![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.166666666666667in"
height="0.9861111111111112in"}

**[[Unanswered Questions]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

*State of the Union 2004*

> **[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**
>
> [Domestic Priorities]{.underline}
>
> The Economy...............................\....2
>
> The Budget.............................. \.......3
>
> Education.........\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....4
>
> Health Care...........................\...........5
>
> Immigration.....................................6
>
> [National Security Priorities]{.underline}
>
> Afghanistan.....................................7
>
> The U.S. Military..............................8
>
> Iraq............................................\...9
>
> WMD.......................................\....10
>
> Other National Security Priorities......\.....11

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *The Economy*]{.underline}**

**Where are the jobs?**

-   Despite good news on GDP growth, the labor market is still caught in
    crisis -- more than 8.4 million jobs short of where it should be
    compared to this point in prior recoveries. In December, the economy
    added a measly 1,000 news jobs -- or 20 per state. In response, the
    President called the economy "strong" and touted a drop in the
    overall unemployment rate -- even though that drop happened mainly
    because the job market is so weak that 309,000 people simply stopped
    looking for work.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Bush statement:
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040110.html>

**How can the White House say tax cuts are working?\
**

-   Economy.com found that the 2003 tax cuts were responsible for only
    13% of the growth in the third quarter of 2003, and even this modest
    contribution was predominantly due to its short-term, targeted
    components such as the child tax credit that progressives have
    always supported. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill
    admitted that "without the tax cut, we would have had 6% real
    growth" anyway, and not the massive deficits we face today which
    threaten to raise long-term interest rates, and destabilize the
    global economy.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> 6% real growth:
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml>
>
> Long-term interest rates:
> <http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/orszag/20040105.pdf>
>
> IMF report on destabilizing global economy:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/politics/07CND-FUND.html>

**What does an "Ownership Society" really mean?**

-   President Bush is expected to push an "ownership society" message in
    which he will re-package some form of his prior Retirement Savings
    Account (RSA) and Lifetime Savings Account (LSA) proposals. Under
    the original proposals, citizens would be able to save \$7,500 in
    after-tax income in each of these new accounts, in which compound
    interest would grow completely tax-free. But the proposal does
    virtually nothing for 95% of Americans who currently do not save
    enough to max out their current individual accounts. The plan could
    encourage small businesses to drop coverage, as owners will be able
    to increase from \$6,000 to \$45,000 the amount they can save
    tax-free, without offering a plan to their employees. The proposal
    does nothing to address the fact that more than half of Americans
    have no employer-sponsored pension, while the Federal Reserve now
    reports "America\'s consumer debt has topped \$2 trillion for the
    first time" -- a feat experts "view as an alarming surge."

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> CBPP analysis: <http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-03tax.htm>
>
> Consumer debt tops \$2 trillion: <http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3939463/>

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *The Budget*]{.underline}**

**How can the deficit be cut in half?**

-   When the President took office, our projected deficit in 2008 was
    about \$500 per family. Now it is predicted to be \$84,600 per
    family. The Administration has said it will cut this record \$500
    billion federal budget deficit in half. But his proposal is based on
    false budget assumptions which "omit a series of very likely or
    inevitable costs in taxes, defense spending, and other areas." For
    instance, the proposal omits "all costs in Iraq and Afghanistan
    after September 2004, fails to reflect the full costs of the
    Administration's own defense plans \[and\] omits the costs of
    extending relief from the mushrooming Alternative Minimum Tax after
    2005." While the White House has said economic growth will eliminate
    deficits, independent assessments forecast deficits of \$400-\$600
    billion for the entire decade. The White House has also claimed that
    cutting non-defense discretionary spending will fix the problem. But
    this spending accounted for [only
    5%](http://www.cbpp.org/1-7-04bud.htm) of total spending in 2003.
    Eliminating deficits through spending cuts alone would require
    slashing Social Security by 60%, defense spending by 73%, or all
    programs outside defense, homeland security, Medicare, and Social
    Security by 40%.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Administration omitting likely costs:
> <http://www.cbpp.org/9-11-03bud.htm>
>
> Spending accounted for only 5%: <http://www.cbpp.org/1-7-04bud.htm>

