Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. It is not true that we have at this point a balanced budget. What is true is the budget is seriously out of balance and headed south. It is going to get worse and we need to fix it. Ignoring it is not going to solve the problem. We need to jump-start this economy with something that is effective and that is a stimulus plan of some type that gives something to the American people to work with, and gives them some confidence. I happen to believe that Senator Daschle, myself, and others who have talked about rebates make a lot of sense. Incentivizing consumption in the short term and incentivizing business investment in the short term, in an immediate and temporary way, is what I think will give some boost to this American economy.

Mr. DORGAN. We had very significant and increasing surpluses in the Federal budget. As a result of those surpluses, we began to actually eliminate Federal indebtedness, which relieved some of that burden off the shoulders of our children and their children.

Mr. DORGAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. What is true is when we got to a new fiscal policy proposal by the administration, they said let's cut $1.7 trillion in taxes because we have surpluses as far as the eye can see. Some of us said--I certainly did--maybe we ought to be a little bit conservative. What if we do not have surpluses forever? What if we run into some tough times? What if the economy runs into trouble? Then guess what happened. Without my vote, Congress passed a very large, permanent tax cut. We quickly discovered we were in a recession. Then we had a terrorist attack on September 11. Then we had a war on terrorism. Then we had the largest corporate scandals in history. All of this happened, it seems to me, suggesting that perhaps some of us who urged caution were right, because what happened is those big budget surpluses are now very big budget deficits. What does the President say we ought to do about that? Let's provide more 10-year tax cuts to the tune of $670 billion. When interest is added to it, it is going to be over $1 trillion. None of that adds up.

Mr. DORGAN. It turned out we had a $159 billion deficit.

Mr. DORGAN. That is very good. They were off over $400 billion. For 2003 they said we were going to have a $41 billion surplus. Now we are going to have over a $300 billion surplus.

Mr. DORGAN. That is right. The Senator took advanced math in Searchlight, NV, I can see.

