Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator if that will provide sufficient time? I would like to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Breaux. I am a cosponsor of that amendment. Let me describe why I think this is so important. We have a number of wars that are going on at the moment. We have a conflict, a war in Iraq. We have a war against terrorism. So in this piece of legislation we deal with defense, the costs of defense. Part of defense is the Defense Department, in which men and women in America's uniform are overseas protecting our country and involved in the conflict in Iraq. But, also, part of the defense is our homeland defense. The issue of homeland defense is very important. Let me describe what happens inside this country each and every day: 1.1 million passengers come into this country processed by the Customs Service; 57,000 trucks and containers come into this country every single day; 580 vessels arrive at this country's ports; 2,459 aircraft arrive in this country; 323,000 vehicles, every single day. No one is going to provide an adequate homeland defense in this country unless we have secure borders and are able to prevent terrorists--both known terrorists and those who associate with terrorists--from coming into our country. Frankly, we are not doing as good a job as we must in order to prevent a future act of terrorism in this country. I speak from the standpoint of a northern border State. We have thousands of miles of common border with our good neighbor to the north, the country of Canada. We know that at least two of those who perpetrated the September 11 attack came into this country across the northern border. We also know that, in the past, almost all of our resources in this country were targeted at the southern border, southwestern border. Border Patrol, Immigration, the Customs Service: Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds-- in fact, thousands--of agents from all of those agencies were at the southern border, and a very few at the 4,000-mile northern border that we share with Canada. So what do we do about that? Well, we need the resources at the northern border, and the new technology that is available, to make sure we try to keep terrorists out. Once again, you must have control of your borders or you do not have control inside the country to prevent an act of terrorism perpetrated against our country. Now, when I began this process, even before September 11, I proposed something called the Northern Border Initiative. That became law. That added some resources at the northern border. It became more imperative after September 11 that we do much more. Prior to that time, when the northern border ports would close, especially in the remote areas, they would simply put an orange cone in the middle of the road, and that would be the protection in this country against terrorism. Well, terrorists, of course, were they to enter at one of those rural remote ports, would shred that orange cone at 70 miles an hour with their vehicle. The fact is, we have to do more. And we are now doing more. But we are not doing enough. That is why the Senator from Louisiana offers an amendment that says let's make the investments we know we need to make. He mentioned seaports. I come from a landlocked State. I do not know much about seaports, but I have made two tours of seaports, two of them recently, to understand what is happening at our ports. Mr. President, 5.7 million containers come in every single year on container ships-- 5.7 million. And 100,000 of them are inspected. I was at a port one day--and I have told my colleagues this previously--but they had a refrigerated container there that they had taken off a container ship. I said: What's in that container? They said: Well, we're just inspecting that. They said: This is frozen broccoli from Poland. And they showed me one of the 100-pound bags of frozen broccoli they pulled out of this container. They ripped open the bag, and, sure enough, there it was, frozen broccoli from Poland. It didn't look very appetizing to me, but it was going to go into America's food supply. So I said: Well, that is interesting to know. You have shown me the bag at the end of the container. What is in the middle of the bag in the middle of the container? Do you know? They said: No, we don't know. I said: Do you know where it came from? They said: We know it came from Poland. I said: Do you know who loaded it? They said: No, we don't know. I said: Do you know that there's not something in the middle of this container that could threaten our country? They said: No, we don't know. Mr. President, 5.7 million containers come into this country every year, and we inspect 100,000 of them. You know the story about the person from the Middle East who put himself in a container and intended to ship himself to Canada in a container. He had a little bathroom set up in the container. He had a water supply. He had a computer. He had a GPS. He had a cot. He had a heater. He was going to ship himself to Canada, presumably then to enter this country from Canada. But he did it in a container. They caught him actually before he left the Middle East. The fact is, we had better care about homeland security--yes, about the northern border, about the southern border, about aircraft coming into this country, and, yes, about ships that are pulling up to our seaports this afternoon in New York, Los Angeles, and the other major ports around this country. Which of those ships might have a weapon of mass destruction in the middle of a container, piled in the middle of that ship, that will be hoisted off, by a crane, put on 18 wheels, and then sped across America's highways to Cincinnati or Toledo or Fargo or Los Angeles? That is what homeland defense has to be about: preventing these kinds of things from happening, preventing terrorists from perpetrating an attack in this country. We have actually done pretty well since 9/11. The fact is, there is much more to do. It will not do any good to say: Well, yes, this is needed, but let's do it later. This is the legislation. This is a supplemental appropriations bill. This is emergency funding. And this is about defense, yes, the Defense Department, but also, in my judgment, the defense of our homeland. I have not gone through all of the portions of this bill that the Senator from Louisiana suggests we adequately fund, but it is the Immigration Service, the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and a list of agencies that we know have to have adequate funding to do the job this country expects in order to protect itself against a terrorist attack. So this is not some ad hoc spending for which the Senator has no justification. This is spending and funding every bit as important as every dollar that is going to the U.S. Department of Defense. This is homeland defense. That is the Department of Defense. Both are of paramount importance in protecting this country's interests. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment now offered by the Senator from Louisiana. There is, perhaps, an unlimited number of things we could do to protect this country, but we do not have unlimited funds. The Senator has selected specific areas of investment that all of us know are underfunded. And he said: Yes, let's do this, but, more important, let's do this now. I just submit, in the shadow of 9/11, this country knows that terrorists want to attack this country. Homeland defense is of paramount importance. The investment--a rather small investment, in my judgment--made by the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana will make this a stronger country, better able to resist terrorists who wish to attack her. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Byrd, Senator Breaux, and others in supporting this Federal homeland responsibilities amendment. In particular, I want to speak for a moment about the National Park Service component of the amendment. As the ranking member on the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned that the administration's supplemental funding request will leave the National Park Service in the lurch, without the resources it needs to protect our most important national symbols. The Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, the St. Louis Arch, the Liberty Bell, and Independence Hall in Philadelphia; these are just some of the national icons under the protection of the Park Service. These treasures are, in their own unique way, potent reminders of the liberty and freedom that are the foundation of the American experience. They symbolize the struggles this Nation has overcome, the hope we have maintained for our future, and the essence of the democracy we all cherish. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were a powerful symbol of the economic might of our Nation, and that is why they were attacked. The Pentagon is a powerful symbol of our military might, and that is why it was attacked. I worry about which symbol is next. Which of these facilities, emblematic of our liberty, will the terrorists target next? I don't have the answer to that question, nor do I know anyone who does. This is precisely why we need to provide the National Park Service with the resources it needs to ensure the safety and security of these national treasures. In fact, yesterday's Washington Post contains an article which substantiates my fears. As of yesterday, the Park Service has closed Independence Hall in Philadelphia because of security concerns associated with the elevated threat level. The very birthplace of our Constitution--the document once called the ``most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man''--has been closed to the American people because the Park Service is unable to provide for its security. Part of the problem, as the article points out, is lack of funding. ``Since the government raised its color-coded threat index to orange, or high risk, two week ago, the National Park Service's daily security costs have increased by $63,500. . . .'' That is a daily cost, and comes to nearly $2 million per month, money the Park Service simply does not have. Yet despite asking for $75 billion, the administration's supplemental request did not include any funding for these additional security costs. That is wrong, and it is why we have included funding for the Park Service in our amendment. We cannot turn our backs on the security needs mandated by the increased threat level. Nor can we expect the Park Service to just absorb these costs. It is our responsibility to provide these funds, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while I know there are some who may have different views about what is happening in Iraq and our country's role in it, I think there is really no disagreement in our country about what our sons and daughters do for America when they are sent to fight for freedom. There should be no disagreement about our support for the troops that are in harm's way halfway across the world. My colleague from Nevada and others have spoken eloquently about the commitment these young men and women have made to their country. They leave home, they leave the comforts of their community, they leave their family, and they march in the face of danger. This morning I went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to visit a young man whom I had appointed to the Naval Academy some 12 years ago. His name is Jason Frei from Hazen, ND. A wonderful young man, he has kept in touch with me each year since he graduated from the Naval Academy, sending me Christmas cards, telling me how he is doing and what he is doing. He left his wife and two children to go to Iraq with his Marine unit. Jason was wounded last week and is now back at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He has lost a part of his arm. His eardrum was punctured. He was injured by a rocket-propelled grenade when it hit his vehicle. He is a remarkable man. This morning he was very positive. He was in good spirits and he told me about the men and women with whom he served. This morning in the hospital he was most concerned about his unit, which is still in Iraq--how they were doing, what they were doing. He is, I think, symbolic of those brave men and women who always answer the call for our country. This is a young man from a small town in North Dakota, but he could be a young man or woman from a town anywhere in America who, when his country needs him, answers the call. In North Dakota, we have the highest percentage of callups in the Guard and Reserve of any State in the Nation. More than one-third of our National Guard and Reserve have been called to active duty. A young woman on my staff in Bismarck has been called to active duty with the National Guard, a young lieutenant. They go and serve because they are called to serve our country. I recall one day at a veterans' hospital in Fargo, ND, pinning the medals on the pajama tops of a Native American named Edmund Young Eagle who served during