Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The President says he now wants fast-track trade authority. Fast-track trade authority to do more of this? Not on my watch. Let's have some trade authority that says when we do trade agreements in the future, we do them on behalf of this country's best interests. Maybe we should put some jerseys on those trade negotiators that read: USA. We do that for the Olympians. How about doing it for trade negotiators so they remember for whom they are negotiating. My legislation on Mexican trucking is very important. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor it. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Might I ask the Senator from Wyoming if he will yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator from Wyoming if he would allow me to propound a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion of his 30 minutes, I have the floor for another brief statement in morning business? I believe his time will run until 11 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at that time.

Mr. DORGAN. I want to speak this morning about international trade and our growing and troubling trade deficit. In March, the merchandise trade deficit surprised economists, jumping to $37.6 billion in that month alone. That is the latest month for which we have data. In March imports into this country increased to $101 billion, while American exports decreased to $64 billion. This is a very serious problem. The trade deficit continues to balloon. We had a $450 billion merchandise trade deficit last year and it continues to grow and grow. It increases our indebtedness in this country. Unlike a budget deficit, about which economists over strong coffee can make the point that we owe to ourselves, you cannot make the point that our trade deficit is owed to ourselves. It is owed to others outside this country and will be and must be repaid one day with a lower cost of living in this country. We must get a handle on this exploding trade deficit. Let me speak to one portion of the trade issue. We are about to see the administration take a step that I vigorously oppose. I am going to offer a piece of legislation today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, that deals with the issue of Mexican trucks entering this country under the provisions of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. What is the issue? We signed a free trade pact with the country of Mexico. It has not turned out very well, as a matter of fact. We had a trade surplus with Mexico when we signed the trade pact. Now we have a $24 billion trade deficit with Mexico. So we went from a surplus to a very large and exploding deficit with Mexico. But one aspect of the trade pact with Mexico is the question of movement of goods and individuals back and forth across the boarder and especially the question of Mexican trucks coming into this country. President Clinton, I believe in violation of NAFTA, prescribed a 20- mile zone in which Mexican trucks could haul goods into this country for trade purposes. But they could not go beyond that zone. This administration is about to lift that and provide unrestricted access into this country for Mexican trucks. My legislation will say that is not possible, we will not allow that to happen until and unless the Administration implements certain safeguards to protect those who use America's highways. Let me describe why this is important. Do you want to drive down a highway in this country and drive next to a Mexican truck that is pulling double the load we allow pulled in this country behind our trucks, driven by a driver who is making less than the minimum wage in this country--on average, incidentally, of $7- to $10-a-day salary for that Mexican truck driver; a truck that has not been inspected in most cases, if inspected, not inspected to the same standards to which we inspect trucks in this country? This is a circumstance where the Mexican trucks are determined to be unsafe at the border crossings at which the trucks are inspected. In many cases, 40 percent are turned back because they are unsafe, do not meet standards. Is that what we want to have on American highways? I don't think so. This is what has happened. Mexico threatened, under NAFTA, to sue the U.S. for billions of dollars per year in compensation if the U.S. did not lift this longstanding control on allowing Mexican commercial truckers to operate within the United States. President Bush has agreed to allow them to operate in the United States beyond the limit, even though the Department of Transportation says it cannot certify the safety of any, except a tiny fraction, of the Mexican trucks that enter this country. This month, in fact, the Department of Transportation's own inspector general concluded that the Department of Transportation's enforcement program cannot reasonably assure the American people of the safety of Mexican trucks entering this country. Barely 1 percent of the 3.7 million Mexican trucks that enter into the United States are inspected. Of those inspected, 36 percent are declared out of service for serious safety violations. At the border crossing in El Paso, TX, there are 1,300 trucks that come across every single day. One inspector is on duty--one--and he or she can inspect about 10 to 14 trucks a day. Most inspectors work only during daylight hours, leaving crossings with no inspectors at all