Mr. DORGAN. What these deficits do is they injure the Social Security system, and the long-term solvency of the Social Security system. There is no question about that. We have a lot riding on putting this economy back on track. The sooner the better. I think what the President and the Congress need to do is find a way to work together to do something that is effective right now. Let me thank the Senator from Nevada for his questions. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes, absolutely. Now we have some people saying deficits really are not so bad. Where did that start? It seems to me if children are saddled with the debt from our spending, or our tax cuts, the kids are being told, by the way, here is our policy and you pay for it. Is that good or bad? Where I come from, that is not the kind of value system that one wants to express in fiscal policy. I am going to have more to say on this, but this is not the time. I know we want to be out soon and the President is going to be giving his State of the Union Address this evening. I want to make the point that both in foreign policy and fiscal policy, this country is significantly challenged. These are very tricky times. It requires a very steady hand and good policies. Let me finish where I started. I am very concerned about people, on the eve of a State of the Union Address by a President of the United States, talking about the potential use of nuclear weapons by our country. I cannot believe that is what is happening. Just after India and Pakistan, who possess nuclear weapons and do not like each other much, have been shooting at each other, this country is saying, by the way, there might be circumstances in which we could use nuclear weapons. Whoever these two top White House officials are who said this, shame on them.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a most interesting discussion we are having. I guess two and two equals five here in the Senate. We are told repeatedly that this Senate and Congress should increase defense spending, and it does; increase spending on homeland security, and it does. And then cut other domestic discretionary spending. But now we are told, we don't really cut other domestic discretionary spending. The President apparently wants to increase defense spending, increase homeland security spending, increase other spending, and then have tax cuts, as if somehow that all adds up. I don't know where you get that kind of schooling. Does two and two equal five? I don't think so. Either there are cuts in domestic discretionary spending or there are no cuts. We all know the truth. I will bring charts down here and talk about these areas of the Government where they will be spending less this year than they did last year. With respect to homeland security, I wonder if my colleagues really make the case that the President has not in any way ignored the needs of homeland security when in fact we appropriated $2.5 billion for homeland security that the President would not spend, in spite of the fact that, for example, with port security, that is the security of America's seaports, we have 5.7 million containers coming in every year to the seaports, and 100,000 of them are inspected and 5.6 million are not. Everyone in this country understands, all law enforcement understands, that that is a very difficult problem. The homeland security issue with respect to seaports is a very serious issue. It is unaddressed. It is interesting to come here and listen to this, but there are either cuts in spending or there are not. We will have some discussion about that in the future. Let me talk about a couple of other things, if I might. We are going to hear the State of the Union speech tonight. The fact is, I want this President to succeed. I want this country to succeed. I wish no ill will towards anyone because of partisanship. We are of different parties, but we serve the same interest. We serve the common interest of this country. All of us want this President to succeed, want his administration to succeed, and we want this country to do well. But I want to tell you, there are some days when I wonder about what is going on around here. Today is one of those days. I don't know when in all the years I have served in the House and Senate that I have been more disturbed than I was in reading this article I will describe. It appeared in yesterday's Washington Times. A similar story ran in the Los Angeles Times the day before yesterday. Let me read the first paragraph: Top White House officials warned yesterday the Bush administration has not ruled out using nuclear weapons against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he deploys weapons of mass destruction against the United States. Now, I don't understand this at all. We are told in the Los Angeles Times, and in this story, that they are talking about using designer bunker buster nuclear weapons, something that has been discussed previously in the administration. Do you know that India and Pakistan were shooting at each other yesterday over Kashmir? Both of them have nuclear weapons, and the leadership of this country must be exhorted to tell these countries you cannot use the nuclear option? We are the country that must exercise restraint. We have people in this administration who, in my judgment, make the most reckless, dangerous statements I have heard in some 2 decades in this town when they talk about the potential of using nuclear weapons. That is not what this country ought to be talking about. There are some 30,000 nuclear weapons, give or take a couple thousand, that exist on this Earth. It ought to be our responsibility to try to make sure that never again is a nuclear weapon exploded in anger on the face of this Earth. If one, just one, is exploded, others will explode. This country ought not talk about the use of nuclear weapons. We ought not be reckless to talk about designing a new type of bunker buster nuclear weapon. This lowers the threshold of other countries who aspire to having nuclear weapons about when they might consider using them. It is reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible. I cannot believe I am reading this sort of thing. The nuclear option in Iraq--the L.A. Times says: The United States has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon. The United States is thinking about the unthinkable, preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I hope those who are in closed rooms thinking in this kind of a dangerous way are not part of the Government for long, or part of this administration for long. That is not what we ought to be doing in this country. Let me describe one other piece of information about this issue of foreign policy. One year ago in the State of the Union Address, the President said--correctly, in my judgment--that the greatest threat to this country is the network of terrorists around the globe that wish this country harm. They are the ones who murdered thousands of innocent Americans. One year ago now, I was in Afghanistan. Flying into that country over the mountains, you looked down and you understood that deep inside caves in the mountains were Osama bin Laden and his key planners, planning the murder of innocent Americans. That network of terrorists and others around the world represent a serious threat to this country. But we have not heard about Osama bin Laden for a long while. I read yesterday that the President himself mentioned Osama bin Laden six times in the last year. It appears that these days it is ``Osama been forgotten,'' rather than Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden is a very serious threat to this country. He is apparently alive, according to our intelligence services. His chief deputy has not been found. Key leadership of the al-Qaida has not been discovered. The head of the CIA says we are at as great a risk today for terrorism as we were the day before September 11. It is now Iraq, all Iraq, all the time. But the President was right last year. This country, in my judgment, suffers grave danger from the acts of terrorists who are still there, still active, and still wish to harm this country and kill innocent Americans. My hope is that we could have some balance in the concerns we express about what is going on around the world between North Korea, Iraq, al- Qaida, and more. Mr. President, I assume President Bush will talk a great deal about foreign policy tonight, but I think he will also talk about economic policy. Saddam Hussein is a bad, evil guy, no question about that. North Korea is a threat. Terrorists, especially, are a very serious continuing threat. All of that, to be sure, exists. It is also the case that here at home we have an economy that is not doing very well. A great many people are out of work. Some people say, well, let's brush all that aside, things are just fine. They are not