Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the ``Freedom to Travel'' is a basic freedom. And since September 11 we have given a great deal of focus, and rightfully so, to the airline industry. But I rise today to direct my colleague's attention to the rest of the travel industry which has also been deeply affected by the events of September 11. In the part of the country I come from, we're familiar with disasters. We know what it's like when, through no fault of your own, the world falls out from under you as a result of natural disaster. There was nothing natural about the cowardly and deadly acts of September 11, but they were certainly unpredictable, unexpected and clearly beyond the control of anyone who was affected by them. Just as America has generously responded to natural disasters, we must now respond to this new disaster and help our fellow countrymen and women rebuild their lives and livelihood. In the aftermath of the tragedy we acted quickly, and responsibly, to stabilize the airlines with a financial package of grants and loan guarantees. And we were right to pass the aviation security bill to dramatically increase the number of sky marshals, strengthen cockpit doors and federalize the screening of passengers and luggage at our airports because we need to make sure people feel it is safe to fly. While I supported both of those measures, we now must address the devastating impact September 11 has had on the U.S. travel and tourism industry. The network of hotels, travel agents, car rental companies, restaurants, and attractions that make up the tourism industry, has also been hard hit, and needs our support. A huge segment of our economy, the travel and tourism industry is the third largest retail industry. It generates more than $582 billion in revenue each year, and directly and indirectly employed more than 19 million people. North Dakota is a long way from Ground Zero in New York City, from the Pentagon in Virginia, and from that lonely farm field in Pennsylvania. But the violence that took place at each of those locations continues to be felt half a continent away in my home State, in our hearts and yes, in our State's tourism industry. Let me share just two reports from North Dakota. Randy Hatzenbuhler, executive director of the Theodore Roosevelt Medora Foundation, writes me to say this: his ``organization has great concerns about our 2002 season. We are preparing our business plans to anticipate significant decreases in visitation--10-25 percent.'' Katherine Satrom, of Satrom Travel and Tour in Bismarck, ND tells the story even more starkley. She writes that ``The week of September 11 and the week of September 17, our company's revenue was about 25 percent of normal at best. Following weeks have been about 50 percent of average revenue for the period.'' ``On September 26,'' she continues, ``our company cut all employee salaries by 10 percent and management salaries 20 percent in an effort to avoid a reduction in workforce.'' ``We have been a viable business for 23 years, providing jobs and contributing to the economy,'' she concludes. ``We now need some assistance to bridge this disaster-related downturn and regroup for the future.'' That's a measure of just how far-reaching, broad and deep the economic disaster now ripping through the tourism industry has grown. It reaches every State. And while what's going on in my State is serious and grave, what is happening closer to the scene of the attacks is much, much worse. So today, along with Senators Specter, Conrad, Inouye, and Reid, I introduce the American Tourism Stabilization Act. Our bill follows through on a suggestion that came out of a hearing that we held in the Commerce Committee on how the travel industry is dealing with the impact of September 11. What we learned was not good. Almost uniformly we heard from rental car companies, hoteliers, travel agencies, who are struggling to stay in business as they try to cope with the sudden drop-off in business since September 11. We also heard from individual hotel workers from across the country that are part of the \1/3\d of the hospitality industry that is now struggling to pay their bills since being laid-off after September 11. Out of that hearing came the suggestion, that as we did with the airline industry, we provide loan guarantees to help the U.S. tourism industry function until business returns. So, the American Tourism Stabilization Act would provide $5 billion worth of loan guarantees for eligible travel-related businesses. Building on the airline stabilization bill the American Tourism Stabilization Act would simply have the already created, Air Transportation Stabilization Board, process loan guarantees for eligible travel-related businesses that have been adversely affected by the government shutdown of the airline industry. Specifically the bill is intended to make loans available to travel agencies, rental car companies, airport concessionaires, and others with contractual relationships with the airlines that have been directly affected by the tragedies of September 11. The purpose of the bill is to provide liquidity to businesses that have been hurt because of their direct ties to an air carrier such as travel agencies, and airline vendors or an airport concessionaires. It would do so by making loan guarantees available, based on the ability to repay, to help tide these businesses over until air traffic and pleasure travel returns to normal. I urge my colleagues to support our effort to help the 19 million people who work in the travel industry.