Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I say to my colleague from Nevada, as he knows, we had a cloture vote on this appropriations bill, and we did not invoke cloture. We have what is known as a filibuster--not on an appropriations bill but even on the motion to proceed to the appropriations bill. There is a time and a place for everything. I certainly would never abridge the right of any Member of the Senate to use the rules in any manner they prescribe for themselves or their constituents. It is in my judgment rather unseemly at this moment, given what is happening in this country, for this Senate effectively to be at parade rest-- standing, sitting, waiting, doing nothing. We have appropriations bills that need to come to the floor of the Senate. They have been through the Appropriations Committee, but we cannot get them to the floor of the Senate because we have people objecting. The other side says they don't want the Senate to do its business at this point, so they object. This appropriations bill is foreign operations. It is a critically important piece of legislation dealing with issues such as the security of our Embassies. Does anyone wonder at this moment and at this time, given the security threats we face at virtually every Embassy around the world, staffed by American citizens, whether we ought to wait to pass legislation dealing with Embassy security? I don't think there is not great cause for me to wonder. Of course we should. We ought to move this appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate, debate it, and pass it. Let me go back for a moment to describe why I believe this should not be business as usual and why I believe it is unseemly for some simply to plant themselves at this moment and say: We are not going to allow the Senate to do anything. September 11 changed a lot of things in our lives. The heinous act of mass murder by perverted people changed a lot in the lives of all of us. This attack against our country, but basically an attack against freedom, makes everyone feel less secure. We have resolved from that moment to do things differently. One of the things that happened almost immediately following the President's speech to a joint session of Congress was a new attitude and a new spirit in the Congress. All of a sudden, those who previously had been Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, were standing during debate, proclaiming themselves so described, all of a sudden those labels were gone. There did not seem to be any longer an ``our'' side and a ``your'' side or a ``your'' side and ``my'' side. There was only in this Chamber, and only in the House of Representatives, and only between us and the President, one side. It was our side. Just our side. We were all in on the same side, determined to try to deal with these cowardly acts of terrorism. That, regrettably, has changed some. There is now a different attitude in recent days. Folks decided we shouldn't work together, that we shouldn't do the Senate's business, that we shouldn't pass appropriations bills, that we should essentially stall and stop. It doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't serve anybody's interests. It doesn't serve the interests of the United States, and it certainly doesn't serve the interests of the American people. I mentioned this appropriations bill has money for the security of our embassies all around the world. Is what we really want to do at this moment to slow down this process, to say embassy security somehow is not very important, that there is no urgency here? I don't think so. I think our job ought to be to say these are important issues for the Senate to address--not tomorrow, not next week, but now. It is not just this bill. It is especially this bill today because that is what we are talking about, the motion to proceed to this bill, but it is so many other appropriations bills and so much additional work that we and the House must do together. Aviation security, we did that bill. Antiterrorism, we did that bill. Neither has been done in a satisfactory way by the other body. So we need to resolve those differences, and that is critically important. But most especially the business of the Senate is to take up important issues, including this bill from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, debate it, and pass it. If someone here has heartaches about what is in it, offer amendments and have votes. God bless you; you have every opportunity in the Senate to do that. The rules allow you to do that. But it is not appropriate, in my judgment, to shut this place down because someone got cranky about something else. If you are in a bad mood, find another room, but at least here on the floor of the Senate let's try to do the Senate's business. If there was ever an opportunity and requirement to demonstrate to the American people this is a new time and new day and we are facing threats in a new way together, this is the time to do it. Let's adopt these motions to proceed, pass these bills, and provide for the security of American embassies included in this bill. Madam President, Senator Daschle, the majority leader, is present. I will yield the floor and allow him to proceed.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, let me say there is no more bipartisan committee in the Congress than the Senate Appropriations Committee. These are Republicans and Democrats working together in a very significant way. It is completely bipartisan in its culture, and I am proud to be a part of that. I am proud to be on the Appropriations Committee. It is just disappointing that the appropriations bills Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens have helped us fashion can now not be brought to the floor because of people blocking the motion to proceed. That does not serve the Senate's interests, and it does not serve the country's interests. My hope is those who are blocking this will decide that they should step aside and allow us to do the Appropriations Committee's work. It is very important we do that. It is important for us, and it is certainly important for the country. I appreciate the Senator from Nevada yielding.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one additional question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada talks about the importance of moving the appropriations bills. I observe the deadline for the appropriations bills was October 1. The deadline was October 1, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member have done everything humanly possible to try to move these bills, and yet we discover we cannot even get past the motion to proceed on an appropriations bill, which is just unthinkable to me. Is it not the case we had to break a filibuster on the motion to proceed not just on appropriations bills but even on the aviation security bill and the bill before that? This is not a time to be having filibusters on motions to proceed. Will the Senator from Nevada agree with that?