**How can the Administration justify \$2 trillion in new taxes and
spending?**

-   In his upcoming budget, President Bush is proposing cuts to critical
    programs aimed at helping those in need -- things like biomedical
    research, job training, veterans' health care, and housing for the
    poor. At the same time, he continues to push for more than \$1
    trillion in new tax cuts for the wealthy and hundreds of billions
    more on an untested missile defense system, a marriage promotion
    initiative for the poor and a Mission to Mars.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Cutting health research: <http://www.iht.com/articles/123594.html>
>
> Cutting job training:
> <http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01052004/business/business.asp>
>
> Cutting housing vouchers: <http://www.iht.com/articles/123594.html>,
> <http://www.nlihc.org/oor2003/>
>
> Under-funding housing vouchers:
> <http://sarbanes.senate.gov/pages/press/020303_housing_budget_2004.html>
>
> Cutting veterans' health care:
> <http://www.iht.com/articles/123594.html>
>
> \$1 trillion tax cuts for the wealthy:
> <http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030905-120757-2326r.htm>
>
> Mission to Mars costs:
> <http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0401/12/a03-33069.htm> and
> <http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/>
>
> Marriage promotion costs:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/politics/campaigns/14MARR.html>
>
> Missile defense: <http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603I.shtml> and
> <http://64.177.207.201/pages/16_198.html>

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *Education*]{.underline}**

# 

# Has the Administration broken its promise to "Leave No Child Behind" by failing to fund the No Child Left Behind Act?

-   Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Administration is leaving
    millions of children behind with respect to education by failing to
    fully fund the programs President Bush signed into law in the No
    Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The President's budget will contain
    \$7 billion less than what is required to fully fund Title I, the
    program designed to eliminate achievement gaps between groups of
    students. At this funding level, 4.6 million children who are
    eligible for assistance under this program will not receive it. The
    President has tried to use accounting gimmicks to argue that more
    funding is not necessary. But as NCLB sponsors Sen. Edward Kennedy
    and Rep. George Miller note, "claiming that schools have more money
    than they know what to do with is like calling Enron a profitable
    company."

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> <http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/columnists/perspective/7684441.htm>

Are the voucher schemes supported by the Administration consistent with
the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act?

-   Voucher plans would divert critical funding from public schools,
    where 90% of the nation\'s children are educated, to private schools
    which would not be held accountable for their performance. State and
    local communities are struggling with the worst budget shortfalls
    since World War II, leading to reductions in instruction time and
    layoffs of quality teachers in our nation's schools. In the face of
    the funding crisis, the President has proposed diverting millions of
    dollars to private schools that are exempt from the same
    accountability standards he advocates in the No Child Left Behind
    Act.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> [www.stopdcvouchers.org](http://www.stopvouchers.org/)
>
> <http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12074>

Has the Administration actually held schools accountable?

-   The Administration has abdicated its responsibility to require
    schools to report progress on teacher qualifications and graduation
    rates. It has also failed to provide states with technical support
    and needed resources for meeting these goals. For example, some
    states have used distorted numbers or incomplete data in their
    implementation of the NCLB. The Administration was aware of these
    inconsistencies but disseminated the data without review or comment.
    As a recent report by the Education Trust points out, "while states
    have the responsibility to collect accurate data, the U.S.
    Department of Education has the responsibility to provide clear
    guidance to the states on how they should report the data and ensure
    that the data they receive is of high quality.\"

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> <http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/4DE8F2E0-4D08-4640-B3B0-013F6DC3865D/0/tellingthetruthgradrates.pdf>
>
> <http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/C638111D-04E3-4C0D-9F68-20E7009498A6/0/tellingthetruthteachers.pdf>

 

 

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *Health Care*]{.underline}**

**Why has the White House offered no plan to bring down the cost of
health care?**

 

-   Recent polls show that Americans are as concerned about affordable
    health care as they are about terrorism and national security. Yet
    President Bush -- and the health insurance and prescription drug
    companies that line his campaign coffers - wants Americans to keep
    paying those high prices. How else to explain policies that would
    provide additional government subsidies to private health insurers
    that charge unconscionable prices to those who are sick, or refuse
    to cover them at any price; allow private health insurers to avoid
    state regulation and have even greater latitude to discriminate
    against the sick; and guarantee an extra \$400 billion of taxpayer
    money to the pharmaceutical industry while prohibiting the
    government from negotiating fair prescription drug prices?

