Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Board of Trustees for the Social Security Trust Fund issued its annual report in March describing the financial health of the Trust Fund and its outlook for the future. The report shows that the financial condition of the Trust Fund over the next few decades has improved somewhat since last year, that is, the Social Security program is now expected to remain solvent for three additional years through 2041. This is welcome news for the tens of millions of baby boomers who will depend on this program in the coming decades. However, this latest Trustees' report also makes clear that the Social Security program still faces significant long-term financial challenges. This finding was not unexpected. In fact, there is already bipartisan agreement in Congress that we will need to make some careful changes to the Social Security system in order to guarantee the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund beyond 2041. Today, Senator Corzine of New Jersey and I are introducing legislation that we think should be part of those reform discussions. Our legislation, called the Social Security Plus Account Act, builds upon two fundamental principles: One, the underlying guaranteed defined benefit approach of the current Social Security program should not be scrapped or weakened. Social Security has become the foundation of the Nation's retirement system, something that people can always count on. At a time when private employers are shifting more retirement saving risks onto the shoulders of their employees through the use of defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans rather than traditional defined benefit pension plans, the need to retain Social Security's basic guaranteed payment is paramount. Second, this legislation recognizes that Congress must do more to encourage families and individuals, especially those of modest means, to increase their savings and to build a retirement nest egg. Specifically, our legislation provides for the creation of new tax- favored retirement savings accounts that individuals and families could access to supplement, but not replace, their expected future Social Security benefits. Unlike many reform proposals, this legislation leaves the Social Security program intact. Many privatization plans force you to choose between individual accounts and the loss of Social Security's guaranteed benefit at current levels. Our proposal calls for personal accounts as an ``add-on'' to Social Security. This is an important distinction from the ``carve-out'' accounts featured in privatization plans. Privatization plans will inevitably reduce traditional guaranteed benefits. Our approach would not. Under this legislation, eligible individuals can set up and make tax- favored contributions of up to $2,000 to a new Social Security Plus Account, SSPA. To provide an extra savings boost for low- and moderate- income families, our legislation would require the Federal Government to provide matching contributions between 25 and 100 percent for married couples with adjusted gross income below $100,000, $50,000 for singles. The $2,000 limit applies to the total of the individual's own contribution and the Federal match. This will make it much more affordable for low and moderate earners to fully fund their accounts. Like traditional individual retirement accounts, SSPAs can grow tax- free. For example, if an individual aged 30 who files a joint return and has annual earnings of about $25,000 contributes $500 to a SSPA, the Federal Government would match that contribution with a $500 contribution to the account. If that individual contributes $500 in cash each year to the account for 32 years, earning 5-percent interest per year, until retirement at age 62, he or she would have some $80,000 available for distribution from the account. This amount grows to $160,000 if the individual is able to contribute the maximum in each year. Let's take another example. Assume that an individual who is forty years old, files a joint return and has annual adjusted gross income of $80,000. If he or she could make the maximum permissible contribution each year until reaching age 62, along with an annual government match of $400, he or she might expect to have at least $160,128 available at retirement. Under our legislation, the accrued amounts that are paid out or distributed when the holder of a SSPA retires, dies or becomes disabled are treated like Social Security benefits and a portion of the distributions would be taxed only above certain threshold amounts. Now I fully understand that we may not be able to enact this legislation this year or next. Regrettably, last year's highly-touted projected budget surpluses have vanished for at least the next several years and resources are now scarce. The massive tax cuts put in place in the summer of 2001, and scheduled to take full effect over a period of years, will make finding adequate funds for many of the Nation's critical spending priorities even more difficult. However, many of the privatization proposals would require massive infusions from the Treasury general revenue fund to offset the transition and other costs for even partial privatization initiatives. If such resources are available, it seems to me that we would better serve our citizens by using these scarce resources to enact Social Security Plus Accounts that will help them save for retirement but not put the underlying Social Security program at risk. The current Social Security system has served us well for many years and will continue to do so if we make some adjustments. Still we all know that Social Security reform is needed. I remain committed to working on a bipartisan basis to address the long-term solvency issues facing Social Security and to improve retirement savings. And we do need to implement appropriate Social Security reforms as soon as our resources will allow us. Needlessly delaying efforts to shore up Social Security for the long term would likely require more severe action. We certainly can't afford to make matters worse in the interim. A number of us in the Senate are concerned by the proposals offered by President Bush and some in Congress to eliminate the guaranteed basis of Social Security and replace it, in part with private accounts. The suggestion to ``privatize'' Social Security, or to invest a portion or all of the trust funds in the stock market, has been supported by the large investment banking houses and many others who believe that doing so would produce higher returns and improve the solvency of the system. Several of the President's Commission on Social Security privatization plans would divert some of the payroll taxes that are currently being collected. Some of the proposals would use well over $1 trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund. This would immediately and adversely impact the financial well-being of the Social Security Trust Fund, putting in jeopardy both current and future Social Security benefits I do not believe that investing the proceeds of the Social Security system in the stock market through individual accounts provides the kind of stability and certainty we need for the management of the Social Security program. Social Security is intended to provide what its name suggests, security. Stock market investments do not provide this secure foundation. They increase, on average, over certain time periods. But people don't retire at average times. They retire at particular times. This point is mostly glossed over by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The Commission issued its final report last December that included several reform options that would allow workers to invest in personal retirement accounts, but reduce their traditional guaranteed Social Security benefit. In my judgment, no one, including the President's Commission, has provided a satisfactory answer to the question of what happens to people who retire when the market is down if we change Social Security, even partly, from a social insurance program to a stock market investment program. This is not mere polemics. The Enron debacle, the boom and bust of the dot com companies of the late 1990s, and the declining stock prices of recent weeks all serve as stark reminders to all of us about the perils of investing in the stock market. Again, I will be working for appropriate reforms to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund so future generations can rely on Social Security. Social Security Plus Accounts can provide a much- needed supplement to the basic program, but would do so without undermining it. They do not reform the program by themselves, but are designed to be part of a responsible reform package. For many of our nation's seniors, Social Security is the difference between poverty and a dignified retirement. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security program into law in 1935 he said ``We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and his family against poverty ridden old age.'' The importance of his words and his new social insurance plan are reflected in Social Security's overwhelming success today. Let's make sure that the promise and security of Social Security is kept for many generations to come. I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this proposal in the context of comprehensive Social Security reforms considered by the Senate. Below I've provided a detailed summary of the Social Security Plus Account Act to more fully explain how the new savings accounts would work. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I am unable to hear. I would like to understand what the procedure is.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Defense authorization bill has been brought to the floor by the chairman and ranking member, two Senators for whom I have high regard--Senator Levin and Senator Warner. They have done a masterful job for many years dealing with defense issues. I applaud them for their work and think they do this country a great service. Having said all that, I wish to speak about a number of issues related to this Defense authorization bill. This is a time, obviously, when the President has called for and the Congress will respond with an increase in funding for our Nation's defenses. We are at war. We have a war against terrorists, and clearly we are going to need some additional funds to prosecute that war. The President has asked for the funds, and we will provide them. Following the attack on this country on September 11 of last year, the men and women of our Armed Forces were called on once again to travel far from home and serve in our Armed Forces to defend our country's interests and our liberties. I have in recent months visited, as some of my colleagues have, our men and women in the Armed Forces who serve in central Asia. I have been to a former Soviet airbase in Uzbekistan. I have been to Baghram airbase in Afghanistan. I have been to see the troops in other of the countries surrounding that area of central Asia. I have visited many defense installations during my time as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, but I have never before seen the kind of pride that I saw in the eyes of the men and women who serve our country post 9/11, serving our country in difficult conditions, in places far from home. At an old Soviet airbase in Uzbekistan, I saw soldiers living in tents, walking through mud and snow up to their ankles and preparing to be involved in actions and operations in Afghanistan. I could see in their eyes and hear in their voices the pride they have in serving this country in this difficult and important time. I salute those men and women who are in the Armed Forces today who are doing dangerous work all around the world in prosecuting this war against terrorism. The question for the Congress is not whether we will increase funding for our defense needs--we will--the question is exactly how do we use that money in a way that represents an effective investment in this country's strength and in this country's defense. It is the case in this area, just as it is in other areas, that simply throwing money hoping some of it will stick will not necessarily improve this country's defense. So if there are areas where we just cast money about hoping enough of it makes some kind of a difference so we can say we made a difference, I think we do not serve the taxpayers very well in that circumstance. That brings me to the question of national missile defense. I know there is disagreement about that subject. For some time there has been an appetite in the Senate to dramatically increase funds for national missile defense so we can deploy very quickly a national missile defense system. Mr. President, from time to time I have shown my colleagues some items that I keep here in my desk. The items are a piece of a backfire bomber wing that was sawed off a Soviet bomber not too many years ago. In addition to that, I have copper wiring from a Soviet submarine. We got this copper wiring from a Soviet submarine, a Russian submarine, by grinding up the wiring under the Pentagon's Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The Nunn-Lugar program allows us to destroy our one-time adversary's weapons without firing at them. We reached arms control agreements and the US and the Soviet Union agreed to reduced nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Then we used the Nunn-Lugar program to help countries of the former Soviet Union actually destroy there excess weapons because they could not afford to do so themselves. Because of the Nunn-Lugar program there is not one missile with a nuclear warhead left in the Ukraine, Kazakhstan or Belarus, and there are lots fewer in Russia. In Russia, and in the old Soviet Union, we have large circular metal saws cutting the wings off Backfire bombers. We did not shoot them down. We just sawed the wings off, and we paid for it because we were destroying the weapons of a former adversary and reducing nuclear weapons and reducing delivery systems. That is one way to defend this country: Get rid of nuclear weapons and delivery systems around the world, reduce the stockpile of weapons have threatened this country--the missiles with nuclear warheads that used to be targeted on American cities. On one plot in the Ukraine where there existed an SS-20 missile that was aimed at an American city, there now exists sunflowers. I showed a picture of the sunflowers one day. There used to be a missile buried underground with a nuclear warhead aimed at America. It is now simply dirt with sunflowers. The silo is gone. It is destroyed. The missile is gone. It is destroyed. And the nuclear weapon is dismantled. That makes good sense. That is a defense program that has given us enormous rewards. That is one part of defending our country: working on arms control and arms reduction agreements and on threat reduction programs that help pay for the destruction of delivery systems and nuclear weapons. That has been enormously successful. Another approach is developing and building new weapon systems, most of which I support. Take the F-22 fighter, for example. We now know with respect to the gulf war a decade ago and with respect to the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorists that if you control the skies, you can control virtually everything. The F-22, for example, is expensive, but it is the next generation of fighters that will allow us to control the skies, and I support it. I think it makes sense. We must develop and fund those advanced systems that allow us anywhere in the world to defend liberty and give our Armed Forces the latest weapons technology in defense of America. That brings me to the question of national missile defense. Missile defense has been a desire by many for a long while. Would we like to have kind of a catcher's mitt of sorts by which if someone shoots a missile at our country we can catch it before it gets here, stop it, and destroy it? I think everyone in this Chamber believes that would be