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the manager and the Senator McCain are working very hard to resolve the final issues on this legislation. I take the floor again to say thank them for their hard work on this legislation. It has been a long, tortured trail to get this aviation security bill to the floor of the Senate; and, second, to begin to resolve all of the difficulties and hopefully get it passed as quickly as possible. I mention one issue that will not hang up the bill for me. I will strongly support this bill because of the work they have done. The one issue I talked to both Senator Hollings and Senator McCain about is something that they have agreed to discuss in conference to see if we can make some adjustments. Here is the situation with respect to the enplanement fee of $2.50. If you are flying in this country from one of the spokes in the system and fly from the spoke to a hub and to another hub--for example, from Bismark you go to Minneapolis, get on another plane, fly to Washington, DC, and then you fly back--you are going to pay four enplanement fees totaling $10. The problem with respect to that enplanement fee is one in which if you start at a spoke in this system and fly to a hub and then to another hub, which many people do, they are going to always pay $10, because they will have taken four segments at $2.50 per segment. Those who live in the big cities that fly to another major city will pay $5. If you are from a small airport and go to a hub and then another big city, which most travelers do--I do for every trip to North Dakota; I fly from here to Minneapolis, and either from there to Minot, or Grand Forks, or Fargo--for every one of those tickets, my constituents will always pay four $2.50 enplanement fees. Someone who lives in Chicago or Minneapolis and flies to Washington, DC will always pay a $5 fee. They will pay a fee when they leave Chicago, then a fee when they leave Washington, DC because they do not have to change planes. They only have two segments, not four. We have a circumstance where the current fee will double for those who are on the spokes part of the hub in the spoke system. That is just not fair. So I visited just in this Chamber today with Senator Hollings and Senator McCain and described that circumstance. They have agreed to take a look at that in conference. I understand we cannot modify that at this moment, but they have said, yes, they understand that circumstance, and they would be willing to take a look at that in conference. I appreciate that. It is just a circumstance where, in one more situation, those at the end of the line, those in the smaller airports who have to fly to a hub and then change planes to go someplace are going to end up paying more. They already pay too much, in my judgment. Those who have the satisfaction of flying between pairs of the largest cities in the country have the wonderful treat of being able to see multiple carriers competing around price for those seats; and they get a pretty good deal under deregulation. That has not been the case for a lot of other consumers. When we add to the airline tickets some fee to recover the charge for aviation security, we must do it in a manner that is fair. I submit, as I have indicated to Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, it is not, in my judgment, good policy for us to say to all of those who live out on the end of a spoke in the hub-and-spoke system pay twice as much as those who live in the hub. That is not something that would make sense, not something that would be fair to a lot of folks around this country who fly from the smaller airports. So let me again say, I wanted to call this to the attention of my colleagues today. I did today, with a discussion with Senator Hollings and Senator McCain. They have agreed to take a good look at that in conference. That is all I can ask at this point. Let me conclude, as I started, by saying this bill has an urgency to it. It has been frustrating that it has taken so long to get to the floor, but it is here. I will take great satisfaction in the work that my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has done; my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, has done; along with many others--Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, myself, and so many others who worked on this bill in the Commerce Committee. Thanks to their good work, we will pass an aviation security bill now--I hope today--and get to conference, make the changes necessary, and get this bill to the President's desk. This country needs this bill. The airline industry needs it. This economy needs it. It is much more than just this piece of legislation. It is about confidence. This economy and this country, and especially the airline industry at this point, desperately need that cushion of confidence that a number of steps, including this piece of legislation, will offer. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Sure.

Mr. DORGAN. No, I say in response to Senator Reid, most people are concerned at this moment about the Senate moving very quickly with some urgency to deal with situations such as aviation security, to deal with the issues of national security and international security responding to terrorism, the antiterrorism bill. Most people are concerned about that. Obviously, the lingering effects of the September 11 terrorist acts will probably last forever, and it means people are very concerned about this country's response to those specific threats.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I listened with some interest to my colleague from Nevada and previously my colleagues from Arizona and Idaho in their presentations. I compliment my friend from Nevada. Let me also say how much I admire the Senator from Arizona who came to the floor about 20 minutes ago and asked the question: Why are we not moving? Why is the Senate not doing its work on the issue of aviation security? He, of course, knew the answer and answered it himself. We are held up by people who believe somehow that this is not an emergency, this is not a priority, and that there are other issues more important. So they hold the Senate up. It has been that way now for nearly 2 weeks. We don't vote, we have no debate on the floor, and now we have a colleague today who comes to the Chamber and decides the problem is the majority leader, Senator Daschle. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is we have a handful of people in the Senate who are intent on serving as human brake pads to stop this place dead in its tracks. They have succeeded. While the country is worried about the emergency situation that exists as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks, as a result of an economy that clearly has serious problems, the Senate stands at parade rest. Why? Because a handful of people in the Senate have decided we should not move forward on the issue of aviation security. It is the easiest thing in the world to take the negative side of anything. All of us understand that. This bill, authored by Senator Hollings and Senator McCain--and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it from the Commerce Committee--deals with aviation security, a whole range of issues: The creation of a large cadre of armed sky marshals to put in American commercial airliners; the development of perimeter security at America's airports; the hardening of cockpits on commercial airliners; and the change in the method of screening luggage and people at airports. All of these things are important. There is much more in this legislation as well. That is the positive side of