Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, Delaware is one of five States that has no sales tax. One might think as a result we have no dog in this fight. We do. I think we all do, whether we happen to be from a sales tax State or not. My colleague who spoke immediately before me said we haven't had hearings on this proposal. We have had discussion in this Chamber, in the House, in State houses across the country, certainly in Governors' meetings for the last 3 years. We don't need a hearing to know that States are under duress. Their economies are struggling. Their revenue growth is down and in some cases negative. Spending is up. Unemployment is up. Out-of-pocket costs for health care for Medicaid are up, and they are in between a rock and a hard place. We have been debating this week how can we help those States in their time of need. Some have said: Let's increase the Federal share for Medicaid. Others have said: Let's provide an extension of unemployment insurance and pay for it with Federal dollars. Others have said: Let's pass a stimulus package. Maybe we should provide a sales tax holiday and let the Federal Government pay for that--something I don't think is a good idea, but that has been put forward. A much better idea is the Enzi-Dorgan amendment that lies before us today, the product of many years work between the States, between Governors, mayors, county executives, legislators here, and previous administrations as well as the current administration. What does it do? Anybody listening to this debate has to be confused. This amendment provides for extensions of bans on multiple and discriminatory taxes for 5 years, and it extends the ban on access taxes permanently. That is what it does. What it also does is it empowers the States to work among themselves to see if 20 of them can agree on a simplified approach toward collecting taxes from remote sellers. If they can come to an agreement and provide that kind of a simplified approach, then that plan would come to us and we would have the opportunity to vote yes or no as to whether or not States can actually proceed. If we vote no, they can't proceed. Our voting for this amendment today, even if it ended up in the final bill signed by the President, would not authorize the collection of a sales tax by remote vendors. It simply sets in motion a process which could lead to another vote by us somewhere down the line. My last point: If you happen to be a brick and mortar vendor in a State and you have a sales tax and you are required to collect a sales tax and are selling a piece of luggage or a shirt or wallet, a CD player, and you have to collect sales taxes on those items and charge more for those items and there is somebody who is buying it remotely from another State, where are people going to shop? More and more they are shopping on the Internet. They are not going to the local vendor. It is not fair to the local vendor who is collecting the taxes that pay for the schools and public safety and transportation and other things. It is just not fair. One aspect of this amendment I am not comfortable with deals with Amazon.com and the eBay issue which I have discussed with Senators Enzi and Dorgan. I hope when we get to conference, we will have an opportunity to address those issues. I yield to Mr. Enzi for whatever time he consumes.

Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator for his assurances.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. My colleagues have heard me say a number of times, reflecting back on the last 8 years when I served as Governor of Delaware, that we always had in place a litmus test that we applied when we considered proposed tax cuts. The litmus test was that those proposed tax cuts should be fair. They should stimulate the economy and create jobs. They should simplify the Tax Code. And they should be consistent with a balanced budget. We need a similar set of guiding principles as we debate the stimulus package that is before us, and as it turns out there is such a set of guiding principles. The process of working out a bipartisan economic stimulus package began shortly after the attacks of September 11. The White House and congressional leaders from both parties met jointly and, in consultation with Chairman Greesnspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, they agreed upon a bipartisan set of principles for an affective and responsible package. Those principles were agreed to jointly by the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate budget committees, as well as by the Centrist Coalition here in the Senate. I stated at the outset of this process that I would use these bipartisan principles as my guide as we considered economic stimulus legislation here in the Senate. I have conveyed that message to all of my constituents who have written me on this subject or who have talked to me about the issue at town hall meetings. I also conveyed the same message very early on to Chairman Baucus and both leaders. Since this debate has, unfortunately, become much more partisan of late than it was in the beginning, it's helpful to look back at those bipartisan principles that we started with. Chairman Baucus deserves great credit for sticking to the spirit as well as the letter of those principles from beginning to end, even as he has come under great pressure from all sides. First, the bipartisan principles stated that a stimulus package should accomplish three objectives: restore consumer demand; increase business investment; and help those most vulnerable in an economic downturn. On the consumer side, the Baucus package provides, as the President has requested, rebate checks to the 45 million taxpayers who either did not get checks this fall or only got partial checks this fall. On the business side, the Baucus package provides specific tax incentives to encourage businesses to invest again in America and to do so immediately. In particular, the Baucus package includes a provision the President requested to allow businesses, large and small, to recover immediately a greater portion of their investment costs. In terms of assistance to those most affected by the current downturn, the Baucus plan provides help to those workers who have been laid off since September 11, in the way of an extension of unemployment insurance and an added hand in maintaining health coverage for themselves and their families. Additionally, the Baucus package provides assistance to the City of New York to help with that city's heroic efforts to recover and rebuild from the devastating events of September 11. Second, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated that a stimulus package should equal approximately one percent of GDP, including the fiscal impact of all of the various actions taken by Congress since September 11. The size of the Baucus package, at $70 billion over the next 12 months, is slightly less than the $75 billion requested by the President. On the other hand, when combined with the other measures passed since September 11, it is slightly more than the one percent of GDP proposed by Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin and agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the budget committees. Third, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated that measures included in a stimulus package should be limited in time, so as not to push up long-term interest rates and so as not to make permanent our recent reliance on the Social Security trust fund to make up for renewed on-budget deficits. The recommendation of the bipartisan leadership of the two budget committees was that all measures should sunset within one year. The sunsets in the Baucus package conform with that recommendation. Fourth and finally, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated that to keep the nation on track to pay off the national debt over the next decade, outyear offsets should make up over time for the cost of near-term economic stimulus. And this is really where Chairman Baucus deserves great credit. The cost of his plan over the next