Floor Statements

I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I happen to think we need to take care of those taxes where they are expiring. If we don't deal with them, the rates are going to go up. We have a number of tax provisions that are within the 5-year window of the budget resolution that is before us. Three of them are what we refer to as economic growth, taxes we reduced, investment and job creation incentive, and taxes we reduced.

I think one of the most effective taxes in stimulating the economy is reduction of capital gains. It is set to expire within this 5-year window.

If you look as far back as the Kennedy administration, he reduced capital gains to create more income during his administration so he could spend on other programs. Because you cut taxes doesn't mean it is going to reflect a decrease in revenue to the Federal Government. We have seen that happen from time to time. It happened during the Reagan administration. It helped pay for defense spending. We have seen it in my State of Colorado.

Right now, we happen to have in my State of Colorado a modified national tax where we build off of the Federal tax bottom line form. One time we didn't, and we reduced capital gains in the State of Colorado and, lo and behold, revenues increased to the State of Colorado.

We have seen this happen now under the Bush administration with the tax incentives we put in place, which included a 15-percent tax rate on capital gains income, and included a 150-percent tax rate on dividend income, and increased 100 percent the deduction for small business expenses. Having done that, here is what we have seen happen.

February's nonfarm payroll growth exceeded analysts' expectations and was broad-based. We saw nonfarm payroll increase 262,000 in February, above the 225,000 median analysts' estimates, according to Bloomberg. It was the largest nonfarm payroll gain since October of 2004 and only the second gain of over 200,000 since last May. We saw 121 consecutive months of job gains, and have added more than 3 million new jobs to the payroll. The unemployment rate declined to 5.4 percent from 5.6 percent a year ago. Now it is below the 1980s peak of 10.8 percent, the 1990 peak of 7.8 percent, and the 2000 year peak of 6.3 percent, according to OECD, which is an international organization that looked at the unemployment rate in the United States and compares it to other countries. According to its rating, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is low again in comparison to our major trading partners.

The United States has 5.5 percent, France's unemployment rate is 9.6 percent, 4.1 percent higher than in this country, Germany is 9.8 percent, the Euro area is 18.9 percent.

We look at all these figures, and I don't see how anybody can deny the fact that those taxes where we reduced them for the purpose of driving the economy didn't work. It did work. It created more revenue for the Federal Government.

We can tax things to the point where you get very little revenue to the Government. I think we have been through an era where spending and taxing both have been on the higher side. When that happens, you decrease production, and the result is you have less revenue. Just raising taxes doesn't mean you automatically are going to get more revenue to the Federal Government. On the other hand, because you cut taxes doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get less revenue to the Federal Government. It depends on where your tax rate is.

We have seen time and time again where we took a tax such as capital gains, we reduced it in the Kennedy era, we reduced it in the Reagan era, we reduced it in local States, and we have seen the effects by the adjustments within the States. We have seen it happen recently with the budget tax incentive and, lo and behold, revenues increased to the Federal Government.

That is why Members such as myself feel it is important that we keep in the reconciliation process the opportunity to begin to extend these taxes. Obviously, they are not going to be extended permanently. I prefer to extend them permanently. Obviously, that is not going to be possible around here. I am willing to go ahead and extend them again further on a temporary basis and deal with them later.

If you are going to stimulate the economy, I think you have to turn to the small business sector. That is the real engine that drives this economy. It is the small business sector. That is where innovation occurs. That is where individuals can own their own business and be motivated to produce. We see that time and time again in this country. I have seen it in my State of Colorado.

I am a small businessman myself, having had a veterinary practice. I understand the vital role small business will play in economies of cities throughout this country. We had a 100 percent deduction for small business on expensing. That had a phenomenal impact on revenues to the Federal Government in a positive way. It is one of the taxes that increased revenue to the Federal Government. We saw such a dramatic drop in the unemployment rate.

It is important we not do away with the goose that laid the golden egg. We need to look at what has worked historically and we need to continue that policy. If we do that, we will continue to see our economy grow.

The President is on the right track. This budget is on the right track to, at the very least, extend out those taxes.

There are some Members that would have liked to have seen more in the reconciliation bill. The $70.2 billion that is in here that they are talking about is a bare minimum as far as I am concerned. I wish we had a lot more. I think we could have done more to further stimulate the economy.

It is not the government that creates new jobs, it is the small business people out here that are working. They are the ones who really create jobs. It is the free enterprise system in this country that creates jobs. When you create jobs, you can hold down government expenses and you can generate more revenue to the Federal Government.

There are other expiring tax provisions that the Finance Committee can look at. They are not what I would classify necessarily as economic growth. They do not stimulate economic growth when you reduce them necessarily, but they help to contribute to the environment that helps our economy grow. I look at some of these that will expire within this window and I hate to turn my back on them, because they are popular, many of them, among the American people. Relief from individual alternative minimum tax; the research and experimentation tax credit; the deduction for teachers' classroom expenses; deduction for qualified education expenses; deduction of State and local sales taxes; cutting the welfare-to-work tax credit, work opportunity tax credit, credit for electricity produced from wind, biomass, and landfill gasses, tax credit for hybrid fuel cell vehicles; the first-time home buyer credit; and expensing of brownfields for mediation. Just a few of those taxes that will be expiring within the 5-year window that is provided for in this budget.

My view is if these are worthy programs, we are much better off to reduce taxes in a way that stimulates those programs to grow than to say we will spend Federal dollars and promote these programs and subsidize these businesses. That is the wrong way. We are better off to keep a competitive environment by reducing taxes on some of these programs that are vitally important.

I firmly believe the President is on the right track. I firmly believe the tax cuts we have put in place since the President was first elected to office are working, and it would be very disappointing to me and I think it would be a wrong track to somehow or other turn our back on those tax incentives that have proved to do so much for improving the economy in this country and improving revenue not only to the Federal Government but the State governments. The figures are looking better among State and local governments.

I for one am going to stand and say, look, we need to have those provisions

in the budget because we want to continue to see economic growth so that we can continue to have a strong and competitive economy. If we just turn loose the free enterprise system, the American people will generate the revenue that we need to sustain our economy. We just need to give them the incentive to produce. We do that, we have done that in the past, and we need to extend these out. It is very important.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we will recognize Senator Snowe, and we will recognize her on the Democrats' time.

Before we work out that agreement, I would like to be able to give those Members in opposition an opportunity to speak. We had this time pretty well set between 7 and 7:30. The time was running when we were waiting. I would like to call on them and see how our time runs. That might be possible.

We will see how the time goes. I will yield to Senator Grassley first.

Mr. President, I believe we have two speakers on this side who want 4 minutes apiece. I ask unanimous consent that we have 8 minutes on this side extended out and that we give Senator Grassley another 4 minutes to wrap up his speech, and then another 4 minutes on the time of Senator Hatch, if we might. There have been some cancellations, and we can take it off the time later on.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we give time limits from 7:45 to 8 p.m. for Harkin on his education amendment; from 8 to 8:20 for Ensign-Hutchison on border security; 8:20 to 8:35 for Landrieu on National Guard; 8:35 to 8:50 for Bunning on the AIDS budget process; and, after that time, we are expecting that maybe we are going to have some speakers drop out and we can ask for additional time as we need it.

Mr. President, I yield myself 25 minutes.

I rise in support of the budget resolution that is before the Senate, and I support the leadership of our new chairman. He has shown tremendous leadership on a very tough issue.

This budget is about the future. It is about our children and our grandchildren, as is Social Security. I was pleased to hear the Senator from Montana admit we do have a problem with Social Security. We have some Members who apparently do not think there is a problem with Social Security. I would like to go back to Social Security perhaps at a later time.

We have before us a budget resolution. We have to keep in mind that this budget resolution is about numbers. We are not getting into the specifics of the program, even though we are going to see a lot of amendments on the floor today that are going to be dealing with specifics of the program. In reality, this is about numbers. It is about the top numbers and how the numbers are allocated among the various committees. But the real decisions about how those dollars are going to be spent will rest, in some cases, with an authorization committee, or it may rest with the Appropriations Committee.

If we look back historically at the budget, particularly in the last few years, the growth of the national budget, as reflected in the budget resolution, has been greater than what the growth of the economy has been. This budget is an attempt to reduce the rate of growth.

There are some people who are going to try to characterize that as cuts, but if we look at the total figures in the budget, what we are doing is reducing the rate of growth. Even if we look at what we have done to reduce the rate of growth in entitlements, which has covered so much of the discussion throughout the budget debate, the growth in entitlements is greater than the growth in the economy.

So we are talking about reducing the rate of growth. I believe this resolution represents a courageous balancing act in trying to bring some sanity to the budgeting process, some fiscal responsibility.

We are funding our social and military priorities. The total discretionary budget authority for 2006 is $834.4 billion. Most of that is defense spending. We have about $438 billion, or something like that, that is set aside for discretionary spending in that area. The resolution is consistent with the President's request, plus a generous increase for some educational programs, particularly Pell grants.

The resolution assumes full funding of the President's defense request, which is supporting our global war on terrorism, restructuring our U.S. forces, which I believe is badly needed, future threats, and raising the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. We have some tough decisions that have to be made when we are allocating these dollars, and they do have an impact.

The resolution funds important existing commitments--certainly the reconstruction of Iraq. Nobody can deny the importance of that. We did not step away from that. That is an obligation we have assumed, and it is important we finish the job.

We have a $50 billion reserve fund put up in this particular budget to begin to address the needs of our men and women in the military.

In education, I mentioned the Pell grant increase, increases in higher education, No Child Left Behind--the increase in Pell grants of 10 percent or $417 million; we have a $5.5 billion reserve account for the new Higher Education Act, which is money that is going to be available when the HELP Committee acts.

The budget features sound and vital mechanisms for fiscal restraint and budget discipline, which is something we have lost here in the last few years. I think we have to regain that. It is important that we do something to reduce deficit spending. This is something that will impact our children and grandchildren, if we do not begin to address it today. And the sooner we address it, the better off we are going be.

If a business is having financial problems or any entity is having financial problems, I think everybody recognizes that if you wait until the last minute to address those financial problems, they get unsolvable. But the earlier you address those problems, the better off you are.