what we are trying to do on an emergency basis. There are some who have held it up, and continue to hold it up even now. I am reminded of Mark Twain, who I have mentioned before. When asked one day to get involved in a debate, he said: Of course, as long as I can take the negative side. They said: Well, we have not told you what the subject is. He said: It doesn't matter. It doesn't take any preparation to take the negative side. That is the case in the Congress as well. It takes no preparation to come here and be opposed to almost everything. It takes no skill to be opposed to everything. We have a few folks in my hometown like that. I grew up in a county of 3,400 people. We have several of them who have opposed everything, all along the way, all the time. This Senate is a lot like my hometown, regrettably. The problem is in the Senate a couple of determined people can stop things. In this country we face real emergencies at this point. Our economy is in serious trouble. Commercial airline service is integral to an economy and its recovery. Going into September 11 and the tragic acts of terror committed against this country, we had a very soft economy. The economy was in trouble even then. One of the leading economic indicators of the economy is airline travel because it is one of the first places people and businesses cut back. All of our major airline carriers were hemorrhaging in red ink on September 10 going into the September 11 terrorist attacks. On September 11, the Federal Government ordered all commercial aircraft-- in fact, all aircraft in this country--to land immediately, and they were grounded. That industry was forced to stay on the ground. There were no airplanes in the sky anywhere. So this is an industry already hemorrhaging in red ink that was forced to suspend all operations. Then the FAA, under certain circumstances, allowed the restoration of commercial airline flights. What the airlines are discovering is that there are people in this country who have canceled events, conferences, trips, and vacations because there is concern about getting back on an airplane. I understand that concern. I flew last weekend to North Dakota, and I had also flown the weekend before to North Dakota. But I understand that people are concerned about getting back on an airplane. They and every American saw over and over and over and over again those images of the 767 commercial airliners being flown into the World Trade Center Towers. That is an image most people will not soon forget. So people were concerned and leery about going back to commercial air travel. This Congress, therefore, must act if it is going to try to restore some health to this economy and give a jump start back to commercial air travel. To do so, this Congress has to put together legislation dealing with aviation security and airline security. That is what we have tried to do. Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, myself, and others, have worked on a piece of legislation that makes good sense. We brought it to the floor understanding that this is an emergency, that this is urgent legislation that needs to get done. And guess what. This Senate is brought to parade rest. Nobody is doing anything and nothing happening because we have a couple of people who say: We won't let anything else continue. You know, we have some people who are crabby about some amendments. My theory is, in a situation like this, if you have some amendments you don't like, stand up and oppose them. If you have some you want to offer, stand up and propose them. Let the Senate vote. Let the Senate make a decision. Do you have good ideas or not? If you don't, tough luck. But don't hold up the Senate and hold up this issue of an urgent need to pass an aviation security bill just because you are a little cranky and have stayed cranky for a couple of weeks. You put the country at risk by doing that. Now, my friend from Idaho is in the Chamber. He and I have worked closely together. I admire his work. I fundamentally disagree with what he did this morning. He is upset with something Senator Daschle has done with respect to an energy bill. Frankly, that energy bill, as Senator McCain said, is separate and distinct from the aviation security bill. We are going to do an energy bill, and we ought to, but the energy bill is going to come together from several sources in the Senate. It is going to come to the floor and we are going to have an opportunity to offer amendments and discuss it. I don't disagree with the notion that central to this country's security is an energy policy. We haven't had an energy policy, under Democratic or Republican administrations, for 30 or 40 years that has meant very much to this country. We need to produce more and find more oil and natural gas. We need to conserve more and, yes, we need to find renewables and a limitless supply of energy, to expand our supply. We need to do all of that, and we need to do it soon. Let me just say this with respect to security: Security, it seems to me, starts at this moment on the floor of the Senate with passing an aviation security bill. That is where it starts. We will work on a piece of legislation dealing with energy policy. We should do that and that also is urgent. But that ought not hold up an aviation security bill. It should not hold this up. We have a responsibility at this point not to go back to business as usual. Business as usual in the Senate is to have two or three or four or five people hold up the work of the entire Senate. That didn't mean very much under most circumstances because we didn't have a situation that was urgent --not with most pieces of legislation. But if you don't think post-September 11 and the challenges we have to the American economy and the challenges we have in air travel and with respect to providing security for this country at home and abroad--if you don't believe that is an urgent situation, somehow you have slept through the last month. This country faces an urgent need to do a series of things -- important things--that will strengthen its future. Central to those at this moment is a piece of legislation dealing with aviation security. It is past the time--long past the time--when this Senate should have been debating that and voting on it. It simply makes no sense to have a couple of people holding up the Senate because they got out of bed on the wrong side and have a permanent case of ill temper on things about which they are concerned. As a result, they hold up the rest of the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes, nominations of judges. My understanding--the Senator from Nevada might correct me--my understanding is it has taken a substantial amount of time for the administration to move judges to the Congress for consideration. I believe something like 25 or 29 of them came just the first part of August. They are now going through the hearing process. With respect to judges, as far as I am concerned--and I hope every one of my colleagues feels the same way--let's get judges moving; let's get all the appointments and confirmations moving. As far as I am concerned, the same burden rests on myself. If I object to someone, bring them out and I will vote against them. By and large, I think most of these nominations are pretty good nominations, but I do not think anybody is trying to hold these up. What has happened is it has taken a great deal of time to get names here, and now the Judiciary Committee is sifting through them to get the hearings in place. The fact we are not even allowed to go to appropriations bills has nothing to do with appropriations; it has to do with some other issue.