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I want to mention two other issues, and they don't relate directly to this bill. They are very important to me. We are talking about antiterrorism activities. We have an organization down at the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control. I happen to fund that area, as I am chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds that. I want to say something I said before the terrorist attacks of September 11. OFAC, in my judgment, ought to be using its resources to track terrorists and track the trail left by terrorists with the movement of money around the globe. But in August I pointed out that what OFAC was doing--at least with some of its resources--and it appears that 10 percent of the resources of OFAC is devoted to chasing little old ladies in tennis shoes from Illinois who join a bicycle club from Canada and go bicycling in Cuba and 15 months later get a letter from the Treasury Department that they have a $9,500 fine. That is one example of a retired teacher from Illinois. OFAC is chasing retired folks who go on a bicycling trip to Cuba with a Canadian bicycling Club, and she was fined $9,500. I talked to her and others who have been fined. There was a $55,000 fine for someone who was with some friends in the Cayman Islands and they decided to go to Cuba for the weekend. This guy is wondering what on Earth has happened. He was not supposed to travel to Cuba, but he didn't know it. OFAC is supposed to be tracking terrorists, but they are chasing retired schoolteachers from Illinois for taking a bicycling trip in Cuba. Let's stop this foolishness and track the trail of terrorists. It doesn't make sense to be doing what OFAC has been doing. First of all, it is embarrassing. I understand the restrictions on travel, which we should change and we will change, but should we be using 10 percent of the assets of OFAC to track these people down and levy civil fines at a time when terrorists are designing approaches to kill Americans? What on Earth is going on here? I say to Treasury and OFAC, if they are listening: Get busy doing the right things. Get right about public policy initiatives that we are funding you to do. Let me mention one additional item, if I may, and again it relates to antiterrorism, not necessarily just to this bill, and that is the issue of northern border security. We have a 4,000-mile border between the United States and Canada, with 128 ports of entry, and 100 of them are not staffed at night. At 10 o'clock at night, the security between the United States and Canada is an orange rubber cone, just a big old orange rubber cone. It cannot talk. It cannot walk. It cannot shoot. It cannot tell a terrorist from a tow truck. It is just a big fat dumb rubber cone sitting in the middle of the road. Those who want to come in illegally at 11 or 12 o'clock at night and are polite about it will stop in front of the rubber cone, remove the rubber cone, drive through, and replace it. Those who do not care will shred it at 60 miles an hour. That is supposed to be security in this country. We know a terrorist came across that northern border at Port Angeles. This particular Middle Eastern terrorist was going to create substantial bombing activities of public facilities at the turn of the millennium in Los Angeles. We know the terrorists know where it is easy to get through our border and where it is not. Having said all that, that a rubber cone is no substitute for security, the Treasury Department has said to this Congress that none of the $20 billion we appropriated for security is going to go for increased resources at the northern border for Customs. The other side, Immigration and Border Patrol, are going to get increased resources, but the Treasury Department says: No, we do not need additional resources with the Customs Service. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am just asking these people who are thinking through these issues to start thinking the right way. We do need additional resources. That is why we provided the $20 billion. We do need additional security on the northern border. Yes, orange rubber cones are inexpensive. They are also ineffective. They are no substitute for security in this country. I know I am going a bit afield from this bill, but I wanted to make the other two points about OFAC and what it is doing and northern border security because that, too, relates to the issue of antiterrorism and this country's ability to deal with the terrorist threats. I conclude by saying I came here to talk about the advance passenger information system. I, again, feel terrible it was left out of this bill because we had agreement in the Senate. I understand some folks in the House refused to move on this issue. One way or another I am going to get this done in the next couple of weeks. I will find a bill, a vehicle. This is going to get done. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Utah to help me do that. That is a glaring omission from this bill, and if the House does not want to do it on this bill, we will force them to do it on another bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I shall object--let me say to the Senator from Virginia, he and I have had long discussions about this subject. I very much respect his views. He is proposing a 2-year extension of the Internet tax moratorium. I proposed an 8-month extension last week, I believe it was. But my 8-month extension to June 30 of next year included an additional proviso, and that proviso, at the end of the legislation, would have had Congress on record saying to both State governments and also to Internet and other remote sellers that we want them to, A, simplify the sales and use tax system and, B, when that is done, be able to allow the remote sellers to collect the sales and use taxes on the sale. There are two issues here. The Senator from Virginia and I do not disagree on the first. I am not someone who supports taxing access to the Internet. As far as I am concerned, we can extend the prohibition on that forever. I also do not support punitive and discriminatory taxation with respect to Internet sales. So we have no disagreement about that. But however there is a second area of difficulty. The