Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Have a record vote and strip it out. As I understand the circumstances, those with whom the Senator disagrees at this point, they are content just preventing the Senator from considering this bill because they do not want to have a vote. They will lose the vote, and lose the vote by a fairly large margin. Will the Senator from South Carolina agree with that assessment?

Mr. DORGAN. I do not mean to interrupt the Senator, but I was inspired listening to his discussion and I want to make a couple of additional comments, concluding with a question. It is not unusual for politicians to compliment themselves, but the Senator from South Carolina is not someone who would ever do that. So let me pay a compliment to Senator Hollings and also to Senator McCain. The Senator has brought a bill to this Chamber that makes good sense. He worked on this legislation in a manner of developing a consensus, worked in a bipartisan way, brought a bill in a very timely manner, and then, as the Senator from South Carolina has said, it has been hung up now for some weeks. It is inexplicable that in a time of national emergency--and it is that, not just with respect to national security issues but also with respect to this economy--it is inexplicable that there is, among some, business as usual in the Senate. This is not business as usual. In my judgment, it ought to be a circumstance where, if someone disagrees with what Senator Hollings and Senator McCain have brought to the floor, then by all means offer an amendment, make their best case and try to strip it out.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to introduce legislation today on behalf of myself, Senator Breaux from Louisiana, and Senator Hutchison from Texas dealing with the extension of the moratorium on Internet taxation. Let me describe what that is and what it means. We already have in law a provision that provides a moratorium on the taxation of the Internet as it is called, but it really provides a moratorium on a State government's or a local government's ability to provide a tax on the access to the Internet. There is a moratorium. That moratorium expires on October 21. Except those few that are grandfathered, the moratorium bill not only prohibits State and local governments, from imposing a tax on access to the Internet, it also prohibits punitive or discriminatory taxes with respect to the Internet. The Congress passed that legislation a couple of years ago. It was designed to expire October 21 of this year. In a few days, it will expire, and there are colleagues of mine who have offered in recent days extensions of the moratorium. Some are talking 5 years; some are talking 2 years. I think both of those are far too long. I propose we extend the moratorium until June 30 of next year. There is another issue that relates to this, which is why I believe there needs to be an extension. We need to solve the problem of tax collections with respect to Internet transactions and all transactions of remote sales. When you use a computer, or a catalog for that matter, to buy a product, when you receive that product, in most cases you are supposed to pay a sales or a consumption tax to your local government or your State government. In point of fact, most people never pay that tax. So the State and local governments lose that revenue. The seller, a catalog company or an Internet company that is doing business in most of the States, is not required to collect that sales tax so the seller does not collect it. The person who receives it or orders it and then receives the goods does not pay it, even though they are required to, and the State and local governments lose a substantial amount of money. A recent study from the Institute for State Studies says this year the loss will be $13.3 billion for State and local governments, and by the year 2011 it is expected State and local governments will lose $54.8 billion of expected revenue. Most of this, incidentally, is revenue that is essential to school systems around the country. Most of this is essential for State and local governments to keep their school systems operating and pay for their schools and education programs. So State and local governments have a very serious problem. What do they do about it? Internet sellers and catalog sellers also have a problem. If one is set up in business to sell all across the country, but they really have only one location and that is the area where they are set up in business, they do not want to have to subscribe to 5,000 or 7,000 different sales tax jurisdictions. That is far too complicated. The remote sellers have a right to say: We don't want to have to subscribe and pay taxes and file forms in thousands and thousands of different jurisdictions. They are right about that. What is to be done? It seems to me there is a requirement for State and local governments to simplify their sales tax systems, and when they have dramatically simplified those systems so that companies that are doing business all across the country can easily comply with the requirements--when that happens, when State and local government do that--I believe those engaged in remote sales should collect the tax and remit it to State and local governments. It will be easy for the consumer to have that happen. The tax is already owed. It seems to me it will be convenient enough for the seller to do it if the States have dramatically simplified their system. And it will finally provide the resources the States and local governments have been counting on to support their school systems. All of that ought to be done. As far as I am concerned, I don't mind extending this moratorium forever--6 months, 2 years, 5 years. It doesn't matter to me. We should not apply discriminatory taxes. We should not apply punitive taxes to Internet transactions. I don't care much about the question of taxing access. As far as I'm concerned, we can prevent all State and local governments from doing that. It does not matter much to me. Speaking for myself, we could make permanent the moratorium. But it should be made permanent or should be made a long-term extension only when we agree, all of us, that we have another problem attendant to it: the problem of the collection and remission of taxes that support our school system. Let's do both. We have some in the Chamber who say, let's ignore the issue of school finance; say that doesn't exist. You cannot do that. You cannot cast a blind eye to that problem. It is a problem that is serious and growing. Governor Leavitt from Utah sent me a note about it along with the study of the Institute for States Studies describing this. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, virtually every Governor, or 45 Governors in this country believe strongly we ought to do this, give the States the ability to develop a compact to dramatically simplify their revenue systems. Then, with that compact, we would allow or require the remote sellers to collect the taxes owed. I am introducing the legislation on behalf of myself, Senator Breaux, and Senator Hutchison, that would extend until June 30 the moratorium that now exists. Between now and June 30 I believe Congress has a responsibility to solve this problem. I don't want there to be and will not support punitive or discriminatory taxes on the Internet. I don't believe we ought to be taxing access to the Internet, and it would not matter to me if we shut it off even for the grandfathered States. The issue of extending the moratorium is not a problem with me. But we must not extend the moratorium and ignore the other significant problem that exists; and that is, the erosion of billions and billions of dollars that are expected to come in to our State and local government coffers to support our schools. That erosion, to the tune of what is expected to be $54 billion in the year 2011 is a very serious problem and serves no purpose for people to talk only of extending the moratorium and not about the other problem. Let's solve both problems at once on behalf of America's kids and on behalf of remote sellers. I happen to think the growth of the Internet is a wonderful thing. I think catalog sales are a wonderful thing. I think Main Street businesses are great. I think all the commerce opportunities that exist in this country enhance this country. The Main Street business people say to us: We rent the business, we hire the employees, we carry the inventory, and if you come to our Main Street business and buy a product, we must collect the sales tax. But someone a thousand miles away who competes by catalog or television monitor can make the same sale and sell it without collecting the sales tax. It is true the buyer has a tax responsibility, but the buyer almost never remits that small use tax to the State when that sale is made. Those are the issues. I call attention today to the fact that some colleagues introduced a piece of legislation that calls for a moratorium for 2 years, some are talking about 5 years. One was introduced, I believe, by my colleague from Virginia and my colleague from California for a 5-year extension. Another was introduced for a 2- year extension. I believe both are too long. I believe the extension until June 30 of next year, with a requirement we get to work, will give the States and the Internet sellers and remote sellers the time they need to get to work and solve this problem. Let's extend it forever as far as I am concerned, but we should fix the long-term problem as we do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, virtually every Governor, or 45 Governors in this country believe strongly we ought to do this, give the States the ability to develop a compact to dramatically simplify their revenue systems. Then, with that compact, we would allow or require the remote sellers to collect the taxes owed. I am introducing the legislation on behalf of myself, Senator Breaux, and Senator Hutchison, that would extend until June 30 the moratorium that now exists. Between now and June 30 I believe Congress has a responsibility to solve this problem. I don't want there to be and will not support punitive or discriminatory taxes on the Internet. I don't believe we ought to be taxing access to the Internet, and it would not matter to me if we shut it off even for the grandfathered States. The issue of extending the moratorium is not a problem with me. But we must not extend the moratorium and ignore the other significant problem that exists; and that is, the erosion of billions and billions of dollars that are expected to come in to our State and local government coffers to support our schools. That erosion, to the tune of what is expected to be $54 billion in the year 2011 is a very serious problem and serves no purpose for people to talk only of extending the moratorium and not about the other problem. Let's solve both problems at once on behalf of America's kids and on behalf of remote sellers. I happen to think the growth of the Internet is a wonderful thing. I think catalog sales are a wonderful thing. I think