We do have some Social Security problems. My feeling is the sooner we begin to address them, the less the pain is going to be. There is going to be some pain, but the pain is going to be less. If we wait until the last minute, the pain is going to be unbearable in Social Security.

We have the same thing with many of our other entitlements programs. This budget begins to set discretionary budgets for 2006, 2007, and 2008, which is something that is enforced with the 60-vote point of order. It is a way of expecting a higher threshold if you want to increase spending. If we begin to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren, then we are going to require a higher threshold in this Congress to be able to do that, which means the issue has to be that much more important in the minds of Senators and the Congress.

We establish points of order against new direct spending totaling $5 billion in any of the next four 10-year periods.

The resolution continues sensible mechanisms for nondefense spending, advance appropriations, and pay-go, and it contains recommendations for a review of Federal agencies and their performance to eliminate or reduce wasteful, duplicative, inefficient, outdated, or failed programs. This idea in particular represents a growing sentiment within the body. I believe it represents a growing sentiment that we are seeing throughout the Nation. We have seen some efforts to try to restrain spending in high priorities areas in this Congress, such as defense. We are preparing to go through the BRAC process where we are looking closely at defense installations to see if they still meet the mission of a modern military. We need to have a similar type of scrutiny in the nondefense programs, to see if they continue to meet the mission the Congress intended of them when they first passed the legislation. That is being provided for by GPRA, which stands for Government Progress and Results Act, which measures how agencies do. The President has taken this and modified it to prevail as sort of a detailed roadmap through what he called his PART ratings, which is a roadmap I think Congress should pay more attention to.

So he is looking at some accountability within the agencies. Again, we are not talking about anything more than just a reduction in the rate of spending as far as the total budget is concerned.

This budget represents a landmark attempt to do something about entitlement spending. The first attempt was 19 years ago when there was an attempt to rein in entitlement spending in a budget resolution. So it has been awhile since we have looked at these. In the meantime these programs have been running on automatic. They have been spending more than what has been happening in the growth rate of our economy. Over time we are going to pay for it. It is going to be our children and grandchildren.

The resolution includes instructions to produce mandatory savings of $32 billion over 5 years. This is a very important provision that is being wildly

exaggerated. We have to keep in mind that mandatory spending is two- thirds of our total budget. The total budget is running at 2, a little over $2.5 trillion. Figure it out. We are only talking about $32 billion over 5 years. If you want to average it out, it is a little over $6 billion a year out of this 1 year's budget of over $2.5 trillion. So many of these provisions I think are being wildly exaggerated. Mandatory spending would still increase from $1.5 trillion in 2005 to more than $2 trillion in 2010. That is a growth of $500 billion in 5 years.

So even though we are cutting back on the rate of spending growth, it is still increasing every year, and it is still increasing at a rate of $500 billion over a 5-year period of time. Some people in this body say that is too many cuts, but I look at these figures and I wonder who they are kidding.

The doomsday cuts in this resolution barely add up to a moderate restraint of the stratospheric growth of these programs. Many people agree that entitlement spending is swallowing the budget and we must look seriously at our long-term fiscal health. The Federal Government consumes just under 20 percent of our total economy, and entitlements promise to grow and consume a larger and larger portion of this sizable chunk of our gross domestic product. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimates 65 percent of Federal resources by 2015. We had testimony in the Budget Committee from the Congressional Budget Office which said these were not sustainable--a personal view. I have to agree, when you look at 65 percent of Federal resources by 2015 as far as entitlement growth is concerned, that is a serious problem, and this Congress needs to face up to it.

Despite the unanimous agreement that we must do something about it before our grandkids have to bear our policy burdens, I hear nothing from the other side except more money, more and more and more. I don't hear any suggestions on what their budget proposal is. They want to raise taxes, they want to increase spending. That is the only plan we get out of the other side. In some ways there is an analogy on Social Security. The other side is continuing to criticize Social Security, but they don't--and some of them, like Senator Baucus of Montana, agree now that there is a problem with Social Security, but there is no plan they are putting forward. The President has courageously stepped forward and suggested some plans to protect our children and grandchildren. They are very modest. He has done that with the budget. He is doing that with Social Security.

Last week's markup I thought was very revealing. We had numerous amendments for additional spending in the Budget Committee and the promise of an alternative budget they said through amendments. That is how they were going to make their budget heard. It is easy to pick out a budget through amendments, but I would like to see a total budget plan presented by the other side if this budget is so bad. But nothing has materialized except more spending and the reductions of the enormously successful tax cuts. And those tax cuts were successful. That is what has created the economic growth we are seeing today.

I had some experience in the House being in the minority which the other aisle finds themselves in, and we had the courage to step forward with a total budget and to make tough choices. We were challenged by the majority, by the Democrats in the House at the time I served on the Budget Committee, to come up with our own budget, and we said, yes, in fairness of debate, we ought to have one. So we did put forward a budget, a total budget about where we wanted to see the country be in 5 years, even in 10 years, and we compared that with the majority, the Democrats on the House side during those early years, and as a result of that, I think we established some credibility.

My challenge to the other side is, you need to come up with your budget. You need to make the tradeoffs. Just submitting amendments here and there and picking at certain parts of the budget for political reasons or because it is an easy program to pick on or whatever is not the way to put together a budget for this country. So I challenge the other side to come up with a total budget and see what their ideas are and what they are going to do to protect the future generations of Americans, our children and our grandchildren.

This resolution makes a minor adjustment to the explosive growth of Medicaid. You would think the sky was falling, and here is the percent of adjustment--.007 percent of Medicaid over 5 years. That is all we are touching. Now, there is still a huge increase going on in Medicaid, as far as I am concerned. We are just reducing that growth from what has been projected out so that there is a .007 percent of Medicaid being impacted over 5 years, which is a reduction. It appears to me that the only option that would be given from the other side is a tax increase without smothering growth and solving the underling problems

The clock is ticking. The Budget Committee testimony by the Comptroller General of the GAO revealed estimates that our Nation's unfunded promises over the next 75 years are $44 trillion. In the entire history of the Federal Government we have raised a total of only $38 trillion in revenue. That is astounding testimony. We cannot wish this away. We cannot rely solely on economic growth. And we cannot tax our kids and grandkids into oblivion to solve these problems. Annual mandatory spending is on autopilot, rarely undergoing the kind of examination we give to the issue of steroids in Major League Baseball, for example. And this is much more important.

CBO's baseline projects net mandatory spending will grow at an annual rate of 5.8 percent over the next 10 years. That is $5.4 trillion in total growth above 2005 spending levels. This resolution offers a modest reduction in the rate of that growth--a courageous and important step in our thinking around here.

The resolution offers a very good start. If someone has a better plan, again, not just a series of constant amendments but a budget, we will be here to discuss it.

Provisions to protect the taxpayer and promote growth are in this budget.

The resolution includes assumptions focusing on preventing economically damaging tax increases. The President's tax cuts, which were passed by this Congress, have helped the economy grow. They have increased revenues, and not only to the Federal Government. We can see that happening in our States. In my State of Colorado we are beginning to see a change in revenues.

Provisions of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Package Reconciliation of 2003 are set to expire after tax year 2008. We need to address that.

The budget assumes we will continue the tax cuts that stimulate the economic development that ended our Nation's short recession. Without this budget, capital gains taxes would jump from 15 percent to 20 percent. If there is one tax reduction out there that has been an incentive which stimulated the economic growth, it has been capital gains. We saw that happen during the Kennedy administration. That is one of the tax cuts President Kennedy advocated when he was in office to stimulate revenues in the Federal Government. We have seen that during the Reagan administration. I have seen it happen in the State of Colorado. When we had capital gains adjustments, we saw the revenues improve, as far as State revenues. We have seen it happen again. When we dropped capitol gains rates, we saw the tremendous impact it had on the economy which resulted in more revenues to the Federal Government.

Without this budget, taxes on individual income would jump from 15 percent to as much as 35 percent. Incentives for small business owners to invest would be set to expire in 2007. Without this budget, it would dry up. Not extending these tax cuts is like declaring economic war on small businesses and investment.

One of the important things we did was focus on small business. That is where most of our economic growth is. We helped them write off more on their expensing. There was a dramatic increase in what we allowed them to write off on expensing. That is one of the things that helped small business and contributed a lot to our economic growth.

In my view, small business is the key to our economic growth. Reconciliation instructions in this budget direct the Finance Committee to produce more tax relief--$70.2 billion over 5 years. That means more economic development, more investment, more savings.

We do not tell them how they are going to meet these things, but we put the dollars in there and we direct them in that direction. Personally, as many colleagues, I would endorse a larger number of tax relief provisions because I believe it is more money in the hands of business owners, more money in the hands of consumers, more money in the hands of parents and investors. It stimulates greater growth, education, savings--prosperity at every economic level. Not surprisingly, it will likely increase revenues to State and Federal Government.

The $70.2 billion is a compromise number. We have already worked on it. Many of us would have liked to have seen over $100 billion. We thought that would be more appropriate to keep our economy growing. But working with the Members of the Senate, the budget chairman, to his credit, has come up with what I think is a reasonable number. It is a number I can support, which is a little over $70 billion, holding down the tax burden.

The budget promotes fiscal health and economic development. It holds down the rate of growth in spending and protects the most important national funding priorities we have. It extends expiring tax cuts and reconciles tax cuts that have a known stimulative effect. This budget provides new disciplinary tools for spending restraint. It leads to overall deficit and thus debt reduction.

The mark will cut the deficit in half in 5 years, relative to the size of the economy. Under this resolution, the deficit will fall to 2.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007; then, as we move on to 2010, reduce it down to 1.3 percent.

Our annual deficits compound our existing debt burden and, long term, there is no greater threat to Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, education--and the taxpayer--or other priorities, than the swelling of the public debt. It is something we must begin to address. I think this budget begins to address it in a serious way.

Several years ago I offered the American Debt Repayment Act. It was a suggestion to the Members of Congress that we ought to look at our national debt the way we would the mortgage on our home. We ought to put a plan in place a commitment to begin to pay down that debt.