during much of the day. Now Mexico still lags far behind the United States when it comes to truck safety. They do not have an effective drug and alcohol testing program for truck drivers as we do. They simply do not have it. They have no hours-of-service regulations and only recently proposed the use of logbooks for hours of service. A reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle recently drove with a Mexican truck driver. They drove 20 to 21 hours straight--20 to 21 hours. That is significant and also dangerous. That cannot happen legally in this country. I do not want that driver on the road next to my family or my neighbors or my friends or anyone else in this country who is driving. Right now there is no way for American law enforcement agencies to access a database containing information on Mexican truckers. If a police officer pulls me over to the side of the road or pulls the Presiding Officer, from the State of Virginia, over to the side of the road, and asks to see our license, they can put that name into a database. They can figure out very quickly what we have or have not done, what is on our driving record and what isn't. If the same police officer pulls over a Mexican truck driver, he will not find any information on him because it does not exist. Despite these unresolved issues, and despite all of these facts and figures, despite the written objections of 258 Members of the House and 48 Senators, on both sides of the aisle, the administration has said that the NAFTA trucking provisions should be implementing. They are wrong. The provisions should not be implemented until and unless we can demonstrate safety for the American people by allowing these trucks into this country. If we cannot demonstrate safety--and clearly we cannot at this point--they should not be allowed in. I am introducing legislation to prohibit the administration from granting operation rights to Mexican motor carriers until we can ensure that they meet the safety standards we require in this country. My bill would require the implementation of inspections and the deployment of needed resources to ensure that the trucks that would come in would meet basic safety standards. This is not some issue where one can say: These people are antitrade, and therefore they want to stop trucks from this country or that country. This is very real. Every day, every hour, we have massive numbers of trucks coming into this country. There is evidence from California and New Mexico and from Arizona. The evidence of the number of trucks turned back for serious safety violations is overwhelming. Mexico does not have the same standards. Their drivers can drive 20 hours a day and no one will know it. They have no logbooks. They have no drug testing. They do not have the same equipment standards as we do. It demonstrates, in my judgment, the concern that many of us have about this unfettered notion of opening up borders without making sure we have adequate safety in place for the American people. I am going to introduce this legislation on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Reid, from the State of Nevada. And other colleagues I know will join us because there are nearly 50 Members of the Senate who have expressed their reservations about this issue. I urge the administration to reconsider this issue. Change your mind about this. The American people don't want to be driving down a highway to pull up next to an 18-wheel truck that is hauling a load that is twice as heavy as that which could be hauled by an American trucker in this country, with a driver who has been driving 20 hours, who has never been drug tested, and driving equipment that doesn't meet safety specifications on American roads. That is not what we want on American roads and not what we want for the safety of the American people. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I have a couple minutes remaining. Let me point out what is happening with our trade deficit. As you can see: With Canada, our trade deficit has dramatically increased from 1999 to 2000; China, $83 billion merchandise trade deficit in a year; European Union, $55 billion; Japan $81 billion. Japan, a $50 billion-plus trade deficit for us almost forever. Mexico-- this used to be a surplus, incidentally--now the trade deficit is $24 billion-plus. We cannot continue to do that. We just cannot continue to run up these kinds of trade deficits. Just for a moment, let me describe some of the circumstances of the trade deficit. When we want to ship apples into Japan, they say the apples must come from trees that are separated at least 500 feet from apples on apple trees in the orchard that are not going to be shipped to Japan. So if we are going to ship apples to Japan, they have to be in a grove 500 feet away from other apple groves. What kind of sense is that? We ship T-bone steaks to Japan. Guess what the tariff is after 12 years of an agreement. Twelve years after an agreement with them, the tariff is 38.5 percent on beef going into Japan. In Korea, just as an example, we exported 4,400 cars last year. They exported 470,000 to us. One might ask the question, Where is the fair trade here? Where is the reciprocal treatment? This country needs to demand of its trading partners that they open their markets to us so we can have fair trade. Our deficit with China is going up, up, way up. It is now $83.8 billion. We take all their trousers and shirts and tennis shoes and jeans. They ship them into our country, and guess what. When we try to penetrate the Chinese market, we get a pitiful amount of exports into China. People say: Hoorah, it is increasing. Hoorah, it is increasing at a minuscule level, and we have an $83 billion deficit with them. We have to change that. I have other things to say.