advantageous. Of course, the technology does not exist at this point. It is the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet. It is a technology we have spent billions of dollars trying to develop, but it does not yet exist. Some say let's keep throwing money after it as quickly as we can possibly throw money at it. I say, no, let's invest substantial amounts of money in research and development, but lets not spend more than is justified. The chairman of the committee authorizes $6.8 billion in this authorization bill--that is ``billion'' with a ``b''--to continue the activities on national missile defense. That is roughly $800 million short of what the administration asked for, and that is what the Senate is now debating. It seems to me, when we take a look at the threats to this country, we should get ourselves a meter. What is the threat meter? With what are we threatened? One threat is that a terrorist, a rogue state, or a terrorist group would get access to an intercontinental ballistic missile, put a nuclear warhead on it, and shoot it at America. We have had that threat for a long while with respect to other countries. We lived for 40 years with the Soviet Union having literally thousands of missiles with nuclear warheads aimed at America's cities. Why did they not use those missiles? Because they knew if they sent one missile with a nuclear warhead into this country, we would vaporize their country because we had a deterrent capability with so many missiles and so many warheads that anyone who attacked our country would immediately be vaporized. Nuclear exchange is an exchange no other adversary, under any condition, could win. They knew that. We knew that. It was called mutually assured destruction. Some say that does not work with terrorists, it does not work with rogue nations. So we must create a national missile defense system. Now I speak with at least some small amount of authority in this Chamber because I come from the only State in the United States that had an antiballistic missile system built in it. In the year 1972, following years of funding, this country built one antiballistic missile site. It was built in Nekoma, ND, a very small community in northeastern North Dakota. If one drives there today, they will see a huge concrete pyramid, and they will see other buildings that are now in mothballs. In 1972, we had the one and only antiballistic missile site in the United States of America. Within 30 days of its activation, it was mothballed. It cost billions, was operational for 30 days, and it was mothballed. Now, that was a different technology from the one we are discussing now. Back then they decided what we will do is if someone shoots missiles at us we will send up an interceptor missile with a nuclear warhead and we will explode that nuclear warhead up in the heavens somewhere and we will destroy everything that is coming in. It was a very different technology. The United States decided that nuclear technology really is not something that would be workable. So now the research since 1972 has been on technology to try to find a way to hit a bullet with a bullet. We have spent billions and billions of dollars to do so. The question today for the Congress is, Do we want to spend another $800 million above that which the authorizing committee has authorized? Some say we need that. Others say, no, that is throwing money around, and it is not an effective investment and can be more effectively used in other areas. I mentioned that one threat on the threat meter is an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead that is sent to us by a terrorist, a terrorist group, or a rogue nation. That is perhaps the least likely threat, if we have a threat meter, that we face. Perhaps more likely would be a terrorist, a terrorist group, or a rogue nation getting access to a cruise missile, which would be perhaps easier to get access to. It is the size of a couple of 100-pound propane tanks with a nuclear warhead. It flies very low to the ground, not very fast, following the terrain. It is more likely a terrorist might get access to a cruise missile than to an ICBM. Would the national missile defense system, once we get it built, protect us against a terrorist's or a rogue state's cruise missile? No, it would not. So we are planning to spend billion and billions on a national missile defense to defend against ICBMs that even if it works, and it is highly suspect whether the technology does exist today, will not help defend us from the more likely threat posed by cruise missiles. Then what about the rest of the threat meter? Let me describe the threat meter these days since September 11. The threat meter shows that we are much more likely to face a threat that comes in at 2 miles an hour rather than something that comes through at 12,000 miles an hour. Let me describe what that is. A suspected terrorist in the Middle East about last October or November put himself in a container and had himself loaded onto a container ship. A container ship has all of these containers. They look like the box that an 18-wheel truck hauls behind it. So container ships come into the ports of this country, they have all these containers stacked on board, and a suspected terrorist put himself in a container, got himself nailed in a container. He had a supply of water on board. He had a GPS. He had a radio. He had a wireless computer. He had a bed. He had a toilet. He put himself in a container and put himself on a container ship to ship himself to Canada. We have 5.7 million containers come into this country to our ports every single year; 100,000 of them are inspected, which leaves 5.6 million that are not. I saw a container one day at a port I visited. They had opened up the back of this container, picked one at random out of the ship. I said, what is in that container? They opened the door for me and they said that is frozen broccoli from Poland. I said, that is interesting. Do you know anything about what is in that frozen broccoli? We see bags in the back. Do we know what is in the middle of this truck or this container? Well, no. Do we know the conditions under which it was grown? No. Do we know much about it? No. That was one container with frozen broccoli from Poland. We get 5.7 million containers coming into this country's ports every year, and 5.6 million are not inspected. When they pull up to the dock of an American port, they are pulling up at 2 to 3 miles an hour with a big ship. That is a much more likely delivery vehicle for a weapon of mass destruction than a terrorist getting ahold of an ICBM and putting a nuclear tip on the top of it. So what are we doing about that? Is there anyone who suggests we ought to spend the money so we have some satisfaction and some feeling that we are going to protect ourselves against a weapon of mass destruction in a container on a container ship that comes up to a dock in Los Angeles or New Jersey or some other port in this country at 2 miles an hour, and then is loaded on a bank of tires and is pulled by a truck across the country and then sits in a lot somewhere outside a factory or outside a key installation, perhaps a nuclear power plant? Is anybody going to do anything about that? How much money are we going to spend on that? We are told we do not have enough money to solve that problem. So now we are debating $800 million on the issue of national missile defense. The authorizing committee says let's spend $6.8 billion, and others, including the President, say no we need to boost that by $800 million. I look at the threat meter and I say, what are the threats and what are we doing to respond to those threats? Do we have enough to deal with the threat of the 5.7 million containers that come into our ports every year with the prospect that one of those containers might come into one of those ports with a weapon of mass destruction, sent to us by a terrorist? Everyone knows that it is far easier to do that than to find access to an ICBM with a nuclear weapon. Before I close let me say a few