This budget we have before us attempts to put in place a plan that will aid us in getting us out of the deficit, in a position where we can begin to pay down the national debt. It is clear if we leave it to the designs of Congress on the floor, things get out of hand and more spending happens. But if we have a plan on how we are going to pay down the debt, it gives some parameters. This budget provides somewhat of a plan. Congress repeatedly shirks its responsibility when it comes to the debt.

So I commend the chairman for doing something in a serious way to deal with our deficit and the debt. Maybe it is time for me to reintroduce the legislation to tie our undisciplined hands. This resolution before us represents a good start, as I said, in restoring such discipline.

There is one other thing. We have had some comments here about Social Security and I think Members are beginning to realize we do have a problem with Social Security. Like the budget, this debate on Social Security is very important to our children and our grandchildren.

I think we have to keep in mind that what the President is suggesting is not a mandate. If you are under 55 years of age or younger, you don't have to get into private accounts if you don't want to--personal accounts, if you don't want to have them. I prefer to refer to them as personal accounts because what we are doing is we are giving individual taxpayers a choice. People who are going to rely on Social Security will have a choice as to how they would like to structure their retirement account. We don't mandate them to do anything.

Do you know what. If we put in place personal accounts, I think the Members of this Senate, particularly people who are opposing personal accounts, would be surprised how many Americans would flock to it. I base my observations on what has happened with Federal employees and State employees. Try to suggest to the Federal employees that somehow or other they ought to participate in Social Security and give up their own retirement plans. It would not be very popular. They have a choice. Federal employees have a choice, as Members of Congress have a choice.

They have a choice. Do they want to put their money in the stock market? They don't invest in individual stocks. It goes into a fund that is managed, and these professional investors manage that stock fund. It goes into a bond fund and professional managers manage that. Or it goes into Treasury notes. Those are the choices Federal employees have.

Why can't ordinary Americans, everyday Americans who are out here working on Main Street, why can't they have the same choice as Federal employees? One concern I get from State employees in Colorado is: Don't put us in the Social Security system. We have our own retirement system, called RA. We have a choice, as State employees, where we want to put our money for retirement, whether we want it to go into a stock market fund or whether we want it to go into a bond market fund or whether to put it in some type of Treasury note. They have three choices. That is what I understand the President is talking about.

When given the choice of whether they want to go into Social Security or they want to go into a similar fund, what we are talking about with personal retirement accounts for Americans, there is a general rejection of that idea. Employees on the Federal level, employees on the State level, don't like that idea because they know Social Security performs so poorly, and when they are given their own choices as to how they want to invest their money for their own retirement plans, they can do a better job than the Government can do. That has been reflected in history. That has been reflected in the experiences we see throughout the States as well as at the Federal level.

Members of Congress have the same choices as Federal employees. During the Presidential campaign we heard the candidates talking about: The American people should have the same choices as Members of Congress have in retirement. We can go ahead and give them that.

I think this is a good budget. I think it tries to address our budget in a responsible way. So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing a budget. We need to pass a budget. That is the responsible thing, to get a budget passed. Then we can continue the debate. I think this is an important issue and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. I yield my time.

I thank the Senator from Montana for his response. I appreciate his clarification as far as Federal employees. But the point I would make is in the State of Colorado, our employees in the State don't pay into Social Security. I think a lot of other States do that.

If I can finish, the point I want to make is we do give choices to Federal employees in their retirement plan. We do it through the 401(k). We give choices to Members of Congress. We give choices to our State employees who do not participate in Social Security. So why can't we give choices to Americans out here on Social Security? We are not mandating them to do this. We give them that choice and give them an opportunity to do that.

In my view, by giving them an opportunity to do that, actually who you help is the disadvantaged. The people who are better income earners are able to utilize individual retirement accounts and 401(k) accounts and get the revenue back and do that.

I guess the Senator understands my point, though. And I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Stabenow amendment. It increases spending and taxes. The total amount of dollars allocated in 2002 to 2005 to the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness was $11.2 billion. The total amount spent is $6.1 billion. That means we have $5.2 billion still available. Only 55 percent first responder grant dollars have been used. Still billions of dollars remain. In the name of fiscal responsibility, I urge you to join me in voting no on the Stabenow amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding 20 minutes. As the Senator mentioned, animals have been an important part of my life. I grew up on a cattle ranch and I have dedicated my life to animals and animal diseases.

I rise today to tell my colleagues that I do not believe the policy that is now being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is risky, I do not think it is premature, and I think if we want to protect our cattlemen, we must pursue a policy of opening our borders of free trade. Colorado is one State that has historically benefited from the cattle industry and today it remains an important part of our economy.

I will respond to a few specific points that were mentioned by my colleague on the other side. I will talk briefly about the people who became ill as a result of the BSE prion. It is a form of protein, modified virus, in Europe. The diet of Europeans is markedly different than the American diet in the fact that they view brains and spinal cord tissue as a delicacy. Here in the United States and in Canada, as a part of our processing of meat, we discard our central nervous system tissue, so it does not get into the food supply. We have rigorous enforcement in the United States. Canada has rigorous enforcement. As late as February 22, we had a group of scientists go to Canada, and they reported back to us that the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada was very robust, as it is here in the United States.

But I think the most important thing we learned from the outbreak in Europe, and what we have learned with time, is that the prion, the organism that causes mad cow disease, occurs as a result of ruminant upon ruminant. By using that terminology, I mean that there are food supplements that are developed from animals, mostly ruminants, that then are fed back, either calcium or phosphorus, to the animal. When that happens that provides a vehicle for the transmission of the prion, the infectious organism. It doesn't transmit directly animal to animal by live contact or by human to animal by live contact. It is passed in the food supply when you have a ruminant supplement from another ruminant being fed.

Finally, of the three or four cases that we have in Canada, three of those actually were before the provisions were put in place by Canada and the United States to prevent the consumption of ruminant-on- ruminant feeds--except for one case. But that one case occurred very close to 1997. As a result of more rigorous efforts by both Canada and the United States, I believe beef is a good product, and I plan on eating beef. I do not hesitate for one moment talking to my colleagues about how good I think beef is and how we should not be overly concerned about the health effects of beef in our diet.

The closure of our Canadian border has cost Greeley County, CO, which is one of the largest agricultural-producing counties in the United States, alone, $250 million to $300 million over the past year from diminished economic activity due to declining production at one single meatpacking facility. This is a result of the Canadian border closure. Totally, the economic impact of the border closure throughout the United States is $3 billion. The border with Canada should be open based on sound, scientific principles that ensure the integrity and safety of the U.S. cattle food supply.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture approach to these discussions has been rational and science based. Sound science is critical because it separates fact from myth and ignores mad cow hysterics. Television pictures of seizure-stricken cows are intended to draw viewers but do not represent the truth behind the image.

Five other Senators joined me in April of last year in support of the immediate reopening of the Canadian border following these principles. Joining me on a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative were Senators Ben Nelson, Senator Campbell, Senator Murkowski, Senator Hatch, and Senator Brownback.

I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

The USDA Minimal Risk Region rule should be implemented because it is grounded in solid, sound science and will help end a situation that has wreaked havoc on beef trade for too long. It will protect the integrity of the human supply system and stabilize agricultural trade.

Canada meets the requirements of a minimal risk region, based upon a number of its actions. It has prohibited specific risk material in human food, as we do here in the United States. It placed import restrictions sufficient to minimize exposures to BSE. It has built and structured surveillance for BSE at levels to meet or exceed international guidelines, as we do here. And it has enacted a ruminant- to-ruminant feed ban. Finally, the appropriate epidemiological investigations, risk assessment, and risk mitigation measures have been imposed.

Opening the border with Canada will help restore the beef industry's ability to remain competitive in an increasingly global marketplace and protect long-term job stability in the United States.

I have a chart that reflects Canadian beef exports. If we look over here to 2003 when the mad cow disease began to impact Canada, we can see, obviously, that there was a reduction in billions of pounds of carcass weight that was exported from Canada. But here we are moving from 2004. Not all the figures are in, but they are indicating we are going to get a pretty steep climb back in exports from Canada. And based on projections for 2005, exports from Canada are going to reach a historic high, despite the fact they have had mad cow disease in Canada.

These facts come from a reputable analyst, analyzing firm based in Denver, CO, that traditionally cattlemen have relied on to analyze beef markets throughout the country.

Let's look at the chart for U.S. beef imports from Canada. Obviously, in 2003 we saw a reduction in the amount of beef imports from Canada. Again, this is a million pounds of carcass weight over time. What we see in 2004 is that the imports from Canada have exceeded an all-time high, despite the fact that we have mad cow disease.

The point is, we are importing Canadian beef at record levels. We need to change that policy because processors are moving their plants to Canada. More and more people are going into the Canadian beef business. As a result, we are at risk of losing our own market share of beef.

The Greeley Tribune published an editorial stating that the United States must open its border with Canada. The Tribune is published in Greeley, CO, Colorado's most productive agricultural county.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Many of the supporters of the Resolution of Disapproval argue that because of U.S. policies, U.S. corporations are outsourcing jobs. The border closure has allowed Canada to grow its beef industry and increase its slaughter capacity, making Canada into a global competitor. While U.S. jobs are lost because of an unfair trade policy that allows cheap Canadian meat into the United States, they are being replaced in Canada as it bolsters its beef industry. Estimates will show that Canada will have the industry capacity to replace U.S. beef by May of 2005. Supporters of this resolution support the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.

During the past several years, Canada's annual cattle slaughter has been 3.2 to 3.3 million head. This is equivalent to about 65,000 head of cattle slaughtered per week. In 2004, Canadian slaughter was about 30 percent larger than during 2003. In 2005, Canadian cattle slaughter capacity is expected to

increase to about 95,000 head per week. Canada is expanding available slaughter capacity in the country so it can be less reliant on the U.S. market to process animals. Reliance on the U.S. market will continue, but Canada will compete effectively against the United States in the world marketplace.

According to the Canadian Meat Council, since May 2003, the Canadian beef industry has increased its daily beef capacity by more than 30 percent. The additional Canadian slaughter capacity that is available, or planned, will allow the Canadian beef industry to increase cattle slaughter totals by about 25 percent from 2004 to 2007.

