Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me indicate I have just been sitting with my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, discussing this amendment. I want to discuss just for a moment why I have offered this amendment and then indicate that I think we have a responsibility here in the Congress to try to understand how much these operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas of the world cost us and how we plan to pay for them. Before I do that, let me say the chairman of this subcommittee and the ranking member, two Members for whom I have the highest regard--and I happen to serve on this subcommittee--have distinguished military records. The ranking member has the Medal of Honor. The chairman flew over the hump in China during the Second World War. He has a very distinguished record. I very much appreciate working with them. They have done an extraordinary job with the piece of legislation brought to the floor of the Senate to fund our defense needs. I visited Afghanistan during the past year or so. I have not visited Iraq. But I happen to think what we have done, with the wonderful men and women who wear America's uniform, is kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan and free the people of Afghanistan. What we have done is to drive underground--at this point--Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq. It has been done by very brave, courageous, and wonderful young men and women, and with equipment which is funded by this subcommittee. I know my colleagues likely have done what I have done. They have visited the site where they are producing a little airplane called the Predator. It is not much bigger than a little Piper Cub. It flies at about the same speed. It is a little airplane without a pilot which sits up there for nearly a day and flies around the battlefield and with a sensor can give you a vision of exactly what is on the battlefield, and you have someone sitting in Florida watching a television monitor seeing what is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is really breathtaking technology which is being used. The Predator is low tech. The Global Hawk does the same at multiples of altitude. The Global Hawk is also an unmanned aerial vehicle that has been used extensively in both theaters. Those are the kinds of new technologies that are really quite remarkable--the technologies that are funded by this subcommittee. In addition to the technology, weapons, and air assets and ground assets, the soldiers themselves are quite extraordinary. I appointed a young man to the United States Naval Academy, Jason Frye, from Hazen, ND. Jason Frye was recently at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. In fact, Senator Inouye called Jason on Friday. He is a young marine who was in Iraq. He had part of his arm blown off by a rocket-launched grenade. When I went to visit him at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, he was worried about his unit. He wanted to be back with his unit. He wondered how his unit was doing in Iraq. This young man had a battlefield injury. They had to use the cord from the radio in his Humvee to wrap around his arm as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. He got medical attention at a field hospital in Iraq. What a remarkable young man. He is a symbol of all the young men and women who answered the call and have done their duty. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. Our hearts go out to those who have been injured and killed, and to their families. This piece of legislation is extraordinary. It was introduced by two remarkable legislators. I am pleased to be a part of the subcommittee that supports our national defense needs and supports the men and women who serve this country. The amendment which I have offered says there is kind of an illusion going on with respect to the cost of what we are doing in defense. It is not a deliberate illusion by anyone. It is this: We are spending about $3.9 billion a month in Iraq at the moment-- almost $4 billion. We are spending nearly $1 billion at the moment in Afghanistan. Those are the costs of the ongoing activities in both countries. Both of these activities are very important. If we are spending about $5 billion a month--an annualized rate of about $60 billion--the question is, How will all of that be funded? Some of it is funded in this legislation. The salaries of the soldiers who would be stationed at Fort Sill, or Fort Lewis, or some other post, we would be paying those salaries anyway. Now they are in Iraq. They are being paid in Iraq. The question is, What are the extra costs in the $5 billion a month we are spending to be in these two theaters, Afghanistan and Iraq? The answer is, we don't know. The President likely doesn't know. The OMB and the DOD do not know. But the Pentagon's chief financial officer said last week they have a ``pretty good sense'' of what is going on on the ground for next year. Obviously, they have some planning. My expectation is we will have substantial numbers of troops on the ground in Iraq for some long while. It is not unlikely that we could see more troops going to Afghanistan at some point. If they have a good sense of what is going on on the ground, we ought to plan for that. I respect the fact that some would say we don't know what this is going to cost next year. We know the answer is not zero. My only concern, as I indicated to the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the subcommittee, is I don't want us to be in a situation where each spring we have to produce larger and larger supplemental appropriations bills. I would prefer we do some planning. It is certainly true, as the chairman pointed out, that we have been doing this for a long time, but not in the theaters of Bosnia, Kosovo, and others. I understand that. But these are larger numbers. We have not been confronted with $4 billion a month, and then another $1 billion on top of it, or $5 billion a month. We have never done this. We have never done this at a time when the front pages of the newspapers say we have a Federal budget deficit of $450 billion. It is a different time. We face different circumstances. My point is we know what the answer for the cost of these operations next year is not. It is not zero. It is something. The question is, What? If the comptroller at the Pentagon has a pretty good sense of what is going to be on the ground in the next fiscal year, I would prefer we get a sense of what that is and try to plan for that and estimate that in our regular appropriations bill. I understand the difficulty. I understand why in previous years we have always said, Well, let us just wait; we will see what the Pentagon spends on it. We will add it up and replace it in a supplemental appropriations request. I think this is a different set of circumstances. I know there is disagreement in the Chamber. I think we are going to be in Iraq for some long while. We have been in Agfhanistan for some while now. The troop strength has been drawn down. But I think there are some storm clouds over Afghanistan. I worry a great deal about what the needs are going to be there and how to solidify and maintain what we have achieved in Afghanistan. My own feeling is we would be better served at this point as we try to produce a final piece of legislation on Defense appropriations if we would have a supplemental amendment that says here is what we think we will need in the coming fiscal year for these operations. Again, if the comptroller at the Pentagon has a pretty good sense of what is going to be on the ground, they very likely have documents that tell them, at least, and perhaps us, what they think they will need. Is it accurate? I do not know. But again, I know zero is not the starting point. Having said that, I offered an amendment that asked the President to send us in 2 weeks a budget amendment giving us the information the Pentagon apparently has in terms of having a ``pretty good idea'' of what is going to be on the ground for the next fiscal year and tell us what those costs will be above that which already exists. The chairman makes a point that money previously appropriated in a supplemental is available--a $60-plus billion supplemental, $30-plus billion of which was to replace money taken from previous accounts. If there is money available, how much above that will be required for expenditure, and do the comptroller at the Pentagon and others know what their estimate might be of what our costs will be in the coming fiscal year? That is what my amendment is requesting. I have visited with the chairman and ranking member about my amendment. I wanted to make the comment that I, on a general basis, believe this bill is an extraordinarily good bill. The work of the chairman and ranking member is, in my judgment, some of the best work in the Senate. I am proud to be a member of the subcommittee. I believe we ought to find a way to do this differently with respect to major theaters of operations in the annual spring request with respect to very large and larger supplementals each year. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we find much to agree about, as a matter of fact. We do not fund wartime budgets in advance because we don't know what a war will cost. There is no disagreement on that score. We do not have a wartime budget, and we do not have an appropriations bill in front of us that deals with the cost of war. We agree with that. In fact, all of us know the President indicated the war in Iraq was over. We understand at this point we have had some difficulty restoring order completely and there is some violence occurring in Iraq, but most of our troops in Iraq are not fighting. Most of the troops in Iraq are engaged in some kind of peacekeeping and restoration of order. The point I was trying to make is this: This country always supports its troops and does so very aggressively, and no one will question whether that is the case. This subcommittee does that and does it aggressively. If we find in Iraq and Afghanistan--two theaters in which we have been engaged for some while--that troop strength in those areas remains about the same level as it has been and we are spending about $5 billion a month, my understanding is somewhere near the end of this year we will be about out of money, and we will be taking money from other accounts. So there will be 9 months left in the next fiscal year. If they continue to spend money at that level, we are talking about $40 or $50 billion. The chairman says he expects that not to happen. I hope it does not happen. I hope we are not confronted with that choice. My point is, if the Pentagon at this point understands some notion about what kind of troop strength they intend to have for some long while in Iraq or Afghanistan, then we should understand how we prepare and plan for paying for it. We now face a very large Federal budget deficit. Frankly, we don't have a choice in dealing with these issues. We must pay the bill. We can't commit our sons and daughters to a war, send them overseas, whether they are restoring order or keeping peace or actually war fighting, we can't do that and say: We will not provide everything you need to be successful. That is what this subcommittee has always done under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member. It is important for us to understand that we have a $450 billion estimated budget shortfall. It is growing by leaps and bounds. The point I am trying to make is that we are likely to face much larger expenditures in the coming 12 months to meet our military needs, and they do not exist in this bill. The chairman has explained properly that in the past we have never required it to be a part of this bill. He indicates it is because we don't fund wars in advance. I say that we are not at this point in an active war in Afghanistan or Iraq. The war is over. The columns of humvees and tanks and mechanized vehicles moving into Iraq have stopped. Now there is a different circumstance. It is heartwrenching some mornings to hear of the attacks on American troops. But most of what is happening in Iraq is the restoration of order and the peacekeeping. It seems to me that if we are going to be there for some while, it makes sense for us to evaluate what the Pentagon thinks. They are finding documents and they are talking about them. What will that cost? And then ask the President to submit that to us along with his vision of how we deal with that, how we pay for it. My colleague indicated we would have to fund it. Look, this is part of a broad set of priorities. Yes, this has to be funded but how? What are the consequences of it and how and where does it come from? My point is not to cause angst to the chairman and the ranking member. If we are going to be involved in longer term theater operations that are not wartime operations but require the commitment of troops--140,000 troops in Iraq perhaps, 20,000, 25,000 troops in Afghanistan, and that may increase--if we are going to require the placement of troops in these theaters for some longer period of time, if we have longer anticipated costs, we ought to figure out what those are and put them in the regular appropriations bill. That is the point I am making. We just have a disagreement about that. To me, it is just about where we find ourselves in fiscal policy, what the requirements are with respect to military policy, and whether we can find a way to more orderly anticipate the future costs that we almost certainly know, and the Pentagon has some notion, and trying to respond to those and deal with them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill to remedy a long-standing inequity in pesticide pricing between agricultural chemicals sold in Canada and similar use chemicals sold in the United States. This pesticide price disparity has caused an undue cost burden on our American farmers putting them at a distinct disadvantage when competing in the world grain market. Currently, American and Canadian farmers use the same chemicals on their fields; but they are marketed under different labels and sold at much lower cost north of the border. This bill simply eliminates that inequity by setting up a process that would allow American farmers to access these lower-priced--but substantively identical--pesticides. This legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, upon the request of anyone who can comply with the pesticide registration requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to register a Canadian pesticide for use in the United States. This registration would take effect if, after analysis by the EPA, the pesticides are of similar use and composition in both countries. The bill also has provisions to allow EPA to delegate portions of the registration process to individual states with EPA having the final authority over the process. This is to conserve the resources of the EPA and at the same time utilize the expertise of State agriculture departments around the country. The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use. This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is a top priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a top priority for all of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact. I have come before the Senate time and again to talk about the hidden inequities of trade. Trade must be fair, and the pricing inequities of Canadian and United States similar use pesticides have been a glaring weakness of the free trade initiative. For far too long, American farmers have watched their neighbors to the north apply pesticides that are used in both countries, used on the same crops, and yet Canadian producers get a price cut. Our farmers are also concerned that similar use pesticides are being utilized by farmers in Canada to produce wheat, barley, and other agricultural commodities which are subsequently imported and consumed in the United States. They rightfully believe it to be unfair to import commodities produced with agricultural pesticides that are not available to U.S. producers. If commodities grown with the use of these Canadian pesticides are deemed safe enough for import and consumption in the United States, why would we make American producers pay 117 percent to 193 percent more in chemical costs to produce the same crops? The current scenario doesn't make sense. This bill is not an ending, but a beginning. Hidden trade barriers and schemes riddle the fabric of our trade agreements. We cannot continue to accept trade practices that on the one hand hamstring Americans, and on the other hand, unduly promote our competitors. We cannot allow our competitors to sell us commodities treated with lower priced chemicals that are used both in Canada and the United States, tell our consumers that the chemicals used on those commodities are perfectly safe, and yet not give our producers access to those same chemicals at a lower price. This is a classic example of free trade gone bad. We ought not accept second best all of the time, and this bill is a step in bringing American producers back to a level playing field. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I just came from a conference about 30 minutes ago dealing with the issue of travel; that is, the right of the American people to travel. We have the right to travel almost anywhere. I have been to China, a Communist country; Vietnam, a Communist country; I can go to Iran or North Korea. The American people have a right to travel almost anywhere in the world--except for Cuba. Why? Because with respect to Cuba, we have had a 40-year embargo, which not only embargoes trade between this country and Cuba but prohibits the American people from traveling in Cuba. We have an organization in the Department of Treasury called OFAC, Office of Financial Assets Control, I believe it is. OFAC is an agency that is supposed to be tracking terrorists at this point. Following 9/ 11, we understand there are all kinds of terrorists and others who wish this country ill and are willing to murder Americans. We have the FBI, the CIA, and a whole range of interests trying to track terrorists. As I said, one part of that is a little organization inside the Treasury Department called OFAC. OFAC is supposed to look at all the money trails to track terrorists. But that is not all they do. OFAC, as I speak today, has folks in the Treasury Department tracking American citizens who are traveling in Cuba. I want to give an example of what they are doing. There is a woman named Joan Slote. She is a grandmother. She is also a world-class senior citizen cyclist. She was a medal winner at the 1993 senior olympics. She has bicycled through 21 