Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I hope our colleagues will think carefully about the consequences of what we do here.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I don't know how to say this in a way that will catch the attention of my colleagues and catch the attention of the American people: We are headed for a train wreck of enormous proportion. We are headed for a circumstance in which the head of the Congressional Budget Office said we are headed for either unsustainable debt and an unprecedented tax increase to 30 percent of gross domestic product-- that would be a 50-percent tax increase from where we are now--or the elimination of the rest of Government as we know it. That is not a Democrat speaking. That is the head of the Congressional Budget Office, who is nominated and put in place by our Republican colleagues. He is telling the truth. The Comptroller General of the United States has given us the same warning. We are headed for a cliff, as a Nation, as a country. Let me show you what that cliff is. This chart shows that the Social Security trust funds face a cash deficit as the baby boomers retire. But the words do not capture what is really going to happen. ``Cash deficit'' sounds pretty cold and impersonal--not a very meaningful couple of words. But here is what is going to happen. This chart shows where we are now. The trust fund is running surpluses. But in 2017, those surpluses turn to deficits. It is this money that is being used now to pay for those tax cuts, to pay for the defense buildup. But look what is about to happen. That trust fund, in 2017, as the baby boomers retire, is going to go cash negative, and then it is going to go cash negative in a huge way. It is going to achieve negative annual cash-flows of over $1 trillion a year. Is anybody listening? Is anybody paying attention to where we are headed? And the President says: Dig the hole deeper. More tax cuts, tax cuts that cost hundreds of billions of dollars this decade but cost trillions of dollars at the very time this is happening. At the very time the trust funds go cash negative, he is saying: Cut the revenue more--even in the face of increased spending for defense and homeland security, even in the face of an attack on this country, even in the face of the prospect of war with Iraq, even in the face of a crisis with North Korea. It is not responsible. It does not add up. It is reckless. And it should not go forward. And it is not just the Social Security trust fund. Shown on this chart is the Medicare trust fund. It has exactly the same pattern. We are running surpluses now--smaller than the surpluses in Social Security--but look what is going to happen in 2016. We are going to see, as the baby boomers retire, the costs mount geometrically, and the annual deficits approach $1 trillion in Medicare alone. Is anybody paying attention? Is anybody thinking about where we are headed? Is anybody thinking about what this will mean to a future Congress and a future administration? Economic growth? Absolutely. Stimulus package? Yes. We ought to take steps to strengthen the economy now. That makes sense. But we have to be very careful about the long-term effects of what we do because we are headed for a cliff. Let me just conclude by saying, there are other stimulus packages out there that provide much more stimulus this year--the Baucus package, the Pelosi package--in comparison to the Bush package, but have much lower costs over the 10 years.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about what the President has proposed in terms of an economic stimulus package or, as he now terms it, an economic growth package, because I think it is one of the key issues facing us and our country in the days ahead. As the chairman of the Budget Committee--at least until the new organizing resolution is adopted, at which time I will be the ranking member of the Budget Committee--I think I have a special obligation to my colleagues to review what the President has proposed and to give my take on it. I, along with my staff, have now given a detailed review to what the President proposes, and I have concluded that the President's proposal is, No. 1, ineffective with respect to giving stimulus to the economy; No. 2, unfair in terms of its application; And, No. 3, irresponsible because it will add almost $1 trillion to our national debt when we are already back into serious deficits and adding to the national debt right on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation. I don't believe this is a growth package. Indeed, I think it will inhibit growth because I believe it will put upward pressure on interest rates, and when the economy does resume stronger growth, higher interest rates will tend to choke off that stronger growth. I started by saying I think the President's plan is ineffective with respect to stimulus. I said that, because if one looks at the total cost of his plan, which we estimate at over $900 billion--not the $600 billion that has been advertised but over $900 billion--with associated interest costs included, and, obviously, if you spend money or you reduce taxes, the interest costs to the Federal Government go up because you are adding to the debt. We are in debt now. We are paying interest on that debt. If you add to the debt you add costs. It is stunning to me. But only $36 billion of this $900 billion cost in the President's plan is for this year. This year is the time we have economic weakness. This year is the time our economy needs to be stimulated. Yet only about 5 percent of the President's package--in fact, less than 5 percent--is for this year. That makes no earthly sense to me. If the rationale is the economy is weak and needs a boost, why would you only use 5 percent of the cost of your package for stimulus now? Last year on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans on the Budget Committee in both the House and the Senate agreed on a set of principles to apply to a stimulus package. We agreed it ought to be effective immediately; that most of the money should flow in the first 6 months, and that it should have very little outyear effect to avoid adding to the deficit and debt. The President's proposal stands that set of principles on its head. When the President's plan was first introduced, they said it was going to give over $100 billion of lift to the economy this year. Then they changed that and said that it would only be about $58 billion. Now we have had a chance to do a detailed analysis of the President's proposal and we find that it is not $108 billion; it is not $58 billion; the lift to the economy this year is $36 billion. The President might argue it should be a little bit more than that because of the unemployment insurance legislation we have already passed. That is $3 or $4 billion. If you want to add that, fine. That would take us to about $39 billion. It doesn't change the point at all. Less than 5 percent of the cost of the President's plan is available this year. It is ineffective in terms of stimulus. Second, it is not fair. It is not fair in its application. It is not fair in its distribution. This chart shows the five quintiles--arranged in income order of earners in the United States. In other words, one-fifth of American taxpayers in each of these categories. We see the top 20 percent earn more than $68,000 a year. Under the President's plan, they get 78 percent of the benefit. But look at what other folks get. It is fascinating. The bottom 60 percent get less than 8 percent of the benefit. The top 20 percent get 78 percent of the benefit. The bottom 60 percent get less than 8 percent of the benefit. It is not fair. In fact, the unfairness of this plan becomes even clearer when you look at the other distributional effects. This shows the benefit of the plan to those people in our society who earn over $1 million a year. Under the President's plan, they would get an average tax reduction of $88,873. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers. This comes from the Center on Tax Policy. This is their analysis of the President's plan. Interestingly enough, the typical taxpayer--that 20 percent of taxpayers who are right in the middle--get an average benefit of $265. The President said this is fair. It is an interesting notion of fairness. I don't think it is fair. I don't think it is close to being fair to give to those who earn over $1 million a year more than $88,000 of benefit and to those who are right in the middle of the income stream in our society $265. The President says that is fair. That raises a mighty serious question about fairness. It is ineffective. I think it is clear. Only 5 percent of the stimulus is available this year at the time when our economy needs a lift. I think it is abundantly clear it is not fair. But even more serious, I believe, is the reckless nature of their proposal. How is it paid for? That is a question too little asked around here. How is it paid for? Here is the reality. Every penny of this proposal is being paid for out of the Social Security trust fund. The President says it is class warfare when anybody questions the fairness of his plan. I think the President is engaging in class warfare to propose taking $900 billion out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for a tax program that is overwhelmingly skewed to the wealthiest among us. That is wrong. It cannot stand and it should not be passed. Not only does every penny come out of the Social Security trust fund, but it is going to dramatically increase the debt of our country. You will remember in 2001 when the President told us that under his plan the debt of the country by 2008 would only be $36 billion. He was going to have a maximum pay-down of the debt. Events have proved quite otherwise. Instead of being virtually debt free, the President's policies are exploding the debt. We are not reducing the debt. We will be increasing the debt even more if we adopt the President's plan. The debt will stand at $4.7 trillion--nearly a $900 billion increase, if the President's plan is adopted. I think we have to consider this in light of our overall circumstances. This chart shows surpluses and deficits without using Social Security funds for other purposes--something virtually every Member of this body has pledged not to do. The President pledged not to do it. Yet, what we see is we are already on a path and are now using Social Security to pay for tax cuts and using Social Security funds to pay for the costs of government. If we look back over an extended period--back to 1992, and look ahead to 2012--back in the 1990s we were able to make progress on stopping the use of Social Security money for other purposes. We achieved it in 2 years. We didn't use any Social Security money for other purposes for 2 years in the Clinton administration. Now you can see we have plunged back into deficit and in a very dramatic and substantial way. The deficit this year is going to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. If Social Security were not used, we would have more than $400 billion in deficit this year and be approaching $500 billion in deficit next year. Looking ahead, this top line of the chart shows the current circumstance we face. You can see that we face deficits without using Social Security virtually the whole rest of this decade. If the President's additional tax cut plans are adopted, we will not escape from deficits the entire rest of this decade. Instead, we will be running massive deficits each and every year all of this decade. Now, some say: Well, Senator, we have run big deficits before. We did in the 1980s, and we were able to escape from it. That is true. The difference now--and I hope colleagues are listening, because there is a big difference now--the difference is the baby boom generation poised to retire. And this is not a matter of projection. It is not a matter of conjecture. It is a matter of fact. The baby boomers are alive. They are going to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. They are going to begin to retire at the end of this decade, and it is going to change everything.