Main Street businesses are great. I think all the commerce opportunities that exist in this country enhance this country. The Main Street business people say to us: We rent the business, we hire the employees, we carry the inventory, and if you come to our Main Street business and buy a product, we must collect the sales tax. But someone a thousand miles away who competes by catalog or television monitor can make the same sale and sell it without collecting the sales tax. It is true the buyer has a tax responsibility, but the buyer almost never remits that small use tax to the State when that sale is made. Those are the issues. I call attention today to the fact that some colleagues introduced a piece of legislation that calls for a moratorium for 2 years, some are talking about 5 years. One was introduced, I believe, by my colleague from Virginia and my colleague from California for a 5-year extension. Another was introduced for a 2- year extension. I believe both are too long. I believe the extension until June 30 of next year, with a requirement we get to work, will give the States and the Internet sellers and remote sellers the time they need to get to work and solve this problem. Let's extend it forever as far as I am concerned, but we should fix the long-term problem as we do so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to introduce legislation today on behalf of myself, Senator Breaux from Louisiana, and Senator Hutchison from Texas dealing with the extension of the moratorium on Internet taxation. Let me describe what that is and what it means. We already have in law a provision that provides a moratorium on the taxation of the Internet as it is called, but it really provides a moratorium on a State government's or a local government's ability to provide a tax on the access to the Internet. There is a moratorium. That moratorium expires on October 21. Except those few that are grandfathered, the moratorium bill not only prohibits State and local governments, from imposing a tax on access to the Internet, it also prohibits punitive or discriminatory taxes with respect to the Internet. The Congress passed that legislation a couple of years ago. It was designed to expire October 21 of this year. In a few days, it will expire, and there are colleagues of mine who have offered in recent days extensions of the moratorium. Some are talking 5 years; some are talking 2 years. I think both of those are far too long. I propose we extend the moratorium until June 30 of next year. There is another issue that relates to this, which is why I believe there needs to be an extension. We need to solve the problem of tax collections with respect to Internet transactions and all transactions of remote sales. When you use a computer, or a catalog for that matter, to buy a product, when you receive that product, in most cases you are supposed to pay a sales or a consumption tax to your local government or your State government. In point of fact, most people never pay that tax. So the State and local governments lose that revenue. The seller, a catalog company or an Internet company that is doing business in most of the States, is not required to collect that sales tax so the seller does not collect it. The person who receives it or orders it and then receives the goods does not pay it, even though they are required to, and the State and local governments lose a substantial amount of money. A recent study from the Institute for State Studies says this year the loss will be $13.3 billion for State and local governments, and by the year 2011 it is expected State and local governments will lose $54.8 billion of expected revenue. Most of this, incidentally, is revenue that is essential to school systems around the country. Most of this is essential for State and local governments to keep their school systems operating and pay for their schools and education programs. So State and local governments have a very serious problem. What do they do about it? Internet sellers and catalog sellers also have a problem. If one is set up in business to sell all across the country, but they really have only one location and that is the area where they are set up in business, they do not want to have to subscribe to 5,000 or 7,000 different sales tax jurisdictions. That is far too complicated. The remote sellers have a right to say: We don't want to have to subscribe and pay taxes and file forms in thousands and thousands of different jurisdictions. They are right about that. What is to be done? It seems to me there is a requirement for State and local governments to simplify their sales tax systems, and when they have dramatically simplified those systems so that companies that are doing business all across the country can easily comply with the requirements--when that happens, when State and local government do that--I believe those engaged in remote sales should collect the tax and remit it to State and local governments. It will be easy for the consumer to have that happen. The tax is already owed. It seems to me it will be convenient enough for the seller to do it if the States have dramatically simplified their system. And it will finally provide the resources the States and local governments have been counting on to support their school systems. All of that ought to be done. As far as I am concerned, I don't mind extending this moratorium forever--6 months, 2 years, 5 years. It doesn't matter to me. We should not apply discriminatory taxes. We should not apply punitive taxes to Internet transactions. I don't care much about the question of taxing access. As far as I'm concerned, we can prevent all State and local governments from doing that. It does not matter much to me. Speaking for myself, we could make permanent the moratorium. But it should be made permanent or should be made a long-term extension only when we agree, all of us, that we have another problem attendant to it: the problem of the collection and remission of taxes that support our school system. Let's do both. We have some in the Chamber who say, let's ignore the issue of school finance; say that doesn't exist. You cannot do that. You cannot cast a blind eye to that problem. It is a problem that is serious and growing. Governor Leavitt from Utah sent me a note about it along with the study of the Institute for States Studies describing this. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning business on another subject.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask a question in the largely empty Senate on a Thursday afternoon. It is now 4:05. We came to the Senate this week dealing with Defense authorization at a time when defense is critically important to this country. This country was attacked. Thousands of Americans tragically were killed by mass murderers who committed the most heinous crime that any of us have ever seen. The issue of defense at a moment when we are sending American men and women who wear our country's uniform into harm's way is a very important issue. Our first order of business in dealing with the Defense authorization bill in the Senate was to have to vote on cloture to shut off debate so we could complete this bill. What does that say about our priorities? We had a cloture vote, we got through that, we finished that bill, finally, and now it is Thursday at 4:05 in the afternoon, and the subject is airport security. When those commercial airliners hit the Trade Towers in New York, and that commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, it is something that none of us will ever forget--the image of the airplanes hitting the Trade Towers in New York, seeing the fire at the Pentagon, seeing the crater dug into the ground in Pennsylvania by the United Airlines jet. When all of that happened, immediately the FAA shut down all air service in the United States. Every single airplane was ordered grounded. All commercial airlines flying and private airplanes flying in this country were ordered grounded and, as I understand it, moved to the nearest airport they could find. At that moment of that day, September 11, the only thing in the skies over Washington, New York, and other parts of the country were F-16s, armed, flying combat missions over American cities. Our commercial airlines were ordered grounded. None flew for a number of days. And then commercial airlines were allowed to come back with added security and they began to fly once again. What has happened in this country is people have not been coming back to the airports to use commercial air service because they are concerned about the issue of security. Last week I boarded an airplane and flew to North Dakota for the weekend and came back. I appreciate the air service. I appreciate the added security at the airports. I hope all Americans will understand a substantial amount is being done in this country to try to make sure we will not see airplane hijackings once again. It is important. But the Congress is moving to do more with an airport security bill that we have been considering for a number of days on the floor of the Senate, but we cannot move forward. The issue of the Congress of the United States to put sky marshals on virtually every flight in this country, hiring a lot of sky marshals to say to the American people, when you fly, someone will fly with you, a sky marshal, trained and armed and ready to take over that plane if needed. That is an important message to the American people. When you fly, you will go through baggage screening that is not haphazard as it is in some airports but screening by somebody who is trained and following procedures. When you fly, that the airport perimeter, at airports in this country, will be a perimeter that is guarded, in which law enforcement understands what is happening around that airport perimeter. When you fly in the future, you will be on an airplane in which someone is not going to be able to get through that cockpit door because it is a hardened cockpit, as it is on some carriers overseas. All of these things relate to the question, Do we provide confidence to the American people that we have taken the steps as a country to protect ourselves against hijackers? So we bring a bill to the floor of the Senate, largely agreed to, negotiated over a long period of time--and it is now Thursday at 10 minutes after 4--and we have a motion to proceed to the bill on airline and airport security, a motion to proceed to the bill that we cannot advance. There is a filibuster on the motion to proceed. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. The last thing in the world you would expect, in my judgment, is stalling on a motion to proceed to the airport security bill in the Congress in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy. If there are things people object to, if there are things they do not like in this bill, things they want to change--if they have heartache about something, let the bill come to the floor and offer an amendment. Just offer it, grab a microphone, stand up, and have at it. We will be here. We do not have to go anyplace real soon. There is nothing, in my judgment, that has a higher priority than this at the moment. If we do not get people back in the air, if we do not get commerce going again in this country--business travelers and travelers for vacations, pleasure travelers and so forth--if we do not have people back in the air, we will not have a commercial aviation system left in this country. They are hemorrhaging in red ink, and we did a bill to try to provide some support for that, but that bill only lasts a very short period of time. We must give people confidence that when they get on an airplane, they are not going to have substantial risk of hijacking, that the security procedures in place are going to protect them. We must give them that confidence. That is what this legislation is about, and it is just unfathomable to me that there is nothing happening here because we have an objection on the motion to proceed. My colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, said if you will not agree to go to the airport security bill, we have five appropriations bills that should have been done by October 1 but we did not get them done. Let's have an appropriations bill on the floor this afternoon. Let's work on that. We can be here until midnight. Hard work is not something that is a stranger to most people in this Chamber. Do you know what? We have five appropriations bills that should have been done already, and we cannot get one to the floor of the Senate today because when the Senator from Nevada makes a unanimous consent request--if you will not go to airport security, then let's go to an appropriations bill--and the words ``I object'' are heard. So who is objecting, and for what purpose? And how does it advance this country's public policy interests, in a range of critically important issues--notably airport security, which I think ought to rank near the top, given what happened on September 11? How does it advance this country's interest to shut this place down?--just stop it. It doesn't seem to me to be the mood that ought to exist. Post-September 11, we have had a period unprecedented, at least in my judgment, here in the Congress. President Bush came to speak to a joint session. I thought he gave a strong and powerful speech. I thought he spoke for this country, saying this country is unified, this country has one voice. That is a voice of determination saying to the rest of the world that what happened in this country was a heinous act of mass murder. We will find those who did it, and we will punish them, and we will take all steps necessary to prevent that sort of thing from happening again in America. One part of that, and I must say a very important part of that, is dealing with security in the area of commercial airlines and commercial aviation. This legislation dealing with sky marshals, airport screening, perimeter law enforcement, hardening of the cockpit, and so many other issues--the appointment of an Assistant Secretary of Transportation whose sole authority it is to deal with security--all of that is in this legislation. So, on Thursday afternoon we sit in a spooky quiet Chamber because somehow this cooperation is not there. I am not here just to point my finger. I haven't named anybody or talked about sides here. All I say is those who say ``I object'' when we say at least let's move to the motion to proceed to the airport security bill, when they say ``I object,'' I think they retard rather than advance this country's interests on something so important and so timely and so necessary at this moment. The reason I wanted to speak beyond the piece of legislation I introduced here is to say how disappointed I am this afternoon. I think many of my colleagues feel the same way. I am not angry about it, I am just disappointed. This is not what we should do. We know how to do good public policy. We do good public policy by getting together and getting the best of what everybody has to offer, not the worst of each. If you have an objection, if you have a burr under your saddle someplace about something, if you are cranky about something, got up on the wrong side of the bed, didn't have sugar in your cereal, good for you. That doesn't mean you have to hold up the whole place. If you have a problem with something, come offer an amendment. These microphones work at every single desk. Come offer an amendment, and if you have enough support, you are going to win, and God bless you, that is the way life is here in the Senate. I understand people say we have a right to use the rules and the rules allow us to object to a motion to proceed. That is true, absolutely the case. But there are times, unusual times, in my judgment, in this country, when the American people do not want to see business at usual; when what the American people want to see is cooperation and people coming here to say, we know we have a problem, and when this country has a problem, we are one; we are going to work together and solve it. That doesn't mean every voice has to be singing exactly the same note. Someone said when everyone in the room is thinking the same thing, nobody is thinking very much. I am not asking for a unison of thought, but I am asking that we decide to take some action in this Congress. This is the opposite of action, and it is not the best of what Congress has to offer the American people so soon after the tragedy that occurred on September 11. I express my disappointment as only one Member of the Senate. But I hope very much others will join and we will begin next week--the Senate has no votes tomorrow, and Monday is Columbus Day. The Senate will not have votes on Monday. My hope is when we come back Tuesday, we will see a series of actions on the part of the Senate with a new determination to cooperate, to say, yes, let's do these things. We know they need to get done; let's do them. Bring up the airport security bill, offer some amendments, agree to some limitation on time on debate. If you don't want to do that, that is fine, but it seems to me it makes sense to get these things done. Bring the appropriations bills up. Let's get these done. Let's work in a spirit of cooperation. I am not saying one side is bad and the other side is good. I am saying all of us are on the same side. There is only one side in America at this point, and that is the side of trying to get the right thing done at the right time for the American people. I yield the floor, and I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is a bit disappointing that this afternoon we had to file a cloture motion in order for the Senate to consider a piece of legislation dealing with airport and airline security in this country. All Americans understand that on September 11, when hijackers hijacked four commercial airlines and used fully loaded 767s to run into buildings and kill thousands of Americans using those commercial airliners as guided missiles--bombs, with substantial amounts of fuel to kill thousands of innocent Americans--everyone understands that from that moment forward, when the airlines were shut down--all of them were grounded, and then, following that grounding, the airlines began to ramp back up and provide some additional passenger service once again-- that the American people are concerned, and have been concerned about safety. So the Congress began working on this question of, How do we prevent this from ever happening again? How do we promote and develop the safety and security that the American public wants with respect to air travel? How do we give the American people the confidence that getting on an airplane and using that commercial airliner for travel around the country is safe and secure for them? We do that in the following ways: The Congress writes a piece of legislation, as we have done in the Senate in the Commerce Committee--and that piece of legislation deals with the range of security issues that the American people are concerned about-- and then you bring it to the floor of the Senate, you debate it, and have a vote on it. Regrettably, today we are not able to do that because we have people objecting to its consideration. But let me go through the elements of this legislation and explain how important it is. First of all, from the broader standpoint, it is critically important that a country such as ours, with an economy such as ours, have a system of commercial air travel that is vibrant and available to the American people, to move people and commerce around this country. A strong economy cannot exist in this country without a network of commercial air services that are available around the country. So we have to take steps very quickly to repair this and deal with the damage caused by the September 11 tragedies. Going into September 11, we had a very soft economy in this country. The leading economic indicators in America--our airlines, for example: When things begin to go soft, the first thing people cut back--both families and businesses--would be air travel. You do not take the trip you were going to take because the economy is softer. You do not know what the future is going to hold. Airlines are the first to be hurt in a soft economy. So going into September 11, we had all of our major carriers in this country hemorrhaging in red ink, showing very substantial losses. September 11 was a tragedy unlike any this country has ever seen. That tragedy occurred with the hijacking of commercial airliners. And, of course, all airlines were grounded in America immediately on that day. Each day thereafter, when those airlines were grounded, of course, the airlines continued to lose a massive quantity of money. No one, at all, criticized the grounding. That had to be done. But that industry suffered massive losses at a time when post-September 11 no airplanes were flying anywhere. When the airlines began flying again, with the permission of the FAA and the Department of Transportation, it appeared very quickly that people were not quickly coming back, or easily coming back, to use commercial air services. They were concerned. They were nervous. They wondered whether it was safe and secure. This Congress then believed it had a responsibility--and it does--to do the things necessary to say to the American people, we are taking steps to prevent this from happening again. What are those steps? My colleague, Senator Hollings, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, along with Senator McCain and Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer, myself, and many others, have proposed a piece of legislation that but for the objections would be on the floor of the Senate at this moment for debate, a piece of legislation that takes the steps necessary to give the American people confidence that this system of air travel is safe and secure. Here is what we do: We change the screening at airports, the baggage screening process at airports, change it in a very significant way. Federal standards: In the largest airports, Federal workers; in the smaller airports, law enforcement, repaid by the Federal Government; but Federal standards with respect