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Poll:
> <http://www.hospitalconnect.com/aha/campaign2004/content/7Steps_040114_Survey.ppt>

 

**Why has the Administration offered no plan to deal with the
uninsured?**

 

-   President Bush believes we can return to the moon within 16 years;
    enact additional tax cuts and still cut the deficit in half within 5
    years; and provide universal health care in Iraq within one
    year. But the President's top health care official, HHS Secretary
    Tommy Thompson, says that providing health insurance for every
    American by 2010 is "not realistic." Certainly it is true that the
    President's policies on the uninsured will not achieve his stated
    goal of "high quality, affordable health care for all Americans." In
    fact, there are nearly 4 million more uninsured now than when Bush
    took office. And the problem is not confined to the poor or those
    working for small businesses. All told, "a third of the nation\'s
    workers without health insurance are employed by large companies."
    And this comes at a price - the Institute of Medicine reports that
    it costs the nation \$65 billion to \$130 billion to deal with the
    uninsured.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson comment:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/health/15INSU.html>
>
> President's stated goal:
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html>
>
> Institute of Medicine cost study: <http://www.iom.edu/uninsured>
>
> Kaiser study of uninsured cost:
> <http://www.kff.org/uninsured/4118-index.cfm>
>
> International health comparisons:
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/21/health/main579209.shtml>

**Why would we guarantee \$400 billion to private health companies but
not guarantee a good drug benefit to seniors?**

 

-   The new Medicare law is supposed to provide a prescription drug
    benefit for seniors and disabled Americans. Yet there are no
    standards for which prescription drugs will be covered, how much
    beneficiaries will have to pay when they fill a prescription, or
    what premiums they will have to pay for this "benefit." Private
    health insurers, working with the pharmaceutical industry, get to
    make all of these important decisions. Medicare has little or
    nothing to say about it -- the new law prohibits Medicare from
    "interfering" with deals between the insurers and drug makers. And
    should prescription drug spending under the new "benefit" skyrocket
    -- as prescription drug costs have done generally -- the new law
    also prohibits Medicare from acting to lower prices.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Health care spending tops \$1.6 trillion:
> <http://www.cms.hhs.gov/media/press/release.asp?Counter=935>

**Why is Medicare paying private health insurers more than they
deserve?**

-   Even before the Medicare bill was signed, Medicare was paying
    private health insurers more than it would cost to cover their
    enrollees under the traditional Medicare program. By 2006, under the
    new Medicare bill, these private plans will likely be overpaid by
    25%. Meanwhile, new evidence suggests that these plans are literally
    bad for seniors' health: researchers project that if 10% more
    seniors had enrolled in Medicare managed care plans without drug
    coverage, there would have been "51,000 additional deaths."

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Private health insurers cost more than traditional Medicare:
> <http://www.medpac.gov/publications/other_reports/Aug03_MplusC_FFS_2pgrSH.pdf>
>
> Overpaid by 25%:
> <http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=13275>
>
> 51,000 additional deaths: <http://papers.nber.org/papers/W10204>

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *Immigration*]{.underline}**

**Does the Administration's proposal make it possible for temporary
workers eventually to earn citizenship or other permanent status?**

 

-   The President has said, "Those willing to take the difficult path of
    citizenship---the path of work, and patience, and
    assimilation---should be welcome in America, like generations of
    immigrants before them." Unfortunately, his plan does not offer new
    temporary workers a means of following this path. He stated that
    temporary workers could apply for a green card "in the normal way,\"
    but the plan prohibits them from using their temporary status to
    obtain permanent residency and fails to explain what they would need
    to do in order to adjust their status. Unless workers are assured
    that they will not be forced to leave the country when their
    temporary status expires, many will choose to remain underground.