different countries. She still bicycles 100 miles a week. She is in her seventies. This weekend, the Washington Post wrote a story about Joan Slote. She went with a group of Canadians to take a bicycling trip to Cuba. She believed it was legal for Americans to bicycle in Cuba. It was certainly legal for Canadians to do so. She openly told the U.S. Customs agents that she had been there. When she got home, she received from OFAC, this little agency in the Treasury Department, a notice that she was being fined $10,000. She did not respond to OFAC's missive because her son had a brain tumor and she was attending to her sick son, who later died. So OFAC said: Sorry, you are fined $10,000. You did not respond, so you know what we are going to do? We are going to start taking your Social Security payments. Here is a retired grandmother of six attending to her son who dies, who went bicycling in Cuba prior to that and now gets fined $10,000 and has the Treasury Department saying they are going to take this woman's Social Security payments. I do not understand it. I guess it is the Forrest Gump film, isn't it, that says: Stupid is as stupid does. Life is just a box of chocolates. I have no idea. What on earth can be happening at the Treasury Department that has people in OFAC, who are supposed to be tracking terrorists, tracking little old ladies, retired people bicycling in Cuba, and fining them $10,000. Or if it is not Joan Slote, perhaps it is a 77-year-old World War II veteran who fought for this country many years ago. He posted some information on a Web site he created about a licensed meeting of United States/Cuba Sister Cities Association in Havana. The OFAC organization down in the Treasury Department accused this 77-year-old World War II veteran of organizing, arranging, promoting, and otherwise facilitating the attendance of persons at the conference in Cuba without a license. The fact is, this guy did not even attend. He did not go to the conference. It was licensed by OFAC. He did not attend the conference, but he put something on his Web site that had to do with sister cities, and now OFAC is after him. So this 77-year-old World War II veteran has to hire a lawyer. Or perhaps it is the fellow from Washington State whose dad was a Cuban. His dad died, and he wanted his ashes spread on the soil in Cuba. So this young man took an urn with his father's ashes to Cuba. Guess what happened to him. We have these vigilant folks down at the Treasury Department--no, not tracking terrorists, not protecting this country--tracking a man who took the urn with his father's ashes to distribute them in Cuba. What on earth can they be thinking about? Yes, it is true, we have a law, and the law in this country says: Let's punish Fidel Castro by limiting the right of the American people to travel. Some of us think that is dumb--d-u-m-b dumb. It does not hurt Fidel Castro to say to the American people we are going to limit your travel opportunities. We have had debate after debate in this Chamber, and in every circumstance we have said the same thing: The way to resolve the issue with Communist China is to lead them to a better place on human rights. How do we lead them? Through engagement, trade, and travel. We encourage trade and travel with China, a Communist country. Vietnam: How do we engage Vietnam to lead them toward a better future with more rights for their citizens--more civil rights, more human rights? Through engagement, through travel, and trade, because we do that with Communist countries. Both political parties have said that is the right thing to do. For 40 years, our country has had an embargo with respect to the country of Cuba. For 40 years, we have indicated that we will punish Fidel Castro by limiting the right of the American people to travel. Forty years of failed policy ought to be enough to convince us to change the law. I have no interest in Fidel Castro except that he limits the rights of the Cuban people. I went to Havana on an official trip. I demanded to see an economist named Martha who was imprisoned. I was refused the opportunity to do so. The fact is, human rights and civil rights in Cuba are not where they ought to be. The Cuban people are not free, but we will not, in my judgment, advance rights for the Cuban people by deciding to embrace a policy that has failed for 40 years. We will and should, it seems to me, encourage trade and travel with respect to Cuba because that is the quickest way to undermine Fidel Castro. The quickest way to undermine this regime is through trade and travel, just as we preach it will do in China, in Vietnam, and in other areas of the world. In addition to restricting travel, we have had this terribly ill- considered ban on trade. It is, in my judgment, always immoral to use food as a weapon, and yet we have done that with Cuba. It is interesting; the law was changed briefly, and as result of the law change I helped engineer in the Senate, along with my former colleague who is now Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft--I offered with Senator Ashcroft, legislation that became law that opens just a bit the ability to ship food to Cuba so we can sell food to Cuba. Last year, for the first time in 42 years, 22 train carloads of dried peas left North Dakota's farms and elevators to be shipped to Cuba. Using food as a weapon, as we have done for four decades with Cuba, does not hurt Fidel Castro. Does anybody here think he has missed a meal in 42 years because we have an embargo on food shipments to Cuba? Does anybody think Fidel Castro misses breakfast, dinner, or lunch? Absolutely not. Using food as a weapon hurts sick people, poor people, and hungry people, and it is basically an immoral policy, in my judgment. The issue of trade and travel is important. It is not in any way supportive of Fidel Castro for us to say a 40-year embargo does not work and that the same strategy we use with respect to China and Vietnam does work, and that is engagement through trade and travel. It undermines the ground on which dictators sit. It undermines their capability to govern, and that is what we ought to do. This afternoon, we are marking up the Agriculture appropriations bill, and I am going to offer an amendment to that bill. We have U.S. agricultural experts who have been denied the opportunity to go to Cuba to sell American agricultural products. As I said, Senator Ashcroft and I opened the door just a bit, and we have been selling some products to Cuba. But in order to do that, Cuba has to run the transaction through a French bank because it cannot even be run through a U.S. financial enterprise. It makes no sense to me, but that is the restriction. I am going to offer an amendment that says at least those who are moving back and forth to sell and buy agricultural commodities ought to be able to travel. Let's at least begin the first step dealing with this issue of travel. I will end by saying again, it is illogical, in my judgment, to attempt to injure Fidel Castro by restricting the right of the American people to travel. Does anybody really think that at the Treasury Department today we have these folks in gray suits and tiny little glasses, and probably green eyeshades, pouring over all this data--what are they looking for? Are they looking for financial information to track terrorists to put terrorists in jail? No, that is not what they are looking for. They are trying to find a grandmother from Illinois who answered an ad for a bicycling trip in Cuba so they can fine her $10,000 and attach her Social Security checks. Shame on them. Yes, that is what the law says. Shame on us. In my judgment, we ought to change the law. It does not make any sense. My hope is that perhaps with my colleague, Senator Enzi, who just left the Chamber, and others--Republicans and Democrats--who believe the restricting of the right of the American people to travel makes no sense at all, my hope is that Republicans and Democrats can work together to change this law and stop OFAC from doing what it is now doing. It is hard to find adjectives to describe the basic stupidity of our country chasing little old ladies who ride a bicycle in Cuba and levying $10,000 fines on them and then saying: If you do not pay it, we will attach your Social Security check. Why are we doing that? Because we are saying a person cannot travel, or we are restricting their right to travel because we want to injure Fidel Castro. The way to injure Fidel Castro is the way we have done with China and Vietnam, which are Communist countries, and that is engagement through trade and travel that undermines the governments of those countries. That is what we ought to do with Cuba. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will speak briefly. I will speak further tomorrow on this subject. This relates to something I spoke about yesterday. It may well be that the Congress--in this case, the Senate-- feels it is appropriate to ignore the added costs of Afghanistan and Iraq in next year's budget, but I happen to think that makes no sense at all. If we know, reasonably, that we are going to spend an additional $1 billion a month in Afghanistan and perhaps $4 billion a month in Iraq--that is perhaps a $50 or $60 billion additional expenditure--it seems to me we ought to address that question now; not only address what are the additional costs with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan but where we will find the money. What will likely happen is what happened last year. The President made the case he did not know what the costs might be in Iraq and therefore did not include anything in the budget for it, but we have been through now at least an initial phase of the war, with continuing violence in Iraq. We know from Secretary Rumsfeld's position earlier this week we may well see an increase of troop strength in the area. We know the comptroller of the Pentagon says they have a pretty good sense of what will be on the ground for the next fiscal year--referring both to Afghanistan and Iraq. If that is the case, and if we are now appropriating money for the Department of Defense, why not try to learn from the administration what figures they are using for additional costs in the coming year and what they recommend we appropriate and how they recommend we find the money. My amendment is very simple. It asks the President to submit an amended budget to the Congress within the next 2 weeks setting out what he thinks the costs will be in Iraq and Afghanistan above that which is already in the Department of Defense budget, and then recommending how we would cover that, how we would pay for it. That, after all, is a starting point that comes from the executive budget, and then to be considered by the Congress. This is a very incomplete picture and an incomplete process if we are staring anywhere from $50 to $60 billion in additional costs right square in the face and pretending it does not exist. My amendment is very simple. I deeply appreciate the work that Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye have done on this bill. I happen to be on that subcommittee. These two are some remarkable men in this Senate and have distinguished war records and have a distinguished record of service to our entire country. I appreciate very much their work on this bill. But I do think it is important for the Congress to answer this question: Is this the way we should continue to handle these extra costs? Now these extra costs are becoming very large, $5 billion a month. It is quite clear from statements this week that the Pentagon knows or has some notion of what these extra costs will be. It makes no sense to pass an appropriations bill and pretend they do not exist. I will speak at greater length tomorrow morning on this subject, but I really believe we need to address this as a Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill to remedy a long-standing inequity in pesticide pricing between agricultural chemicals sold in Canada and similar use chemicals sold in the United States. This pesticide price disparity has caused an undue cost burden on our American farmers putting them at a distinct disadvantage when competing in the world grain market. Currently, American and Canadian farmers use the same chemicals on their fields; but they are marketed under different labels and sold at much lower cost north of the border. This bill simply eliminates that inequity by setting up a process that would allow American farmers to access these lower-priced--but substantively identical--pesticides. This legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, upon the request of anyone who can comply with the pesticide registration requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to register a Canadian pesticide for use in the United States. This registration would take effect if, after analysis by the EPA, the pesticides are of similar use and composition in both countries. The bill also has provisions to allow EPA to delegate portions of the registration process to individual states with EPA having the final authority over the process. This is to conserve the resources of the EPA and at the same time utilize the expertise of State agriculture departments around the country. The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use. This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is a top priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a top priority for all of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact. I have come before the Senate time and again to talk about the hidden inequities of trade. Trade must be fair, and the pricing inequities of Canadian and United States similar use pesticides have been a glaring weakness of the free trade initiative. For far too long, American farmers have watched their neighbors to the north apply pesticides that are used in both countries, used on the same crops, and yet Canadian producers get a price cut. Our farmers are also concerned that similar use pesticides are being utilized by farmers in Canada to produce wheat, barley, and other agricultural commodities which are subsequently imported and consumed in the United States. They rightfully believe it to be unfair to import commodities produced with agricultural pesticides that are not available to U.S. producers. If commodities grown with the use of these Canadian pesticides are deemed safe enough for import and consumption in the United States, why would we make American producers pay 117 percent to 193 percent more in chemical costs to produce the same crops? The current scenario doesn't make sense. This bill is not an ending, but a beginning. Hidden trade barriers and schemes riddle the fabric of our trade agreements. We cannot continue to accept trade practices that on the one hand hamstring Americans, and on the other hand, unduly promote our competitors. We cannot allow our competitors to sell us commodities treated with lower priced chemicals that are used both in Canada and the United States, tell our consumers that the chemicals used on those commodities are perfectly safe, and yet not give our producers access to those same chemicals at a lower price. This is a classic example of free trade gone bad. We ought not accept second best all of the time, and this bill is a step in bringing American producers back to a level playing field. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe the Senate will be voting this afternoon on a judiciary nomination, but in the meantime, most of this afternoon, and I expect tomorrow and perhaps even the next day, we will be on one of the most important appropriations bills we consider in the Senate, and that is the appropriation for the Department of Defense. Most of us know that in recent years we have been faced with some very unusual circumstances that deal with national security both at home and around the world. National security is critically important to this country, both protecting our homeland against acts of terrorism and also dealing with trouble spots around the world that threaten our national interests. So as we consider a bill providing the funds for our national defense through the Department of Defense, I wish to say a couple of things. First, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I happen to serve on the subcommittee on which they are chairman and ranking member, and I think they have done a remarkable job with this legislation. They should be commended by every Member of the Senate for the work they do on national defense. I think if all America could see them as they work through subcommittee and committee and work with the Department of Defense trying to understand and analyze all of the programs that are involved with defense issues, they would understand how blessed this country is in having the leadership of the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii at this point. But, in this debate, I think we are missing a piece to the puzzle of national defense. This bill is a very large bill, it is a very complicated bill, and in introducing the bill I believe my colleagues indicated that this legislation, while very large, does not have any funding in it for the military operations in the country of Iraq. Now, why is that an issue and why is it important? Because at this point we are spending $3.9 billion, nearly $4 billion, a month in Iraq. There was an aggressive war fought in Iraq with valiant and brave young men and women who answered the call to duty, and now, following the major part of that war, hostilities continue in Iraq. It breaks the hearts of all of us to see the deaths and the continuing struggle many of our soldiers are going through in Iraq, but they will and we will prevail. However, it is clear to everyone from the testimony last week of Secretary Rumsfeld and others that this will not be done quickly. This country is not going to pull out of Iraq in 1 month or 2 months or 4 months. We now have roughly 140,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq, and this weekend Secretary Rumsfeld and others suggested that that we may have to be increase that number. If we are in fact spending nearly $4 billion a month in Iraq, and there is a suggestion perhaps that we will do that for a year, we are talking $48 billion to $50 billion a year in expenditures. We know that is happening. We know that at the start of the fiscal year we will be spending money in Iraq. It is likely to me it will be at least at the level that exists this month, last month, or the month before. If that is the case, then the question is: Where is the money going to come from? As I understand it, there is not one penny in this Defense appropriations bill to fund those needs that exist to