Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Are there other items they have left out besides the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. If the debt keeps running up, then the carrying charge on the debt goes up every year. So more and more of the annual budget is consumed in order to pay the interest charge on the debt that was built up because deficits have been run before, is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. The number of people in this country who earn over $200,000 a year is less than 1 percent of all taxpayers, is it not?

Mr. SARBANES. It is a tiny group. So this tiny group under this chart will be receiving the overwhelming proportion of this tax cut that is included in this budget resolution.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I commend my very able colleague from Massachusetts for a very powerful statement about the priorities in this budget. He is absolutely right. The budget resolution is the single most important document we deal with in the Congress because it contains within it thousands of decisions that are critical to our national life, all of which reflect our choices about priorities. As the Senator pointed out, this budget resolution makes it a priority to keep tax loopholes for large corporations, many of which induce them to send jobs overseas, rather than closing those loopholes--which have been overwhelmingly supported by the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats--in order to fund education. It is a clear example of the wrong set of priorities. I thank the Senator, first for his leadership in the Senate which got that amendment adopted, which would have done something for education in this country, and for articulating so well what is at stake here as we move ahead. The budget presents very fundamental questions to us. What do we establish as priorities? Which programs are important? How do we balance programs with tax cuts, with deficit reduction? In my view, this budget does not reflect the right answers. It contains substantial cuts in a number of important domestic programs, including Medicaid, education, affordable housing--the list goes on and on. The justification for these cuts is that we have a deficit problem to deal with. If you ask, why are you cutting these programs which we so desperately need, the answer that is given is: Well, we have a big deficit. But the question that needs to be asked and understood is: Where did this deficit come from to begin with? When President Bush came into office in 2001, he inherited a surplus in the Federal budget. The projection was that we would run a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10-year period. Those were the projections. In his first budget proposal, which included, in my view, an excessive tax cut, primarily for those at the top of the income scale, he said: We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits. That is what the President said: We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits. The following year, with the budget already in deficit, having moved from surplus to deficit, the President advocated for another tax cut while promising, and I quote him: Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short- term. In fact, the President's budget that year stated that deficits would be so short-term that by today, by now, the Government would be back in surplus. How wrong he was. Instead of the $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus projected when the President took office, the projections now are for a deficit over the same period of $3.7 trillion. When you factor in, as my able colleague from North Dakota stated earlier in the debate, some of the costs we know are coming, such as the continuing cost of the war in Iraq, the cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax, the cost of some of the President's proposals to make tax cuts permanent, that is a deterioration in our fiscal position of over $9 trillion. There are a number of reasons for this fiscal reversal. Spending to recover from the attacks of September 11, to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have played a part. But the deficits are not primarily the result of increased spending by the Congress. By far the greatest factor contributing to the return of deficits and these disastrous projections is on the revenue side, and the primary reason on the revenue side is the President's tax cuts. We are now living with the consequence of those tax cuts: deficits and debt as far as the eye can see. The architects of this budget claim that to deal with these deficits, we must have serious cuts in domestic programs. At the same time these serious cuts in education, health care, and housing are being made, this budget resolution contains billions of dollars in additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as my able colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, pointed out, in 2006 alone, the President's tax cuts are scheduled to give $32 billion to those making over $1 million a year. So for millionaires, there is going to be $32 billion in tax cuts in 2006. The New York Times, in an editorial earlier this week, recognized that this budget is skewed toward the wealthy. Let me quote from that editorial: Congress is likely to approve a budget blueprint this week that manages to be profligate and mean-spirited at the same time. . . . It calls for generous tax cuts for investors, who hardly need more help, and for harsh spending cuts for the needy, who certainly do. The Times hoped there would be pressure on the drafters of this budget sufficient to ``inject some common sense and human kindness into the process.'' Regrettably, that appears to have been a vain hope. This budget resolution contains $70 billion in tax cuts that are given fast-track procedural protection at the same time there are very deep cuts in a number of domestic programs. There are those who seek to defend the spending cuts by saying that they are necessary in order to rein in the deficit. I want to say to them that these cuts are not about reducing the deficit; these cuts are about making room for tax breaks for wealthy people. As the Washington Post reported, ``the cost of those tax cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts.'' Let me repeat that. ``The cost of those tax cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts.'' There are Medicaid cuts--so important to providing health care for our people--and education cuts, which set us back in the effort to fund our schools and undertake educational initiatives, which may well be the best investment America can make in its future strength. We are failing to face up to the global competition in which we find ourselves, and we are making choices in this budget that are directly contrary to strengthening our economy and strengthening our Nation. Make no mistake about it, the argument that is made that we must cut these programs that are so essential to our people in order to address the deficit misses entirely the point that room is being made in this budget for further tax cuts for very wealthy people. So the choice of priorities is the tax cuts on the one hand--more tax cuts, excessive tax cuts, for the very top of the income scale on the one hand--and cutting back on education and health care, the environment, and housing. As the Post pointed out and I quoted, the cost of those tax cut extensions would more than nullify the savings from the spending cuts. These are the wrong priorities, the wrong choices. I urge my colleagues to vote against this disastrous budget resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. What would the deficits be if all of these things are included?