Mr. DORGAN. Probably the top 100. Moving judges is just something we should do. It is not a case that we are not moving judges. That is, in my judgment, a false charge. If we are talking about what are the priorities, what is the urgency today on Wednesday, first, as Senator McCain said, the urgency is an aviation security bill; second is an antiterrorism bill that has been worked on and largely agreed to; and third, we ought to finish the appropriations bills. We have a responsibility to do that. The Senator from Idaho is not wrong about energy being a significant issue. It is an issue. I agree with that. I talked today about the commercial airlines and their component part of this economy and their important part of this economy. So, too, is energy. We will not have any economy without energy. I do not disagree with the notion that energy is a significant issue. I would not necessarily say Senator Daschle has the burden of making it third. We have to do the appropriations bills before we do the energy bill. If we can get rid of a few of the objections, we can move these things quickly. There is no reason we should not pass an aviation security bill and send it to the President by tomorrow night. We can pass it today and resolve our differences with the House and move it to the President. There is no reason we cannot do that for this country. We should do that. The antiterrorism bill I think is about completed. There is no reason we cannot do that as well. What a great signal to the American people. The interesting thing is--and the Senator from Nevada asked me about what I heard back home--what I heard all weekend in North Dakota was how pleased people were that finally the pettiness seems to be gone from the politics in this country, and good riddance. Finally, people are working together. Finally, it is not so much that you are a Democrat or a Republican. It is not that there is a my side and a your side, it is just that there is an our side. There is only one side in this country, and that is the side that all of us choose to stand on in the fight against terrorism. There is only one side, and it is our side. That is why I hope that at 2 o'clock this afternoon when Senator McCain comes to the floor with this bipartisan bill on aviation security, that this is something we can clear, move to the floor, offer amendments, and get it done for our side. Again, it is not Republicans and Democrats. Senator McCain is a Republican. Senator Hollings is a Democrat. They have worked together, I have worked with them and others to put this bill together. This bill represents a response by our side, the American response to an emergency, to an urgent situation. I hope we can avoid the kind of difficulty we have been seeing in recent days. I ask those who put us in this position of being, as I said, at parade rest day after day when there are so many urgent things to do to rethink that. I can think of several things that make me a bit upset about this body and probably object to one thing or another. I do not intend to do that. I had an amendment on a bill in the subcommittee I chair. When I brought my subcommittee bill to the floor, I had an amendment that was very important to me and very controversial. I was fully intending to push that amendment and have a big debate and a vote on it. Then September 11 happened, and I brought the bill to the floor after September 11 and said: I do not think it is in the country's interest for me to push this very controversial amendment. Although it means a lot to me and it is very important to me, I am not going to do it because I do not think that is the way we ought to send signals to the American people about who we are and what we are doing at this point. I ask others, especially those who have held up the work of the Senate for now about 2 weeks on this issue, think along the same lines and see if we cannot come to some understanding of the urgency of passing an aviation security bill. We on the Commerce Committee spent a lot of time working on these issues. The leadership of both Senator Hollings and Senator McCain has produced excellent legislation, legislation that will provide real security to commercial airlines and to those who fly in this country, and I hope we are able to do that soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Of course, I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. The objections have nothing to do with appropriations. The objections, as I understand it--there are several different objections to different bills around here; it is one of those pick- your-flavor objections to people who professionally object. As I understand, they do not want appropriations bills to move forward because they are concerned about nominations.