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the next 8 minutes are under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized, and in the event someone comes to whom Senator Thomas wishes to yield that time, I will be happy to discontinue my comments.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Idaho just discussed the energy issue. There is not any question the energy policy is a critical policy for this country. We must develop a national energy plan that makes sense for our long-term future. Every American every day has a claim on the need for energy. We need a consistent, predictable supply of energy that is reasonably priced. We need a policy that allows that to happen. When the price of oil went to $10 a barrel for some long while, people stopped looking for oil and natural gas. It is pretty predictable. There were fewer rigs looking for oil when the price of oil and natural gas was very low. When the price of oil went up and natural gas spiked back up, there were more drilling rigs and more people are searching for more oil and natural gas. That is predictable. That is how the market system works. It is not in this country's best interest to have a roller coaster of exploration, and that is what happens. That is what describes only part of our current problem with the imbalance between supply and demand for energy. We are too dependent on the OPEC countries. All of us know that. One day we will wake up--I hope this is not the case--it is likely we will wake up when some grotesque terrorist act in the Middle East interrupts the supply of oil, even if temporarily, and it will allow us to understand how overly dependent we are on a source of energy and oil, natural gas from a region that is so unstable. In addition to having this roller coaster on exploration and being overly dependent on a supply of energy from the Middle East, we also are a country that has largely decided to ignore conservation. One can drive down the road these days and see someone driving a new vehicle that looks a lot like a Humvee, except it is bigger and heavier and is sold at your local dealership as a family vehicle. People have a right to drive that, but the point is that is moving in the opposite direction of having a national conservation ethic. It is true, as the Senator from Idaho said, that we must produce more. I do not think you will find Members of the Senate in disagreement on that. We must produce more oil and natural gas. We must use coal resources. There are ample resources in our coal fields. We can do it using clean coal technology. We must use our fossil fuels in a thoughtful way, and we can do that in a manner that is not inconsistent with a good and clean environment. That is important, but it is also important to understand we just cannot produce ourselves out of this problem. We cannot produce our way out of this problem. We have a President and a Vice President who come from oil backgrounds so it is probably not surprising their energy plan is to just drill more. They have an easy solution to America's energy problem: Just drill more. That is one approach, but it is not a balanced approach. Yes, we must produce more, and I support that, but we also must conserve more. Conservation of energy is another way of producing energy. We must have a conservation component that is real, not just talk, but real as we deal with this energy policy. We also must have an efficiency process in this energy plan. All of the appliances, the things we use every day in our lives that make our lives better, easier, can be made more efficient and should be. We have efficiency standards. The question is whether we continue to press for greater efficiency in all of these appliances or not. The answer should be yes. Finally, renewable resources. We ought to use renewable forms of energy, and I know the big oil companies have never liked that very much, but I happen to believe that using ethanol, taking a drop of alcohol from a kernel of corn and using it to extend our energy supply, makes good sense. We can take a drop of alcohol from a kernel of corn and still have the protein feedstock left. So we have extended America's energy supply and we still have protein feedstock for animals. What a wonderful thing to do. Plus, it is renewable. We are not depleting it every year. Wind energy. North Dakota happens to be the Saudi Arabia of wind, according to the Department of Energy. There is nothing wrong, as an important part of our energy plan, of putting up more efficient wind turbines and using that wind energy to extend America's energy supply. It is true, as my colleague from Idaho says, we need to produce more, and all of us support that, but a balanced energy plan will include production, conservation, renewable energy, and also efficiency with appliances and the things we use day to day. If we have a bold energy plan that includes all of those components, I believe we will find a broad area of support for it in this Congress. As I mentioned, we have a President and Vice President who come from the oil