to all baggage screening; law enforcement capabilities with Federal standards with respect to guarding the perimeter of airports; sky marshals that will be used extensively on airplane flights all across this country; the hardening of cockpits so potential skyjackers cannot get through the cockpit doors. All of these issues--screening, sky marshals, perimeter security, baggage screening security--all of these, and more, including an Assistant Secretary of Transportation, whose sole responsibility will be to make sure that we take the measures necessary to assure safety on America's commercial airline services, all of these are designed to say to the American people: You can have confidence in America's air service. What happened on September 11 is not going to happen again. These security measures are designed to prevent hijackings because they are designed to prevent hijackers from ever boarding an airplane again in this country. Those things are necessary to give the American people confidence about the safety and security of air travel. And it is necessary to do them not later, not 2 weeks from now, or a month from now, or next year--it is necessary to take this action now. This Senate ought to take action now on this issue of airport security. We ought not have to file cloture on a bill like this, not a bill that is so important to this country. A piece of legislation this important ought not have to have a cloture motion filed on it. This ought to be where the good will of both sides comes together to say: Let's do this. We know it needs to be done. We know it is important for America. Let's do it. It doesn't mean there aren't better ideas that can come to bear on this legislation. But we ought to have it on the floor and debate it, have people offer amendments, if they choose--if they can improve it with amendments, good for them--but it is very disappointing to me that cloture had to be filed on something this important and this timely. Let me say, on a couple of the issues people are concerned about--I understand some, perhaps, would object because they object to linking some sort of extended unemployment compensation to this legislation or they object to doing unemployment compensation or extended benefits for unemployed people, especially those who have been laid off by the airlines, and other related industries--they object to doing that at some time certain. Well, look, I supported the piece of legislation about 2 weeks ago that addressed the critical financial needs of the airlines themselves. But we cannot ignore those who have been laid off. It is only reasonable, in my judgment, that if we are going to help the companies, that we also ought to be responsible enough to help the people. The people make up those companies. When 120,000 of those people find their jobs are lost, we ought to be willing to say: We are willing to help you as well. Unemployment compensation and extended benefits is not radical, it is the right thing for this Congress to do. With respect to the other issue--that is Amtrak--I would say to those who support Amtrak, you do not support it more than I do. I really believe Amtrak is important to this country. Passenger rail service is something this country needs, and it has been ignored far too long. I do not agree with those in the Senate who say: It is awful that we have subsidized passenger rail service. Of course we have subsidized it, but we have subsidized every other form of commercial transportation service in this country as well. In fact, we have subsidized them more than we have subsidized Amtrak. I happen to think this country ought to be proud of commercial rail passenger service. We ought to invest in it. We ought to provide a security bill for it because there are real security issues, as evidenced by the comments just addressed to the Senate by my colleague from Delaware--real security issues. But even more than that, more than the security issues--or at least as important as the security issues-- we need to make the investment in Amtrak so that all across this country, and especially in the Eastern corridor, we have first-class rail service up and down that corridor that will allow us to take a substantial quantity--up to 30 or 40 percent--of those commuter flights off the Eastern corridor out of the air, and move those people by rail. It makes much more sense to do that. Yet we have people in this Chamber who somehow do not want to continue rail passenger service in our country. Rail passenger service is important. I do not believe, however, those who support it, which includes myself--I do not believe we ought to hold up the airport security bill because of our concern about Amtrak. I say, do this bill--do it now--and next week let's come back and do that Amtrak security bill. I believe we can do that. I believe there will be 60 votes in support of the motion to proceed. If we have to break a filibuster, I believe we will have 60 votes to do that with respect to Amtrak. And, as I said, I do not take a back seat to anyone in my support of rail passenger service in this country. I think it is important, critically important, and we ought to manifest that importance in what we do in the Senate. We ought not be afraid of a vote. Let's fight that issue, but let's not do it by holding up an airport security bill. That is not the right thing to do and it is not the fair thing for the American people. There is one other thing we have to do. We ought to do airport security now. Yes, let's provide extended unemployment compensation for those people who have lost their jobs as a result of direct Federal intervention in their industry. That list is an extended list. But there is nothing wrong with this country saying: During tough times, we are here to help. Incidentally, when we have an economy that has been as soft as ours has been and has taken the kind of hit our economy took, we better be prepared to take some bold action to help companies and people, to help them up and say: We want to give you some lift. With respect to that last point, we also not only need to do the issue of airport security, extended unemployment, and Amtrak, we also need to do an economic stimulus package. I want to talk about that for a moment. If we are going to make a mistake in this country with respect to this economy, I want us to make a mistake of doing something rather than doing nothing. I don't want us to sit around with our hands in our suspenders and talk about what would have or should have been. I want us to take aggressive action to say: We understand this economy is in peril. We have watched the Asian economies. We have seen the Japanese economy stall for 10 years. This country had a vibrant, growing economy. And going into September 11, it had fallen off a shelf of some type early, about a year ago, maybe 9 months ago. We were in very serious difficulty. The Federal Reserve Board was cutting interest rates furiously to try to recover and provide lift to this economy. That has not provided the lift--at least not the lift they certainly would have wanted. The September 11 event cuts a huge hole in this economy. What to do next? First of all, let's all admit we don't understand this economy. It is a new, different, and global economy. It is a fact that we have economic stabilizers that we have not previously had. In the last 20 and 30 years we have put in economic stabilizers that provide more stability with respect to movements up and down. It is also true that the stabilizers have not and could not repeal the business cycle, the cycle of inevitable contraction and expansion in the economy. We were on the contraction side of that cycle going into September 11. And then we saw a huge hole torn into this country's economy by the tragic events committed by terrorists. What to do now? First, let's try to understand what the consequences of this might be. Almost all of us understand the consequences are dire for our economy. We must restore confidence in the American people about their economic future. How do we do that? The only remedy that we understand and know is a remedy in which we try to stimulate the economy with fiscal policy to complement what the Fed is doing in monetary policy. Senator Daschle and I, in my role as chairman of Democratic Policy Committee, wrote to 11 of the leading economic thinkers in America-- some in the private sector, some in the public sector--Nobel laureates, among others. We asked them the following questions last Wednesday: Do you believe there should be an economic stimulus package? If not, why not? And if you do, what should that stimulus package be? These leading economists were good enough to turn around a paper, in most cases two pages of their analysis, within a matter of 4 or 5 days. I have compiled and given to every Member of the Senate a special report from the Democratic Policy Committee regarding eleven leading economic thinkers on whether Congress should pass a stimulus package. I hope all of my colleagues will read this. Every single one, with one exception, of the leading economists in this country have written an analysis for us telling us they believe we must pass some kind of economic stimulus package. Most of them say it ought to be temporary. Most of them say we should be somewhat cautious that we not do the wrong thing here. But they have recommendations on how they believe we should enact a stimulus package that tries to provide lift and opportunity to the American economy. The easiest thing in the world for the Congress to do at this point would be just to sit around and ruminate, which we do really well, and muse and debate and talk and end up not doing anything. Why? Because we have all kinds of fiscal issues. We have an economy that has slowed down. We don't have the revenue coming in. We have huge bills piling up. What is the solution to that? Just swallow your tobacco and sit around and do nothing? It was Will Rogers who once said this about tobacco: When there is no place left to spit, you either have to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. Well, we don't have anyplace left at this moment. We have to decide that we are going to take action and we are going to have to change with the times. The times changed for this country on September 11. This country took a huge hit to its economy. In addition to that, of course, the tragedy is immeasurable in terms of the cost of human life. But as we now try to pick up the pieces, one of the wonderful things about the American spirit is, we are doers. We are a country of action. If you look at a couple hundred years of economic history in America--I have studied some, and I have taught some economics--you see a country that is intent on creating an economy that is in its own image, in its own desire, by taking action rather than waiting for things to happen. It is not a market system that needs no nurturing. It is a market system that from time to time needs some help to move along. If ever this economy needs some help from this Congress and from the Federal Reserve Board, it is now. Let us not make the mistake of omission. Let us not make the mistake of doing nothing. If we do the wrong thing, if we make a mistake, let's make that mistake by having taken action. I would much sooner do that than to decide to sit around at this time and in this place and not be bold. I am hoping my colleagues will take a look at this special report that has some of the best analysis in it that we can find. It is very unusual to be able to write Nobel laureates and top economists in this country, from Goldman Sachs and Brookings and Princeton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale, people who we know and have studied for years, the great thinkers in this country about our economy. It is an opportunity that is extraordinary to be able to come here and to offer this analysis to the Senators who are interested in fiscal policy. That is where we are. We find ourselves at the moment unable to move on airport security. That is a profound disappointment. Apparently, we have filed a cloture petition. I hope we will rethink that today. We must, in addition to getting airport security as quick as we can, then also do something with respect to extended unemployment benefits. I believe next week we also ought to go to the Amtrak issue. I am fully supportive of that. We ought to decide very quickly to join with the President and Members of Congress and enact a stimulus package that will provide lift and some assistance to the American economy. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we are now debating the trade agreement with Vietnam which not only provides normal trade relations status with that country but also includes with it a bilateral trade agreement that we have negotiated with Vietnam. Normal trade relations, which used to be called most-favored-nation status but has since been changed, are relations we have with almost every country in the world. I believe there are only five countries with which we do not have normal trade relations. This bill bestows normal trade relations with respect to Vietnam but does it on a yearly basis so the Congress will review it year by year. Vietnam is a Communist country; it has a Communist government. It has an economic system that is moving towards a market-based economy. I, along with several of my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, John Glenn, and a couple others, visited Vietnam a few years ago. It was a fascinating visit to see the embryo of a marketed-based system. I don't think a market-based economy is at all in concert with a Communist government. But nonetheless, just as is the case in China, Vietnam is attempting to create a market-based economy under the aegis of a Communist government. A market-based economy means having private property, being able to establish a storefront and sell goods. It was fascinating, after being behind the curtain for so long, to see these folks in Vietnam being able to open a shop or find a piece of space on a sidewalk someplace and sell something. It was their piece of private enterprise. It was their approach to making a living in the private sector. So what we have is a country that has a Communist government but the emergence of a market economy. It is interesting to watch. I have no idea how it will end up. But recognizing that things have changed in Vietnam in many ways, this country has proposed a trade agreement and normal trade relations with the country of Vietnam. I am going to be supportive of that today. But I must say, once again, as I did about the free trade agreement with the country of Jordan, I don't think this is a particularly good way to do trade agreements. This comes to us under an expedited set of procedures. It comes to us in a manner that prevents amendments. Amendments are prohibited because of Jackson-Vanik provisions in the trade act of 1974. These provisions would apply to a trade agreement we had negotiated with a country having similar economic characteristics to Vietnam. What I want to say about this subject is something I have said before, but it bears repeating. And frankly, even if I didn't, I would say it because I believe I need to say it when we talk about international trade. I am going to support this trade agreement. I hope it helps our country. I hope it helps the country of Vietnam. I hope it helps our country in providing some stimulus to our economy. Vietnam is a very small country with whom we have a very small amount of international trade. But I hope the net effect of this is beneficial to this country. Trade agreements ought to be mutually beneficial. I hope it helps Vietnam because I hope that Vietnam eventually can escape the yoke of Communism. Certainly one way to do that is to encourage the market system they are now beginning to see in their country. I hope this trade agreement is mutually beneficial. I do not, however, believe that trade agreements, by and large, should be brought to the floor of the Senate under expedited procedures. I will vote for this agreement, but I want there to be no dispute about the question of so-called fast track procedures. Fast-track is a process by which trade agreements are negotiated and then brought to the floor of the Senate and the Senate is told: You may not offer amendments. No amendments will be in order to these trade agreements. The reason I come to say this is because of recent statements made by our trade ambassador since the September 11 acts of terrorism in this country. He has indicated that, because of those events, it is all the more reason to provide trade promotion authority, or so-called fast track, to the President in order to negotiate new trade agreements. I didn't support giving that authority to President Clinton. I do not support giving that authority to this President. I will explain why. First of all, the Constitution is quite clear about international trade. Article I, section 8 says: The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. That is not equivocal. It doesn't say the President shall have the power, or the trade ambassador shall have the power, or some unnamed trade negotiator shall have the power, but that Congress shall have the power. Only Congress shall have the power under the U.S. Constitution. We have had experience with so-called fast track and international trade. Fast track has meant that succeeding administrations, Republican and Democrat, have gone off to foreign lands and negotiated trade agreements--agreements like the Free Trade Agreement with Canada, the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The list is fairly long. After negotiating trade agreements using fast track, the administrations would bring a product back to the Senate and say, here is a trade agreement we have negotiated with Canada, Mexico, and with other countries. We want you to consider it, Senators, under this restriction: You have no right under any condition or any set of circumstances to change it. So the Senate, with that set of handcuffs, considers a trade agreement with no ability to amend it, and then votes up or down, yes or no. It has approved these trade agreements. I have not supported them. I thought all of them were bad agreements. I will explain why in a moment. Nonetheless, they represent the agreements that have been approved by the Senate. Let's take a look at how good these agreements have been. This chart represents the ballooning trade deficit in our country. It is growing at an alarming rate. Last year, the merchandise trade deficit in America was $452 billion. That means that every single day, 7 days a week, almost $1.5 billion more is brought into this country in the form of U.S. imports than is sold outside this country in the form of U.S. exports. Does that mean we owe somebody some money? We sure do. These deficits mean that we are in hock. We owe money to those from whom we are buying imports in excess of what we are exporting. That means we are incurring very substantial debt. You can look at the trade agreements we have negotiated with Canada, Mexico, and GATT and evaluate what happened as a result. Mexico: We had a small trade surplus with Mexico. Good for us. Then we negotiate a trade agreement with them and we turned a small surplus into a huge and growing deficit. Was that a good agreement? Not where I come from. Canada: We had a modest trade deficit with Canada and we quickly doubled it after the trade agreement with Canada. How about China? We now have a bilateral agreement with China. Let me just describe one of the insidious things that represents that bilateral agreement--automobiles. Our country negotiated an agreement with China that said if we have trade in automobiles between the U.S. and China, here is the way we will agree to allow it to occur: On American cars, U.S. cars being sold in China, after a long phase-in, we will agree that China can impose a 25-percent tariff on American cars being sold in China. On Chinese cars being sold in the United States, we will agree that we will impose only a 2.5-percent tariff. In other words, our negotiators negotiated an agreement that said, with respect to auto trade between the United States and China, we will allow you to impose a tariff 10 times higher than the tariff in the United States. I don't know for whom these folks were negotiating, or for whom they thought they were working, and I don't know where they left their thinking caps when they negotiated these agreements, but they sure are not representing the interests of this country when they say to a country such as China, we will allow you to impose a tariff that is 10 times higher on U.S. automobiles going to China than on Chinese automobiles sold in the United States. That makes no sense. My point is, our trade deficit with China has grown to well over $80 billion a year at this point--the merchandise trade deficit. We have the same thing with Japan. Every year for as far as you can see we have had a huge and growing trade deficit with the country of Japan. It doesn't make sense to continue doing that. I can give you a lot of examples with respect to Japan. Beef is one good example. We send T-bone steaks to Tokyo. They need more beef. Beef costs a lot of money in Tokyo, so we send T-bone steaks. Twelve years after our beef agreement with Japan, every pound of American beef going to Japan has a 38.5-percent tariff on it. So we send T-bone steaks to Tokyo--not enough of them. Why? Because we have agreed with Japan that they can allow a 38.5-percent tariff still 12 years after a beef agreement that our trade negotiators had a big feast about because they thought they had won. Another example of absurdities in trade is motor vehicles and Korea. Last year, we had 570,000 Korean vehicles come into the United States of America. Our consumers buy them. Korea ships their cars to the United States to be sold in our marketplace. Do you know how many vehicles we sold in Korea? We shipped about 1,700. So there were 570,000 coming this way, and 1,700 going that way. Why? Try to buy a Ford in Korea. You would be surprised by its cost due to tariffs and taxes. Korea doesn't want our cars in their