decade--the effect it will have on long-term interest rates and on our ability to finance the retirement of the baby boom generation--is one-third less than the stimulative impact of his plan over the next 12 months. This combination of significant short-term stimulus with relatively little long-term cost is precisely what the bipartisan leadership of the budget committees called for at the outset of this process, but it is easier said than done. Just consider that the package passed by our counterparts in the House is 60 percent more costly over the next decade than it is stimulative over the next 12 months, or that the alternative our friends on the other side of the aisle are offering here in the Senate is nearly 50 percent more costly over the next decade than it is stimulative over the next 12 months. I regret that this process has become as partisan as it has. I have been very heartened since September 11 to see the President and Members of Congress from both parties working together in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to craft commonsense solutions to the uncommon challenges facing our country. I believe deeply that the very best thing we could do right now to restore the confidence of consumers, investors, and business leaders alike would be to work together to pass a bipartisan economic stimulus package. I believe there is still an opportunity to come together across party lines and between the two chambers to achieve a reasonable compromise that will serve the best interests of the country and extend the spirit of bipartisan cooperation here in the Congress. The only way we can hope to reach agreement on the fine details at the end of the day, however, is if we remain true throughout the process to the broad principles that we agreed to at the outset. I believe that Chairman Baucus has kept faith with the bipartisan principles that were proposed by Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin and were agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the budget committees and by the Centrist Coalition. I believe that he has negotiated in good faith. For that reason, Chairman Baucus has my support. I hope he will have the support of all centrists here in the Senate, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise, too, to applaud the leadership given to us in the last several days by Senator Daschle and Senator Lott. Thirty years ago, I did not serve in this body; I served as a naval flight officer on the other side of the world, in a war that was not popular in this country. Those of us who served took our cues from those who served in this body with respect to the strength and support for our efforts from the American people and from our elected officials. The signals we received were not always encouraging ones. It is important today that those who are serving our country on the other side of the world in this war, flying in F-14s, helicopters, dropping food from C-17s, dropping munitions from B-52s and B-1s, special forces at work, the sailors and airmen and soldiers--it is important that we send to them, not just by our words but by our deeds today, a very clear message: There is a time for fear and there is a time for resolve. This is a time for resolve. Our resolve is being tested, and it is critically important that we meet that test. And we will. We are endeavoring to strike a balance, whether it is in Senator Daschle's office, Senate office buildings, the Capitol, or the House office buildings, to make sure we are being vigilant and careful and that we are mindful of their health and welfare. And we are. At the same time, let's remember we have a lot of work to do--not next year or the year after that; we have a lot of work to do this year. We have appropriations bills to pass to meet the needs of our Nation. We have compromises to hammer out on terrorism legislation, airport security, and rail security. We have legislation that is in conference on education, raising the achievement level of our students, and making sure there is a Patients' Bill of Rights that is fair to everybody in this country. We need to hammer out those compromises. We need an energy policy. We haven't had one in my adult life and, frankly, we need one now more than ever. We have plenty to do. The idea that some might suggest it is time for us to take leave from this place and go back to our States for a while is just absolutely the wrong approach to take. We need to stay here and stay on the job. There are some differences between the facts and the fiction being spread about what is happening on Capitol Hill. Others have spoken to it, and I want to mention it as well. Secretary Thompson told me this morning that we received lab test results of the substance opened up in the mail in Senator Daschle's office, and we got those results about 3 o'clock this morning. The bad news is that it is anthrax. The idea that somehow this is weapons grade is not correct. That is just not true. This is a substance that is susceptible to penicillin. This is a substance that is susceptible to Ciprofloxacin, just as other anthrax materials are susceptible. It can be treated. Let's take a worst case scenario. There have been reports that the ventilation system of the Hart Building is somehow contaminated with anthrax. That is just not so. Let's assume for a moment it is. Let's assume for a moment that everyone who works there, including Senators, has been exposed to anthrax, which is not true either. As it turns out, maybe 20 or 30 people have been exposed--not infected but exposed. If we had all been exposed and if, indeed, the ventilation system was chock full of anthrax--and it is not--what do we do about it? We simply take the antibiotics that kill the bacteria. That is what we do. Keep in mind, anthrax is something for which we can be vaccinated. If we come down with an illness, we can take antibiotics that will cure it. If I contract an illness related to anthrax, it does not mean to suggest Senator Dorgan or anybody else is going to become sick. It is not communicable. We not only need to keep this in mind in the Senate and on Capitol Hill, but the American people need to know. This is something we can contain, and this is something we can control. We have to stay calm, we have to stay cool, we have to be collected, and we are going to do that. The rest of the country is watching us to see how we respond in this time of duress. Certainly our military men and women around the world are watching us to see how we respond in this time of duress, during this threat to our Nation's Capitol. I presume whoever is sending these materials our way is watching us as well. They must be amused by the response they see from some. The response we need to send to the terrorists, those who would do us harm, as well as to our troops, soldiers, sailors, and airmen around the world, and the rest of the American people is that we will make sure that the people who work here are protected and are safe, but at the same time we are committed to doing and completing our Nation's business. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator for yielding. To Senator Biden, to Senator McCain, to Senator Hollings, and others who have been part of getting us to this rather extraordinary compromise and position to go forward on the authorizing track and on the appropriations track as well: Well done. Mario Cuomo, when he was Governor of New York, would talk about campaigning and governing. He used to say: We campaign in poetry, we govern in prose. Here in the Senate, here in Congress, we authorize in poetry, but we appropriate in prose. As important as this authorization is, and it is important that we get the authorization for work on the tunnels, for work on having more security onboard our trains and in our stations, and I think some help in refurbishing some of the older rolling stock, locomotives and cars that are needed to carry the extra people who are riding the trains now, as important as the authorizing is, the appropriations is where the rubber hits the road. I pledge to work with Senator Biden and Senator Hollings and Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison and others to make sure we get the work done, not just on the poetry side but the hard work on the prose side as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, as it turns out, I am pleased to be speaking immediately after the Senator from Alaska and thank him for the sentiments he shared with all of us. It is not the first time we have heard these sentiments, but it is a message he has delivered consistently. I have been in this body less than a year, as a new Member of the Senate. I came to the Senate as an old Governor, as did the Presiding Officer. And we, as Governors, tend to be more anxious to get things done. We are not so much interested in rhetoric, not so much interested in symbolism; we want results. We are not interested in process. We want product. Before I ever got into politics, before I moved to Delaware, I was a naval flight officer. I finished up my tour of duty in 1973. I moved to Delaware to go to the University of Delaware Business School on the GI bill. One of my first memories being in Delaware, 28 years ago, literally this month, was sitting in line to buy gasoline for my car because we were in the midst of an energy crisis--embargo--at the time and it was tough to buy gasoline. I thought, 28 years ago, we needed an energy policy for our country. Twenty-eight years later, we still need an energy policy for our country. We did not have one then; and we do not have one now. We have learned a number of difficult lessons coming out of the tragic events of September 11, but, for me, one of them is that, more than ever, we need a comprehensive energy policy that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil, that will enable us to provide more energy from within our own country--some of it from corn that is grown in Indiana, some of it from soybeans that are raised in Delaware, some of it from wind, and even some that is harvested from the Sun. We should seek energy from a variety of sources, as well as from the over 500 years of coal beneath the ground of this country, and from nuclear powerplants that provide roughly 20 percent of the electricity in this country. And in addition to producing new energy sources, we need to conserve energy. There is so much we can do to conserve energy, and not just with moving from internal combustion engines in our cars, trucks, and vans to hybrid-powered vehicles, to eventually, this decade, fuel cells. We can literally go out today and buy, off the shelf, air- conditioners that use half the electricity that most of the air- conditioners in our homes use. The same is true for the furnaces that will warm our homes this winter. The question before us now is, How do we proceed to an energy bill? How do we take it up? I have been urging my leadership, for months now, to take up an energy bill. My guess is, before I finish, my leader will regret having ever put me on the Energy Committee, but I want us to debate and report to this body, and to debate in this Chamber, an energy bill. I want to have a chance to do it this month. I want us to have a chance to vote up or down on Senator Murkowski's proposal of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I want us to have a chance to vote on a whole host of other issues. But I want us to debate them, and vote on them, and move on. I do not want the debate to be, in what form do we bring the bill to the floor? Do we go through the Energy Committee? Do we then go through the Finance Committee, and then the Environment and Commerce Committees because they have jurisdiction over different parts of the bill. I want to get the bill to the floor. And as we do, I want to make sure that the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Indiana, and others, have every opportunity to amend that bill in ways that are germane to the legislation that is before us. Debate them, vote them up or down, and move on. As it turns out, there is probably a lot more on this front that we agree on than we disagree on. One of the ways to find that out for sure is to have the debate. I pledge to my colleague from Alaska and my colleague from Indiana to do my dead-level best within the Democratic caucus, within the Energy Committee itself, and with my own leadership to make sure we have the opportunity to have fair and open debate on the amendments and a policy that we can then work out with the House and send something to the President to sign. We may actually have a chance of coming closer to producing a comprehensive energy policy by taking the approach Senator Daschle has now suggested. We may actually have a better chance of getting to the debate and the adoption of an energy bill than we would have had if we had gone to regular order. I was not so sure of that 24 hours ago, but having thought it through, I think we may enhance the chances for those of us who want a comprehensive energy policy. I ask all of my colleagues to work across the aisle, within the committees of jurisdiction, and in the Chamber, and have a good debate this month or next month and be ready to cast the tough votes and to move on. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and that my time will count against cloture.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today during this period of time when we are discussing the need for additional security for airports and airliners to again voice my strong support for the measures included in the legislation that is soon to be before us. Having said that, I also observe that this country has shown it is pretty good at fighting the last war in preparing to fight the next war. Those of us who are students of the history of World War I know that World War II was a lot different from World War I, and we only have to think of the Maginot Line to know how different it was. Korea was different from World War II; Vietnam was different from Korea; the Persian Gulf was different from Vietnam. We are now struggling in this war against terrorism to make sure the kinds of tragedies that occurred on September 11 do not occur again, and we should do that. If we look back at the history of the last several years with respect to terrorism, we had the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole last year as it was at anchor, and now the use of our own aircraft as guided missiles to be used against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Now as we prepare this fight against terrorism to fight the last war, to make sure no other hijacked aircraft can be flown into other targets, we need to remember there is a different element to this war, a different front to this war, and it is not just airplanes; it is not just airlines; it is not just airports. As the Presiding Officer knows, I travel to my State of Delaware most mornings and nights on the train. We are mindful of trains in our State. We do not have a commercial airport. We use Philadelphia or BWI for most of our commercial flights. A lot of people take the train. It is not just in Delaware. It is a lot of folks up and down the Northeast corridor; indeed, a lot of people around the country. During a given day, we have people who get on the trains in my State and some head south toward Washington and others head North toward New York City where they work or go for business or pleasure. In order to get into New York City, a train has to go through tunnels. There is a network of tunnels underneath New York City, underneath the waterways. Some of those tunnels are used by Amtrak, some are used by New Jersey Transit, some by the Long Island Railroad. Amtrak is a minority user of those tunnels. All told, I understand between 300,000 and 400,000 people a day ride trains, whether they are intercity passenger rail trains of Amtrak or commuter rails, transit trains--between 300,000 to 400,000 people a day go through those tunnels into New York City. Those tunnels were built during the Great Depression, between World War I and World War II. We have tunnels that are even older than that around Baltimore and indeed right here in our Nation's Capital, some of which go back to the administration, not of FDR, but of President Grant. I would like to stand before you and say each of those tunnels through which trains pass carrying hundreds of thousands of people every day is not a target for terrorists, but if they were, they are tunnels that are well ventilated, well lit, there are adequate provisions to detect those who might want to do damage to the tunnels or to people who use the trains. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The tunnels are not well ventilated. They are not well lit. They are not tunnels with good surveillance that would enable security officers to detect the movements of suspicious persons or materiel. As we prepare to fight the last war that grew out of the tragedies of September 11, I hope we will not forget those hundreds of thousands of people who are in those tunnels every day going in and out of New York City. I hope we will not forget the thousands of people who are in those tunnels every day beneath this city and beneath Baltimore. I am told, as far as passenger capacity aboard airplanes is concerned, there are about 150 people who can be seated aboard a 727 jetliner. The new Acela Express trains carry over 200 people. I am told the seating capacity aboard a 737 is roughly 150 people. The Metroliners that go up and down the Northeast corridor carry 225 people. A 747 aircraft can seat maybe 400 people. A conventional train, the Acela regional trains that go up and down the Northeast corridor, can seat up to 500 people. And a new 767 airliner can carry as many as 500 people. The Auto Train that goes from Lorton, VA, to Sanford, FL, near Disney World, carries 500 people and some 600 cars. My hope and my fervent prayer is that nothing ever happens to any of those people on any of the airliners again or any of the trains I talked about or the other commuter trains that work their way through the Northeast corridor and the cities around the country. I hope that is the case. That may not be the case. As we prepare to fight this next war, we need to keep in mind the Achilles heel with respect to security of passenger rail. A package has been put together addressing some of our biggest concerns for the safety of folks who are using trains. I will tell my colleagues one of the reasons I think this is important. Think back to what happened on September 11. One of the first things that happened was the airplanes that were ready to take off did not take off, and those in the air were ordered to land. As that happened, in the Northeast corridor Amtrak kept working. The first trains heading north from here pull out at 3:30 a.m. The first trains coming out of New York City heading south pull out at 3:30 a.m. As aircraft were downed across the country, Amtrak was running and carrying hundreds of people. When people could not get out of Montreal, Amtrak made provisions to get them where they needed to go in the United States. When O'Hare and Los Angeles shut down and the Postal Service was grounded, Amtrak carried over 200,000 carloads of mail, I am told. When people and planes around this country--Raleigh and Pittsburgh-- were grounded, Amtrak stepped in to move emergency personnel and equipment from one end of the country to the other where it was needed. My colleagues know the two Senators from Delaware are big supporters of passenger rail service. We think that is an important component of our national transportation policy. This is not an effort during this time of distress and fear to try to obtain extra funding for passenger rail service, although some suggest this is an appropriate time to do that. Instead, what we have in mind is to try to strategically pick a handful of items that need to be fixed in order to ensure, just as we are making travel for airline passengers safer, that we simultaneously make travel for rail passengers safer. What we are proposing to do is to rehabilitate those seven tunnels that go into Manhattan. We have, as was said earlier, old tunnels in Baltimore and in Washington as well. They all have the same problems. They need to be fixed, and we ought to get started fixing them. I have been riding trains lately that have Amtrak police officers on them. They are working extra shifts. They are working doubles. They are working a lot of extra hours. They cannot continue to do that forever. We need additional Amtrak police officers to meet the security burdens that are placed on them. We are going to have sky marshals on aircraft, and we ought to. We ought to have, in many cases, Amtrak police officers on our trains. We do not have enough of them to go around. More people are taking the train these days. It is not just here; it is the Texas Eagle, trains out on the west coast. It is trains all over the United States. It is the Acela Express trains, the Metroliners, conventional trains in the corridor and conventional trains all over the country. More people are riding rail, and my guess is more people will ride rail as we go forward. We need to make sure they are safe. In addition to more police officers, we need more canine and we need training for those officers who are going to be using the dogs. We need video equipment that allows Amtrak to monitor sensitive points along rail lines. We can do that remotely. We can do it effectively. It makes sense. We can use, and ought to have some beefing up of, the aerial inspections that are available to use with Amtrak. We can do it by day; we can do it by night. Some people have said to this Senator and to Senator Biden and others that they support making travel by rail safer; that it sounds like a good idea. But what they also say is this is not the time and place to do that. I say to my friends and colleagues who have made the offer of supporting legislation like this sometime further down the line, we have heard similar promises, literally, right in this Chamber about a year ago. We are now doing something for passenger rail further down the line, and we are a year further down the line. That which was supposed to have been done has not been done. What was supposed to have been done was the creation of high-speed rail corridors in places all around the country. It makes no sense to put people on an airplane to fly 150 miles, 200 miles in densely populated corridors where they could as efficiently, or more efficiently, take a train. That would make easier the security job, the safety job of the people running the airports. We ought to do that. We have not come back and addressed that question raised a year ago to enable us to work with State and local governments to create high- speed rail corridors. That is another issue. We are not going to talk about that. We are going to stay away from that. This is a different argument, but this is the right day, and this is the right place, to raise that argument. Passenger rail utilization is up probably 30 to 40 percent since September 11. Any number of the trains I have ridden in the corridor, every seat is full--Acela Express, Metroliners, conventional trains as well. We are seeing a similar kind of jump in ridership around the country. A lot of the people riding those trains used to fly airplanes. They are now on a train because they feel safer, maybe because it is more convenient. I want to make sure they feel safer, not just continue to feel safer but to make sure they are safer because we will take right now the kind of steps to protect their safety, just as we are taking steps to protect the safety of those who would fly in their 727s, 737s, 747s, or 767s. This is the time, this is the place, this is the legislation on which we should debate these issues and we should approve them. We should affirm them and we should put these safety precautions in place for passengers on rail as we do the passengers of airlines. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the resolution that is before us. The first time I saw Vietnam was from a P-3 naval aircraft about 31 years ago this year. Twenty-one years would actually pass from that time before I set foot on Vietnamese soil. Many times in the early 1970s my aircrew and I flew over Vietnam, around Vietnam, and landed in bases in that region. I never set foot on Vietnamese soil until 1991. At that time, I was a Member of the House of Representatives and led a congressional delegation that included five other United States Representatives, all of whom served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. We went at a time when many believed that U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen were being held--after the end of the war--in prison camps. We went there to find out the truth as best we could. What we encountered, to our surprise, was a welcoming nation. We visited not only Vietnam but Cambodia and Laos. In Vietnam, we found, to our surprise, a welcoming nation. Most of the people who live in Vietnam are people who were born since 1975, since the Government of South Vietnam fell to the North. For the most part--not everyone--but for the most part, they like Americans, admire Americans, and want to have normal relations with our country. Our delegation also included U.S. Congressman Pete Peterson from Florida. Our delegation took with us, to those three nations, a roadmap, a roadmap that could lead to normalized relations between the United States and, particularly, Vietnam. Our offer was that if the Vietnamese would take certain steps, particularly with respect to providing information in allowing us access to information about our missing in action, we would reciprocate and take other steps as well. We laid out the roadmap. We assured the Vietnamese that if they were to do certain things, we would not move the goalposts but we would reciprocate. They did those certain things, and we reciprocated. In 1994, former President Clinton lifted the trade embargo between our two countries. Think back. It has been 50 years, this year, since the United States has had normal trade relations with Vietnam--50 years. In 1994, the embargo, which had been in place for a number of years, was lifted. I had the opportunity to go back to Vietnam a few years ago as Governor of Delaware. I led a trade delegation to that country. What I saw in 1999 surprised me just as much as being surprised when we were welcomed in 1991. I will never forget driving from the airport to downtown Hanoi and being struck by the number of small businesses that had cropped up on either side of the highway that we traversed. It was a fairly long drive, and everywhere we looked small businesses had popped up to provide a variety of services and goods to the people. The Government leaders with whom we met talked about free enterprise. They talked about how the marketplace, and finding ways to use the marketplace, might allow them to better meet the needs of their citizens, how it would enable them to become a more important trading partner in that part of the world, and for them to be a nation with less poverty and with greater opportunities for their own citizens. Vietnam today is either the 12th or 13th most populous nation in the world. Some 80 million people live there. There are a number of reasons why I believe this resolution is in our interest, and I will get into those reasons in a moment, but I want to take a moment and read the actual text of this resolution. It is not very long. It says: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam transmitted by the President to the Congress on June 8, 2001. Negotiations on the bilateral trade agreement before us began in 1996 or 1997. We have been at this for almost 5 years. It was negotiated by Pete Peterson who became our Ambassador and was part of our congressional delegation 10 years ago. Pete did a wonderful job as Ambassador, and I give him a lot of credit for having hammered out the provisions of this bilateral trade agreement. The agreement was concluded a year ago in an earlier administration and has been sent to us by President Bush for our consideration. There are a number of reasons that former President Clinton and his administration thought this was a good idea for America. There are a number of similar reasons that President Bush and his administration believe this agreement is a good one for America. First, it acknowledges that Vietnam is a big country, a populous country, and one that is going to play an ever more important role in that part of the world and in the world. It has 80 million people, mostly under the age of 30, for the most part people who like us, admire us, who want to have a good relationship with the United States despite our very troubled relations over the last half century. Those markets that now exist in Vietnam have not been especially open to us. Sure, we have had the ability to sell over the years more and more goods and services, including a fair amount of high-technology equipment and goods. They now sell a number of items to us. We buy those. But they have in place barriers to our exports, and we have barriers to their exports. We will create jobs in this country, and they will create jobs in their country, if we will lift the import restrictions here and there, reduce the quotas dramatically and the tariffs. This provision does that, not just for them but for us. To the extent that we can sell more goods and services there, we benefit as a nation, and we will. A number of countries in that part of the world do not respect intellectual property rights. Vietnam is not among the worst offenders in that regard. But there are problems in this respect. This agreement will take us a lot closer to where we need to be in protecting intellectual property rights, not just of Americans but of others around the world. On my last visit to Vietnam, in the meetings we had with their business and government leaders, we talked a lot about transparency and how difficult it was for those who would like to invest in Vietnam, do business in Vietnam, to go through their bureaucracy. Their bureaucrats make ours look like pikers. They are world class in terms of throwing up roadblocks and making things difficult for investment to occur. This agreement won't totally end that, but it will sure go a long way toward permitting the kind of investments American companies want to make and ought to be able to make in Vietnam and, similarly, to reciprocate and provide their business people, their companies, the opportunity to invest in the United States. There is something to be said for regional stability as well. Vietnam can contribute to regional stability if their economy strengthens and they move toward a more free market system. Or they can be a contributor to destabilization. This agreement will better ensure they are a more stable country and able to promote stability within the region. Others have raised concerns today about alleged continuing abuses in human rights and the denial of freedom of religion, insufficient progress toward democratization. There is more than a grain of truth to some of that. Religious leaders are not given the kinds of freedoms that our leaders have. The Vatican declared last year that as far as they are concerned, freedom to worship is no longer a problem in Vietnam. They open kindergartens now and they teach the catechisms as much as they are taught here in Catholic-sponsored kindergartens. When I was there in 1991, they still had reeducation camps. They no longer have those. They have been replaced for the most part by drug rehabilitation facilities. Much has been made today of the reaction of the Vietnamese to the horrors here 22 days ago, September 11. The truth is, the Vietnamese press has been overwhelmingly sympathetic to the American people and to those who lost loved ones on September 11. Their government leaders provided, literally within days, a letter of deep condolences to our President to express their abhorrence for what happened in our Nation. With respect to terrorism, if anything, Ambassador Peterson shares with me that they have been helpful to us in working on terrorist activities and providing not only information that is valuable to us but giving us the opportunity to reciprocate. He suggests they may have actually