industry, so it is not unnatural for them to produce a plan that says: By the way, let's just drill more. But that is not a balanced plan. We can, should, and must do much better than that and have a plan that balances all of these interests. And, finally, another thought on this issue of an energy plan. We have other dislocations occurring in this country in a very significant way. In California, the price of electricity is going through the roof. Some say that is supply and demand. That is nonsense. That market is broken. It is flat dead broke, and the regulators should have intervened. The Federal regulators are doing their best imitation of potted plants. They sit on their hands, we pay them salaries, and they do nothing. The fact is, they should have put a cap on wholesale prices for electricity in California. We have big traders and big economic interests that take an Mcf of natural gas, trade it from an unregulated market to a regulated market, and in 24 to 48 hours, the price of that same Mcf of natural gas will double, triple, or quadruple. Guess who gets hit right square in the jaw with that. The consumer. The price of power in California was $7 billion 2 years ago. It is expected to be $70 billion this year, a tenfold increase. My point is this: Whether it is the price of natural gas that is being sold into California or the price of natural gas that is doubling around the rest of the country, or the price of gasoline at the gas pump, or the price of electricity, the fact is, we need to shine the spotlight of investigation on energy pricing in this country. The education bill is going to be pending in the Senate when we return. It has an amendment that is pending which I offered calling for a joint House-Senate investigative committee on energy pricing. Is there some manipulation going on? Are there some interests that are manipulating both price and supply and driving up energy prices for the American people? I do not know, but I suspect so. Some very limited investigations have shown that supply has been manipulated in a way to drive up price. It seems to me, given what is happening in California and the rest of the west coast, and given what is happening to natural gas prices and other things around the country, and the price at the gas pump for that matter, the American people will be served well by shining a spotlight of investigation on energy pricing practices all across this country. That would represent a component to an energy plan that gives the American people some confidence that we are doing the right thing.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Illinois knows we have an amendment pending on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that calls for the creation of a select committee on investigation. One of the problems is you need resources to do that; you need investigators. You cannot do this without the ability to investigate pricing practices. My hope is that we can move quickly when we get back. We will have a vote and see who wants to do this. I make another point that is important. One hundred years ago, Teddy Roosevelt, carrying a big stick, said to John D. Rockefeller: ``You can't do that.'' He was talking about price fixing with respect to oil and energy. He began to break it up. I am not alleging there is widespread fraud or abuse. All I am saying is there are things that do not add up. We have big energy traders, huge economic interests, trading energy and doing it at secret prices from unregulated markets into regulated markets. We have oil companies much, much bigger than they used to be because they merged, and merged, and merged again. We have economic power with the opportunity to manipulate markets and try to drive up prices. Who are the victims? The victims are the American consumers. They deserve to know. There was a limited Federal Trade Commission investigation dealing with gas prices last year in the Midwest. Some say that exonerated the companies. It did no such thing. It was such a limited investigation. Even that limited investigation showed some deliberately limited refinery output. They did not want to increase supply because they knew if they restricted supply, they could jack up prices.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the market is broken. It is clearly broken. Look at what is happening in California: $7 billion was the cost of power in California 2 years ago. This year it is estimated to be $70 billion, a tenfold increase. Who are the victims? The folks in California who are going to work every day, coming home to open the bills and figure out how to pay an electric bill that has dramatically increased. That is why I say, look, we need a new energy plan. I don't disagree with that. We have not had a good energy plan for decades. We are too dependent on foreign sources. The Senator from Idaho piqued my interest on the subject. There are a lot of areas we can agree. I agree with the Senator from Idaho, that we do need to produce more oil and gas. I agree with that. We need to build more power lines and more transmission capability. I agree with that. We need to build more powerplants, I agree. We need to use more coal sources, use more clean coal technology, and do all of that while being sensitive to the needs of the environment. We can do that. I support that in a manner consistent with protecting our environment. Then I say: Support us on this. We need better