words about the recent nuclear arms agreements with Russia. I give to the President my compliments that he is dealing with the right subject. When you reach an agreement with Russia with respect to nuclear weapons, that is the right subject. But it is not enough to have a new agreement to simply put nuclear weapons in storage nuclear weapons and to allow their delivery systems to be kept intact. We need to be the world's leader, to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. And we need to be the world's leader in trying to achieve meaningful reductions in nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. Frankly, agreements just to put weapons in storage do not reduce the threat. There are over 30,000 nuclear weapons in this world, and if one nuclear weapon is missing, just one, we have a very serious problem. If just one nuclear weapon gets in the wrong hands, we have a very serious problem. If just one additional country becomes a country that is part of the club that has nuclear weapons, this country is less safe and this world is less safe. It is our responsibility, this country's responsibility, to lead in the area of arms control and arms reductions. We need to do two things. I spoke about one today--and I compliment Senator Warner and Senator Levin--we do need to increase our funding for national defense. But we need to do that in the right way that produces muscle and strength for this country. That is one area. Second, it is just as important we be as aggressive in this country in pursuit of a world leadership role because it is our job and our role to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons, stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world. If September 11 tells us anything, it ought to tell us that. Mr. President, the murder of thousands of innocent Americans by terrorists who want to do additional harm to this country should alert everyone once again that we must be a world leader in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. That means we must be the world leader in not just mothballing or warehousing weapons, but also in reducing the stockpiles of nuclear weapons. As we work our way through these discussions about defense, national missile defense, arms reductions and arms control treaties, I hope this country understands its special obligation and also its opportunity to be a leader in something that will make a big difference for this country's future and for the future of the world. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have listened with some interest to what has been discussed on the floor with respect to the Ninth Circuit Court opinion. I have great respect for courts in this country, but it raises the question: Is there one ounce of common sense left when you hear a decision announced today that suggests that the Pledge of Allegiance somehow is in contravention to the principles of the Constitution of the United States? I do not understand for a moment how a majority of that court could have made this ruling. Some people need their collective heads examined when we hear opinions such as this. We had a celebration on the 200th birthday of the writing of the Constitution in that room in Philadelphia. Fifty-five people went back to that celebration. I was selected to be 1 of the 55. Two hundred years before, 55 white men were in that room in the hot summer of Philadelphia, and they wrote the Constitution. Two hundred years later, 55 of us went back--men, women, minorities--and we had a ceremony and a celebration of the 200th birthday of the writing of that wonderful document. As my colleague from West Virginia, I think the resident scholar on the Constitution, knows, in that room sits the chair where George Washington sat as he presided over the Constitutional Convention, and Ben Franklin sat on one side, and Mason, and Madison. They debated during that summer the provisions of a constitution for this country. I sat in that room that day and thought to myself: What a remarkable thing it was for a man from a town of 300 people in a farming community in southwestern North Dakota to be able to sit in that room and celebrate with 54 of my colleagues the 200th birthday of the writing of the Constitution. I do not know the Constitution as my colleague, Senator Byrd, does. I have read it many times and studied it as best I can, but I guarantee you, there is not any way to creatively read that document that allows a court to say that somehow the Pledge of Allegiance abridges that document called the U.S. Constitution. As my colleague said, that is just plain nuts. I do not for the life of me understand where common sense has gone. Is there not a shred of common sense left when we hear these kinds of decisions coming out of a court, in this case the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? I am very pleased my colleague from South Dakota, the majority leader, will bring a resolution to the floor. I will ask to be a cosponsor and to speak on that resolution. We ought to not waste a minute in saying to that court, in responding to that opinion that says that is not what the Constitution says, it is not the way the Constitution is written, and there is not any creative way for a group of people to make that judgment. I am very pleased the Senate will this afternoon apparently have a record vote to say: No; absolutely not; there is not any way on Earth we can agree with what this court has determined. Madam President, I know the Senator from West Virginia is waiting to speak, and I will be anxious to hear his words of wisdom because he, in my judgment, knows more about the Constitution than anybody else in the Senate. He carries it with him every day, all day. He has studied it more than any other Member of the Senate. I know that document is revered by all of us, but perhaps revered by none of us quite as much as it is by the Senator from West Virginia. Let's hope we find ways in this country not to have to turn on the news and discover the next news cycle, the next opinion of a majority of a court that defies all common sense and something that requires us this afternoon to respond to, to restore some faith with the American people that there are some people at least who are able to read that Constitution and read what it says and understand what it says. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cantwell, I ask unanimous consent that Darlene Iskra, a legislative fellow in her office be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 2514.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague just mentioned national missile defense. I think we will have a robust, aggressive debate on that subject in the Senate. We all agree that we need a defense of some sort against rogue nations or terrorists aiming a missile at our country. But we need to look at the broad range of threats that this country faces. We have 5.7 million containers come into our ports every year on container ships; 100,000 of them are inspected; the other 5.6 million are not. Almost anyone will tell you it is far more likely that a weapon of mass destruction is going to come in on a container ship, coming to a dock at 2 miles an hour to threaten an American city or to be put on an 18-wheel truck and moved out to the middle part of the country. Almost anyone will tell that you the low-tech approach to threatening America with a weapon of mass destruction is much more likely than a terrorist having access to an intercontinental ballistic missile and putting a nuclear tip on that ICBM. I have supported billions and billions of dollars on research and development of missile defense. But that is not the only threat we face. We face so many other threats that are largely ignored. I just mention the one with respect to port security: 5.7 million big containers come in every single year, and 5.6 million are uninspected. In the Middle East, a terrorist put himself in one of these containers. He had fresh water, a heater, a GPS, a computer, a bed, and he was shipping himself to Canada in a container. It is likely that terrorists will threaten this country not with a high-tech weapon but by putting a weapon of mass destruction in a container on a ship coming up to a port at 1 or 2 miles an hour, not an ICBM. So we need to have a debate in terms of how we use our resources. Do we put them all in one pot, or do we evaluate what is the most likely threat? How do we respond to that threat?