The Acting President pro tempore: Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 21, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.
Pending:
Sessions amendment No. 466, to exclude the extension of tax relief provided in 2001 and 2003 from points of order provided in the resolution and other budget points of order.
Cornyn amendment No. 477, to provide for a budget point of order against legislation that increases income taxes on taxpayers, including hard-working middle-income families, entrepreneurs, and college students.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. Ensign: First, I compliment Senator Conrad on his relationship with Senator Gregg. The cooperation they have displayed over the past several years should serve as an example to everyone in this body how the Senate can, and should, work. They battle fiercely, battle for their own ideas, but the collegiality they demonstrate and the respect they show one another is a good example for the rest of us in the Senate. One we should follow. It is really the way we should legislate around here. I offer them my compliments.
Mr. Ensign: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that I may call up amendment No. 476.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment numbered 476.
Mr. Ensign: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that our troops serving in harm's way remain America's top budget priority by: ensuring full funding for the Department of Defense within the regular appropriations process, reducing reliance on supplemental appropriations bills, and by improving the integrity of the Congressional budget process)
On page 41, strike lines 9 through 11 and insert the following:
(2) for fiscal year 2008,
(A) for the national defense (050) function, $498,844,000,000 in new budget authority and $507,394,000,000 in outlays; and
(B) for all other functions, $443,468,000,000 in new budget authority and $514,013,000,000 in outlays.
Mr. Ensign: Mr. President, to briefly describe the amendment, it is a defense firewall amendment. This is not a new idea. We have had defense firewalls in the past. They have worked with some success. There have been a few problems with them, but overall they worked with some success.
We drafted the defense firewall in this amendment in a little different way than previous firewalls. These changes, I believe, will actually result in the firewall having its intended effect. That is, to make sure that the defense money in the budget is actually spent on defense.
In past years, a defense firewall has, frankly, been necessary. The chairman of the Budget Committee can attest to the fact that, under Republican control, this budget enforcement tool should have been in place. I have been very critical of Republicans when we chose to underfund defense purposely to shift money to other programs. Over the last several years, we used a kind of sleight of hand and budget gimmicks, and then restored defense spending later on in emergency supplementals. In effect, this raises overall spending for the Government.
Instead of honest budgeting and trying to increase certain non- defense programs in the open, we hid our spending habits from the American people. I have always said, that if you want to increase non- defense spending, have an honest vote to do so rather than using a gimmick. Fund defense honestly rather than what we have been doing, which is dishonest budgeting. We have not had the transparency under which I believe this institution should operate.
When the Democrats were campaigning last year, they criticized us in a lot of ways for using budget gimmicks, and I think rightly so. It is their time to keep what they have campaigned on--honest budgeting and true transparency. That is what we need in this place.
I want to take a minute to demonstrate what I have talked about for the last several years. Unfortunately, given how the new Democrat majority has chosen to fund BRAC, this Congress is continuing the bad habits of Congresses past.
What this chart shows is, in 2002, we added $1.9 billion in new spending. We took away from defense, about $1.9 billion, and then added that amount back in a supplemental. And this happens because everybody knows that Congress is going to fund defense to add that spending back later. We don't want to vote to actually cut defense, so we shift the money in the regular appropriations process and put it back in during an emergency supplemental. But what happens is that the $1.9 billion in 2002 gets added into the baseline for the next year. Then the next year, we underfunded defense by $11.5 billion, we shifted the money to other programs, and then added back the defense spending during the supplemental. The effect of this is to add on to the previous year--all of that in fiscal year 2004.
You can see the green bar at the bottom is the combination of the previous 2 years; that is added into the baseline. Then you do this again. Robbing from defense to once again add to the nondefense part of the baseline. This continues each year all the way up, and then you see what happens until we get to 2006. The cumulative effect of this is shown on the next chart.
I know the chairman of the Budget Committee likes charts, so we wanted to make sure we would have some of our own today. The cumulative effect of doing this each year for 5 years is a total of $84 billion. We don't have the new numbers for 2007 yet, but it is about an extra $40 billion. So we are probably well over $125 billion for a 6-year total in new spending. That really is the problem.
People are not being honest. If they want to increase spending, do it honestly. What our defense firewall says is that if you want to adjust defense spending, it cannot be done during the appropriations process; it has to be done during the budget process so that we are being honest with the American people. Since we assume a defense number in this budget, this amendment puts a wall around that amount so that it cannot be taken during the appropriations process. That wall says we will not take any more money out of defense to put into the other appropriations bills. This is transparency. This is honesty in budgeting.
When Republicans were in the majority, the Democrats claimed that we were fiscally irresponsible. They promised that they were going to come to power and be fiscally responsible. This is an amendment that will give them the opportunity to do just that. It gives them the opportunity to reject one of the budget gimmicks that has been used to add new spending.
I call on my colleagues in the majority to join with me in putting transparency into the budget process so we can help restrain Federal spending. Why do I say that? It is because when the Defense bill comes up as part of the process, no one, especially during a time of war, is going to vote to cut defense. So knowing that the Defense bill has to pass, the other bills get funded first. Defense comes up and it is slightly underfunded, so they know they have to make that up during an emergency bill. The emergency bill comes to the floor, and everybody knows it is going to pass. That is how this whole budget gimmick ends up increasing overall spending.
If you support fiscal responsibility, if you don't want to add a burden of debt and higher taxes onto young people and future generations, vote for this amendment. This is a fiscally responsible way to budget and to bring transparency into the Senate. This is the kind of amendment we need going forward. Both parties should operate under this kind of honesty when it comes to budgeting. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I thank my colleague for this amendment. I don't favor this amendment, but it is a thoughtful, serious amendment, and it deserves thoughtful, serious consideration.
Let me just indicate that the budget resolution, as it stands with respect to funding for defense and funding for the war, is not affected by this amendment. The budget resolution has the President's full request for the war. So I wish to be clear that the Ensign amendment doesn't affect that. What the Ensign amendment does provide is a 60- vote point of order against any legislation that exceeds the budget authority, which he sets for defense and nondefense discretionary spending, which is in the resolution. So what he is seeking to do is prevent money from going from defense to nondefense or the other way, from nondefense to defense. That is something we have done in the past.