conservation. More conservation. We need more effort towards renewable sources of energy. We need more effort towards greater efficiency of appliances and the rules that support that are in place. And now the administration threatens to retract on some of those rules. Finally, we also need to have an investigation of pricing practices. Join us on that. If my colleague from Idaho and his colleagues would join in the resolution I have included on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that calls for the selection of a House and Senate committee to investigate pricing, we will have an energy plan that includes a lot of the right things but also says, while we are doing this, let's take a look to make sure the American people are not victims of pricing practices and supply manipulation that enriches some of the bigger economic interests, but takes it out of the pockets of the folks who are trying to gas up at the pump in order to go to work.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Illinois, I think that makes a great deal of sense. I know one of our colleagues drives one of the hybrid cars. I have seen it parked outside of the building when we have late votes. It is a car that runs on both gasoline and electricity. I understand they are very efficient. But the roads are not populated with many of those cars, largely because we have an energy industry and auto industry that moves down the road with the internal combustion engine, and they fight every step of the way on increased efficiencies people propose in Congress. Mr. President, I have told my colleagues this before, my first car was a 1924 Model T Ford. I bought an antique car and restored it. My dad told me where it was. He was hauling gasoline and was out on a farm and they had an old car in a granary. He told me about it and said you should write to this fellow and see if he wants to sell it. The guy had long since moved to Wisconsin. So I wrote to this fellow from Wisconsin and asked if he wanted to sell an old Model T stored in a granary for 30 or 40 years. I was a teenager. He said he would sell it for me for $25, and he sent me the owner's manual and the key. So I went out and hauled the old Model T in and restored it. It is interesting, that 1924 Model T Ford is fueled exactly the way a car built in 2001 is fueled. You pull up to a gas pump and you stick the nozzle in the tank and you pump gas in it. Think of the few things that have changed in 75 or 80 or 90 years--almost everything has changed around us. Almost everything we do is dazzling, breathtaking new technology, technological change that takes your breath away. Guess what. Eighty years ago you pulled up to a pump and stuck a hose in and pumped a little gas in, and 80 years later you do exactly the same thing. You wonder why; why would nothing change? Clearly, part of the solution is technology. I just described the technology of a car that is occasionally parked in front of the Capitol. We have the capability of making more efficient automobiles. Of course we have the capability. We ought to have the will. As the Senator from Illinois says and proposes, we ought to provide incentives as part of an energy plan to say to those who are interested in doing that: Here is your head, go do it. We encourage you to do it. Here are the financial incentives to do it. That is another way to provide conservation and new technology to move out of this energy problem that we have. That is longer term, not short term. But it is certainly part of what we ought to be doing.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois makes a good point. Increasing the supply of energy in this country does not have to be at odds with protecting and preserving a good environment. It just does not. We have had experience with this in North Dakota. Some 25 years ago, the proposals to build coal-fired electric generating plants in our State produced a great deal of controversy. I was one in the State capital who led the fight saying if we are going to build coal-fired generating plants, then you must provide the latest available technology on those stacks. We must have wet scrubbers and the latest available technology to scrub down those emissions. The industry was furious with me because I led a vigorous fight and we built those plants in North Dakota. But they did it and they had to have latest available technology scrubbers on their stacks. When they strip-mined to get the coal, they had to segregate top soil and do layers and topography restoration. They did not like it. But guess what. We did it the right way. Mr. President, 25 years later, looking in the rear-view mirror, they would all agree that was the right thing to do. We were the first State in the Union to meet the ambient air quality standards. We now have segregated top soil and topography restored on strip-mined lands of which we are proud. You can do this the right way. I know the energy industry sometimes doesn't want to because it is more costly to do it that way. But it makes sense to do it the right way. Increasing the supply of energy does not have to be at odds with protecting our environment. Let me make one final important point. Gregg Easterbrooke wrote a book that I believe was entitled ``America the OK.'' It was published a few years ago. In it he said we have doubled our use of energy in our country in the last 20 years, and we have cleaner air and cleaner