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? I ask unanimous consent that this Senator be recognized for 10 minutes following the Senator's remarks.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to talk about Amtrak. As we did last week, this morning we hear on the news that there is a proposal to shut down our Amtrak rail passenger service in the middle of this week. Why? Because Amtrak needs the resources to continue and lacks them. You know, you often hear that it is so-and-so's job to keep the trains running on time. Well, it has to be somebody's job to keep the trains running, period. It makes no sense for us to be here on a Monday wondering whether Amtrak will shut down on a Wednesday. In North Dakota, we have Amtrak service; 82,000 North Dakotans boarded Amtrak last year as the trains came through and stopped at many points. I happen to think Amtrak is critically important as a part of our transportation system. Every other form of transportation is subsidized. We have people saying: Let's not subsidize Amtrak. Why not? Every other country in the world provides a subsidy for their rail passenger service. I think our country is justified in doing so to keep that rail passenger service working. The Secretary of Transportation has a plan that would virtually destroy Amtrak as we know it. He says: Let's take the Northeast corridor out, Boston to Washington, DC, and separate it from the rest. That is a sure-fire way to kill the rest of Amtrak service for the country. It is a huge step backwards; that is not progress. We must ask the Secretary and the administration not only to announce Wednesday that there is financing to have Amtrak continue, but also to work with those of us in Congress who want to ensure the long-term future of rail passenger service.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, last Wednesday the Commerce Department reported that the monthly trade deficit for April 2002 was $35.5 billion. That deficit is for both goods and services. The deficit in goods alone was $39.9 billion. Every single day, 7 days a week, we import $1 billion more in goods than we export, and we charge the difference. What does that mean on an annual basis? Deficits on the order of $400 billion dollars, and climbing. As you can see in this chart, the trade deficit is totally out of control. In fact, when we try to put in the 2002 numbers, we will be somewhere off the chart, around $480 billion. These trade deficits are to a large extent the result of bad trade agreements, particularly those entered into under fast-track authority. This Senate, without my vote, just embraced fast-track trade authority so that the President can negotiate another trade agreement. I didn't believe President Clinton should have that trade authority, and I don't believe this President should either. This next chart shows the increases in trade deficits as we entered into one bad trade agreement after another. You see what has happened since 1976. The deficit line goes up, up, up, and up--the highest trade deficits in human history. Nobody seems to think much of it. You didn't hear one whisper last Wednesday when it was announced we had the largest monthly trade deficit in the history of this country. Where are all the exports that we were promised as a result of fast- track trade agreements? Do you know what our number one export item has become? American jobs. That is the biggest export as a result of the trade agreements. You can see from the trade deficits we have that these trade agreements simply aren't working. Who pays these deficits? The American people have to pay for these deficits at some point. You can make the case with respect to budget deficits that it is money we owe to ourselves. You can't make that case with the trade deficit. The trade deficit we owe to others, to people living in other countries. We will pay trade deficits with a lower standard of living. That is why it is so dangerous. Today, as I speak, the financial markets are very unsettled. Day after day after day, we see a further collapse of the stock market, the financial markets. Why is that the case? Because there is a sense that our fundamentals don't work. We are deep in red ink, drowning in trade deficits, and nobody here seems to give a darn at all. It is dangerous for our country. Our negotiators go overseas and negotiate a trade deal, and in an instant they lose. I have said it 100 times, but it is worth saying again, in the words of Will Rogers: the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He must surely have been thinking about our trade negotiators. We have bad agreements in 100 different ways: Bad agreements with China, with Japan, South Korea, Europe, and others. With Europe we have a dispute over market access for U.S. beef. The EU does not let in our beef when the cattle have been fed hormones, even though there is no evidence to support this ban. So we take the EU to the WTO, and we argue that we are entitled to sell our beef in Europe. The WTO agrees, and tells the EU to let our beef into their market. And the EU just thumbs its nose, and says forget it. So we say: All right, we are going to get tough, and retaliate against you. And how does the United States get tough? We say: We will slap you with penalties on truffles, goose liver, and Roquefort cheese. That is enough to put the fear of God into almost any country. Well, when Europe wants to retaliate against our country over a trade dispute, as they did in the case of U.S. tariffs against European steel, Europe goes after hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. steel, textiles, and citrus products. We, on the other hand, are retaliating by saying: We will nail you on truffles, goose liver, and Roquefort cheese. I am sorry, but where is our backbone? Does this country have any guts to stand up for its producers and its workers? So last month, we had the largest monthly trade deficit in human history. Does anybody here care? I think eventually we will have to reconcile for this failure in policy. It is not just a failure with this administration--although this administration certainly has played a part--it is a failure of past administrations and every administration going back 20, 30 years. They have embraced policies that have us in a situation where we have long-term, relentless deficits with the Japanese, $60 billion, $70 billion a year every single year with Japan. And 14 years after we had a beef agreement with Japan, there is a 38.5 percent tariff on every pound of beef going into Japan. I mentioned the Japanese beef agreement, which was described as a big success by those who negotiated. Yet, 12 and 14 years later, we have this huge tariff on every pound of American beef going into Japan. Nobody says much about it. We have a large trade deficit with Japan. We have 630,000 cars coming here from Korea every year. We are able to ship them only 2,800. When you raise that issue, and point out that they are shipping us 630,000 Korean cars into the American marketplace and allowing only 2,800 American cars into Korea, they say: yes, but your exports used to be 1,300 cars and now they have doubled. So if you hear trade negotiators talk and they say ``we doubled the amount of American cars we shipped to Korea''--well, yes, from 1,300 to 2,800. But the Koreans send us 630,000 in a year. Our trade policies are failing badly. Nobody seems to care much about it. There is not a whisper about this huge trade deficit on the floor of the Senate--just following the Senate agreeing to extend fast track trade authority to the President. Because the time is limited, and we are going to the defense authorization bill, I will defer a longer speech on international trade to a later time. But Mr. President, it is fascinating to me that last Thursday we heard the announcement of the largest trade deficit in history, and you could not hear a voice in this town raise a point that this is a serious problem for this country's economy. It is long past the time to have a real debate about our country's trade policies and about these growing, relentless trade deficits that cause great danger to the American economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, is it evenly divided on both sides or just 10 minutes per Senator?