country. They say: We are sorry, you are not welcome to send your cars to our marketplace. If you don't like to talk about cars in international trade, talk about potato flakes. This product is found in many snack foods. Try to send potato flakes to Korea. You will find a 300-percent tariff. Does that anger the potato farmers? Of course it does. Do they think it is fair? Of course not. We have huge deficits with China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and nobody seems to give a rip. Nobody cares. This trade deficit is growing, and it represents a deficit that is a burden on this economy. Someday, unlike the budget deficits we have had in the past, trade deficits must be and will be repaid with a lower standard of living in this country. That is inevitable. So we had better worry about these issues. We have this growing trade deficit our friends in Canada--they are our friends, and we share a long common border. But we still have trade problems like stuffed molasses. You see, Brazilian sugar comes into Canada. They load it on liquid molasses, and it becomes stuffed molasses. Then it is sent into Michigan, and they unload it every day. So we have molasses loaded with sugar as a way to abridge our trade agreement. It is called stuffed molasses. Most people would not be familiar with that. It is not a candy. It is cheating on international trade. I can spend an hour talking about these issues with respect to China, Japan, Europe, Canada, and Mexico. I won't do that, although I am tempted, I must say. My only point in coming to the floor when we talk about a trade agreement is to say this: There are those of us in the Senate that have had it right up to our chins with trade negotiators who seem to lose the minute they begin negotiating. Will Rogers once said, ``The U.S. has never lost a war and never won a conference.'' He surely must have been talking about our trade negotiators. I and a number of colleagues in this body will do everything we can to prevent the passage of fast-track trade authority. I felt that way about the previous administration, who asked for it; and I feel that way about this administration. We cannot any longer allow trade negotiators to go out and negotiate bad agreements that undercut this country's economic strength and vitality. My message is I am going to vote for this trade agreement which establishes normal trade relations with the country of Vietnam. It is a small country with which we have a relatively small amount of bilateral trade. I wish Vietnam well. I hope this trade agreement represents our mutual self-interest. I hope it is mutually beneficial to Vietnam and the United States, but I want there to be no dispute and no misunderstanding about what this means in the context of the larger debate we will have later on the issue of fast-track trade authority. Fast-track trade authority has undermined this country's economic strength, and I and a group of others in the Senate will do everything we can--everything we can--to stop those who want to run a fast-track authority bill through the Congress. Ambassador Zoellick said in light of the tragedies that occurred in this country, it is very important for the administration to have this fast-track authority. I disagree. What we need is to provide a lift to the American economy. How do we do that? Lift is all about confidence. It is all about the American people having confidence in the future. It is very hard to have confidence in the future of this economy when the American people understand that we have a trade deficit that is ballooning. It is a lodestone on the American economy that must be addressed, and the sooner the better. I have a lot to say on trade. I will not burden the Senate with it further today, only to say this: Those who wish to talk about this economy and the events of September 11 in the context of granting fast- track trade authority to this administration will find a very aggressive and willing opponent, at least at this desk in the Senate. Having visited with a number of my colleagues, I will not be standing alone. We intend in every way to prevent fast-track trade authority. Incidentally, one can negotiate all kinds of trade agreements without fast-track authority. One does not need fast-track trade authority to negotiate a trade agreement. The previous administration negotiated and completed several hundred trade agreements without fast-track authority. Giving fast-track authority to trade negotiators is essentially putting handcuffs on every Senator. With fast-track, it is not our business with respect to details in negotiated trade agreements, it is only our business to vote yes or no. We have no right to suggest changes. Had we had that right with the U.S.-Canada agreement and the NAFTA agreement, I guarantee the grain trade and other trade problems we have had with both countries would be a whole lot different. I have gone on longer than I intended. Again, because we are talking about Vietnam, I wish Vietnam well, and I wish our country well. I want this to be a mutually beneficial trade agreement. With respect to future trade agreements and fast track, I will not be in the Chamber of the Senate approving those who would handcuff the Senate in giving their opinion and offering their advice on trade, only because the U.S. Constitution is not equivocal. The U.S. Constitution says in article I, section 8: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are in morning business, is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, earlier I was visiting with my colleague from the State of Idaho, who spent this weekend in his home State, and I briefly described to him my travels in North Dakota. All of us serving in this Congress, both the House and the Senate, discover and understand a different spirit in this country since the September 11 tragedies that occurred as a result of the acts of terrorists. I was traveling down Interstate 94 in North Dakota, on kind of a lonely space of that road, without a building or town in sight. All I saw were prairies and fenceposts. In the middle of that vista was a single American flag, hoisted up on a fence cornerpost, gently blowing in the North Dakota morning breeze--one single American flag. That morning, I was on my way to an event in Hettinger, ND. There were perhaps 80 to 100 people who came to this event in Hettinger, and the master of ceremonies asked that they open the events with the Pledge of Allegiance. Following the Pledge of Allegiance, it occurred to me that it was the first time I had heard the Pledge of Allegiance by a group of people in which it was something much more than reciting a pledge from memory. It was much more about a pledge than it was about memory. All across this country, there is a sense of patriotism, a love of country, that has sprung from these tragedies of September 11, and that spirit invades in a good way the work of the Senate and the House as well. We have had more cooperation on a range of controversial issues in the last couple of weeks than I have seen in years in the Senate. I say that as an introduction. We are now on a piece of legislation that is very important in a time of national security interests and in a time in which we have suffered these terrorist attacks. We have the Defense authorization bill before the Senate. It is stuck. We cannot seem to move it. Why would we not be able to move something as important as a Defense authorization bill at a time such as this? Some Members of the Senate are insistent on, among other things, having an energy bill as an amendment to this bill, including the energy bill that was passed by the House of Representatives on this Defense authorization bill. It is certainly the case we ought to pass an energy bill in this Congress. I don't think there is much debate about that. The Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Mexico, is the chairman of the Energy Committee on which I serve. We have been working for some long while to try to find common ground to write a new energy bill for our country. It takes on new urgency to write an energy bill, given what happened in this country on September 11, given the threat of actions by terrorists that could thwart the opportunity to have energy flow to places in this country that need it. We need to do something with respect to not only energy security but energy supply and conservation and more. How do we do that? We don't do that, it seems to me, by simply taking a bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, and offering that as an amendment to a Defense bill in the Senate, especially in a circumstance where offering that as an amendment holds up a bill as vital to this country as the Defense authorization bill. I urge my colleagues to allow Members to move forward and deal with the amendments on the Defense authorization bill. We have filed a cloture motion on the Defense authorization bill to be voted on tomorrow, but it is troublesome that we have to file a cloture motion to try to shut off a filibuster, in effect, on a Defense authorization bill at this time and in this place in this country. We ought to move as one with a new dedication of spirit and new determination to pass legislation as important as this, without hanging it up with extraneous amendments. Let me talk for a moment about energy. The energy amendment some of my colleagues wish to offer to this Defense authorization bill is not germane to this bill. It has nothing to do with this bill. This bill is about the Defense Department and programs in the Defense Department. Is energy important? Absolutely. Energy is an important subject. There is a way to deal with energy policy in this country. All Members know we need to produce more: produce more oil and natural gas. We will do that. We all understand part of a comprehensive national energy policy is not only production, but it is also conservation. Some have this view that the only energy strategy that exists in America is to dig and drill. Just dig and drill and you will solve America's energy problem. We need to produce more. I will support additional production. That is part of an energy policy we need. But we need conservation, efficiency, and we need to include renewables and limitless energy sources. All of those need to be part of a balanced energy program. If we develop an energy policy and bring it to the floor of the Senate, which we should in my judgment, we can have a discussion about the different views of different Members of the Senate about how that mix ought to come together in an energy bill. It does not make sense, and in my judgment, does not help do what we need to do in the Senate to hold up a Defense authorization bill so one can try to offer an energy bill passed in the House of Representatives as an amendment to a Defense bill. That is not the right thing to do at this point. How do we reconcile this? My hope is those who are holding up the Defense authorization bill will stop and say: Let's work together on a Defense authorization bill that makes sense for this country. We can do that. We are