Thanks to the border closure, thousands of U.S. workers have been laid off or have had their operations suspended. In Greeley, CO, located in the State's largest agricultural county, nearly 1,000 workers lost their jobs thanks to the closure.

Weekly cattle harvests in Canada are up 14 percent, from 72,000 to 82,000 over the past year, and are expected to rise to 95,000 per week by mid-2005, a 25-percent increase over pre-BSE levels. The jobs that go with that increased production probably will never return to the United States.

Prior to May of 2003, cattle imports from Canada accounted for approximately 4 percent of the U.S. production capacity. A number of these animals were also a part of the U.S.-Canadian Northwest Cattle Feeder Initiative. By allowing them to increase production capacity, we threaten U.S. production and marketing.

The average number of imported Canadian cattle for all purposes, between 1970 and 2003, is 795,563 head per year. The highest level of cattle imports was 1.68 million in 2002, and the lowest was 245,000 in 1986. The Minimal Risk Region rule requires animals to be imported exclusively for slaughter. Dairy, stocker, or other livestock segments are prohibited from importing animals for breeding or other purposes.

Frankly, the Canadian border is already open. Boxed beef is coming across the border from Canada in record numbers, numbers higher than they were before BSE was discovered in Canada, creating a public policy windfall for those companies with processing facilities in Canada while punishing those in the United States. U.S. beef imports from Canada set a record in 2004, approaching 1.2 billion pounds, a 12-percent increase over 2002 levels. During 2005, beef imports from Canada are expected to total 1.2 to 1.3 billion pounds.

Increased Canadian packing capacity is expected to increase beef production to more than 3.7 billion pounds in 2005 and exceed 4 billion pounds in 2007.

The unfair public policy is best illustrated in the following example. Canadian packers can buy a cow for about $17 per hundredweight and sell the processing-grade beef for about $123. He can also buy a fed steer or heifer at about $67 per hundredweight and sell the meat for about $132.

In the United States a cow will cost a packer about $55 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $125. The fed steer or heifer would cost about $85 per hundredweight, and the beef would sell for about $135.

This imbalance has led, in part, to the layoff of thousands of people in the processing industry across our Nation. Eventually it will affect the cattlemen because our markets will be less available for those who have live fat cattle.

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has stated there is no body of scientific evidence indicating there is any potential risk to the American consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 months to enter the U.S. marketplace destined for fattening or slaughter.

I have picked up, as a result of my colleague from North Dakota mentioning the Colorado cattlemen's position--I do have a list of the requirements they are requiring. I have read down through those, and those provisions are being met in the United States, and they are being met in Canada. We have just made a call to the National Cattlemen's Association, and they have indicated to us that they support the position of opposing this resolution. So they understand that the rules and regulations that are being proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture do protect the American consumer. They do protect, in the long run, the future of the cattle industry.

I just wanted to call that to the attention of the Members here, and I also want to again refer to my State of Colorado. There are a lot of States that have their economies built upon beef. In Colorado, on exports in general we have about $154 million in trade. We export $97 million. Most of that is in the beef side. We have $51 million of beef that is exported. We import about $97 million. Some of it is live cattle, but a good percentage of it is breads and pastries and cakes and vegetables.

If we do not address this problem, we are going to have a profound impact, in a negative way, on the Colorado beef industry and, throughout the country.

Canada is one of our most important trading partners. Agriculture is a fundamental component of U.S. trade. If we cannot rationally restore the beef and cattle trade with our most important trading partner, I ask the question: How will we ever restore trade on a global scale?

Some 20 Members of the Senate have joined me in sending a letter to the Japanese Ambassador asking him to reduce his import restrictions on beef from the United States. If we don't--and the other countries throughout the world are watching--what we are doing here?

If we don't use good science and if we don't use good sound policy, it is going to have a prolonged impact on our trade policies throughout the world, particularly as it applies to the livestock industry.

From what I understand, USDA appears to support the policies of the World Health Trade Organization. In fact, I think it exceeds what is recommended by the World Health Organization. I think Canada has the same policies, and I think they exceed what is required by the World Health Organization. We are setting the standard for the world.

I feel comfortable in having beef for dinner. When I am asked the question, What's for dinner? I am not going to hesitate to say beef, because I think we have a quality product in this country. I think what is happening in Canada is comparable to what is happening in the United States. I think they are working hard to bring the regulations and rules into compliance with what we have here.

We received a report a week or so ago from a group of scientists who visited Canada, saying they have a robust effort in their rules and regulations, just as we have a robust effort in this country.

Again, when asked the question, What is for dinner? my answer is beef.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding some time to me so I can respond to a number of issues that have been brought up.

First of all, I would like to say that the information we have on the food contents is older information. The newest information we have is from a group of scientists that went to Canada to check on their rules and regulations, on their enforcement. These scientists reported back to us on about February 22 of this year, saying that the rules and regulations are being enforced robustly in Canada. That includes the ruminant on ruminant food regulation where you prevent the consumption of ruminant byproducts by other ruminants. I have confidence in these trained scientists who know what they are looking for and have given us the most recent report on what is happening as far as the food on food regulation.

I would also like to go over some of the positions by the Colorado Cattlemen Association as well as the National Beef Association. They support a minimal-risk region classification, and they support it on the following conditions:

No beef or beef products will be imported into the U.S. from cattle over 30 months of age. That is in place.

All imported feeder cattle must be harvested previous to 30 months of age, and the verification processes must be implemented to track and validate harvest age and location. They are doing that with earmarkings as well as brands.

All cattle direct to harvest must be 30 months of age or younger. That is being done. It is a provision in the rules and regulations.

Minimal-risk regions must meet all processing techniques and regulations relating to BSE as set out by the U.S. That is what those scientists were reporting to us as of the 22nd of February.

Adherence and implementation of a U.S. equivalent ruminant to ruminant feed ban. That is a requirement. That is what the scientists report back, that they are complying with the rules and regulations, and we should not have a concern about it.

And then:

The Colorado Cattlemen's Association is committed to

normalizing global trade based on [good] science that

protects the health of the beef industry.

And they express that:

Once our concerns have been adequately addressed, CCA will

reconsider our position on opening the Canadian border.

The Colorado Cattlemen Association currently supports the minimal- risk region rules that have been put out by the Ag, and the Colorado Farm Bureau currently supports the Canadian reopening. The Colorado Livestock Association supports the reopening, and the National Cattlemen's Association, which is headquartered in Colorado, supports the Department of Agriculture's provision on minimal risk.

Mr. President, since the floor manager is not here, I yield myself 5 minutes to respond further.

Mr. President, I want to emphasize again how very important it is that we proceed on this matter using good scientific evidence. I appreciate the statement that was made by the Senator from Montana. He is right in many regards that we need to be sure that we use good science. I feel good about the enforcement of the rules and regulations based on the visit by scientists who just reported back in February. It is the most recent report that we have on the enforcement of the rules and regulations in Canada. They are very competent scientists, very dedicated scientists. And what they reported back to us is valid.

From a trade standpoint, we need to do something for our cattlemen. I believe strongly that what we need to do for the cattleman is get the borders opened because we are importing Canadian beef today. It is boxed beef. The reason that is coming in is because our plants can't economically make it. They are having to pay high prices for beef. They only have a limited supply of beef, and so they are not up to capacity. In the meantime, the processing plants, the beef that they are getting is lower cost beef. And then they are putting that on the world market. They are importing that into the United States.

The result is that we see an expansion of the beef industry in Canada. They have got plans to build more processing plants. They are in the process right now of building more processing plants.

That means there are going to be more people raising cattle in Canada. That means if our processors here don't make it like the one in Colorado, we

lose our local markets. We lose an opportunity for our cattlemen to readily get their beef to market. That costs in shrinkage and extra transportation costs, particularly when we look at the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel. So this is a problem that needs to be resolved quickly.

We need to move forward with the guidelines that were laid out. By the way, the principles laid out in the guidelines have been used by the cattle industry in this country to control livestock disease, which also affects humans. The principles are laid out here, things like brucellosis. We know in cattle country what that is all about. We have States classified as brucellosis-free, and there are those having problems with that. The movement of cattle back and forth begins with addressing brucellosis in those States. Using those principles, we have been able to reduce the incidence of brucellosis in this country. It works. They are the same principles we are using on BSE and asking for Canada and the world organizations to apply, where we take minimal-risk countries, such as Canada and the United States, and apply those provisions in a good, scientific way.

That is only part of it. The other part is that during the process you don't increase the risk by handling the processes improperly. No. 1, you don't want to circulate the food and feed it back to the cows, the byproducts. That is a policy that has been adopted here and in Canada, and it is something we have learned since the outbreak in the European Community.

So, again, I also compliment Secretary of Agriculture Johanns for his efforts in trying to protect the beef industry and to use good science. He comes from Nebraska. That is a big beef State, as are many of the other States. But the important thing is to recognize that free trade is a benefit of agriculture. It has benefited particularly the beef industry. We want to make sure we get the border open, and we need to use good science in opening it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, questions were raised earlier about the accuracy of dentition; in other words, looking at the eruption of teeth to identify when the animal is 30 months old. That is pretty exact science. It is very reliable; not to say maybe one or two cows will slip through that are off a month or two. That is why the 30-month period was selected, because this is a disease of slow onset, and when they are under 30 months, we ordinarily do not have to worry about them.

Let us suppose somebody has some concerns about an animal that may be infected with BSE coming across a border. What happens is there are certain rules and regulations where one transfers from Canadian regulation over to American regulation. We only have certain points of entry into the United States, and when that animal comes into the United States, it is very adequately marked. They have ear tags and they are branded so that if something should happen to the ear tags, they still have the brand on the animal.

The only thing that can happen to that animal is it moves into an approved feedlot, it is isolated in that feedlot, for the purpose of slaughter. So that animal then is processed for slaughter. In the processing procedure, all of the central nervous system tissue--the brain, spinal cord--is discarded. It is not used for consumption. If there is a temperature on that animal, it is not slaughtered.

So when one takes into consideration the final steps of the process, they can understand I do not hesitate to suggest that people ought to eat beef. Our beef is safe and the beef processed in this country is safe.