fine. The administration, for some while, has said this is just fine. The economy has hit a little speed bump, I think they called it, but things will be fine. In the last 2 months, the administration fired their economic team, brought in some new people, and now they are saying we need a stimulus program, despite what they have provided us is not a stimulus at all. It will provide no jump start to the economy. If that is what we want, this is like hooking a flashlight battery to a car and hoping to start it. It will not work. The question for all of us is: What will really work to give this economy some boost? First and foremost, part of what is weighing down on the neck of this economy is every morning every American wakes up and tunes in the news and the top story every day, every month, is the potential of war. That means unpredictability, uncertainty, and great concern. When that exists, the American people don't have the confidence in the future that we need. Confidence is what this economy is about. Our economic foundation is confidence by the American people. When they are confident, they do things that manifest that confidence. They take a trip, buy a car, buy a home, make a purchase, and the country expands. That is the expansionary side of the business cycle. When they are not confident about the future, they do the exact opposite. They defer the trip, don't buy the car, don't make the purchase, and the economy then contracts. First and foremost, people are concerned about this talk every day, every week, every month regarding the specter of war. We have to find a way to move through this period and give people confidence about the future. But the economy also needs a boost, a fiscal policy that gives it a boost, a jump start. The principles are very simple. They have nothing at all to do with what the President suggested. The principles are that a jump start of the economy ought to be immediate, temporary, and effective. I regret to say that the President proposes none of that. I wish he would have proposed something that was consistent with those principles. I would say sign me up, I am for it. But that is not the case. We have lost a great many jobs--2.4 million private sector jobs-- since President Bush took over. Now, it is not the role of Government to create jobs. That is not what Government does. The private sector and businesses create jobs. But the Government creates conditions under which jobs are created, economic conditions in which the economy expands or contracts. When it contracts, people lay their employees off, entrepreneurs and businesses lay off employees because they don't see a better future. When the economy expands, people are hired and more people are put to work as employees. The fact is that, at the moment, we have exploding deficits, high unemployment, a lack of confidence in the future, and we need, it seems to me--all of us--to be serious about what we do in putting the economy back on track. We are finally talking about ``how'' rather than ``whether.'' Three months ago, the question was ``whether.'' The President's economic team was saying that things are fine. We are all saying they are not fine, we have to fix what is wrong with the economy, and the sooner the better. My hope is that this evening the President will recognize all of us want to work with him on national economic policy and on foreign policy. It is very important that we do the right thing. The President's plan, regrettably, is not near the right thing for what ails this economy. Providing exemptions for dividend payments, the bulk of which are owned by upper income people, the wealthiest Americans, and borrowing money to do it so we can have tax cuts for 10 years into the future of $670 billion makes no sense at all. If someone were to say let's have a debate on reforming the tax system, we could debate all of these things, but if we are talking about how to stimulate this economy, how to jump-start the American economy, the President has provided exactly the wrong set of recommendations. They are not immediate, temporary or effective. He will be stuck, we will be stuck, and the American people will be stuck with an economy that is sluggish and is not doing what it needs to do to expand and help businesses create jobs. That is not what I want. It is not what any of my colleagues want. We had an economy that works, one that gave hope and opportunity to the American people, and we want that back. I am going to come to the Chamber in the next couple of days and show some charts. I was going to show them today. The Office of Management and Budget, which tells us how the economy is doing, is so wildly off the mark they might as well be throwing darts at some chart to find out what the surplus, deficit, and fiscal policy ought to be. They predict, and promise from time to time, that the fiscal condition of this country is going to be incredibly good with big surpluses. Then a few months later, they say it is going to be an economy in big trouble and big deficits. It seems to me one could probably get as close as they are getting by throwing darts at a board. We really need a plan that works, one that is predictable, one we can count on, one that restores economic health to this country and puts the economy back on track.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. This chart shows the predictions of the Office of Management and Budget. In the year 2002, they predicted we would have a $283 billion surplus.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that the funding level for the State Wildlife Grants Program has been decreased dramatically. This program is essential in our Nation's efforts to conserve fish and wildlife, because it focuses on preventing species from becoming threatened or endangered. Due to constraints in this bill, the Senate had funded this important program at $40 million less than the House level of $100 million. Now, in the omnibus, this program is funded at an even lower level of $45 million. This is quite disappointing. And there will be additional across-the-board cuts which will hurt programs such as this one even more. Today, more than 1000 species are listed as federally threatened or endangered. The State Wildlife Grant Program helps provide resources to State agencies like the North Dakota Game and Fish Department to prevent further decline in fish and wildlife. In this time of fiscal constraints it is important to recognize that this program will actually save taxpayer dollars. Efforts to bring a species back from the brink of extinction are quite difficult and expensive. The old adage ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' is most appropriate in this case. These funds allow States to address such conservation problems before they become even more costly. Thus, these funds simultaneously save both wildlife and taxpayer dollars. There is growing recognition of North Dakota's national importance as a key breeding area for migratory birds, especially grassland species. Baird's sparrow and Sprague's pipit are two priority species that are found in my State in greater abundance than most other places. If we can work now to maintain healthy grasslands, we can ensure that ranchers can continue to work this land, as well as ensure the survival of these birds. This is possible when we work early to prevent problems rather than waiting for a species to become listed and endangered. The State Wildlife Grants program has the support of our Nation's leading sportsmen and environmental organizations as evidenced by a letter delivered to each Senator earlier this year. This includes a broad range of conservation interests such as Pheasants Forever, Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Notably, all 50 state fish and wildlife agencies, including the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, support this program. Because of this nationwide support, and our own understanding of the program's commonsense approach to conservation, 28 Senators--myself included--signed a letter requesting an increase from the fiscal year 2002 base of $85 million. I hope we will be able to increase the funding for this important program in conference and that we will be able to work across the aisle to restore much needed funding for this program. In fact, I hope we will be able to restore this funding to the $100 million level that was previously provided by the House. The funding provided for the State Wildlife Grants program in this bill will significantly help conserve declining wildlife, but a significantly stronger commitment from the Federal Government is essential to address mounting conservation needs and, therefore, I am extremely disappointed that this funding has been cut even below the previous Senate level. Instead, I support the House position that provides greater funding for this critical program. smallpox