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Reid, and I thank all of our leaders for working together. It appears now that we are on the brink of success for an organizing resolution. I must say, however, some of the rhetoric I heard yesterday I think was unfortunate. Talk about a coup in the Senate or in the United States-- that is reckless talk. That is inappropriate talk. What has occurred here is a negotiation on the delicate subject of the organization of the Senate. At a previous time in just recent years, it took 6 weeks to have that negotiation occur. Nobody asserted that there was a coup occurring in this country. That is reckless talk. It is irresponsible talk. It may be good for headlines, it may be good for getting on television, but it does not serve this body well and it does not serve our country well. I hope colleagues will be more thoughtful in their use of language in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will vote for the bill before us today, but I do so with some serious reservations. First, and most importantly, I do not want the American public to conclude that by passing this one bill we do not need to do anything else in order to protect our homeland. While housing such agencies as FEMA, the Customs Department, and the Border Patrol under one roof will be advantageous, especially in the long run, little in this bill goes the heart of what went wrong leading up to September 11. Simply put, our country has been plagued, and we continue to be plagued, by a myriad of intelligence shortcomings. We have not done an effective job of gathering intelligence on al Qaeda cells residing right now in our country, and, perhaps even more importantly, our intelligence agencies have not been effectively sharing intelligence with each other. We hear story upon story about a lack of analysts with language skills, outdated computer systems, and turf battles. And now we hear, for the first time, that the administration is considering the need to create a new domestic intelligence agency. We hear that our Nation's top national security officials met for 2 hours this past Veterans Day to discuss this issue. Clearly, we need a plan to deal with domestic terrorism surveillance and to implement systems, procedures, and oversight to make sure that our intelligence agencies are talking to each other. Unfortunately, the current bill is largely silent on these issues. Second, I have serious concerns that the administration will be undertaking the most massive government reorganization in over 50 years while we are in the middle of our war against terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and just last week he threatened new attacks. Indeed, the administration recently has warned us about ``spectacular'' attacks against our country. We must take great care that this massive reorganization does not compromise any of our ongoing efforts in our campaign to protect our homeland. Finally, I cannot stand silent about the egregious, superfluous, special-interest giveaways put into this bill at the very last minute by the administration acting in concert with Republican leaders in the House and Senate, everything from shutting the courtroom doors to families injured by pharmaceutical companies to allowing offshore tax haven companies to compete for homeland security contracts. So while I support the bill before us today, it is certainly not a perfect bill. Even more importantly, our work has just begun. The administration now needs to ensure that in creating this massive new Department it does so in a way that does not compromise the vital and ongoing work of the agencies involved. It is also imperative that we fix the central problem with our Nation's homeland security defenses, that of the lapses in our Nation's intelligence gathering and sharing efforts, and that we do so now. I wish we would have dealt with this more gaping security hole first, but all we can do now is to redouble our efforts in this most vital pursuit.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will vote for the bill before us today, but I do so with some serious reservations. First, and most importantly, I do not want the American public to conclude that by passing this one bill we do not need to do anything else in order to protect our homeland. While housing such agencies as FEMA, the Customs Department, and the Border Patrol under one roof will be advantageous, especially in the long run, little in this bill goes the heart of what went wrong leading up to September 11. Simply put, our country has been plagued, and we continue to be plagued, by a myriad of intelligence shortcomings. We have not done an effective job of gathering intelligence on al Qaeda cells residing right now in our country, and, perhaps even more importantly, our intelligence agencies have not been effectively sharing intelligence with each other. We hear story upon story about a lack of analysts with language skills, outdated computer systems, and turf battles. And now we hear, for the first time, that the administration is considering the need to create a new domestic intelligence agency. We hear that our Nation's top national security officials met for 2 hours this past Veterans Day to discuss this issue. Clearly, we need a plan to deal with domestic terrorism surveillance and to implement systems, procedures, and oversight to make sure that our intelligence agencies are talking to each other. Unfortunately, the current bill is largely silent on these issues. Second, I have serious concerns that the administration will be undertaking the most massive government reorganization in over 50 years while we are in the middle of our war against terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, and just last week he threatened new attacks. Indeed, the administration recently has warned us about ``spectacular'' attacks against our country. We must take great care that this massive reorganization does not compromise any of our ongoing efforts in our campaign to protect our homeland. Finally, I cannot stand silent about the egregious, superfluous, special-interest giveaways put into this bill at the very last minute by the administration acting in concert with Republican leaders in the House and Senate, everything from shutting the courtroom doors to families injured by pharmaceutical companies to allowing offshore tax haven companies to compete for homeland security contracts. So while I support the bill before us today, it is certainly not a perfect bill. Even more importantly, our work has just begun. The administration now needs to ensure that in creating this massive new Department it does so in a way that does not compromise the vital and ongoing work of the agencies involved. It is also imperative that we fix the central problem with our Nation's homeland security defenses, that of the lapses in our Nation's intelligence gathering and sharing efforts, and that we do so now. I wish we would have dealt with this more gaping security hole first, but all we can do now is to redouble our efforts in this most vital pursuit.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize the accomplishments of a colleague who will be retiring at the end of this term. Senator Fred Thompson has represented Tennessee in the Senate for 8 years. During his tenure, he has been an important advocate for a wide range of legislative reform activities. Throughout his Senate career, Senator Thompson has fought for protecting our national security, making government more efficient, and improving programs that are important to America's families, such as Social Security and Medicare. Senator Thompson has also been nationally recognized for his expertise in international affairs as was evidenced by his recent nomination to the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations. As the ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Fred Thompson held more than a dozen hearings on important national security issues, including missile defense technology and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a result of his efforts, Senator Thompson played a key role in bringing the issue of weapons proliferation to the forefront of the national agenda. In addition, Fred Thompson has been the leader in many efforts to reform and improve government. He has strongly supported proposals to streamline the regulatory process and to ensure the cost-effectiveness and benefit of regulatory programs. As the primary author of the Government Information Security Act, he also championed efforts to enhance the security of government computer systems and to strengthen privacy protection on Federal Web sites. Finally, as his colleague on the Finance Committee, I had the opportunity to work with Fred to address the challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. Among the efforts we jointly supported, a primary concern we have shared is improving the long-term solvency of these important social programs. As a Finance Committee member, as well as in the other roles he has served, Senator Thompson's work has been thoughtful, and our Nation is a better place because of his efforts. Most of all, I will miss Senator Thompson's unfailing good humor. We shared many laughs as we bantered back and forth about his future in film and television. I will really miss his sense of humor and basic decency. Mr. President, for these and many other reasons, I have been honored to serve with Fred Thompson. I would like to join my