been a better partner at this transfer of information than we have. Finally, the freedom to emigrate. I recall 10 years ago there were difficulties people encountered trying to emigrate to this country or other countries from Vietnam. Today, for the most part, passports are easily obtained. If a person wants to go to to Australia, to the Philippines, to the United States, if they don't have criminal records or other such problems in their portfolio, they are able to get those passports and travel. Let me conclude with this thought: I think in my lifetime, the defining issue for my generation, certainly one of the defining issues, has been our animosity toward Vietnam, the war we fought with Vietnam, a war which tore our country apart. That war officially ended 26 years ago. A long healing process has been underway since then in Vietnam and also in this country. We have come a long way in that relationship over the last 26 years. So have the Vietnamese. We have the potential today to take that last step in normalizing relations, and that is a step we ought to take. Vietnam today is no true democracy. They still have their share of problems. So do we, and so does the rest of the world. But I am convinced that if we adopt this resolution and agree to this bilateral trade agreement, it will move Vietnam a lot further and a lot faster down the road to a true free enterprise system. With those economic freedoms will come, more surely and more quickly, the kind of political freedoms we value and would want for their people just as much we cherish for our people. With those thoughts in mind, I conclude by saying to our old colleague--the Presiding Officer also served with Congressman Peterson--later the first United States Ambassador to Vietnam: I will never forget when I visited him a year or two ago on our trade mission, he and his wife Vi were good enough to host a dinner for our delegation at the residence of the Ambassador. And as we drove to the Embassy the next day, we drove by the old Hanoi Hotel. The idea that an American flier who had spent 6 and a half years as a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hotel would return 25, 30 years later to be America's first Ambassador to that country in half a century, the idea that that kind of transformation could occur was moving to me then, and it is today. There is another kind of transformation that has occurred in our relationship with Vietnam and within Vietnam as well, a good transformation, a positive transformation, one that we can reaffirm and strengthen by a positive vote today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I retain my time. Whether this is germane or not I don't know, but I know the issue is relevant and it is an important issue for our country and for this body. It is my hope, speaking to my friend and our leader from Nevada, that before we leave here we will have taken up and passed a comprehensive energy policy for our country, which we desperately need.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on a matter of strategic airlift capability, but I do not want to get in the way of the sense- of-the-Senate amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I would like to say this, if I could. Obviously, we are not going to vote on the energy package that the House passed as an amendment to this bill. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have spoken. I don't think that is appropriate. Having said that, if we have not learned any other lesson from the events of 3 weeks ago, I hope we have learned that this country needs an energy policy. I finished my active-duty tour of the Navy in 1973 and went to the University of Delaware on the GI bill. My first recollection of being in Newark, DE, was sitting in a line trying to buy gas for my car. That was 28 years ago. We did not have an energy policy then; we don't have an energy policy today; and we need one today a lot more than we did then. Mr. President, 28 years ago about a third of the oil we consumed in this Nation was coming from places outside of our Nation's border. Today it is almost 60 percent, and we still have no energy policy. My hope is that by the time we adjourn from this first session later this year, we will have taken up the legislation we are working on in the Energy Committee on which I serve and be in a position to go to conference with the House on a very important matter.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I say from this side of the aisle that we welcome the decision not to challenge the bill so that we can go forward. The points the Senator made are well taken. Our Nation's trade deficit this year will exceed $300 billion. We consume oil from other places around the world. As sure as we are meeting here today, some of those billions of dollars we are paying for oil from other sources-- including from places where people do not like us very much--are surely going to fuel the kind of terrorism which happened 3 weeks ago this morning for a whole host of reasons. I pledge to work with my friend from Oklahoma and others on the Energy Committee to get this legislation moving and out of committee. There is a lot on which we can agree. ANWR may be one. On some points we disagree. A lot we can agree on. We need to do that and move. I really want to say this morning a word or two with respect to the Defense authorization bill as it pertains to our strategic defense capability. The tragedy of 3 weeks ago this morning left many dead. There are a number of uncertainties that grow out of those attacks: Who planned them? Who executed them? Who funded them? Who supported them? Who harbors the terrorists today? How will we respond? Amid those uncertainties, there are a number of things we know for sure. They include the fact that this war is going to be unlike any war we have fought in my lifetime and before--unlike World War II, in which many of our fathers served, unlike Korea, unlike Vietnam, where my generation served, and unlike the Persian Gulf war barely a decade ago. This we know: Our success in this war against terrorism will depend on many factors: The readiness of our forces we are deploying; Our ability in gathering the support of the other civilized nations of the world to join us in this war; The quality of the intelligence, the reliability of the intelligence that we gather and that we receive from others with whom we work; Our ability to understand our intelligence and to act effectively in a timely manner in response to that intelligence; Our ability to deploy covert operations and do so successfully. And our success in the world also depends in no small part on our ability to move quickly at a moment's notice large numbers of men and women and materiel from the United States to other parts of the world. There are many military bases around the world, out of which I used to operate as a naval flight officer, that are closed today. While we work with nations that are sympathetic to our cause against terrorists in order to try to secure air space and to try to secure airfields to use, the fact of the matter is we simply don't have the bases to deploy troops that we used to at airfields and ports. We depend more than ever on an air bridge that is going to be comprised of C-17s and on an air bridge that will be comprised of C-5s. When I was a member of the active-duty forces, even though I was in the Navy, I flew a fair amount on C-141s, a transport aircraft that the Air Force uses. They are the workhorse for the Air Force. C-5s were introduced, and we had a combination of the C-141 and the C-5 to provide an air bridge in earlier wars. The C-141 is old today. It is being retired. Its place is being taken by the C-17, a terrific aircraft. The C-17 carries about half the load of a C-5. While it has pretty good legs and can travel a pretty long distance, it doesn't have the legs or the ability to travel far distances that the C-5 enjoys. The C-5 has been with us more than two decades--C-5As and now C-5Bs. The aircraft is about half the age of the B-52. I was struck when we started to ratchet up