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I discussed an item in the Energy Conservation account with the distinguished managers of the Interior Appropriations chapter of this bill. I believe that the reliable, efficient, and clean generation of electricity is vital to the American economy. The Congress has made important investments in fossil energy research to improve the efficiency and reduce emissions of large, central power generation technologies. In recent years the Appropriations Committee has recommended increases in what, I believe, are complementary and equally important technologies that generate power on a smaller, distributed generation scale. These smaller technologies, including microtubines, fuel cells, reciprocating engines and industrial turbines, range in size from only a few hundreds of kilowatts up to 30 megawatts and offer many benefits. For example, fuel cells and microturbines can be deployed in urban areas to provide power where the construction of additional transmission and distribution lines is not practical because of the crowded conditions. Ironically, these same systems are well suited for use in rural areas, as well, where the cost of constructing electric lines to serve only a few customers may be prohibitive. These onsite power generation systems are highly reliable. They are not vulnerable to power line failures caused by weather or manmade circumstances. Moreover, their smaller scale often allows distributed energy technologies to be located in areas where exhaust heat from the generators can be utilized rather than released into the atmosphere. When used in a combined heating and or cooling mode, distributed energy devices can attain efficiencies in excess of 80 percent. The wise research investments recommended by the Committee will help conserve our important domestic energy resources, reduce environmental emissions, and help American companies and their employees maintain U.S. leadership in global markets for these technologies. I compliment the Senators from Montana and West Virginia for their leadership in this allocation of scarce resources available to the Committee. Through the National Accounts Energy Alliance, the natural gas industry has worked closely with leading commercial and industrial companies who are logical candidates to use these distributed energy technologies as they become ready for testing in the market place. This is a partnership between government and the private sector. It marries the technology developers with the technology users such as major grocery stores, restaurant chains, and building developers. Most important, the Alliance serves to ensure that market requirements are fully understood by those who develop the technologies and that field testing in specific applications, which is essential to market acceptance and technology improvement, is an integral part of the development process. Mr. President, I understand that the House-passed version of the Fiscal Year 2003 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill included $3 million for this ``applications integration.'' The Senate Committee report passed last summer is not specific about how the Department should allocate funds to the National Accounts Energy Alliance. I would hope that in conference we could accept the specific funding level provided in the House report for applications integration including the National Accounts Energy Alliance.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Committee Report to the fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill recommends a $2 million increase in technology deployment for the Clean Cities program and recognizes the work of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E-85 fueling capacity. I appreciate the Subcommittee's recognition of the important environmental, energy, and economic security benefits that would result from expanding our nation's E-85 fueling capacity. I would also like to thank Senator Byrd for the Subcommittee's recognition of the work being done by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to increase E-85 fueling capacity. E-85 is a form of alternative transportation fuel consisting of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. It will help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Currently, there are over 2 million vehicles in the national vehicle fleet that are capable of using E-85 fuel. The use of E-85 in these vehicles has the potential to reduce foreign oil imports by 34 million barrels a year, while adding $3 billion to total farm income and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On March 18, 2002, 10 colleagues and I sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member requesting that $2 million be designated to install additional E-85 fueling capacity across the country and to begin an E- 85 educational awareness effort in cooperation with the Nation's automakers. It is my hope that, as this bill goes to conference with the House, the Subcommittee would work to provide funding to expand the deployment of E-85 fueling capacity, which is important for my State and the Nation.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the distinguished managers of this chapter of this bill. next generation lighting initiative