My own analysis of it is that firewalls have not worked particularly well. We had them under the 1990 budget agreement. I think what we learned from that experience was they just didn't work as intended. Why not? Because instead of preventing games, I am afraid it encouraged games.
Let me say why I believe that is the case. No sooner were firewalls created for defense and international spending and domestic spending in the 1990s than our colleagues started to become very creative about how to jump over the firewalls.
For example, Congress started to dramatically expand the amount of medical research done by the Department of Defense. Instead of doing it at the National Institutes of Health, they tried to, in effect, evade the firewall--which, again, is absolutely well intended. But by doing the medical research not at NIH over in the domestic discretionary spending, they shifted the cost over into defense spending.
I am very strongly in favor of medical research, as I know my colleague from Nevada is. But does anyone in this Chamber really believe that we would have increased breast cancer research more effectively by not having it done at NIH rather than by the United States Army? And since firewalls were put in place, successive administrations have now started putting FBI budget authority over in the Defense Department. This is the kind of game that I think, in many ways, the Senator is seeking to prevent but I am afraid may just be encouraged.
Why has that been done? It has been done to evade the firewalls. It is not clear to me what problem this amendment would actually solve. We haven't had firewalls in the last several years. Yet defense spending has grown rapidly.
Since 2001, defense, as a share of gross domestic product, has grown very significantly. Here is a chart that shows what has occurred.
Defense, as a share of gross domestic product--which all the economists say is the best way to measure--has gone from 3 percent in 1999 to 4.2 percent of GDP now.
Seen another way, defense spending--this is not a share of GDP, but this chart is expressed in constant 2008 dollars so that we have a fair apples-to-apples comparison.
We can see that defense spending has gone up very dramatically. In fact, we are now past, in real terms, the spending at the President Reagan defense buildup peak, and we are now set to go beyond the Vietnam war spending peak.
The Ensign amendment will actually take away flexibility from appropriators about how best to live within their overall total allocation. They have a much closer perspective on the programmatic needs of the various agencies, and I don't think we should be reducing that flexibility.
If the Appropriations Committee were to move to eliminate $50 million in wasteful spending at the Department of Defense--let's presume for a moment that we found $50 million of waste at the Department of Defense--I think those of us close to this know that is not a theoretical possibility--that if $50 million of wasteful spending was found at the Department of Defense, it couldn't be easily reallocated to Homeland Security because it would face this defense firewall block. I think that is a mistake.
Finally, I note for my colleagues on the other side that a vote for the Ensign amendment is a vote to endorse and enforce not just defense, but also the nondefense discretionary spending levels in the Democratic budget resolution. My colleagues will be voting to endorse $443.5 billion in nondefense discretionary spending because this firewall works both ways.
If my colleagues think money ought to be transferred from domestic nondefense spending to defense spending, it would face this same firewall. It would have the same 60-vote hurdle.
On that basis, while I absolutely respect the constructive intention of the Senator from Nevada, I believe it would have precisely the opposite effect that he intends.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore: Who yields time?
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I will take.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the amendment of the Senator from Nevada. I think it is a critical amendment as we look at the budget with which we are dealing.
We know the budget we received from the other side of the aisle is a classic tax-and-spend budget. It raises taxes by $900 billion. It raises spending $144 billion in nondefense discretionary. The practical effect of that is very clear. The size of Government is going to grow dramatically, and the American workers are going to have to pay a heck of a lot more in taxes.
But there is something else we need to be sensitive to, and that is-- and I credit the Senator from North Dakota for doing this--the Senator from North Dakota has put in place the numbers the President asked for to fight the war--$145 billion I believe is the number; something like that--for the 2008 budget. The problem is that unless that money is secured in a way that it cannot be gamed or used or reallocated, it can be used to grow the Government in nondefense discretionary activity. We have seen that happen. We have seen that happen, regrettably, all too often around here where money, which is defense money, is taken out of the Defense Department, moved over to the social spending side of the ledger because there is some account somebody wants to spend money on, and then halfway through the year, the Defense Department starts to run out of money and everybody is going to vote to replenish the Defense Department with a supplemental. That is the way it works around here.
Regrettably, it happened last year that way. Regrettably, it happened the year before last that way. Regrettably, it happened the year before the year before last that way. That is exactly what happens around here. Money is taken out of the Defense Department, put into the social spending accounts, it grows the base of the social spending accounts, and then the Defense Department is replenished through a supplemental because everybody knows we have to fund the Defense Department, especially during a time of war.
What the Senator from Nevada is trying to do is make sure that where we have this massive amount of money sitting there, these warfighting funds, and where we have increased the defense base by so much money, we essentially protect that money from being raided for the purposes of being used for everyday accounts around the operation of Government and for building the base of the operation of Government.
When we look at the history of the Congress, that type of action is needed. We need that type of protection. So a defense firewall is absolutely critical to fiscal discipline, and, I would argue--and I think history stands with me on this argument--if we don't have a defense firewall, it is very clear that the social nondefense, nondiscretionary spending number isn't going to increase by $144 billion, which is the number which is in this bill, which is a pretty significant increase over the President's number, by the way--the President jumped it up by a significant amount--it is going to increase by a lot more because we know defense money is going to flow into those accounts throughout the appropriations process in order to take care of this issue or that issue that somebody believes is important to their agenda.
We heard yesterday the Senator from Massachusetts talk about how No Child Left Behind had to receive more money, how IDEA had to receive more money, how Pell grants had to receive more money. The Senator from North Dakota has put more money into those accounts, significantly more money, and the President has put more money into those accounts, significantly more money. But I can assure my colleagues that when that appropriations bill hits the floor with those dollars in it, it is going to go up even further because there is going to be money taken out of the Defense Department and put into the Labor-HHS bill for the purpose of expanding those programs because that money is sitting there and the money is defenseless, to use a term of art. The money is defenseless. It is going to be raided and taken over to the social side of the ledger from the Defense Department.
The Senator from Nevada has the right approach to set up this firewall and make it clear that we are going to have fiscal discipline. That is what we need, fiscal discipline. This budget doesn't have much fiscal discipline in it. In fact, it doesn't have any to speak of. But as a practical matter, it shouldn't get worse. We should put in place some limits that allow us to make sure even with this massive increase in nondefense discretionary money, that is where it stops, and we don't end up with the Defense Department being used as the piggy bank to fund even more nondefense discretionary spending.
