Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I will ask a second question. On the House floor, they made the representation that this was intended to preserve the protections for individuals' rights to privacy. Now, I ask the Senator from California, is there anything in here that has a protection for taxpayers of their private return information?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we are here late on a Saturday afternoon as part of what has become truly a deeply flawed process. We have been presented with this huge stack of paper. I think this is well over 3,000 pages. We got it in the middle of the night. We didn't have a hard copy until somewhere after noon today. We are being told that we will vote on it shortly. It reminded me very much of attending one of the State of the Union Addresses in my first years in the Senate. It was in 1988. President Reagan was talking to the Nation, and he held up what was then a conference report that he reported was over a thousand pages long, weighing 14 pounds. Then he held up a reconciliation bill that was 6 months late and was 1,200 pages long, weighing 15 pounds, and a long-term continuing resolution of over 1,000 pages, weighing 14 pounds. He reminded us that was 43 pounds of paper and ink, and you had 3 hours--yes, 3 hours--to consider each. He said it took 300 people at his Office of Management and Budget just to read the bill so the Government would not shut down. He concluded that Congress should not send him another one of these. He said: If you do, I will not sign it. President Reagan was right. This is not the way we should do the people's business. We should not have, late on a Saturday, 3,000 pages; and there are not more than a handful of people here who know what is in it. I know what is in it for the State of North Dakota. I know that. But I don't know what else is in here. I have found one thing that is in here that I think will shock every one of my colleagues. There is a little nugget tucked away in this package that says the Appropriations Committee chairmen, or their designees, can call up the tax returns of any individual, any company and, without civil or criminal penalty, do whatever they want with those returns. Madam President, think about that. Are we really going to pass legislation that says an Appropriations Committee staffer can look at the individual returns of any American, any company, and there are no civil or criminal penalties for their release of the contents of that return? I don't think so. That is in this stack of papers. We have provisions saying that the chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee can look at individual returns. They are the only Members of Congress who can do that, and there are very severe civil and criminal penalties if they were to release what they saw there. Those are privacy protections for every American taxpayer, every individual, every company. We protect the privacy of those returns with stiff civil and criminal penalties for the release of the information gained in those returns. All of that is thrown right out the window in this stack of paper because it provides that the Appropriations Committee chairman, or their designees, can have access to the returns of any American, any individual, any company; and there are no civil or criminal penalties for the release of the information contained therein. I say to my colleague from Idaho I don't think this is his idea of protecting the privacy of the American people.

Mr. CONRAD. I would like to finish and then I would be happy to yield for any question of the Senator. Let me say this: For a number of years we have had this process ongoing. In 1988, President Reagan, in a State of the Union Message, told us never again; don't send me another bill like it because I am not going to sign it. He was right. He said in his 1988 State of the Union that you have sent up here a 1,100-page bill and you had 3 hours to review it. You don't know what is in it. Nobody knows what is in it. Don't do it again. Don't send me another bill like this because I will not sign it. Here we are tonight. We don't have a 1,200-page bill, or 1,100--we have 3,300 pages. We don't know what is in this bill. There are a handful of people who know what is in this bill. Most of us don't know what is in this bill. If somebody, some sharp staff had not caught this, we would be making this the law of the land. Now I find out there is no way to prevent this from becoming the law of the land if we pass this bill tonight. That, to me, is a mistake.

Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, it is contained in this bill. This bill is very clear: Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall hereafter allow agents designated by such chairmen access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein. And there are no provisions in the civil law or the criminal law that would protect the release of that information. I tell you, when my staff came upon this and brought it to my attention--I used to be a tax commissioner, and one of the things that is understood by anybody who deals with tax information is that there are rights to preserve the privacy interests of any taxpayer. We have long held in this body and in the body on the other side of the Capitol the people's right to privacy would be protected. This provision, I am told, was stuck in at about midnight last night. Without any debate, without any discussion, without any Democrat in the room, it was stuck into this monstrosity of a bill. I think that is just one more indication of how dangerous this process has become-- 3,000 pages dumped on our desks, and we are told to vote in just a few hours. There is nobody here, other than those who have been in the room, who can understand what is in this bill. If we gave our colleagues a quiz on what is contained here, I do not think very many of them would pass. Something has to be done here. This cannot become the law of the land.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I have no question about the good faith of the Senator from Alaska--none. His word is good for me because he has demonstrated repeatedly to me his word is good. The problem I have is I am about to be asked to vote for this measure and it will become law. The President can make any declaration he wants upon signature of the law that he doesn't consider it effective. That has no legal standing. The fact is the House has passed this. If we now pass it, and the President signs it before that joint resolution is effective, this will become the law of the land. And it is a mistake. It shouldn't happen. It should never have happened. I know this was not moved by any Member of the Senate. I know this happened as a result of something that happened on the House side. Staff were involved on the House side, and misrepresentations were made about clearances being made. The fact is this is in the bill. We have to think about what this law provides. This says an agent of the Appropriations Committee could get unlimited access to tax returns in this country and have absolutely no legal penalty for releasing it to the public. They could call up the tax return of any Member of the U.S. Senate, any individual in this country, any writer for any newspaper.

Mr. CONRAD. It was represented on the floor that there was a colloquy on the House side, and in that colloquy they suggested there was no intent for this language to permit access to individual tax returns. In that colloquy, they suggested, there was no intent. Now, the Senator has read this language. Do you believe the representation that has been made on the House floor that this didn't intend to access individual tax returns?

Mr. CONRAD. I might say to the Senator, if you go to lines 18 and 19, that says `` . . . allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.''

