity. There have been a number of events during the course of this administration which have underscored the necessity to come together as a nation with this sense of fairness and equity--the attacks of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, most prominent among them. But to move ahead, we must share the burden, and, unfortunately, the President's budget continues to favor the very wealthy. They are not carrying the burden. In fact, they are being relieved of some of the burden through the tax cuts while leaving the majority of Americans to carry the burden.

So as we move forward with this budget process, we need to ask ourselves: What are our priorities as a nation? In my judgment, the President's budget does not reflect the values of the American people. It is neither fair nor responsible. While some changes were made in the Budget Committee, I still think it basically reflects the policies submitted to us by the President which I think are not fair, not responsible, and I urge my colleagues to reject the budget resolution.

Mr. President, I know Senator Feingold is here on the floor and would like to be recognized for up to 25 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. President, I understand this has not been discussed with the minority leader, this proposal for a vote, and I would therefore object.

I would respectfully request of the leader that he should have a discussion with the minority leader before seeking to set the agenda.

Mr. President, I object for the same reason. I think the majority leader should have a responsible discussion with the minority leader before setting the agenda of the Senate. It should be an elemental courtesy in the conduct of the Senate's business.

I understand, Mr. President, this is off the resolution; is that right?

I think an agreement was reached that it would be off the resolution and count toward the time on the resolution.

Only that the 25 minutes that Senator Feingold is going to use will come off the resolution.

Mr. President, I take this time to draw to the attention of my colleagues a significant report, released on February 9, 2006 in Washington, DC, by the Committee for Economic Development, CED, a group of some 200 business leaders and several university presidents.

The CED statement, ``Education for Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and National Security'', asserts that the United States will be less competitive in the global economy because of a shortage of strong foreign language and international studies programs in our colleges and high schools and warns, too, that the lack of Americans educated in foreign languages and cultures is hampering efforts to counter terrorist threats.

The cochairs of the CED subcommittee that produced the report are Charles E.M. Kolb, President of CED; Alfred T. Mockett, CED trustee, former chairman and CEO, CGI-AMS, Inc.; and another CED trustee, Dr. John Brademas, president emeritus of New York University and former Member--1959-1981--of the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana.

Dr. Brademas brought long and distinguished experience to his responsibilities as cochair of the CED subcommittee. A member of the House of Representatives from 1959 to 1981, he served throughout those years on the House Committee on Education and Labor and for 10 years chaired its Select Subcommittee on Education. He played a major role in writing the landmark education legislation of that period, including the Elementary and Secondary School Act and the Higher Education Act, and he was the author of the International Education Act of 1966.

The recommendations in the CED Report include teaching international content across the curriculum and at all levels of learning, to expand American students' knowledge of other countries and cultures; expanding the training pipeline at every level of education to address the paucity of Americans fluent in strategic languages, especially critical, less commonly taught languages; national leaders--political

leaders as well as the business and philanthropic communities and the media--should educate the public about the importance of improving education in languages other than English and in international studies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the remarks of Dr. Brademas on the CED report, ``Education for Global Leadership.''

Mr. President, ``Celebrating Community: A Tribute to Black Fraternal, Social and Civic Institutions'' is the theme this year of African American History Month. On this last day of the Month I want to pay a special tribute to the Alpha Phi Alpha, which is the oldest of the African American Greek-letter collegiate fraternities and sororities. Alpha, which I am proud to say has its headquarters in Baltimore, this year celebrates its centennial. For the past one hundred years Alpha has upheld the principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character and the uplifting of humanity principles that command our respect and admiration.

It has been my privilege to work closely with Alpha in the effort to establish an appropriate memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in our Nation's Capital. More than 20 years ago I introduced legislation to assure that a monument would be built, and it took a decade to get the legislation enacted. Since 1996, when the bill was signed into law, we have moved steadily forward. The site on the Mall is set, lying between the Memorial to President Franklin Roosevelt and the Lincoln Memorial. The magnificent design is in hand. The challenging work of raising the necessary funds continues, and in this Alpha and the other African American campus organizations play a vital role. I look forward to the day, not too far in the future, when we will have on the Mall a monument worthy of Dr. King's legacy, to remind us and future generations of the struggles the civil rights movement endured, and to inspire us all to continue the movement.