The Senator is on the right track. It has been done before. It was actually quite effective before. I disagree with the characterization of it by the Senator from North Dakota. It made life a little more difficult with the appropriators and others who wanted to take advantage of defense dollars in order to use them on the nondefense discretionary side of the ledger, for social spending or whatever projects were floating around they wanted to do.
It will also have a direct impact, quite honestly, on earmarks. It will make it more difficult to earmark because there won't be money available with which to earmark. If you are opposed to earmarks, for fiscal discipline, if you think the Defense Department should get the money we promised them to fight the war, you have to vote for the Ensign amendment.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, as the Senator from New Hampshire well knows, the war funding is secure. It is absolutely secure. At his urging, we put the war funding in a sidecar. Our cap adjustment for war costs is available only for war costs. That is a red herring of an issue, and he knows it.
Let's go back to this question of how things really work. I must say, I am sympathetic to the basic notion of trying to exert discipline and not having money that is appropriated for defense used for something else. I am absolutely sympathetic to that. The problem is, I don't think this works, and I am asking to have the list of earmarks that is in the Defense appropriations bill brought to me because I will then read that list. It will take me a good part of the day because we all know what is really happening around here.
The Senator talked about somehow suppressing earmarks. Please, do I really have to read the list of earmarks that has been put in the Defense appropriations bill that have nothing----
Mr. Gregg: Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. Conrad: Let me complete the thought. I will be happy to yield. Don't we all know, haven't we all read the Defense appropriations bill and seen earmark after earmark after earmark put into that Defense bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with defense? I will be happy to yield.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, my point was that this will increase the piggy bank available to nondefense discretionary to be used for earmarking because it will take defense dollars and move them over to nondefense discretionary accounts. I don't argue with the argument that there is a significant number of earmarks in the defense budget. I hope that as part of reading his Defense Department earmarks--which I will be happy to agree exists--he will at the same time list the earmarks that were added into the Labor-HHS bill over the last 4, 5, 6 years as a result of literally billions of dollars being taken out of the Defense Department to pump up the Labor-HHS bill. That is where the earmarks occurred.
Mr. Ensign: Will the Senator yield?
Mr. Conrad: I will be happy to yield in a minute, if I may just respond to the Senator. I think we all know the truth of this institution is that as soon as we create something such as a firewall, very creative minds go to work in this institution to find a way around it. That is the hard reality. I am happy to yield.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Ensign: Mr. President, first of all, the Senator from North Dakota made the point that defense funding is secure. We do not in any way think we are going to underfund defense or the war funding. The point we were making about defense spending is that because everybody is going to make sure defense spending is secure, once the money for defense is put in there, money is taken out and put into other spending programs, then later in the year it is filled back in for defense.
Everybody knows we are going to fund the war. Everybody knows we are going to do the critical needs of the Department of Defense. What we are arguing is that other spending is going to be increased because of the budget gimmicks because there is no transparency.
What my amendment does is put transparency back into the process. That is why the Senator from New Hampshire and myself are arguing how critical this amendment is if we want to actually have some fiscal restraint, if we want to not just continue to blow up the deficits and pass this huge debt on to future generations.
Without transparency, without all the budget gimmicks, the numbers that my colleagues saw that I put up and the charts I put up for the last 5 years--let's put those charts back up. For the last 5 years, $84 billion total has been added in nondefense, other types of social spending programs. And it was done, in a way, with budget gimmicks, where people, kind of sleight of hand over here, looked as though they were being fiscally responsible, but they were not. They said they were operating within the budget caps that were set out, but because then the Defense spending was declared as emergency, that allowed people to get around the Defense caps.
What we are trying to do is to install some fiscal discipline. That is why we put a 60-vote, supermajority, point of order against this kind of activity. There is still flexibility. If people wanted to argue: let's take the money out, let's increase these accounts the way it has been done in the past, at least there is a supermajority required to do so.
I keep going back to last fall's election and before that, when the Democrats accused Republicans in the majority of being fiscally irresponsible. This is a chance to fulfill their campaign promise of being fiscally responsible. It is time to step up, put mechanisms in place that will put the discipline into this body to help hold down the spending that goes on in this place.
I will not argue that games won't be played. What we are going to do, though, is to make it more difficult to play the games. There will always be people who will try to get around whatever budget discipline we put in. The appropriators are famous for that. What we are trying to do here is to put in budget discipline, to put in a steeper wall to climb over to get around these sleight-of-hand budget tricks.
That is what this amendment is about, to say let's for once be fiscally responsible around this place. Let's think about the children and future generations as far as spending is concerned. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up to the full Senate for a vote.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, at Andrews Air Force Base in 1990, I helped to craft the first statutory firewalls as part of the budget summit that resulted in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. That act created three categories of discretionary spending--defense, international, and domestic discretionary.
At the time, the device of the three separate caps to protect each category from being raided by another category made sense. There was a definable military threat, and nondefense funds did not contribute significantly to the defense of the Nation. That is not the case anymore. The September 11 attacks blurred the line between defense and nondefense spending. Military threats can no longer be viewed as matters that are fought solely through the Defense Department. The enemy may attack our troops overseas or civilians here at home. Within a matter of weeks, the focus of our war against terrorism can shift from military efforts abroad, to our homeland security efforts here at home, and then back again.
To respond to this threat, the Congress should maintain maximum flexibility to shift funds to where they are needed most--whether for our homeland security needs here at home or for our troops overseas or for our veterans who need health and medical care. With so much uncertainty regarding the threat of terrorism and the war in Iraq, it makes no sense to limit how those funds can be spent.
Senators should know that firewalls in the past have forced the Congress to resort to all sorts of machinations to pass its annual spending bills. Firewalls were used in past years, as part of a partisan budget process, to hold nondefense discretionary spending at unrealistically low levels. These spending levels were set early in the year under different fiscal circumstances and at levels that neither the administration nor the Congress expected to stay within. The result was always unnecessary delays in the appropriations process and even more spending as nearly all budgetary discipline evaporates in the push to pass an end-of-the-year omnibus bill.
These kinds of budget gimmicks undermine the people's confidence in the Congress to manage the Nation's spending priorities.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Acting President pro tempore: The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Obama: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, how much time would the Senator like?
Mr. Obama: Mr. President, I was hoping for 10 minutes.