Senator from Virginia raises the first. If I might continue under my reservation, Mr. President, the first issue is taxation with respect to the Internet. It actually is taxation with respect to remote sales, which is a broader issue. The second is the question, How do you effect a collection of the tax that is already owed on remote sales? As the Senator from Virginia knows, almost no one is paying that use tax and States are losing a substantial amount of money, most of which is used for funding education. So what I want to do is find a way to solve both problems, not just one. And on the first piece, the Senator from Virginia and I will not find great disagreement. I understand his view and will support his view with respect to extension and prohibiting taxing access, et cetera. I hope he will similarly support my view that we also ought to solve the other problems State and local governments have, and remote sellers have, for that matter, with respect to the complexity of the sales tax and the collection or lack of collection of sales taxes and use taxes. My colleague from Wyoming is, in fact, working on another piece of legislation on that issue even as we speak. I know he has consulted with the Senator from Virginia. So, Mr. President, for those reasons, I object to the request by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia and I have had some nice conversations on this subject. I know he feels strongly about this. I did want to clear up a couple things. First of all, when someone purchases something on the Internet or from a catalog, there is actually a tax owed in most cases. It is just that it is never paid. Most Americans when they order something from a catalog are required to submit a use tax to the State, because the seller wasn't required to collect the sales tax. The buyer is supposed to send a use tax to the State government, but they never do and never will because it would require literally millions of tax returns being filed for a $1.20 or $2.80 purchase. That is why it was always much more effective to collect a sales tax at the source. I agree with those who say we don't think catalog sellers or Internet sellers or remote sellers ought to be required to subscribe to 7,000 different taxing jurisdictions; that is not fair. I agree with that. That is why I say, if you are going to simplify the collection system and allow it to have the remote sellers collect it, then you really need to simplify it in a way that is substantive. Let me make this point also: It is not the case that the Supreme Court has said there is no inherent right for State governments to tax in these circumstances. That is not what the Supreme Court has said. They said the sole arbiter of what the States can or can't do with respect to what is called nexus or whether they have jurisdiction is the Congress because it deals with the commerce clause. That decision is only reserved for the Congress, not for the States. That is what the Supreme Court decision said. That is why Congress has to decide what to do and how to do it at this point. While we perhaps have a disagreement at this moment, I hope we might be able to figure out how to resolve it. It does not make any sense to me, if we are going to lose $20 or $30 or $40 billion in local revenues, to have somebody hire tens of thousands of tax collectors to go knock on doors and ask for them to submit their $3.38 in use tax they owe. That doesn't make any sense. I don't believe the Senator from Virginia or anyone else would want to do that. All you do is add to the employment rolls of the Government and hassle people. It makes far more sense to require State and local governments to simplify their local sales and use tax base and then to say to the remote sellers, those above $5 million a year in sales: Collect this now and remit it to the States and save everybody from trouble. We simplified the system for you. We simplified it for the consumer. Everybody wins. That is the point of all of this. With respect to the question of the tax incidence that the Senator from Virginia mentioned, as I said before, there is no new tax here. This is not a discussion about a new tax versus an old tax or whether there is a tax versus not a tax; this is a question of how you collect a tax that is owed, in what circumstances would it be fair to require a remote seller to collect it; that is all. On the final subject of this issue of an expiring moratorium, I supported the moratorium. I was on the floor of the Senate at that point and worked with Senators Wyden, McCain, and others. I supported the moratorium. I now support it and would be willing to extend it until June 30, 2002 at this point. We can perhaps extend it beyond that as we go along. My expectation is that the narrow time-frame in which this moratorium has expired will not give opportunity to those who might want to take advantage of it. I frankly don't think that is going to happen. I am here on the floor perfectly prepared to work with the Senator from Virginia and others to extend this moratorium, if he will work with me and Senators Enzi, Voinovich, Graham, Kerry and other colleagues to help solve the other side of the equation. And we may not solve it all now, but put a provision in that says this is congressional intent. If he will work with me to solve the second side of the issue, I will work with him to solve the first side. We will make some progress on this issue. This is a complicated issue. I admit that. It is one of some consequence with more and more remote sales occurring. More than forty Governors have now written letters saying: We have literally tens of billions of dollars we are not going to collect, much of which is needed to run our school system. You need to help us find a way to collect that revenue that is owed. We say to the Governors: God bless you. You have a problem. We will help you solve that problem, but you