 

>  

**Why doesn\'t the Administration\'s new immigration proposal protect
workers from potential corporate abuse?**

>  

-   President Bush announced his new temporary guest worker proposal,
    touting the plan as \"more compassionate and more humane.\" But the
    President\'s proposal, which would allow undocumented immigrant
    workers to obtain temporary legal status, contains no protection
    from potential corporate abuse. According to the President,
    \"Participants who do not remain employed\...will be required to
    return to their home.\" As a result, reports the WP, workers are
    forced \"to tie their fates to employer \'sponsors\' who could ship
    them back home for complaining about job conditions.\" AFL-CIO
    president John Sweeney said, \"the plan deepens the potential for
    abuse and exploitation of these workers.\" Unsurprisingly,
    \"business groups, made up of some of Bush\'s biggest financial
    backers, welcomed the plan\" as a way to fill \"low-wage and
    dangerous jobs.\" Professor Susan F. Martin, immigration expert at
    Georgetown University, said that Bush\'s plan effectively created
    \"a large number of basically indentured servants.\"

>  
>
> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Bush announcement:
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html>
>
> Businesses push Bush proposal:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63486-2004Jan7.html>
>
> AFL-CIO President John Sweeney comments:
> <http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-nws-immi08.html>
>
> Professor Martin comment:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63428-2004Jan7.html>

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *Afghanistan*]{.underline}**

**Where are Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar?**

-   The U.S. and its allies launched a military strike on Afghanistan
    more than two years ago because the Taliban were providing a
    terrorist haven for al-Qaeda. Yet, almost half of the US personnel
    who had been searching for bin Laden in Afghanistan were diverted to
    Iraq last year -- a trend that is not expected to change even after
    the capture of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, numerous bin Laden tapes,
    many of which are believed to be authentic, have been released since
    September 11 to incite further violence against the U.S. and its
    allies. In the latest tape, several weeks ago, the speaker urged
    Muslims to "continue the jihad to check the conspiracies that are
    hatched against the Islamic nation."

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Troops staying in Iraq after Saddam capture:
> <http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/7491402.htm>
>
> Osama bin Laden tapes authenticity:
> <http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/7632930.htm>

**Why hasn't the U.S. done more to expand the NATO force in
Afghanistan?**

-   The security situation in Afghanistan is grave and the country is
    dominated by warlord militias. The International Security Assistance
    Force (ISAF) remained confined to Kabul until recently and U.S.
    Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), designed to spread security
    and reconstruction assistance to the provinces, are limited in size
    and capacity. Yet the United States has taken a largely
    pass-the-buck attitude with regard to ISAF expansion. "We'll leave
    it to NATO to coordinate the requirements for the mission in
    Afghanistan," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in
    November.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> CAP column on Afghanistan:
> <http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=13221>
>
> CAP memo on Afghanistan:
> [http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/pandya.pdf](http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/pandya.pdf)

# [Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *The Military*

Why has the Bush Administration failed to properly support our troops?

-   Our armed forces are operating in a dangerous environment, yet in
    2003 the Administration tried to reduce hostile fire as well as
    separation pay for the troops and fought efforts by Congress to
    allow military retirees to collect their full disability pay. In
    addition, critical items such as effective body armor, humvees, and
    helicopter anti-missile systems have been in short supply. The
    Administration also has launched an assault on military families,
    consistently trying to limit the benefits military families and
    veterans receive from the government, announcing intent to close
    commissaries and considering closing schools.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> U.S. troops have limited body-armor:
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html>
>
> Pentagon closing schools near military bases:
> <http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/12/23ky/wir-front-schools1223-13947.html>
>
> Sick, wounded troops held in squalor:
> <http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031017-024617-1418r>
>
> Army Times editorial -- 'Nothing But Lipservice':
> <http://www.armytimes.com/archivepaper.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php>
>
> Veterans' health benefits:
> <http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/joe_galloway/6792503.htm>