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate approved a Committee amendment that authorizes military retirees to concurrently receive both military retired pay and veterans disability compensation. I am glad it did so. This is a matter of fundamental fairness. This is an important issue for veterans. About 530,000 military retirees either are or could eventually be impacted by this issue. Current law requires that military retired pay be reduced dollar-for- dollar by the amount of any VA disability compensation received. There is no reasonable excuse for this offset. By faithfully fulfilling their required length of service, veterans earned their retired pay. That retired pay is for service performed in the past. It should not be reduced because a veteran is awarded disability compensation by the Department of Veterans Affairs because he or she was wounded on active duty or otherwise lost earning capacity due to service-connected disabilities. It is absurd that today, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, military personnel risk losing their retirement pay if they are wounded or seriously injured. A military career is filled with hardships, family separations, personal sacrifices, and all too often being placed in harm's way. Denying a military retiree an earned benefit, his or her military retirement pay, is unconscionable. Last year, the Senate approved legislation authorizing concurrent receipt. However, the final version of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act that came out of conference authorized concurrent receipt only if the President proposed legislation that would provide offsetting budgetary cuts. Unfortunately, the Administration opposes concurrent receipt, so this essentially doomed concurrent receipt in 2002. This year, the Committee bill for fiscal year 2003 that we are considering phases in concurrent receipt over five years for retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or more. The Committee amendment that we passed extends that benefit to all disabled veterans. The Administration has issued a statement threatening a presidential veto of the Defense Authorization Bill if it authorizes concurrent receipt of both retired pay and disability compensation. The Senate should not be swayed by that threat. Taking care of our veterans should be considered a part of our national security. That is why I am concerned that, while the President has proposed increasing military spending in fiscal year 2003 by about $48 billion, his budget increases spending on veterans health care by less than $2 billion, which is far less than needed. This country made a promise to the men and women who risked their lives in defense of this nation. They were promised that their needs would be met by a grateful nation. Authorizing concurrent receipt will be a big step toward fulfilling that promise. More than 200 hundred years ago, George Washington warned that ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by our nation.'' He could not have been more right. That is why we need to make sure that the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization Act authorizes current receipt.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Yes, I think by previous unanimous consent.

Mr. DORGAN. I certainly would not object to the Senator from Virginia being recognized if I am recognized as previously agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, of course, but I think there was a unanimous consent agreement previously that had me following the Senator from Maine with 10 minutes. If I might inquire about the timing here. Is the Senator from Michigan going to speak after the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a Hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 12, at 2:30 p.m. in SD- 366. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1257 and H.R. 107, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a theme study to identify sites and resources to commemorate and interpret the Cold War; S. 1312 and H.R. 2109, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for possible inclusion in the National Park System; S. 1944, to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; H.R. 38, to provide for additional lands to be included within the boundaries of the Homestead National Monument of America in the State of Nebraska, and for other purposes; H.R. 980, to establish the Moccasin Bend National Historic Site in the State of Tennessee as a unit of the National Park System; and H.R. 1712, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make adjustments to the boundary of the National Park of American Samoa to include certain portions of the islands of Ofu and Olosega within the Park, and for other purposes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Michigan is correct. Well over 99.5 percent will no longer have to pay an estate tax. But even that is not enough for those who insist on complete repeal. Those who insist on complete repeal are saying--during a tough time, where we have Federal budget deficits and other priorities that we can't fund--they are saying: This is our priority. The top of the heap. Those at the very top, the billionaires, the $100 million per year executives, that is our priority. We believe that our priority is to exempt those estates from an obligation. The Senator from Michigan is right. Over 99.5 percent of estates will not be subject to an estate tax. When the Senator from Arizona was present, he said this issue called QFOBI, which is the method by which you value the assets of family- owned businesses, is totally unworkable. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that businesses can easily qualify for this special status as long as the family owns and operates the business and intends to continue to do so. Let's say you have a $200 million family business, a big one. In my judgment, if it is family owned, it goes to the lineal descendants. If they want to continue to operate it, no tax. We repeal the estate tax for that transfer. If, however, there are not lineal descendants who want to operate it--one lives in California and one in Florida, one in Texas--and they want to sell the assets, they have the same $8 million exemption that we would provide in this amendment. The Senator from Michigan is correct. This affects very few estates. They are only the largest estates, and that is what we are fighting about. We have people here saying: That is our priority, tax exemption, tax relief for the highest income earners in our country at a time when we have so many other priorities.