Even as we celebrate our progress toward a memorial to Dr. King, we mourn the loss of two great Americans, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King.

When Rosa Parks died 4 months ago, all Americans mourned her passing. Fifty years ago, with a singular courageous act that in the words of the New York Times became a ``mythic event,'' she galvanized the civil rights movement and helped to write a new and hopeful chapter in our history. As the Times put it, ``(W)hat seems a simple gesture of defiance so many years later was in fact a dangerous, even reckless move'' at the time. Her steadfastness in the face of harsh and unjust laws struck a chord in the nation's conscience and challenged us to build a society worthy of the principles on which it was founded. When Ms. Parks was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999, I was honored to have an opportunity to meet her. At the time of her death I joined with my Senate colleagues in honoring her at her memorial service.

We lost a second courageous leader with the death more recently of Coretta Scott King. She was a student at the New England Conservatory of Music with plans for a musical career when she met her future husband, but she was from the beginning his steadfast partner in the arduous fight for civil rights and a more decent and humane society. After Dr. King's death she continued the fight with the quiet dignity and determination that were her hallmarks. It was a privilege to work with Mrs. King on the legislation establishing Martin Luther King day as a national holiday; I deeply regret that she could not live long enough to see the memorial to her husband built as well.

Last month we honored Dr. Martin Luther King and his legacy. If he were with us today, Dr. King would be deeply gratified by the national tributes paid to Ms. Parks and Mrs. King. In the 50 years since Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks first challenged the Nation to live up to its founding principles, we have come a long way. We have changed our laws fundamentally to assure the rights of all Americans. We have worked together--at the local, State and national level--to create hope and opportunity where there was none, and to guarantee respect for every person.

The role of the Black fraternal, social and civic institutions in bringing about these changes cannot be overstated. Over the years they have fought for justice in courts of law and in the court of public opinion, and worked tirelessly to promote equality and opportunity for all.

Still, much remains to be done. Working together we continue to build the society for which Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King stood, and fought. Success in this effort is the finest tribute we can pay to them.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts who wishes to speak on a different subject.

Mr. President, I join my able colleague from Alabama in supporting the nomination of Ben Bernanke to be a member and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. We will be voting on a 14- year term on the Board of Governors, one of the longest terms we give to anyone other than Federal judges in the workings of our political system, and a 4-year term to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Before I address Dr. Bernanke, I wish to take a moment, as my colleagues have, to say a word about Chairman Alan Greenspan. Chairman Greenspan chairs the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee that is right now taking place. Then he steps down. He has served for over 18 years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the second-longest tenure in our history, exceeded only by William McChesney Martin. There have been occasions when I have differed with Chairman Greenspan on some of his decisions, most notably the green light he gave to large and excessive tax cuts in 2001 which helped to precipitate us into a serious deficit situation. But this ought not obscure the many accomplishments and successes during his long tenure.

Others have referenced the stock market crash which happened only a few months after he took office; the Asian Russian long-term capital management crisis, some 10 years later in the late 1990s; and, of course, the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Throughout all of that, he brought a steadying presence to the workings of the financial system and a shrewd understanding of the situation and what needed to be done to address it.

I commend Chairman Greenspan for bringing greater transparency into the workings of the Federal Reserve system, something which Dr. Bernanke has indicated he intends to continue and support, and Chairman Greenspan's rejection of rigid policymaking, rejecting the idea that there was a rigid formula or ideology by which you could establish a monetary policy. In particular, he was able to push the limits on lowering unemployment and providing jobs while still being able to control inflation. As a result we were able to get the unemployment rate down to levels that everyone previously had argued would lead to a spurt of inflation. Chairman Greenspan thought that wouldn't happen. It didn't happen. Now we have established different benchmarks in terms of monetary policy.