World War II. He had never gotten his medals. His sisters asked if I could help get the medals for him, whom I didn't know just a week from death. He had lung cancer. We got his medals and on a Sunday morning we went to the VA hospital, and his sisters came and the doctors and nurses came in the room, and I pinned the medals he won during World War II on his pajama tops. This very sick man, with lung cancer, who had answered the call from his Indian reservation to go to Africa and Europe and fight for this country, came back from the war and lived a life that was pretty spartan. He didn't ever have very much. But this man, with the medals now pinned on his pajama tops, told me it was one of the proudest days of his life because he had served his country and his country was saying to him: Thank you. There are so many young men and women today who are serving their country. This Congress and the American people need to say to them, in every way, every day: Thank you. An author once wrote: When the night is full of knives, the lightning is seen, and the drums are heard, the patriots always step forward, ready to fight and die if necessary to preserve freedom. This country should have enormous gratitude for having such men and women, such patriots who always step forward. One of those patriots is Jason Frei, who, I am proud to say this morning, is doing well at the Bethesda Naval Hospital and who, we hope, will be released in a matter of days but who, again, worries a great deal about the troops with whom he served. He cares a great deal about this country and about their fate. Let us all hope very much that this war is over soon, that its result is decisive, that Saddam Hussein is replaced, that the people of Iraq are no longer the victims of his tyranny, and that our sons and daughters come back to our country and return to their loved ones. When they do, let America again say thank you, thank you for serving this great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a comment about another item. We will be, later this week, responding to the President's request for a supplemental appropriations. Clearly, we need to provide supplemental funding. We will not send America's sons and daughters to war and then decide we will not provide the funds necessary. This Congress will and must. One piece, however, of this request by the President is for reconstruction assistance in Iraq, and humanitarian assistance. Should we do humanitarian assistance? You bet we should. Absolutely. It ought to be a first priority. But reconstruction? Let me make the case that reconstruction in Iraq, in my judgment, should be funded from Iraqi resources and Iraqi oil. This is a country rich in resources, endowed with very substantial oil reserves. While I will support reconstruction in Iraq, I am one who believes, when the job in Iraq is finished, the resources and the oil that exists in the country of Iraq ought to produce the revenue for the reconstruction of Iraq. I intend to make that case in the Appropriations Committee later this week and next week here in the Congress.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make one final point while I am in the Chamber. I came to talk about this budget and the $12 trillion of debt that this budget document heads us toward. Let me make one final point. I watch the television coverage every morning, as do most Americans, with respect to the war. And my thoughts and prayers are with our soldiers. My thoughts and prayers are with the innocent folks in Iraq. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi citizens. This is with Saddam Hussein and his regime. It breaks my heart to see casualties on any side. But one of the things that concerns me, in the mornings when I watch this coverage, or in the evenings before I retire and I watch this coverage, is there are a number of retired generals and admirals and others who stand before the cameras, showing us, on the maps, exactly where our troops are moving, exactly what the strategy is, saying: Here is the route to Baghdad for this division and that division. I ask myself: I wonder if that is in the interests of the American soldiers fighting in Iraq. I just wonder. Do we need to have retired officers, with pointers, pointing to maps and saying, ``Here is where this division is going; here is where I think it is going to be,'' and some saying, ``I disagree with the current strategy''? I worry a lot about whether the information provided to the other side--the information provided to our adversaries from that kind of briefing that goes on on every channel, every network, by retired officers, who know a great deal about battle plans--I wonder whether they should be offering that precise analysis of exactly where troop movements are on television morning, noon, and night. The 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week coverage on this is something I think provides information to the American people--and I think we want information--but I do not believe anyone wants information disclosed during this 24-7 news cycle in a manner that would in any way alert the adversary about what is happening. I worry sometimes, when I see this on television: Is this healthy? Is more information made available, by retired generals and admirals and others who are analyzing troop movements, than really should be made available to our adversaries? I just ask the question. I think it is an important question to ask. I intend to ask it this morning in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, where I will return in just a few moments.