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to my colleague, my friend, you cannot even tell what page number it is because on these pages there are three different page numbers. Page 802, page 1112, page 85--take your pick.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, with respect to the Budget Committee, I am on the Budget Committee. I am not the chairman of the Budget Committee. Our friends on the other side were in control of the House and the Senate. Failure to get a budget resolution was not on our side. Failure to get a budget resolution lay on their side. But that is not the point of this discussion tonight. The point of the discussion tonight is we have a process that is broken. There is no better evidence than the fact that we have a provision that would open the tax returns of every American, every American company, to some staffer in the Appropriations Committee, with absolutely no penalty on that staffer if they were to release the private information contained in that individual's tax return. That is wrong. The chairman of the committee says, I never sought this power. I believe him. He said the chairman of the House never sought the power. I believe him. The fact is, the provision is here. Somebody wanted it. Somebody got it in here. The fact is, the current chairman of the committee is not going to be the new chairman of the committee. And the same is true on the House side. These two Senators have said they would not use the power. How about the two Members who are going to be the chairmen? They would be able to use the power because if we vote for this bill tonight, with this mistake in it, unfortunately, it will become law. I don't want to explain to my constituents back home that every tax return in America is open to some staffer and there is absolutely no legal penalty for them making it public. That is a serious mistake. There is a desire to take this out. Let's take it out. I ask unanimous consent these provisions be deleted from this bill. I am specifically referring to section 222 of the provisions that are found on page 1,112 of the bill.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the past 38 years, Senator Hollings has served the state of South Carolina in the U.S. Senate with honor, grace, and, most famously, a fiery wit. It is an understatement to say that the Senate will not be the same without him. During his 38-year career, he has been an outspoken champion of fiscal discipline, an early proponent of maintaining Social Security solvency, and a fighter against trade agreements that put the domestic textile industry at an unfair disadvantage. I will particularly miss Senator Hollings whenever I attend meetings of the Budget Committee. Senator Hollings is the only serving Senator who has served on the Senate Budget Committee since it was created in 1974. As the last of the original members of the, committee, his institutional knowledge and passion for fiscal discipline will be missed. Budget issues have always been a passion of Senator Hollings, and he shares my penchant for using charts to prove a point. Senator Hollings' favorite chart shows gross debt, and I am sure he will be taking it with him when he leaves. Senator Hollings was tireless in his efforts to educate his Senate colleagues and the public on the dangers of gross Federal debt and the need to use honest numbers in describing our budget outlook. His dedication to bringing truth to budgeting was unsurpassed. Senator Hollings also relentlessly defended Section 13301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990--requiring official budget numbers to exclude Social Security. As a number of OMB and CBO Directors came to discover, Senator Hollings was not one to sit quietly through a Budget Committee hearing while they attempted to obscure deficit figures by including Social Security revenues in their budget calculations. Perhaps most of all, Senator Hollings will be remembered for his efforts to protect Social Security, long before protection of this entitlement became fashionable. As we move into a new debate over the future of this vital program, the Nation will surely regret that we did not earlier pay heed to his warnings to prepare for the baby boom retirement by paying down Federal debt. Senator Hollings will be missed in the coming discussion over Social Security, but I am sure he'll make his views well known with his uncanny ability to describe complex issues in simple and straightforward terms. Finally, I will remember Senator Hollings for his fierce criticism of trade agreements that threatened the textile and agricultural sectors of South Carolina. He spoke out against GATT and NAFTA, and continued to fight for fair trade throughout his service. His strong opposition to unfair trade agreements will be sorely missed by the workers and farmers for whom he fought. Given his long history in the Senate, and his penchant for speaking out with a cutting wit on important issues, I know that Senator Hollings will continue to fight for the causes in which he believes. However, his individuality, his respect for learning the complexities of issues, and his dedication to South Carolina and the U.S. will be missed in the Senate. I wish him well as he heads home to Charleston, and thank him for his many years of hard work. john breaux Mr. President, the State of Louisiana has grown accustomed to sending its Senators to Washington and keeping them there for a long time. By the standards of his illustrious State colleagues like Allen Ellender, Russell Long, and Bennett Johnston, some might think Senator Breaux is making an early exit after only three terms. However, add in the 14 years that he represented his States's 7th Congressional district in the House of Representatives and that comes to 32 years of Congressional service for the people of Louisiana. During a period when it has become increasingly difficult to work across party lines, I admire Senator Breaux's determination to continue pursuing bipartisan efforts. He has a genuine respect for the Senatorial traditions that can still help this body reach consensus, even on difficult issues. Since I became a member of the Finance Committee in 1993, the gentleman seated to my left has been John Breaux. I know firsthand his commitment to the Social Security and Medicare programs and how deeply he cares about their long-term stability. He also made effective use of his position as chairman and ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging to highlight the importance of these programs to seniors both today and in the years to come. Just over a decade ago, Senator Breaux was one of a handful of moderates who came together to seek a bipartisan approach to health care reform. When the budget process stalemated a few years later, Senator Breaux went to our late colleague, Senator John Chafee, to develop a centrist approach to fiscal discipline. As a founding member of what came to be called the Chafee-Breaux group, I saw how Senator Breaux worked to expand participation and come up with compromises on the key sticking points of tax and entitlement policies. In 1996, we put forward an alternative budget that got 46 votes despite the active opposition of both the Democratic and Republican leadership. This effort directly laid the groundwork for the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which put us on the track to balance the moral budget in fiscal year 1998 for the first time since fiscal year 1969. Senator Breaux put the same energy into Medicare reform. He refused to be discouraged by the slings and arrows of partisans on both sides who complained that his approach did not sufficiently adhere to either side's vision of ideological purity. His tireless efforts paid off last year when Congress adopted the most far-reaching changes to the Medicare since its inception. Due in large part to the efforts of Senator Breaux, Medicare for the first time will provide prescription drug coverage to our seniors. I also had the privilege of working closely with Senator Breaux on the Finance Committee to protect the interests of our highly efficient sugar industry. As co-chair of the Senate sweetener caucus, Senator Breaux was a zealous advocate for the Louisiana sugar cane industry. We joined together to fight misguided provisions of the NAFTA that would have threatened the U.S. sugar industry and succeeded in getting the Clinton administration to renegotiate this part of the agreement. More recently, Senator Breaux has taken a lead role in opposing the Bush administration's efforts to trade away the future of our sugar industry in ongoing trade negotiations with Central America, Australia, and other countries. Senator Breaux already has one lasting legacy firmly in place as one of the creators of the Wallop-Breaux Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. This far-sighted and innovative idea resulted in a funding mechanism for programs to promote recreational boating safety and sport fish restoration by using proceeds from the excise taxes on motorboat fuel and fishing equipment, along with duties on related imported goods. The beneficiaries are the more than 70 million recreational boaters and sport fishing enthusiasts across the country. I doubt that Senator Breaux will be out of the public policy business for long. Someone with his experience and ideas will be a valuable asset wherever he decides to go