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. When did the President make that statement?

Mr. SARBANES. Grievously wrong. I gather we will probably see the true picture of what has happened over the succeeding 4 years, but we continue to run these deficits and we are getting deeper into debt all the time. Is that not correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, that is the question I wanted to put to my colleague. As I understand what is happening, we are becoming increasingly dependent economically on countries abroad. We are losing control over our own economic destiny. They say, well, they are still willing to lend us this money. That may be, but in the course of doing it, we become more and more dependent upon them. They can continue to give us the money, we get deeper and deeper into the hole, which then raises the prospect that if they shift their policy, we can take a very serious hit. There is no commentator I have read who believes we can continue on this path indefinitely. At some time there will be a reckoning. What has happened is the United States has become dependent on the kindness of strangers. We say we are No. 1, that we have the world's strongest economy. Yet we are in hock to everyone around the world. The Senator showed the figures of the holdings of other countries. The China figures, which are still well short of Japan, are going up on an ascending trend that is almost breathtaking in terms of how much deeper we get into hock. I ask the Senator, not only does that have serious economic implications, but doesn't it also reduce our ability to deal on important political and security issues when we are this indebted and this dependent on others in economic terms? They are in a position to give a real jolt to our economy if they choose to do so, which then, it seems to me, restricts our ability to deal on a whole range of other issues we may have with one or another of these countries.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the ranking member yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator agree with me that is an outrageous departure from the traditional practice in terms of how conference committees ought to operate? Traditionally, conference committees have met, both parties have been included in the conference committee, debate has taken place, issues have been raised, and decisions made. The majority may be able to impose their decisions because that is how it gets decided, but there is an opportunity to try to shape the debate and have an influence on what is decided. In this instance, the Democratic members of the conference committee were completely excluded, except for one show-and-tell meeting that was held, a pro forma meeting.

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. Which had to be done; otherwise, presumably, it never would have happened. All these decisions were made by--and only by--the Republican members of the conference committee from the House and the Senate. Now, it is an abuse of power, in my opinion. It is another reflection of an arrogance of power in terms of how the institution ought to operate. I think it is very important to register the point that this is what transpired. The American people need to understand that this budget resolution was not the consequence of a give-and-take in the normal legislative way. This was done by the majority simply imposing their will.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. Is the $32 billion--the cost of the tax cut that goes to those making over a million dollars, is that just for 1 year?