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, 100 years from now, none of us will be here. I guess that is the bad news. We will all be dead a century from now. But those who are interested in who we were, what we were, what our value systems were about, could take a look at what we are doing here and determine a little something about what we thought was important. Someone once asked the question, if you were charged with writing an obituary for someone else and knew nothing about them but had to write it from their check register--the only information you had about someone was their check register--how would you write their obituary? I suppose you would find out what they spent their money on, what they thought was important, what was their value system. So, too, could you evaluate the value system of this country and this Congress by this budget we are voting on today. I am going to vote against this budget. I will tell you why. Because I think in the rearview mirror, this budget represents a value system that misses much of what is important about what our obligation is today. We are at war. We are at war with terrorists. We are at war in Iraq. We have a responsibility to protect our homeland. We have a serious threat with respect to North Korea, apparently now building additional nuclear weapons. What does this budget document tell us is the most important element in the Federal Government? They say the most important element is to give those who have the highest incomes in America more tax cuts. Let me turn to page 6 and tell you what this budget document says. This budget document says, assume all of the President's proposed tax cuts, most of which go to wealthy Americans--assume that. This is the result on page 6: By the year 2013, this country will have a nearly $12 trillion Federal debt--this country will have a nearly $12 trillion debt. The gross debt will be $11.919 trillion--almost $12 trillion. We are saying to those men and women fighting for this country today, you go ahead and pursue this battle on behalf of America and when you come back what we will do is burden you, we will saddle your shoulders with all of this debt because the priority in this budget is tax cuts, most of which will go to upper income Americans. We heard all day yesterday on amendments that this is going to hurt the growth package. What growth? Where is the growth? The only growth I see in this package is going from $6.6 trillion in debt to $12 trillion in debt. Yes, it is on page 6. That assumes all the tax cuts. This is the President's plan. The plan is to go to $12 trillion in debt. I don't think that is much of a plan. This grows the economy, does it? It produces new jobs, new economic opportunity? New tax revenues? I guess not, not if you are going to go to a $12 trillion gross debt. I do not understand at all what on Earth is happening here. About 2 years ago we had this debate about dramatically increased tax cuts. Some of us said let's be a bit conservative. The President said, no, there is no need to be conservative; let's pass all these tax cuts. Then we had a recession. The technology bubble burst. The stock market pancaked. We had 9/11. We had a war on terrorism. We had the largest corporate scandals in decades and decades--perhaps in this country's history. And the result, of course, was very large budget surpluses turned to very large budget deficits. Now we are told if we just pass this budget it will be better. But look on page 6. Assuming all the President wants, assuming all he asks us to do, on page 6, they say, in the year 2013, our gross debt will be nearly $12 trillion. Explain that. Explain this. It makes no sense. That is why I am going to vote no.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is this amendment has been accepted on both sides. On behalf of Senator Brownback, myself, Senator Hagel, Senator Johnson, and others, we are offering an amendment that deals with the issue of outmigration in the heartland of our country and provides incentives to provide tools to those involved in economic development to try to stem the outmigration. This is an important amendment. I believe it is bipartisan. I appreciate the work of both the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee to accept this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. I send an amendment to the desk for myself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Johnson, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 71, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is I am next on the list to offer an amendment. If that is the case, I am prepared to send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Sarbanes.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that I am next on the list.

Mr. DORGAN. This amendment adds $1.019 billion to the total amount in the bill for veterans discretionary programs. The amendment is paid for by a decrease in the tax cut in an equal amount, in addition to the additional spending on veterans programs that would be available to reduce the deficit. With respect to veterans programs, let me say to the chairman and ranking member, I think they did some good work with respect to veterans medical care. They did actually add some money for veterans health care, veterans medical care. We all commend them for that. We are still very short with respect to veterans programs dealing with research, with construction, with the administration that is needed in order to process the requests by veterans. There is a rather lengthy time lag in being able to process the request. The fact is, we need to provide sufficient moneys for this service. At a time when veterans are in the field prosecuting this war, we ought to say we will keep our promise to veterans.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will probably not use all the 5 minutes. I know my colleague wishes to speak. There are so many other issues of choices, especially bad choices, with respect to these budget resolutions we are discussing. The budget resolution brought to us from the committee has large, biting, permanent budget deficits. It includes very large tax cuts. At a time when we are asking this country to sacrifice, especially with its sons and daughters, at a time when we are sending America's sons and daughters to war, this Congress is saying we will have our sons and daughters make tough choices, but we will not make tough choices. It is not the fair thing to do. I do not want those soldiers to come back to bear the burden of the costs of a war we would not cover. A little over a year ago, I was in Afghanistan. I recall visiting on the edge of Afghanistan an old Soviet airbase. I believe it was called Kanabad. At that Soviet airbase, we had soldiers. At that point, there were still a lot of activities in Afghanistan when we fought the Taliban and kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We were then searching for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. When I visited that base and spoke to the soldiers, the men and women living in a tent city were walking around in mud up to their ankles, snow, conditions that were not good, but I could see the pride in their eyes. They understood why they were there. They understood what they were doing for their country, and they were proud of it, and this country is proud of them. They are still in Afghanistan. Fortunately, the fighting does not present itself