Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I note there are other sense-of-the-Senate amendments in this legislation. I will at the end of my statement ask consent that we consider waiving points of order. Let me describe what the amendment is and why I have offered the amendment. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer from New York. The Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry into the intelligence community activities before and after the terrorist attacks of September 2001 finished its work. This past summer, when the report was finally authorized for release by the administration, we discovered that the report, which took 9 months to write and 7 months to declassify, contained 28 pages that had been redacted by White House lawyers. I will quote a couple of people, one who is in the Chamber now. I will quote Senator Shelby and Senator Graham, the chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee while this inquiry was underway. As I indicated, 28 pages of this report were redacted by White House lawyers. That means the American public cannot see what was in that report. We will have no knowledge and no information about what was contained in that rather exhaustive report. The Bush administration has refused to declassify these pages, citing concern for intelligence-gathering ``sources and methods.'' I don't think that is an insignificant issue, by the way. I think intelligence gathering and the sources and methods for doing so are important. But it is also important, it seems to me, to ask the question, Should these 28 pages have been redacted? Should the 28 pages have been outside the view of the American people, given the fact that this report was done in order to evaluate what happened leading up to 2001, what was happening with respect to our intelligence community, what was happening with respect to other countries? There has been a great deal of speculation about Saudi Arabia. It is assumed that somehow in these pages there is discussion about the Saudis. The Saudi Government is implicated by some because 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Even the leaders of the Saudi Government, who some have said are the object of the redacted pages, want it declassified. They are angry and embarrassed at being singled out and want to defend themselves, and therefore they want this declassified. How much of the 28 pages could be declassified? Senators Graham and Shelby, the former chair and cochair of the Intelligence Committee who directed the report are quoted saying the following: ``I think they are classified for the wrong reason,'' the former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``I went back and read every one of those pages thoroughly. My judgment is 95 percent of that information should be declassified and become uncensored so the American people would know.'' Asked why the section was blacked out, Shelby said: ``I think it might be embarrassing to international relations.'' Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who was the chairman of the committee investigating this, also called for declassification. He said releasing the report would permit ``the Saudi Government to deal with any questions which may be raised in the currently censored pages and allow the American people to make their own judgment about who are our true friends and allies in the war on terrorism.'' Senator Graham made that request in a letter to President Bush. This is a very important issue and it has gone on for months and months and months. This report was developed after an extensive amount of study and investigation. The report was then published after being edited by the Bush administration and the White House. And a rather substantial portion of that report--most speculate dealing with the Saudis--was censored, classified, or redacted. That is, the American people are not permitted to see that which is included in the report on those 28 pages. Again, the chairman and vice chairman of the committee that led or that directed the preparation of this report say most of that information of the 28 pages should be declassified, implying, I believe, since they are not quoted directly, that declassifying that would not compromise sources and methods and not compromise our intelligence community. My hope is that the Senate, with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, will weigh in on this in a very significant way and say to the administration these 28 pages should be made available. Now, in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I point out that it is the sense of the Senate that in light of the findings--and I have a series of findings--the President should declassify the 28-page section of the joint inquiry into intelligence community activities before and after the terrorist attacks of 2001 that deal with the foreign sources of support for the 9/11 hijackers and that only those portions of the report that would directly compromise ongoing investigations or reveal intelligence sources or methods should remain classified. In point of fact, those whose expert opinions I respect have said they have read the redacted or the censored or classified portions very carefully and believe most of it should not have been classified; most of it should have been made available to the American people. If that is the case, and if the Saudi Government itself has said this information ought to be declassified, let us deal with it on the public record. Then I believe the American people ought to expect a right to see this information. My hope is we will have a vote on this amendment, a sense-of-the- Senate amendment that will allow the Senate in this forum to send a message to the President and to the White House that we believe the bulk of this 28-page redaction should be made available to the American people posthaste. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a few additional comments. My colleague from Florida is in a very unique position. Having worked with his colleague from Alabama, Senator Graham and Senator Shelby provided a great public service as they initiated this inquiry. The inquiry, as described by my colleague in part, is an evaluation of whether there were other governments that participated in supporting groups of terrorists who committed acts of terror against this country. The answer to that question is very important. My colleague indicates that if such a program were in place or had been in place by another government to support groups of terrorists, what leads us to believe that parts of that program are not continuing to still operate and, therefore, continue to threaten our country? The very important question with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is: Should we not have the ability to know, should full disclosure not be the routine rather than the exception? Should the 28 pages that have been withheld from the American people be made available to them so we all are able to evaluate exactly the same set of information? My conclusion is, yes, absolutely. It ought to be done sooner rather than later. I have been intending to offer two amendments to this appropriations bill. One dealt with this sense of the Senate which I have just offered. The second dealt with a sense of the Senate with respect to the cooperation that is now being received or lack of cooperation by the 9/11 Commission, the other commission that is headed by former Governor Kean that is looking into 9/11 and the relationship of a series of issues, both prior to 9/11 and following, by our intelligence community and others. One of my great concerns is reading in the newspapers just in recent days about the 9/11 Commission. This is a blue-ribbon commission. One of our former colleagues, Senator Cleland, is on the Commission. It is a commission that has to finish its work by May of next year. It has a relatively short timeframe. Now we hear that they have had to issue a subpoena to one of the Federal agencies to get them to cooperate giving information to them. There were other stories yesterday and the day before. They are concerned about not getting information from the White House. We are not going to be satisfied until we have everything we need to do our job. Governor Kean says--he is a former Republican Governor from New Jersey--this is not about politics. It is about a blue-ribbon commission having access to all of the information so it can do its job. I find it unbelievable that any agency or crevice or any corner of this Government would not open its records and provide full and immediate cooperation with the 9/11 Commission. That is the least we should expect of every single agency. They have had to subpoena information from the FAA and yet they are not getting information from the White House that they are requesting. Kean said in an interview that he will resume negotiations with the White House this week and hopes to reach a resolution one way or the other on documents the panel is seeking. The Commission has the power to issue subpoenas and Kean says he does not rule out sending one to the White House. Why should we read this in the papers? I don't understand it. There ought not be any agency, including the White House, that does not fully cooperate in every respect immediately with the request for information from this 9/11 