I have a letter dated March 3. It was sent to me and is from Jim McAdams, president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He states flatly that this resolution should be opposed for the following reasons, and he gives six reasons. He says this resolution should be opposed and in its place would urge the Senate to support an effort to open the Japanese, South Korean, and additional markets for U.S. cattle producers.

I thank those 19 Senators who joined me in writing a letter to the Japanese Ambassador to open their markets to American beef.

Mr. McAdams states that the failure to open these markets has cost the U.S. cattle producers $175 per head and a cumulative loss of nearly $5 billion in income. We need the full attention of the Senate to act on this issue, not to act to block science-based trade policies.

Then No. 2 states:

The resolution supports blocking a science and risk-based

analysis and phasing in opening of the Canadian borders. This

action does meet the real needs of U.S. cattle producers, as

it will give excuses for other countries to block our

exports.

Point No. 3 in the letter opposing the resolution:

The resolution should be opposed and in its place, we urge

the Senate to support action to ensure the Canadian

government eliminates their blue tongue and anaplasmosis

trade barriers for all classes of U.S. cattle exports to

Canada.

Think about that.

The resolution will allow maintaining the status quo with

Canada further accelerating the shift of the packing,

processing capacity, and jobs from the U.S. to Canada, and

hurting U.S. cattle producers.

The resolution ignores the fact that beef is safe. Analysis

of the reports by industry and government clearly indicate

that Canada, just like the U.S., has taken the necessary

steps to ensure that their beef is safe. This

resolution perpetuates fear mongering over nonexistent safety

concerns and misrepresents well-documented science doing a

disservice to the cattle industry and U.S. consumers.

The USDA has already addressed prior producer concerns of

this rule, to the extent that USDA has withdrawn the section

of the final rule regarding beef from animals over thirty

months.

We urge you to vote NO on this resolution.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from North Carolina in expressing my condolences to the family, and express how much I respected Tillie Fowler.

I had an opportunity to say hello to her a little over a week ago. She was so happy and vibrant. Her sudden passing was very much a shock to me. It reminds all of us just how fragile life can be.

I had an opportunity to get to know Tillie Fowler when I served in the U.S. House of Representatives with her. She was a wonderful person and highly respected in the House of Representatives. I do not recall one person in the whole body, whether they opposed or supported her, who had cross words to say to Tillie Fowler. She was always well prepared, always courteous, and always somebody you admired when you served with her and got to know her.

I worked closely with her on a number of defense issues because that was her life's love. I had a chance to get to know her more closely when we had an issue in Colorado with the Air Force Academy. As you may recall, when we set up a commission, which she chaired, it was called the Fowler Commission.

I reflect on the type of respect she garnered from everybody who was around her. When we put her on that commission, we knew she would do a good job. We named the commission after her because of the respect we had for her. It was a difficult task. She did it with honor. She was very hard working and pursued it vigorously. She did a great job.

I join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to the family, and express how much we all loved her. We will miss her. May God bless.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are in Republican- allocated time on morning business.

Mr. President, for the last 4 years, the United States has been locked in combat with the forces of terror. These extremists do not understand freedom and are trying even to this very day to spread their message of hate and oppression. America did not fire the first shot. Those killed on September 11 were innocent and did not deserve to die. They should be with us today. The forces of terror remain determined to defeat our Nation. They believe the United States will abandon Iraq and Afghanistan. They question our will to fight. They doubt our courage and our fortitude. They are wrong.

Our Nation has stepped up to fight and has never looked back. Under President Bush's leadership, our country has taken the battle to the enemy. As the President said in his State of the Union Address:

Our country is still the target of terrorists who want to

kill many and intimidate us all,

and we will stay on the offensive against them until the

fight is won.

In less than 3 months after September 11, United States and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban regime, a brutal theocracy shielding al- Qaida and other terrorists. A year after September 11, the President challenged the United Nations to confront another protector of terror, Saddam Hussein. This cruel dictator threatened his neighbors, his people, and our country with his support for terror and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. He lied, cajoled, intimidated, and murdered. Our Nation did not stop with Afghanistan and Iraq. Our forces have sought out the enemy, cut off his funding resources, and disrupted his plans. We have captured thousands of terrorists, destroyed their networks, and prevented new attacks. There have been many successes in this war, and we should be encouraged and strengthened by our progress.

Our men and women in our Armed Forces are the real heroes in this conflict. They have fought and sacrificed for our country. Tragically, some have paid the ultimate price. Today nearly 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed in hotspots around the world. They continue to take the fight to the enemy and defeat him wherever he appears. Our men and women in uniform are determined and ready.

I visited our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have seen with my own eyes their commitment and determination. It is phenomenal. They believe in what they are doing. They know they are making a difference. I am reminded of those who have already sacrificed much but yet have not given up and remain committed to their duty. Soldiers such as Army CPT David Roselle have been an inspiration to me and many other Coloradans. While on patrol last year in Iraq, Captain Roselle lost a leg when an antitank mine went off nearby. After several surgeries and intense physical therapy, Captain Roselle rebuilt and retrained his muscles. He conducted 4-hour sessions of daily exercise, including mountain biking, weight lifting, swimming, and climbing. Six months after his last surgery, Captain Roselle was skiing down the slopes of the Colorado Rockies.

But the story does not end there. Now just over a year later, Captain Roselle is still in the Army, and commands the headquarters company of the 3rd Army Cavalry and is preparing to deploy with the unit this spring. It is Captain Roselle's relentlessness, his call to duty, and his determination to defend our great Nation that tells me that our forces are strong and victory remains the only option.

Our men and women deployed in combat are not the only heroes. I cannot fully express my admiration for the families of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. For months at a time, military families are asked to hold everything together and support their loved ones overseas. They have done this and have done it with pride.

Organizations such as Colorado's Home Front Heroes have also stepped up and supported our troops. Home Front Heroes has provided family support when none was available and sent thousands of care packages to our soldiers deployed overseas. The organization led the drive to get the State of Colorado to designate March 29 Support Our Troops Day. And in one case, Home Front Heroes actually paid for family members to travel to Germany to visit their wounded loved ones.

I see it all over Colorado. There is a steely determination to see the global war on terrorism completed and victory achieved. That is why it is more important than ever for Congress to do its part.

This week the Senate will receive the President's request for supplemental appropriations. This money is critical to continuing the war on terror and ensuring our troops have the necessary equipment, training, and information to succeed on the battlefield. While some may argue that this money should be included in the budget or that certain items are not emergencies, none of us would argue that the money is not needed. We know our troops need improved protection. Our chief of staff for the Army has testified that much of the Army's equipment is worn down and should be replaced. We owe it to our military families to provide the increased death gratuity.

As we consider this important appropriation, let us remember our successes so far. Fifty million people in Afghanistan and Iraq have tasted freedom and for most were able to cast a vote for the first time. Cities are being rebuilt and market economies are being developed. Terror networks have collapsed and funding for these networks is drying up. The war is not over, but we are making a difference. Congress must do its part. Now is the time for Congress to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand now we are on the Republican time.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about Social Security and the challenges that face this Congress in order to save Social Security for future generations.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, the United States of America was a very different place than it is now. By looking at this chart, which shows an example of a family in 1935 and an example of a family in the year 2005, you can see that a lot has changed.

Now, I ask my colleagues to keep this picture in mind, taken 70 years ago, as we go through the debate on how to save Social Security.

A lot has changed since 1935. Social Security was a great deal for the Government in 1935. Workers would pay the Government a portion of every paycheck. The Government would keep these funds and could use them to pay other Government liabilities. It was unlikely that many of the beneficiaries would reach retirement age.

From the employees' standpoint, in 1935, Social Security was a big gamble. Employees would be required to participate in the program, contributing a percentage of their income for their entire adult working life. This program would be a retirement safety net, but would only yield a small percentage rate of return.

The employee could not access it or use it for any other reason. If they happened to die prior to receiving the benefits, their family could not inherit the account. And even if they were diagnosed with an expensive terminal illness, they could not draw on the Social Security account to cover the costs.

Times have changed in ways far beyond the hair style, the fashion, and the entertainment that is reflected on this chart. Demographics have radically shifted, necessitating that we update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century.

Life expectancy has changed dramatically over the past 70 years. In 1935 the average person lived to be 63 versus 77 years of age in 2004. This difference becomes even more dramatic when we look at the differences between men as compared to women. Looking through the Social Security lens in 1935, this was excellent for the system's financial stability. Men paid into the system but because of life expectancy generally did not live long enough to receive benefits. While women generally lived longer than men, in 1935 the few women who did participate in the workforce still did not generally receive many benefits based on life expectancy.

As this next chart shows, an American who turns 65 can expect to live longer now than they did in the past.

Instead of living an additional decade, seniors can now expect to live about 17 more years. In 2040, when Social Security is nearly bankrupt, senior citizens can expect to live even more additional years. For example, a woman who turns 65 in that year is expected to live another 21 years. Without permanent reform, this woman will not be able to depend on Social Security for her retirement. We need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security so she can have that security for the remaining years of her life.

This chart further shows how elderly Americans are rapidly becoming a larger percentage of the country. As Americans are living longer, they are increasing in number and rapidly becoming a larger percentage of the population. For example, in 1950, less than 10 percent of Americans were age 65 and older. Within a decade, seniors will make up 15 percent of the population, and in 25 years, seniors will comprise more than 20 percent of the population. We can expect that percentage to continue to grow.

In 1935, when the Social Security system was created, the Government did not need to prepare for the possibility of a depleted system. Seniors made up a very small percentage of the population because most people who were owed benefits simply never reached retirement age. As seniors become a larger portion of our population, we need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century.

Workforce distribution, as you can imagine, has also changed dramatically over the past 70 years. One of the more remarkable characteristics in the past century was the increase of women in the workplace. In 1935, approximately 24 percent of women worked outside the home and generally in a very limited number of professions, such as nursing and teaching or domestic service. Today, slightly less than 60 percent of women work outside the home in a variety of professions. Women make up 46.5 percent of the workforce today versus approximately 23 percent in 1935.