these days so much in Afghanistan. We have been remarkably successful in Afghanistan and hopefully we will restore the new government under Mr. Karzai. The fact is, we still have troops in Afghanistan. We are prepared to move troops into Iraq. Some are perhaps there, others perhaps in a day or so. It seems to me our obligation to those, especially the mostly young men and women who have been taken from this country, away from their families, and who said, ``let me serve, I will go,'' who are risking their lives for this country, our obligation is to be talking about the realities of what this country faces. To say to those soldiers the sacrifice is not only yours, it is a national sacrifice. When someone asks, What do you do for the war, you say I get a dividend tax exemption? We had Warren Buffett come to the Congress a week and a half ago. He is the second richest man in the world. He said: If you provide a tax exemption for dividends, which is in this resolution, I will actually benefit to the tune of about $400 million a year. He said: But it won't make any sense for the country. It will not help the economy and I don't support it. Why on Earth would we be doing this when we ought to be supporting our troops? When the troops are doing their part, in my judgment, we must do ours. We should support them with our tax dollars, even as they support us with their lives. That is what these discussions are about. The reason I decided to speak about this, my colleague said we do not have any idea what any of this costs. Nonsense. We all know better than that. Of course we know what it will cost. We do not know the details. We know what the war against terrorism has cost. I was told yesterday by the Department of the Army in an open hearing that amount of money to prosecute the war against terrorism has been taken out of the regular accounts because they have not been provided for and they will be in an emergency supplemental, but the war on terrorism is not a temporary event and it ought to be part of the regular budget. We know what is going to happen in Afghanistan. We will have troops there. We know what that will cost. It ought to be part of this budget and planning. We know it will cost some money; it already has in Iraq. But the administration is deliberately at this point deciding not to allow anyone to see those numbers and they will not discuss them until we pass this budget. Why? I think we understand why. It will be a very big number. It is something we ought to be considering here, in my judgment. I asked the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shinseki, about it yesterday. I didn't press him because he got in very hot water a couple weeks ago. The published reports were that there were people in the Pentagon who wanted heads to roll because General Shinseki answered the question, What is this going to cost? He got in real trouble. It seems to me we ought to deal with all the facts and come up with a budget that adds up and works. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me respond to a few of the things said this morning and also talk generally about the budget resolution. This budget resolution has been called an economic package, something focusing on jobs. In fact, this budget resolution doesn't add up. It cannot possibly be serious in its attempt to address what is happening and what is wrong in this country. Let me use one chart to show what kind of a resolution we have before us. Skyrocketing deficits as far as the eye can see, a virtual ocean of red ink as far as the eye can see. I want to ask a question with respect to a budget proposal that comes to the floor at this moment in our history that says our major priority is a long-term permanent tax cut, and the most significant part of that priority is to exempt dividends from taxation. The implication of that, of course, is to say, in terms of our values, let's decide to keep taxing work but exempt investment. So let's tax work but exempt investment. I don't understand that. But I especially don't understand it when there is a single U.S. soldier in the mountains of Afghanistan or a single U.S. soldier in the sands in Iraq, that we in this country would not say we are prepared to spend whatever is necessary of our tax dollars to support those soldiers. We must do our part. Yesterday I was in a hearing in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The Chief of Staff of the Army was testifying, along with the Secretary of the Army. I was asking the various questions my friend and colleague from Wyoming just discussed. What are some of these things going to cost. I fully understand we don't know exactly what is going to happen with respect to Iraq and what that will cost. I don't understand why there are not in this budget provisions to pay for the war on terrorism. We know that is an ongoing war that began a couple years ago, and it is going to go on for a long while. And you know that the Defense Department is now taking money out of its other accounts in order to cover its costs for a war on terrorism. They know that war will continue in the next fiscal year. But they won't request money for it at this point in the budget before us. We know that American presence will continue in Afghanistan in the next fiscal year. But the request for money for that will not be in this budget. You can make a pretty decent case that we don't know what it is going to cost with respect to Iraq. You cannot make a case that the war on terrorism and the efforts in Afghanistan should not be part of this budget. Of course they should. I understand that sometime--I think it is anticipated in the next 24 hours--we are going to receive a supplemental budget request--I am told it is somewhere in the neighborhood of between $70 billion and $100 billion--asking for that amount of additional money. We are told, although that has been put together in the Department of Defense and elsewhere, they do not intend to show it to us in Congress until we finish our discussions about the Federal budget. I do not understand that. People keep saying this place should be run like a business. Is this the way you run a business? If a board of directors is making critical financial decisions about the company and you say, Oh, by the way, there is another very big piece out there, $60 billion to $70 billion to $100 billion, but we are not going to tell you what it is, we are not going to send it to you until you have actually completed your budget for next year, that is preposterous. Everyone