going to be sending men and women into harm's way in this country. We probably already have. We certainly will in the future. Yet we are not willing to pass a Defense authorization bill without offering extraneous amendments? That is not fair. It is not the right thing to do. I attended a ceremony in North Dakota on Friday in which I presented medals that had been earned by World War II veterans that they never received. Two were Bronze Stars for members of the 184th Division of the North Dakota National Guard. They fought 600 days in combat. They actually saved Guadalcanal. They got a letter from the Marine commandant saying they wanted to make them honorary marines. These were very brave, battle-weary veterans when World War II was over. They were much decorated. One of the company commanders had several Silver Stars, several Bronze Stars. These were brave, brave Americans. As I presented the medal to one of them, he began to cry, thinking back about what his contribution was to this country, what he had done with his buddies, thinking back about the number of friends he had lost in that National Guard unit. As we now send men and women from our country into harm's way, what we ought to do on defense policy, both with respect to the Defense Authorization Act and the Defense Appropriations Act, is bring these bills to the floor of the Senate, work on them in a spirit of cooperation, and get them passed. That says, with one voice, to those men and women in uniform in this country: We are going to give you all the support you need to do what you need for this country to protect and preserve our liberty and freedom. We are asking them to find those terrorists who committed these acts of mass murder against American citizens, find those terrorists and punish them, and help prevent these terrorist attacks from ever occurring again. That is a dangerous job. President Bush has come to the Congress and said in a call to the American people that he needs America to be unified. We should speak as one. We should say to terrorists and those harboring them around the world: This country will not allow that to stand. We will find you and we will punish you. At this time and in this place, we must, in support of the President and in support of the men and women who wear America's uniforms, we must pass this Defense authorization bill and stop what happened in the last week and a half, stop the blocking of this bill for other issues. Then let's come back and deal with energy. I have great confidence in my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, who now chairs the Energy Committee. My colleague waiting to speak, the Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig, is on the committee. We have a lot of good people on the Energy Committee who can work together for a sensible energy policy for this country. Then let's debate that and have a conference with the House and proceed. Yes, we have security issues with respect to energy. Let's proceed on those and do it in the regular order. We should write that bill in the Energy Committee. One final point: We not only have security threats with respect to terrorist acts in this country and all the security issues that related to that, we also have some emergency issues dealing with this country's economy. Some of that relates to energy, but some of it relates to general economic circumstances in this country. The question will be, in my judgment, for the next couple of weeks, Will we need a stimulus package in order to provide some lift to the American economy? Shall we develop an economic stimulus package? If so, what will that package be? Senator Daschle and I have written to a dozen or so of the leading economists in this country last week, and we asked if they would share in a letter an analysis of whether they believe we need a stimulus package; if not, why not, and if so, what should that package include. I will release to my colleagues today a special report that describes the response of the leading economists in the country in which they describe how they believe we ought to proceed; what kind of stimulus package, if they believe we should have one, would provide a lift to the American economy; what kind of an approach we should use during this period. We have the Federal Reserve Board working on monetary policies. They are obviously furiously trying to cut high interest rates. We are working on fiscal policy issues in the Congress. Specifically, the question with respect to fiscal policy is, Will we need a stimulus package? And if so, what will that package be? I will release that report this afternoon. It contains a fascinating analysis by the leading economists, including Nobel laureates, the leading economic voices in America. We need to get this right, as well. We need to work in a spirit of cooperation, between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, to join hands and see what we can do to provide some lift to this American economy and give the American people some confidence that tomorrow is going to be better than today; that they can have confidence in the future. We will have economic growth and opportunity in this country's future. All of those are issues that have relationships to each other. But let me just come back to the point I was making originally. We need to do business in this Senate the right way. The Defense authorization bill ought to be passed. We ought not block that legislation. Blockage of the Defense authorization bill has not been good for this country. Let's back away, debate the issues that are relevant to that bill, pass that legislation, and then let's move on to the other critical issues our country faces. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I do not doubt that when there is excess capacity with respect to military installations we ought to take action to deal with them. But I think it ought to be action that is targeted, thoughtful, and timely. In my judgment, there are two reasons why we ought to strike the language from this bill at this point: One is military and the other is economic. First, we do not know what the force structure is going to be. We are undergoing a quadrennial review at this point and yet, before we talk about force structure, we already presumably know what the base structure should be. With the issue of homeland security and all the other changes that will occur as a result of this country's determination to protect itself, we ought to, at this point, reserve the question of what should be our base structure. And for that reason, I do not think this is the time to do this. Second, on the economic circumstances, the potential of having a base-closing commission that says to every military installation in the country, by the way, we are going to look at you for potential closure, is, in my judgment, an opportunity to stunt the economic growth of virtually every community in every region in the country that has a military installation. At a time when we have an extraordinarily soft economy, and one that is in significant trouble, can you imagine anyone making a decision to invest in any military installation community in this country if they know the prospect might exist that installation will be closed? The answer is, they will not make that investment. They will decide they cannot in good conscience do it. We have been through this before. If we just say that every base is at risk with respect to a commission, it stunts the economic growth of every community in which a base exists. I say to the Pentagon, I think it would make much more sense to narrow the focus of where they have excess capacity. When that is narrowed, then let's have a commission that evaluates that excess capacity and how to deal with it. But I really believe that both for military and economic purposes this amendment ought to be agreed to and this provision ought to be stricken. I disagree with my friend from Arizona. I think he is an American hero. I have the greatest respect for him--and he is a good friend of mine--but we disagree. I believe we ought to take a chunk out of this excess capacity at some point but not now, given the question of homeland security. I certainly do not believe now is the time, given what it will do to the economy, the economy of communities, regions, and our country, if we say every military installation is at risk of closure. That clearly will dry up investment that we need in this country to try to uplift the American economy. For that reason, I intend to support the motion to strike.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. They both start with ``North.''

Mr. DORGAN. I have no idea what the Senator from North Carolina would say, but the Senator from North Dakota would be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with an issue that is not new to any of us. We have long debated the issue of base closures and the establishment of a BRAC commission for the purpose of base closures. In fact, we have had previous base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. In those rounds, 451 installations, including 97 major installations, were ordered closed or realigned by the year 2001. And the last two big installations, Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases, were closed this past summer. Now even though most of those installations have been closed or realigned, only 41 percent of the unneeded base property has, in fact, been transferred. From all of those base closures, over all of that period of time, only 41 percent of the unneeded base property has been transferred. It takes years to dispose of this property. And, principally, the reason for that is the strict environmental cleanup standards which are very costly and very expensive. In fact, I find it interesting, according to pages 118 and 119 of the Department of Defense's 1998 Report on Base Realignment and Closure, the first several years after a base closure incur additional costs to the government, not savings. For the 1993 BRAC round, a net cost to the Federal Government--not a net savings--a net cost was incurred for the first 3 years beginning in the year 1994. If you take a look at the 1995 BRAC round, you find exactly the same thing. The BRAC-related costs exceeded savings by $1.5 billion for five years from fiscal year 1996 to 2000. One might make the case, if you skip over the next 3-5 years you will find some savings from a new round of base closures. Maybe so, although lying out there is the disposal of almost 40 percent of all the property that has not yet been disposed of because of the environmental cleanup costs. So one wonders exactly what these savings are. They are certainly not in the next 3-5 years. Those who make the point that there is an urgency to close these bases, at a time when we desperately need investment in the Department of Defense, are probably going to end up costing the Department of Defense additional money through base closures if we, in fact, decide to approve another round. I support this amendment to strike the base closure provisions from the underlying bill for two