Dr. Bernanke, whose nomination is before us, is no stranger to the Senate. This is the fourth time in 3 years that we have been called upon to consider his nomination to a very significant position. In 2002, he was nominated to serve as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. He was renominated to that position in the following year. In 2005, he was nominated to serve as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Today, we have his nomination to serve as Chairman for a term of 4 years and as a Governor for a term of 14 years.

There is no question about Dr. Bernanke's qualifications for the position to which he has been nominated. He has served with distinction on the Federal Reserve Board from all accounts. He has had direct experience of economic policymaking at the Council of Economic Advisers and he has a very distinguished academic and scholarly background with a B.A. in economics from Harvard and a Ph.D. in economics from MIT. He has been on the faculty at MIT and at Stanford. Most recently, of course, he was at Princeton, where he served as chair of the economics department from 1996 to 2002, a department recognized as one of the very best, if not the best, in the country.

He commands great respect from his peers in the profession and I think great respect from all who have come in contact with him.

I do, though, want to take a moment to speak a bit about the seriousness of the economic challenges we face and which Dr. Bernanke will face as he assumes this important responsibility. We have seen the weakest recovery in our labor market of any post recessionary period since World War II--that is, in 60 years. While we have had some recent improvement, compared with recoveries from previous recessions, we have fallen well short. Furthermore, real wages have fallen over the past few years for middle class and working Americans.

Meanwhile, U.S. economic policy has been marked by a recklessness in its reliance on borrowing on the apparent assumption that substantial borrowing at home and abroad can go on and on and will always remain a continuing option for us. The consequence of this is that we are running dangerous current account deficits and substantial budget deficits in amounts that dwarf anything we have previously experienced. Many observers think that these deficits--the fiscal deficit and the current account deficit threaten our economy and our ability to deal with the challenges of the future.

Mr. President, the most recent figures indicate that economic growth has slowed to almost a crawl over the past 3 months. It was just over 1 percent in the last quarter of last year. That is the lowest rate of growth since 2002, and but for the buildup of inventories that took place in the fourth quarter, economic activity fell by three-tenths of 1 percent. So it was only the inventory accumulation that kept us from experiencing negative economic growth.

Mr. Bernanke, along with his colleagues at the Fed and those on the Open Market Committee, will face questions concerning the conduct of monetary policy. Of course, monetary policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. It plays a significant role in determining the shape and direction of the economy. Therefore, we need to consider it in the broader context. In fact, the Federal Reserve Act clearly mandates two goals: maximum employment and

stable prices. Those goals are set out in the Federal Reserve Act and constitute the guidance and direction from the Congress to the Federal Reserve for the objectives in the conduct of monetary policy.

The act says:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system and

the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long-run

growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate

with the economy's long-run potential to increase production

so as to promote effectively goals of maximum employment,

stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

Accomplishing the Fed's dual mandate is the most important responsibility of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The experience of the 1990s, with unemployment down at 4 percent and inflation below 3 percent, demonstrated that these goals can be harmonized, unlike the assertion by some that they are inherently in conflict. Dr. Bernanke was pressed on this point in his confirmation hearing because he has been a proponent of what is called ``inflation targeting,'' which requires the Fed to set a specific numeric target for inflation, announce that target to the markets and then manage the economy with the objective of reaching that target.

I want to underscore the importance of the Fed honoring its statutory dual mandate and not replacing it with a policy of inflation targeting. We must be concerned that if a numerical figure were to be set for inflation to the detriment of other considerations, employment foremost among them, policymaking would shift and so, too, would the debate about the health and strength of the economy. I fear that the focus of the debate would become not whether the Fed was successful in meeting the dual mandate, but rather the Fed's one-sided success or failure in reaching a numerical inflation goal.

Chairman Greenspan himself has made this point. Bloomberg News recently reported:

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has rejected adopting a target,

saying it would rob U.S. policymakers of the flexibility they

need to respond to developments in a rapidly changing

economy.

