Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the military fellow in my office, Gregg Blanchard, be granted the privilege of the floor until the conclusion of the debate on S. 1050.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I yield.

Mr. DAYTON. I know the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Nevada are working together on this and I am in good hands.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up this amendment and point out that at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed, looking for jobs, unable to find jobs, and are suffering terrible emotional and financial hardships as a result, it is astonishing to me that the administration would seek in this bill to move more American jobs to other countries. It is astonishing, but given this administration, it is not surprising. It is well on its way to becoming the most anti-jobs administration in our Nation's history. Since President Bush took office 2\1/2\ years ago, 2.7 million jobs have been lost throughout the United States of America. In the first 3 months of this year alone, 500,000 jobs disappeared. The only idea for economic stimulus that the administration has is to cut taxes for the Americans who are already rich, whether they work or not. In this bill, the administration wants to gut the ``buy American,'' which is an existing law passed by the Congress in 1933, which for the last 70 years, under Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, has been a policy of this Congress--that we will attempt to buy American. The Berry amendment was enacted in 1941, at the onset of World War II, applying specifically to the Department of Defense procurements. It says, in pertinent part: Provided: That no part of this or any other appropriation contained in this Act shall be available for the procurement of any article of food or clothing not grown or produced in the United States or its possessions, except to the extent that the head of the department concerned shall determine that articles of food or clothing grown or produced in the United States or its possessions cannot be procured of satisfactory quality and in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices as when needed. . . . That is not unreasonable. That is not onerous. It says you must buy products grown or made or manufactured in the United States except when the Secretary of Defense will determine, on his sole authority, that it cannot be procured of satisfactory quality or sufficient times at reasonable prices as and when needed. That is not even a ``buy American'' requirement but ``try to buy American'' requirement, try to buy American products. This administration does not even want to try. They added into this committee bill section 833 which, in pertinent part, says: Waiver of domestic source or content requirements (a) Authority--Except as provided in subsection (f), the Secretary of Defense may waive the application of any domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement referred to in subsection (b) and thereabout authorize the procurement of items that are grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured-- (1) in a foreign country that has a reciprocal defense procurement memorandum or agreement with the United States. That is 21 foreign countries. And it is not even so important that the Secretary himself or herself has to make that determination. It grants later that: (A) may not be delegated to any officer or employee other than the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics. If this bill passes with the current language, there will be 21 other countries around the world which can be given equal priority as the United States of America for contracts that provide jobs which are being paid for by American tax dollars. Those dollars had been appropriated and they will be spent on the U.S. Armed Forces, to clothe them, feed them, and equip them with the best, which is what they deserve because they are the best young men and women in the world and they proved their courage, their valor, and skills once again in Iraq, as they have before so many times and as they will probably be called upon to do again. They deserve the best. They should get the best. Congress has made clear in existing law that they will get the best and they will get it when they need it. Current law says whenever it is reasonably possible, however, to supply those needs with goods and products and equipment that are produced in this country, using materials that are made, where feasible, in this country, then do so, recognizing that will provide an additional public benefit for those expenditures of tax dollars of creating or saving jobs for Americans. If it is not reasonably possible, the law says, then don't, but at least try to buy American. At least try to spend public funds in the United States rather than in other countries. At least try to benefit the U.S. economy rather than another nation. At least care enough to try. For 70 years, every administration has been willing to make that effort. But not this administration, evidently, because at their request the language was inserted that says the Department of Defense does not even have to try; they can buy in the United States or they can buy in 21 other foreign countries, and the Secretary of Defense does not even need to be bothered with those decisions. They evidently do not consider it important enough to require him to do so. An Under Secretary can handle it. These are decisions that will decide whether some Americans keep their jobs and get new jobs. And they say it is not that important. My colleagues, that is the question before the Senate today. Should we just give up at this point in time, right now especially, a 70-year policy that creates or saves American jobs for American citizens, when it is reasonably possible to do so? Or, no, no, it just really does not matter? It matters a great deal to millions of Americans who are looking for work today. It matters a great deal to their husbands and their wives and their children. It matters a great deal to me, which is why I brought this amendment forward. If it matters to the Senate today, Members will support my amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I would not, in answer to the Senator's question, reject that. In fact, under current law, that is permitted. The Secretary of Defense can determine under his sole authority that the items in question can be bought.