have to do something for us. You have to simplify your system so that we are not going to whipsaw businesses out there that have to comply with thousands of different jurisdictions. I want to do two things. I want to require dramatic simplification on the part of State and local governments and require the collection of a tax that is owed on the part of remote sellers, and I want to extend the moratorium so that we don't have discriminatory and punitive taxes applied anywhere in the system, with Internet sellers, remote sellers, and so on. I certainly am someone who works in the Commerce Committee with the Senator from Virginia. I am proud to do that. I believe technology is critically important to our country. It is an accelerator to the growth of our economy. There are a lot of important things that are happening with respect to technology. That is the reason I, too, am interested in extending this moratorium. That is why I offered the consent request last week, why I offer it today, and I will continue to offer it. It is my hope that others will continue to join me in trying to solve the second side of the equation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as long as the Senator from Virginia is here, I ask unanimous consent, again, that we discharge S. 1504 and proceed to it: that it be read a third time, and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. Incidentally, in my request is an extension of the Internet tax moratorium. The extension would last until next June 30. The Senator from Virginia wants the extension. I say, yes, let's have an extension. I will not support the 2 years at the moment. I support him until June 30, 2002. I will be prepared to support much longer than that when we are able to reach agreement on the other piece. The second piece I have in S. 1504 is a statement by Congress saying to both sides, on the second problem: State and local governments, simplify your sales and use tax system. And then it says to them: When you have done so, when you have substantially simplified that system, we will then allow consideration of the opportunity for you to enforce collection of sales and use taxes with respect to remote sellers. It is a two-pronged approach to solve the second problem. The Senator from Virginia, I might say, addresses the first. I would ask Congress to address the first and second piece of this. I understand it is horribly complicated. But, by the same token, I think we need to address both problems. So I have objected to the 2-year extension proposed by the Senator from Virginia and would like to continue to work with him on these issues. I have now proposed and asked consent that we discharge S. 1504, proceed to it, that it be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. As I have indicated, it has an extension to June 30, 2002 and has a paragraph at the end of the legislation that deals with the second important issue as well. I make such a request, Mr. President.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, I believe the Senator from Virginia raised the question of South Carolina. I am not familiar with that circumstance, but I think the Senator said South Carolina could, in fact, begin collecting. I don't know that he said they would or are collecting. I say this to the Senator. We will, in my judgment, extend the moratorium. When we do that, I will be willing to join him in extending it retroactively until October 22, 2001, to say to State and local governments: Beware, if you are thinking of messing around with public policy and taking advantage of a window when we extend this--and we will, in my judgment--Congress will intend to extend it retroactively to October 22. It is not unprecedented. I would be happy to join the Senator in sending that message if that is the message he would like to send. That resolves the issue he has just discussed.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent that I understand may be objected to, but for the moment I will describe what I am about to do and why I want to do it today. As most of us know who have worked on an issue called the Internet tax moratorium issue, the moratorium that now exists with respect to Internet taxation expires on Sunday of this week. The expiration of the Internet Tax Moratorium Act on Sunday means that next week there will no longer be the prohibition that exists in that act. Many of us believe we ought to do a couple things. One, the Internet Tax Moratorium Act is one that I supported because it would have prohibited additional States from imposing taxes on access to the Internet. I support that. It actually grandfathered some States. I would have been content to eliminate the grandfathering even. I don't think we ought to be taxing access. It also said that we will not allow discriminatory or punitive taxes with respect to Internet transactions. I supported that as well and was happy to vote for that legislation. It had an end date on it. That end date is this Sunday. What we have been trying to do for a long time is to construct an extension of the Internet tax moratorium, which I support, and attach to that a provision that would allow State and local governments to solve a very significant problem they are confronted with; that is, remote sellers are selling all across this country now in a significant way and in many instances--in fact, most instances--they are not required to collect local taxes when they make those sales. The remote sellers say it would be very difficult for them to collect the local sales and use taxes because you have thousands of jurisdictions around the country with different tax rates, different bases, and so on. It would be horribly complicated to subject a remote seller to all of those different standards and different jurisdictions. I am sympathetic to that. For that reason, I believe State and local governments ought to be required to simplify the tax