Commission. We have had two studies, one initiated by the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is the one that was the focus of my first amendment. The second was to have been the focus of the second amendment. Both were sense of the Senate--first, to declassify the information so that the American people will be able to see what was there. Don't censor this material; give the American people information. The second is to say to all Federal agencies, cooperate with the 9/11 Commission fully, completely, and immediately. Now, my understanding is, having consulted with the majority, they will raise a point of order against the amendment I have offered just moments ago because it is ``legislating on an appropriations bill.'' My second amendment would be the same. They would make a point of order against them, and the point of order would stand, I expect. So when such a point of order is made, I will regret it. I understand those are the rules of the Senate. But on the very next piece of legislation that comes to the floor--and I believe one is coming later this week that is an amendable vehicle and is a nonappropriations bill--we will vote on both of these sense-of-the-Senate amendments. I might also say that while a point of order will be raised on these, there are sense-of-the-Senate provisions, I believe, in the underlying bill, or sense-of-the-Senate provisions to be added to it. I will not raise similar points of order. My hope is that all Senators will join me in understanding that this is not partisan or political, it is about this country's interests--our interests in preventing future acts of terrorism, our interests in finding out what happened, what went wrong, and how we can improve the intelligence-gathering system in this country. Who did what? Were foreign governments involved? If so, which ones and to what extent? These questions need to be answered. Both of my resolutions are designed to do one thing--provide more information to the American people, No. 1; No. 2, to ask every corner of our Government in every official working of this Government to decide that they will completely, cooperatively, and immediately work with the 9/11 Commission to provide the requested information. We ought not to have to come to the Senate floor to ask why the White House, the FAA, or this or that agency has not already fully cooperated with the 9/11 Commission. It is in this country's interest to see that happen. Mr. President, I ask for consideration of my amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. I asked for consideration of my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we waive points of order and have my amendment be considered.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I hereby provide notice that I intend to move to suspend rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate for my amendment No. 2000. (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'') (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Let me again point out I offered a first-degree amendment. My colleague, Senator Craig, has offered a second-degree amendment. I now yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Craig, on behalf of other colleagues, including Senator Enzi from Wyoming--and I will send the list to the desk in a few moments-- has offered an amendment this morning that deals with a recognized controversial subject but, nonetheless, a very important subject. It deals with the right of the American people to travel freely. It deals with the issue of travel to Cuba. I want to describe to you why this amendment, which is bipartisan--three Democrats and three Republicans are offering this amendment and the second-degree amendment--is important and exactly what the amendment does. First, what does the amendment do? This amendment is identical to an amendment that was passed by the House of Representatives--identical. It is the same wording, and the House of Representatives very simply said the Office of Foreign Asset Control shall not use funds in this bill to enforce the travel ban with respect to Cuba. Let me explain why that is important. The travel ban with respect to the country of Cuba is unique and different than other travel circumstances or restrictions that exist. We have over the years indicated that the best approach for dealing with Communist countries is engagement. We have a great debate in the Congress about how do we deal with Communist China. We say: Engage them in trade and travel; engage them; engagement is constructive. The same is true with Vietnam, a Communist country. Engagement through travel and trade inevitably will lead them toward a more open society, democratic reforms, and market systems. So we have said engagement is constructive, and engagement with China and Vietnam is something that has been a part of the philosophy of this Congress and Presidents for some long while now. Frankly, it has been constructive. I think it has produced results. The different issue here is with respect to Cuba. We have had an embargo on Cuba for 40 years, through Republican and Democratic Presidents. We slapped an embargo on trade and travel in Cuba. Now we have lifted the veil just a bit with respect to trade, and we are able to sell some food in the Cuban marketplace, and the Cubans are required to pay cash for that food. For the first time in 42 years, we are actually selling food in Cuba. Twenty-two train car loads of dried peas left North Dakota farms to go to Cuba, paid for with cash. That makes sense. It doesn't make sense to have an embargo on food. I never felt it made any sense for anybody to slap an embargo on food. Food should not be used as a weapon in foreign policy. So we have opened the restrictions just a bit. The other issue is travel in Cuba. As the Presiding Officer and my colleagues know, we have a restriction on travel. We do not allow the American people, except by a specific license, to travel in Cuba. Currently, American citizens are banned from traveling in Cuba. That is different than virtually anywhere else in the world. It just applies to Cuba. What is the result of that ban? The result is we don't have the kind of engagement with Cuba we have with China and with Vietnam, leading them toward democratic reforms, undermining their governments, undermining the Communist government with the movement and the flow of goods and communications and travelers from a great democracy such as this country. Here is the result of what is now happening with the travel ban. I have described this previously. Let me say again, this is a policy that cannot be defended. It just does not make any sense. This is a woman named Joan Slote. I have mentioned Joan Slote. She is a wonderful woman. She is retired, in her midseventies. As you can see by the photograph here, Joan Slote is wearing a bicycle helmet. She is wearing her bicycling outfit. She is a senior olympian. She bicycles around the world. She loves to do it and is apparently very good at it. She went bicycling in Cuba. She answered an advertisement by a Canadian cycling magazine and joined a group of people to bicycle in Cuba. She didn't know it was illegal for an American to travel in Cuba. She didn't know our policy to punish Fidel Castro is actually restricting the rights of the American citizen. So she went bicycling in Cuba and she came back from Cuba and got a letter from the Department of the Treasury, an organization called OFAC, Office of Foreign Assets Control. By the way, that is the organization that is supposed to be tracking terrorists. This is the organization that is supposed to be taking apart all these streams of money moving back and forth across the world to track down terrorists, but they have some people down there at Treasury who were, in fact, tracking people such as Joan Slote who rode a bicycle in Cuba with a bicycle club. So Joan was in Europe, bicycling in Europe, and she got notice that her son had brain cancer, had a brain tumor. She rushed back, apparently packed very quickly from her apartment, and went down to visit with her son, to spend time with her son, who was very ill. Her son subsequently died from this brain tumor. In the middle of all of this, a letter had shown up at her place, although she was gone, saying: You are being fined by the Federal Government for traveling in Cuba. You are being fined $7,636. She didn't get that letter. It was sent to her but she didn't receive it because she was gone. Then she got a notice from the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Control, the organization that is supposed to be tracking terrorists. She got a notice saying, you better pay up or you are in big trouble. She has gotten subsequent notices from a collection agency. She has gotten notices that they are going to attach her Social Security check and garnish her Social Security payments. In fact, interestingly enough, she finally settled for a $1,900 fine. That is after I shamed OFAC, saying, How dare you go after these old ladies? She settled for $1,900. After she sent them the check, a month and a half after she sent them the check, she got a letter from them saying they were going to attach her Social Security payments because they had no record of her payment. They couldn't even keep that straight. The point is this: She represents a lot of people. She represents