Mr. Conrad: I will be happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator off the bill.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. Obama: Mr. President, on Thursdays, Senator Durbin and I hold a constituent coffee so we can hear from the folks back home. A young man came a few months ago who was about 25, 26 years old. He had been back from Iraq for a year. The first 6 months of that year he spent in a coma. An explosion had shattered his face, blinded him in both eyes, and has left him without the use of one arm.
He told us about how he was going through rehab, and he introduced us to his family. He has a wife and two young daughters like I do, and his wife talked for a bit about the adjustments they were making at home since dad got hurt. I found myself looking at not just him, but at his wife, who loves him so much, and I thought about how their lives were forever changed because of the decision that was carried out 4 years ago.
The sacrifices of war are immeasurable.
I first made this point in the fall of 2002, at the end of the speech I gave opposing the invasion of Iraq. I said then that I certainly do not oppose all wars, but dumb wars--rash wars. Because there is no decision more profound than the one we make to send our brave men and women into harm's way.
I have thought about these words from time to time since that speech, but never so much as the day I saw that young man and his wife.
The sacrifices of war are immeasurable. Too many have returned from Iraq with that soldier's story--with broken bodies and shattered nerves and wounds that even the best care may not heal. Too many of our best have come home shrouded in the flag they loved. Too many moms and dads and husbands and wives have answered that knock on the door that is the hardest for any loved one to hear.
And the rest of us have seen too many promises of swift victories, and dying insurgencies, and budding democracy give way to the reality of a brutal civil war that goes on and on and on to this day.
The sacrifices of war are immeasurable. It was not impossible to see back then that we might arrive at the place we are at today.
I said then that a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I believed that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale or strong international support would only strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida and erode the good standing and moral authority that took our country generations to build. There were other experts, and leaders, and everyday Americans who believed this too.
I wish we had been wrong. I wish we weren't here talking about this at the beginning of the war's fifth year. Because the consequences of this war have been profound. And the sacrifices have been immeasurable.
Those who would have us continue this war in perpetuity like to say that this is a matter of resolve on behalf of the American people. But the American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded on the streets of Fallujah. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and our competitive standing as a nation.
No, it has not been a failure of resolve that has led us to this chaos, but a failure of strategy--a strategy that has only strengthened Iran's strategic position; increased threats posed by terrorist organizations; reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world; and placed Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in the region in greater peril.
Iraq has not been a failure of resolve, it has been a failure of strategy--and that strategy must change. It is time to bring a responsible end to this conflict is now.
There is no military solution to this war. No amount of U.S. soldiers not 10,000 more, not 20,000 more, not the almost 30,000 more that we now know we are sending--can solve the grievances that lay at the heart of someone else's civil war. Our troops cannot serve as their diplomats, and we can no longer referee their civil war. We must begin a phased withdrawal of our forces starting May 1, with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 30, 2008.
We also must make sure that we are not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that is why this withdrawal should be gradual, and keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after al Qaida and other terrorists.
But it must begin soon. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Iraqis to take ownership of their country and bring an end to their conflict. It is time for our troops to start coming home.
History will not judge the architects of this war kindly. But the books have yet to be written on our efforts to right the wrongs we see in Iraq. The story has yet to be told about how we turned from this moment, found our way out of the desert, and took to heart the lessons of war that too many refused to heed back then.
For it is of little use or comfort to recall past advice and warnings if we do not allow them to guide us in the challenges that lie ahead. Threats loom large in an age where terrorist networks thrive, and there will certainly be times when we have to call on our brave servicemen and women to risk their lives again.
But before we make that most profound of all decisions--before we send our best off to battle, we must remember what led us to this day and learn from the principles that follow.
We must remember that ideology is not a foreign policy. We must not embark on war based on untested theories, political agendas or wishful thinking that has little basis in fact or reality. We must focus our efforts on the threats we know exist, and we must evaluate those threats with sound intelligence that is never manipulated for political reasons again.
We must remember that the cost of going it alone is immense. It is a choice we sometimes have to make, but one that must be made rarely and always reluctantly. That is because America's standing in the world is a precious resource not easily rebuilt. We value the cooperation and goodwill of other nations not because it makes us feel good, but because it makes all the world safer--because the only way to battle 21st century threats that race across borders--threats like terror, and disease, and nuclear proliferation--is to enlist the resources and support of all nations. To win our wider struggle, we must let people across this planet know that there is another, more hopeful alternative to the hateful ideologies the terrorists espouse--and a renewed America will reflect and champion that vision
We must remember that planning for peace is just as critical as planning for war. Iraq was not just a failure of conception, but a failure of execution, and so when a conflict does arise that requires our involvement, we must do our best to understand that country's history, its politics, its ethnic and religious divisions before our troops ever set foot on its soil.
We must understand that setting up ballot boxes does not a democracy make--that real freedom and real stability come from doing the hard work of helping to build a strong police force, and a legitimate government, and ensuring that people have food, and water, and electricity, and basic services. And we must be honest about how much of that we can do ourselves and how much must come from the people themselves.
Finally, we must remember that when we send our servicemen and women to war, we make sure we have given them the training they need, and the equipment that will keep them safe, and a mission they can accomplish.
We must respect our commanders' advice not just when its politically convenient but even when it is not what we want to hear. And when our troops come home, it is our most solemn responsibility to make sure they come home to the services, and the benefits, and the care they deserve.
As we stand at the beginning of the fifth year of this war, let us remember that young man from Illinois, and his wife, and his daughters, and the thousands upon thousands of families who are living the very real consequences and immeasurable sacrifices that have come from our decision to invade Iraq.
We are so blessed in this country to have so many men and women like this--Americans willing to put on that uniform, and say the hard goodbyes, and risk their lives in a far off land because they know that such consequences and sacrifices are sometimes necessary to defend our country and achieve a lasting peace.
That is why we have no greater responsibility than to ensure that the decision to place them in harm's way is the right one. And that is why we must learn the lessons of Iraq. It is what we owe our soldiers. It is what we owe their families. And it is what we owe our country--now, and in all the days and months to come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Illinois, Senator Obama, for the wisdom he has displayed with respect to the conflict in Iraq. I read a speech he gave when he was a State Senator warning about the dangers of going to war in Iraq. In many ways it reflected many of the same feelings and analysis I had given in my speech on the floor of the Senate.