knows that. It does not make any sense. We have an economic plan in this country that is just not working. Mr. President, 2.5 million people have lost their jobs in the last couple of years. Our economy is sputtering. What used to be a strong, vibrant, growing economy is now an economy that is sputtering, not doing well at all, with people losing their jobs and budget surpluses turned to budget deficits. It does not matter that we should spend time here talking about who did what. What matters is we should spend time talking about how do we fix what is wrong and how do we put our country back on track. And on the edge of war with Iraq, we are told in this budget document today, tomorrow, and this weekend apparently, that the highest priority is for us to enact very large permanent tax cuts, the most significant part of which is an exemption for taxes on dividends. I, for the life of me, do not understand that. Is that doing our part in a national emergency? Is that doing our part? Is that a message to the American soldiers: You go risk your lives, but we will not support you with our tax dollars? What we will do is spend money and charge it, and you come back, having risked your life, and you also inherit the burden of paying the taxes to support it because we would not do it. That is not fair. That is not right. That is not doing our part. Again, as long as there are soldiers in Afghanistan or soldiers going into Iraq, we ought not be doing this. We ought to put together a budget that adds up. I just came from a hearing this morning, I say to my colleague from Wyoming, on appropriations for the Forest Service. Does my colleague know what they did to the Forest Service? We had massive problems with forest fires all around the country last year. They are deciding to cut the number of firefighters by much more than one-half. Does anybody think that is justifiable? Of course it is not justifiable. It is gimmicks and games. We do not have any intention of cutting the number of firefighters who fight forest fires in half. When those fires rage across this country in America's forests, as they have in the last several years, we have a proposal to cut the number of firefighters in the Forest Service in half? I do not understand that. Are Mr. Daniels and those at the OMB with these tiny little pencils and microscopic eyeglasses not able to think at all? Are they the ones everyone says know the cost of everything and the value of nothing? Where on Earth is the value system in proposals such as this? I just do not understand it. This country, at this moment, owes it to the men and women who are prepared to wage war for America to be honest as we approach these budgets. This budget is not an appropriate budget at all. We have an economy that is in desperate trouble and soldiers about to fight, and we are telling them: Oh, by the way, it is our intention to spend money we do not have on things we do not need and charge you the balance, and, by the way, we have the biggest amount of expenditure that is coming up, but we won't tell anybody what it is because we want to wait until we get the budget done, and then we will get a $100 billion bill and let you gnash your teeth over that. By the way, a fair amount of that should have been in this budget for the next fiscal year, but we do not want to tell you what that cost is either because in the next fiscal year we will give you another surprise and ask you to pass that on an emergency basis. That is no way to budget. It is no way to run a business and no way to run a Government, and everybody understands it. Because my colleague mentioned the No Child Left Behind Act, I cannot help but respond to that issue with respect to budgeting, expenditures, and cost. The basic notion of the President's proposal of no child left behind is accountability. Schools should be accountable for that which they spend to educate America's children. I agree with that. But we passed legislation saying no child left behind with the implied comments of everyone, including the President, that they would fund that which was necessary to make it work. The No Child Left Behind Act was enacted, but the President left the funding behind. I introduced legislation in the Congress to say there ought to be a moratorium on the deadlines in that legislation until two things happen: One, we have the funding to make that work; and, two, until we see the implementation of that with the flexibility that is necessary, so that we do not have the same template put over a rural school in a small town in Wyoming and North Dakota as is put over a school in an inner city that has different needs. I will give an example. If you have a great teacher--I mean a great teacher--teaching in his or her minor, who has taught in it for 12 years, does a terrific job, teaches children very well, do we really believe we ought to tell that school district that does not have the money, by the way, that it must hire a teacher in their major to replace a teacher who teaches very well in that teacher's minor and is producing students who are well educated? Is that what we want? Or do we want basic flexibility? I think we want basic flexibility. I came from a school with 4 grades, 40 kids, and I graduated in a high school class of 9. If someone came to that high school and said every class taught needs to be taught by the teacher in the teacher's major, that school district does not have anywhere near the capability to make that happen. So we need to make that work, but it will not work with respect to this kind of budget dealing with education. The needs are not meeting the implied promises given when we passed that legislation. Let me mention a couple of other issues with respect to the economy. I wish, and all Americans wish, this economy were growing, and growing rapidly, expanding so jobs and opportunities would exist for all Americans. That, regrettably, has not been the case. About 2 years ago, the President proposed a $1.7 trillion tax cut, and some of us said: Things are good, times are good, we see big budget surpluses in the Federal Government, but we ought to be a bit conservative. Maybe we ought not jump to have permanent tax cuts of $1.7 trillion over the 10-year period. Maybe what we ought to do is be a bit more conservative and do it incrementally. They said: No, the President wants it this way and had the votes to make it happen. So we did. What happened after that vote was taken and we had this permanent large tax cut? The first thing