people from this country who have traveled in Cuba, not knowing it was illegal to do so. We have had the Office of Foreign Assets Control down at Treasury busy with their green eyeshades trying to track down persons who travel in Cuba to see if they can slap them around with a fine. Kevin Allen, from Washington State, his dad had been a minister in Cuba who moved to this country and died and he asked that his ashes be deposited on the grounds of the church where he ministered in Cuba. So Kevin Allen left Washington State with his deceased father's ashes to take them to Cuba. He was a Pentecostal minister in prerevolutionary Cuba. OFAC decided they should fine this fellow $20,000 for taking his deceased father's ashes to be buried on the grounds of his former church. Marilyn Meister is a 72-year-old Wisconsin retired schoolteacher. She took a trip to Cuba. She took it with some Canadians. She said it was wonderful until she encountered a customs agent on the way home. She said he ``flew into a rage . . . and made me feel like a horrible criminal'' when he found out I had been in Cuba. They tried to fine her $7,500. Donna Schutz, a 64-year-old retired social worker from Chicago, went to Cuba with a group from Toronto--a $7,650 fine from the Department of the Treasury. I mentioned Joan Slote's case. One of the more interesting cases for me is Tom Warner, a 77-year-old World War II veteran. He posted on his Web site the schedule for the February 2002 conference, the United States-Cuba Sister Cities Association in Havana. OFAC accused this 77-year-old World War II veteran of ``organizing, arranging, promoting and otherwise facilitating the attendance of persons at the conference'' without a license. This veteran never even went to Cuba. He didn't attend the conference. The conference, incidentally, was licensed by OFAC but he didn't go. All he did was give the information on his Web site. He was given 20 days to tell OFAC everything he knew about the conference and the organizations that participated in it and now he has to hire a lawyer. Aside from this, what are they doing down in Treasury? We have organizations such as the American Farm Bureau. They want to sell agricultural products into Cuba because it is now legal, in a very narrow way, to do that. It is legal because we in the Senate made it legal. We passed legislation that made it legal to sell agricultural products into Cuba. Last year they had an expo with farm groups going to Cuba. The result has been very beneficial and very positive for American farmers and ranchers. This year they applied for a license to do the same thing, to go down to promote agricultural products grown in this country and raised in this country to be sold in Cuba. They are now denied a license to go to Cuba to promote those products. There has been a new crackdown now on all of this just in the last couple of weeks. This is the Web site for the Department of Homeland Security. They have been asked by the President to crack down on this. They are going to use Department of Homeland Security intelligence and investigative resources. They are going to use Homeland Security intelligence and investigative resources to go track down people who travel to Cuba. Look, we are trying desperately to prevent another terrorist act from occurring in this country. God forbid it should happen. We want to find those who are planning terrorist acts against this country and stop them. That is what homeland security is. Mr. President, 5.6 million containers come into this country every year on container ships. Just 5 or 6 percent of them are now inspected; 95 percent are not. We have so much to do in homeland security. All of a sudden, now, the new mission on the Web site at Homeland Security is going to use intelligence and investigative resources to identify travelers or businesses engaged in activities in Cuba. There is an amendment that has passed the House on exactly the same appropriations bill. This amendment is a reasonable approach to deal with this in the interim. It prohibits the use of funds by OFAC to enforce this travel ban with respect to this travel in Cuba. It will avert these problems. It will allow the Department of Homeland Security to use the scarce resources it has to focus on protecting and securing our homeland. I hope my colleagues will agree with me that it is productive and constructive to allow our farmers to promote agricultural goods in Cuba. It is not constructive at all to decide to try to slap around Fidel Castro by imposing limits on the right of American people to travel. I have no brief to offer, no positive brief, certainly, for the Castro regime in Cuba. The quicker it is gone the better. The quicker we bring Democratic reforms to Cuba the better. I have been to Cuba. I have met with the dissidents in Cuba. Those dissidents, in almost all cases, say they believe there would be a hastening of the day when there are Democratic reforms in Cuba and a new government in Cuba, through trade and travel and engagement--just as our policies exist with respect to China, Vietnam, and other similar countries. I hope one day we will have a policy of that type. The Senators who have joined me are Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, Senator Baucus, Senator Hagel, and Senator Dodd--and let me also ask unanimous consent to have Senator Bingaman to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003 in the Senate, along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Stabenow, Johnson, Pryor, Dayton, Leahy, Levin, Feingold, McCain, and Jeffords. This legislation is the Senate companion to H.R. 2427, which passed the House of Representatives by a wide, bipartisan 243-186 vote earlier this year. This bill would give Americans the benefit of the global market in purchasing FDA-approved medicines. Rather than paying the highest prices in the world for their prescription drugs, Americans, through their local pharmacist or drug wholesaler, should be able to access FDA-approved medicines from Canada and 24 other major industrialized countries. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that this legislation would save taxpayers $40.4 billion, including $4.5 billion in savings for the Federal Government. As my colleagues know, the conference committee on Medicare currently has before it House and Senate bills that include pharmaceutical market access provisions. My hope is that the Medicare conferees will include strong drug importation language that will give American consumers immediate relief from high drug prices. If not, however, I will fight to have this bill called up separately in the Senate at the earliest available opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003 in the Senate, along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Stabenow, Johnson, Pryor, Dayton, Leahy, Levin, Feingold, McCain, and Jeffords. This legislation is the Senate companion to H.R. 2427, which passed the House of Representatives by a wide, bipartisan 243-186 vote earlier this year. This bill would give Americans the benefit of the global market in purchasing FDA-approved medicines. Rather than paying the highest prices in the world for their prescription drugs, Americans, through their local pharmacist or drug wholesaler, should be able to access FDA-approved medicines from Canada and 24 other major industrialized countries. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that this legislation would save taxpayers $40.4 billion, including $4.5 billion in savings for the Federal Government. As my colleagues know, the conference committee on Medicare currently has before it House and Senate bills that include pharmaceutical market access provisions. My hope is that the Medicare conferees will include strong drug importation language that will give American consumers immediate relief from high drug prices. If not, however, I will fight to have this bill called up separately in the Senate at the earliest available opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the 9/11 Commission. That is the commission which has been put together by Federal law and asked to look into what happened on 9/11 and get all of the information from everybody to find out what happened leading up to the attack on this country. What did we know? What did the CIA know? What did the FBI know? What did the FAA do during the attack? What happened? Only by knowing what happened can we prevent it from happening again. Were there dots that should have been connected but weren't? Did we have information that could have perhaps prevented that attack had certain people known of it or had been told of it? Are there deficiencies in some of these agencies? Did people drop the ball? I do not know. But we put together a panel headed by former Governor Keane of New Jersey. It is a distinguished panel. One of our former colleagues, Senator Cleland, is on that panel. It is called the 9/11 Commission. I want to read a couple of statements. This statement was made October 10: In connection with the commission's second interim report issued on September 23, 2003, we discuss the commission's ongoing effort to get prompt access to some key executive branch and White House documents that the commission needs to complete its work on time. Although we can report substantial progress, the commission is continuing to press