I gave the last speech before that fateful vote to authorize going to war in Iraq. I believed at the time it was a mistake to go to Iraq before finishing business with Osama bin Laden. After all, it was Saddam Hussein in Iraq whom this administration decided to go after. But it was not Saddam Hussein or Iraq that attacked this country on 9/ 11, it was Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida network that had attacked this country. We have still never held Osama bin Laden to account. I have always felt that was an extremely serious mistake, a military mistake for this country. I was so impressed that the Senator from Illinois, who was a State senator at the time, had the wisdom and the judgment to see that. I wish more had seen it.
I, again, thank the Senator from Illinois.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, so we can get the order, I understand we are going to go to Senator Bunning next; is that the game plan? He is on his way to the floor.
Mr. Conrad: Yes. I thank the Senator very much for his continuing courtesy as we try to move through this. Senator Bunning, we are told, is on his way to the floor to offer an amendment. We are also asking Senator Bingaman to come.
I see Senator Bunning is here now. We can go to his amendment.
Mr. Bunning: Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The Acting President pro tempore: The Ensign amendment is the pending question.
Mr. Bunning: I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Bunning: I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Acting President pro tempore: The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], for himself and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 483.
Mr. Bunning: I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide a point of order against any budget resolution that fails to achieve an on-budget balance within 5 years)
At the end of title II, add the following:
SEC. __. CIRCUIT BREAKER TO PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) Circuit Breaker.--If in any year the Congressional Budget Office, in its report pursuant to section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 projects an on-budget deficit (excluding Social Security) for the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, then the concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget year shall reduce on-budget deficits relative to the projections of Congressional Budget Office and put the budget on a path to achieve on-budget balance within 5 years, and shall include such provisions as are necessary to protect Social Security and facilitate deficit reduction, except it shall not contain any reduction in Social Security benefits.
(b) Point of Order.--If in any year the Congressional Budget Office, in its report pursuant to section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 projects an on-budget deficit for the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget year or any conference report thereon that fails to reduce on-budget deficits relative to the projections of Congressional Budget Office and put the budget on a path to achieve on-budget balance within 5 years.
(c) Amendments to Budget Resolution.--If in any year the Congressional Budget Office, in its report pursuant to section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 projects an on-budget deficit for the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider an amendment to a concurrent resolution on the budget that would increase on- budget deficits relative to the concurrent resolution on the budget in any fiscal year covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget or cause the budget to fail to achieve on-budget balance within 5 years.
(d) Suspension of Requirement During War or Low Economic Growth.--
(1) Low growth.--If the most recent of the Department of Commerce's advance, preliminary, or final reports of actual real economic growth indicate that the rate of real economic growth (as measured by real GDP) for each of the most recently reported quarter and the immediately preceding quarter is less than 1 percent, this section is suspended.
(2) War.--If a declaration of war is in effect, this section is suspended.
(e) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
(1) Waiver.--Subsections (b) and (c) may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three- fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this subsection.
(f) Budget Year.--In this section, the term "budget year" shall have the same meaning as in section 250(c)(12) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Mr. Bunning: Mr. President, this amendment is almost identical to the language that was included in the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution that Chairman Conrad authored. This amendment provides that, starting with the fiscal year 2009 budget, if CBO's budget and economic outlook reports projections that the Social Security surplus will be spent for non-Social Security programs during any year covered by its projections, then the budget resolution must present a plan to protect Social Security by reducing those deficits.
As you can see by this chart, in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, these are the Social Security dollars that are being used in this current budget that has been proposed for other purposes. From $423 billion up to $1.027 trillion. If the budget resolution fails to put the budget on a glidepath to protecting the Social Security surplus within 5 years, it will be subject to a point of order in the Senate. There is an exception for times of war and low economic growth, and it can be waived by a vote of three-fifths of the Senators.
The purpose of this circuit breaker is to put the budget on a path to balance without spending the Social Security money that is needed for the baby boomers' retirements. It ensures that Social Security trust funds will be used for their intended purpose and that is for retirement of the baby boomers and all after.
We all know the challenges the Social Security system faces as the first of the baby boomers start to retire very shortly. The effects of this demographic tidal wave will begin to grow rapidly as the years progress. Chairman Conrad will point to a provision in this budget that he calls the "save Social Security first" point of order. However, this point of order does not--I say emphatically does--not protect the Social Security surplus the way my amendment will do it. In fact, the budget resolution before us spends, as I showed you, over $1 trillion additional of the Social Security surplus. My amendment says that just because we have been spending the Social Security surplus for decades doesn't mean we should continue. We have dug ourselves into a big ditch. The budget before us keeps digging.
My amendment says stop digging. It forces Congress to make a plan to protect the Social Security surplus. I urge my colleagues to think about the future of Social Security retirees and support this amendment. We have this amendment before us. It is almost exactly like the amendment the now chairman of the Budget Committee put in the 2003 budget resolution, and his rationale for knocking out the point of order in the budget markup was: "Well, we have been doing it for years."
Yes, we have been doing it for years, and it is time to stop. Stop spending the Social Security surplus for other purposes--other purposes being any other functions for which the Federal Government might need money. What does that do to my grandchildren and the grandchildren of everybody else in this body and those listening? It says to your grandchildren: You have to fend for yourself. We are going to leave you with this pile of debt, such that in 2017 we are not going to have enough money in the trust funds to pay off your Social Security benefits--in 2017, when we start spending this money out of the trust funds--with the interest we are supposed to be getting from it. By 2040, we will have spent down all the trust funds and all the interest. What does that mean? That means in 2041 those benefits in Social Security will be 74 percent of what we promised our recipients. That is the money that will be coming in, in Social Security taxes at that time. We will only be able to pay out 74 percent of the benefits because we have prespent the trust funds for other purposes.
My amendment says: Stop. Think about what you are doing, Members of the Senate, Members of the Congress. Stop digging the hole. We are going to bury our future generations in a massive debt situation where their benefits will not be able to be paid.
I ask support for this amendment when it comes up for the vote.
I yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore: Who yields time? The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, the Senator talks about Social Security money being spent in the Democratic budget resolution--and he is right. There is money spent, Social Security money, in the Democratic budget resolution. Why? Because our friends on the other side, in the 6 years they have controlled everything, have dug such a deep hole it is going to take us a while to climb out. Look at the President's budget. That is the only budget from the other side. The other side has not presented a budget other than the President's budget.