Mr. DORGAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple of additional observations, and I suspect the Senator from Texas will wish to conclude his comments after which I will conclude mine. The Senator from Texas said a while ago that facts are stubborn, and that is true. Facts are also sticky. They tend to hang around a fair amount. Let me describe a few facts about this debate, and this issue. Despite all of the tap dancing around this issue, our amendment would say to farms and businesses in this country that if you are passed to the kids who will keep running it following the death of the parents, we will repeal the estate tax for that transfer effective next year. My colleagues have said we would like to repeal it as well, and repeal a lot more for that matter, but we will do that 7 years from now. We will start 7 years from now with our complete repeal. If it is, in fact, a priority, why would they not do it effective January 1 of next year? In addition, we have heard some discussion about the fact that this family-owned business exclusion does not work. The fact is, it has been used a fair amount. It is fairly new, but it is interesting to me that the proposal by the Senator from Texas and others last year to repeal the estate tax also repealed in their legislation the family-owned business deduction in 2004. They are the ones who decided that they were going to repeal the family-owned business deduction in 2004. What they also came up with last year, I suspect we will not hear anyone defend because it is almost the sort of thing that you are going to put in material for comedians. They came up with a tax plan that says, We will gradually repeal the estate tax from now until the year 2010, at which point it is repealed. In 2011, we will reinstate it. They are saying to the American people, by the way, if anyone has a notion of planning your death, make sure you die in 2010 because that is the only year in the next 10 or so years when there is a complete repeal of the estate tax. I don't know what pencils they used. I don't know what assistance they had or consulting advice they received when in a closed and dark room someplace they decided to repeal the estate tax gradually over 10 years and then bring it back in the 11th year. And, by the way, in doing so, we will in 3 years----

Mr. DORGAN. Let me say by unanimous consent, the room was not dark. The room was not dark. In addition to creating this comedic approach to tax relief, they decided in 2004 they will repeal the family-owned business deduction. Those who say they are on the floor of the Senate to help family businesses and family farms are the very ones who stuck in their bill last year a repeal of the family-owned business deduction in 2004. You can make one of two points, but not all at the same time. You can say, as they say incorrectly, that the family-owned business deduction does not work. If that is the case, they probably should have repealed immediately. But they are saying it does not work so we will let it continue not to work and repeal it later. I suppose this is also great material for comedy but a pretty poor excuse, in my judgment, for sound tax policy. Strip away all of the leaves and ask the question, What are the issues? Simply, they are these: I propose an $8 million unified estate tax exemption for a husband and wife. If you do not have assets equalling $8 million, do not worry, you will never have an estate tax obligation. That is No. 1. No. 2, I propose a total repeal of the estate tax in 2003 for the passage of a family business or a farm to the kids who want to continue to run it. If the parents die, and the kids want to run that operation, I say good for them. The last thing in the world we want to do is interrupt that with an estate tax obligation. It is repealed for such businesses, regardless of size. We do that January 1, 2003. The proposal to repeal the entire estate tax means we are fighting over what is left, No. 1; and, No. 2, we are fighting over when we will give relief to family-owned businesses and family-owned farms. Last year, they decided to take away in 2004 the family-owned business deduction. Now they are saying they are fighting to help family businesses. A strange fight, I would say: Try to take away their deduction; you did, in fact, in law, in 2004; and now you want to stage this so they get relief 7 years from today. If it is important, how about relief immediately? How about saying if it is important for businesses and farms to stand up and do it now? That is what my amendment does. This is bait and switch. We all understand bait and switch and have seen it in stores from time to time. This is bait and switch in legislation. I will speak at the end about priorities because we have people saying this is the most important thing for us. Yes, we have a big deficit. Yes, we have economic trouble. But our most important priority at this point is providing a repeal of the estate tax for the largest estates in the country? I am talking about estates worth $500 million, $1 billion, $2 billion, $20 billion. That is the biggest priority? That is the highest priority we have in this country? We have Social Security issues, Medicare issues, education issues, a whole series of things we ought to attend to, but the highest priority is providing a repeal of the estate tax for the top estates in the country? I think not. One of the priority ought to be to do what I do in this amendment: Have a thoughtful exemption, $8 million, husband and wife, below which there will be no estate tax obligation any longer, under any circumstance, and allow almost immediately, on January 1 of next year, the passage or transfer of a family business or family farm to the descendants who want to run the business or farm without an estate tax obligation. That is my amendment. Do not vote against this amendment and go home and say, by the way, I am the champion of the business and farm that is family owned. This is the way to champion their interests if you want to repeal the estate tax obligation of the transfers, effective January 1. How much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are now told that this circumstance of having an estate tax repeal, engineered by my colleague from Texas and others last year, that steps up a repeal over 10 years, repeals the estate tax, then brings it back into force in 2011, is something that the Democrats made them do. It reminds me of Flip Wilson; remember that? ``The Devil made me do it.'' The reason we have this comical circumstance of a bill last year, proposed by my colleagues over there, that intends to repeal on a graduated basis the estate tax to a final repeal in 2010, and then bring it back into force in 2011, is not because someone on this side of the aisle made them do it. It is because their numbers didn't add up and they knew they didn't add up. That is why it exists. After that bill was passed, people were asking the question: What kind of a Congress passes a piece of legislation that says, oh, by the way, there is only 1 year in which you can die in the next decade or so and be exempt from the estate tax; that is, 2010? If it is 2009, you are taxable. If it is 2011, you are taxable. Now we hear this old, ``The devil made us do it.'' That doesn't quite fit. C. Northcote Parkinson wrote Parkinson's law that I studied when I was in graduate school. It is a fascinating set of laws. He said at one point that in every organization there is at least one person who is invariably 100 percent wrong. He said someone like that can be valuable because then you will always know who will give you the wrong advice. I am not going to suggest anything about my colleagues with that except to say this: There are occasions on the floor of the Senate when the advice we receive is just flat wrong. This question of trying to help businesses and farms that are owned by families to be passed on to the descendants--to the kids--to be able to continue operating them is an interesting one. The only way we are going to immediately repeal the estate tax on passage of a family farm or business to the kids upon the parents' death is if we pass the amendment I offered today. That is the only circumstance in which that is going to happen, on January 1, 2003. My colleague from Texas will offer his proposal which will make it happen over the next 7 years, but not now. It is interesting. My colleague from Illinois talked about who the beneficiaries are. After all, we say no husband and wife with assets of less than $8 million will ever pay an estate tax. That is in my amendment. And no family business passed on to kids will pay an estate tax at all if the kids continue to run it. That is in my amendment. The question is, Who will benefit by defeating my amendment and embracing the proposal by my colleagues from