that happened was we discovered we were in a recession and less revenue was coming into the Federal Government. Second, on September 11, we had a devastating terrorist attack against our country. Then we had the most significant corporate scandals in a long time. At the same time we were fighting a war against terrorism, the stock market collapsed and the tech bubble burst. All of these came to the same intersection at the same time, dramatically affecting this country's economy. What was intended to be large budget surpluses in our future became very large budget deficits that are growing and growing worse. What is the response to that, even as we have additional foreign policy challenges, a war with Iraq, very serious problems in North Korea, and a continued war with respect to terrorism and dramatic new needs with respect to homeland security? What is the response? The response by the majority party and the President is to bring the budget to the floor of the Senate and say none of that matters; what matters is we have more large permanent tax cuts. That is not doing our part for national security. It is not doing our part, in my judgment, to support our soldiers. We would be wise to put together a budget that adds up, one that works, one that invests in the future, and one that says to the American soldiers: You are not the only ones fighting this war. This country is behind you, and we are doing our part. We are not going to send you off to battle and then bring you home to pay the bill. That ought to be our responsibility. This budget resolution is wrong and everyone knows it. We are going to have a whole series of votes on choices because, after all, budgets are simply a series of choices. Let me describe, for example, one other choice. I am going to offer an amendment relating to our country's trade deficit. We not only have the largest budget deficits in history at this moment, we also have the largest trade deficit in history--$470 billion in 2002. Every single day, seven days a week, nearly $1.5 billion more in goods are brought into this country than we ship out. Think of that. One can make a case on the budget deficit that perhaps that is a deficit we owe to ourselves. One cannot make that case with the trade deficit. That is a deficit we owe to other countries and one that we will inevitably repay with a lower standard of living unless we resolve these trade issues. We now have a $103 billion trade deficit with China. So you would think that our government has a good number of people working to address that huge deficit. Guess again. We have just 19 people in the Market Access and Compliance Section at the Department of Commerce, whose job it is to pry open these foreign markets in China that are closed to U.S. producers. We have a $103 billion trade deficit with China, and we have 19 people working on it. We have a $70 billion trade deficit with Japan. It has been that way every year as long as we can remember. We have 10 people working down at Market Access and Compliance trying to pry open markets in Japan. We have a thirteen billion dollar deficit with Korea. We have two and three-fourths people--that is what they say, two and three-fourths, working to deal with trade barriers to U.S. products in the Korean market. I do not know how one gets three-fourths of a person. I guess when you are dealing with trade, the laws of nature don't apply. With Europe, we have an $82 billion trade deficit, and only 15 people working on that. Despite our debate about budgets and all of the mantra and chanting that goes on about economic growth, our country is not going to do well unless we straighten out this trade mess. The manufacturing sector cannot be decimated in the strongest economy on Earth without serious consequences in the long term. Jobs cannot be shipped overseas, as well as factories, and a dismantling of the manufacturing sector, which is exactly what is happening in our country, without having very substantial problems. The reason I mention all this is I am going to offer an amendment that adds money to Market Access and Compliance, which says: Let us address the trade issues by demanding, by requiring, and by having the people to fight for the open markets overseas for our producers. We do not do that. We are weak-kneed in this country. We lack backbone and spine to deal with these trade issues. I will give you a couple of examples. We had trade negotiators negotiate with China. This is an example of a bad agreement. Our trade negotiators negotiated with China and they agreed that after a phase-in of some years, China would be allowed to impose tariffs on U.S. automobiles sold in China 10 times the amount of tariffs that we would impose on any Chinese automobiles sold in the United States. Think of that. Our negotiators agreed to that. I think that is nuts. How about Korea? Anybody know how many cars we sent to Korea last year? The United States of America shipped 2,800 cars to the country of Korea. How many Korean cars were shipped to the United States? Over 600,000 cars came from Korea to the United States. We shipped 2,800 back. Want to know why? Is it because Koreans do not want to drive American cars? Absolutely not. It is because the Korean Government does not want American cars, so we have one-way trade and that means our jobs are gone and there is this decimation of our manufacturing capacity. It has to stop. I am going to offer an amendment, and we are going to see if people care about the issue of trade and supporting America's manufacturers. We are going to see who wants to stop this nonsense of shipping jobs overseas so that 14-year-olds can work 14 hours a day and get paid 14 cents an hour so that U.S. workers are told you have to compete with that, and if you cannot compete with it in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, or Fargo, then those jobs are going to be gone permanently. That is not fair trade. Any budget that we pass is going to be irrelevant in the context of this country's economic problems if it does not address the basic trade imbalance of $470 billion in one year. Thirty years ago, we had a $3 billion trade deficit in one quarter, and it was considered a crisis. These days we cannot get anybody to look at this. But countless people are impacted by it; the people who woke up this morning who did not have to dress for work because their jobs are gone. They had to tell their family: I am a hard worker, I do good work, but my manufacturing plant was moved overseas and I no longer have a job. Millions of people have experienced that, and they are told by too many in this Congress and too many others who fight for bad trade policies that they have to compete in circumstances where fair competition does not exist. So I am going to offer an amendment with respect to market access and compliance, saying if we have a $470 billion trade deficit, we ought to have a lot of folks prying open these foreign markets, and dealing with unfair trade practices. The fact is, we hardly have anybody working on it. There are a bunch of people going off making goofy agreements on behalf of this country, selling out American farmers and selling out manufacturers because they do not care very much, and then when the agreement is done, even if it is a bad agreement, if there is some ability to enforce it, we do not have anybody who wants to enforce it anyway. I ask for 5 additional minutes by unanimous consent.