I was, therefore, somewhat reassured when at his confirmation hearing Dr. Bernanke told the Banking Committee that he ``subscribes entirely to the Humphrey-Hawkins mandate,'' which puts employment growth and output growth on a fully equal footing with inflation in terms of the Federal Reserve's objectives. Furthermore he went on to say, ``I would not be interested in pursuing that matter''--referring to inflation targeting--``if I thought it involved changing the mandate of the Federal Reserve.''

Mr. President, I put this issue out here only as a matter to be focused on as we move ahead into the future. Dr. Bernanke indicated that it was not his intention to seek changes in the Federal Reserve Act. I think that is a wise and prudent course to follow. How much time remains?

I yield myself an additional 3 minutes. We learned last week that our economy slowed dramatically over the past 3 months to a growth rate of 1.1 percent, the slowest growth level in the past 3 years and, obviously, insufficient to meet our needs. Moreover, as I noted, even that modest growth was based entirely on inventory growth, which is a one-time shot for the economy and not a sustainable basis for growth.

The current unemployment rate of about 5 percent obscures the fact that the job creation during the course of this administration is the worst since the Hoover administration. In other words, every previous administration since that of Herbert Hoover has produced more jobs than this administration has produced. In fact, real wages are down for a great number of Americans, and it is little wonder that working Americans are concerned about their economic future.

Given these factors and the potential problems with our record level of deficits and debt at home and abroad, I urge the Fed to consider taking a pause from what has been a steady upward push in interest rates. We have had 13 successive increases in interest rates. Short- term rates have gone from 1 percent to 4.25 percent. We had 1-percent growth in the economy last quarter.

Furthermore, let me note two or three other serious issues. One is our current account deficit. Our international accounts are steeply imbalanced. We expect the current account deficit to approach $800 billion for 2005, in excess of 6 percent of GDP. We are borrowing from abroad over $2 billion on a daily basis to finance this deficit, and there is a broad consensus among economic experts that current account deficits of this magnitude are not sustainable. We will be obligated to pay this debt out into the future, which means it will come right out of the standard of living at home. Warren Buffet, talking about this situation, warned that we risk becoming what he called a ``sharecropper's society.''

Furthermore, as we continue to fall deeper into debt with the rest of the world, we are experiencing growing imbalances here at home. Real wages for the majority of working Americans have declined, while the real incomes of the wealthiest have increased astronomically. A recent Bloomberg News story observed that U.S. wages are lagging inflation and, even with unemployment near a 4-year low, workers have little leverage to demand higher pay. Other articles have reported the record bonuses that are now being given out on Wall Street. In fact, Chairman Greenspan in testimony before the committee stated:

I think the income distribution issue is very critical

because you can't have a significant inequality of income and

expect to have support for the type of institutions which

have made this country great.

Mr. President, I also note the Fed's responsibility for carrying out important supervisory and regulatory authority over the safety and soundness of the Nation's banking and financial system. In the area of consumer protection, the Fed has broad jurisdiction over a host of consumer laws--the Community Reinvestment Act, Truth in Lending Act, Truth in Savings Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Homeowners Equity Protection Act. These are major responsibilities of the Fed over and above its monetary policy responsibilities.

Finally, as I indicated, I intend to vote for this nominee. I think this nominee is extremely well qualified. He will assume the chairmanship at a time when the economy faces problems that have serious implications for our future economic health and the prospect of a rising standard of living for working Americans. In the current climate, our Nation will be well served by a policy of prudence and independent thought on the part of the Federal Reserve. I am hopeful that Dr. Bernanke will draw upon his distinguished work as an academic economist and his experience as a policymaker at the highest level of the Federal Government to make a prudent and independent policy the hallmark of the Fed in coming years.

I will yield half of the remaining time to Senator Dorgan and the other half to Senator Schumer.

Will the Senator yield? Will the Senator place me on his resolution?

Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Massachusetts. I was privileged to have worked with Mrs. King on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday bill for which she pushed so hard and which eventually was passed by the Congress. I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, she was a champion of decency and human rights and a more just and humane society in her own right, not only as a partner of her husband. We mourn her death and recognize the extraordinary contributions she has made to our Nation.