reasons. One is military, and the other is economic. First, the military side of things. We do not know what the force structure is going to be of the Department of Defense. There is a quadrennial review that is going on, but at this point no one in this Chamber knows what the force structure is going to be. If you do not know what the force structure is going to be, how do you know what the base structure should be? How do you know what kind of facilities for military operations you need if you do not know what kind of military force you are going to have? Will this military force change as a result of the tragedies that occurred on September 11? Probably. Will we--when we see now a renewed attention to homeland security and homeland defense--will we be more concerned about the issue of bases in this country? Where they are located? Whether they are strategic in location? Whether they are needed or not needed? Will all that change? I think it will. But the main point is this: If you do not know what your force structure is, how can you be talking about your base structure? Yet the Department of Defense is already saying our base structure is way out of line, even though they don't know their force structure. I deeply respect the men and women in uniform. God bless them. I want to give them everything they need to do their job in preserving liberty and fighting for freedom. But we don't need a new BRAC round to find savings in the Pentagon. We all know there are areas of inefficiency in the Pentagon. I won't go through them. But let me give you one instance I have dealt with in the last 6 months, just as an example. I say this only to say that if there are worries about efficiency, let's go find where money is being wasted hand over foot. We have 5,700 trailers that were manufactured for the U.S. Army. They had a problem with the brake actuator. The result is, they put 5,700 trailers in storage facilities, and they were there for years. It turns out in fact, in addition to a brake actuator that didn't work on the hitch, the bumpers on the Humvees that were supposed to pull the trailers weren't strong enough. They hooked these things up to the Humvee, and it broke the Humvee. You talk about waste. There is a lot of waste, a lot of inefficiency. I think we ought to go at that. I don't think it ought to be business as usual with respect to the waste of the taxpayers' money. With respect to the question of which bases are important in the future of this country, which bases might be important with respect to homeland security, I don't think we know the answer to that at this point. We certainly don't know what the force structure is, so how on Earth would we know what the base structure should be? Economic circumstances have really changed with respect to this country's economy. We had a very soft economy prior to the tragedy on September 11. That economy has turned more than soft, I am afraid. All of us are struggling to try to find ways to see if we can't give some lift to the economy. I will tell you how you put a lodestone on the economy, how you put an anvil on the economies of literally dozens and dozens of communities, all across America: Tell the communities tomorrow that we are going to have a base closing commission and that every single base is at risk, and, therefore, if you are thinking of making an investment in a community that has a sizable base, don't do it because it might be this base that will get caught in the next BRAC round and be closed. That message in this particular piece of legislation will say to potential investors in literally hundreds of communities across this country that you ought not make investments in those communities now, you ought to wait. I can't think of a more destructive thing to do to the economy at this point than to send that message to all of those communities and all the folks who might invest in them. When you have a wide open BRAC commission like the Administration proposes, every single military installation is at risk. It is as if you are painting a bull's eye on the front gate of every base that says: This might be the one that is selected; this might be the one that is closed. The result is, people will stunt the economic growth of those communities because they feel they must, in order to make good prudent investment decisions, they must wait until that BRAC round is complete. Investors will say: I can't build a 12-plex apartment in this community because I don't know whether there will be 20- or 30-percent unemployment 2 years from now if that base is ordered closed. From a military standpoint and economic standpoint, I think this is a very inappropriate and unwise judgment. That is what will happen if we approve the base closure provision in this bill. The amendment I support simply says, let's strip that provision out. My point remains: How can you realign and create a base structure before you know what your force structure is? And we don't know that. No one in the Senate, no one in the Congress and, for that matter, no one in the Pentagon yet understands what our force structure is going to be. It might very well be the case--I suspect it will--that following the tragedy of September 11, we might have a very different view of the base structure in this country relating to homeland security and homeland defense. If that is the case, it will change the views of Congress and the Pentagon about what our missions ought to be and where they ought to be placed. At this point I believe strongly that we ought to do the right thing, and the right thing is to take this out of the bill. Pass this amendment. My colleague, for whom I have great affection, said that, if we strip this out of the bill, we will be sending a signal that it is business as usual in the Congress. It is not that, with due respect. It just is not that. Business as usual is gone, as far as I am concerned. Business as usual is thinking the way we used to think. Everyone in this Chamber and in the Congress ought to be prepared to think differently about these issues. We have a quadrennial review commission that will evaluate force structure. We don't have the foggiest idea what that is going to be or how that will change as a result of what has happened in the last couple weeks. Yet we are going to go right back to the same old cry on the floor of the Senate that we need to unleash a base closing commission that will evaluate whether any and every base in this country shall be a candidate for closure. That makes no sense to me. Let me make a couple of additional points. The term they are now using to create a BRAC is ``efficient facilities initiative,'' which as an acronym is pronounced ``iffy.'' I really don't like acronyms very much. This particular one I don't like a lot. ``Iffy'' probably describes the difficulty, the serious difficulty, virtually every community in this country that hosts a military installation will have with respect to its future and the consequences of this Congress unleashing another round of base closures. One of my colleagues said: This doesn't really create a round, it just authorizes a round. Of course it creates a round. There is no difference between authorization and creating one. If we don't pass this amendment and it strip out the base closure provision, we will have a new round of base closures. And if we have a base closing round, I am certain it will have significant consequences on this country's economy, beginning immediately. The minute the Congress enacts legislation and it is signed, every single community in this country that hosts a military installation is going to see its investment deteriorate. It is the worst possible result for this country's economy. Aside from that, as I said, the issue is not just economics, and should not be. The issue is also military. Given the circumstances with our new needs in homeland defense and given the fact that we don't know what the military force structure is going to be, this Congress should not at this point anticipate that the base structure ought to be cut by creating a new BRAC commission. If the new force structure justifies cutting base structure, we can consider that again next year, since the base closure round the Administration wants is not applicable until the year 2003. There would be nothing that would prevent it from being included in the next year's authorization bill. This proposal for a new round of base closures is a terrible idea. I hope very much my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am overwhelmed by the additional minutes. I have a couple of examples, if I might, on trade issues. Ask those who are working on these issues in the U.S. Trade Representative's office, in the Commerce Department, and those in Congress to try to address these issues with us. Motor Vehicles in Korea. Last year, we had about 570,000 vehicles shipped into the United States from Korea. Do you know how many vehicles we shipped to Korea? Seventeen hundred. Five hundred seventy thousand vehicles this way, 1,700 that way. Why? Because of the tariff and taxes, it raises substantially the price of American cars sold in Korea. It is not just price. There are other difficulties too in selling foreign vehicles in Korea. Standards and perceptions also play roles. The result is, we are not shipping cars to Korea. They are flooding our markets with theirs. Canada and Stuffed Molasses. Go to Canada and watch them load up Brazilian sugar on top of liquid molasses so they can ship it down here in the form of stuffed molasses. Then they take the sugar out and send the molasses back. Why? To violate U.S. trade laws. Japan and Steak. Go to Tokyo and have a T-bone steak and understand, if it came from the United States, it had a 38.5-percent tariff on it, 12 years after the last beef agreement. People think this is all humorous and interesting. The fact is, it all represents the failure of this country to stand up for its producers. This country ought not be bashful about standing up for its producers, its manufacturers, American men and women and American businesses, who only demand the opportunity to compete fairly. It is not fair when currency fluctuations make our products 40 percent more expensive in foreign countries. We say that doesn't matter, but it does matter. It is not fair. Unfairness matters. We should and must be willing to compete in international trade, but the competition ought to be fair. I thank my colleague from Montana. I will support this trade agreement. It is a small one, not much of a trade consequence to us, in my judgment. It is written marginally better than previous agreements because it has labor and environmental issues in it. There is a big job ahead of us. We need to try and deal with the ballooning trade deficit. We need to try to convince the American people that what we are doing represents their best interests. We need to expand trade but it must be done in a manner that is fair to them. I will have more to say about international trade at some future point in time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Ten minutes.