after leaving the Senate. We will miss him as a colleague, but I would not be surprised to see our friend John Breaux back here often. ben nighthorse campbell Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague and friend Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Since his election to the Senate in 1992, Senator Campbell has been the only Native American in this body and only the eighth to serve in Congress. Senator Campbell's road to the Congress took many interesting turns--a truck driver, veteran, athlete, jewelry designer, and trainer. He served honorably in the Air Force during the Korean War. He represented the United States as captain of the 1964 U.S. Olympic Judo Team. Later, he built a successful jewelry business as well as bred and trained quarter horses. During our time in the Senate, I have come to know Senator Campbell best as a fellow member of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Senator Campbell has served as Chairman and Ranking Member of that committee since 1997. In that capacity, he proved to be an outspoken leader and tireless advocate for all Native Americans. He invested the time to learn about the diverse interests impacting tribes across the country and worked across party lines to develop workable solutions to those problems. Senator Campbell often focused on developing and refining Federal programs that would provide a hand-up and build reservation economies to help make sure all Native Americans share in the prosperity other Americans have seen. He was also instrumental in securing a National Museum for American Indians, an effort that started more than 15 years ago and culminated with a museum opening this September along the National Mall. I particularly appreciated Senator Campbell's role in helping the tribes in North Dakota make sure the, Federal Government fulfilled its longstanding commitment to compensate them for the infrastructure lost due to the construction of the Missouri River dams. Senator Campbell has helped me shepherd legislation through Congress that would fulfill one of these vital promises to the Three Affiliated Tribes, the replacement of its hospital. I truly appreciated his support. Senator Campbell has been a true champion for Native Americans. His compassion and conviction will be missed in the U.S. Senate. bob graham

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take some time today to pay tribute to one of my closest and best friends in the U.S. Senate, our Democratic leader, Tom Daschle. It is hard to put into words how much I will miss Senator Daschle when he leaves the Senate at the end of this session. Senator Daschle and I were both first elected to the Senate in 1986. He immediately became a friend, and that friendship has only grown stronger over the years. Senator Daschle had already served South Dakota in the House of Representatives for many years when he came to the Senate, so he was able to help show me the ropes when I first arrived in Washington in 1987. His advice and counsel were given freely. But what really drew me to Tom were his genuine delight in seeing and greeting friends, staff and colleagues; his selfless passion for serving the people of South Dakota; and, above all his wonderful, self-effacing sense of humor. Put simply, Senator Daschle was able to take on issues very seriously without taking himself too seriously. Over the years, we have served together on the Agriculture, Finance and Indian Affairs Committees. We have fought side-by-side in numerous battles to serve the interests of the people of the Dakotas. On the Agriculture Committee, Senator Daschle was a tireless advocate for the interests of the northern plains producers we both represent. We fought together for targeted farm assistance to ensure that scarce Federal dollars for commodity programs would most benefit average size family farms. We fought together against concentration in the agriculture industry. We fought together against unfairly traded imports of Canadian grain. We fought for disaster aid time and time again. And we joined to make sure a new farm bill was enacted in 2002. It is safe to say that without the active leadership and support of Senator Daschle, we would not have had a new farm bill in 2002. And if we had not written the bill in 2002, I firmly believe that mounting budget pressures would have made it virtually impossible to write good legislation in 2003 or 2004. So family farmers all across this country, many of whom might not ever have heard of Tom Daschle, have lost a champion. On the Finance Committee, Senator Daschle fought passionately for better health care for all Americans. We fought together to strengthen the Medicare program and improve payment rates for rural health care providers. We fought to preserve the Medicaid program, which provides a health care safety net for the most vulnerable among us. We fought to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which expanded health coverage for children who otherwise would have no insurance. And Senator Daschle again and again took the lead on trying to reform our health care system to make health care affordable and accessible. So average workers all across the country who worry about losing their health coverage or skyrocketing health costs have lost a champion. And Senator Daschle took a special interest in working on behalf of Native Americans. He has fought to bring attention to the terrible epidemic of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome among Native Americans. And he has led the fight to secure increased resources for the Indian Health Service to help end the health care rationing that occurs on too many reservations. He also has been a strong proponent of the tribal colleges. His efforts have helped put a college education within reach of many Native Americans who might not otherwise get the opportunity. Finally, Senator Daschle stood up and gave a voice to the thousands and thousands of individual Indians seeking a full accounting of their trust assets and fought to make sure that the Federal Government fulfilled its trust obligation. So Native Americans all across the country have lost a champion. As Democratic leader, he continued to work on all these issues. And because he was leader, he delivered real results for real people, time and again. That was especially the case when it came to causes important to South Dakota. Senator Daschle tirelessly used his clout to ensure that South Dakota's interests were protected. But Senator Daschle's role as a Senator and as a leader cannot be summed up in a simple listing of the causes and issues he championed, often without fanfare or great recognition. The job of leader has often been compared to herding cats. It is not easy, but Senator Daschle did an outstanding job. Senator Daschle was a strong leader--and a great Senator--because he didn't just listen to people, he heard their concerns. He didn't just propose compromises, he built consensus. It took enormous patience, great flexibility, strong persuasive skills-- and a liberal dose of good humor and humbleness. It also meant that much of what Senator Daschle accomplished was done quietly behind the scenes. Too often, he did not get the public credit he deserved for the painstaking hours he spent building consensus and moving issues forward to benefit the American people. Instead, he quietly stepped back and let others take credit. You cannot be successful as a Senator, and especially as a leader, if other Senators cannot trust you. Senator Daschle may at times have left our colleagues on the other side of the aisle frustrated by his mastery of Senate rules and political tactics. But they always knew he was someone they could deal with in good faith. They always knew they could trust his word. And they always knew he would work hard to achieve the result he had committed to. At the end of the day, that is the ultimate measure of Senator Daschle's values--the values he and I learned growing up in the Dakotas. He was honest, fair and hard working. He gave credit to others. And he genuinely respected his colleagues and enjoyed their company. South Dakota, the Senate, and the Nation are losing a true champion, in every sense of the word. As Senator Daschle goes on to other things, my wife Lucy and I wish all the best to Tom and his wife, Linda. bob graham Mr. President, as the 108th Congress draws to a close, the Senate will lose one of its most distinguished and accomplished members, Senator Bob Graham. Few Senators have had such an outstanding career in public service. Bob Graham served as a Florida State legislator between 1967 and 1978; as Governor between 1978 and 1982; and as U.S. Senator from 1987 to 2004. I am honored that Senator Graham and I were in the same class following our elections to the Senate in 1986. Throughout his years in public service, Senator Graham has taken a leadership role in protecting our environment, advocating on behalf of seniors and children for adequate health care, working to make certain that our children achieve their highest potential in schools, and making certain that our country lives up to its obligations to veterans and active duty military personnel. Early in his career as Governor of Florida, Senator Graham launched one of our Nation's most significant efforts to protect the environment through the Save Our Everglades Program. In 2000, Senator Graham achieved his