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

Mr. President, for the second time in 4 months, the Senate is being called upon to carry out one of its most important constitutional responsibilities, which is to give its advice and consent to a nominee to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. We have many serious responsibilities in this body, but I must say I think this one ranks at or near the very top of any of the decisions we will be called upon to make. That is because it falls uniquely to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to expound and interpret the Constitution and the laws passed pursuant to it. The installation of two new Justices within a short time period has the potential to alter fundamentally the constitutional framework that protects the rights and liberties of the people of this Nation.

Once again we see the argument being made that the President is entitled to his nominee, and that the Senate's role in the appointment process is limited to confirming the President's choice, barring some serious disqualification with the nominee. In effect, the presumption-- a very heavy presumption--it is argued, is with the nominee and his confirmation.

In my view, this is not what the Constitution provides in requiring the Senate's advice and consent to a nominee to the Federal bench, which is, after all, a third, separate, independent branch of our national Government.

From a historical perspective, it is worth noting that over the course of our history, roughly one in every four nominations to the Court has not been confirmed by the Senate. There have been 158 nominations to the Supreme Court in the course of the history of the Republic, of which 114 were confirmed. Not all of the others were rejected. Some were rejected on votes taken in this body, some withdrew, and some were never acted upon. But the notion of this heavy presumption runs contrary to historical practice in the Senate. Almost one out of every four--actually a little more than one out of every four--nominations has not been confirmed by the Senate.

As Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at the University of North Carolina Law School, testified recently before the Judiciary Committee:

Neither the plain language of the Appointments Clause nor

the structure of the Constitution requires Senators to simply

defer to a President's Supreme Court nomination.

Let me repeat that quote:

Neither the plain language of the Appointments Clause nor

the structure of the Constitution requires Senators to simply

defer to a President's Supreme Court nomination.

In my view, the Senate's duty to advise and consent on nominations is an integral part of the Constitution's system of checks and balances among our institutions of government. A nomination alone does not constitute an entitlement to hold the office.

Furthermore, some have said when considering a nominee that we look only to their experience, their qualifications, their character. These are all obviously very important criteria. But, in my view, the nominee's judicial philosophy also must be given very serious consideration. We are facing a decision to place someone on the Supreme Court for life tenure. It could be 20, 30, or 35 years. Judge Alito is in his fifties, so we are talking about someone who is going to shape the interpretation of our Constitution over decades. You view that when you consider a nominee to the Supreme Court.

The nominee's judicial philosophy should be given very serious consideration, as well put by former Chief Justice Rehnquist. Writing in 1959, long before he went on the Court, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the Senate should follow the ``practice of thoroughly informing itself on the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee before voting to confirm him.''

In considering Judge Alito's nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in my view, the question of his judicial philosophy is not only a legitimate question but indeed an essential question. Inquiring into a nominee's judicial philosophy does not mean discovering how he or she would decide specific future cases.

We are always being warned about that, and there is no effort here to predetermine that. Rather, it seeks to ascertain the nominee's fundamental perspectives on the Constitution, how it protects our individual liberties, ensures equal protection of the law, maintains the separation of powers and the checks and balances encompassed within our Constitution.

Judge Alito has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 1990, during which time he has written hundreds of published opinions, and earlier he served 6 years in the U.S. Department of Justice. So there is much to consider in his record and many lessons to be drawn from it.

Of the issues the Court is likely to face, perhaps none is more basic than the proper reach and exercise of executive power. We are particularly focused on this issue now, but it is an issue that has recurred constantly throughout our history as we seek to maintain the careful balance the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution.

They, in fact, established in the Constitution a complex system of democratic governance with three separate, equal branches of the Government. At the center of this system lies not any one of the three branches but rather a delicate balance amongst the three branches.

Looking at Judge Alito's record, one sees a clear and constant deference to the executive, which, in my view, would significantly tip that delicate balance with respect to our constitutional system.