colleagues in wishing the Senator and his family the best in the future and in paying tribute to his contributions to the Senate and our Nation. I wish him well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Jean Carnahan. After losing her husband and eldest son in a tragic plane accident, Missouri called upon Mrs. Carnahan to fill the remainder of her husband's Term. Senator Carnahan answered the call of duty and did it with a fair, courageous hand. Senator Carnahan was Missouri's first member of the Armed Services Committee in over 25 years. She also served on the Small Business Committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging. Senator Carnahan made a strong economy her top priority. Her ability to secure defense projects for Missouri and safeguard funding for family farmers hurt by flooding and drought clearly shows Senator Carnahan's desire to bolster Missouri's economy, provide good jobs for Missouri workers, and support our Nation's effort in the war against terrorism. Senator Carnahan also knew that a highly skilled workforce required equal educational opportunities. Her Quality Classrooms Amendment allowed local schools greater flexibility in deciding how to utilize Federal dollars. She also worked to secure over $1.3 million for programs boosting postsecondary education assistance to low-income students. These initiatives illustrate Senator Carnahan's deep commitment to a better education and a brighter future for all Missouri students. Filling the seat of her late husband, Senator Carnahan led with dignity and courage as Missouri's first female Senator. She took office at a time of personal loss and hardship, yet prevailed and proved to be a strong leader for Missouri. I would like to join my colleagues in wishing Senator Carnahan and her family the very best in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to and recognize the hard work of my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith. Since joining the Senate in 1990, he has fought with honesty and commitment for the issues that he believed to be most important. As the ranking member and former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he focused great attention on reforms of the Corps of Engineers and funding to expand and improve transportation infrastructure. Also, as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Smith fought passionately for a strong military, and always made national security a top priority. I had the pleasure of working with Bob Smith in his efforts to establish accountability measures for missing MIAs and POWs. In his capacity as a member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, Senator Smith was very helpful in answering and addressing questions about Vietnam POWs from North Dakota. He also helped North Dakotans on POW issues from the cold war era. I also had the privilege of serving with Senator Smith on the Ethics Committee, which he chaired. I found him to be completely fair and non- partisan in his conduct of his duties. He also was one of the first of my colleagues to console me on the untimely death of my chief of staff, Kent Hall. Mr. President, it has been an honor to serve in the Senate with Bob Smith. I have the utmost respect for his service to the people of New Hampshire. While sitting in the historic desk of Daniel Webster, he has made contributions not only to the Senate but also to our Nation. I would like to join my colleagues in wishing Senator Smith and his family the best in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am honored to pay tribute and recognize the leadership, dedication to public service and hard work of my colleague from Georgia, Senator Max Cleland. Few Members of the Senate have sacrified so much for their country. Senator Cleland has had a remarkable 30-year career in public service including a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1967 in which he was awarded the Bronze and Silver Stars for meritorious service. Max started his career in the military soon after graduating from Stetson University, where he was a member of the Army ROTC. In 1967, he volunteered for duty in Vietnam. He quickly worked his way up the ranks, earning a promotion to Captain in 1968. In April of the same year, he was seriously wounded in a grenade explosion, which cost him both of his legs and his right arm. One month before his tour was up, he was sent home to recover from his injuries. His dedication to public service continued when he won a seat in the Georgia State Senate. As the youngest state senator, he pushed for a State law making public facilities accessible to the disabled. In 1975, Senator Cleland began his lifelong mission of improving the lives of the men and women in the military. Max was asked to work for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and 2 years later he accepted the position to head up the U.S. Veterans Administration. He was the youngest administrator and only Vietnam veteran to ever head up the agency. During his time with the Veterans Administration, Max instituted the ``Vets Center Program,'' which for the first time provided psychological counseling to combat veterans. This program has now led to over 200 Vet Centers around the country. Senator Cleland continued his public service for the people of Georgia in 1982, when he was elected Secretary of State. During his time in this position, he fought relentlessly for campaign finance reform and to reduce telemarking fraud. Senator Cleland also played a key role in the implementation of the National Voter Registration Act, or Motor Voter, in the State of Georgia. This in turn allowed an increase in access to government by getting nearly 1 million citizens of Georgia registered to vote. Max was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996; he filled the spot that was vacated by the retiring Sam Nunn. The 6 years that he spent in the Senate were marked by his passion and drive to accomplish what was of importance to the people he served. He was a proponent for the Patients' Bill of Rights and doggedly battled for the improvement of education by way of increased resources for teacher training and certification. As a former military man who served his country in Vietnam, Senator Cleland brought an understanding to the Senate Chamber, of the sacrifices made by individuals in the armed forces. This understanding led him to champion military causes. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, he fought for improvements in the quality of life of our active-duty, reserve, and retired military personnel through enhancement of the Montgomery G.I. Bill and improvement of retirement benefits. All his hard work has not gone unnoticed, Senator Cleland has been recognized nationally as the ``Minute Man of the Year,'' an award given by the Reserve Officers Association of America to two individuals annually for their tremendous leadership in the areas of military and national security. There is no doubt that on and off the battlefield, Max was a leader for the Armed Forces. Senator Cleland also provided support to military personnel stationed at the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. In 1997, during the devastating floods in North Dakota, several hundred active duty personnel from the Grand Forks base were unable to access disaster relief because Federal law limited assistance to personnel living on the base. Senator Cleland, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was instrumental in amending the law to enable those servicemen living off base to be eligible for this critical disaster assistance. Max's bravery, courage, and passion for these issues and many others will be missed. It has been an honor to serve with somebody who represents his constituents with such energy, drive and passion. I would like to join my colleagues in wishing the Senator and his family the best in the future and paying tribute to his outstanding public service. I wish him well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I take this opportunity to recognize the distinguished career of one of our retiring colleagues, the senior Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms. Senator Helms began his service in the U.S. Senate in January of 1973. When he retires at the end of this year, at the conclusion of his fifth term, he will have served the public as a U.S. Senator for a full 30 years. Those of us who have had the privilege of being a member of this institution understand well the commitment, hard work, dedication, and personal sacrifice that make such a record possible. Senator Helms' lengthy career in the Senate actually represented the continuation of an already notable and varied public life that included, among other things, service in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, senior staff positions under two U.S. Senators, two terms on the Raleigh, NC, City Council, and a host of leadership positions with civic, business, and educational organizations. During our time in the Senate, I have come to know Senator Helms best as a fellow member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. While on the Committee, he proved to be an outspoken and vigorous defender of those commodities, such as peanuts and tobacco, that are important to North Carolina's vital agricultural sector. But he has also shown himself to be a leader for all of U.S. agriculture, as when he chaired the Agriculture Committee during the period when Congress wrote the Food Security Act of 1985, otherwise known as the 1985 farm bill. That legislation is recognized even today for its groundbreaking commitment to keeping U.S. agriculture competitive in the international marketplace through such programs as the Export Enhancement Program and the Targeted Export Assistance program--now the Market Access Program--and for its landmark provisions in support of natural resource conservation, such as the Conservation Reserve Program. When I think of Senator Helms as a person, two characteristics stand out. First and foremost, I think of him as a gentleman always, one who gives current meaning to an old-fashioned term: courtly. Refined in his manners and respectful toward others, he brings a Southern charm and grace to all that he does, and a civility to political discourse that sadly is too often lacking today. Second, he has displayed even in the twilight of his career an openness and a tolerance toward others who hold views that he may not always have shared. In that respect, he has displayed a capacity for growth and understanding that should serve as an inspiration to the rest of us. I know that I am joined by all of my colleagues in wishing Senator Helms and his wife Dorothy a long restful, and fulfilling retirement together in North Carolina.