support the troops in Iraq. What would typically happen, I suppose, is the funding of $4 billion a month would be taken out of other programs and shifted around to fund the programs in Iraq and the soldiers who are in Iraq and all the equipment and the needs month after month. And then at some point the administration would send a supplemental appropriations request saying, we have an emergency request for Congress to appropriate $36 billion to $40 billion to fund those items that respond to the needs of the military that is in Iraq. It seems to me that, rather that the administration coming to us 6 months or 10 months from now, asking to come up with another $30, $40, or $50 billion on an emergency basis and adding it to the debt and not paying for it, a far better approach would be, since we know the expenditure will exist, since we know this requirement exists, a better approach would be for the President to send us a budget amendment; a budget amendment by which this President would say to the Congress, here is the need and here is how we pay for it. The administration should say this is what is happening today in the country of Iraq. We have American soldiers, men and women wearing America's uniform, in substantial numbers, costing $3.9 billion a month, according to the Secretary of Defense. We know that exists now. We also know that this country is not going to withdraw from Iraq any time soon. So we know on October 1, when the next fiscal year begins, this requirement exists. Therefore, we request the Congress to appropriate X billions of dollars to meet that requirement. That is a straightforward way for this administration to say: Here is what it is costing us and here is how we think we ought to pay for it. We should not be in a situation in this country where we say to America's sons and daughters: You go to war; and by the way, when you come back we will have you pay the bill. If they are risking their lives and answering the call to duty for this country, the very least we ought to do is to decide how much this is going to cost and how we will pay for it. There will be, I am sure, many voices of criticism of many items in all of these issues dealing with national security and the war in Iraq, intelligence, the state of the intelligence information, the quality of the information, who knew what when. All of those are important issues for our country. My point is not to be critical of any operation or anyone. My point is to say this Congress knows when we pass this appropriations bill that we have a responsibility to fund the operations in Iraq. Those operations now cost somewhere between $45 and $50 billion a year at an annual rate. Yet there is not a penny in this Defense appropriations bill for those purposes. Why? Because the administration has not asked for it. They might say, but we have not done that in the past, not only this administration but other administrations. That is true. In the past, other operations have been funded later by emergency requests. This operation, however, is much larger, is much more certain to go on for a lengthier period of time, and this operation in Iraq requires the President to send an amended budget request of some type, saying here is what we expect the estimate to be for the next fiscal year, and here is the funding we would like. Then this Congress has a responsibility to respond to the President in an appropriate way. It is Byzantine to be passing a Defense appropriations bill pretending that the $4 billion a month we are spending on the military operations in Iraq does not exist. We know it exists. We have a responsibility to provide the funding for it, not 10 months from now but now. Let me make one additional point. I mentioned the men and women who have answered the call to duty. Many of them are National Guard men and women, reservists. They are the citizen soldiers of this country. They have regular jobs, they live in regular homes, have regular families, and they lead a normal life. But they are citizen soldiers. They drill on weekends. They go to a summer camp for the National Guard and Reserve and from time to time during emergencies they are deployed. They are called up to active duty. In the last 4, 5, or 6 years, the National Guard has been used in a much different way than ever before. Especially now with Afghanistan and Iraq, we routinely see substantial numbers of National Guard forces called up and deployed. Nearly one-third of those who are engaged in the National Guard and Reserve in my State of North Dakota have been deployed on active duty. Many of them were deployed in Bosnia, Kosovo, and now the same ones are sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. There will come a time to rethink what we are doing with our National Guard and Reserves. I fear that many of our citizen soldiers--probably at the urging of their families--will not be reenlisting if we continue to use the National Guard and Reserve the way they have been used the last several years. To ask them to go and be deployed for 6 months, 9 months, a year, with no notion of when that deployment ends is a very troublesome circumstance for the Guard and Reserve. They are proud to serve. They have done a magnificent job. I think all of America is proud of the National Guard and Reserve. But at this point the Secretary of Defense needs to think through how we develop a rotation plan in order to be able to tell them and their families when they might be rotated back to this country, when they might rejoin their families, and when they might be reporting back to their jobs. It is a very difficult circumstance for everyone who serves in these theaters, but it is especially difficult for those who have been mobilized and deployed as a part of Guard and Reserves. They do not complain about it. They are wonderful, brave young men and women, as are all of those who wear America's uniform, but the Secretary needs to think through how we begin rotation plans to let them and their families understand how long these rotations will last. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, earlier we cleared an amendment on the State Department authorization bill that I want to talk about briefly. The reason I want to do it is I especially want to read some passages from the Wall Street Journal today, an article by a man named Roger Thurow. We are deeply indebted to the article he has written about famine in Africa. The amendment passed today provides the requirement for the Commodity Credit Corporation to authorize another $250 million, which the Senate had previously done, incidentally, on the supplemental bill previously. We authorized $500 million in food aid to Africa to respond to the desperate famine that is occurring there. That was cut in conference to the $250 million. This additional $250 million will reach, then, the same level that we previously agreed to in the Senate. It will mean additional food, grain will move from America's family farms to Africa, to those in desperate need of food. I think it is very important to do this. It does respond to famine, to starvation, to the needs of people who are in desperate straits, and does so by using what is an asset in this country, something of significant value, food that is produced on our family farms. We are told these days as farmers drive their trucks to the elevator with a load of wheat, barley, or other grain, that food has no value; prices are collapsing. In a hungry world, it has substantial value. We ought to be using the Commodity Credit Corporation to help respond to the famine and starvation that is occurring in Africa. I will read just a part of this article. There are some 11 million people at risk at this point who do not have enough to eat, who go to bed with an ache in their belly, some of whom are dying every day. Let me read part of this article because it is such a gripping firsthand description of what it is we are trying to do. Myself, Senator Daschle, and Senator Leahy offered the amendment that was accepted just a bit ago. I say thanks to the chairman and the ranking member for doing so because I think it addresses this in a very real way. The article begins: [From the Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2003] (By Roger Thurow) Their father died in 1999, their mother in 2000, both of them from what social workers and village officials believe were complications from AIDS. Since then, Makhosazane Nkhambule, now 16 years old, has been caring for her four younger brothers and sisters in their one-room mud-brick shack. They sweep the floor of the house and the dirt yard with homemade straw brooms. They try to patch holes in the thatched roof and plug cracks in the mud walls. They fetch water from a well nearly a mile away. They scavenge wood for the fire. They go to an informal school in a neighbor's house. Makhosazane says they can do everything they need to do, except feed themselves. ``I would like to plant corn and vegetable, but we have no money to buy seeds or tools,'' she says. Her parents' cattle could have helped with plowing, but they have also died. The garden beside the hut and the two- acre field behind it haven't been planted since their mother died. For two years, the orphans scrounged what they could, asking neighbors for scraps of food and waiting for relatives in distant villages to bring something to eat. Last