to see B-52s being called on again to serve our Nation. It has been around 50 years and is still ready to work for us. The C-5, having half the years and age of the B- 52, is certainly able to work a bit longer alongside the C-17. Someone gave me a sheet of paper today with a picture of the C-5. This picture shows some idea of the life remaining in the C-5 with respect to its ability to play a major role in our strategic airlift capability. The fuselage is good for another 30-plus years; stabilizers, another 40-plus years; wing service, over 50 years; the fuselage, another 50-plus years; forward fuselage, there is plenty of durability left in the C-5 aircraft. There are two things the C-5 needs in order for us to be able to maximize its effectiveness in this war and in any other war that may come our way over the next 40 years. One is an avionics package. When you sit in the cockpit of the C-5 and look at the instrumentation, you think you are looking at a plane that is 25 years old; and you are. The aircraft needs a new avionics package. The bill before us today provides a very substantial step to enable us to put that avionics package in place in the C-5 to enhance its capability. Another major component of this bill deals with the engines that are mounted on the wings of the C-5. Most of the new airliners that are flying in our skies and around the world today have engines that can generally fly for 10,000 hours before they need to be changed. The engines on the C-5s, which I said earlier are over 20 years old, those engines need to be changed about every 2,500 hours. We need to reengine, if you will, the C-5s. If we do that, with modern engine technology, we will be able to get 10,000 hours between engine changes, as they do in the commercial fleets. The combination of those two steps--to introduce into and incorporate into our C-5 aircraft, the C-5As and C-5Bs, a modern avionics package, and to also reengine the aircraft in years going forth--will enable us to fully benefit from the 30 or 40 years that are still left in those planes. There are a lot of air miles to be traveled, a lot of troops to be carried, a lot of tanks and helicopters and trucks to be moved. The C-5 and the C-17 can do it. With the adoption of this legislation, our air bridge from this country to other troubled points around the world will be reinforced and made stronger for this generation and for generations to come. I yield back my time, Mr. President.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement adopted a few minutes ago, no further amendments are in order. Senator Torricelli, Senator Biden, and I have expressed a strong interest in an issue that cannot be addressed on the floor through amendment and, as it turns out, may not need to be offered through an amendment. I want to take a moment to speak to that before we come to the vote. Before doing so, I again compliment Senator Levin, the Chairman of the committee, and the ranking Republican, Senator Warner, helping us to navigate through some difficult waters as we come to the close of debate on this bill. The issue that Senator Torricelli and Senator Biden and I expressed concern about involves the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense, it turns out, is the only consumer of a military grade propellant which is manufactured through a joint venture between two companies, General Dynamics Ordnance Tactical Systems and Alliant Techsystems. Previously, nitrocellulose, which is used to make this propellant had been provided to General Dynamics by two sources: Alliant Techsystems, and Expro, Inc. Green Tree Chemical Technologies, which it turns out has operations in the State of the Presiding Officer and is headquartered in the State of Delaware, provided Expro with base components used to manufacture nitrocellulose. Since the joint venture with Alliant Technologies, General Dynamics terminated their contract with Expro, Inc. Concerns have been expressed by Green Tree Technologies that with the current joint venture we would end up with a sole source provider for nitrocellulose. This propellant is used to make, among other things, weapons; and if there is only one provider of nitrocellulose we may put ourselves in some jeopardy as a nation if we should lose that one source. There are further concerns that have been raised with respect to possible antitrust violations. For this reason, the Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation concerning the joint venture between General Dynamics and Alliant Techsystems. Since the Department of Defense is the only purchaser of military-grade nitrocellulose, they have the determining role in whether or not the FTC moves forward with their review. Senator Torricelli prepared an amendment. It is not going to be offered, but it is an amendment that says we need the Department of Defense, specifically the Army, to signal to the FTC that they have an understanding of the concerns over the possible antitrust issues and concerns over permitting this joint venture to go forward, limiting ourselves to one source for nitrocellulose. The amendment encourages the Department of Defense to express its view of the Federal Trade Commission investigation within 30 days of enactment. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense will formally indicate their view of the FTC investigation in the coming week. What we had sought to accomplish through amendment appears to have been accomplished without the adoption of this amendment, which I believe is good news, not just for Green Tree Technologies, but I think it is good news for the Department of Defense and ultimately for the taxpayers of this country. With sign off from the Department of Defense, the FTC is free to move forward and to make whatever rulings or decisions they see fit. While the amendment will not be offered, I want to say to Senator Torricelli, thank you very much for raising this issue and providing the leadership here in the Senate for the committee to make sure we address these matters.

Mr. CARPER. And Senator Biden.

Mr. CARPER. Very briefly, again to Senator Warner, I understand the difficult position he and Senator Levin found themselves in with respect to germaneness. I thank Senator Levin very much for the assurances he has given us. We look forward to working with the Senator to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am compelled to rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky and to join with the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Arizona and others who have spoken eloquently and effectively on this point. For 23 years of my life, I was not a Senator but was a naval flight officer, and I served as commission commander of Navy aircraft. We saw a lot in the news earlier this year about this. I have been stationed on bases that did not get much support. As the Senator from Rhode Island suggested, it is not an enviable position to be in--either professionally in terms of supporting your mission, your aircraft, or whatever weapons systems with which you operate. And it is not an especially satisfying position to be in for the families of those who are assigned to those bases because you don't get the kind of support for your child care development centers, and you don't get the kind of support for your family-related activities on those bases. Several people rose today to say there are cost savings that flow out of base realignment and closures. Just take the figures that were estimated by the previous two speakers: Savings of $15 billion to $16 billion by 2001, and annual savings going forward of about $6 billion per year. Let's say those figures are not right. Let's say they overstate by half the amount of money that has been saved and will be saved. It was suggested that we have already saved anywhere between $7.5 billion to $8 billion, and that going forward we might expect to save another $3 billion each year. What would we do with that money? There are plenty of things to spend it on in this Defense authorization bill. I will just mention a few of them: Fighter aircraft that we