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a man who is deeply missed. He was a colleague, a leader and a friend: Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Since joining the Senate in 1990, Paul earned his reputation as a great leader and a man of the people. He had strong convictions and an unparalleled passion for supporting the under- represented. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Wellstone was a tireless advocate for the concerns of working Americans. He pushed for expanded school funding and for improved teacher quality. He championed expanded financial aid to make sure that money was not an insurmountable hurdle for those who wanted to go to college. He fought for a higher minimum wage and better working conditions. He wanted to help the average American by working to provide better, more affordable, more available health care. It was visible to all who watched him that Paul truly loved his work, and the people for whom he did that work. Paul was a strong voice in the Senate and across the country in the battle for human rights. For example, Paul and his wife Sheila crossed the country fighting against domestic abuse. But his concern for the dignity of human beings did not stop at our country's borders. He championed a trade policy that would protect foreign workers from being exploited by multi-national corporations. He was a vigorous supporter for peace in the Middle East and an advocate of foreign aid to help vulnerable children and the persecuted of all races and religions around the world. There wasn't an issue that affected human beings or our quality of life that Paul did not actively pursue; he fought for the people, stood up for his beliefs and let the political chips fall where they might. Senator Wellstone was also a leading proponent for American Veterans and their families. Year after year, in ways small and large, Paul Wellstone fought to improve health care and other benefits for those who had served their country. Many veterans disagreed with his views on defense and foreign policy, but that did not matter to Senator Wellstone. He understood that those who had put their lives on the line for their country deserved special treatment and special respect whether they supported him or opposed him. People didn't always agree with his position, but he was always forthright. There was never a question of motives with Paul. Senator Wellstone never let policy disagreements get personal; he always had a ready wink or smile or joke to share when the debate had ended. And he had a sense of humor that was downright infectious. I worked most closely with Senator Wellstone on agriculture issues. Paul was a fighter. He worked tirelessly to improve policy for the farmers in Minnesota and other rural states. Minnesota's dairy farmers couldn't have asked for a more vigorous ambassador in the fight for a fairer dairy program; his efforts paid off in the 2002 farm bill, which made great strides in leveling the playing field for Midwestern dairy farmers. Paul worked on conservation issues, supported farm payment programs to family farmers and worked to improve nutrition programs in the farm bill. Senator Wellstone also understood the value of strong communities in rural areas and tirelessly pushed for rural economic development. As with everything else he worked on, Paul brought a unique passion and unceasing efforts to these battles. Paul also worked side-by-side with me after the Red River flooded Grand Forks and East Grand Forks in one of the worst flood disasters in our history. His advocacy was invaluable as we secured disaster aid to rebuild the communities that had been devastated by flooding and fires. When a battle was truly important and people's livelihoods were on the line, there was no one who would fight harder than Paul Wellstone. We also worked together on the issue of mental health parity. I can well remember when Senator Wellstone took this issue to the Senate floor during the debate on health insurance portability. The managers of the bill had crafted a delicately balanced bill and agreed to oppose all amendments in order to preserve their compromise. But that would not stop Paul Wellstone. He offered his amendment, and gave a typically passionate, personal plea to put an end to the injustice that condemns those with mental illnesses to inferior health care coverage. I was privileged to join Senator Domenici and former Senator Alan Simpson in making the case for this amendment. And, despite the bipartisan opposition of the leadership on the bill, Paul's passion and the personal stories shared by his allies carried the day overwhelmingly. Paul's enthusiasm was infectious and deeply respected by his colleagues. No loss on an amendment or other setback could keep Paul down; he was always ready to rejoin the fight and perpetually optimistic that he would expand his coalition and find a way to win the battle the next time. It is his character and good humor that we remember, and it is his unquenchable desire to help human beings of all kinds that will prove to be the greatest loss.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I was surprised to get up this morning and read the Washington Post and see that the Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, said the House could pass drought relief legislation after the election, `` . . . if there is a problem.'' Where has the Speaker been? If there is a problem? Tell that to the farmers of North Dakota. This is a photo of what it looks like in southwestern North Dakota. That is a moonscape. Nothing is growing. There is no question, I would say to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, about whether or not there is a problem. There is a deep problem. This is a disastrous year. Let me read just one letter from a farmer in North Dakota. He says: Dear Senator Conrad: I am a 40 year old man with a wife and 4 children. I am a third generation farmer. We enjoy farming very much but it's getting very hard to keep on going. He continues: When we have had good crops in the past there was no price. Now in 2002 we have no crop, no grass, no hay, and no rain, which all leads to no money. I know it is hard for city people to understand the difficulties of farming, but it has become very hard to keep a good attitude when you are always under financial pressure. Without any disaster aid this fall, a lot of good farmers will be forced to sell, or will simply just quit. He went on to say: I hope and pray that you can persuade the Members of the House how serious it is out here in rural North Dakota. I do not know of anything that could tell the story more clearly than this picture. This isn't just a small part of southwestern North Dakota. This is mile upon mile of southwestern North Dakota. This is a drought as bad or worse than the 1930s. This has to be responded to. For the Speaker to say yesterday that the House could pass drought legislation ``if there's a problem'' misses the point entirely. There is a problem. It is more than a problem. It is a crisis. And it is not just in North Dakota. How can the Speaker of the House have missed this? In Montana, in South Dakota, in Nebraska, in Kansas, in Minnesota, in Wyoming, and other parts of the country as well, they have suffered different kinds of disasters. My neighboring State of Minnesota has suffered the worst flooding in their history--and the administration has said, Well, look to the farm bill. Yet the administration knows there are no disaster provisions in the farm bill. They prevented it. The Speaker prevented it. I was one of the conferees on the farm bill. When we went to conference with the Senate bill that included disaster assistance, the House conferees said that there were only two things they were not at liberty to discuss in the conference. No. 1, they said we can't talk about opening trade with Cuba; and No. 2, we cannot talk about disaster assistance. The House conferees told us that those two issues had to go to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker said no. The President has said no. Always before when any part of the country suffered a disaster, we have moved to respond-- always. Whether it was earthquakes in California, mud slides in that same State, hurricanes in the State of the occupant of the Chair, whether it was drought in farm country, or flooding any place in the Nation--always before we have moved to help. This year, there is no assistance for those suffering natural disasters. That is wrong. In my State, there is a calamity. It is not just my State. It is State after State. For the Speaker to say yesterday that disaster aid may be considered later this fall ``if there's a problem'' shows that he is terribly out of touch with what is happening across this great Nation. These are natural disasters that deserve a response and that require a response, and we ought to be providing help. For those who say look to the farm bill, there is no disaster assistance in the farm bill. In fact, there are savings under the farm bill to pay for the disaster assistance. Some may ask, How is that? Very simply, because of these disasters, there is less production. That means prices are higher. That means the farm bill will cost less. The Congressional Budget Office has told me and has told all of our colleagues there will be about $6 billion in savings in the farm bill this year because of these natural disasters. That also happens to be the size of the disaster relief package. So we have an opportunity here to be fiscally responsible. We are proposing to spend the same amount of money on disaster assistance that is being saved in the farm bill because of these disasters. Because there is less production, prices are higher than anticipated. That means the farm bill will cost less by nearly $6 billion. That is money that could be available for disaster assistance and should be. Let me conclude with this chart that shows what this is going to mean. Net farm income is going to decline this year by 21 percent across the country largely because of these natural disasters. Yet there is no response from Washington. We passed disaster assistance here in the U.S. Senate. We passed it as part of the farm bill. We passed it on an amendment on the Interior appropriations bill with 79 votes--an overwhelming bipartisan agreement that we should provide disaster assistance. But the House has said no. The President has said no. To have the Speaker of the House say yesterday that they may consider aid in a lame duck session ``if there's a problem'' is incredible. Where has the Speaker of the House been to say ``if there's a problem''? This is a disaster. This is a crisis. There ought to be a response. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. At this point, I thank my very able colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who has provided leadership to this body on these issues for a very long time and is keenly committed to the budget process, and who is deeply committed, as well, to fiscal discipline. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for his strong support of this amendment. I also want to thank him for his contribution on the Budget Committee. He has been a disciplined voice for fiscal responsibility. He has been a leader in trying to bring to the attention of our colleagues how dramatically the budget circumstance of the Federal Government has changed. I thank Senator Feingold for reminding our colleagues of where we were a year ago, where we are now, and where we are headed. It is critically important that our colleagues, the others on the other side of the Capitol in the other body, and the American people understand how dramatically our fiscal circumstances have changed. A year ago, we were told we could expect over the next 10 years nearly $6 trillion in surpluses. Now we know with the latest look from the Congressional Budget Office that the money is all gone. If we were just to put in place the President's proposals for spending and revenue over the next decade, there wouldn't be $6 trillion of surpluses. There wouldn't be $4 trillion of surpluses. There wouldn't be $2 trillion. There would be $400 billion of deficits. That is from $5.6 trillion, which we were told a year ago we would have in the surpluses over the next decade, to $400 billion of deficits. That is a $6 trillion swing in 1 year. Now the question before this body is we are going to leave this place without the fiscal discipline that helped us get deficits under control once before in our history--after the 1980s when deficits were exploding, and we put in place a framework to get us back on track, a framework that worked, a framework that moved us from deficits to surpluses, that led to the longest economic expansion in our history, that led to the lowest inflation in 30 years, and the lowest unemployment in 30 years. Are we going to abandon all of that now? That is the question before this body. Are we going to have the fiscal discipline that will be critically important to economic recovery? That is the question. That is what this amendment is about. That is why it is important. That is why I thank Senator Gregg, Senator Feingold, and Senator Domenici for cosponsoring this amendment. That is why I ask my colleagues to adopt it. This is important. It is important not just for the notion of fiscal discipline, but it is important for the economy. When the markets see that we are serious about living within our means, we know that means good things for interest rates, and we know that means good things for the economic strength of America. That is what this amendment is about. I know there are some who have a different view. I can't think of any good thing that will come from doing away with the budget disciplines that have worked so effectively in this Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has begun debate on the extension of several critically important budget enforcement tools. I want to thank the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for bringing up this important matter and for finding the time for this Senate debate. I know that floor time is scarce and there are many other important priorities for this Senate, but I believe this amendment, authored by myself, Senator Domenici, Senator Gregg, and Senator Feingold, is one of the most important measures the Senate will vote upon this year. As I have indicated, I am especially pleased to be joined in this amendment by the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. The amendment that we offer today represents a major step in preserving fiscal discipline in the Senate. The bipartisan amendment includes a 1-year extension requiring 60 votes in the Senate to waive certain Budget Act points of order. The extension would continue the 60-vote waiver of these points of order against legislation that would, among other things, decrease the Social Security surplus, increase spending, or cut taxes beyond levels specified in the most recent budget resolution. A 1-year extension of the Senate pay-as-you-go rule that has been in effect since 1993 is also included. This Senate rule requires 60 votes to waive a point of order raised against direct spending or tax cut legislation that would increase the deficit, further tapping into the Social Security surplus. In addition, the resolution extends the pay- as-you-go rule to mandatory spending items added to appropriations bills. If you pierce the veil, because that is a lot of technical language that is important, the fundamentals of this amendment are very simple. This is a question of whether or not we are going to have the budget disciplines we have had in place for most of the last decade that proved to be so important to having fiscal discipline in the Congress. This amendment will help protect Social Security. As previously mentioned, it extends the Senate pay-go rule which helps to prevent use of the Social Security surplus for tax cuts or mandatory spending. It will extend the requirement for 60 votes to waive a point of order against a reconciliation bill that would make changes in Social Security. It will extend the requirement for 60 votes to waive a point of order against a budget resolution that would reduce the Social Security surplus, and it will extend the requirement for 60 votes to waive a point of order against legislation that would reduce the Social Security surplus. This amendment does not accomplish everything I would like to accomplish. Back in June, Senators Domenici and Feingold and I offered an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would have included all of the elements of this amendment but also would have gone further. At that time, we recommended to our colleagues to set a limit of $768 billion on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003 and a required 60 votes to waive a point of order against legislation that would exceed that limit. We offered an extension of the statutory rules that would enforce that discretionary limit through sequestration. We also would have extended the statutory pay-as-you-go rules that require that increases in mandatory spending or tax cuts be paid for and that enforce requirement for sequestration. Although we had bipartisan support for that amendment, we fell one vote short of the supermajority that was required. The President will recall on that day we had 59 votes to extend the enforcement procedures on the budget, 59 votes for a spending cap. But 59 votes was not enough. The rules require that we have the supermajority of 60 votes; we fell 1 vote short. Senator Domenici, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, stood with us in that effort. Senator Stevens, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, stood with us on that vote. Senator McCain, a prominent Republican Presidential candidate, stood with us on that vote. Again, we did not achieve the 60 votes necessary to have that measure passed. I would still like to put in place a limit on discretionary spending and extend the more comprehensive package of enforcement tools on which we voted that day. Getting agreement between the House, Senate, and the White House on a discretionary spending limit is not possible right now. For now, we have to take this different approach, even though it is more limited. Because of the importance of extending Senate rules enforcing limits on mandatory spending and tax cuts, Senator Domenici and I agreed to proceed with this simple Senate resolution. Let me be clear; this is not a budget resolution. There has been some discussion, and I know Senator Domenici expressed concern to me. He is right; this is not a budget resolution. This is a measure that extends budget enforcement procedures in the Senate. It extends the expiring requirements for 60 votes in the Senate to waive the point of order relating to mandatory spending and tax cuts. It is, unfortunately, silent on the level of discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003. Again, while this is not everything I want or everything that needs to be done to ensure fiscal discipline, I am convinced this is all that is possible today. It represents a very important step forward in the fight for fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let us demonstrate to the American people that the Senate has not abandoned budget discipline. Amendment No. 4886 I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in a few moments we will make one of the most fateful decisions for our country. We will decide if we authorize the President to take this Nation to war. As with every momentous debate in this Chamber, our deliberations will resonate long into the future. Few decisions will have greater consequences to the people we represent and to the future of our Nation. Before I ask young men and women to put themselves in harm's way, I must be convinced we have exhausted every other possibility, pursued every other avenue. For me, and I believe for the people I represent, war must be the last resort. As we debate the course this Nation will take, some facts are clear and unassailable. Saddam Hussein is a menace to the whole region of the Middle East and a vicious tyrant who harms and oppresses his own people. He has waged war against neighboring nations, and he has attacked the people of his own country. He has acquired chemical and biological weapons. He is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver those weapons using ballistic missiles. There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world. I agree that we must take action. The question is, What course do we take? How do we best protect the national security of our country? A decade ago in the gulf war, Saddam Hussein launched a surprise attack on Kuwait and we rallied a powerful international response to defeat him. Today, we debate a much different scenario. Saddam has not directly threatened his neighbors since the gulf war. In a recent threat assessment from the Central Intelligence Agency, it concludes that Iraq is not likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States. Yet the President is contemplating a preemptive invasion of Iraq with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a new regime. Never before in the history of this Nation has the Congress voted to authorize a preemptive attack on a country that has not first attacked us or our allies. Let me be clear. I do not oppose the use of force against this lawless and dangerous tyrant, but I cannot support the resolution before us as it stands. It is too broad and open-ended, and I do not believe it is in the national security interest of the United States. In my judgment, an invasion of Iraq at this time would make the United States less secure rather than more secure. It would make a dangerous world even more dangerous. First, we have unfinished business with the terrorists of al-Qaida. For the past year we have all agreed that combating al-Qaida was our first priority. News reports just this morning warned us of the danger of renewed terrorist attacks against our country, organized and orchestrated by al-Qaida. I believe defeating the terrorists who launched the attacks on the United States last September 11 must be our first priority before we launch a new war on a new front. Yet today the President asks us to take action against Iraq as a first priority. I believe that has the priority wrong. Second, a unilateral invasion could prompt the very attack we seek to preempt. In just the last few days, the CIA has reported that there is a very low probability Saddam Hussein would launch a biological or chemical attack against the United States or our interests in the region. However, if we launch a unilateral invasion, the risk rises dramatically that a desperate Saddam would use biological and chemical weapons. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to former President Bush, wrote that in the wake of an invasion: Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses. Third, an invasion of Iraq for the purposes of regime change would necessitate a march on Baghdad. Such a course would expose our forces on the ground to serious risks in hand-to-hand, street-by-street urban warfare in a foreign capital. We would lose much of our advantage in superior airpower and technology. The military and civilian casualties could be substantial. The former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, testified before Congress: In urban warfare you could run through battalions a day at a time. All our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility . . . are in part given up. Those are sobering words--battalions a day at a time. Fourth, a unilateral attack by the United States could destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region and inflame anti-American interests around the globe. An American invasion could doubtless impact the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The backlash in Arab nations could further energize and deepen anti-American sentiment. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups could gain more willing suicide bombers and raise even greater financial resources from the wealthy nations of the region. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, put it succinctly: ``If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies. . . . we're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda.'' Let me repeat that. ``We're liable to super- charge recruiting for al Qaeda.'' Fifth, if this nation asserts that pre-emptive military attacks are justified in this conflict, what are the consequences for other conflicts around the globe? Would India or Pakistan claim the same justification in Kashmir, raising the prospect of nuclear war in South Asia? Could China use this precedent to attack Taiwan, potentially drawing the U.S. into a major war with China? Could Russia use this justification to re-occupy parts of the former Soviet Union? And sixth, while the financial costs of this effort should not drive this debate, we cannot ignore them. The Congressional Budget Office has just estimated that an invasion of Iraq could cost this nation $6 billion to $9 billion a month. That is a significant financial toll at any time, but particularly when we are still engaged in conflict in Afghanistan. The economic downturn makes the expense even harder to bear. CBO estimates that the costs of an invasion plus a five-year occupation would reach some $272 billion. How will we pay for this? Does the White House propose new taxes? Or are we to assume that this will be paid for out of the Social Security trust funds? Will we go deeper and deeper into debt? Or does the President suggest cuts in key domestic programs, such as education, highways, or healthcare. Which brings me to my final point. If our goal is to topple Saddam, what is our responsibility for the regime that follows: Forming a new government in Iraq is far from simple. There is no clear successor to Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a country filled with competing ethnic groups and religious and tribal factions with no history of democracy. I do not want to see our forces mired in a long occupation, in dangerous territory, in a destabilized region, subject to violence within Iraq. I do not want to see the United States responsible for the stability of Iraq, the economy of Iraq, and the political future of that nation. I began by saying that while I do not oppose the use of force against this dictator, war must be our last resort. I believe history has important lessons for us. Many other dangerous dictators have acquired weapons of mass destruction, or tried to. Yet we successfully contained the Soviet Union, Communist China, and North Korea and others without resorting to a pre-emptive first strike. Again and again, we have seen the scenario. A vicious dictator amasses weapons of mass destruction, threatens his neighbors, and threatens the United States. Always in the past, we have chosen containment and deterence--not invasion. In the past, we have contained the dictator, rallied international support to isolate him, and together with our allies carried out a disciplined, forceful and effective strategy of deterrence. We did not launch an invasion. Even when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles just 90 miles off our coastline, we did not invade. Rather, President John F. Kennedy issued an ultimatum--a successful ultimatum. We demanded the removal of those missiles. We succeeded, and we brought the world back from the brink of a nuclear conflict that might have engulfed the world. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., recently asked: ``Why not . . . try the combination of containment and deterrence that won us the Cold War? Saddam is not likely to attack other countries. He knows that he would be playing into Bush's hands. Retaliation would be prompt and overwhelming, and Saddam has no interest in suicide. The one situation that might induce him to use his weaponry is a U.S. attack on Iraq.'' The historical lesson is clear. There are disciplined and forceful actions we can take against dictators and aggressors short of invasion, actions that can succeed. Clearly, if Saddam Hussein were to attack this country--or if we had strong evidence that an attack on this country were imminent--we would have every right to defend ourselves. In that case, Saddam should have no doubt that the United States would obliterate him. If the President has new knowledge on an imminent threat from Iraq that contradicts the statement of his CIA Director just this week that an attack is unlikely, he should reveal it to this Congress. I believe in protecting our people and our allies from imminent danger. But I believe the President must present stronger evidence to the Congress and the American public before he reverses a strategy that has worked well against dictators around the world. Before this nation strikes first, strikes unilaterally, strikes preemptively, we must know how this threat is different from those that have come before. Inaction and appeasement are not options. We must be prepared to use force to defend out national security interests, with or without the support of the UN. And I support the use of force against Iraq in the following circumstances. We need no one's permission to fight back when attacked, and force would be fully justified in the case of an Iraqi attack against this country or our allies. Force would also be justified if we were presented with clear and compelling evidence Saddam was preparing an imminent attack on this nation, or on our allies. Additionally, the use of force would be justified if we were provided with credible evidence that Saddam was linked to the September 11th attacks on this nation or if Saddam were to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Finally, I believe we must be prepared to use force in concert with our allies to destroy, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction if Saddam refuses to comply with UN resolutions ordering him to disarm. I support the use of force when it is in our national security interest. I voted for the Levin amendment to authorize the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein and affirm our right to self defense. I also voted for the Durbin amendment to authorize the use of force to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. For all the reasons I have cited, I believe an invasion of Iraq must be a last resort, not a first response. Instead, I believe we can and should take a phased approach. First, we should exhaust every option available to us at the United Nations. Saddam has defied the U.N. in the past, but the growing U.S. and international pressure, and the imminent threat of military action may give the process new life. Further, our allies will be more willing to join with us if we exhaust every option at the U.N. Next, we should make every attempt to forge the same strong coalition of nations that brought Saddam to his knees during the Gulf War. The knowledge that he is an outlaw in the eyes of the world community will send a powerful message to Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions he agreed to after the Gulf War. I believe we should issue an ultimatum to Saddam to allow weapons inspections and immediately disarm. If he does not comply we can then take swift military action to force his compliance and deprive him of his weapons. But I do not believe we should authorize an invasion of Iraq tonight. I know this vote will place me with a small minority of colleagues here, but I must vote my conscience. I say to the President and to my colleagues that while I do not support this resolution, I know it will pass. And if the President exercises the authority it grants him to launch a unilateral invasion of Iraq, I will stand with him. I will do everything in my power to support our troops and ask for the support of our allies. Like every American on that day, I will pray for the safety of our soldiers in battle, the wisdom of our leaders, a swift victory, and the lasting peace that has so far eluded the troubled peoples of the region.