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator from Arizona, I believe the Senator misunderstands my amendment. My amendment strikes the language in the committee bill that would change current law. My amendment returns us to existing law. It is a law that has been on the books for 70 years. It is a law that has been followed by Democratic and Republican administrations. It permits everything the Senator described in terms of these various sales of equipment, machinery, food, light clothing made by other countries when the Secretary of Defense shall determine on his sole authority that it is not reasonably possible to acquire those products made in the United States. It just says try to buy American. It does not even require it. It says try to buy American. It is a law that was passed in 1933. The Barry amendment was added specifically to the Department of Defense in 1941. The Senate committee bill would change current law, and my amendment simply strikes that change in the committee bill. It simply reverts us to current law, which has been good enough for Republican and Democratic administrations for 70 years and permits just what the Senator said. I share the Senator's desire, absolutely. Our Armed Forces should have the best--the best equipment, the best clothing, the best food, the best of everything. They should get it as rapidly as possible. They deserve it because they are the most courageous men and women anywhere in the world, and they proved that once again in Iraq. Specifically, for all these years, Congress has made clear in existing law that none of that shall be sacrificed. Quality shall not be sacrificed, speed shall not be sacrificed, nothing shall be sacrificed. But when all things are equal and we have a choice, buy American because then those public dollars are all going to have an additional benefit of providing jobs or preserving jobs in the United States of America rather than going to people overseas. That is a secondary public purpose. It does not conflict with the first, but when it can complement the first, Congress says do it that way. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the chairman.

Mr. DAYTON. One minute.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I would like to have one minute to make a final comment, if I may.

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

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I am proud to rise with my very distinguished colleagues who have introduced this measure, Senator Feinstein and Senator Kennedy; they who have eloquently stated, along with the Senator from Illinois, the reasons why this drastic change in American policy is so ill-advised--to resume the testing, development, and deployment of nuclear bombs. That would put the United States back into the front of the world pack of nations now proceeding with nuclear weapons development. We should be leading the world in the opposite direction, to stop the future proliferation of nuclear bombs. We can't do both. We can't tell other nations around the world not to build even a single nuclear weapon and then do it ourselves. We already have thousands of nuclear bombs. Yet we are going to tell other governments: You can't have even one. We should be negotiating those agreements. We should prevent other nations that do not presently have nuclear weapons from developing them. We should negotiate agreements with North Korea, Iran, whereby they would stop and dismantle their nuclear weapons production in return for economic assistance, food, technological development, whatever it is we can do to improve their peaceful standard of living and help bring them back into the civilized world. We should proceed to carry out the agreement which President Bush and President Putin reached over a year ago to consolidate and reduce the nuclear weapons which our two countries have. We should discuss with the new Chinese leadership their doing the same. We should redouble our efforts to track down and purchase and to lock up the nuclear weapons and materials that are loose from the old Soviet Union or from any other source, before they fall into the very dangerous hands of terrorist organizations which, if they get nuclear weapons, will use them against us. How can we do all that if we ourselves are developing our own next generation of nuclear bombs? It is crazy. It is crazy to do it. And it is crazy to think that the rest of the world would stand idly by while we proceed to do so. Why do we need to do this? We have the most overwhelming military force in the world, as we just demonstrated in Iraq. We have the greatest, most overwhelming military dominance of any nation in the history of the world over every other nation. We must maintain that overwhelming military superiority, and we will. President Bush has proposed increasing our military spending every year that he has been in office, and this Congress has provided him with every dollar he requested. I voted for every one of them myself. We are now spending this year more money on our military strength than the next nine nations of the world combined. I agree with my colleague from Alabama who is properly vigilant about what other nations are doing. We do need to look ahead and make sure that we maintain the kind of superiority and dominance which we can then use to prevent nuclear wars or any kind of wars around the world. But we don't need those devices today, and we don't see anybody else in the world developing them. So we should be trying to stop it, not move it forward. We don't need the so-called low-yield nuclear devices to win a war, not any war anywhere in the world and not for any time in the foreseeable