Mr. DORGAN. I understand the point the Senator made. I say this: The burden that might exist on anybody in this Senate--and especially a majority leader of the Senate--is a burden to get the work of the Senate done. We can't do the aviation security bill because we have a couple of people holding it up in the Senate. Why? Because they don't agree with some things. They have decided aviation security isn't urgent for this country. They could not be more wrong. The burden of the Senate is to pass appropriations bills. We have appropriations bills--in fact, we have more than a half dozen--I believe nine of them--some of which have yet to come to the floor of the Senate to be passed. In fact, very few appropriations bills have been completed at all. The appropriation subcommittee that I chair had the conferees appointed this week from the House on a bill they passed in June. Think of that. Months and months of stalling, not even appointing conferees to an appropriations bill. The point is that the majority leader can't bring an appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate. You want to know why? These are bills that were supposed to have been done by October 1--through the House and the Senate. They are not done and he can't bring them to the floor because we have the same few people who object, object, object, and then say to me that the majority leader has a burden. I will tell you what the burden is. The burden is these objectors who sit on our shoulders all day long and won't let this Senate do its business. We ought to be doing the things that are important at this point and saying to the American people that the Senate understands this situation is urgent in America, that security is an urgent situation, that the threat of terrorism is something we should respond to with great urgency. Our economy is in an urgent situation. We need to work together to do something about that. But to have this Senate essentially stop in its tracks for 2 weeks is almost unforgivable. I don't handle well people telling me what the burden of the majority leader is. The burden of the majority leader is to get this Senate to get its business done. We have four, five people thumbing their suspenders and saying: No, I object to everything. Well, take your suspenders outside the Chamber, in my judgment, and let's do the work the American people want us to do. Aviation security is job No. 1. Senator McCain talked about the need to get to this bill. He will be here at 2 o'clock. When he comes to the floor, I am going to be here as well. When he asks unanimous consent to go to the bill, I want to support him. It is unforgivable that hour after hour and day after day this Senate is not doing the business it is intended to do. People talk about the burden of the majority leader. The majority leader has too large a burden, in my judgment, with respect to a few folks who want to hold the Senate up. We know what we ought to do. Let's do it. For those who don't agree--and there are three or four who have deep disagreement with the issue of screening at airports, the screening of luggage--the screening of luggage. If you disagree with that, then offer an amendment. If you win, good for you. You will not, in my judgment, but if you do, fine. Why hold up the Senate and prevent us from passing a bill that is so urgent? It does not make any sense to me. This really is business as usual, regrettably, at a time when the last thing America needs is business as usual from the Senate. They need a Senate that is engaged and that has its priorities straight and in which everybody steps back a bit, takes a deep breath, and says: We are part of the same team. There is now just us and them. There are the terrorists and the rest of us. The rest of us are trying to do what we can to respond to these heinous acts of mass murder. That is our responsibility. I remember a story about a person who opened a small retail business on a small Main Street. He had a large glass fish tank installed in the front window for his grand opening. He put out a huge sign that said: This fish tank contains 63 invisible Peruvian man-eating fish. Crowds gathered on Main Street to look at this fish tank. Of course, there was nothing in it, just a sign about invisible fish. We could perhaps have a sign in the Senate, not about fish, but about invisibility. We are doing nothing. In a time of great national concern, in a time of national emergency, in a time when there are urgent requirements and needs for us to do the right thing, this Senate is doing nothing. It is not the majority leader's fault. The majority leader has a plan. He has an aviation security bill. He has a national security bill. It is not his fault. It is the fault of two, three, four, or five Members of the Senate who decided for their own reasons they want to shut this place down for a while. What an awful signal to send to the rest of the world.

Mr. DORGAN. In response, I say, absolutely. In fact, our colleague from Idaho is on the Appropriations Committee. The first thing you have to do is appropriate the money for the agencies--the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, all the law enforcement functions--and then all of the other functions of the Federal Government. We have to pass the appropriations bills. We are now operating under a continuing appropriations bill because we in Congress did not get our work done by October 1. It is not as if we are not trying. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, are pushing very hard, and we cannot get the appropriations bills to the floor of the Senate. Do my colleagues know why? Because there is an objection to a motion to proceed to an appropriations bill.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I actually came to this Chamber to talk about something else, which I want to do now for about 3 or 4 minutes. But, I was inspired by my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who was talking about the urgency of the aviation security bill and wanted to comment first about that. I want to speak for a moment about another priority. When I was talking with the Senator from Idaho about priorities, let me describe another one that ranks right near the top, in my judgment. As soon as we finish the legislation dealing with aviation security, the antiterrorism bill, and the appropriations bills, we need in this Congress to turn to the farm bill. If one does not come from farm country, they may not understand the need for a farm bill, but let me describe the urgency of this Congress passing a decent bill that gives family farmers a chance to make a living. We have been living with a farm bill called the Freedom to Farm Act, which has been a terrible failure for family farmers. It literally has pulled the rug out from under family farmers in our country. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a new farm bill, and good for them. The bill that was passed by the House of Representatives is better than the current farm bill that is now in place. We can make it even better. It shortchanges wheat and barley, for example, on loan rates, and there are some things that I would change. I say this: The bill the House of Representatives passed is better than the current farm bill. Now the Senate has an obligation to take up a farm bill and pass it before we finish our work this year. We must do that. We do not have the choice. If we do not pass a new farm bill this year and accept the challenge with the House having passed its bill, we will shortchange American farmers in a significant way. There are many families hanging on by their financial fingertips wondering whether they are going to be around to plant the crop next spring. I hope this Congress will say to them that family farmers matter to this country, they strengthen this country, and we are going to give them a farm bill that provides countercyclical help when prices collapse so they can stay around and be part of our country's future. Now why is that important? Two reasons. One reason is one I have talked about a long time in this Chamber, and that is from both an economic and social standpoint, family farms are important to this country's character and its future. Family values have always rolled from family farms to small