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, at the close of the 107th Congress, the Senate will lose a legend, a colleague who has served more than 40 years in the U.S. Senate, cast more than 15,000 votes and achieved the record as the longest-serving Member in this body. Perhaps most notably, our colleague, on his retirement, will have completed the lengthiest record of public service on behalf of our country. Senator Thurmond has served his community as an educator; the State as State senator, judge, and Governor; and our Nation in World War II in both the European and Pacific theaters, an Army Reservist for 36 years, as a candidate for President and as U.S. Senator. This record of service spans a period of more than 80 years. Remarks by Senator Thurmond at the time of his swearing-in ceremony for his seventh term in 1997 express succinctly his views and commitment to public service. At the time he said, ``there is no more rewarding endeavor than public service, and without question, the more than 40 years I have spent in the U.S. Senate have been among the happiest of my life.'' As I review Senator Thurmond's record of service, and reflect on his service in the Senate and to our country, few Americans have had the opportunity to witness and shape history as he has. Senator Thurmond's achievements in the military and on defense matters serve to underscore this point. Senator Thurmond is a veteran who served in World War II during some of the most difficult combat of the war. He parachuted into Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division, earning 5 battle stars and 18 decorations including the Purple Heart, the Legion of Merit, Belgian Order of the Crown and French Croix de Guerre during his service. Following WW II, Senator Thurmond continued his military career by serving in the Army Reserves for many years. During this period, he attained the rank of major general. Knowing the face of battle, Thurmond never forgot the importance maintaining a strong defense and especially of taking care of our military personnel. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since 1959, and chairman of the committee for a number of years during the 1990s, Senator Thurmond made certain that the needs of our military were met. He had a special concern for junior enlisted personnel and non-commissioned officers along with the welfare of their families. This concern was clearly demonstrated by his efforts during Senate consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 1999. In this Act, a number of provisions were incorporated that significantly improve benefits for military personnel. Were it not for Senator Thurmond's leadership on military personnel issues, our Armed Forces would unquestionably not be receiving the benefits that they should and are entitled to receive. I am pleased that the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1999 bears his name. It is a fitting tribute to an individual who cared so much for our military personnel. There is so much that can be said about Senator Thurmond and his many contributions to our country. He was an 82nd Airborne paratrooper with a remarkable service record in World War II, a disabled veteran, an educator, and a distinguished public servant at all levels of government. Unquestionably, Senator Thurmond deserves our respect. It is my hope that younger Americans will have opportunities to learn about Senator Thurmond's career and accomplishments. I have been privileged to serve with Senator Thurmond and thank him for his service.

Mr. CONRAD

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

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. The President, again, says the problem is spending. Let's look at what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells us is the reason for this disappearance of the surplus. Nearly $6 trillion of projected surplus from last year, gone. There is nothing left. If we adopt the President's budget and spending plan, there are no surpluses, only deficits, some $400 billion. And that is the good news because that assumes that the President takes every penny of Social Security surplus over the next decade. So the real deficits are much worse than the $400 billion that I have shown under the President's plan. The true deficits, not counting Social Security, not taking Social Security money to use it for other purposes, is not $400 billion; it is $2.7 trillion. Where did all the money go? Here is what the Congressional Budget Office told us. Thirty-four percent of the disappearance of the surplus went to the tax cuts the President pushed through Congress that were passed last year, and that he signed into law. Twenty-nine percent is from overestimations of revenue by his administration; that is, outside of the tax cuts. So revenue is down 63 percent, not counting lost revenue from the economic downturn; it accounts for 63 percent of the disappearance of the projected surpluses. Twenty-two percent of the disappearance is because of spending, spending on national defense and homeland security. That is where the increases have been. The President supported every penny of those increases in spending. That is where the money has gone. In addition, 15 percent of the disappearance of the surplus is the result of the economic downturn. That is where the money has gone. For the President to assert it is Democrats who have been overspending is not supported by the facts. The facts are, the overwhelming reason for the disappearance of the surplus is the tax cuts the President proposed and pushed through Congress. The second biggest reason for the disappearance of the surplus is his administration's overestimates of revenue apart from the tax cuts. The third biggest reason is spending on defense and homeland security, every penny of which the President supported. And the smallest reason for the disappearance of the surplus is the economic downturn. The President, regrettably, is pointing fingers at everyone else but refusing to acknowledge his own responsibility for this dramatic turn in the fiscal condition of the country. The President says: It is the attack on the country and the economic slowdown. Those are two reasons, but, in fact, they are the smallest reasons for the disappearance of the surplus. The biggest reasons are the tax cut he pushed and his overestimations of revenue. Those are his responsibilities and his failures. Remarkably, the President's answer to all of this is to advocate more tax cuts. Let's dig the hole deeper. We already see an ocean of red ink over the next decade. We see under the President's plan the taking of over $2 trillion from Social Security to pay for his tax cuts and other things. And the President's answer is: Let's have more tax cuts, $400 billion more in this decade for making the tax cuts passed last year permanent, and a cost in the next decade of $4 trillion. I hope people are listening. I hope people are thinking about the implications of this. We already face an ocean of red ink. And what the President is proposing is, let's get it bigger; let's have more red ink.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, appropriately, there has been a great deal of discussion over the past week about the fiscal status of the country, the condition of our budget, and our national economy. I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some of the false claims that have been made by the Bush administration and by some Members of the Senate over the last 10 days. First, I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by the President when he was at a fundraiser in Iowa on Monday. The President said the following there. He said: [W]e have a budget that focuses on setting priorities and focuses on getting us back to a balanced budget. But there has been no budget out of the United States Senate. They haven't passed a budget. They have no plan to balance the budget. . . . It's of concern, because if you have no budget, it means there's no discipline. And if there's no discipline, it's likely that the Senate will overspend. If there was ever a case of someone accusing another of their own shortcomings, this is it. My grandmother once told me: Sometimes what people say about others reveals more about themselves than it does of those who they seek to characterize. This is that circumstance. These comments by the President, I find deeply disturbing. It is unfortunate that the President continues to deny any responsibility for the Nation's dive back into deficits and for increasing debt. Instead, he desperately tries to blame others for the deficits that his own policies have created. Let's look at the President's first claim, that he and the House Republicans have a plan that ``focuses on getting us back to a balanced budget.'' No, they do not. That is not true. The President must know it is not true. They have no plan that gets us back into balance. In fact, the plan they have drives us deep into the deficit swamp. That is the truth. You will recall 1 year ago, the President told us, with great confidence, that we could expect $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next decade. We warned, at the time, that that was a risky gamble, that one could not count on a 10-year forecast, that there was enormous risk associated with it. The President insisted not only that there was going to be $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next decade, but he and his administration told us privately that there is probably going to be much more money than that. We said: No, we think it is highly unlikely that we will see that level of surplus. And just 1 year later, what we find is, if the President's spending and tax policies over the next decade are adopted, instead of $5.6 trillion of surpluses, we will see $400 billion of deficits. The President says it is the fault of the Democrats, that they are spending the money. Madam President, this will happen without a dime of spending by Democrats. These numbers only include the President's own proposals for spending and additional tax cuts. They lead us from a circumstance of last year being told we had nearly $6 trillion of surpluses to one in which we now see $400 billion of deficits, if his policies are adopted. In many ways, this is the best case scenario because it does not take into account that the President will be using trillions of dollars of Social Security money on top of this. This chart shows--I will put it in the Record; I know it is too small to read from afar--but one can see the red. The red are the deficits. If you don't count Social Security money, if you don't take Social Security money, as the President proposes, and use it for other things, we see red ink throughout the entire rest of the decade. In fact, over $2.7 trillion of money is being taken from Social Security to pay for other things under the President's budget plan. That is a recipe for fiscal disaster. And it is the President's plan, make no mistake about it. I ask unanimous consent the chart I just referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, if we adopt the President's proposal, this country will be digging a hole