future. Parenthetically, there is no such thing as a low- yield nuclear device. It is an oxymoron, low-yield nuclear device. There is only one description of these devices: They are nuclear bombs. They are nuclear bombs more powerful than the ones used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 58 years ago. My understanding is that in terms of yield, in terms of radioactive fallout they may be more constrained, but in terms of the explosive power of these advanced weapons, they go beyond anything that was used in World War II, which is, as we recall, the only time in the history of the planet that nuclear bombs have ever been unleashed by one nation against another. It is our responsibility as the leader of the world to assure that they are never used again. Nothing is more dangerous to our national security than the continued development and production and ultimately proliferation of more nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. The reality is we can't prevent their use once they are produced. We can try, and we have. And we will continue to do so. With treaties, through negotiation, we can build a national missile defense system as the President has proposed, as Congress has appropriated initial funding. But even if it could be made to work perfectly, a terrorist group could put a nuclear weapon in a briefcase or in a car's glove compartment and annihilate New York City or San Francisco or Mobile, AL, or Minneapolis, MN. We can't prevent the use of one of these nuclear weapons once it has been produced, which is why we can and must stop their production before. We still have a chance to do that. We still have that opportunity, and that is what this administration's priority should be, to put an end to the nuclear arms race and those who want to enter it and to negotiate these agreements. But to do that, we have to set the example. We have to lead the world in the direction we want it to go. We can't say, we are the exception; everybody else follow this set of rules, but we are different. We know that our intentions are honorable. We know that we would not use them inappropriately. But we are not viewed that way by anyone else, as we would not view anyone else that way. We have to lead by our actions as well as by our words. As others have pointed out, if we were to do this now as we try to put the lid on other nations' development of their nuclear industry weapons industry, it would be catastrophic. In the eyes of the world we would look as though we don't really understand how we are viewed by them. This is an historic opportunity. It is so critical that this administration, which has proven that it knows how to win wars with military might--that we have established--which they inherited from President Clinton's administration, shows that we know how to win the peace. We know how to win the peace in Afghanistan, where our efforts to rebuild the country have been minimal, tragically, in the last year and a half compared to the scope of the need and the opportunity to showcase the American economic social system, our way of life, so that the people of that country can benefit, and people especially in the Arab nations can see the benefits and advantages of our system. We need to do the same in Iraq--seize control and security there and bring in the U.N. and other nations in efforts to bring that country over to a democracy and a stable government, encourage and assist their economic recovery, and negotiate with others. That is the direction in which we need to go, but it is not the direction this administration is going, or cares to go, or knows how to go. It is the wrong signal to send to the rest of the world that we intend to proceed further down the path of our domination militarily and our use of weapons of any level of destruction in order to achieve future goals; and if we proceed in that direction, we must expect that the rest of the world will follow. That would be more dangerously destabilizing to this Nation and to the planet than anything I can imagine. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I wanted to say to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who suggested earlier that we alternate back and forth, even though there is no agreement, I would be more than happy to defer to someone on his side.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, if the chairman wants to wait, I will look forward to hearing his remarks. I have the greatest respect for him, and also many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle who will offer their comments at a later time. At the request of Senator Feinstein, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I call up amendment numbered 616.

Mr. DAYTON. This amendment would end the phony practice of making tax cuts phase in, phase out, appear, and reappear like popups on a computer screen and say any new tax provision must take full effect 1 year after enactment and remain in effect until changed by a subsequent Congress. The revolving sunset makes a mockery of tax policy and of the Senate. Businesses and individual taxpayers cannot make prudent decisions when the Tax Code changes with every new year or new budget resolution. This gimmickry is fictional and farcical, and it makes the Senate look foolish and foolhardy. We owe the American people and we owe this great institution something better than that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa and their colleagues for their resolve in making the House legislation into a responsible bill. My amendment would make it a better bill. It would take the money that would go to millionaire taxpayers and give it, instead, to middle- income taxpayers. We do so by tripling the amount of income that is taxed at the 10-percent rate. We keep the committee's increases in the child tax credit, its elimination of the marriage penalty and the alternative minimum tax, and its offsets would extend unemployment benefits for those who have currently run through them. It would also freeze the top rate at its present level. In my amendment, a family of four with an income of $40,000 a year would receive a $2,232 tax cut in 2003, which is more than double the amount in the committee bill. A single taxpayer with an annual income of $40,000 would receive a $600 tax cut compared with $282 under the tax bill. And that is with the same cost--$350 billion--over 10 years, with tax relief evenly distributed and a much better economic stimulus. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today, I rise to speak about the importance of the Asian-Pacific American experience in my home State of Minnesota. During this month, designated Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month, we are proud to celebrate the many ways in which the culture of our Asian citizens enriches us as Minnesotans and Americans. In Minnesota, we celebrate with a myriad of public events throughout the State, including a Burmese cultural exhibition, dance workshops, musical performances, picnics, banquets, flea markets, and festivals. For this year's theme, the Minnesota State Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans has chosen ``Experience Freedom,'' a thread which runs through the stories of so many Asian Americans. Each generation of immigrants to this country has pursued a freedom not known in their homelands. Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino settlers sought out Minnesota in the late 19th century, hoping to find broad economic opportunities. This same goal motivated Korean and other Asian immigrants who left their countries to find unparalleled opportunities. More recently, Asians have come to Minnesota seeking refuge from war. Tibetans, Hmong, Vietnamese, and Cambodians escaped from a country ravaged by war and unrest. Here, they found freedom, peace, and new avenues for fulfillment, and achievement. I am especially proud to say that with the recent election of State Representative Cy Thao, Minnesota now has two legislators of Hmong descent. Thanks to the infusion of Asian-Pacific influences, Minnesota virtually vibrates with new ideas, philosophies, and folkways. Individually and collectively, Asian-Pacific citizens have made significant contributions to their communities, accomplishments which the State Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans recognizes by conferring four Annual Leadership Awards. I am pleased to join in honoring these outstanding individuals and organizations. Jasmine Dinh has received the Professional Leadership and Community Service Award. Her commitment to public service has led her to cofound Asian Women United of Minnesota, a nonprofit organization devoted to ending violence against Asian women; to create a battered women's shelter in Minneapolis, one of the few focused on Asian American women; to serve on the staff of United States Representative Bill Luther; and to become deeply involved in the Vietnamese Community of Minnesota Organization. Recently, she opened her own business, Jasmine's Coffee and Tea House, while still working full time as a senior program manager for the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco. Jodie Tanaka has been recognized with the Professional Leadership Award. The owner, CEO, and president of Tanaka Advertisting, a business established by her father, Jodie developed the company into the highly successful entity it is today. Among her clients, she counts other notable Minnesota companies, including U.S. Bank, the Minnesota Twins, Northwest Airlines, and Davanni's. Her hard work and excellence in her field have consistently been acknowledged by awards from Minnesota's community of business professionals. Dragon Festival Planning Committee is this year's Community Service Award winner. The committee has built on the original Asian American Festival, a lively and popular annual event since 1997. The newly named Dragon Festival has grown to include not only a parade but also a dragon boat race. Kogen Taiko, players of traditional Japanese drums, have received this year's award for community service and excellence in the arts. The oldest taiko drumming ensemble in Minnesota, Kogen Taiko, preserves Japanese drumming techniques while also incorporating multiple American rhythms. The result is original Japanese-American music. The group's performances have movingly affirmed the sometimes painful Japanese experience in America. In addition, they are extensively involved in the community, having used proceeds from a benefit concert to help pay medical bills for a deceased friend and to establish an education fund for his children. In addition to these distinguished Leadership Award winners, I would like to pay tribute to two other remarkable people. Adeel Lari served as president of the Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans from 1994 to 2002. Thanks to his leadership, the council has become a driving force in educating the larger community about matters important to Asians in Minnesota. Adeel has also spent the past 28 years at the Minnesota Department of Transportation. His dedication to his community is exemplary. Minneapolis Police Officer Duy Ngo has served the department honorably for over 5 years and was recently assigned to the Minnesota Gang Strike Force, helping to curb gang membership and violence in our State. In addition, he is a sergeant in the Army Reserves. Officer Ngo is recovering well from injuries received when he was shot while working undercover. Like all Minnesotans, I deeply appreciate the bravery of officers like Duy Ngo who put their lives on the line every day to protect their fellow citizens. It is entirely appropriate for us to designate a special time to pay tribute to the many contributions of Americans of Asian or Pacific ancestry. At the same time, I wish to emphasize the value of the many talents, strengths, and unique qualities they consistently bring to us. We welcome and cherish their distinctive gifts and customs.