Here is what the President's budget does in terms of spending Social Security money. The President's budget spends $1.16 trillion of Social Security money over the next 5 years--every dime that is available. We use $1.03 trillion. So let's be clear. The only budget from the other side uses more Social Security money than does our budget. Both budgets use Social Security money because we are now in such a deep hole it is going to take time to dig out.
Here is the record from the other side. The record from the other side is they have so far spent $1.1 trillion of Social Security money and, if the President's budget is followed, they will have spent $2.5 trillion by 2017. Every dime of Social Security money that is available to spend will have been spent by our friends on the other side. That is their record.
Look, we inherited this mess. We have to climb out and we are making progress. Our budget balances by 2012, and over time we will end this practice of using Social Security money. Let me indicate that in this budget resolution, we have passed a "save Social Security first" amendment. It says there can be no new mandatory spending or tax cuts until the 75-year Social Security solvency is restored, unless it is paid for or gets a supermajority vote. That is in the underlying budget resolution to protect Social Security.
I say to my colleague, he has offered an amendment I previously offered. When I offered it, it was before we descended into this deficit and debt ditch. It was designed to prevent us from going that road, from going down the path of using Social Security money to fund other things. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side opposed it and defeated it. They prevented it from being put in force, which would have hopefully prevented all this from happening. But that was not the case. Now it is akin to closing the barn door after the cattle are gone. Now the Senator from Kentucky offers this amendment.
The upshot of this amendment, if it were to pass, would be to create a 60-vote hurdle against having a budget resolution next year. That is what the effect of the Bunning amendment would be. If people want to vote for it as a symbolic measure, that is fine with me. Members should know they are free to vote however they think is the right way when we vote on the Bunning amendment later this evening.
Ms. Stabenow: Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. Conrad: I am happy to yield.
Ms. Stabenow: I thank you, as chairman of the Budget Committee, for bringing forward the "save Social Security first" amendment in committee. It makes it very clear in the budget resolution that we intend to come out of this hole and are committed to making sure Social Security moneys are restored.
Last night we heard from other colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senator Sessions offered an amendment that basically would fly in the face of Senator Bunning's amendment, wouldn't you say, because it essentially would take away the ability to have a 60-vote point of order as it relates to extending the tax cuts that created the hole in the first place. Because isn't it true that essentially the tax cuts were paid for by using Social Security surplus funds?
Mr. Conrad: The Senator is certainly right. Senator Sessions' amendment would allow all of the tax cuts to be extended without having to be paid for, without having to be offset. So it does directly contradict at least the spirit of the Bunning amendment.
I must say, I am very much in sympathy with the spirit of the Bunning amendment because, after all, it was my amendment back in 2002 when it really would have done some good because that was before we went down this path of using Social Security funds to pay all kinds of other bills.
I have said many times that what is being done here in Washington is a basic violation of any kind of the sense of the trust fund because trust fund moneys that are in temporary surplus before the baby boomers retire are being used to pay other bills. You could not do that in any other institution. You could not do that in any private business. You could not do that in any other private sector institution. You could not take the retirement funds of your employees and use them to pay your operating expenses. If you did that, you would be in violation of Federal law. You would be on your way to a Federal institution, but it would not be the Congress of the United States, it would not be the White House; you would be headed for the big house because that is a violation of Federal law. But that is the practice that has grown up. It has been, unfortunately, the case here for 30 years, with only 2 years of exception: The last 2 years of the Clinton administration, we were able to stop using Social Security funds to pay other bills. That was one of the greatest achievements of the Congress and the administration. Unfortunately, under this new administration, they went right back the other way, using every dime of Social Security money to pay other bills. Now we are in such a deep hole that it is going to continue for some period of time until we are able to dig out.
Ms. Stabenow: If I might ask a second question of my friend. Again, I will start by congratulating the Senator. I remember, as a new member of the Budget Committee, coming in in 2001 when there were record surpluses, that the Senator was warning us about what could happen. Actually, is it not true that at that time, the Senator was suggesting a third of the surpluses go to prefunding the liability of Social Security so we would not find ourselves in this mess? Would not that have had a very different outcome on where we are today?
Mr. Conrad: Yes. I thank the Senator for remembering that. I did have a plan. Instead of giving the outsized tax cuts the President proposed, I proposed giving a $900 billion tax cut, very large tax cuts, but to use the rest of the money to strengthen Social Security, to either prefund the liability or pay down the debt.
Instead, a different judgment was made. Social Security money that really never was in what I would consider surplus--because it is all needed when the baby boomers retire--has been taken and has been used, every dime under the President's fiscal plan, to pay other bills and to finance tax cuts. I think that was a profound mistake. That is why I offered the amendment the Senator from Kentucky has now offered, an amendment I offered back in 2002, to prevent us from ever going down this path. Now we have gone down it. Both budgets, if we are to be honest, use Social Security funds. We use somewhat less than the President's budget. It is going to take time to dig out.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Cardin): The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. Bunning: Mr. President, two wrongs do not make a right. The fact is that the President's budget includes it, every President's budget has included it since Ronald Reagan. That includes Bush 1, Bill Clinton's budget for 8 years, and now George W. Bush's budget. They have included spending the Social Security trust funds that are in surplus in every budget for over 15 years that I know of.
Now that my good friends from the Democratic Party are in the majority, they are doing the same thing. They are spending our trust funds that the Social Security system must buy bonds with. That is the law. We do not have another law that says you can take the Social Security trust funds and you can put it in this little box and you must keep it. No. The law says--and I was on the Ways and Means Committee with the current chairman of the Senate when we tried to wall off Social Security trust funds. It did not pass over in the House at that time. So we have been spending them ever since. That does not make it right. It is still wrong to spend it.
The other side said they are going to fix the surplus problem. Well, they are not. I hope they do. This amendment gives some teeth to that promise because it holds the majority--whoever is the majority-- accountable.
Now that they are in the majority, they do not want to hold themselves responsible for the Social Security trust funds. They say: Oh, because we have been doing this all this time, it is too late to stop. We can save $1.027 trillion if we stop now and do not include this in our 5-year projections.