In 1935, when women did not usually work outside the home, they also did not pay into the Social Security system as men did. Even though there are now more people paying into the system as they retire, there will be a greater number of people drawing on the system a longer period of time.

As it was structured in 1935, the Social Security system was not designed to support elderly people for a long retirement such as we enjoy today. As female workforce participants continue to retire and draw benefits, we need to update and modernize the system in order to save Social Security for the 21st century.

As we all know, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, meaning current retiree benefits are paid with existing employee payroll taxes. As times change, the payroll tax rate has been increased a number of times in an effort to keep up with the demographic changes. Referring to this next chart, you can see that payroll taxes have increased dramatically over the past 70 years. They were a lot less when the Social Security system was enacted. Workers were taxed only 2 percent, and that was only on the first $3,000 of their income; whereas today workers are taxed 12.4 percent, and on the first $90,000 of income for Social Security. Americans pay a significant amount of their money toward Social Security. This amount is still not enough to compensate for an aging population

that may spend more than 15 or 20 years in retirement drawing benefits from a system that was never designed to support them for that length of time.

Unless we plan to continue the payroll tax hikes of the past, which is not a prospect I would support, we need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century.

As I mentioned, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, with current workers paying taxes to support current benefits for retirees. This means there must be enough workers paying taxes to provide for retirees. The ratio of workers to retirees has been steadily declining, and this is possibly the most telling comparison showing the need for reform.

As this next chart shows, in 1945, there were 42 workers paying taxes for every single person receiving benefits. In 2005, 3.3 workers pay for each beneficiary, and soon there will be two workers paying for every single person receiving benefits.

As the baby boomers retire, the workforce cannot support the aging population. Since we have such a large number of retired citizens, the Social Security system will be depleted in the not so distant future. We need to update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century.

Realities have changed in many different ways since Social Security was created in 1935. People live longer. Seniors make up a larger percentage of the population. Women make up more of the workforce, and the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is falling. Unless Congress faces up to these realities, the long-term outlook for Social Security is very bleak.

In conclusion, let me point to my last chart, which shows that in 2018, Social Security costs will permanently exceed revenues, as the lines cross at this point. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like us to believe that doing nothing is the best course of action. I happen to believe differently. I stress to my colleagues that the cost of doing nothing is a serious detriment to the Social Security system for future generations. Time is running out. This problem will not go away. This Congress, this year, we must update and modernize the system to save Social Security for the 21st century.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to William ``Bill'' Sinclair. Bill is a cum laude alumnus of St. Martins College in Olympia, WA and he has done graduate work in Finance and Administration at Emory University in Atlanta. Bill is currently self- employed as a consultant in fundraising for churches and other nonprofit corporations in the western United States. Throughout his life, Bill has given his time generously to worthy causes, dedicated to the betterment of our community and nation.

Bill has been heavily involved in the Colorado Springs community. He is the past president of Downtown Rotary Club. He is a 1982 graduate of Citizens' Goals for Colorado Springs Leadership Training. He served on the Board of Directors of CHINS-UP from 1983 to 1987. In 1987 the El Paso County Commissioners appointed him to the Board of Directors of the Pikes Peak Center, where he served until 1993 and was chairman of the board. He is past president of the board of directors of the Pioneers Museum Foundation and past president of the Pikes Peak Chapter of the Retired Officers Association.

Bill has been active in the political arena since retiring from the military. He is a graduate of the Republican Leadership Program, class of 1990. Bill is also a member of the El Paso County Republican Men's Club, and is a graduate of the Colorado Republican Campaign School. He was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002. Term limits is the reason he isn't running again however, he isn't about to sit still and do nothing. The governor recently appointed him to the State Board of Veterans Affairs. As a member of Veterans Affairs his goal is to create a veterans cemetery in El Paso County.

Mr. Sinclair has lived in Colorado Springs, CO, for 30 years. He and his family moved there upon retiring from the United States Air Force as a colonel. He is a command pilot and a combat veteran of three wars--World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Bill and his wife, Barbara have two children where they attended Colorado Springs schools and Colorado universities. Bill and Barbara have five wonderful grandchildren and spend as much time with them as they possibly can.

It is not often that we are able to pay adequate tribute to our Nation's community leaders. I truly believe that Bill Sinclair is an exemplary citizen and worthy of our thanks.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 and take a moment to explain why this legislation is critical to our national security.

Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of soldiers at Fort Carson have trained in relative isolation. With few current residents nearby, the Army has been using Fort Carson's ranges for large-scale training exercises, weapons testing and live fire. This training often occurs at night, a vital capability given the Army's preference to conduct military operations in darkness.

The 140,000 acre Army installation and training facility was once miles from Colorado Springs and Pueblo. As both cities grow closer to the base's fence line, Fort Carson is facing constraints on its training flexibility, impacting military readiness. The issue of training at the post is particularly relevant considering nearly 15,000 soldiers based at Fort Carson have been deployed or are currently employed to Iraq.

The situation is not getting better. Over the last two decades, real estate and industrial development along Colorado's front range has exploded. Hundreds of thousands of people have moved to the Centennial State and settled along the 1-25 corridor. I remember the days when it was possible to drive for miles along the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains and encounter few if any residential areas. Today, there seems to be development all along Colorado's front range.

Yet, military readiness at the post is not the only thing at risk. The post's fragile prairie habitat is also in danger. Fort Carson has always prided itself on its conservation of the public trust. Mountain Post has a special office just to ensure environmental compliance and protect the post's biodiversity. The mountain plover, the black-tailed prairie dog, the Arkansas River feverfew, and the Pueblo goldenweed are among the many rare species protected at Fort Carson.

Over the last 3 years Fort Carson has partnered with the Nature Conservancy on a unique plan to address the rising encroachment concerns. This forward-thinking plan calls for the purchase of conservation easements of lands south and southeast of the base for a small number of willing sellers.

If implemented, I believe the plan will preserve the military utility of key Fort Carson training areas while conserving important short grass prairie at a landscape scale, along with the ranching community that sustains it. As much as 82,000 acres of uninhibited, precious prairie would be protected, including four globally rare plant species.

The Army fully supports this plan and has consistently described it as its number one priority under the service's Compatible Use Buffer program. This plan also enjoys widespread support from the local community, including the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce. The Colorado Department of Transportation, the Great Outdoors of Colorado, and the Nature Conservancy all support the plan as well.

I be1ieve we need to act now to protect unique training facilities like those at Fort Carson before it is too late. This program makes sense for the soldiers training at Fort Carson who require an isolated environment to conduct their maneuvers. This program makes sense for the environment.

This plan makes too much sense for Congress to pass up. That is why I am introducing the Fort Carson Conservation Act. I am pleased that Congressman Joel Hefley is introducing this landmark legislation in the House of Representatives today as well.

The Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 would require the Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot project that creates a buffer zone out of the property bordering Fort Carson. The objective of this pilot would be to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing conservation easements and leases to limit enroachment and preserve the environment.

Under the pilot project, the Secretary of the Army would enter into agreements with one or more willing sellers to purchase conservation easements. These agreements would be founded on the authority already provided in section 2684a of title 10 of the United States Code. The pilot project would expire when either the project is completed or within 5 years.

From my perspective, this pilot project is only the beginning. By working closely with the Army and the other military services, the Nature Conservancy has planted the seed for the expansion of this project. I strongly support the Conservancy's effort and believe that key military installations like Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Fort Huachuca, Fort Stewart, and Eglin Air Force Base will soon be in a position to benefit from this proactive conservation effort.

Mr. President, it is a little known secret that the Department of Defense is one of the best stewards of our environment. Almost 350 endangered and threatened species live on military bases across the country--that is more than are found on land managed by the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In an era of rapid growth and urban development, military training areas have become, in many respects, the last refuge for many endangered species.

Creating natural buffer zones that protect fragile habitat and ensure our military readiness is a win-win proposal. It is the right thing to do for the environment. It is the right thing to do for our Nation's Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support the Fort Carson Conservation Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 and take a moment to explain why this legislation is critical to our national security.

Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of soldiers at Fort Carson have trained in relative isolation. With few current residents nearby, the Army has been using Fort Carson's ranges for large-scale training exercises, weapons testing and live fire. This training often occurs at night, a vital capability given the Army's preference to conduct military operations in darkness.

The 140,000 acre Army installation and training facility was once miles from Colorado Springs and Pueblo. As both cities grow closer to the base's fence line, Fort Carson is facing constraints on its training flexibility, impacting military readiness. The issue of training at the post is particularly relevant considering nearly 15,000 soldiers based at Fort Carson have been deployed or are currently employed to Iraq.

The situation is not getting better. Over the last two decades, real estate and industrial development along Colorado's front range has exploded. Hundreds of thousands of people have moved to the Centennial State and settled along the 1-25 corridor. I remember the days when it was possible to drive for miles along the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains and encounter few if any residential areas. Today, there seems to be development all along Colorado's front range.

Yet, military readiness at the post is not the only thing at risk. The post's fragile prairie habitat is also in danger. Fort Carson has always prided itself on its conservation of the public trust. Mountain Post has a special office just to ensure environmental compliance and protect the post's biodiversity. The mountain plover, the black-tailed prairie dog, the Arkansas River feverfew, and the Pueblo goldenweed are among the many rare species protected at Fort Carson.

Over the last 3 years Fort Carson has partnered with the Nature Conservancy on a unique plan to address the rising encroachment concerns. This forward-thinking plan calls for the purchase of conservation easements of lands south and southeast of the base for a small number of willing sellers.

If implemented, I believe the plan will preserve the military utility of key Fort Carson training areas while conserving important short grass prairie at a landscape scale, along with the ranching community that sustains it. As much as 82,000 acres of uninhibited, precious prairie would be protected, including four globally rare plant species.

The Army fully supports this plan and has consistently described it as its number one priority under the service's Compatible Use Buffer program. This plan also enjoys widespread support from the local community, including the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce. The Colorado Department of Transportation, the Great Outdoors of Colorado, and the Nature Conservancy all support the plan as well.

I be1ieve we need to act now to protect unique training facilities like those at Fort Carson before it is too late. This program makes sense for the soldiers training at Fort Carson who require an isolated environment to conduct their maneuvers. This program makes sense for the environment.