towns to big cities, nurturing and refreshing the value system in our country. Having a network of family farm producers producing our food in this country produces more than food. It produces communities, it produces a lifestyle, it produces character in rural America that adds to this country and who we are and what we are. Even more than that, if one does not care about that--and I do deeply--we could have, perhaps, a country in which we farm from California to Maine with giant agrifactories in which no one lives out on the land. It is just a bunch of corporate bookkeepers. That, in my judgment, erodes and detracts from the culture that has helped make America great. So even if one does not care about family farming--and I do very deeply--even if one believes that agrifactories are the way of the future--and I really disagree with that--from a national security standpoint it makes good sense to have wide dispersal of food production in America. There was a report the other night on a national television program talking about feedlots that feed 200,000 head of cattle. This report talked about the real possibility of the introduction of bioterrorism through the food supply in concentrations of agriculture production of that size. It is true. How difficult would it be, however, to do that to a food production system which you have a wide network of family farms on America's land producing America's food? From a national security standpoint, it is important that we have support for family farmers. Europe does it. Europe does it for another reason. Europe has been hungry and decided never again to be hungry and never again to be dependent on concentrations of food producers. So they, in Europe, have a network of producers, small farmers, dotting the landscape of Europe because they have been hungry once and have determined never to do that again, and the best defense against hunger is to have family farmers all across Europe producing their food supply. The same is true in this country, in my judgment. Exactly the same is true. Add to that the national security implications of having broad distribution of food supplies in this country produced by family farms. Again, as I said when I started, I think family farms produce something very enriching and very important to who we are as a country. Much more than that, they also contribute to this country's national security. The House of Representatives has passed its farm bill. We have a responsibility in the Senate to pass ours. The difference between the House and the Senate farm bill that would amend or change the Freedom to Farm Act will be hundreds of millions of dollars to farmers in North Dakota alone. The Freedom to Farm bill was passed when the price of grain was quite high and it collapsed almost immediately, and family farmers have lived now for 4 or 5 years with commodity prices that are far below the cost of production. The result is a whole lot of families are struggling. Many have lost that struggle and have moved from the family farm because they went broke. Others are hanging on, just hoping. The only thing farmers have ever been able to live on is hope; hope that somehow next spring they would be able to find somebody who would lend them the money to plant a crop; hope if they put the crop in that perhaps it would rain enough so that the crop would grow; hope that it would not rain too much and drown out that crop; hope they did not have insects; hope they did not have hail; hope that crop disease did not destroy the crop. If beyond all of those hopes they finally raised a crop, hope when they combined or harvested that crop and put it in a truck and drove it to an elevator that there would be a price that was decent. With that kind of hope, farmers deserve our help during the tough times, and it is my hope the Senate will understand its responsibility right now in the next several weeks to take up the challenge of the House and pass a farm bill, a good farm bill, that says to family farmers we are standing with them, we are standing behind them, and we want to provide a bridge over price valleys to try to help them through these tough times. If we do that, it also will strengthen our country. That also will strengthen our economy. We will not have economic recovery in this country if we say it does not matter what happens to those who live on the land; it does not matter what happens to family farmers. Economic recovery also begins by helping those who produce America's food supply, and I hope the Senate will take up this challenge in the next couple of weeks. I conclude by saying this: I come from rural America. I was raised in a town of 300 people. We raised horses, had some cattle. When I left my home county--it was a fairly large county geographically--there were 5,000 people living there. There are now 3,000 people living there. Like most rural counties, it is shrinking. The Lutheran minister in one of the communities in my home county told me she has four funerals for every wedding at which she officiates. There is this movie ``Four Weddings and a Funeral.'' This is the opposite: four funerals for every wedding. Why is that the case? Because in those small towns and those rural areas, people are getting older, the population is aging. Very few new people are moving in, very few young people are taking over the farms, because they can't make a living. As the age increases, the economies of the communities are shrinking. What used to be a plum is now a prune--my home county and thousands like it across this country. If one just thinks this is about numbers and balance sheets, let me again describe how it is not. It is about dreams, about people's lives. There was an auction sale, which happens too often in my State. A fellow named Arlo was the auctioneer. He told me he was auctioning a tractor at the auction sale. People bid and bought the tractor. At the end of the auction sale, where he auctioned many things from the family farm because the farmers could not make it, a little boy, about 9 years old, came up to him. He was the son of the farmer who was being sold out. He grabbed the auctioneer around his leg, and he kind of shouted at him. He said: You sold my dad's tractor. Arlo kind of patted him on the shoulder to try to calm him down. This little boy had tears in his eyes. He looked up and said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big. This is about dreams, about families, about kids. It is about the future. Family farming is much more than just business, it is part of our culture. Our country needs to understand that. We have a responsibility to write a new farm bill, one that works, one that works for family farmers. In conclusion, as I have said before, if writing a farm bill is not about investing in families who farm in this country, retaining a network of families across the prairies of this country, then we don't even need a farm bill. We don't need a farm bill to help the giant agrifactories. If someone wants to buy 3,000 milk cows and milk them 3 times a day, God bless them. They don't need Uncle Sam's money. But a family with a family yard and a light that shines over where that family sleeps, where the dreams reside, cannot make it through tough times and price depressions. The only way to save family farms when the prices collapse is that the Government say: This part of our economy matters; we hope you get through the tough times--we will build a bridge over the valleys. If the Government is willing to do that, it will retain a food supply network populated on average by family farms that produce that food supply. In a world desperately hungry, where so many people go to bed at night with an ache in their belly, when thousands die every day from hunger and hunger-related causes, it is unthinkable to me that what we produce in so great abundance somehow has no value. They take it to the elevator, and farmers are told their grain has no value. It has value to the people in the world who are starving. It has value to the 500 million people who go to bed at night hungry. But our farmers are told, that which you produced, which rested on your hope in the spring to produce a crop, has now no value in the fall when it is harvested. There is a major disconnection in this country about the value of agriculture, its worth to family farmers, its worth to the world and what it contributes to the stability of the world. We had better think through in a more clear way how all of that fits together. Food is an enormous asset. Those families who produce it are a significant asset to this country. It is time the Congress understands that. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week the House of Representatives passed a new farm bill. That piece of legislation is an important step forward because most of us believe the current farm bill does not work. The so-called Freedom to Farm bill, in fact, has been a disaster for family farmers now for many years. It had no ability to help farmers during tough times to provide for disasters and collapses in commodity prices. Because of this, each year Congress has had to come up with emergency funding at the end of the year. We did that. We did not do enough, but we did some each year to try to repair the hole in the so-called Freedom to Farm bill. That bill now expires at the end of next year and needs to be replaced. The House of Representatives, God bless them, said: No. We should not wait until next year. We should write a new farm bill now. And it ought to be in place for the next crop-year when people go into the fields next spring. We in the Senate now have the obligation to do the same, and I believe we will do the same. With respect to the bill that the House of Representatives enacted last week, let me say this: I think it is better than the Freedom to Farm bill. They have made progress. Good for them. I commend them. There are some things we need to do better than they did in the House bill. For example, in my part of the country we raise a great deal of wheat and barley. The loan rates, for example, for wheat and barley are not significant enough, when compared to other crops. They are far too low in the House bill. So we need to make some adjustments to that piece of legislation. Farm benefits ought to be better targeted to family farmers, in my judgment, as well. We have had the development in this country of these giant agrifactories. Well, that is not what we are trying to preserve. If this isn't about preserving family farms, families that are trying to live out their lives in the country and make a living on the family farm, if that is not what this is about, then, in my judgment, we do not need a farm bill. Abraham Lincoln started the Department of Agriculture with nine employees in the 1860s. As you know, a century and a half later, it is a behemoth organization. If a farm bill is only to support the giant agrifactories of the world, then count me out. But if it is to support family farms, I say: Good; it is important. And it is important to this country's future that we maintain a network of family farm food producers. There is a national security interest as well for the Senate to do a farm bill. The House has done the bill, so we also ought to do it before we adjourn, in the interest of national security. What is the national security interest? The other evening on national television, they described a feedlot with nearly 200,000 cattle in it over the year. This is a giant agricultural enterprise that brings large numbers of cattle together and feeds them in a huge series of feedlots. They talked about the potential of bioterrorism entering the food supply, and how convenient it would be for those giant agrifactories to be a target for efforts in bioterrorism. It seems to me a broad network of family producers across this country tends to thwart that. Security of America's food supply is best achieved by a network of family farms producing America's food. That is why a farm bill is so important. We have the obligation and the opportunity in the Senate to do the right thing. Between now and when we leave at the end of this session of Congress, we should pass a farm bill, go to conference, reach agreement with the House, and then send a farm bill to the President that he will sign. I understand the President says he doesn't support the bill passed by the House of Representatives. The fact is, however, if it is not his priority, it is ours. We ought to write a good farm bill and send it to him. I believe at the end of the day he will support it because the House passed it with a veto-proof majority. I would expect a good farm bill will pass the Senate with a similar majority. I believe we ought to waste no time. I have talked to the majority leader and others about it. He agrees. Let's try to do what we can do to pass a farm bill in the Senate, then go to conference and see if we can't get a farm bill signed into law before the end of this year. That way, family farmers who go into the fields next spring will understand what the new farm bill will be and will be able to plan accordingly. It will certainly be better than the Freedom to Farm bill, a bill that has undercut the interests of families trying to make a living on a family farm. Very few people in this country have seen their income cut as dramatically as the average family farm income has been cut over the years. This loss of income, then, is somewhat ironic. We are dropping food into Afghanistan because people are on the abyss of starvation; we hear reports of old women climbing trees in Sudan to forage for leaves to eat; and one-half a billion people go to bed every night with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. All told, thousands of children die every day from hunger and hunger-related causes. Yet the farmers of South Dakota and North Dakota and Kansas and Montana and Nebraska are told, when they load their truck with wheat or barley and take it to the country elevator, that which they produce has no value. They are told the food somehow has no value, that the price is collapsed because it is not worth very much. It seems to me that much of the world is placing great worth on that which we produce in great abundance on America's farms. If we can't find a way to connect that which we produce to those who need it, then we are not thinking hard. The surest road to stability and peace in the world is to try to help people who are hungry. We must place a value on the food our family farmers produce. Again, there is a disconnection there somewhere. We need to find it and reconnect it. Let me again say, I hope in the coming couple of weeks we will, in the Senate, make it a priority to write a farm bill, bring it to the floor, and go to conference with the House. We have that obligation to our family farmers. That ought to be our responsibility now. It is not only good for family farmers; it is good for American security interests, for food security interests to do that. I hope we will do it soon. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield one final time for a question? I deeply appreciate his indulgence. The reason this is important, aside from basic safety, which I think is paramount, is the airline industry and commercial aviation are critically important to this country's economy. Prior to September 11 our economy was very soft, and the airline industry as a leading economic indicator was hemorrhaging in red ink going into September 11. Then the Government shut down the entire commercial aviation sector, just shut it down completely. Now that it has begun to start up once again, people are leery, are worrying about whether or not they want to get back on an airplane. People are cancelling trips. They are cancelling conferences. The thing is, Government has the obligation to say to those people who have images in their head of an airplane crashing into a trade tower over and over again, we have a responsibility to say to people we are taking effective, decisive, and immediate action to deal with security on commercial airliners in this country, and that is why there is this urgency. Yes, it is about this industry, but even more so it is about this economy. It is important that we do this, that we do it right, and that we do it immediately. Let me again say I think the leadership of the Senator and the leadership of Senator McCain is something all of us should cherish, and I hope we can get to this bill and get it moving, have the votes, and pass this legislation. I support what the Senator is doing.