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I commend my colleague from Wyoming and his leadership in relationship to Cuba, which is of strong interest to businesses and farmers in my home State of Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to his legislation. I look forward to working with him as part of his caucus to further those relationships. I again commend the Senator for his leadership in this important area and look forward to working with him.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Virginia, a leader on this measure. I will be brief because I am scheduled to meet in my office in just a few moments with the nominee for the new superintendent of the Air Force Academy, which is a matter on which the Senator from Virginia has also exhibited great leadership on behalf of this country. I am very proud to join with Senator Warner in sponsoring this legislation. I agree and associate myself with everything the Senator has said regarding this matter. I came to the Senate a little over 2 years ago, believing the most urgent matter facing our country in the area of social legislation was to provide prescription drug coverage for all of our elderly. I have been dismayed at our inability--all of us--to reach necessary agreements so such legislation could be enacted. I could not agree more with the Senator from Virginia that this is something I hope our colleagues will consider. If there is a better approach that we can all agree on this year, then so be it. But in the absence of that, as there has been that failure during the last 2 years, I hope our colleagues will look at this as a very feeling alternative. Even if long-term legislation is enacted, I believe it will be at least a year or two before that is available to our senior citizens, before that program is set up. This is an approach that could be implemented very swiftly, could be available almost immediately, and could provide, on an interim basis if not a long-term basis, the financial assistance our elderly citizens desperately need. I thank the senior Senator from Virginia. I am proud to associate myself with this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Virginia, a leader on this measure. I will be brief because I am scheduled to meet in my office in just a few moments with the nominee for the new superintendent of the Air Force Academy, which is a matter on which the Senator from Virginia has also exhibited great leadership on behalf of this country. I am very proud to join with Senator Warner in sponsoring this legislation. I agree and associate myself with everything the Senator has said regarding this matter. I came to the Senate a little over 2 years ago, believing the most urgent matter facing our country in the area of social legislation was to provide prescription drug coverage for all of our elderly. I have been dismayed at our inability--all of us--to reach necessary agreements so such legislation could be enacted. I could not agree more with the Senator from Virginia that this is something I hope our colleagues will consider. If there is a better approach that we can all agree on this year, then so be it. But in the absence of that, as there has been that failure during the last 2 years, I hope our colleagues will look at this as a very feeling alternative. Even if long-term legislation is enacted, I believe it will be at least a year or two before that is available to our senior citizens, before that program is set up. This is an approach that could be implemented very swiftly, could be available almost immediately, and could provide, on an interim basis if not a long-term basis, the financial assistance our elderly citizens desperately need. I thank the senior Senator from Virginia. I am proud to associate myself with this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. I commend my colleague from Wyoming and his leadership in relationship to Cuba, which is of strong interest to businesses and farmers in my home State of Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to his legislation. I look forward to working with him as part of his caucus to further those relationships. I again commend the Senator for his leadership in this important area and look forward to working with him.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katie Pass of my staff be permitted the privilege of the floor during my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I want to share some of my experiences over the last 2 weeks as part of a bipartisan delegation of Senators who traveled to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and China. Upon my return to Minnesota last week, directly from Beijing, I never had so many inquiries from people meeting with me as to my health and well-being. Fortunately, I assured them I was not carrying SARS, which is something to be taken obviously very seriously. The trip was led by our Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and was led extraordinarily well by him. I cannot say enough to reflect my respect and admiration for his demeanor, his leadership, his poise, and his presence when facing the heads of state when we had these meetings in China, South Korea, and Taiwan. We may be Republicans and Democrats, but occasionally we need to be reminded that at our core all of us are Americans. Ultimately, we all succeed or we do not succeed together, and that was certainly the spirit of this bipartisan delegation of five Republican Senators and three Democratic Senators. We got along very well. I do not think there was a cross word among us. We enjoyed very much the privilege of representing the United States of America as we did, and I believe under Senator Frist's leadership we did so responsibly and hopefully honorably. After careful consideration, at the end of our trip, the principal reason we decided to go through with our plans to go to China was the opportunity it presented to meet with the new Chinese leadership and particularly to discuss the situation concerning North Korea's nuclear weapons program. We certainly carefully considered and Senator Frist, of course, being a doctor, was in the forefront of considering very carefully the exposure we would have, the risks that would be entailed in regard to SARS. We took every possible precaution. I washed my hands and face more in 2 and a half days in Beijing than I usually do in about 2 weeks in Minnesota. So far, knock on wood, it seems to have been effective. As I said, we believed the opportunity to converse directly with the new President of China, President Hu Jintao, as well as the other new Chinese leadership, and to press upon them the urgency we felt about resolving the nuclear situation in North Korea was worth that trip, and it proved to be. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that, in fact, China shares our goal, as their leadership expressed several times, to bring about a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, and that position which was stated by them was corroborated by our Ambassador, Clark T. Randt, Jr., who apparently was a classmate of the President who appointed him, President Bush. Both of them, it turns out, were fraternity brothers of mine back in college. I had a chance to reminisce with him. He reassured all of us that the Chinese Government had been very influential in bringing North Korea to the negotiating table last week, the trilateral talks that commenced in Beijing. They could have been more timely but at least they are underway. Hopefully, they will continue actively with the top-level attention they certainly need. It was a signal of a great opportunity to work in partnership with the new Chinese Government to reach the shared objective of ridding North Korea of its nuclear weapons and to create a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. What a great way to build a partnership for the next 10, 20 years, which is what this Government in China now professes it wants with the United States. President Hu said himself their primary objective for the next two decades is to increase and expand the economic progress that has been made in their country, to raise the standard of living of more and more of their citizens through the United States and other foreign investment through additional trade and economic growth there which has been staggering in the last 10 to 15 years. As they pointed out, especially in the middle and western parts of the country, so much more needs to be done to bring those areas up to the eastern seaboard, mainland of China. That, hopefully, will be their priority and one that will serve to increase the likelihood of peace and economic and international security throughout the world. There would be nothing we could do that would be any more beneficial to our national interests than to encourage their economic progress and to build a relationship that is economic, that is cultural and social after they have resolved their current health crisis, and also provide the strong influence of both countries for peaceful resolution of the situation in North Korea and others that will arise inevitably in that part of the world. They also stressed, as did the South Korean and Taiwanese Governments, the importance of peacefully resolving the situation in North Korea. Anyone who believes a military resolution would be advisable should go over and meet with the leaders of those three respective countries--South Korea, China, and Taiwan, and even in Japan, as well. From the leadership with whom we met there, there is no one in that part of the world in responsible positions who wants to see a military threat or military action initiated there. There has been a great deal of economic progress in the areas of South Korea and Taiwan. While claiming to suffer from the worldwide economic slowdown, the rates of economic growth they are realizing in those countries, from 3.5- to 5-percent growth annually, is something that certainly this country and other nations in the world would be delighted to achieve. For them, that is a slowdown, creating unemployment they have not had heretofore and economic and social problems and welfare and safety net problems they have not had to deal with for the last decade. They also have a vital stake in having North Korea's nuclear program eliminated, as the President has said properly so, but continued so in a way that does not threaten the security and the stability of that region of the world. We also had the opportunity to travel to the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea and had dinner with the 2nd Army Division--``second to none'' is one of their mottos, and appropriately so. They are second to none in their dedication and courage and commitment for being there. We stood right there on the DMZ and looked, as they do night after night, across the border. Another motto of theirs is ``fight tonight.'' They are in a constant State of readiness and alert, and all Americans should be mindful and respectful and enormously grateful to those brave men and women who put their lives on the line day and night, one after the other, without the kind of recognition their compatriots get in other parts of the globe--just as well trained, just as well prepared, every bit as willing to stand and defend the beacon of freedom in Korea as our forces have done so outstandingly in Iraq and previously in Afghanistan and anywhere else in the world. That is a reminder, once again, that freedom is priceless, but it is not free. It has to be won and preserved through dedication of the brave men and women in the 2nd Army Division. And to all of them, and their leader, GEN Leon LaPorte, commander of the United States forces in Korea, we all have the utmost respect and admiration. It reminded me why I introduced, along with Senator Sessions last year, legislation that would provide for financial incentive for troops involved, particularly those who reenlist in areas of the world such as Korea where they are separated from their families for long periods of time. It is one of the most difficult places in the military, we are told by the commanders, in which to recruit and especially re-recruit men and women to serve terms of duty because of the hardships, because of the additional costs that have to be borne because usually their families are left behind and that involves two parallel tracks of expenses--separation and phone bills. Senator Sessions and I proposed an income tax exemption for troops who serve in far-flung areas of the world such as Korea. I will renew my efforts this year to see that legislation enacted because it is the least we can do and the least that is deserved by these brave men and women. The commanders in those areas have asserted it would be invaluable in recruiting efforts. I see the real leader and the commander of the Senate when it comes to the Armed Services, my very distinguished chairman of the committee on which I am proud to serve, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Virginia. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I rise with my colleague on the morning after a difficult night for Minnesota sports fans with both of our teams, the Timberwolves and the Wild, losing playoff games at home. This is a way to remind ourselves of days of former glory, and certainly with my distinguished colleague, Senator Coleman, who was instrumental and probably deserves more credit than any other person in Minnesota for bringing professional hockey back to St. Paul and Minnesota. The Minnesota Wild, which is now in its third year, is performing so well, it is fitting that we can rise together here for the second time this year to pay tribute to a Minnesota team, its collegiate hockey team; in this case, the Golden Gophers of the University of Minnesota, who have repeated now as national champions for the second time, the first time in 31 years that a college team has repeated for the men's championship. They join the University of Minnesota women's team, the Duluth Bulldogs women's team, who earlier this year won their third consecutive national collegiate hockey championship. As they were playing the Golden Gophers for the national title, I happened to be flying across the Pacific Ocean on a codel headed by Majority Leader Bill Frist, and it turns out that his press secretary was a graduate of the University of New Hampshire. So we had a friendly wager on the outcome. I am delighted to soon be the recipient of a quart of maple syrup, which makes it as sweet a victory for me as for the team, and certainly for all the hockey fans throughout Minnesota. This was supposed to be a rebuilding year for this team. Nobody thought they would make the playoffs, much less win the national championship. They had a new goalie and were the defending national champions. That made them everyone's target. They kept getting better and better as the year went on. When they reached the playoffs, they were unbeatable. They won four straight victories to win the WCHA championship and then four straight victories, over stiff competition-- the best in the Nation--in order to win the national championship for the second straight year. Once again, they accomplished this with almost entirely Minnesota talent. Some people ask why it took 23 years--from 1979 to 1992--for Minnesota, which is the hockey capital of the Nation, to repeat as the national collegiate champion. In 1979, when they won, there were only two Division I college teams in Minnesota. Presently there are five. There is that increase in competition among the Minnesota colleges themselves and for our Minnesota hockey talent. In addition, the other programs--in the West, WCHA, and in the east, the CCHA--recruited extensively in Minnesota, and even eastern hockey spent heavily on Canadian talent. In my days of playing, in the 1960s, for example, in Division I hockey, it used to be said that Canadian boys dreamed of playing in the National Hockey League, and if those hopes and dreams were dashed, they went on to college in the United States. Despite all that fierce competition for the talent and the pressures on that team, Coach Don Lucia has built, in just 5 years, an extraordinary program, a world class program in Minnesota that has restored collegiate hockey to its rightful place, at the very top in Minnesota. It is a real tribute to Coach Lucia and his entire team, all the players who performed extraordinarily well under the circumstances, and who are now, once again, the national collegiate champions. It is Senator Coleman's and my hope that the President will be gracious enough to invite our two teams, the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers men's team and the University of Minnesota Duluth women's team, to the White House for recognition, as he had in the previous year with both teams, and before that with the women's team. I went to college with the President. He was a year ahead of me, and he was not a hockey player. He was a rugby player. He was a sports fan. He roomed in college with a college All-American from Minnesota, Jack Morrison. He was a frequent attendee at our hockey games at Yale University. Two years ago, when the UMD women won the first championship, the President was gracious and responded instantaneously and invited the women's team, as he had previously invited the men's championship team from Boston College, to be feted at the White House. It could not have been a more exciting moment for the players, their families, friends, and the coaches at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Last year, we had the good fortune of having both championship teams, and the President was gracious enough to invite them both, along with the families, friends, and coaches, to the White House. Senator Coleman and I have put in our request and soon expect that the President will be gracious enough to once again invite the teams and commend all those who play sports throughout the Nation, such as hockey, as they should be played--with all the enthusiasm and the best of their talent and ability, learning the values of sportsmanship, teamwork, competition. Sometimes they don't come out as well as they would like, but every once in a while they may reach the pinnacle of success of a national championship. I am sure the President would concur with that. Again, I salute my favorite teams in Minnesota. I yield the floor.