system by which consumption taxes would be imposed on remote sales. At the moment, the courts have said the State and local governments may not impose their consumption taxes on remote sales unless the remote seller has a location in that State. The only change that could occur that would allow them to enforce a collection would be the Congress, under the commerce clause, describing a different nexus so that State and local governments could in fact enforce a requirement of collection. I don't believe we ought to do that unless we also require State and local governments to dramatically simplify their sales and use tax system. And when we do that, State and local governments should then be able to enforce a collection. You have two things: Requiring a simplification of a system, and then requiring remote sellers to collect the tax and remit it to the States. Why is this important? It is important for two reasons. One is fairness. Main street sellers are required to collect the tax, and their competitors from a remote circumstance are not required to collect the tax. That is not a fair situation. Second, there is a substantial amount of lost revenue, much of which would be used to finance schools in this country, and that lost revenue is injuring the tax base of State and local governments and injuring the opportunity to fund education which is funded, as most of us know, predominantly by State and local taxes. What I propose is the following: We extend the moratorium for about 8 months to next June 30. That moratorium extension would be accompanied by a sense of the Congress in my bill. It is only a two-page bill: It is a sense of Congress that State governments and interested business organizations should expedite efforts to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system that, once approved by Congress, would allow sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes without imposing an undue burden on interstate commerce. The House of Representatives, I believe this week, passed a 2-year extension on the moratorium, with really nothing involved in it, that actually begins to address the other side of the equation; that is, how do you deal with all of this lost revenue and the need to fund our schools and education? We really need to deal with both issues. I agree with the extension of the moratorium. What I propose is that we extend the moratorium to next June 30, do that immediately--I will propose a unanimous consent request when I send this to the desk--and between now and then, ask all of the sides involved to get serious and get this done, develop a compact we can work on together, and therefore require simplification of local tax systems and allow the State and local governments to enforce collection. My colleague, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, with whom I have worked, as well as Senator Voinovich, Senator Wyden, Senator McCain, Senator Graham of Florida, and many others have worked on this issue for a long while. We have not met success at this point. But Senator Enzi has been working very hard on it and another approach that would have a longer extension but would establish a more concrete system by which the State and local governments could develop a compact. I am going to be a cosponsor of that proposal. I know he is working with other colleagues on it. I think that is good work as well. In the interim, I didn't want people to think that those of us who were working to solve both problems here--and there are two problems--were insensitive to the need to extend the moratorium. For that reason, I propose today that we extend the moratorium to next June 30. I will ask unanimous consent to do so, and I will send S. 1504 to the desk.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say that I understood there would be an objection. We will now experience a circumstance where the moratorium expires on Sunday. My expectation is that will not have much material impact on what or what might not happen in the country in the intervening days. It is my hope that all of us who have worked on this can reach an agreement on how to do a number of these things. I don't want to retard the ability of remote sellers, catalogs, Internet, or other devices; I don't want to retard their ability to use that marketing strategy to enhance commerce in this country. I don't want to burden them in a way that would be unfair. By the same token, we have this growth of remote sales by enterprises that, in many cases, have grown very large but have very few locations and use the mail and Internet transactions with which to conduct business; much of the commerce is then outside of the ability of State and local governments to receive the sales and use tax from that commerce just as other transactions would require. That doesn't mean that when you buy something over the Internet, or from a catalog, it is tax free; it is not. A use tax is required to be paid, but almost no one pays it. Some would make the case that, for example, those who want to solve this problem are talking about a new tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is already a tax on these transactions. It is not paid because it is horribly complicated for individual citizens to find a use tax form and submit a use tax to Oklahoma, or North Dakota, or Virginia, and say, by the way, I bought a shirt, or shoes, or a tool set, and here is the use tax I owe because the sales tax wasn't collected when I purchased it. Because of that set of circumstances, we believed it would be better for the seller and the buyer to find a way to collect that, remit that to the coffers of State and local governments. It is used largely for education and improving and strengthening our schools, and we believe it would be important to do that. We are trying to solve several problems. I believe at the end of the day we will extend this moratorium. I wish we had done