goal of restoring the Florida Everglades through an unprecedented partnership among Federal, State, and local officials along with private industries. This initiative was a significant step to ensure protection of a critical wetland environment, the Florida water supply and endangered species. Senator Graham's efforts were key to preservation of one of America's most important and environmentally sensitive natural treasures. Throughout his career in public service, Senator Graham has also taken a leadership role on behalf of public education. Long before the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, Senator Graham worked to improve Florida public schools by making certain that children have the highest quality public education system. He advocated on behalf of rigid student testing for competency in academic courses, worked to reduce class size, to improve the learning environment through new school construction and to provide more opportunities for higher education assistance for college students. Through our years together in the Senate, I was privileged to work with Senator Graham closely on health care and Social Security issues. As a colleague for 10 years on the Senate Finance Committee, I noted, with admiration, his concern for the health care needs for the elderly, especially the need to strengthen Medicare and provide a prescription drug benefit for the elderly. Senator Graham authored Medicare reform legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit and other preventative health care benefits. His Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 was cosponsored by one third of the Senate. When it came to Social Security and Medicare, Senator Graham took a long view. He missed no opportunity to urge all of us to make a priority of ensuring the long-term solvency of these two crucial programs. His concern was not just the current needs of his Florida constituents, but the importance of these programs for the income and health security of generations to come. Last, Senator Graham assumed a leadership role on behalf of our Nation's veterans and active duty military personnel in his capacity as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. While he focused considerable attention to the needs of our aging veterans population, working tirelessly to increase funding for VA medical care, he has also been sensitive to the needs of veterans living in rural America. Senator Graham supported my efforts to improve access to VA medical care for rural veterans and to improve the quality of care for veterans at the Fargo VA Medical Center and through the expansion of outpatient clinics in rural communities. For this understanding and support for rural veterans, North Dakotans will be forever grateful. There are many achievements by Senator Graham that I could cite throughout his career in public service. The few accomplishments that I have noted demonstrate remarkable dedication to our country--dedication to improving the lives of our children, the elderly and our veterans. Senator Graham represents the finest example of a dedicated and compassionate public servant. I hope that Senator Graham's career will inspire young Floridians and other young people across our Nation to service for our country. I have been privileged to serve with Senator Graham and thank him for his distinguished service to our country. tom daschle

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the extension of the debt limit. First of all, I thank my colleague from Montana for his great courtesy in allowing me to go first, because we have a hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee, so I thank my colleague from Montana for this courtesy. Before us is a proposal to extend the debt limit by $800 billion. I will oppose that expansion of the debt limit because there is no plan to reduce the deficits and the increase in the debt we are now facing. I think it is a mistake for this body to extend the debt limit by $800 billion without a plan to get the deficits under control, to get the debt under control. Instead, what we are doing here is writing another blank check and saying to this administration: Go ahead, continue to run record budget deficits. Continue to increase the national debt. Do not worry about a plan to reduce this increasing dependency on foreign governments, on foreign citizens. Forget about fiscal responsibility. An $800 billion increase in the debt. Now, make no mistake, we need to extend the debt limit. We have to pay the bills of the United States. So there is no question that we need to extend the debt limit. The question is, by how much. The question is, should we not only do it with a plan to reduce this dependency on borrowing. I believe the answer to those questions is absolutely. We ought to insist that there is a plan to get the deficit under control. We ought to insist there is a plan to reduce the buildup of debt. We ought to insist that this administration and this Congress face up to the mounting challenges facing this Nation. To review the dramatic change in our fiscal condition, in January of 2001, we were told we could expect over the next 10 years nearly $6 trillion in surpluses. Now we are told, just 3 years later, nearly 4 years later, instead of trillions of dollars of surpluses, we can expect trillions of dollars of deficits, over $3 trillion deficits. That is a change in our fiscal condition in 4 years of $9 trillion. If that does not cry out for a response, if that does not cry out for this Congress and this administration to come up with a plan to address these burgeoning deficits and debt, I do not know what would require a response. If we look at the last 4 years, we can see that in 2001 the Federal Government ran a surplus of $127 billion. In 2002, that had turned to a $158 billion deficit. In 2003, that deficit had exploded to $377 billion--the biggest deficit in dollar terms in our Nation's history-- and now in 2004, another record deficit, a deficit of $413 billion-- record red ink and no plan to address it. The President has told us, told us repeatedly, that he has a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years. Do not believe it. Do not believe it any more than the claims the President made that there would be no deficit if we adopted his fiscal plan. The President told us--in fact, the President assured us--that we could count on a record paydown of the debt if we adopted his fiscal plan. Well, we did, and he was wrong because not only have we not had record paydown of the debt; what we have had is a dramatic increase in the debt. As we look ahead, here is what we see the deficit looking like over the next 10 years. I do not see any cutting of the deficit in half. The only way the President gets to his claim that he is going to cut the deficit in half is he leaves out things. He leaves out war costs. He leaves out the need to address the alternative minimum tax. He leaves out the effect of his own tax proposals. If we take all of those into account--making the tax cut permanent, which the President has recommended; his defense buildup; the alternative minimum tax reform; and ongoing war costs--this is what we see, as the deficits going forward, in the amount that is actually going to get added to the debt every year. This is an ocean of red ink facing this country. Part of the reason, as I have indicated, is that the President, I am afraid, hid from the American people the true effects of his policies. One way he has hidden it is he has changed from 10-year budgeting to 5-year budgeting. Here is why I believe he did that. This shows the cost of extending the tax cuts as the President has proposed. This dotted line on this chart shows the end of 5 years. But beyond the 5 years, the effect of the President's tax proposals explode in cost. That is the nature of the President's tax proposal. The cost explodes outside the 5-year budget window, just beyond the view of those who are responsible for making budgets for this country. The result is that the red ink the President has promised to reduce will explode right beyond the 5-year budget window. It is not just with respect to the tax cut proposal, but we see the exact same pattern with the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax is the old millionaire's tax, which is now affecting 3 million taxpayers. In the next 10 years, it will affect 30 to 40 million taxpayers. It has to be dealt with. The President only provides funding to address this crisis for 1 year. But look at the pattern of cost. Again, right beyond the 5-year budget window, right beyond this dotted line, which represents the next 5 years, the cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax absolutely explodes, at a cost of over $600 billion. The President does not have that in his budget. Nor does he have the true cost of the war effort. We have had $25 billion put in a contingent reserve for fiscal year 2005, but we know that is a fraction of the cost. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the true ongoing cost of war is over $315 billion. None of it is in the budget, other than the $25 billion. None of this $315 billion, other than the $25 billion down payment, is reflected in these numbers in which the President assures us he is going to cut the deficit in half. I am told the Pentagon is about to propose, the administration is about to propose an additional $70 to $75 billion in a war cost supplemental some time early next year. I think this hiding of the true financial condition of the country is wrong, and I think it is reckless. The President told us when we adopted his fiscal plan: I can fully protect Social Security. I won't be taking Social Security money and using it for other purposes. Wrong again. The President is taking every dime that is available to take from Social Security over the next decade--$2.4 trillion--and using it to pay for other things. Mr. President, $2.4 trillion, every dime of which has to be repaid, and the President has no plan to do so. It is not just there that we see the problem. We also see that the President has a plan to privatize parts of Social Security. Most of the estimates are they would cost some $2 trillion in transition costs. Again, the President has no plan to pay for it other than to borrow the money to do it. More borrowing, more deficits, more debt: no plan to address the issue. These decisions have real consequences. We can see all of this is happening at the worst possible time, right before the baby boomers start to retire. The baby boom generation is out there. It is not a projection. They have been born. They are alive today. They are going to retire. They are going to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. This is what it looks like when you plot the increase on a graph of those who are going to be eligible for Federal benefits. Right now, we have around 40 million people who are eligible, but over these next years the number is going to double. This is the dramatic demographic timebomb that is out there with the baby boom generation. When we look at the long-term implications--this is not a projection by this Senator or a projection by the Democrats; this is a projection by the Congressional Budget Office--the long-term budget outlook in terms of the effect on deficits, what they show is some improvement over the next couple of years but then an explosion of deficits and debt if the President's proposals are adopted. We have record deficits now, the biggest in dollar terms in our history, and they pale in comparison as to what is to come if the President's proposals are adopted. There is no response. There is no response from the Congress of the United States. There is no response by this administration to these growing deficits and debt. It is just more of the same, business as usual, steady as she goes. That is a risky course for this country. We remember so well the President telling us there would be maximum paydown of the debt if we adopted his fiscal plan. Instead of maximum paydown of the debt, we see the debt exploding. The gross debt of the United States was less than $6 trillion when he took office. We now see, by 2014, that debt will approach $15 trillion--a stunning reversal in the fiscal condition of the country. In just these 3 years, there is an increase in the debt limit of $2.2 trillion under President Bush; an increase, in 2002, of the debt limit of $450 billion; in 2003, of $984 billion; and now another $800 billion. Mr. President, $2.2 trillion, after we had, from 1998 to 2001, no increase in the debt limit, none. Now, the President describes these policies as compassionate conservatism. I do not know where the conservatism comes in. I do not know what is conservative about exploding the debt of the Nation. I do not know what is conservative about running up record deficits--and not just at a time of economic slowdown but even now, as the economy is recovering, deficits as far as the eye can see. The result of these policies, the result of this increase in deficit and debt is soaring Federal interest costs. From the estimate in January of 2001 that the interest cost over the next 10 years would be some $600 billion, now estimates are that the interest cost to the Federal Government over that same period will be $2.4 trillion, from an interest cost projection of $600 billion to $2.4 trillion. That interest does not build a bridge, does not construct a highway, does not finance an aircraft carrier or a tank. That is money just to service the debt. These massive increases in deficits have enormous implications, not only for our finances but for our economic strength. Deficits and debt will ultimately slow economic growth. This is a quote from the CBO Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, before the Senate Budget Committee last year. Mr. Holtz-Eakin is an appointee of the Republican majority in the Congress. He came from the President's own economic advisory staff. He said this: To the extent that going forward we run large sustained deficits in the face of full employment, it will in fact crowd out capital accumulation and otherwise slow economic growth. Mr. President, that is why these decisions matter. This is not just numbers on a page. This isn't just graphs. This is not just pictures on a chartboard. These decisions have a real impact on the economic health of this Nation, on the creation of jobs, on the development of economic opportunity, on the future economic prospects of our Nation and, fundamentally, of the economic strength of America. I don't believe we can be militarily strong if we are financially weak. This President has us on a course to financial weakness. Make no mistake about it, these higher interest rates will burden families. For the typical American family, a 1-percent increase in interest rates will raise the payment on a 30-year home mortgage of $150,000 by $1,200 per year. When the Federal Government has to borrow more money, that puts it in competition with the private sector for borrowed funds. When that happens, that forces up the cost of borrowing. The more demand for money, the more interest costs have to go up. That is true especially at a time of economic recovery. Mr. President, these decisions have real consequences in the lives of real people. I believe paying down debt is also a moral values issue. The President said himself in 2001: Future generations shouldn't be forced to pay back money that we have borrowed. We owe this kind of responsibility to our children and grandchildren. On this issue, the President was right. We should not pass on these debts to future generations. But that is now precisely what the President is doing--again, not at a time just of economic slowdown; we have now got a resumption of economic growth. Yet the President proposes more and more deficit, more and more debt. I think it is a mistake. I think it is a mistake for this body to extend the debt limit in an almost unlimited way, by $800 billion, without any requirement for a plan to address these burgeoning deficits and debt. The deficits we are running are not just budget deficits, they are also trade deficits--approaching over $650 billion in the most recent year. Not only are we running a budget deficit of over $400 billion, we are also running a trade deficit of over $650 billion, or in that range. Where is the money coming from in these massive deficits? Well, we are borrowing the money, as I indicated, from the Social Security trust fund--some $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. We are also borrowing from countries all around the world. We have borrowed over $700 billion from Japan. We have borrowed over $170 billion from China. We have borrowed $100 billion from the so-called Caribbean banking centers. I think many in America would wonder what is going on here. We are borrowing money from Caribbean banking centers? We have borrowed over $60 billion from South Korea. Who would have believed it? Growing up in North Dakota, I would never have believed we would be out with a tin cup borrowing money from countries such as South Korea. Mr. President, here is what has happened under this President in terms of foreign holdings of our debt. They have increased by 83 percent in just less than 4 years of this administration. Prior to this administration, total foreign holdings of U.S. debt were just over a trillion dollars. In less than 4 years, that has now increased by over 80 percent. We are now approaching $2 trillion of foreign-held debt. Mr. President, who cares? What difference does it make? I have had a chance to go and teach classes in my home State at the universities and colleges. I have asked them what difference does it make if we are deeper and deeper in debt to other countries? Well, the response of those students has been overwhelming and clear. They have said: Of course, it makes a difference. How does it change any relationship if you are borrowing money from people? It makes you dependent on those people. It means you are less able to challenge them on unfair trade practices. It means you are less able to confront them if we are faced with a military confrontation. I noticed with great interest a New York Times article of Tuesday, October 19, headlined, ``Private Investors Abroad Cut Their Investments in the U.S.'' It indicated that ``Asian central banks bail out America, a nation of spenders rather than savers.'' The U.S. economy is now increasingly dependent on a handful of foreign central banks for our economic stability and security. This is a vulnerability for our country. To more and more owe money to foreign nations and foreign central banks puts them in a stronger position with respect to America's economic future and puts us in a weaker position. In that article, it indicated: New data accentuated how