are anxious to build; military airlift capability; cargo aircraft--either anxious to build or upgrade and improve--helicopters that need to be replaced, and ships. Earlier we heard from the Senator from Alabama that 315 Navy ships continue to diminish. We need to build ships to replace those that are being decommissioned. We need to build submarines as well. The President and others support the idea of developing and deploying a national missile defense system which will cost tens of billions of dollars. But even if we set aside those weapons systems and simply consider the aircraft and the ships that stay on the ground, with the helicopters that stay on the ground that are used just for cannibalization--we steal their spare parts to keep other ships and other aircraft and other helicopters flying, the ships that aren't going to sea simply because they lack the spare parts that enable them to carry out their missions. It has been suggested that in the wake of the tragedies in the last 2 weeks--the terrorist attacks in New York and Virginia--somehow keeping military bases that are unutilized or underutilized open will enable us to be more vigilant against our enemies. I just do not see it. I just do not see it that way. The language in the legislation before us today does not mandate the establishment of a base realignment commission. It provides the discretion to the President and to our Secretary of Defense, if they see fit, to appoint the members to serve on a commission. As Senator McCain has suggested, the language in this legislation is crafted in a way to take the politics out of whatever might be done with respect to base realignment. If the President and if the Secretary of Defense elected to use the discretion provided for them in this legislation, they would ultimately establish the commission, and that commission would ultimately come back to us in this body and in the House of Representatives in order to have the final say, the final word, as to whether or not the bases recommended for closure be closed. We have the final word. I believe it is prudent for us, in a day and age when we do have substantial needs for additional weapons systems--upgraded weapons systems, and to make the ones we already have workable--to look for some opportunities to save not just a few dollars but a substantial number of dollars. The potential in this bill, with this approach, is very real. With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the language the committee has reported out, and also to support our President and our Secretary of Defense, as well as our military leaders, who have sought just this kind of authorization. I yield back my time.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the passing of a wonderful woman, mother, and American. Sarah Mae Shoemaker Calhoon died on July 7, 2001 outside of Columbus, OH, (Hilliard), after a courageous battle with cancer. Mrs. Calhoon was 75 years old. Mrs. Calhoon was born on August 31, 1925 in Philadelphia, PA to the late Samuel and Sarah Mae Shoemaker. She spent her childhood in Philadelphia, where she would graduate from Cheltenham High School. On August 29, 1947, just two days before her 22nd birthday, Sarah Mae Shoemaker was married to J. Thomas Calhoon, a Marine from Grandview Heights, a suburb of Columbus, OH. The new Mr. and Mrs. Calhoon had their first child, Thomas F. or ``little'' Tom as they often called him early in their marriage. In September of 1948, Tom, Sarah, and ``little'' Tom moved to Columbus, OH, where, over the next four years they would become the proud parents of three more sons, Sam, Don, and Bob. Their only daughter, Susie, would be born in April of 1961. Although I did not know Sarah Mae Calhoon personally, I have known her son Tom for more than half of my life. We met as undergraduates at the Ohio State University in the 1960s and have been fraternity brothers for more than three decades. Despite living so far from each other, Tom and I have managed to keep in touch over the years. It is often said that all children are a reflection of their parents. If Tom is even a faint reflection of his mother, it is a great tribute to the values she carried throughout her life and instilled in her children. Since her recent passing, I have heard and read many wonderful things about Sarah Mae Calhoon. I have learned about her strong commitment to the community of Columbus, whether it be through her active membership in a variety of organizations like the PTA, 4-H, the Lions Auxiliary or in her unofficial role as the ``zoning watchdog'' of the Calhoon's neighborhood on Old Cemetery Road. I have read about her great success as a multi-million dollar producer in the real estate industry. I have heard, from both former customers and competitors alike, about the dedication, loyalty, and integrity that she brought to her job every day. Most importantly, however, I have learned about her unfailing commitment to being a mother and wife. Nothing was more precious to Sarah Calhoon than her family and she did all she could to ensure that all of her children grew up in a loving and nurturing environment that would enable them to go on to lead valuable and fulfilling lives. She consistently put the needs, concerns and feelings of her family and others, before her own wishes, never asking for much but always giving a great deal. Her life served as an example, providing inspiration to women everywhere struggling to maintain the careful balance between career and family, a task that she carried out with admirable grace and skill. Everything that I have learned about Sarah Mae Calhoon since her death has only confirmed what I had always pictured my good friend Tom's mother would be like: the epitome of an exemplary wife, mother, business woman, and citizen. In closing, I would like to extend my greatest condolences to her husband, their five children, seven grandchildren, and countless others whose lives were touched by this wonderful woman. As we celebrate her remarkable life, let it be known that Sarah Mae Calhoon will be dearly missed, yet never forgotten.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, during the course of the past week, we have witnessed extraordinary acts of bravery: aboard the aircraft that were hijacked, at the World Trade Center Towers, and at the Pentagon. In addition, we have witnessed extraordinary acts of kindness by people from all walks of life in this Nation who have reached into their own pockets and hearts and sought to comfort those who have lost loved ones, who sought to donate something of their own, including their blood and money, to assist those who have suffered egregious losses. Earlier this afternoon, I visited the Dover Air Force Base in the State of Delaware and spent time at the mortuary where the bodies of scores of victims of the crash and tragedy at the Pentagon are being taken. There I had the opportunity to thank men and women--active duty reservists, members of the National Guard, and civilians--who have come from all across the country in order to try to identify the remains of those who lost their lives in the crash at the Pentagon, in order to try to be able to provide to families who lost loved ones a sense of closure, to be able to take the remains of their husband, wife, son, or daughter and to be able to give them a proper funeral, to lay them to rest at their final resting place with dignity. The job is as difficult and challenging as perhaps any job that has been undertaken in the wake of these tragedies. I want to express on behalf of not just the people of Delaware and those of us in my State who are affected, but people throughout the country who are touched and have lost a relative, a loved one, who will have that sense of closure because of the efforts going on today, yesterday, last week, and the days to follow at the Dover Air Force Base. We are fortunate in this country to have so many heroes and heroines. As I speak some of them are working in the central part of the second smallest State in America. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 5 minutes.