it today. We will extend this moratorium. My colleague from Wyoming would make permanent the moratorium on taxing access. I will support that. We will extend the moratorium. If we are doing the right thing, I think we will at the same time begin to address the second part of the issue on behalf of the Governors, mayors, State legislators, States, school administrators, and all the folks who care about that. On the other side, we are going to address the question of complexity on behalf of the remote sellers. They are not just whistling in the dark here. This is a real problem and a serious problem that we have to address. We are dealing with both sides of the equation. I support addressing both sides in a thoughtful and sensible way. Again, I understand why an objection was raised, although I regret that it was made. I wish we had been able to extend the moratorium today. I want everybody to understand that there is no division in the Senate, in my judgment, about whether the moratorium should be extended; it is how long, and should we do it without trying to find a way to buckle up the other part of the solution. We ought to, in my judgment, deal with both sets of problems at the same time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I just want to clarify a point the Senator made. I assume he was not making the point that I was suggesting that the Internet Tax Freedom Act created a ``Cayman Islands.'' I have not suggested that, and I didn't say that today. If the Senator is responding to somebody who might have done that, it wasn't I. I want to make sure the Senator understands that. If I might make a final point, the Senator is accurate that the State and local governments can now impose a use tax on sales that are made by remote seller to a customer in that State. He is also accurate that they almost never do because it would require the hiring of tens of thousands of Federal workers to try, in each individual case, to achieve that tax collection. That is precisely why there needs to be a balance in these proposals, to achieve both goals: Extend the moratorium and, in some cases, make them permanent; second, to both simplify the sales use tax systems and allow the collection. I might finally say that I appreciate the generous time, and I say that I would object to a 2-year moratorium with nothing else in it that gives us an assurance of solving the second problem, as some today objected to the 8-month extension of the moratorium I suggested. We will come to a balance on that. The reason I felt the need to offer this today is that Sunday the moratorium expires, and this is simply saying we can solve that and extend it for 8 months, until next June 30, and there will be no expiration. I appreciate the Senator yielding.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1504, the Internet tax moratorium bill; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2 p.m.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes between now and 12:30 today.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I would like to ask a couple of questions, maybe with a comment. We, of course, have a disagreement with a distinguished colleague of ours who offers a farm bill that really is not much of a farm bill at all and certainly offers no hope to family farmers. But isn't the origin of this idea coming from people who really think the current farm program, which has nearly bankrupted the rest of the family farmers who are still around--they have believed this current farm program has been just dandy, that it works just swell? Isn't the origin of this idea from people who really think the current farm program has worked for family farmers?

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for another question, there is the old saying: There is no education in the second kick of a mule. My expectation is, most of our colleagues will understand that this, as a follow-on to the Freedom to Farm bill, is not progress but in fact it retards the opportunity for family farmers in this country to make a living. I say to Senator Conrad, one of the things I want to ask is: Our country now is trying to find out how we provide a lift to the American economy because we had a very soft economy prior to these terrible terrorist acts that occurred on September 11. The economy was very soft and troubled going into that point. But, in fact, the farm economy, the economy in which family farmers live, has been soft and troubled and collapsing for 4, 5 years. So when you talk about giving a lift to the American economy, family farmers out there on the land have been working through a virtual depression for 4, 5 years now. It is interesting; we are talking about two things in Congress: One is a stimulus plan to try to lift the economy, and the second is security. In both cases, it seems to me, these proposals fail. Stimulus. This isn't going to be a stimulus. This is going to be a lodestone. It is going to weigh down further family farmers. The family farmers have been foot soldiers for this country's economy for a long while. They produce the best food, at the lowest price, for consumers around the world. We are lucky to have them and ought to be proud of them, but they are being bled by an economy that says our food has no value, even as half a billion people around the world are desperately hungry. But the point I want to make is, the Senator talked about Europe. Europe understands food. Europe understands it from another point, which is the other thing we are working on: Security. Part of the issue of food is security. Introduce bioterrorism agents into the food supply and you have really big trouble. How do you do that? Perhaps as a national newscast talked about recently, in a feedlot containing 200,000 cattle. That is why a broad network of family farms, disbursed across our country, represents security of America's food supply. So there is a significant