This plan makes too much sense for Congress to pass up. That is why I am introducing the Fort Carson Conservation Act. I am pleased that Congressman Joel Hefley is introducing this landmark legislation in the House of Representatives today as well.

The Fort Carson Conservation Act of 2005 would require the Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot project that creates a buffer zone out of the property bordering Fort Carson. The objective of this pilot would be to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing conservation easements and leases to limit enroachment and preserve the environment.

Under the pilot project, the Secretary of the Army would enter into agreements with one or more willing sellers to purchase conservation easements. These agreements would be founded on the authority already provided in section 2684a of title 10 of the United States Code. The pilot project would expire when either the project is completed or within 5 years.

From my perspective, this pilot project is only the beginning. By working closely with the Army and the other military services, the Nature Conservancy has planted the seed for the expansion of this project. I strongly support the Conservancy's effort and believe that key military installations like Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Fort Huachuca, Fort Stewart, and Eglin Air Force Base will soon be in a position to benefit from this proactive conservation effort.

Mr. President, it is a little known secret that the Department of Defense is one of the best stewards of our environment. Almost 350 endangered and threatened species live on military bases across the country--that is more than are found on land managed by the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In an era of rapid growth and urban development, military training areas have become, in many respects, the last refuge for many endangered species.

Creating natural buffer zones that protect fragile habitat and ensure our military readiness is a win-win proposal. It is the right thing to do for the environment. It is the right thing to do for our Nation's Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support the Fort Carson Conservation Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter.

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

Madam President, first, I would like to say straight out that I thought the President gave a great speech yesterday. I thought it

was forward looking, positive, and I think he issued a challenge to Members of Congress. It is a challenge we should face up front.

I rise today to talk about the President's State of the Union Address. The President last night reminded us of our freedom and liberty, our personal responsibilities, and solemn obligations. Freedom and liberty--no two words have given more to those blessed by them and damned more those who have taken them away.

The President's address reminded us that the march of freedom continues throughout the world. The success of the elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and the Ukraine clearly demonstrate a desire for liberty and democracy, a desire that was revealed to the world this week by an ink-stained finger, an understated expression of mankind's inalienable right.

Tyranny has no place in the world. We must oppose it with great determination and diligence wherever it appears. The election in Iraq in particular showed that people are willing to risk their lives to bear the privilege of freedom and the mark of democracy.

Recent success does not mean our obligations are fulfilled. As the President articulated, our Nation must continue to root out tyranny wherever it resides. We must oppose extremism, whether it be religious or ideological. We must assist those who are in need, those who live in desperate poverty, and those who are suffering from deplorable disease and epidemic.

Sadly, freedom comes at great expense. We have witnessed the cost of liberty, first at the birth of our Nation and later at the salvation of our Union. Today we see the price of liberty as freedom-fearing terrorists lash out against the builders of democracy.

The sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has been great. I cannot fully express my admiration and respect for those willing to serve our Nation, protect our country, and defeat those seeking the return of oppression. Their commitment to freedom is an inspiration to me, to the people of Colorado, and to the Nation. To these men and women, we owe our solemn obligation, our pledge to not waste the blessings their sacrifice has bestowed.

The President also spoke of the future, our obligations to elderly generations, and the duties owed to our youngest children. The President has chosen reality over popularity and will address the growing threat of insolvency, ensuring stability for all Americans.

Those resistant to the reality of a losing system claim that Social Security is not broken. They want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend the looming bankruptcy will go away. But the reality is this: In three short years, the baby boomers will be eligible for Social Security. At that point, the balance in the Social Security trust fund will begin its permanent decline. Even if President Bush were to sign the necessary reforms into law this year, it would most likely take at least a couple years to implement. If we do not act, we will shortchange the American people. I believe, that the time to act is now.

Social Security was created in 1935 under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. At that time, the average life expectancy was 63 years of age, most women did not work outside the home, most adult males did not live to reach retirement age, and payroll taxes were only 2 percent on the first $3,000 of income.

Today the average life expectancy is 77 years, men and women work outside the home, both are likely to reach retirement age, and the payroll taxes are 12.4 percent on the first $90,000 of income. The American people deserve a system that has been modernized to reflect 21st Century realities.

The President is not using scare tactics--Social Security is safe for today's seniors. Let me repeat that. Social Security is safe for today's seniors. But it is in serious jeopardy for our children and our grandchildren. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system with today's workers paying to support today's retirees. But each year there are more retirees receiving benefits and fewer workers to support them. In the 1950s, there were about 16 workers for every beneficiary. Today there are about three workers for every retiree, and eventually, there will be only two. Social Security's source of income is rapidly disappearing. If the program continues under current law, younger workers will face a 26-percent cut in benefits when they retire. Congress must act now to save this valuable program for future generations.

In the 1990s, President Clinton advocated reforming Social Security. In his 1999 State of the Union Address, President Clinton stated:

First, and above all, we must save Social Security for the

21st century.

At the time, Democrats wholeheartedly agreed. The current Democratic leader said on Fox News Sunday on February 14, 1999:

Most of us have no problems with taking a small amount of

Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private

sector.

Many other Democrats agreed. The current Democratic whip said:

Due to the increasing number of baby boomers reaching

retirement age, Social Security will be unable to pay out

full benefits. . . . But the sooner Congress acts to avert

this crisis, the easier and less painful it will be.

But Democrats are now trying to convince Americans there is not a problem, that reform is not necessary, and this simply is not true.

I worked with President Clinton and Senate Democrats to try to reform the Social Security system in the 1990s. I am now pledging to work with President Bush in making sure the American people have a long-term secure Social Security system. Social Security reform is a bipartisan issue.

Some groups oppose the President's push to reform Social Security by claiming that personal retirement accounts are not a necessary addition to the Social Security system. One such group is the American Association of Retired Persons, commonly referred to as the AARP. On January 3, 2005, they announced they were beginning an advertising campaign in 59 newspapers across the country, and these advertisements are intended to warn the public that basing the Social Security Program on private investments poses serious risks. I would agree with the AARP if this were, in fact, true. However, to my knowledge, that proposal has never been on the table. Rather, the President has discussed adding the option for younger workers to build a nest egg in a personal account.

The AARP offers its employees a generous benefits package, including a pension and 401(k) plan similar to the very option they now oppose. Many other employers offer these plans to their employees as well. How can it be that personal retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s, are good enough for the AARP, Members of Congress, and a good portion of the country, but, according to the AARP and the Democrats, they are not good enough for all Americans?

Some reform opponents have suggested that simply raising or eliminating the taxable income cap of $90,000 will fix the problem completely. By doing this, we would only postpone Social Security trust fund deficits by 6 years, and this is why: Under the current structure, the more you pay into Social Security, the more you get back upon retirement.

President Bush has said that benefits for current beneficiaries are not to be cut or are in any way at risk. The President would like to offer the option, not requirement, for workers to invest a portion of their own paycheck into a personal retirement account. This account would travel with workers from job to job as opposed to a 401(k) plan that is with one single employer.

It is possible that this personal account could even be passed on to future generations. This option would benefit all Americans, and give them more choices for their retirement. If reforms take place soon, retirees could begin retirement with a nest egg far larger than what Social Security can offer. It would be irresponsible for any elected official, regardless of party, to oppose reform.

As we head into this debate, I hope that everyone will enter with an open mind in forging new ideas on how to solve this very pressing problem. Social Security cannot be fixed with minor alterations. Social Security is a valuable, successful program from which our country's retired citizens benefit. However, unless Congress fulfills its duty and obligations to protect its solvency, it will not be around for my children's retirement--or yours.

Addressing Social Security is not divisive--it is responsible.

The 109th Congress will be long on debate, but we must all work together to make sure that it is also filled with accomplishments for the American people. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and the House as we pursue a policy of hope and empowerment.

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

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

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today in support of the President's nominee for Attorney General, Judge Alberto R. Gonzales. Judge Gonzales is an honorable man who will bring great integrity to the office of Attorney General. Few nominees have come before this body who have demonstrated the intelligence, commitment, and virtue of Judge Alberto Gonzales.

The biography of Judge Alberto Gonzales reads like a blueprint of the true American success story. He was born August 4, 1955 in San Antonio, TX. The second of eight children, a young Alberto was raised in a warm, family environment. His parents, a scant 8 years of formal education between them, taught their kids the value of hard work and persistence. It was in Humble, TX, a small town north of Houston, that Alberto Gonzales watched his father Pablo, a migrant worker, and two of his uncles build the two-bedroom house in which he and his siblings grew up. It is the same house in which his mother resides today.

Gonzales graduated from public high school in Houston in 1973. Having never considered college a realistic possibility and full of desire to learn and see the world, Alberto Gonzales enlisted in the Air Force. He was assigned to Ft. Yukon, AK, where he became inspired to apply for an appointment to the United States Air Force Academy. Special arrangements were made for Gonzales to take his ACT and the Academy's required physical examination while still stationed in Alaska. Gonzales was rewarded with orders to report to the Academy at Colorado

Springs, CO in 1975 to pursue his dream of becoming a pilot in the United States Air Force.

Alberto Gonzales excelled in his first year at Colorado Springs but found he was more interested in politics and law than the engineering and science curriculum required by the Academy. After much deliberation and consideration of the effort put forth to earn his appointment to the Academy, he decided to pursue a career in the law. Gonzales started at Rice University his junior year of college, graduating from Rice in 1979. After Rice, Gonzales attended Harvard Law School where he graduated in 1982. Gonzales returned to Houston as an associate at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins where he later became one of the firm's first two minority partners. While in private practice, Gonzales also taught as an adjunct law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and was actively involved in numerous civic organizations.

It was at a meeting of Houston area minority leaders in 1994 that Alberto Gonzales first met President George W. Bush during the President's first gubernatorial campaign. Several weeks after being elected Governor, Bush asked Gonzales to join his administration as his General Counsel, where he served for 3 years. On December 2, 1997, Gonzales was appointed Texas' 100th Secretary of State, serving as chief elections officer, the State's leading liaison on Mexico and border issues, and senior adviser to the Governor. Gonzales was appointed to the Texas State Supreme Court in 1999, and was elected to a full 6-year term on the court in 2000 with 81 percent of the vote. In January of 2001, Alberto Gonzales again heeded President Bush's call to service and was commissioned as counsel to the President.