year, the United Nations' World Food Program came to Swaziland to distribute food to those suffering from the drought that has gripped southern Africa. Although the Nkhambule children had no crops to be killed by drought, they began receiving the food aid. So, too, did thousands of other households where the adults who had been tending the fields have died. Most of the victims likely died of HIV/AIDS, which, according to government estimates, infects more than one-third of adults in this tiny, hilly kingdom. The Nkhambule siblings, barefoot and wearing dirty, shabby clothes, embody what is being called an entirely new variety of famine. It breaks the historical mold of food crises, according to people who are studying it. It isn't caused by weather, war, failed government policy or crop disease, all of which prevent or discourage farmers from bringing in a harvest. Rather, this is a food shortage caused by a disease that kills the farmers themselves. Recovery won't come with weather improvement, new government policies, a peace treaty or improved hybrid crops. Once the farmers die, there is no rain that will make their empty fields grow. * * * Now, I have heard testimony of people who have been to this part of the region who say they find old ladies, old women, climbing trees to forage for leaves to eat because it hurts to be hungry. People are dying every single day. The question is, What can we do about it? Every day, as more and more die, with 11 million people at risk, 11 million orphans currently living in Africa at risk of severe malnutrition, even as people die, our farmers are told the food they produce in such abundance has no value. That is why the Commodity Credit Corporation has the authority for $30 billion worth of food to be moved to places in the world where it is needed. This amendment would simply provide for less than 1 percent of it to be added to that which is already on the way, to provide some assistance and relief to those who are suffering. It is easy, I suppose, for some to ignore this. But when millions of people face famine and illness, the world--and especially our country--cannot turn its head. We know what we produce in great abundance has value. It has value to help people around the world who are starving. Again, thanks to Roger Thurow, a reporter who is in Swaziland, for telling us specifically about the ravages of this famine, what it is doing. We just talked about AIDS in legislation we passed recently. President Bush is in Africa talking about AIDS. The fact is, this famine relates directly to AIDS. These children are hungry. These children are starving--not because it didn't rain but because they have nothing to eat. Their parents are dead. The cattle are dead. So if we can do this small amount through this amendment I have offered for myself, Senator Daschle, and Senator Leahy, if we can add to this $500 million, half of which was taken out in conference--if we can add the money to make that whole once again, there will be bags of food going to these villages to feed hungry people and our country will do something, again, that not only makes us proud but represents the best of this great country of ours. I thank Senator Lugar and Senator Biden and my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Leahy. We deeply appreciate this amendment being accepted by the Senate today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thirteen years ago the Corps of Engineers was given 6 months to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. The Master Manual provides a framework for managing the flows on the Missouri River. But here we are, thirteen years later, and nothing has happened. So today I am introducing legislation to take management away from the Corps of Engineers and give it to the Bureau of Reclamation. In my judgment, the Corps has failed miserably in its efforts to revise the Master Manual. In the interim, the Corps has managed the River in a way that benefits the downstream States at the expense of the upstream States, despite the fact that the upstream States generate ten times more economic activity from recreational use than the downstream states generate from barge traffic. And this mismanagement has cost North Dakota a lot. Enough is enough. It's time to take this responsibility away from the Corps and give it to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau manages other rivers, like the Colorado River, so let's give them a chance to manage the Missouri and to revise the Master Manual. Perhaps this will give the upstream States a chance to be treated fairly for a change. I have written a letter to the head of the Corps of Engineers, General Robert Flowers, expressing my concern about this issue and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thirteen years ago the Corps of Engineers was given 6 months to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. The Master Manual provides a framework for managing the flows on the Missouri River. But here we are, thirteen years later, and nothing has happened. So today I am introducing legislation to take management away from the Corps of Engineers and give it to the Bureau of Reclamation. In my judgment, the Corps has failed miserably in its efforts to revise the Master Manual. In the interim, the Corps has managed the River in a way that benefits the downstream States at the expense of the upstream States, despite the fact that the upstream States generate ten times more economic activity from recreational use than the downstream states generate from barge traffic. And this mismanagement has cost North Dakota a lot. Enough is enough. It's time to take this responsibility away from the Corps and give it to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau manages other rivers, like the Colorado River, so let's give them a chance to manage the Missouri and to revise the Master Manual. Perhaps this will give the upstream States a chance to be treated fairly for a change. I have written a letter to the head of the Corps of Engineers, General Robert Flowers, expressing my concern about this issue and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I call to the attention of the Senate and the country something that is important. Some while ago I went to what is called the Congressional Cemetery here in Washington, DC. I want to state why I did that. I went to visit a gravesite of a man named Scarlet Crow, an American Indian. He came to Washington, DC, in 1867 with some other American Indians from my part of the country, a member of the Wahpeton-Sisseton Sioux Tribe. He came here to negotiate a treaty. He was found under the Occoquan bridge one morning, dead. The death certificate said Scarlet Crow committed suicide. I actually got a record of the investigation of Scarlet Crow's death--remember, now, this is 1867--and discovered the police reports in Alexandria, VA, and the investigator who investigated Scarlet Crow's death seem to suggest that Scarlet Crow was murdered. He did not commit suicide, in fact, he was murdered. He was found lying under a bridge with a blanket neatly folded over him. They say he hanged himself. The police investigators said the branch from which they allege Scarlet Crow hanged himself could not have held a 6-year- old child. That was a different time. American Indians came to this town to negotiate treaties. This man, Scarlet Crow, never returned to the Dakotas because he died under the Occoquan bridge under mysterious and strange circumstances. It appears his death was not fully investigated or resolved. The death certificate simply says he committed suicide. Because I was interested in this and because he came from a part of the country where I reside, I went to the cemetery one day to find Scarlet Crow's gravesite. Here is Scarlet Crow's tombstone. It is at a place called the Congressional Cemetery. The Congressional Cemetery is a place I had not previously visited. It is here in Washington, DC. It holds the bodies of many Congressmen and Senators and others. It was founded in 1807 by a group of citizens residing in the eastern section of the new Federal city of Washington. Immediately, it became the sole burial place in Washington for Members of Congress. For over 60 years, Members of Congress and other Government officials were interred at what was known as Congressional Cemetery. The Government appropriated money to help construct some buildings, roads, and walls and to make other site improvements. Other than relatively small and very infrequent Federal dollars, Government support ended many decades ago and the cemetery has fallen into disrepair. It is a rather forlorn place, as a matter of fact. I will show some pictures. This is the entrance to Congressional Cemetery. You can see the beat-up roads. Let me show an example of the roads inside the Congressional Cemetery. This, one would think, would be a place of honor, a place that is repaired and made to look presentable. Instead, here is what the Congressional Cemetery appears like to those who visit it. Roads in desperate disrepair. This does not look like a cemetery that has been maintained at all. It has not been. Here is another picture of what the cemetery looks like inside. Roads in disrepair, grass growing out of the middle of those roads. One wonders why, with a Congressional Cemetery, which was the burial place for so many Members