security interest here that the Europeans have understood for a long while that we ought to start understanding. Finally, I make the point that the Senator talks about the bill introduction that the President says he now supports. That bill is a bill that offers 5 feet of rope to somebody drowning in 10 feet of water. Thanks for the gesture, but it is really insignificant and does not matter very much. What we have to do with the leadership of Senator Conrad, myself, and others who care about the future of family farmers, is to take what the House of Representatives passed--which is better than this, I might say, and better than current law--and then add to it higher loan rates for wheat, higher loan rates for barley, and a series of other things that really make it a bill that is friendly to family farms. I am talking now about families who produce America's food supply. I was not going to speak to this, but I heard Senator Conrad make some comments. He is right on the mark; assertive, strong, but right on the mark on these issues. I am proud to work with him on these matters. This is life or death for the economic and financial future of many families who have invested their hopes and dreams on a farmstead somewhere in the Dakotas or up and down the heartland of the country.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are intending to have a Democratic policy luncheon at 12:30 tomorrow. Following the vote and other intervening morning business, Members on our side will be invited to the policy committee luncheon where we will be talking about a range of issues dealing with the Middle East.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague from Illinois and the majority leader from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, have just spoken about the challenges that have been presented to the Senate, our Capitol, and to our Nation, beginning with the heinous acts of mass murder committed by sick, deranged terrorists on the date of September 11 and continuing now to the actions of some demented people who would send letters with spores of anthrax in those letters. It is important, as Senator Daschle indicated a few minutes ago, because we now have a 24-hour news cycle in which things move very rapidly and reporting takes place at a very rapid pace, for us to sort out what is and what is not happening as a result of these terrorist attacks, specifically about what is happening on Capitol Hill with anthrax having been put in a letter addressed to the majority leader. There is not an evacuation of the U.S. Capitol Building; there is not an evacuation of Senate offices. What is happening is a thoughtful, deliberate approach to respond to this set of challenges. Senator Daschle and Senator Durbin both said--and I think it is important to underscore--that those who have been identified as having been exposed to anthrax by the swab testing that has been done, are not at this point infected by that exposure. They have simply been exposed. It is important to underscore that there are antibiotics available to deal with that exposure if it becomes an infection. That is important for people to understand. And the medical authorities have visited with a joint session of Republicans and Democrats this morning here in the Capitol and have gone over that information in some depth. It is not the case that spores of anthrax have been found all over this building. That is not the case at all. The reports we have at this point in time are that spores of anthrax were discovered in a limited area, and the law enforcement authorities and leadership of the Senate have taken actions that would attempt to make certain they don't spread beyond that area, and that we take the precautions necessary for human health and also to make sure the environmental situation in buildings is assured. I want to, as I describe this, say how proud I am of Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, and others, who in most cases have worked nearly around the clock; especially, I am proud of Dr. Eisold and the Sergeant at Arms, the Secretary of the Senate, and so many others, most of whom have had very little sleep because they have been trying to respond to this issue. The Centers for Disease Control team, folks from the NIH and Health and Human Services, are all here. Also let me say how much I have appreciated for some long while the work of the law enforcement authorities on Capitol Hill. These men and women have been working 12 hours a day and, in most cases, 6 days a week every single day for the last month. They are the first responders; they are the ones who put themselves in harm's way. We all should spend some time thinking about what they do for us and the sacrifice they make for their country. It is very important, as Senator Daschle indicated, for people not to panic. This is not a cause to panic. This is a letter that had some anthrax attached to it. All of the things we know about this anthrax, all that we know about the exposure, and all that we know about the ability to treat that exposure, should it become an illness from that bacteria, would lead us to believe it is not at all cause to panic. Is this a point of some concern? Is it worrisome that all of this happened? Of course. We would be fools to deny that this is a troublesome incident. Of course it is. It is probably not unexpected that those terrorists who wish to cause chaos in our country and damage and inflict injury on innocent humans would try to do that in our Nation's Capital and in the symbol of our Government here in the Senate or the House. But the response is not to be frightened. The response is to be thoughtful and careful and take the necessary steps to make certain we protect the folks who work here and make certain we not allow this to happen again. This is quite a remarkable country in which we live. We have faced a lot of challenges in many significant