This is an incredible journey from Humble, TX, to Ft. Yukon, AK, to the Air Force Academy in Colorado to the Ivy League. From private business and civil leadership in Texas to being recruited to serve in the administration of President Bush, Alberto Gonzales has led a life full of challenge, accomplishment, and great success. As if this weren't enough, Alberto Gonzales has given back to his community and his fellow Americans along the way.

Alberto Gonzales was a trustee of the Texas Bar Foundation from 1996 to 1999, a director for the State Bar of Texas from 1991 to 1994, and President of the Houston Hispanic Bar Association from 1990 to 1991. He was a director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. Gonzales was Special Legal Counsel to the Houston Host Committee for the 1990 Summit of Industrialized Nations, and a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He served on the board of directors of Catholic Charities, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and the Houston Hispanic Forum.

Judge Gonzales has been the fortunate recipient of many professional and civic honors, including his 2003 induction into the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Alumni Hall of Fame, and the Good Neighbor Award from the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce for his dedication and leadership in promoting a civil society and equal opportunity. Gonzales also received in 2003 the President's Awards from the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the League of United Latin American Citizens. In 2002, he was recognized as a Distinguished Alumnus of Rice University by the Association of Rice Alumni and was honored with the Harvard Law School Association Award. Gonzales was recognized as the 1999 Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association, and he received a Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. He was chosen as one of the Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994, and as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas by the Texas Young Lawyers Association in 1992. Gonzales was honored by the United Way in 1993 with a Commitment to Leadership Award, and received the Hispanic Salute Award in 1989 from the Houston Metro Ford Dealers for his work in the field of education.

When I began my remarks I suggested that Alberto Gonzales was one of the most accomplished and qualified individuals ever to stand before this body for confirmation. In recent weeks this body, and particularly the Senate Judiciary Committee, has engaged in a rigorous, often exaggerated, examination of Judge Gonzales life, his work, and character. Like all things that take place inside the beltway, this examination has bordered on the dramatic, the overblown, and the overtly political.

Most of the criticism Judge Gonzales has endured has not been related to his background, academic and professional accomplishment, or his competency to serve as this Nation's highest law enforcement official. Indeed, the criticism has focused on very recent American history. Judge Gonzales, like countless millions of Americans, was effectively called to service in a way previously unimagined when a small group of radical murderers attacked this Nation on September 11, 2001. September 11, 2001 was an act of war by a group of men who recognize no law and represent no nation. Terrorists who would attack innocent people around the world and Americans here at home sign no treaties, engage in no civil discourse, and disregard all bodies of democratic government. This is an ugly thing. These are difficult times. We are engaged in a war without borders against a foe that knows no bounds in its cruelty. Innocents killed for going to work on a sunny September morning, kidnap victims beheaded for publicity and fear, an entire civic system indicted for having the nerve to believe in the liberty of the individual. I find it hard to believe, but Judge Alberto Gonzales is being treated by some in this chamber as if he was somehow responsible for the senseless and violent acts of terrorists. More reasonable yet equally baseless are the criticisms that Judge Gonzales somehow supports the use of barbaric and medieval treatment of those apprehended by the United States and suspected of engaging in terrorist activities.

A good example of the ludicrous criticisms of Judge Gonzales, and one my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn has rightly sighted in recent floor statements, is the flimsy assertion that Judge Gonzales in advising President Bush to deny prisoner of war status to al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists is somehow a violator of the human rights principles so essentially a part of the American ethic. In his role advising the President on legal matters in the war on terror Alberto Gonzales has never provided council regarding prisoners without insisting that their treatment be humane in all instances.

According to the very Geneva Convention these critics pretend to defend, only lawful combatants are eligible for POW protections. Lawful combatants must pass the smell test. They must look like combatants. They do not hide their weapons or their affiliations. They wear uniforms and they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Civilians are to be treated as innocents. No stretching or distorting of this definition can turn terrorists in to lawful combatants. In their eagerness to demean Judge Gonzales his critics fail to acknowledge that neither al-Qaida nor the Taliban militia are legally entitled to the Convention's protections. They do not adhere to the required conditions of lawful combat and are not a party to the Geneva Convention. This is not some arbitrary and convenient conclusion. This is based in the very text and structure of the text, the history of the convention, and has been affirmed by several Federal courts across the country. And this is what they offer as evidence that Judge Gonzales is somehow unfit to serve as Attorney General?

Judge Gonzales and President Bush have repeatedly affirmed their respect for the humane but aggressive prosecution of the war this country was dragged in to. Specific to the Geneva Convention Judge Gonzales testified, ``honoring the Geneva Conventions wherever they apply . . . I consider the Geneva Conventions neither obsolete or quaint.'' The administration has fully applied the Geneva Conventions' protections in Iraq because Iraq is a

High Contracting Party to the Conventions. There was never any question about whether Geneva would apply in Iraq, Judge Gonzales testified recently, so there was no decision for the administration to make. Yet in committing to the legal study of engagement with the Taliban militia and al-Qaida fighters somehow Judge Gonzales is labeled as a radical and accused of maliciousness only fairly attributed to the enemies of America.

But the truth is not enough when there are political axes to grind. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others have loudly asserted that the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib somehow represents U.S. and administration policy. Like everyone else in this Chamber I was startled by the photographs of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib, but again we see a logical failure in connecting this incident of abuse with any policy set by the Department of Justice, Judge Gonzales or the President. ``I have been deeply troubled and offended by reports of abuse,'' Judge Gonzales testified. ``The photos from Abu Ghraib sickened and outraged me, and left a stain on our Nation's reputation.'' Judge Gonzales testified at length on this matter and the administration has been nothing but clear that these isolated acts were those of a small group of misguided soldiers. These acts were wrong and completely inconsistent with the policies and values of this country. The Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations found that the abuses depicted in Abu Ghraib photographs were not part of authorized interrogations but a representation of deviant behavior and a failure of military leadership and discipline.

And still the critics of Judge Gonzales demand he be linked to these roundly condemned and isolated acts. While I am proud to rise in support of Judge Gonzales, I am dismayed at the atmosphere in which this nomination has been made and received by the Senate. As millions of Americans know, in recent years we have witnessed a historical hijacking of the President's power to appoint judges. While controversy may not be new to the appointment process, the unprecedented filibuster of judges in this Chamber last year flies boldly in the face of both the Founders' intent expressed in Article II, Section II of the Constitution, as well as a distortion of the Senate's rich tradition of providing advise and consent without filibuster.

In my opinion the tenor of this confirmation process reeks of last year's series of senseless cloture votes on nominees of high stature. Unfair and unsubstantiated claims have been made and half-truths and lies of omission have dominated the rhetoric of those opposing Judge Gonzales. I am not here today to impugn those who have contributed to this false advertising, though it is worth saying that the nature and intensity of these false arguments in light of this nominees extraordinary record and dedication may reveal more about the opponents than the nominee. Upon his confirmation Judge Gonzales will become the first Hispanic American to serve in this high post, yet another historic appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gonzales is a man of great character who has and will continue to serve this Nation with distinction. I urge my fellow Americans to look at Judge Gonzales's record and draw their own conclusions as to why some in this body find him to be so disagreeable to their aims. It is clear to me what has been happening here, just as it is clear to me that Judge Gonzales will be confirmed despite the overtly political and shallow opposition he faces.

I am proud to rise in support of Judge Alberto Gonzales. His record of service is indicative of the character, integrity and energy he will bring to the demanding and thankless job of Attorney General. I look forward to working with Attorney General Gonzales, and I thank my colleagues for their time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 2, 2005, at 4 p.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on training of Iraqi security forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 10 a.m. on the U.S. Tsunami Warning System and S. 50, Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a legislative hearing on S. 131, ``The Clear Skies Act of 2005''.

The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on the Long Term Outlook for Social Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session for its organizational meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 10 a.m., to consider the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., on ``Asbestos: The Mixed Dust and FELA Issues.'' The hearing will take place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Madam President, first of all, I thank the chairman and ranking member for moving forward with the confirmation of Jim Nicholson to be the new Secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I congratulate them both on assuming their responsibilities as chairman and ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of President Bush's nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Jim Nicholson. I have known and worked with Jim for years in the State of Colorado, and I am proud President Bush has nominated him for this post.

As a West Point graduate, Army ranger, highly decorated combat veteran, and almost 4 years of service as the Ambassador to the Holy See, Mr. Nicholson is well prepared and highly qualified for the duties as the head of the VA. He brings a strong work ethic to his new responsibilities.

Born during the Great Depression, as the third child of seven, Jim Nicholson grew up on a tenant farm in rural Iowa. Both he and his older brother Jack earned appointments to West Point while struggling as a farming family in the Midwest.

Prior to Jim's appointment, his brother returned home from school for

the summer, and his family could not find enough money to send Jim back to New York for the start of his new term. In order to solve this problem, a 15-year-old Jim Nicholson took it upon himself to find a job building railroads through his home State of Iowa. By working as long as 19 hours some days, Jim was able to not only earn enough money to send his brother back to West Point, but also was eventually able to buy his father a used car so he could look for work.

These virtues that Jim displayed as a youth--work ethic, self- sacrifice, and determination--are the very qualities which will allow him to excel in the President's Cabinet.

As a West Point graduate and decorated veteran, this former Army ranger also has the personal experience in the Armed Forces that will serve his new constituency well. During his service in the Army, Mr. Nicholson fought in the Vietnam war and was a highly decorated soldier. He was awarded the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantry Badge, a Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry, and two Air Medals while spending 8 years on Active Duty and 22 years in the Army Reserve before retiring as a colonel.

Clearly, Senator Nicholson's qualifications after his Army career are just as impressive, including his advanced degrees, starting a successful real estate business, numerous community volunteer efforts throughout Colorado, and finally culminating in his service as an Ambassador to the Holy See. This is a man who has been asked to serve his country in a new capacity and who will answer that call with his own sense of duty and honor.

I urge my colleagues to confirm Jim Nicholson as our next Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Madam President, I yield the floor.