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, America makes no more difficult decision than that which asks its sons and daughters to go to war, and those who are in harm's way as we speak need to know that our country is united in support of them. Our thoughts and prayers go to those soldiers who have answered the call for our country. Our thoughts and prayers go to their families. In my State, we have two Air Force bases, international guard. We have the highest rate of deployment. Almost 30 percent of all Guard and Reserves are now deployed in North Dakota under a callup. I am enormously proud of what they are contributing to this country and to its national defense. They and their families need to understand our united support for them. To the people of Iraq, we need to say that we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, and we pray also for the safety of those innocent noncombatants inside the country of Iraq. I wish with all my heart that the people of free nations, working through the United Nations, would have been able to find a diplomatic solution to require the disarmament of Saddam Hussein, but that was not possible. So our Nation now will take action to disarm this dictator. In the sometimes lonely and dark hours when America is challenged, I think of the words of Thomas Wolfe in his great novel. He talked about the peculiar quality of the American soul. He said Americans have an indestructible belief, a quenchless hope, a boundless optimism, that something good is sure to happen. Let us hope and pray through this conflict something good will happen. As we do, let us express our profound gratitude for those who nurture, protect, and risk their lives for freedom. It will be and should be left to another day to talk about what should have been done a decade or two ago, what could have been done long ago to avoid this intersection of war and strife. The question is, How do we, in the free world, prevent the emergence of more dictators, tyrants, and terrorists who threaten America's liberty? That is a long and difficult discussion for other days. For today, all of us from every philosophy in every corner of our country say to those in harm's way and who serve our country: We are proud of you; America is united in support of what you are doing. I yield the floor and I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor a bill that imposes meaningful farm payment limitations. A gentleman from Arkansas is the principal landlord of a 61,000-acre farm. Although he serves as president of a tractor dealership with sales over $30 million, this ``farmer'' received $38 million in farm subsidies over 5 years. Stories like these about corporate farmers who received millions of dollars in Federal agriculture payments undermine support for the real purpose of our farm program: to help family farmers. What do I mean by family farmers? I am talking about people out there living in a rural community, trying to raise a family and trying to operate a family farm and trying to raise enough food to support themselves. They go to town and buy their supplies, keeping small town life not only viable, but also vibrant. I am talking about a network of food producers scattered across this country that represents, in my judgment, food security for our country. And this goal of helping family farmers with a safety net in the form of farm program payments during tough times is something that has become much different over a long period of time. It is not the case that we are fighting over farm program payments for family farmers. But regrettably, millions of dollars of farm payments are not going to small towns and family farms. They are going to big cities and corporate America. They are going to that millionaire farmer in Arkansas, to Ted Turner, and city dwellers who visit their farm twice a year. The biggest operations keep getting the bulk of the farm benefits while the small farmers are getting squeezed out of the rural areas. When this happens, the family farm operation can't compete with the larger enterprises because of the financial disadvantages. My fear is that if we do not do something about this problem, the American people are going to push back on this issue and say, ``This is not why we are paying taxes. We really support family farms. We believe family farms are important for America. But we don't believe we are paying taxes so you can transfer money to the tune of millions, even hundreds of millions, to those who need it least and ought not be getting farm payments.'' So I am co-sponsoring this legislation. This bill would impose modest limits on the amount of farm payments that any farm operation can receive in one year. These limits would have virtually no impact on family farms and would strengthen our agriculture program by targeting the payments to these smaller operations. Here are the limitations that my bill would impose: the bill would limit direct payments to producers to $40,000. Limits on counter- cyclical payments would be $60,000. The bill limits Marketing Loan Gains and Loan Deficiency Payments to $175,000. The overall limit for a farm is $275,000. The limits would save the Federal Government more than $1 billion over 10 years. In times of budget deficits, government expenditures need to be targeted to those who need it most. Fortune 500 companies aren't the intended targets of farm legislation, family farmers are. Limiting farm payments to those who provide the food security of this country ought to be the farm policy of this country and this legislation is a step in that direction.