dependent the United States has become on purchases of dollar securities by the Chinese and other Asian governments with links to the dollar. ``Foreign central banks saved the dollar from disaster,'' said Akhraf Laidi, chief currency analyst of the MG financial group. He said, ``The stability of the bond market is at the mercy of the Asian purchases of U.S. treasuries.'' We are at the mercy of foreign central banks, of Asian central banks. I don't think that is where we want to be. I don't think that is where we want to be as a nation, dependent on foreign central banks. In that same article, the New York Times indicated that a large amount of foreign-held debt could lead to economic turmoil. Here is what it said: A disorderly situation would occur if foreign money dried up suddenly when the United States still needed it. Let's think about where we are headed here. Then, the adjustment in the American savings might happen involuntarily. Interest rates would rise sharply, and the dollar could fall abruptly. This could induce a sharp economic contraction, even stagnation. Mr. President, what are we doing here? There is absolutely no response from this Congress or this administration to this gathering financial threat. No response. The only response is: Let's go borrow more money. Let's increase the debt more. This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 8, headlined, ``Dollar Lacks Backers as Deficit Worries Dominate.'' This article asks the question: What is going to prop up the sliding dollar? It went on to say: Despite unexpectedly strong job creation and another jump in the stock market, the dollar dropped against key currencies . . . breaking through the record low against the euro set nine months ago. Currency strategists say the dollar's inability to capitalize on news of 337,000 jobs created in October reveals the market's skepticism about whether a second term for President Bush will reverse deficit spending and a reported current-account deficit-- That is our trade deficit-- the broadest gauge of the nation's balance of payments. We are here, steady as she goes, headed right for a potential fiscal crisis, and there is no response. Here is what happened to the value of the dollar against the Euro since 2002: The dollar has dropped 30 percent against the Euro in that time. This is a warning. This is a warning, I say to my friends. People are losing confidence in the fiscal policy of the United States. This has potentially ominous consequences that I think we all understand. The CBO Director believes deficits can no longer be blamed on just a weak economy. He said: Policy choices will determine where we go. We will not grow our way out of this. It is no longer the case that we can blame everything on the economy. I talked about the budget deficit. Here is the U.S. trade deficit. Same pattern: explosive growth in our deficits, both budget and trade, requiring more and more foreign borrowing, making us more and more dependent on the decisions of foreigners as to our economic stability and strength. Today in the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson, an economist, wrote an article headlined, ``The Dangerous Dollar.'' He points out the risks to our country of what could happen if there was continuing flight from the dollar and a collapse in its value. He points out the risk to this country and says: No one knows what will happen. The massive U.S. payments deficits could continue for years, with foreigners investing surplus dollars in American stocks and bonds. Gradual shifts in currency values might reduce the world's addiction to exporting to the United States. Or something might cause a dollar crash tomorrow. In that case, massive intervention by government central banks . . . might avert a calamity. Or it might not. We're in uncharted waters. If we hit a shoal, it will be bad for everyone. The warning is clear. The risks are there. The question is: Do we just stay on this current course, or do we respond to this growing threat? I think it is inappropriate to extend the debt of the United States by $800 billion without a plan to reduce this dependency on foreign capital. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, for his courtesy in allowing me to speak first so that I may make a hearing going on in the Capitol complex.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to Senator John Edwards and acknowledge his dedication to fighting for the middle class. Senator Edwards, the son of a mill worker, was the first in his family to go to college. He then went on to law school where he met his wife, Elizabeth. Following his graduation from law school, he earned a reputation as one of the best trial attorneys in the country, taking on the causes of those who had suffered serious tragedies as a result of the negligence or malfeasance of others. Elected in 1998, Senator Edwards has served just one term in the Senate, but he made a mark in a number of areas. First and foremost, he was a lead advocate for a Patients' Bill of Rights. From his background helping families that had suffered injuries at the hands of our health care system, Senator Edwards brought a passionate understanding of the need to hold health insurance companies accountable when their decisions led to serious injuries or death. More importantly, he championed changes in rules that would prevent these adverse outcomes in the first place. His dedication to this cause paid off in 2001, when the Senate finally passed the Patients' Bill of Rights. Senator Edwards also made a big contribution on education policy. He was an early voice in favor of education reform, and worked to provide additional resources to help local schools achieve higher standards. As a co-chair of the Senate Rural Education Caucus, I saw first hand his work to support funding to meet rural school needs like the Rural Education Achievement Program and to make certain that the unique challenges for rural schools in complying with the No Child Left Behind Act are recognized. Senator Edwards also, of course, distinguished himself in running for President and serving as the Democratic nominee to be Vice President. His concern about our country fracturing into ``Two Americas''--one wealthy and privileged, the other increasingly left behind--resonated with millions of Americans. Senator Edwards is leaving this body. But I am confident he will not turn his back on public service and look forward to his continued contribution to our Nation's political debate. Working with the Senator from North Carolina has been a joy, and we wish him and his wife a happy and health future. Senator don nickles

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and acknowledge how much I will miss Senator Don Nickles in the United States Senate. Since joining the Senate in 1980, Senator Nickles has been a forceful advocate for smaller and smarter government, while at the same time tenaciously fighting for the interests of the people of Oklahoma. In a body filled largely with lawyers and career politicians, Senator Nickles brought a small businessman's perspective to the legislative table. Throughout his career he spoke from personal experience about the need to relieve unnecessary burdens on our Nation's small businesses. Personally, I have come to know Senator Nickles well from our joint service on the Budget and Finance Committees. Although we were often on the opposite side of policy debates, he was always a straight-shooter, a gentleman, and a pleasure to work with. In areas where we disagreed, he was a formidable and articulate advocate for his position. In areas where we agreed, he was a powerful and determined ally. I am proud to say that, despite this era of too much partisan division, I consider Senator Nickles a good friend. His ability to maintain a civil and respectful tone and demeanor in even the toughest policy disputes has exemplified the finest traditions of the Senate. In his role as Budget Chairman, I am particularly grateful for the graciousness and respect with which he treated me and my staff. His efforts to strengthen the Budget Committee and the budget process will be an important part of his legacy in this body. I have been honored to serve with Senator Don Nickles. I join my colleagues in wishing the Senator and his family all the best in the future and in paying tribute to his tremendous contributions to the Senate and our Nation. We will miss him.