**Why are casualties still mounting and the situation grown more
dangerous?**

-   The Administration's lack of planning for the post-conflict phase of
    Iraq and failure to win international support has made our soldiers
    more vulnerable. The U.S. military has suffered three times as many
    casualties since the end of major combat operations as during the
    war. Units of the National Guard and Reserves have been called up
    without reasonable notice and kept on active duty longer than
    anticipated. As *The Buffalo News* reports**, "**The stresses
    afflicting the U.S. military in its war on terror are beginning to
    show: more suicides within the ranks and trouble securing adequate
    medical care for troops."

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Casualties in Iraq:
> <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm>
>
> Lawmakers vote to extend tours of duty:
> <http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bn/Qus-iraq-troops-extend.RJ_l_DS9.html>
>
> Suicides up among troops in Iraq:
> <http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040115/1057124.asp>

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *Iraq*]{.underline}**

**How much will the U.S. occupation of Iraq cost American taxpayers in
2005?**

-   The Bush Administration said it would need little if any funding for
    reconstructing Iraq in 2005. The comptroller of the Pentagon
    testified that the first reconstruction grant would likely be a
    one-time, front-loaded request to help the country get back on its
    feet. Yet Iraq is far from reconstructed; experts speculate that the
    U.S. will soon have to spend more money on security, government
    services and democracy promotion. Even CPA Administrator Paul Bremer
    said in August that Iraq would need "several tens of billions" of
    dollars in the coming years.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Funding for reconstruction:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9226-2003Oct23?language=printer>
>
> Comptroller statement:
> <http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/101603cd1.htm>
>
> Bremmer Quote:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9226-2003Oct23?language=printer>

**Are resources going to Iraq at the expense of fighting terrorists
elsewhere?**

-   A recent U.S. Army War College report notes, "the war against Iraq
    was not integral to the global war on terrorism, but rather a detour
    from it." The report also points out that "Operation Iraqi Freedom
    saddled the U.S. armed forces...with costly and open-ended imperial
    policing and nation-building responsibilities outside the
    professional military's traditional mission portfolio."

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Army War College report:
> <http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.pdf>

**What's the plan for stabilizing Iraq?**

-   Although the number of attacks in Iraq has decreased recently, the
    lethality of the attacks is increasing. In addition, more troops
    were killed or injured in the four weeks after Saddam was captured
    than in the four weeks before. Iraqi security forces don't seem up
    to these challenges; Newsday reports that Iraqi and U.S. military
    commanders agree that the new forces are "poorly trained, weak,
    corrupt and far from being ready to take charge of security."

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Casualties: <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/opinion/13KRUG.html>

**What is the U.S. plan for truly internationalizing reconstruction
efforts in Iraq?**

-   The United States is still struggling to get countries to pledge
    support in Iraq and forgive the country's debt, which means U.S.
    taxpayers continue to bear the brunt of our efforts there. On
    January 19^th^, Kofi Annan will meet with senior administration
    officials to determine what role the United Nations should play in
    Iraq. Although the Administration has indicated they would like to
    have more help from the U.N., it's still wary about giving the
    organization a truly independent role. The meeting on the 19^th^
    will be an excellent chance for the White House to turn words into
    action and bring the U.N. back to Iraq, both to support American
    troops and resources as well as ease the reconstruction process for
    the Iraqis.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> More help from the UN:
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1495-2004Jan8.html>

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *WMD*]{.underline}**

 

**Where are the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?**

-   President Bush told us that war with Iraq was urgently necessary to
    stop Saddam from developing and proliferating WMD. But at this
    point, no WMD have been found, and most analysts agree he did not
    pose an immediate threat as a weapons proliferator. In fact,
    Secretary of State Colin Powell said in 2001 that Saddam "has not
    developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass
    destruction" and "is unable to project conventional power against
    his neighbors." As Senator Ted Kennedy said in his recent speech,
    "Paul Wolfowitz admitted in an interview that the Administration
    settled for 'bureaucratic reasons' on weapons of mass destruction
    because it was 'the one reason everyone could agree on.'"