for necessary access to some key items. I don't understand why there would be problems in getting information from the CIA, or the FBI, or the White House, or the FAA. What on Earth is happening? This is the Federal inquiry into what happened on 9/11 and how we can prevent it from ever happening again. I would think every Federal agency would cooperate fully and immediately. But that, regrettably, has not been the case. October 15, a statement by the 9/11 Commission: Over the past two weeks, as a result of field interviews conducted by our staff, the commission learned of serious deficiencies in one agency's production of critical documents. The agency in question happens to be the FAA. Now they indicate they are issuing subpoenas. In fact, they say this disturbing development at one agency has led the commission to reexamine its general policy of relying on document requests rather than subpoenas. They have voted to issue a subpoena to the FAA for documents which have already been requested. I don't understand. We have a 9/11 Commission to investigate the tragedy that occurred as a result of the terrorist attack on this country. That commission has to issue subpoenas to Federal agencies to get cooperation. I would think every single Federal agency, starting with the White House, would open its records immediately to this commission so we can understand what happened. I am not accusing anybody of anything, nor is the 9/11 Commission. We want to understand what happened. How did it happen? What clues might we have had? What kind of failing existed with respect to our intelligence that prevented us from knowing and, therefore, preventing these terrorist attacks? When I read this, I shake my head and think it is unbelievable that a commission created by this Congress, called the 9/11 Commission, to get to the bottom of what happened on 9/11, has to issue subpoenas to anybody, or has to send out progress reports to say, Well, we have made progress now in our efforts to gain access to key White House documents. The White House has agreed to brief all commissioners on another set of highly sensitive documents. We will seek prompt resolution of the remaining issues regarding access of these documents. Why is there a problem? Why would not every agency in every part of this Government provide this information at will and upon the request of the 9/11 Commission? I hope we don't see these kinds of reports again. I hope the next report from this commission would tell us the President has requested every single agency to turn over every single document requested by the 9/11 Commission immediately. Let this commission do its work and finish its work, make a report to the Congress and to the American people about what happened on 9/11, about what information existed leading up to 9/11, and how we can learn from that to protect this country against future terrorist attacks. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to echo some comments made by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, on the issue of class action reform. I believe that we need to do a class action reform bill. Some of us who voted against cloture this afternoon believe that there have been abuses in the area of class action litigation, and that reform is needed. But class action reform has to be sensible and thoughtful, and it needs to be resolved through negotiation. I am hopeful that this will be accomplished. The minority leader indicated he is willing to negotiate. The majority leader indicated he is willing to negotiate on these issues. It is my hope that these negotiations will be fruitful. There is no question that there have been instances of abusive forum shopping. There are cases being filed in state court in places like Madison County, Illinois, where there are thousands of plaintiffs, but only a handful are from that area. It's pretty clear to me that cases like that, when brought on behalf of nationwide classes, should be heard in federal court. I have a long list of such cases here, which on their face involve abuses of the class action mechanism. I think I shall not go through them all today. Suffice it to say that forum shopping is a problem, and we need reforms in this area. I also believe that there is a problem with coupon settlements. It makes no sense to have settlements where plaintiffs get meaningless coupons that are never redeemed. That, too, in my judgment, can and should be changed. I have decided to cosponsor the class action reform proposal described by Senator John Breaux, because I think it takes care of the problems of forum shopping and also coupon settlements. I think it is superior to the bill that was the subject of today's cloture vote, because it will more effectively address the issues of coupon settlements and forum shopping. With respect to coupon settlements, the Breaux bill is much tougher than the Grassley-Hatch bill, which was the subject of today's cloture vote. The Grassley-Hatch bill simply says that the courts should review coupon settlements for fairness. By contrast, the proposal that is offered by Senator Breaux, that I am cosponsoring, actually ties legal fees to the rates at which coupons are actually redeemed. So in a case where plaintiffs get meaningless coupons, the lawyers get paid accordingly. That is a much preferable provision, in my judgment, in reforming the class action area. With respect to forum shopping, let me again point out that the proposal offered by my colleague, Senator Breaux, is preferable. It says if fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are in a State, then it goes to Federal court. If more than two-thirds are in a State, it goes to State court. If it is in between the two, the Federal court shall make a judgment of where it is most appropriate. The bill that was proposed to be brought to the floor today would have a very different mechanism. It would say that you could not bring a case in state court unless the defendant was a citizen of that state. So, for example, if 1,000 citizens of my State of North Dakota were cheated by a company in Houston, TX, they could not form a class and file an action in North Dakota under North Dakota law. They simply could not do that under the bill brought to the floor of the Senate. That is not fair. That doesn't make any sense. Now, I understand that forum shopping is a problem and we ought to deal with it. But there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with it. I think the Breaux approach is the right way. It is a thoughtful, balanced approach. It allows us to stop class action abuses, while at the same time preserving the rights of people to be able to access their own State courts in legitimate cases. Again, I think it makes no sense to say to North Dakotans, it does not matter if there are two thousand of you who have been injured by an out-of-state company, you cannot access North Dakota State Courts and you cannot have the protection of North Dakota state law. Yet that is precisely what the bill that was the subject of today's vote would have said. The proposal offered by my colleague, Senator Breaux, strikes the right balance. It is the right approach. Cases that involve a lot of plaintiffs from around the country would go to federal court. But citizens of a particular state would still be able to band together if they were injured by an out-of-state defendant, and bring a lawsuit in their own state court. I say to the majority leader, if you are interested in class action reform, then let's work out a solution to the very real problem of class action abuses--but let's do it without depriving the people of any one state of the right to access their state's court, in legitimate cases. I think we can strike that proper balance, and I hope we can do it soon. That is the reason I voted against the motion to proceed. What we should avoid is a process in which the majority simply says: Here's where the wagon is heading. If you like it, jump on. If you don't like it, tough luck. Don't give us any advice along the way. I am a conferee on the Energy bill, but I have not been invited to a conference. No Democrat in the Senate has been included in a conference on the Energy bill. In fact, we have been specifically excluded and prevented from being a part of the conference. If that is the way legislation will be handled in the Congress, it will pervert the legislative process. In the case of the Energy Conference, nearly one- half of the Senate, 49 Members of a body of 100 persons, are being given no voice at the conference. We are told that the majority will make all the decisions. We are told by the majority: Just let us bring the Energy bill to the floor and we will be fair. Just take our word for it. Well, I hope and trust that we will follow a different path on the issue of class action reform. The Breaux proposal is a good one. I suggest we begin now seriously negotiating a balanced, responsible solution, that takes care of the problem of class action abuses. Let me also say parenthetically that there is another issue, in addition to class action reform, that requires meaningful negotiations. That is the issue of asbestos litigation. That, too, is a real problem and we ought to deal with it. It, too, in my judgment, will require negotiation. All sides are going to have to want to do this and be willing to negotiate aggressively. You have a series of stakeholders involved and those stakeholders, in my judgment, need to get together, because the system is broken. We have people who are sick and dying who are not getting help. And we have a huge cloud of uncertainty hanging over the business community. A solution is going to require, in my judgment, that all the stakeholders be part of the negotiation. Yes, labor is a very significant part of that. So, too, is the business community and others. I know this is a complex issue, but I hope in the concluding days of this first session of the Congress we will see a breakthrough in negotiations, and solve this asbestos issue in a way that works for everyone. I think they have been close on a number of occasions. My hope is it finally is completed.