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to Senator Peter Fitzgerald as he prepares to leave the United States Senate. For the past 6 years, Senator Fitzgerald has done important work as a member of the Agriculture Committee, on which we had the pleasure of serving together. Senator Fitzgerald supported the creation of a commission to investigate changes to the Federal farm payment system. We share the belief that small, family-owned farms should receive adequate assistance from the Federal Government, and the creation of this commission has helped to ensure this goal. I am also grateful for the support that Senator Fitzgerald has shown for legislation I have introduced related to the tax treatment of leasehold improvements. He and I understand the need to modernize business infrastructure by shortening the cost recovery period for changes that commercial landlords make in space rented to tenants. By reducing the cost recovery period, the expense of making these improvements would fall more into line with the economics of commercial lease transactions, and more building owners would be able to adapt their buildings to fit the needs of today's business tenants. I thank Senator Fitzgerald for his strong support of this important initiative. Senator Fitzgerald also recognizes the importance of improving the overall health of Americans, and has shown this through the introduction of his Healthy Lifestyles Act. Encouraging physical activity is an essential component in the fight against obesity, and is an important tool in preventative health care. I commend Senator Fitzgerald for his work in this area. More generally, Senator Fitzgerald has proven himself to be a dedicated public servant who has served the State of Illinois and the country with honor. Today, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Fitzgerald and wish him well in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield after this statement. And it gives to the Budget Committee the right to hear from the Office of Management and Budget, the man who is named or the woman who is named Budget Director in the confirmation process. That just makes common sense. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I believe the answer simply has to be yes. It makes no earthly sense for the person who is named to be the budget director of the United States not to come before the Budget Committee. What sense could that possibly make?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the amendment from the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio just got it wrong, what the amendment of the Senator who is the chairman of the Budget Committee does. We do not take the jurisdiction of Governmental Affairs on management issues at all, not at all. That is not what the amendment does. What the amendment does do is end the duplication of the jurisdiction of the committees on budget process issues. I would submit to my colleagues, it does not make any sense any longer, after 30 years, for Governmental Affairs and Budget to have joint jurisdiction on budget process issues. The reason they have that joint jurisdiction is because Governmental Affairs wrote the Budget Act. There was no Budget Committee, so at that time they had expertise that the Budget Committee simply did not have, so they were included on jurisdiction on budget process issues. Well, 30 years have passed. The expertise on these issues is on the Budget Committee. It makes no sense in any management sense to have joint jurisdiction on budget process issues--not on the management issues. The management issues are retained by Governmental Affairs, as they should be. But budget process issues, as the chairman of the Budget Committee has suggested in his amendment, ought to be the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Second, it makes no earthly sense for the nominee to be the Budget Director only to go before the Governmental Affairs Committee. That is what happens now. I think my colleagues would be stunned--I must say, I was very surprised, serving on the Budget Committee--that the Director of the Budget does not come before the Budget Committee. What sense does that make? The amendment of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Nickles of Oklahoma, does not expand the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee. It simply eliminates the overlap in jurisdiction between the two committees on the narrow issue of budget process issues. The expertise on budget process issues, on pay-go, on discretionary caps, on oversight of budget agreements, does not reside with the Committee on Governmental Affairs; it resides in the Budget Committee. We ought to clean up this overlap that has existed for 30 years that started for a good reason--because the Committee on Governmental Affairs wrote the Budget Act because there was no Budget Committee. But now there is a Budget Committee. It has been in existence 30 years. It ought to have jurisdiction over budget process issues. That just makes common sense. Who could possibly defend the notion that a Budget Director should not come before the Budget Committee for confirmation? It makes no earthly sense. The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is entirely reasonable. It is rational. It improves the operations of both committees. It does not take jurisdiction to the Budget Committee; it simply reduces the common jurisdiction that currently exists between Governmental Affairs and the Budget Committee on the narrow issue of budget process.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator in Nevada for his comments. He is exactly right. For anybody to suggest Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction reduced here, I mean, come on. Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction dramatically increased.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to support the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee in what he is saying. I am in my 18th year in the Senate. Only once before in that entire time have we taken money from other farmers to provide the funds to cover a natural disaster for others. That is just wrong. That is not the way we have operated. We have always dealt with natural disasters through emergency funding because none of us can know who is going to get hit by a natural disaster. None of us can know who is going to have a hurricane or a drought or a freeze. In my State we have had three of the four. We didn't have hurricanes. We don't get hurricanes in North Dakota. But we have had drought in the southwestern part of the State. I have just taken a drought tour, and it looks like a moonscape. Nothing is growing. It is disastrous. The corn crop is about a foot high. There are no ears in the corn crop. I go to the northern part of my State, and it is flooded. It is unbelievable. We have a lake in north central North Dakota called Devils Lake. That lake has risen 25 feet in the last 7 years. That lake is now 2\1/2\ times the size of the District of Columbia, and it has risen 25 vertical feet, taking up hundreds of thousands of acres. We, as a Federal Government, have already had to buy out the entire town of Church's Ferry. We have had other towns that are on the brink of being swallowed up. We have spent tens of millions of dollars protecting the town of Devils Lake. We have moved over 600 structures. All across the northern tier of North Dakota, something very unusual is happening. We have had extraordinarily wet conditions over a prolonged period. The result is 2 million acres they could not even plant this year--2 million acres. That is bigger than the size of the State of Delaware--land that couldn't be planted. The land that could be planted is now so wet they can't drive the equipment in to harvest the crop. So you drive by the road and it looks like a fabulous crop, like there is a tremendous barley crop out there. It looks like 90- to 100-bushel barley. But you can't get into the land to take it off because the ground is soaked. I was just at a farmer's home and he pointed up to the top of the rafters in his barn. He said: Senator, that is where the water is going to be 6 months from now, according to the State water commission, because the whole area is flooding. In the midst of that we had a freeze in early August. Drought, flood, freeze--I have lived in North Dakota all my life, and I have never seen such a collection of natural disasters. So while I have great sympathy for the people of Florida and Southeastern United States who have suffered hurricanes, and I am prepared with my vote to help them, we would expect the same in return. They are not the only ones who have been hurt. I have tens of thousands of farm families who are wondering now, Is Washington going to help or is Washington going to turn its back? We have not been on the news. The networks haven't been out there covering this drought. They have not covered this flooding because this is a slow-motion disaster. This is not the kind of thing that makes good television, as the water rises in North Dakota. That doesn't make good television. It is a slow-motion disaster, but it is a disaster nonetheless. People's lives are being devastated. Always before we have had emergency funding--with one exception in the 18 years I have been here. Always before, when an area suffered natural disasters, we have voted emergency funding to give them some help. Let me make clear to my colleagues--I have heard some say: If you would have had preventive planning, you wouldn't have any losses because you didn't have to plant the crop. That is not the way it works. You still have your land payment, you still have all your management expenses, and in most cases people put on fertilizer in anticipation of being able to plant. This idea that they don't have expenses is just wrong. Then I have heard they will get more help than what they have lost. That is just wrong. People have said: They have crop insurance. Crop insurance will make them whole. No. Crop insurance will not come anywhere close to making them whole; nowhere close. First of all, you have to have a 35-percent loss before you get anything. Then you only get a percentage of your loss over 35 percent. That is not going to make people anywhere close to whole-- nowhere close. Even if you take disaster assistance and crop insurance, you are nowhere close to whole. You still have significant losses. That is the fact of the matter. The disaster assistance we pass in the Senate is desperately needed, and it should not be taken away from other farmers in order to pay for it. We shouldn't take from what they need in order to try to provide assistance for those who have suffered natural disasters. That is not right. It is not fair. It has not been done before, with one exception in the 18 years I have been in the Senate. I had my staff go back and research the whole history. We have never done things that way with one exception. We should not go down this path of turning our back on people who have suffered natural disasters, whether it is a hurricane, whether it is a flood, whether it is a drought, whether it is a freeze, or some horrific outbreak of disease. We need to stand ready to reach out with a helping hand. I thank the ranking member from the State of Iowa, Senator Harkin, for standing up, fighting back and being very clear about what is at stake here; and to our leader, Senator Daschle. The truth is without Senator Daschle as our leader, we wouldn't have a prayer of getting the assistance our area desperately needs. That is a fact.