Mr. SARBANES. So, presumably, in the following year it will cost another $32 billion?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing two measures to commemorate America's second war of independence--the War of 1812--and aid in the efforts to preserve sites related to this important period in our Nation's history. Pursuant to legislation that I authored in the 106th Congress, the National Park Service recently completed a study of the feasibility and desirability of designating a Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail commemorating the routes used by the British and Americans during the 1814 Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement, completed in March 2004, determined that five of eight trail segments studied fully met the criteria for National Historic Trails and recommended this designation. The legislation I am introducing today implements the recommendations of the National Park Service's study. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Act amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Mikulski is joining with me as a cosponsor of this bill. A similar companion bill has also been introduced in the House by my colleagues Congressmen Cardin and Gilchrest. The sites along the proposed Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail would mark some of the most important events of the War of 1812. The trail, commemorating the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, begins with the June 1814 battles between the British Navy and the American Chesapeake Flotilla in St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County, and ends at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, site of the composition of our national anthem, and the ultimate defeat of the British. In my view, the designation of this route as a National Historic Trail will serve as a reminder of the importance of the concept of liberty to all who experience it. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail will also give long overdue recognition to those patriots whose determination to stand firm against enemy invasion and bombardment preserved this liberty for future generations of Americans. The second measure I am introducing today seeks to ensure that the upcoming bicentennial of the War of 1812 and the poem which became our national anthem will be appropriately observed. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Mikulski, Landrieu and Levin in offering this legislation. The Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act implements another recommendation included in the aforementioned National Park Service study by creating a commission, made up in part by citizens from nine states and the District of Columbia, to ensure a suitable national observance of the War of 1812. The commission is tasked with planning, encouraging, developing, executing and coordinating programs commemorating the historic events that preceded and are associated with the War of 1812. Among other things, the commission is charged with facilitating this commemoration throughout the United States and internationally. As the bicentennial of the War of 1812 rapidly approaches, a plan to mark the lasting contributions that our forebears made during this critical period in our Nation's history is needed. In my view, both of these measures will work to ensure that these patriots' commitment to the principles of liberty and sovereignty will not be forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing two measures to commemorate America's second war of independence--the War of 1812--and aid in the efforts to preserve sites related to this important period in our Nation's history. Pursuant to legislation that I authored in the 106th Congress, the National Park Service recently completed a study of the feasibility and desirability of designating a Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail commemorating the routes used by the British and Americans during the 1814 Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement, completed in March 2004, determined that five of eight trail segments studied fully met the criteria for National Historic Trails and recommended this designation. The legislation I am introducing today implements the recommendations of the National Park Service's study. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Act amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Mikulski is joining with me as a cosponsor of this bill. A similar companion bill has also been introduced in the House by my colleagues Congressmen Cardin and Gilchrest. The sites along the proposed Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail would mark some of the most important events of the War of 1812. The trail, commemorating the only combined naval and land attack on the United States, begins with the June 1814 battles between the British Navy and the American Chesapeake Flotilla in St. Leonard's Creek in Calvert County, and ends at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, site of the composition of our national anthem, and the ultimate defeat of the British. In my view, the designation of this route as a National Historic Trail will serve as a reminder of the importance of the concept of liberty to all who experience it. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail will also give long overdue recognition to those patriots whose determination to stand firm against enemy invasion and bombardment preserved this liberty for future generations of Americans. The second measure I am introducing today seeks to ensure that the upcoming bicentennial of the War of 1812 and the poem which became our national anthem will be appropriately observed. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Mikulski, Landrieu and Levin in offering this legislation. The Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act implements another recommendation included in the aforementioned National Park Service study by creating a commission, made up in part by citizens from nine states and the District of Columbia, to ensure a suitable national observance of the War of 1812. The commission is tasked with planning, encouraging, developing, executing and coordinating programs commemorating the historic events that preceded and are associated with the War of 1812. Among other things, the commission is charged with facilitating this commemoration throughout the United States and internationally. As the bicentennial of the War of 1812 rapidly approaches, a plan to mark the lasting contributions that our forebears made during this critical period in our Nation's history is needed. In my view, both of these measures will work to ensure that these patriots' commitment to the principles of liberty and sovereignty will not be forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their passage.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Do I understand, Mr. President, that the amendment that would strike the storm water mitigation provisions from the bill that was reported out by the committee is the pending business?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First, I commend the committee, the chairman, the ranking member, and my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Chafee, for including this provision in the legislation before the Senate. This provides for a set-aside of a State Surface Transportation Program for storm water runoff mitigation. All of our local officials-- our mayors, our county commissioners, and others--say this is essential as we address reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Program. It is a very modest amount in the overall context of the bill, less than $900 million nationwide to meet a very important and pressing need that confronts local governments struggling to deal with the contamination of drinking water and the cleanup of streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds from highway and street storm water discharge. A great deal of the pollution comes from these runoffs off the roadways. We are talking about oil, grease, lead, mercury. In my own State, where we are working so hard on the Chesapeake Bay, we know the runoff from highways contributes very large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous and sediment to the bay and confronts the State with a very serious clean water program. Many of our Nation's highways and roads were built before the implementation of storm water regulations. States are required to have pollution reduction from new highways under EPA regulations, but we need to have a mitigation program to deal with pollution from existing Federal highways and associated paved services. Otherwise, we will have great difficulty in meeting federally mandated water quality standards. The standards have been put into place. The question now is, How do we reach the standards? My colleagues on the committee have done a very skillful job. I, again, commend the chairman, the ranking member, and Senators Warner and Chafee who, of course, are on the committee and try and find ways to provide help to States and localities in fixing this problem. This is an effort, of course, to make funding available to deal with the storm water impact to water quality and the stream channels. The estimates are quite large in terms of what is needed. This amendment has very strong support from a broad range of groups. It is a relatively small amount out of the total highway budget, but it deals in a very focused way with a significant problem. It is a very wise investment of these moneys in order to achieve a very marked improvement with respect to the mitigation of the pollution impacts of storm water discharge. I commend the committee for the work they have done on this amendment, for its inclusion in the legislation. I very strongly support the committee bill and very much hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment which would strike a provision that is in the committee bill. This amendment takes out of the committee bill a provision developed within the committee in a very skillful way that addresses a very important problem. I very much hope my colleagues will reject this amendment which strikes the storm water mitigation provisions reported in the committee.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the ranking member very much. What the committee has done is a very important step forward in a very balanced bill. I very much hope we will sustain this provision in the committee-reported bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.