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been watching. Everybody is pretty much congratulating everybody else. Let me add my congratulations. This is an important issue. There are some serious people who have done serious work on this matter. I don't know where the word spam came from. I suspect someone has described that today. It is a luncheon meat in northern Minnesota in our region of the country. But spam is a term used to describe those unsolicited messages that are sent into your computer. It has become much more than just a nuisance. It was not too long ago, perhaps even a year or two, these unsolicited notices you receive through e-mail and other devices were a nuisance. Now it is a very serious problem. Log on to your computer and see what happens. You have intruders in that computer, and they are flagging for you gambling sites and dating sites and pornography, virtually everything. Go to your e-mail and find out how many unsolicited e-mails you have had. You have more friends than you thought you had. Dozens and dozens of people and groups are writing to you. Most of them, of course, are pornographic, and they are unsolicited kinds of messages you wouldn't want to explore, nor would you want your family to explore. If this afternoon someone drove up in front of your house with a truck and knocked on the front door and said: I have some actors in the back of this truck of mine, and we want to come into your home because we know you have a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old child, we would like to put on a show for you, it is going to be a pornographic sex show, you would go to the phone and call the police. The police would come and arrest them, and they would be prosecuted. Yet there are people who come into our homes and put on these pornographic sex shows through the computer--yes, to unsuspecting children. Yes, it happens all the time. We know it. That is why we are trying to determine what can we do to stop it. There is a right of free speech, but no stranger has a right to entertain 10-year-old kids in your home or our home with pornography. No stranger has that right. That does not exist as a right of free speech. The question is, what kind of legislation can we craft that addresses this in a serious way. There is so much spam on the Internet. I am describing pornography, but there are so many commercial and other devices with unsolicited messages that it almost completely overwhelms the use of e-mail. It clogs the arteries of commerce for which the Internet and e-mail have been very valuable. In the last couple of years, we have a circumstance where 46 percent of all e-mail traffic in the month of April this year was spam. It was only 18 percent in April of 2002, more than double in just a year. It does clog the arteries of commerce. It exposes children to things that are harmful and inappropriate. The question is, what can we do about it. This legislation is an attempt to try to address it. We will best congratulate ourselves if and after the legislation is passed, in force, and we determine it works. If and when that is the case, then we all should say congratulations for having done something useful. We have, of course, tried this before. The Supreme Court struck down legislation that came from the Commerce Committee dealing with this issue. I think this is a better way to approach it. It is more serious, more thoughtful, and more likely to be able to meet the test of being constitutional. We in the Commerce Committee have worked on other issues similar to this, not so much dealing with spam but especially protecting children. Senator Ensign and I coauthored legislation dealing with a new domain name. We are creating a new domain in this country called dot U.S., just like there is a domain dot U.K. We will have a new one called dot U.S. We decided by legislation we would attach to that domain a condition that they must also create a domain within dot U.S. called dot kids dot U.S. That will be a domain in which parents know that when their children are in dot kids dot U.S., any site in dot kids dot U.S., they are going to be seeing things that are only appropriate for children. That is going to be a big help to parents. If you restrict the child to dot kids dot U.S. and you know that child is not going to be exposed to things children should not be exposed to, that is legislation that is going to be very helpful. Let me also say this piece of legislation dealing with spam is similarly helpful. We have a circumstance where what shows up on the computers of virtually every American is not only unsolicited messages but messages that come from anonymous sources all over the world, messages that contain things you don't have any interest in, that are grotesque, unwanted, and pornographic. You can't determine where they come from. This legislation, along with the amendments being offered, moves exactly in the right direction to prohibit false and misleading transmission of information. It prohibits the knowing use of deceptive subject headings, requires a return address or comparable reply message so you can figure out who sent it, requires the UCE be self-identified as an advertisement or a solicitation. All of these things are very important. At the end of time, when we have passed this legislation, it is in force, and we determine it is workable, then we will know we have done something very significant. Let me make one additional point. I think computers and the Internet are quite remarkable. It is difficult to find words to describe how wonderful it can be. To be in a town like my hometown of nearly 300 people and have access through the Internet to the biggest library in the world, have access on the Internet to the great museums of the world. I grew up in a small town, with a high school senior class of nine. We had a library the size of a coat closet. With the Internet, that school now has a library the size of the largest library in the world, the largest repository of human knowledge existing anywhere on Earth--the Library of Congress. Yes, that exists in my hometown by virtue of the Internet. The Internet is remarkable, wonderful, and breathtaking. It opens vistas of new opportunities for all Americans. We are dealing with the other side of the Internet because there are two sides to this issue. The other side contains some very serious issues and problems. We can continue to ignore them at our peril, at the peril of our children, and at the peril of business and commerce, which relies on the Internet as an artery of commerce. We can ignore them or we can address them, as my colleagues, Senators Wyden and Burns, chose to do with their leadership in the Commerce Committee. I thank them and I also thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and Senator Hollings. We have a great committee, one on which I am proud to serve. We do a lot of work and address a lot of issues. This is but one, but it is a very important one and it is a timely piece of legislation to bring to the floor. It appears that, based on the unanimous consent request, this will now move and, with some amendments being offered, I think we will get to final passage. I expect to have a very strong vote by the entire Senate because it is a good piece of legislation. The time to do this is now and this is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a comment about the appropriations bills, then about the Energy conference, and then I want to talk a bit about the Department of Homeland Security and the ban on travel to Cuba. First, the appropriations bills. Our colleague, the majority leader, Senator Frist, talked just a bit about that today in response to questions by the Senator from Nevada. My understanding is the bills are all ready to come to the floor of the Senate. We were told in early September that we would, when returning from the August break, be on appropriations bills. We passed all 13 appropriations bills through the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. Yet since we passed a continuing resolution, because we did not have the appropriations bills done by October 1, since that time we have not completed even one additional appropriations bill. I know the chairman of the Appropriations Committee wants to get these bills to the floor. But instead the leader is scheduling other issues. I am not suggesting the other issues are unimportant, but we have a responsibility to meet a deadline with appropriations bills; and the question is, Where are they, and why are they not being brought to the floor