Texas and Arizona? Who will benefit? My colleague from Texas has no doubt heard me from time to time refer to Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, the famous Texas band in the 1930s. In the lyrics in their song, the little guy picks the cotton and the big guy gets the honey; the little honeybee sucks the blossom and the big bee gets the honey. This is about honey and money. And it is about the way it always works somehow on the floor of the Senate. Guess who benefits. It is not in most cases folks at the bottom of the economic ladder, or even in the middle of the economic ladder, who are the beneficiaries. It somehow always seems to me that the proposals here--especially this type of proposal--offer the circumstance where we say, Let us provide a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. What are our priorities? Are our priorities education, strengthening America's schools, investing in Social Security? Are our priorities strengthening Medicare? Are they providing a tax cut for middle-income taxpayers. Are our priorities providing a tax cut and deduction for being able to send your kid to college or providing health care benefits for you and your workers and your business? Are those our priorities? No. My colleagues say that is not a priority of ours. Those priorities must take a backseat to the priority of providing estate tax relief for the very wealthiest in America. This isn't about being opposed to those who are wealthy. In my proposal in this amendment, there is a very substantial estate tax exemption of $8 million. If you are trying to pass a family business or farm on to the kids who are going to run it, you are not going to pay an estate tax. That repeal is effective next January 1. My colleagues say: No. We support this issue of helping farms and businesses, but we support helping them 7 years from now. We have used that as the pole-vaulting contest to get to the point where we can repeal the estate tax, but it is not so important to us that we believe on January 1 of next year businesses and farms passed on to the kids ought to have the estate tax repealed. It is not that important to them. It is important to me. And I believe very much that we ought to pass this amendment. We voted on this amendment last year. Times have changed, as you know. Things are quite different. My amendment last year got 43 votes. Last year, just prior to this time, we were on the floor of the Senate, and we had estimated budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. We had people on the floor of the Senate saying: We will have budget surpluses year after year. Let us provide very large tax cuts. Some of us said: Maybe we ought not do that. Maybe we ought to be a bit conservative. What if something happens? Guess what happened. In a matter of 7 or 8 months we ran into a recession, and then we had a war. The result is that our economy faltered. These big surpluses turned into big deficits. But it didn't mean a thing to those who are marching towards estate tax repeal. They are back here on the floor of the Senate as if nothing happened. It is just as if they have missed the last year and our priority remains to try to lift the burden of taxes from those who are at the top end of the income ladder in this country. If you have $1 billion, our priority remains that we believe in tax cuts for you, and we are here to fight for you. Is there anybody here who is willing to fight for the people at the bottom of the economic ladder? Is anybody proposing a tax cut this afternoon for middle-income taxpayers trying to send there kids to school? I don't think so. That is not the priority. That is why I hope we will pass our amendment. This amendment says, yes, let us provide dramatic increases in the exemption for the estate tax, and let us exempt the tax in the transfer of the family farms and businesses to the kids who want to run them; but let us not give up the opportunity for a couple hundred billion dollars in the second 10 years that might be used to help America's kids and schools, help strengthen Social Security, help strengthen Medicare, and do the things that will also make this a better country. I hope my colleagues will understand that the only way to address this issue of family farms and businesses that we have heard so much about is this amendment. One final point: My colleagues have talked about the family-owned business deduction not working. It is interesting to me. In fact, they repealed it in law last year. They said, let us repeal the family-owned business deduction. That was their bill last year. They did it in 2004, which is a complete contradiction. If it didn't work, why wouldn't you repeal it immediately? If it does work, why do you repeal it in 2004? It does work, and they know it. They simply allege that it doesn't work so they can try to defeat this amendment and provide relief for the people with the highest incomes at a time when this country is in debt and is going deeper in debt. Their proposal doesn't have as a priority to help on the other things that are important--health care, Social Security, education, and much more. We will get to those things by casting some sensible votes this afternoon on this amendment. Support this amendment, oppose the Gramm amendment, and do the right thing. I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, earlier this week I modified my bill, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, S. 2076. I originally introduced this bill in an attempt to forge a consensus on what I thought was a straight-forward concept, the banning of reproductive cloning or the cloning of a human being. When I introduced the legislation, I stated: ``It is a simple bill, but it reflects my view and a view that is held by almost everyone. . . . My legislation makes it illegal to clone a human being and imposes strict penalties against anyone who violates this prohibition.'' However, in recent weeks those who oppose my legislation have interpreted the language of my bill in a manner that is not consistent with the intent of the bill. They argue that my bill as originally introduced would allow a cloned embryo to be implanted into the uterus and ``harvested'' at some point prior to birth. I do not believe the language of my bill allows that, and it is certainly not the intent of the bill. But, in order that no one can misinterpret the intent of my bill, I am making an adjustment in the bill language. The revised language will define human cloning as ``implanting or attempting to implant the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other cloning technique, into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.'' It makes it unlawful for ``any person to conduct or attempt to conduct human cloning.'' The bill retains the strict penalties against violators that were present in the original version. My legislation is silent on the matter of therapeutic cloning or what some call ``regenerative medicine.'' I understand that this is a topic that needs thoughtful discussion and debate. It is a subject that is addressed in other bills now before the Senate. I respect those who support the Brownback bill and wish to prohibit what is called somatic cell nuclear transplantation or the cloning of stem cells. This is a difficult subject and there is plenty of room for thoughtful disagreement in the debate. But I don't believe that we should prohibit the promising research that could lead to cures for diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart disease and more. I agree with Nancy Reagan, former President Ford, Orrin Hatch, and others that this kind of regenerative medicine conducted under strict guidelines and controls can offer great hope to tens of millions of Americans and can save lives. The debate on that matter is left to other legislation. My bill applies only to the issue of prohibiting the cloning of a human being and I hope that this change in the language will no longer leave room for those who are opponents to misinterpret or misunderstand its intent.