of Congress, and many others over so many years, why the Federal Government and Congress would not restore it to its place of honor. I am pleased that some of my colleagues, at my request, included some small amount of money in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill in FY2002, and a bit earlier, as well. As we begin the appropriations process this year, I think in the honor of those who are laid to rest in that Congressional Cemetery, we really do need to do what is necessary to make that cemetery a place of honor. Let me discuss a couple of the people who are buried at this cemetery. Vice President Elbridge Gerry is buried at the cemetery. I have a picture showing his tombstone. This is a tombstone of former Vice President of the United States Elbridge Gerry. He is buried in the cemetery. There is a term, ``gerrymandering,'' in politics that many will recognize. Gerrymandering comes from Elbridge Gerry. His marker describes he was born in 1744, died in 1814. It quotes on his words on his grave marker: It is the duty of every man, though he may have but one day to live, to devote that day to the good of his country. These words describe how Gerry lived. In fact, the day that Gerry died he had to get to the temporary Senate Chambers in the Patent Office building so he could preside over the Senate. British troops burned the Capitol in the War of 1812 and the Senate was functioning from a temporary location in 1814. In those days, the Vice President presided over the Senate almost daily because the President pro tempore did not have a continuous office. On November 23, 1814, determined to preside over the Senate, Gerry suffered a fatal stroke. At that time, Members of the Senate gathered in their chairs at the customary hour. Upon hearing the reports that Vice President Gerry had died, the body voted to send two Senators to the Vice President's home to ``ascertain the fact.'' When they returned with confirmation, the Senate appointed a joint committee to ``consider and report measures most proper to manifest the public respect for the memory of the deceased,'' and then the Senate adjourned. On the following day, the Senate ordered that the President's chair ``be shrouded with black during the present session; and as a further testimony of respect for the deceased, the members of the Senate will go into mourning, and wear black crape around the left arm for thirty days.'' Gerry is the only signer of the Declaration of Independence buried in Washington, DC. On the Fourth of July, there is annually an event at his tomb in the Congressional Cemetery with the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution. There is another person buried at the cemetery who is an interesting person. His name is Issac Bassett. He was the second page who served in the U.S. Senate. He came to work in the Senate at age 9 in 1831. He never left. He worked there until 1895. He came to work at age 9 as a page in the U.S. Senate, and he worked here for 64 years. One wonders whether any of the current pages will work continuously for the next 64 years. I don't expect so. He was here even longer than the longest serving U.S. Senator, the late Strom Thurmond. He is buried at the cemetery. Right next to him is a larger marker for Alexander Bache, the founder of the U.S. Coastal Survey and a charter member of the National Academies of Science and its first president. In addition to the nearly 80 Members of the House and Senate buried in the Congressional Cemetery, there are also 128 cenotaphs erected to honor former Members. Here is what they look like. The latest cenotaphs were for Speaker Tip O'Neill, Hale Boggs, and Nicholas Begich. It is something that has been done for quite some while. There is currently some interest in placing a cenotaph for our recently departed colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. These cenotaphs were designed by the distinguished Capitol Architect, Benjamin Henry Latrobe. As transportation improved, it became custom to remove remains to a congressman's home state for burial, but a cenotaph was placed in the Congressional Cemetery in their memory. The practice ceased in 1877. It is my hope that this Congress will take a look at this cemetery and understand that the Congressional Cemetery is the final resting place of nearly 80 Members of the House and the Senate, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and two Vice Presidents. It is where you will find the grave of John Phillip Sousa. You will see the gravestone of J. Edgar Hoover. It is quite a remarkable cemetery. Let me again show a photograph that shows the entrance and the roads in this cemetery. It is in desperate, desperate disrepair. The Congressional Cemetery ought to be a place of honor. It is the final resting place for many who served this country with great distinction for so many years. As this Congress considers what our responsibilities are and what we can and should do, it is my hope that we will invest the small amount of resources necessary to once again provide the honor and majesty that should accompany this monument of ourselves called the Congressional Cemetery. Cemeteries have a way of casting personalities. Everywhere you go at the Congressional Cemetery, you can't help but notice strong personalities who served this country over its more than two centuries. I indicated when I started that this cemetery doesn't belong to the U.S. Government. It is run by a nonprofit organization. But when the cemetery was started in 1807, it received financial support from the federal government. It was created by a group of citizens who wanted it to become the sole burial place in Washington, DC, for Members of Congress. And over nearly two centuries--Senators, Congressmen, and public officials who served this country in a remarkable way have found their way to this final resting place in the Congressional Cemetery. It is a shame, in my judgment, for it to have fallen into such desperate disrepair. My hope is that in the coming couple of weeks in the appropriations process, we may once again continue to make some progress to address it. I have spoken with Mr. Byrd, the Senator from West Virginia, at some length about this and with other colleagues. I think all recognize that this is something to which we should pay some attention. I know there are many other very big issues we deal with here in the Senate. But this is something that I think is important to the memory of who we are, who served our country, how we treat them in death, and how we respect their memories. We can and should do better to bring a sense of repair and majesty to the Congressional Cemetery. It is not too far from this building. I encourage all of my colleagues to go to the Congressional Cemetery and drive down those roads full of potholes in great disrepair and ask yourself if we don't have an obligation to do something about it. I hope so. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me add my voice to those of my colleagues who last evening and this morning have expressed sympathy to the families of Senator Strom Thurmond. I was privileged to serve in this Chamber for many years while Senator Strom Thurmond was a Senator. He was quite a remarkable American. He was a hero in many ways. His life was controversial in some ways. I talked to Strom Thurmond one day about the Second World War. Americans should know, when he was in his 40s, this man volunteered for service in the Second World War, volunteered to get in a glider to fly at night and crash-land behind enemy lines, behind German lines. All of the rest in that glider were young kids, 18, 19, 20-year-old GIs. This 40-plus-year-old lawyer and judge who volunteered for service in the Second World War was in that glider that crash-landed behind enemy lines. He was quite a remarkable American and had a remarkable political career. In his later years as he suffered health challenges and difficulties, but he never complained, ever. He showed up for all of the votes in the Senate even at times when it appeared to us it was difficult for him to do so. The American people, I know, will thank Senator Strom Thurmond for the service he gave to his country. I wanted to add my voice to the many others in this Chamber who wish to remember the memory of this remarkable American.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Seniors have already made that judgment. They have already decided that. So we want to take $6 billion and give it to private health insurers at a time when Senators have been coming to the Chamber and saying we cannot improve this plan because we do not have any money. I have quotes of all the Senators, and I shall not name them all. I could read lots of quotes from the last 2 weeks of Senators. Why can't we improve it? Because we are limited by money. So now we have $12 billion more? That is what happens when you go into a room, shut the door, make a little deal, and say this is how we want to use this money: We are going to take $6 billion and try an experiment that we failed at previously. It makes no sense to me. It is a byzantine failure, in my judgment, to do it this way. What I am proposing in my amendment is use the money to actually improve the program for senior citizens. We can drive down the cost of the prescription drug policies and improve the coverage.