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in watching the Presidential debate last night, again, I think President Bush confused who attacked the United States on September 11. President Bush, last night, in justifying the war with Iraq, said they attacked us. Senator Kerry was quick to point out that Iraq did not attack us. It was al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, that attacked us. This basic fact is absolutely essential to understanding what occurred and where we are headed. I think it is helpful, perhaps, to review the record. Here is the report of the 9/11 Commission: The intelligence reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both side's hatred of the United States [referring to Iraq and al-Qaida], but to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. Mr. President, it is not just the 9/11 Commission that tells us these basic relationships; it is also our own Intelligence Committee. Their conclusions in their July 7 report included conclusion 96: The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence providing Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise. Conclusion 93: The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established, formal relationship. Mr. President, one month after the dreadful September 11 attack, the State Department had on their Web site a list of countries where al- Qaida has operated. This is a month after the September 11 attack. If you look down this list--Bahrain, Bangladesh, France, Germany, Iran, and others--there is no mention of Iraq. The Secretary of State has said as recently as September 13, just last month, appearing on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' that he had seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and his awful regime and what happened on 9/11. The President himself has previously said, on September 18 of last year, that he saw no evidence of Hussein being tied to 9/11. Yet over and over, the Vice President and the President have left an impression with the American people that somehow Iraq was behind the attacks of September 11. It was not. Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, was behind the attacks of September 11. Those are the folks we need to hold to account. They are the ones we need to bring to justice. That is not for a moment to say that Saddam Hussein didn't run a dreadful regime. He did. I think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. The question is, What were the priorities of the United States in responding to those horrific attacks on our country? My belief at the time we were preparing to go to war with Iraq was that it was a diversion from our attention in going after al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden. My own strong belief at the time was that ought to have been our top priority and focus. I graduated from an American Air Force base in Tripoli, Libya, in North Africa. I lived in the Arab world. I learned something about the Arab world in living there. It is very clear to me that we have to be very focused in going after those who attacked us. If we are going to be successful against the terrorists, we have to go after the people who attacked us. We have to go after those who are planning to attack us again. We cannot go off and go after every bad regime in the world. That will swamp our ability to respond. There has been some suggestion that Saddam Hussein was going to arm terrorists. Go back to what the intelligence told us, November 16, 2003: The CIA's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found no evidence that former President Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a military intelligence expert. Mr. President, what happened was that our focus on getting those who attacked us was diverted by launching the attack on Iraq. This is from USA Today, March 29, this year: In 2002, troops from the 5th special forces group, who specialize in the Middle East, were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures. Mr. President, what sense does this make? We took people who were experts in the culture of those who attacked us and we took them out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and shifted them over to Iraq in the hunt for Saddam Hussein. And we replaced them with experts in Spanish culture. No wonder, over a thousand days after the attacks of September 11, we still have not held to account Osama bin Laden, his top assistant, and the rest of their criminal group. This story says: The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate, and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered. I believe history is going to prove that was a serious mistake. Again, Iraq did not attack us; al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, attacked us. They are the ones we need to hunt down as our top priority. Last year, in The Philadelphia Inquirer, this story ran, saying: Some senior officials concede that the Iraq war also diverted resources from two problems that could prove to be even more pressing than Iraq was: rooting out the remnants of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorism network and confronting Iran. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the CIA reassigned to Iraq more than half the operatives tracking al-Qaida fugitives in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, he said, U.S. forces were not able to pursue bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders as aggressively. This is a case of misplaced priorities by this administration. Our top priority should have been nailing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Instead, this President and this administration diverted resources from that hunt and shifted them to Iraq. Again, as dreadful a regime as Iraq had, they were not the ones who attacked us. Al-Qaida did. This goes on to say: Al-Qaida's continuing threat was shown when the Department of Homeland Security raised its terrorism alert level Tuesday, after bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. This is what the President said right after the attacks of September 11, on September 15: There is no question about it, this act will not stand; we will find those who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running and we will bring them to justice. I agree, absolutely, with the President's statement. He had the priority right at the time. Then something happened. I don't know why. I have never been able to decipher why the President's focus shifted. Here is what he said on March 13, 2002: You know, I just don't spend that much time on him [Osama bin Laden] . . . I don't know where he is . . . I truly am not that concerned about him. How can he not be that concerned about the man who was the architect of these attacks on the United States? How can that be? How can our President not be that concerned about Osama bin Laden, who is out there plotting, even now, to launch even more attacks on the United States? The former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, James Webb, made these comments this year in a USAToday op-ed piece: Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. . . . Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence. That is the conclusion of the Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, that this President attacked the wrong target. Instead of focusing on al-Qaida, he launched a preemptive attack on Iraq. Mr. Webb, in that same opinion piece, said this: There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our Nation for decades. This is the man who ought to be our top priority. This is the man who organized the September 11 attacks against the United States. This is the man who is plotting even now to attack the United States again. This is Osama bin Laden. It is not Saddam Hussein. We cannot get confused about who the primary threat is to the United States of America. The top threat, the top priority for our military and intelligence services has to be to bring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida to justice. They are the ones who attacked us. They are the ones plotting to attack us again. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield to Senators for their amendments.