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

Mr. DORGAN. I was listening with interest to the Senator about this issue of national objectives and Federal employees doing airport screening. I know there are some who think there is nothing in Government that can be done correctly. But I say them, that they should go to ground zero in New York City, the site of these terrorist acts, and talk to the firefighters and law enforcement people. They will then understand that those Government employees, those firefighters who lost their lives, were climbing the stairs of those twin Trade Towers even as they were coming down. As that fire broke out in both buildings and people began to evacuate those buildings, those firefighters were going up with full backpacks. People told me--and I read reports--of seeing firefighters on the 20th floor and the 30th floor, nearly out of breath, climbing the stairs of those buildings. Those are public servants providing a public service that is unmeasurable in its value to this country. So when I hear people talk about Government workers in a disparaging way, I say this: There are a lot of people who commit themselves to public service in this country who, every day and every way, every hour, protect this country and stand up for the interests of this country. Yes, I'm describing the firefighters of New York, and the law enforcement folks in New York and New Jersey and the surrounding region, but this public service also occurs in every community across this country, every single day. The Senator from South Carolina has proposed, and I support, the notion that at the 100 largest airports in this country we federalize the screeners who are screening baggage so that they are following national standards and national training guidelines. It makes great sense to me. And with respect to the other airports, I believe the Senator proposed that local airports could contract with law enforcement officials and others to do the same thing. But it seems to me that--I guess I will ask the Senator this question, finally, that we are hung up on this issue at this moment: The issue of aviation security is of paramount importance to this country. Why? Because some people don't like the notion that we would replace the big companies that have now contracted to provide this service--service where inspector after inspector has shown us you can drive a truck through the holes in the service. They decide: We don't want to do it. Therefore, we will hold up the legislation and not allow it to continue. How long, I ask the Senator, have we been held up on the floor of the Senate by this ideology that says we won't allow there to be Federal screeners at the Nation's largest airports? How long?

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, about a half hour ago, President Bush was in the Rose Garden for a ceremony. During the question-and-answer period, the President expressed some great concern--in my judgment, justifiable concern--about the leaking of classified information that was given to some Members of Congress. Apparently, at least a couple Members of Congress, on a couple of occasions, have leaked that information to the press. In my judgment, the President has every right to be very upset about that. This country has asked its young men and women in military service to risk their lives in this time of national emergency. As they undertake military operations in parts of the world that are thousands and thousands of miles from here, it ill-serves our country's interests to have any Member of Congress, under any circumstance, at any time, going to a classified briefing and then disclosing the information from that classified briefing to a member of the press. The solution, I might say, is not, however, for the administration to stop briefing the Congress about classified material. The solution, I would urge the President, would be for us to find out which Member of Congress has leaked classified information and then make certain that this Member of Congress--House or Senate--is not given classified information in the future. I know this is a difficult area and a difficult set of circumstances, but this country faces some very difficult days ahead. The September 11 terrorist attacks that were committed against this country changed almost everything. The need for security is quite evident to almost everyone in this country. The terrorist attacks require this country to respond. The President had no choice. We cannot ignore those attacks. We had to respond to those attacks. And the President has the full support of the American people in his response, in my judgment, and certainly the full support of the Congress. But I just want to say that the President was dead right this afternoon in expressing anger about the disclosure--the unlawful disclosure and unauthorized disclosure--of classified information. Members of the House or the Senate who would disclose classified information to the press that they received in classified briefings do no service to this country. I would hope the administration and the President, rather than deciding they will not share that information with Congress, would decide that they would sanction those who have misused that classified information. In order for Congress to do its work, and in order for the committees in Congress to do their work, information must be made available, even classified information. But the President is correct that information must be treated as classified, treated as top secret, and cannot be given to the press. An unauthorized disclosure, in my judgment, undercuts this country's interests. I hope the President's admonition today, and I hope the discussion by other Members of Congress about this, will convince the administration they ought to continue the briefings. They are helpful and important as a part of this process. But some of us in Congress full well understand the President's concern about the unauthorized leaks that have occurred.