The Constitution grants the legislative power expressly to Congress. It gives the President power to only approve or veto legislation. The veto power, of course, gives the President very significant authority with respect to legislation. But if a bill becomes the law, with or without the President's approval, it then becomes his or her responsibility as the Chief Executive to see that the law is carried out, to see that the law is properly executed.

Judge Alito's record demonstrates he would seek to extend the President's power to allow for modification of law by the executive alone. As one example, while he was an official in the Department of Justice, he was instrumental in advancing a policy of so-called Presidential statements, to create a platform from which the President could seek to alter the underlying purpose of legislation passed by the Congress without the concurrence of the Congress.

Such a deference to executive power, I think, is of deep concern, especially

as we see on occasion now when Presidents, rather than following constitutional process by seeking legislative change through the Congress, instead refuse to carry out statutes that the Executive finds not to his liking.

Furthermore, under our constitutional system, the courts are the ultimate guarantors of individuals' rights and the defenders of our liberties. On this issue, too, Judge Alito has been quite clear and consistent.

Professor Goodwin Liu of Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley summed up Judge Alito's work in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee:

Throughout his career, with few exceptions, Judge Alito has

sided with the police, prosecutors, immigration officials,

and other government agents while taking a minimalist

approach to recognizing official error and abuse.

In an editorial on January 12, the New York Times made the same point in somewhat different terms:

[Judge Alito] time and again, as a lawyer and a judge, . .

. has taken the side of the big corporations against the

`little guy,' supported employers against employees, and

routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and

the disabled.

In a memorandum that he submitted when applying for a political position in the Justice Department in 1985, Judge Alito made a series of very sweeping statements about his understanding of the Constitution. He wrote that he was inspired to apply to law school by his opposition to certain decisions of the Warren Court--the Court headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren--decisions which are now considered bedrock provisions of constitutional law, decisions involving criminal procedure, the Establishment clause of the Constitution, and reapportionment.

In that very same memo, he also took strong positions in opposition to Court decisions on affirmative action and the right to choose. When asked about the memo during his confirmation hearings, Judge Alito explained that the 1985 memo reflected his views of the Constitution at that time. He did not, however, explicitly disavow those views, and nothing in the hearing record demonstrates they have changed. In fact, his decisions as a judge on the Third Circuit reflect that these are the views he has continued to hold and to espouse.

The Baltimore Sun concluded in an editorial that:

Despite Judge Alito's periodic assurances of having an open

mind, the disturbing impression from the hearings is that on

critical issues such as abortion, civil rights and the limits

of executive power, he does not.

That is a very perceptive observation with respect to Judge Alito's testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

I am not persuaded that Judge Alito recognizes either the critically important role the Supreme Court must play in preserving the constitutional balance of power among the three branches of our Government, that delicate balance to which I made reference earlier which was so much a part of the thinking of that distinguished assemblage which gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to frame our Constitution.

I have this concern about his view of the role the Court must play in preserving the constitutional balance of power among the three branches of Government and whether he recognizes the role of the Court as the ultimate guarantor of every individual's constitutional rights and liberties.

For the ordinary citizens all across our country, the rulings of the Supreme Court can be of immense importance in terms of providing for their rights and liberties.

Because I am not persuaded in this regard about the appropriateness of Judge Alito's nomination, when the time comes to vote, I will vote against his nomination to become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

That was in March of 2001. At that time, wasn't the Federal budget running a surplus?

So at the time we were running this surplus--and let me just note, it had taken a lot of work to get out of an earlier deficit into surplus--and there was some concern expressed that the excessive tax cuts the President was proposing would throw us into a budget deficit and we would lose that surplus, the President told us in no uncertain terms that there was no reason to fear budget deficits; is that correct?

Will the Senator yield?