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Interior Chapter, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in a colloquy regarding the School Operations Budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As the Chairman knows, the current language of the Senate omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 eliminates $11.9 million in increased funding the administration requested for these schools. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I understand very well the difficult task the Chairman faced in putting the Interior bill together under the difficult budget constraints we are operating under for the upcoming fiscal year. However, the 185 Bureau-funded schools rely solely on the Federal Government for funds to provide an education to about 50,000 Indian children. I suspect that the funding level for school operations in the Senate bill reflects the Chairman's wise desire to reject the administration's ill-advised ``School Privatization Initiative.'' I commend him for rejecting the School privatization Initiative, but I hope we might find a way to still retain the programmatic increases requested by the administration for Student Transportation, Administrative Cost Grants and facility operations, as well as to restore the $2 million reduction proposed by the administration for instructional programs through the Indian School Equalization Program. The House bill uses the funds targeted for the privatization initiative to make the increases outlined above. I respectfully request the Chairman's assurance that he will do his best to accept the House bill's level of funding for the School Operations budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs when we go to conference, and I will be as helpful as I can as a conferee on this matter.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I request the Senate's support and assistance on a funding item of importance to the University of North Dakota and other universities involved in the consortium for advanced housing research. Several years ago, my state experienced extreme flooding in the Red River Valley. These floods destroyed thousands of homes in my state. After the flood waters receded, the University of North Dakota, UND, recognized the need for research that could increase the survivability of wood structures during natural disasters. To meet this need, the UND chemistry department began working with the Housing Research Consortium for Natural Disasters to improve the durability of wood and to increase the effectiveness of assessment and recovery technologies. Although it has taken several years, I am pleased that this research initiative has finally been identified for funding through the U.S. Forest Service. The House fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations Bill contains $1.7 million for this research through the advanced housing research consortium. While the initial request was substantially higher than what was contained in the House bill, I think that this funding is a good start and I urge my colleagues who will serve with me on the Conference Committee to recede to the House position on this item.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I just point out, if this were to injure downstream citizens in your State or ours, I would not support it. We do not intend to foist a problem that exists in this basin on any other constituency anywhere.

Mr. DORGAN. Objection.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New York, it is not a question of whether we address this issue; it is a question of when and how. This is a very serious issue. It has a profound impact especially on rural hospitals but on all hospitals and all facilities that provide patient care. This Congress has to address this issue. I really appreciate the amendment the Senator has offered. I hope perhaps we can begin the process of addressing it today. If not, it has to be soon.