I hate to tell you, if we moved this out to 10 years, what it would look like. I am not going to do that because the budget is a 5-year budget. But $1 trillion, to my grandkids and their retirement or Senator Conrad's grandkids or anybody's kids, is a lot of money, and the more we can save for their retirement, the less we are going to have to borrow down the road.
So, please, when you are considering this amendment, consider the consequences of what we are doing here. We are doing more of the same. It is time we stopped doing it.
I ask for your support. This is a very important amendment. It is not a feel-good amendment; it is a substantive amendment that we actually are doing things to stop spending the Social Security trust funds.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: I thank the Senator from Kentucky, who may be one of the most effective spokespersons in the Senate on the issue of protecting the Social Security accounts and making sure that as we move forward, we are responsible in that area.
This amendment accomplishes exactly that. It is a brilliantly drafted amendment because it was, of course, drafted by the chairman of the Budget Committee and offered by him.
Mr. Chairman, it reflects that the times have changed. Well, they really have not; the numbers have changed. Instead of $2 trillion, we are now talking $1 trillion of Social Security money that is going to be used in this budget.
You know, the cattle are not out of the barn; they truly are in the barn. And we figure each cow is worth a dollar. We should be protecting them, and we should be at least addressing them. What I think the amendment does is it highlights the essence of one of the most significant problems with this budget; that is, although it spends a lot of money and it raises a lot of taxes, it does nothing on the issue of the long-term solvency of this Government, which is the most significant threat we face.
The chairman of the Budget Committee has held numerous hearings on this issue. I have congratulated him on being focused on this issue. But, unfortunately, he brought forward a budget which does not address this. We have created a government which is not going to be affordable to our children because the costs of Social Security and the costs of Medicare when the baby boomer generation retires is simply going to overwhelm their fiscal ability to support that generation.
We should be getting on right now and doing things that correct this. There were ideas put forward which would accomplish this that the President put forward in the area of Medicare. There are things you can do in the area of Social Security. For example, you can get the reimbursements correct on the COLA.
But what this budget does is nothing. It does nothing to protect or address this outyear problem. What it does do is aggravate the problem by digging the hole deeper by using $1 trillion of Social Security funds to operate the Federal Government over the 5 years of this budget.
So when the chairman of the committee drafted the amendment, he was thinking correctly. And when he said that--he was speaking here relevant to the use of Social Security funds by the administration in prior budgets--they included as the definition of a balanced budget one that raided the Social Security trust fund of every dime. Then he claimed that it was a balanced budget. That was no balanced budget; that was a budget built on massive borrowing disguised as balancing the budget.
Well, that is essentially a statement which could be applied exactly to this budget. So the chairman was right with that statement. Then he went on further and said: It threatens Social Security to take $180- to $190 billion of Social Security money, to use it, instead of paying down the debt or prepaying the liability, to use to it pay operating expenses of the Government, it threatens Social Security. That again is being done within this budget to the tune of $1 trillion.
So the Senator from Kentucky in his own way is once again highlighting the issue effectively and has put forward language which will accomplish the goal. It was good language when it was offered by the Senator from North Dakota, and it is good language offered by the Senator from Kentucky. I certainly hope we support it.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, first of all, I want to say I have been put at a disadvantage here because the Senator from Kentucky, whom I like very much, whom I respect very much, has offered an amendment I drafted.
Unfortunately, they did not support it when I offered it back in 2003. It really would have helped us avoid this disaster of using Social Security money. So maybe we have here a coming around to support an issue at least at a later point. I am going to recommend to my colleagues that we vote for this amendment on the floor, as a symbolic measure if for no other reason.
When I drafted this amendment and offered it back in 2002, what a difference it would have made if it had been adopted. But, unfortunately, our colleagues who have just spoken so eloquently in favor of it now opposed it then. They opposed it when it actually would have done something. Well, I still appreciate the fact that they now, 5 years later, appreciate the wisdom of my words then. I certainly will not stand in the way of adopting this amendment tonight. In fact, my vote will be cast in favor of this amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, I don't want to prolong the debate because the Senators from New Mexico and Tennessee have an amendment ready to go. But I would note that the most recent inconsistency on this is not our side, it would be on the Democratic side, in that the Senator from North Dakota voted against this amendment in committee, which he now is going to vote for on the floor. I wanted to make that point. So the inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Let me say that I cast that vote in committee because the practical effect of this amendment now is not going to protect Social Security. The practical effect of this amendment is to create a 60-vote hurdle to pass a budget resolution next year.
But, look, I am proud of the amendment I crafted 5 years ago. I think we have to send every message we can that it is wrong to be using Social Security trust funds to pay other bills. I believe that with every fiber of my being. Senator Bunning has offered this amendment unfortunately 5 years too late. I am going to support it even though it is 5 years too late.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, I will conclude my comments by saying that I hope the Senator from North Dakota is not cynical, because of his rather negative view of what this amendment will do. I hope it does not come to fruition.
I hope what the amendment does is force the people who bring the budget next year to look at Social Security and figure out how we are going to deal with it and thus put in place some entitlement reform which addresses this issue and gets us into a position where we are able to protect it.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, it is for that reason that I will support the amendment, because it may, even at this late hour, help build pressure for what the Senator from New Hampshire and I both want to do, which is somehow find a path to addressing these long-term entitlement challenges. It may help do that.
In that spirit, I will support the amendment tonight.
Now we have Senator Bingaman ready.
The Presiding Officer: The time yielded to the Senator from New Mexico?
Mr. Conrad: How much time does the Senator from New Mexico seek?
Mr. Bingaman: I need at most 15 minutes. I know my colleague from Tennessee needs a comparable amount of time. I know there are others who wish to speak, but I don't know if they will be able to come to the floor at this point.
Mr. Conrad: I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico. And then the Senator from Tennessee, how much would the Senator seek?
Mr. Alexander: Up to 15 minutes, please.
Mr. Conrad: Would the Senator from New Hampshire provide the Senator from Tennessee with time off his side on this amendment?
Mr. Gregg: I would. I understand the Senator from South Carolina wants to speak on the Bunning amendment. Should we complete that debate?
Mr. Conrad: I think in fairness to the other two Senators, we should let them go forward with their amendment. Then we could come back to the Senator from South Carolina for his comments on the Bunning amendment.