ways. Our country is a country that has split the atom, spliced genes, learned how to clone animals, invented great silicon chips, plastics, and learned how to build airplanes and how to fly them, built rockets, and flew to the Moon. We invented the telephone. We invented the television. We invented computers. We cured polio and smallpox. We survived a civil war. We survived a great depression. We beat back the fascism of Hitler. Through it all, this is the freest country on the face of the Earth, with the strongest economy, providing the most opportunity for the most citizens anywhere. That is not an accident. It is because through it all, through all of the challenges, all the tough times as well as the good times, the center of the American people--the broad center that thinks through things in a clear way and uses inherent common sense in deciding how to respond and when to respond--has largely governed our behavior as a country. That broad center, I am sure, in this country feels as I do as a result of the September 11 tragedies; it feels the rage and anger that there are sick, twisted people who would do that. They believe as I do, I am sure, when I see the kinds of terrorist activities such as I saw in Florida and New York and now on Capitol Hill, with the use of anthrax as a weapon of terror--I am sure they feel anger and rage. It is also the case that there are men and women in our Armed Forces who are in harm's way today because we have called on them once again to take action against those who would undermine the basic freedoms in our country. So what is important today, not just with respect to this incident on Capitol Hill and all the wonderful young men and women--and in some cases older men and women--is that they are here because they are proud to be here; they are proud of their public service. It is important for all of us to understand that this country stands together. This country stands tall in the face of challenges. I said yesterday it is interesting that changes occurred in this Chamber. In this Chamber of the Senate, for so long we had so much pettiness. There was so much pettiness in our politics. That is now gone--and good riddance, as far as I am concerned. But that pettiness led us to believe on every single issue, at every intersection, there was an ``our side'' and a ``their side.'' We have, it seems to me, in meeting these challenges, understood now that there is only one side and that is ``our side.'' That is the side that we all stand on together. It is not mine and yours, or us and them; it is just our side together. That is the way we will respond to the incident that has occurred on Capitol Hill. It is the way America will respond to the broader threat of terrorism that exists around the world. It is the way the American people have responded for two centuries--to build a beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world. It shall remain that way as long as we have the kind of leadership and capabilities that exist in this country, to say to the rest of the world it is worth the fight to preserve our freedom; it is worth that fight. So let me end as I began, by thanking my colleague, Senator Daschle, for his leadership. Our thoughts have been with his staff as they have worked through this challenging period, and our thoughts are also with the literally thousands of men and women who come to this Capitol to serve with us in the House and in the Senate who do that because they want to be involved in public service and are proud of it. We say to them, don't be unnerved by this; we are proud you are here and that you have stayed through this period. We thank you for your public service. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing to review the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, following the first vote of the day for a business meeting to consider pending committee business, including the nomination of Mark Everson, to be Controller, Office of Federal and Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 10 a.m., on Emergency 911.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, for a hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs' Fourth Mission: Caring for Veterans, Servicemembers, and the Public Following Conflicts and Crises. The meeting will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Thomas M. Sullivan to be Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, beginning at 10:15 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 2 p.m., in closed session to receive testimony on security of Department of Defense ammunition shipments.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Youth Violence be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 10:30 a.m., in Dirksen 226. ``Defending America's Transportation Infrastructure'' panel: The Honorable Mike Parker, Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil Works), Department of the Army, Washington, DC; Brian M. Jenkins, Senior Advisory to the President, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA; Donald E. Brown, Chair of the Department of Systems Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; Jeffrey K. Beatty, President and CEO, Total Security Services International, Marrietta, GA; and Tony Chrestman, President, Ruan Transport, Des Moines, IA.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 3 p.m. Agenda: Markup of S. 1379, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an Office of Rare Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes; S. 727, a bill to provide grants for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training in public schools; H.R. 717, to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for research and services with respect to Duchenne muscular dystrophy; an original bill dealing with mental health and terrorism; and the nomination of Jean Scalia to be Solicitor General of the Department of Labor.