so deep that we will face enormously difficult choices in the future: massive cuts in benefits, massive tax increases, huge debt, unsustainable, all of them. But that is the direction the President has us headed in fiscal policy. I know people are distracted and thinking about war with Iraq and thinking about a war against terrorism. And those command our attention. But we must also pay attention to the fundamental financial strength of America. The President has us on a disastrous fiscal course, with deficits all the rest of this decade, the President is proposing making them much deeper in the next decade, right at the time the baby boomers retire. We must understand, we are in the sweet spot of the fiscal future of America. Right now the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare are throwing off huge surpluses. Yet under the President's plan, all that money, every dime of it over the next decade, is being taken and used for other purposes, used to fund the tax cuts, to pay for other priorities. What is going to happen when these baby boomers retire and they are eligible for Social Security and Medicare? This is not a matter of projections. The baby boomers have been born. They are alive today. They will retire, and they will be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. But they are going to find the cupboard is bare because the President has advocated and pushed through Congress a policy that uses all of the money. Let's now consider the President's second claim that the Senate has no budget plan. We reported out of the Senate Budget Committee back in March a 10-year plan that would have made available to the President all of the resources requested by him for defense and homeland security, but still we paid down as much as $500 billion more in debt than the President's budget. To say we have no plan is simply wrong. We have a plan, a very clear plan, a very detailed plan that also contained a circuitbreaker to put the Nation back on a path to balance without raiding the Social Security trust funds and to do it within 5 years. I would like to do it this year but that is no longer possible. But it is critical we adopt a plan that does return fiscal responsibility. We have presented that plan. It has passed the Budget Committee. Sadly, our counterparts in the House, instead of adopting a 10-year budget plan, as is traditional, as the President proposed, that could have been sent to a conference with the Senate, the House of Representatives passed only a 5-year plan. Why? Because they wanted to hide the enormous cost in the second 5 years of the President's plan to make the tax cuts permanent and to add even more tax cuts. Further, the House used overly optimistic OMB numbers instead of the Congressional Budget Office projections of costs and revenues; again, misleading the American public as to our true financial condition. The House set spending for such priorities as education and law enforcement and highway construction at levels so low that the House Republican leadership can't even get their own Members to vote for the appropriations bills on the floor of the House of Representatives. They want to wait until after the election because they know they dare not go to the American people with proposals to do such things as the President proposed as cutting the highway program 27 percent or virtually eliminating the COPS Program that has put 100,000 police officers on the street. How wise is it to eliminate the COPS Program when we are subject to terrorist attacks? These factors have made it virtually impossible for the House and Senate to ever reach agreement on a budget resolution this year. In June, in the Senate, a group of us, on a bipartisan basis, offered a budget agreement for the next year containing the key elements of what the Budget Committee proposed, including the setting of realistic spending limits and renewing expiring budget enforcement mechanisms so we could maintain fiscal responsibility. What did the Bush administration do? They engaged in a furious lobbying effort against it--against setting a realistic cap on spending, against extending the budget enforcement procedures to help maintain fiscal discipline. It seems shocking now to hear the President say he is worried about deficits because he and his administration blocked the efforts to protect us against those very events. The fact is that we got 59 votes for that proposal on a bipartisan basis. We needed a supermajority, which is 60. Even though we had 59, we needed 60. So that spending cap wasn't put in place and we did not get the budget enforcement procedures extended. The bottom line is that we set a realistic and appropriate spending cap. The administration is opposing it in a desperate attempt to look fiscally conservative given the massive deficits that have returned on their watch. Yesterday, one of my colleagues came to the floor and complained that spending is too high and it is the reason for the return to deficits. The place where spending has increased is in defense and homeland security, every penny of which the President asked for, every penny of which passed here with huge, bipartisan majorities. Those measures that are still pending will pass with huge bipartisan majorities. While it is true that defense and homeland security spending has gone up, it is very important to put into context what has happened to overall Federal spending over the last 20 years. What one sees is overall Federal spending--going back to 1980, it was 22 percent of GDP. In the previous Bush administration, it was close to 22 percent of gross domestic product. It has come down to 18.4 percent. Federal spending has been coming down as a share of our national income. It is true we have now had a blip up. We have had that blip up because of the attack on America. Yes, we have increased defense spending; yes, we have increased homeland security spending--at the request of the President of the United States. He was right to do so. Even with that, we see--looking ahead--a decline in the share of national income coming to the Federal Government. Federal spending, while certainly a part of this calculation and a contributor to the increased deficits because of the increases for national defense and homeland security, is not the major reason for the return to deficits and the increasing debt. It is a reason, but it is a relatively small reason. The same can be said of discretionary spending, which is for all of the things that are not mandatory. Mandatory spending is Social Security, Medicare, farm program--that is mandatory spending. Discretionary spending is for things such as parks, roads, law enforcement, and defense. You can see that discretionary spending has come down quite sharply since 1981. Again, we see a blip up because of homeland security and national defense. It is also quite remarkable to see members of this administration complaining about the discretionary spending cap we proposed when they are coming out at the same time estimating that a war against Iraq could cost literally hundreds of billions of dollars. Just this Monday, we saw the President's chief economic aide say the cost of the war with Iraq may top $100 billion. More than that, Mr. Lindsey dismissed the economic consequences of such spending, saying, ``It wouldn't have an appreciable effect on interest rates or add much to the Federal debt, which is already about $3.6 trillion.'' I am from North Dakota. In North Dakota, $100 billion is still real money. That is big money. The President's Chief Economic Adviser--maybe it is part of the reason we are in such financial straits as we are, because this man doesn't understand the significance of $100 billion. He said it really makes no difference. On the other hand, they say $9 billion more so that we don't cut the Federal highway program by 27 percent, so we don't eliminate the COPS program, so we don't cut education--that $9 billion is a disaster, but $100 billion doesn't matter. That is a policy that does not add up. So where has the Bush fiscal policy left us? The fact is that the surplus is gone. The Federal debt has come roaring back. You will remember that last year the President promised us he would have maximum paydown of the Federal debt. Now we see that that is not true either. The debt held by the public in 2008, he told us last year, would be virtually eliminated. Now we see, instead of having virtually no debt, we are going to be stuck with $3.8 trillion of debt. That has serious consequences for the country. The President, who said he would have maximum paydown of the national debt, came and asked for a maximum increase in the debt limit. In fact, the only larger request for an increase in the debt limit came from his father when he was President. He asked for a $915 billion increase in the debt. This President asked for $750 billion. The consequences of this enormously increased debt--increased from what we were told last year--is that the interest costs to the Federal Government have tripled, from $620 billion, over the next 10 years, to $1.9 trillion. These policies have real consequences, and real effects, and real impacts on our national economy. Last year, the President said maximum paydown of the debt. Now what we see under his policy, instead of maximum paydown of debt, is that we will have maximum taking of money from the Social Security trust fund to pay for other things. In fact, the remarkable reality of what we confront is that the President, under his plan, will take every penny of the Social Security surplus over the next decade to pay for his tax cuts and other things. This is the time when we are on the brink of the retirement of the baby boom generation. This is what we face in the longer term. Right now, the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare are throwing off large surpluses. But that money is being taken under the President's plan to pay for other things, including his tax cut. And we know that, starting in the year 2016, these trust funds go from cash positive to cash negative, and they do it in a very big way. We need to get ready for this reality. That is why we proposed less of a tax cut, more money to paying down debt, more money to secure the long-term solvency of Social Security. The President rejected that plan in a reckless way and has put us on a fiscal course that means more deficits, more debt, more economic insecurity, higher interest rates, lower economic growth, lower employment. It is critically important that there be a balance in what we do in Washington. It is not healthy to have only one side to a debate. That is what we have seen in the last week. It is time for our side to speak up, to stand up, and to fight back because much is at stake for our Nation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.