of this Senate? I do not understand it, nor do most of my colleagues. If the Committee on Appropriations has finished its work on the bills, why are they not being debated on the floor of the Senate? If there is an intention to do one, big, continuing resolution, one large omnibus bill, and not have us consider on the floor of this Senate up to six appropriations bills, then the opportunity for a good many Senators to offer amendments and deal with these in a routine legislative way will be lost. I suspect that is what some are wanting to have happen. It is not something that looks like the legislative process as I know it. Mark Twain once said: The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. That is the case with these appropriations bills. They are ready. They ought to be brought to the floor, and they ought to be a priority now. I hope the majority leader and others who are doing the scheduling here in the Senate will understand that and bring appropriations bills to the floor. Mr. President, let me now just talk for a moment about something else that is happening that concerns us. We have an Energy conference. My colleague Senator Bingaman spoke on the floor about this yesterday. We have an Energy conference. I am a conferee. I have not been invited to a conference meeting at this point because the Republicans have decided they will not allow Democratic conferees to be a part of the process. What they are saying is, they will give us the conference report 24 hours ahead of time, and then we will have a meeting. Apparently that is now planned for next week. We were told it was going to be last Saturday, then perhaps a meeting this Monday. Now it will probably be next Friday, and a meeting the following Monday. In any event, there are a couple hundred pages of that report which have been agreed to by Republicans dealing with very important, very complicated pieces of legislation--the electricity title, the ethanol title--and yet we are told, despite the fact it is now agreed to and completed, that those of us who were never invited to a conference are not allowed to see the conference report. It is inexplicable to me. It is, in my judgment, a legislative process that is broken. I have told the chairman of the committee on this side, he would not stand for that in a moment. He would be on this floor pointing into the noses of those who are doing it to say that is not the way to legislate. To ask representatives of 49 Senators here in the Senate to simply sit by patiently while a conference occurs and while Democrats are excluded is an arrogance I think that is fundamentally wrong and unsound, and I think it threatens the future of an energy bill. It is the wrong way to get cooperation and the wrong way to write an energy bill. It seems to me there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle in the Congress, and they ought to be available in a conference, as conferences are usually held, to be able to improve and write a bipartisan energy bill. But, once again, quoting Mark Twain: The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. The fact is, you can talk about this 100 different ways, and there is no justification for two people in the Congress to decide: We are going to convene in a room someplace, shut the door, and tell you what the energy policy is going to be for this country. It risks, I think, the ability to get an energy bill. I believe we need an energy bill for this country's future. Having said that, Mr. President, let me just talk about another issue that has gotten very little attention but ought to, in my judgment. The President gave a speech a couple of weeks ago saying he is going to crack down on travel in Cuba, because there is a law against traveling in Cuba. Inexplicably, Americans cannot travel in Cuba. This country is trying to punish Fidel Castro for his abuses, and I agree with that. But in order to slap Fidel Castro around and punish Fidel Castro, this administration is going to limit the American people's freedom to travel. Oh, the American people can travel almost anywhere else--to Communist China, Communist Vietnam--but you cannot travel in Cuba. The President gave a speech, I suspect aimed mostly at voters in Florida, saying we are going to crack down on casual travel in Cuba. He did not say ``casual travel.'' But I know it is casual travel because they are chasing retired schoolteachers who rode bicycles in Cuba. They are denying licenses to farm groups who want to go and promote and sell agricultural products in Cuba, part of which is now legal because of an amendment that I and then-Senator Ashcroft got passed in the Senate that became law. But they are trying to stop farm groups from promoting agriculture products in Cuba by denying licensees travel in Cuba. The President said we are going to have the Department of Homeland Security, which is designed to protect this country against a terrorist attack, exert its resources to clamp down on travel in Cuba. Here is what the Department's Web site says: ``The Department of Homeland Security will use intelligence and investigative resources to identify travelers or businesses engaged in activities that circumvent the embargo.'' We are going to have the Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to be protecting us from terrorists, now using investigative resources and also intelligence resources to try to track down people who are traveling in Cuba. They are doing that at the direction of the President. Well, let me just give as example one of the kind of people they are going to use their intelligence and investigative capabilities to track down: Joan Slote. Joan, as you can see from this picture, rides a bicycle. She is in her mid 70s. She is a Senior Olympian. She joined a bicycle tour of Cuba with a Canadian group. She had no idea it was illegal for an American to bicycle in Cuba. But she went there and came back and discovered she was fined $7,630 by the U.S. Department of Treasury. They slapped her around. Shame on you for bicycling in Cuba. We will fine you $7,630. I said to the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is called OFAC: You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You are supposed to be tracking financial records of terrorists, and you are tracking little old ladies who ride bicycles in Cuba. They agreed, after some embarrassment, to reduce her fine to $1,900. Then 2\1/2\ months after she sent them a check, she got a letter from a collection agency saying they were going to enforce collection, and they were going to begin to take her Social Security payments. This was after she had paid the fine. But there are more than just Joan Slote. Let me give other examples of whom they are investigating. Cevin Allen decides to take the ashes of his dead father to Cuba to sprinkle on the lawn of the church where his father ministered. It was his father's last request. They fine him for illegal travel to Cuba. That is who Department of Homeland Security now says they will use intelligence and investigative methods to track, people who travel illegally in Cuba, taking your dead father's ashes to sprinkle on the ground in Cuba. Marilyn Meister, a 72-year-old Wisconsin schoolteacher, she also had a bicycle trip to Cuba. She was fined $7,500. Donna Schutz, a social worker from Chicago, went on a tour, she was fined $7,600; Kurt Foster. Tom Warner, 77 years old, a World War II veteran, posted on his Web site the schedule for the February annual meeting of the U.S.- Cuba Sister Cities Association in Havana. He never even went to Cuba. But this administration, clamping down on Cuban travel, said Warner was ``organizing, arranging, promoting, and otherwise facilitating the attendance of persons at the conference without a license.'' He did not attend the conference. And the conference was licensed by OFAC. All he was doing was posting information on his Web site. He was given 20 days to tell OFAC everything he knows about the conference and the organizations that participate in it. He has now hired a lawyer. What is going on? We are chasing Joan Slote who rode a bicycle in Cuba for thousands of dollars of civil fines, and now the President says we want to use the Department of Homeland Security to investigate and use intelligence resources to identify Americans who travel to Cuba. It is the most preposterous thing. Have they lost all common sense? I understand the President's announcement. That is pure politics. But ordering the Department of Homeland Security to use precious assets? Do you know that we inspect less than 5 percent of the 7.6 million containers that come into this country every year on ships. Yet we are going to use Homeland Security assets to track little old ladies riding bikes in Cuba so we can slap a $7,500 fine on them? It is unbelievable to me. Yet nobody seems to be too concerned about it. We are going to hurt Fidel Castro by limiting the right of the American people to travel. We have enough votes to lift the travel ban. You can travel virtually anywhere else in the world. I happen to believe the best way to get rid of Fidel Castro is travel and trade. Just as we argue that is the case with Communist China, just as we argue that is the case with the Communist country of Vietnam, it is clear to me that the quickest way to change the Government in Cuba is travel and