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader if in the period between now and when the first vote occurs, there will be provided 30 minutes for the offering and discussion of my amendment. I had previously talked with the Senator from Nevada. Senator Pryor and I wish to be recognized for 30 minutes to offer our amendment. I simply ask if that timeframe allows that opportunity so that we have 30 minutes of debate.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I don't care what the vote is. Senator Pryor and I wish to speak for 30 minutes. If that is not provided for in the unanimous consent, I will object.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the question of what to do about the $12 billion of remaining available out of the $400 billion Congress set aside for a prescription drug benefit plan in the Medicare Program. According to CBO, the underlying bill is $12 billion of that $400 billion, so what do we do with that $12 billion? If the bill on the floor of the Senate to add prescription drugs to the Medicare Program costs $388 billion, and we have allocated $400 billion, the question is, what do you do with the other $12 billion? So we had a group of people--I am not quite sure who they were--negotiate over a period of time, and they have now developed a plan for what to do with the $12 billion. By far, the simplest, most direct, and most appropriate use of the $12 billion would be to improve the prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. After all, that is why we are here. That is the purpose of this discussion and debate. That is the purpose of writing this legislation--to provide a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare Program that serves the interests of our senior citizens. Regrettably, the Grassley amendment before us, to which I have just offered a second-degree amendment, does not accomplish those goals. So I offer an amendment that is very simple. It says let's try to improve this prescription drug benefit plan for senior citizens with the $12 billion that is available. Let me just mention a word generally about Medicare. We have people on the floor of the Senate who don't like Medicare. They don't say it, I know. One of their colleagues said it yesterday in New York City. It is the only flash of candid comment that I have seen recently. Congressman Thomas, in the New York Times, dated 6/26, says: Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying that if this bill becomes law [meaning the Medicare prescription drug bill] it will be the end of Medicare as we know it. Our answer to that is, we certainly hope so. Let me read it again so we understand what he is saying: ``Some of our friends [Democrats, he means] . . . are saying if this bill becomes law, it will be the end of Medicare as we know it. Our answer to that is, we certainly hope so.'' When I was a young boy in a town of 400 people, my dad asked me to drive an old fellow to the hospital in Dickinson, ND. He was a man with a very serious health problem, and he had no relatives, had no vehicle, had no resources. So I was a teenager just about out of high school. I got him in my car and drove him to St. Joseph's Hospital in Dickinson, ND, and dropped him off there to be treated. He had a serious health problem but no insurance, no money, nothing. The fact is, that was at a period of time in the late 1950s and early 1960s when a good many senior citizens had no capability to get health care. They had no insurance coverage. It wasn't the case that insurance companies were running after old folks to ask them: Can we please sell you a health insurance policy? They want to insure 22-year-olds-- healthy, vibrant, young 22-year-olds. That is where they make money. They don't make money by chasing 75- year-old people and selling them health insurance policies. Back in the early 1960s, one-half of America's elderly had no health insurance-- none. None at all. Then along came Medicare. The Congress had a real debate about that. I wasn't here then, but you know there were naysayers who say no to everything for the first time. They said no, no, no; you cannot create Medicare. Well, we did create Medicare, and now 99 percent of the senior citizens in this country don't have to go to bed at night worrying about whether they can get medical care because they have health care coverage under Medicare. God bless them for that. They needed it, they deserved it, and this country provided it through the Medicare Program. Some say: We have incredible problems financing this program. Yes, we have some financial problems, no question about that. Do you know how we solve those problems? Go back to the old life expectancy. Go back 100 years and, on average, you were expected to live to 48 years of age in this country. Now people live to 76 to 77 years of age. Life expectancy has increased dramatically in this country. That is good news. Our financing problems with Medicare are born of good news. People are living longer. Good for them. Good for us. Good for our country. Is it a problem to have good news? I do not think so. We will solve these issues. But even as we have done that, even as people are living longer and better lives, these new miracle medicines that have been created since Medicare was created are very expensive but very necessary for people to continue their lifestyle. And we have no prescription drug coverage in the Medicare Program. Clearly, if we wrote Medicare starting from scratch today, we would have prescription drug coverage. That is clear to everyone. But prescription drugs were not a key medical expense when Medicare was created, so now we have to put that coverage in the Medicare Program. Because some people do not like the Medicare Program--to wit my colleague, Congressman Thomas who said, ``certainly we hope this will be the end of Medicare as we know it,''--they want to privatize Medicare. Now, keep in mind that the private sector is the sector that would not insure old people in the first place, which is the reason why Congress had to develop the Medicare Program. That brings us back to this question of what to do with the $12 billion. We are struggling to put together a benefit that means something to the people who need it. This is not theory. It is not a debate in the abstract. It is about some 85-year-old widow who, today, is going to the pharmacy in the back of a grocery store and trying to figure out how much her prescription drugs are going to cost so she can figure out how much money she has left for groceries. That is happening in a real sense today all across this country. We have $12 billion. We also have a bill that says to senior citizens: You pay $35 a month on an optional basis if you want this program of ours, and after $35 a month, you pay the first $275 in prescription drugs. Between $275 and $4,500, the Federal Government will help you by paying 50 percent of your prescription drug costs. And then between $4,500 and $5,800, there is what is famously called the donut hole, which means you receive no coverage. So you are not covered until you spend $275, then you are partially covered, then you are not covered again, and then you get catastrophic coverage. This is the most byzantine, complicated system we could possibly put together. It clearly is done by committee. We could not have done this so badly if it were done without a committee. Having said all of that, the question is, What do we do with the $12 billion? We are told today, with the Grassley amendment, that we will provide $6 billion of the $12 billion to test a new alternative bidding system for paying PPOs--and if this is not complicated enough, just stay with me--that would reimburse these PPOs based on the median amount of the three lowest bids. There is nothing here that protects American taxpayers by ensuring we are not paying private health plans substantially more than traditional Medicare costs. Here is what it means in English. It means we are going to have an experiment with private sector delivery, but we are going to incentivize insurance companies. We are going to provide them some of this money so that they will actually want to offer this plan, so we can say at the end of it that somehow the plan is a good plan. We already know that does not work. My colleague, Senator Hollings, says there is no education in the second kick of a mule. We know this does not work. We know what happens. We know the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MedPAC, which is a nonpartisan committee that advises Congress on Medicare payment policies, says private plans cost 15 percent more than traditional Medicare. We know that. We do not have to spend $6 billion giving money to private insurers to do an experiment. We know what does not work. We know the cost advantage of Medicare, and yet our colleagues continue to resist and continue to insist that we move Medicare beneficiaries into the private sector. And now with half of the $12 billion, they say let's do this little experiment. Will it enhance the health of senior citizens? No. Will it improve health care? No, not at all. Will it actually improve the underlying bill, improve the benefits, reduce the costs? No, not at all. This is just like a puppy dog following the master home. It is putting more and more money down this chute to pursue this dream of trying to demonstrate something we already know does not work.