So the previous year the President was saying there would be no deficit, and a year later, in the face of what obviously would be a deficit, he said, well, it will be a small and short-term deficit.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

In 4 years, after the President said there would be no deficits, we have incurred deficits of, according to my quick calculation, over $1.2 trillion; is that correct?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

This reconciliation process really is a package, in which you have to consider not only the spending cuts but the tax cuts they are pushing through, as well as the increase in the debt. Am I correct that this reconciliation package includes raising the debt limit by some $800 billion?

If the Senator will yield further?

I want to tell the Senator one story. I was in a shopping center over the weekend, and I saw a bumper sticker on a car. The bumper sticker said: ``Mr. Bush, we will be forever in your debt.'' Just then, the person whose car that was came along, and I said to them: What was it you were thinking about that the President has done when you say we are going to be forever in his debt? I thought it was for something he had done. The person said: Think about it. I meant exactly what it says. Mr. Bush, we are going to be forever in your debt.

Here is the debt, which the Senator from North Dakota is pointing out. I think the person is right. We are going to be forever in this debt. This is what is being handed to this generation, the next generation, and the generation after that.

As the Senator pointed out in the previous chart, they have doubled the debt over this very short time period.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Let me go back to this external debt that is being held outside the country. Isn't it important to understand, as difficult as the deficit and debt problems are, that when the debt is held internally, it is Americans owing it to Americans. But when the debt is being held externally, it means that as a nation, we have to service this debt which is being held outside of the country. So that amount becomes a charge, as it were, against our own standard of living; isn't that correct? Would not our standard of living be lowered as a consequence of having to meet this external debt-servicing requirement?

Will the Senator yield? I note from his chart, in 2001, we had $5.7 trillion in debt, of which $1 trillion was held abroad.

So about a sixth, maybe 17 or 18 percent, was being held abroad.

This President has added $2.3 trillion in debt, of which $1.1 trillion is being held abroad. So there has been a dramatic shift in who is holding this debt and what that represents in terms of a burden on our society.

There is a wonderful line in a Tennessee Williams play where Blanche DuBois says: I have always depended on the kindness of strangers. It seems to me that is what is happening to the fiscal situation of the United States. We are becoming increasingly dependent on foreigners and in particular foreign countries, since this debt now is being purchased largely by the central banks and not by individual investors. There has been a dramatic shift in terms of who is holding our debt. We are becoming increasingly dependent on others for our fiscal survival. It is a dramatic and deeply concerning development.

Will the Senator yield for a question on that chart?

Is it not also important to ask the question, who is being affected by the spending cuts and who is benefitting from the tax cuts, because that gives you a sense of what the priorities are? It is my perception that the spending cuts are affecting those who have little--working people, or people in difficult circumstances, such as young people trying to get a college education. The tax cuts for which these spending cuts are being imposed--as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said, to make room for them--are going primarily to benefit those at the upper end of the income and wealth scale. So aren't those the priorities that are being set here? People have to make the connection. They say we are doing the spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Of course, then they admit they are trying to hold the deficit down through spending cuts in order to make room for the tax cuts.

So you have to ask, who is being hit by the spending cuts? Who is getting the benefit of the tax cuts? Those priorities, it seems to me, are standing completely on their heads. They are just the wrong set of priorities. We have to make that connection, don't we, to understand what is happening?

Will the Senator yield?

In light of what we previously looked at as to how this debt is being financed from outside the country, in effect what is happening is that in order to give tax cuts to very wealthy people, we are borrowing from Japan, China, Korea, and the Caribbean money centers, and so forth and so on. That is where we are finding the money to fund this debt that is being created and run up in order to give tax cuts to wealthy people, is it not?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The way the Medicaid Program is structured, as I understand it, is that in order to be a Medicaid beneficiary, in order to receive Medicaid to meet your health care needs, you have to be adjudged to be at an income level that is so low it is clear you can not afford medical care. In order to get Medicaid to begin with, don't you have to meet that requirement?

And now they are proposing to take people who get Medicaid because their income is so low that they can't meet their health care needs in any other way, and they are imposing additional burdens on these Medicaid recipients.

Five minutes, at most.