Mr. Gregg: Sounds good.
The Presiding Officer: Is the Senator from North Dakota seeking consent to set aside the Bunning amendment so we may proceed to this amendment?
Mr. Conrad: Yes, I think we should set aside the Bunning amendment so that the Bingaman amendment may be offered. The Senator from Tennessee could speak on that. We did ask them to come at this time to do so. I apologize to Senator DeMint. We were not aware that he was on his way to the floor. In fairness, that is what we should do.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. Bingaman: I send an amendment to the desk.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Reid, proposes amendment numbered 486.
Mr. Bingaman: I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional funding resources in FY2008 for investments in innovation and education in order to improve the competitiveness of the United States)
- On page 10, line 9, increase the amount by $1,008,000,000.
- On page 10, line 10, increase the amount by $428,000,000.
- On page 10, line 14, increase the amount by $345,000,000.
- On page 10, line 18, increase the amount by $179,000,000.
- On page 10, line 22, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
- On page 11, line 1, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
- On page 14, line 9, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
- On page 14, line 10, increase the amount by $9,000,000.
- On page 14, line 14, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
- On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,019,000,000.
- On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $437,000,000.
- On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $348,000,000.
- On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $179,000,000.
- On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
- On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $18,000,000.
Mr. Bingaman: Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Alexander, Lieberman, Domenici, Ensign, and Reid. This is an amendment that I believe will go a long way toward ensuring that the United States maintains its preeminent status in our global economy.
On March 6, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell and many of the rest of us held a press conference on the introduction of a bill we called the America COMPETES Act. The bill represents recommendations from two reports on the status of our Nation's ability to compete in the global economy. Those reports are the National Academy of Sciences report on "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," and the Council on Competitiveness report entitled "Innovate America."
Obviously, this is not the right time to try to enact that legislation. Let me make it clear to my colleagues that we are not proposing that legislation as an amendment to the budget resolution. What we are proposing, though, is an amendment that tries to make sure that the budget ceilings, the overall amounts that are permitted for the various agencies and functions of the Government, are as high as possible so that there is room in this budget to actually go forward and appropriate the funds called for in that authorizing legislation. We hope we will bring up that authorizing legislation some time in the next couple of months and get it passed and sent to the President.
Let me describe briefly what this amendment would do. It would provide for the National Science Foundation to meet the President's requested funding level of $6.4 billion for the Department of Energy. It would allow the budget to meet the President's request for the Office of Science at $4.4 billion, as well as provide funding that would allow for a program similar to that administered by the Hertz Foundation for training a new generation of Ph.D. students in the physical sciences. For the National Institutes of Science and Technology, it will provide necessary funding to meet the $704 million authorization level in the bill, thereby strengthening programs such as the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership to help small and medium-sized businesses compete in the global economy.
The reports I referred to were important in that they tapped into and identified a growing uneasiness that is being experienced throughout the country about our ability to remain competitive in world markets. It is clear that we are slipping in our world leadership role in science and engineering. We are losing site of the importance of long- term investments in creating the conditions for prosperity.
In 1995, Alan Greenspan was quoted as saying:
Had the innovations of recent decades, especially in information technologies, not come to fruition, productivity growth would have continued to languish at the rate of the preceding 20 years.
Recent work that has been done by the Federal Reserve bears out that a broader category of such intangible investments now accounts for a full 11 percent of our gross domestic product and that much of our economic growth is attributable to these activities: research and development and information technologies. The statistics that we have bear out that while we are not yet at a point of crisis, we are approaching one. At the macro level, the fastest growing economies continue to increase their research and development investments at nearly five times the rate of the United States. Collectively, we have China and Ireland, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan increasing their research and development investment rates by 214 percent between 1995, when Alan Greenspan made his statement, and 2004. During that same period when they were increasing their investment by over 200 percent, the United States was increasing its investment by 43 percent.
A recent survey of several industries in the United States and Europe found that 48 of 235 recent or planned research and development facilities would actually be located in this country; 55 were to be located in China, 18 in India. Indeed, on a trip I took to India a couple years ago, we learned that the Intel Design Center for Intel Corporation in Bangalore is now designing chips that are fabricated by a manufacturing plant in New Mexico. It used to be the other way around. It used to be that we would do the design work, the high-end, value-added work here, and the manufacturing would occur elsewhere.
The achievement and interest level of U.S. students in math and science is a serious problem for all of us. In fact, the most recent NAEP assessments of educational progress in math reveal that only 23 percent of 12th graders in this country performed at or above proficient. That is in the year 2005. Unfortunately, this assessment in science reveals that the scores for 12th graders have declined since 1996 in each of the science areas--in the earth sciences, physical sciences, and life sciences. Only 18 percent of 12th graders scored at or above proficient in science.
So the issues are serious. They are ones about which more and more of the opinion leaders and thoughtful students of this subject have come to be concerned. These reports have been a major contribution to the dialog. Those of us in Congress are now called upon to actually put in place some solutions to these problems.
I believe passing this amendment to the budget resolution to ensure that there will be room in the budget for funding to meet these very important needs is extremely important.
Let me also acknowledge--and this is something for which I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee--the budget resolution before us increases funding for education by more than $6 billion over what the President proposed. Much of that increased funding is to allow for full funding in the appropriations process of some of these math and science education initiatives and also strengthening math and science teaching skills for our Nation's teaching workforce. That is clearly intended by the budget resolution. The amendment we are offering today does not propose increases in funding in that area because, in fact, the budget resolution itself does make room for the funding increases that America COMPETES calls for.
Let me acknowledge the extremely impressive leadership of my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, in focusing the attention of the Congress on this issue. He has been the single most aggressive Member of the Senate in making sure we continue to address this issue at every stage. As I see it, our amendment is one step in that process. I know it has the support of Senator Reid. I believe it also will have the support of the managers of the legislation. I hope it has the support of all Senators, Democratic and Republican.
I should point out that the offset that this legislation calls for is essentially whatever change in funding the Appropriations Committee chooses to make in so-called function 920. It gives them discretion to either do a very modest across-the-board cut in other funds or find some other way to locate the funds needed.
This legislation would add $1.9 billion that is currently not permitted in the budget for these essential items. It is important that we pass the amendment. I urge all my colleagues to do so.
I yield the floor.