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Powell comments: <http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm>
>
> Carnegie Endowment for International Peace WMD report:
> <http://wmd.ceip.matrixgroup.net/iraq3fulltext.pdf>
>
> Senator Kennedy address:
> <http://www.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/04/01/2004114558.html>

**Why is the Administration short-changing proven programs for tracking
down and destroying nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and
materials?**

-   The Nunn-Lugar program secures vulnerable nuclear sites in Russia
    and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union from theft. Programs like
    Nunn-Lugar have tangibly and cost-effectively improved America's
    security, for instance, by securing several hundred tons of highly
    enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium at several sites in
    Russia. In FY 2001, before the attacks of 9-11, the budget for
    Nunn-Lugar was \$443 million. In FY 2004, the president requested
    only \$451 million, not enough to keep up with inflation, let alone
    deal with the new security environment.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Nuclear Threat Initiative: [www.nti.org](http://www.nti.org/)
>
> Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's WMD report:
> <http://wmd.ceip.matrixgroup.net/iraq3fulltext.pdf>
>
> Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council piece:
> <http://www.ransac.org/documents/061003_accomplishments.pdf>

**[[Unanswered Questions:]{.smallcaps} *Other Nat'l Security
Priorities*]{.underline}**

**Is the Administration serious about addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis?**

-   In his last State of the Union, the President announced a bold new
    initiative to increase funding for HIV/AIDS by \$15 billion over 5
    years. However, the Administration requested only \$2 billion in
    2004 and is likely to request \$2.7 billion in 2005. The president
    must meet his commitment; even the Coalition of Evangelical Groups
    is requesting he increase funding. In addition, the Administration
    continues to let political ideology guide its efforts by providing
    money largely for treatment and abstinence.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> President's AIDS announcement:
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020619-1.html>
>
> Funding numbers:
> <http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=21669>
>
> Funding numbers: <http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/21637>

**Why isn't the Bush Administration adequately funding homeland
security?**

-   At a time when the operational tempo of homeland security forces at
    home is rising, with five code orange alerts in the past two years,
    the Bush Administration will under-fund first responders by roughly
    \$100 billion over the next five years. Additionally, the money is
    not getting out the door. As of August 1, 2003, 90 percent of cities
    had yet to receive any of the \$1.5 billion in federal first
    responder and critical infrastructure funding, and 30 percent of
    cities did not feel this funding would meet their most critical
    security needs, including personnel and overtime costs. And the
    Administration is proposing to reduce support for existing local law
    enforcement programs such as COPS and the Local Law Enforcement
    Block Grant.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> Homeland security funding report:
> <http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/issue_brief.php?issue=11>
>
> U.S. Council of Mayors report:
> <http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/news/press_releases/documents/cops_120403.pdf>
>
> LA Councilman Jack Weiss op-ed:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/opinion/14WEIS.html>
>
> United States Conference of Mayors Survey, December 2003:
> <http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/news/publications/homelandreport_0903.pdf>

**Why do we still have inadequate programs to secure our ports?**

-   More than half of the goods entering the U.S. move by oceangoing
    containers -- seven million last year. But the Bush Administration
    and its Department of Homeland Security have failed to move forward
    adequately to enhance port security. It is estimated that \$7.4
    billion will be required over the next 10 years to provide
    sufficient port security. The Administration has allocated only
    \$767 million on port grants since September 11, however. In
    addition, only one in five of U.S. port facilities have submitted
    required security plans to the Coast Guard.

> **[SOURCES:]{.underline}**
>
> U.S. Customs Service Fact Sheet:
> <http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02022505.htm>
>
> Associated Press as quoted by the Container Security Institute:
> <http://www.csiinstitute.com/AsktheExperts/faq1.htm#Q1117>
>
> GAO Report on cargo inspections:
> <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04325t.pdf>
>
> USNews & World Report on port security:
> <http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040112/usnews/12port.htm>