Mr. President, I first thank and commend the very able Senator from North Dakota for a very powerful presentation and also for his work, day in and day out, as the ranking member on the Democratic side on the Budget Committee. I don't think there is anyone in the Senate who understands the fiscal situation better or has a more perceptive analysis of what has happened than the very distinguished Senator from North Dakota. I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

I will be very brief. I simply want to say that this conference report before us is worse than what the Senate passed, significantly worse. It will cut crucial assistance to working families, to students, and to the elderly, amongst others. I think these cuts will move the Nation in the wrong direction. I particularly disagree with imposing these cuts on low- and moderate-income Americans, supposedly to bring our budget deficit under control but actually to make room to give tax cuts to very wealthy people.

The budget resolution provides for reconciliation protection for both the spending bill and a tax bill. So to see the impact of the reconciliation process, one has to take the two together. Although we only have the spending bill now, the tax bill will follow along as surely as the night follows the day.

The budget resolution requires almost $40 billion in spending cuts. The same budget resolution tells the committees to report tax cuts of $70 billion. So we have a reconciliation process supposedly intended to reduce the deficit--in fact, they call it the Deficit Reduction Act; where is George Orwell when we need him?--which, when both the spending bill and the tax bill are considered, is going to increase the deficit, not reduce the deficit.

So these spending cuts are being made not to address our budget deficit, they are being made to make room for tax cuts--the quote from the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was absolutely on point. This legislation is a clear example of a fiscal policy that places a higher priority on tax cuts than on funding needed services and reducing the deficit. This is clearly a misplaced priority, regrettably one that has characterized this administration.

We have seen this incredible swing in our fiscal position over the last 5 years. When President Bush came into office, we were projecting, over the next 10-year period, a surplus in the Federal budget of $5.6 trillion. Today, after a series of excessive tax cuts, we are projecting a deficit over 10 years of $4.5 trillion. This is a swing in our fiscal position of $10 trillion in the wrong direction, from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus to a $4.5 trillion projected deficit.

We are risking our fiscal future. We are targeting tax cuts to those who need them the least and we are cutting programs for those who need them the most.

This is an incredibly wrong set of priorities. I am very much opposed to this conference report, and I very much urge my colleagues to reject this conference report when it comes to a vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Phillip A Singerman on his very successful tenure as executive director of the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO). Dr. Singerman recently announced his intention to step down from this position at the end of the year.

The Maryland General Assembly created TEDCO in 1999 as a quasi-State investment corporation to facilitate business growth and foster technology transfer. When Dr. Singerman came from the U.S. Department of Commerce to lead TEDCO in 1999, its budget was approximately $650,000. Since Dr. Singerman began, TEDCO's assets have increased nearly ten fold. Through Dr. Singerman's leadership and drive, TEDCO created innovative partnerships between Maryland's large and growing high-tech Federal sector and start-up businesses that allowed the private sector to harness and grow applications for the cutting-edge technologies developed by the Federal Government. This work has also allowed Maryland businesses to work with the Federal Government to ``spin-in'' technology--connecting the best of the private sector's technology expertise to our Federal sector on behalf of our national interest.

Through these and other efforts, TEDCO has gained a national reputation. For the last 2 years, it has been recognized by Entrepreneur Magazine as the leading backer of seed and early stage companies in the country. In fact, TEDCO's investments have been so successful that a company receiving its seed funding now typically receives 25 times that initial amount from other venture capital firms and the Federal Government over the following 3 years. In short, Dr. Singerman has done a tremendous amount to bolster Maryland's preeminent role as a national center of excellence for high technology innovation. As Richard C. ``Mike'' Lewin, former head of the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development put it in a recent Baltimore Sun article: ``[h]e made TEDCO from scratch what it is today, the most effective technology development operation in the country.''

Mr. President, I am proud to have worked with Dr. Singerman over the last 6 years. His contribution to the State of Maryland and to our Nation cannot be overstated, and I wish him the very best in all of his future endeavors. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire Baltimore Sun article about Dr. Singerman's tenure as executive director of TEDCO quoted above.