trade. That Government will not be able to resist the influences of travel and trade. It will undermine it. But a 40-plus year embargo has failed. It is time to understand that. It makes no sense. I am wondering how many of my colleagues really support this, having the Department of Homeland Security use scarce investigative and intelligence assets to identify travelers who are going to Cuba to ride a bicycle or perhaps to take their dead father's ashes to sprinkle on the church where he ministered. Is that what we should be doing? I think not. Yet the President gives a speech aimed directly at the center of the bull's eye of Florida politics and says: We are going to tighten up. We are getting tough. I will have the Department of Homeland Security investigate and use intelligence to track Americans who travel in Cuba. It is unbelievable. I hope we can get a vote on this. One of the reasons we may not is we may not get appropriations bills on the floor of the Senate because a half a dozen of them are through the Appropriations Committee and are not being brought to the floor. If they are here, we have a chance to offer an amendment. Without it, when they are put in an omnibus, there will be no amendments. So we will see. If there is in the future some omnibus appropriations bill that is cobbled together by the leadership in the month of October with appropriations bills that have not previously been considered on the Senate floor, we will not be able to. We will be prevented from offering amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, when this bill was considered by the House Appropriations Committee there were a number of reconstruction spending requests for Iraq they decided to delete. For example, the House Appropriations Committee deleted $4 million for a telephone numbering system, $9 million for ZIP Codes and a postal architecture, $10 million to modernize the business practices of the Iraqi television and radio industries, $312 million for unspecified transportation and communication projects, including cosmetic improvements at airports; $100 million to build 7 housing communities including roads, schools, mosques, markets, clinics; $200 million to establish an American-Iraqi Enterprise Fund; $90 million to open public information centers in Iraq's 266 municipalities; a month-long catchup business training course at $10,000 per pupil, which is twice as much as the Harvard Business School would cost for an equivalent period; and $100 million to buy 2,000 garbage trucks. The point is that there is a long list of specifics dealing with reconstruction in Iraq that are not urgent and are not, in fact, emergencies. The House Appropriations Committee deleted these. When they deleted them, they indicated these were not emergencies and were not urgent. As a result of that, Senator Wyden and I have put together an amendment that deletes the identical accounts from the reconstruction part of this bill as the House cut, which comes to $1.655 billion. In addition, our amendment cuts $200 million from the amount the administration is requesting to import fuel into Iraq, which the Congressional Research Service indicates may be in excess to what is actually needed. I ask my colleague Senator Wyden if he could comment on that piece of the legislation. In total, our amendment would reduce the reconstruction piece of this legislation by $1.855 billion from the $20.3 billion requested for Iraq reconstruction. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was interested in the comments by my colleague from Oklahoma. I don't know of anyone here who would object or disagree with the contention that those who hold Iraqi debt ought to forgive that debt. I have spoken on this subject at some length a couple of times. Ambassador Bremer appeared before our Appropriations Committee and indicated that Iraq would be producing about 3 million barrels of oil a day beginning in July of next year. I asked the question then about using future proceeds from pumping Iraq oil for the purpose of reconstruction. He indicated that would not be possible because of the encumbrance that existed with foreign debt. I asked Ambassador Bremer who holds this foreign debt. He said Russia, Germany, France, among others. When I did research later, I discovered exactly what the Senator from Oklahoma discovered. In fact, Russia, Germany, and France do hold Iraqi debt, but the larger debt is owed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Arab states which, incidentally, in combination, equal about the debt that both the Saudis and the Kuwaitis hold with Iraq. It occurred to me that if we are concerned that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait recover the loans they gave to Iraq, maybe we ought to ask the Saudis and Kuwaitis to track Saddam Hussein down and present him with a bill. The Iraqi government that incurred that debt, the government that existed at that point, was the Saddam Hussein government. It clearly was not a legitimate government. As you know, in the last election of that government, Saddam Hussein received 100 percent of the vote and those who voted had to walk down an aisle, a long gallery of pictures of Saddam Hussein, and hold their ballot above their head that was clearly marked ``Saddam Hussein.'' That is the government we are now told legitimately owes money to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. In my judgment, that government no longer exists, and the encumbrance of Saddam Hussein ought not, in my judgment at least, obligate the Iraqi citizens to do anything. I know there will be people who are tall thinkers with thick glasses who have some thought about international obligations that I may not understand. It may be that I don't understand all the nuances, but I do understand this: That Saddam Hussein has vanished. The Saddam Hussein government was a government run by a butcher. We are, in fact, opening football-field-size graves with 10,000 and 12,000 skeletons in them, and we are told the only legacy of that government that ought to remain an obligation is the debt Saddam Hussein ran up with other countries. I don't think that debt ought to be considered to be existing debt at this point, with all due respect to those countries. If in the 1980s we had countries that were pals of Saddam Hussein because he was taking on the country of Iran and they were lending Saddam Hussein money, at this point it seems to me they ought to track down Saddam Hussein and present him with a bill. We are told from time to time by intelligence sources that Saddam perhaps has a substantial amount of money squirreled away in Swiss banks. They say he stole that country blind. I don't know the facts about that. I suspect that is the case. I suspect Saddam Hussein and his government squirreled away a substantial amount of money. In any event, we can't find him. I suggest to those to whom he owes money or to those whom his former government owes money, they ought to track him down and present him with a bill. We have had a long discussion here and will, I guess, again, perhaps tonight or tomorrow, about what kind of obligation the American taxpayers should have with respect to the reconstruction of Iraq. It was my belief--and I regret my amendment was not adopted, but I accept the voice of the Senate on that amendment--it was my belief that we should lend the money to Iraq for reconstruction and that Iraq should repay those loans out of the proceeds from oil that it pumps out of the ground in the future. Once again, we expect, according to the testimony of Ambassador Bremer, about 3 million barrels of oil a day. In fact, the Iraqi Governing Council--these are the Iraqis who are now in charge, running ministries and so on--they visited here a couple weeks ago and said they thought it would be 6 million barrels a day. Let's take Ambassador Bremer's number instead, 3 million a day. That means that country will pump about $20 billion of oil, about $16 billion of which is available for export. So we have $16 billion a year of Iraqi oil, beginning next July, available for export. That is $160 billion in 10 years, $320 billion in 20 years. That is a substantial amount of money for the reconstruction of a country the size of California with 24 million people. It is ample money to do that job. I understand we have already decided that question. My amendment did not pass the Senate. But as we discuss further amendments about grants versus loans, I wanted to make a comment following the discussion by the Senator from Oklahoma. I believe his numbers are accurate. Those are the numbers I discovered with respect to foreign debt owed by Iraq. More properly, I think it is foreign debt owed by Saddam Hussein's government, a nonlegitimate government, a brutal dictatorship. In my judgment, the Iraqi people ought not at this point be burdened by that debt and I would suggest to creditors, including the Saudis and Kuwaitis, that the paper for those debts is worth only that which it will produce once Saddam Hussein is found and it is presented to him. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Enzi and others to introduce legislation to address the long-standing issue of how to see that the sales and uses taxes which are owed on remote sales, i.e., items bought from companies outside of the State in which the purchaser lives, can be fairly collected. The Simplified Sales and Use Tax Act which we introduce today will allow the States to require collection only after they have dramatically simplified their sales and use tax systems. Collecting a sales tax in a face-to-face transaction on Main Street or at the mall is a relatively simple process. The seller collects the tax and remits it to the State or local government. But with remote sales--such as catalog and Internet sales--it's more difficult. States cannot require a seller to collect a sales tax unless the business has an actual location or sales people in the State. So most States, and many localities, have laws that require the local buyer to send an equivalent ``use tax'' to the State or local government when he or she did not pay taxes at the time of purchase. The reality, of course, is that customers almost never do that. It would be a major inconvenience, and people are not accustomed to paying sales taxes in that way. So, despite the legal requirement, most simply don't do it, and the tax, which is already owed, goes unpaid. For years, State and local governments could accept this loss because catalog sales were a relatively minor portion of overall commerce. But, as e-commerce continues to grow so does the competitive divide between those businesses with and without the collection burden and the local governments who are losing an ever larger share of sales tax revenues. In fact, it appears as if local governments are facing a perfect storm of dwindling economic activity, and a growing migration of commerce from Main Street to the Internet. As online consumer purchases have nearly doubled in the last 2 years estimates are that States and localities lost at least $13.5 billion in uncollected sales and use tax revenues in 2002, and that number is expected to grow to $45 billion by 2006. Internet and catalog sellers correctly argue that collecting and remitting sales taxes would be a significant burden. Understandably, they contend that, unless things change, it would be difficult for them to have to comply with tax laws from thousands of different jurisidictions--46 States and thousands of local governments--with different tax rates and all of the idiosyncrasies regarding what is taxable and what is non-taxable. This is a legitimate complaint, and I understand why the Supreme Court agreed with them when it decided that companies have to have a physical presence in a State before being required to collect sales taxes. But, in so ruling the Court did two things: (1) it told the States to simplify their sales and use tax systems, and (2) it invited Congress to define how much simplification will be needed so that collection will no longer be an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The States have since responded to the Court's ruling with the ``Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.'' Approved by 34 States and the District of Columbia after extensive discussions with the business community this unprecedented agreement will dramatically simplify and streamline how State sales taxes are identified and collected. And, by harmonizing State sales tax rules, bringing uniformity to definitions of items in the sales tax base, significantly reducing the paperwork burden on retailers, and incorporating a seamless electronic reporting process the agreement will significantly reduce the burden of collection on all sellers. Once adopted by 10 States with at least 20 percent of the population, the Simplified Sales and Use Tax Act would give those States the authority to collect sales or use taxes equally from all retailers. I understand that some have raised questions about how the small business exemption included in this legislation will be applied, and I intend to work with those interested parties to try to address this matter. However, sales and use tax simplification is an important issue that Congress must address sooner rather than later. The legislation we introduce today is workable and strikes a fair balance between the interests of consumers, local retailers and remote sellers. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed bipartisan legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Enzi and others to introduce legislation to address the long-standing issue of how to see that the sales and uses taxes which are owed on remote sales, i.e., items bought from companies outside of the State in which the purchaser lives, can be fairly collected. The Simplified Sales and Use Tax Act which we introduce today will allow the States to require collection only after they have dramatically simplified their sales and use tax systems. Collecting a sales tax in a face-to-face transaction on Main Street or at the mall is a relatively simple process. The seller collects the tax and remits it to the State or local government. But with remote sales--such as catalog and Internet sales--it's more difficult. States cannot require a seller to collect a sales tax unless the business has an actual location or sales people in the State. So most States, and many localities, have laws that require the local buyer to send an equivalent ``use tax'' to the State or local government when he or she did not pay taxes at the time of purchase. The reality, of course, is that customers almost never do that. It would be a major inconvenience, and people are not accustomed to paying sales taxes in that way. So, despite the legal requirement, most simply don't do it, and the tax, which is already owed, goes unpaid. For years, State and local governments could accept this loss because catalog sales were a relatively minor portion of overall commerce. But, as e-commerce continues to grow so does the competitive divide between those businesses with and without the collection burden and the local governments who are losing an ever larger share of sales tax revenues. In fact, it appears as if local governments are facing a perfect storm of dwindling economic activity, and a growing migration of commerce from Main Street to the Internet. As online consumer purchases have nearly doubled in the last 2 years estimates are that States and localities lost at least $13.5 billion in uncollected sales and use tax revenues in 2002, and that number is expected to grow to $45 billion by 2006. Internet and catalog sellers correctly argue that collecting and remitting sales taxes would be a significant burden. Understandably, they contend that, unless things change, it would be difficult for them to have to comply with tax laws from thousands of different jurisidictions--46 States and thousands of local governments--with different tax rates and all of the idiosyncrasies regarding what is taxable and what is non-taxable. This is a legitimate complaint, and I understand why the Supreme Court agreed with them when it decided that companies have to have a physical presence in a State before being required to collect sales taxes. But, in so ruling the Court did two things: (1) it told the States to simplify their sales and use tax systems, and (2) it invited Congress to define how much simplification will be needed so that collection will no longer be an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The States have since responded to the Court's ruling with the ``Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.'' Approved by 34 States and the District of Columbia after extensive discussions with the business community this unprecedented agreement will dramatically simplify and streamline how State sales taxes are identified and collected. And, by harmonizing State sales tax rules, bringing uniformity to definitions of items in the sales tax base, significantly reducing the paperwork burden on retailers, and incorporating a seamless electronic reporting process the agreement will significantly reduce the burden of collection on all sellers. Once adopted by 10 States with at least 20 percent of the population, the Simplified Sales and Use Tax Act would give those States the authority to collect sales or use taxes equally from all retailers. I understand that some have raised questions about how the small business exemption included in this legislation will be applied, and I intend to work with those interested parties to try to address this matter. However, sales and use tax simplification is an important issue that Congress must address sooner rather than later. The legislation we introduce today is workable and strikes a fair balance between the interests of consumers, local retailers and remote sellers. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed bipartisan legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the two largest creditors of Iraq are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, Saddam Hussein has vanished. His government doesn't exist. The Iraqi people ought not be saddled with massive debts to countries like Saudi Arabia, some of the wealthiest countries in the world. The American taxpayer should not be told to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, while Iraqi oil revenues are hauled off to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I yield 8 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me inquire of the Senator from Mississippi. We have used--might I ask how much time we on this side have used? We have had several speakers. Might I inquire?