water. Why? Because this country demanded it. We demanded, through the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, that we take steps to protect our air and our water. The point is, no one 20 years ago would have predicted you could double the use of energy without significantly fouling your air and water. If you do it the right way, you can coexist: an increased energy supply with a good, clean environment. That is what the Senator from Illinois is saying. So as we go through these battles about energy policy, my hope is that the good ideas on that side of the aisle can be merged with our good ideas and we can have a policy that is balanced. Yes, more production, but production the right way, with environmental safeguards. Yes, let's also insist on some conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy at the same time; we can do all of this together. But it is not a balanced energy plan simply to say, the market will take care of this. The market is broken, and we know it. Buy electricity in California today, and ask yourself whether you think this market works, while the big economic interests get rich and you get gouged. Ask yourself then, on the west coast: Do you think this market works? Everyone in the country knows that is not the case. Americans deserve the opportunity to have an investigation of energy pricing that shines a spotlight on pricing and supplies and evaluates whether they are being manipulated in a way that victimizes consumers. As I said before, 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt took a big stick and said to John D. Rockefeller, you cannot do this any more, because he was manipulating the price of oil. And 100 years later it is useful for us to have a significant investigation of both the price and supply of energy and find out who is doing what so the American people have some confidence, as we develop a new energy plan, that the big economic interests will not gouge the American consumers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, some weeks ago, I was on an airplane, and I had a laptop computer with me and my briefcase. Like most of my colleagues sitting on an airplane, I went through my briefcase and found a letter from the U.S. Park Service. I read the letter, and it provoked me to get my laptop computer out of its case and put it on the tray table, and I started typing. I created a message for the U.S. Park Service. Here is what their letter said to me. The U.S. Park Service wrote me a letter and said in the Teddy Roosevelt National Park, one of their picnic grounds was being colonized by prairie dogs. So they were going to do something called a ``scoping'' exercise and an EA, called an environmental assessment, to think about spending a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic grounds. I read and reread this Park Service letter about the scoping and the environmental assessment they were doing to spend a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic grounds, and I sent them a letter. What I said to the Park Service was that I found it interesting that they had the time to do scoping and EAs on these kinds of issues. I said, at the moment, we are in a rather complicated budget fight in Congress, but you have solicited my opinion, so let me give you a few thoughts. I said: I am not unsympathetic to prairie dogs. I think they are cute little creatures. They, unlike the rats, were blessed with a furry tail and a button nose and they have a good deal more human sympathy, therefore, than rats do. I asked the Park Service what would have been the Park Service's response if it had been a group of rats that had colonized the picnic area rather than prairie dogs. Then I thought better of asking because maybe they would have had a larger EA and scoping mission. My point to them was: Do not waste the taxpayers' money; do not move the picnic grounds, move the prairie dogs. I said: When I was growing up, about 50 miles from where they have this problem in the Badlands, I was growing up in Regent, ND, we had a group of rats ``colonize,'' to use the Park Service's word, our horse barn. I was about 14 at the time, and my dad said the rats could live a very good life just 1 mile from our barn in the town dumps, which is where a lot of rats live, and he said he would like me to enlist a couple of my schoolmates and see if we couldn't move the rats. It turns out these rats were no match for three 14-year-old boys. We very quickly retook the Dorgan horse barn. We understood that we could do that without a lot of effort. Getting back to the prairie dogs, I told the Park Service that I figure there are about 1.4 million acres of ground in the Badlands in North Dakota in which prairie dogs can, do, and are colonizing. They have many prairie dogs in the Badlands. So the prairie dogs can colonize in a million and a half acres or so. They just cannot colonize in this picnic area. I said: The way to handle these prairie dogs is to find somebody who can communicate with them. That is not hard. We have a lot of folks who ranch and farm and spend a lot of time around animals, and one very quickly learns how to communicate with animals. I raised some horses. We raised cattle, and we learned how to communicate with animals. I said to the Park Service: If you do not have anybody who knows how to communicate with an animal, go out in a ranching area and get some instruction, and once they have taught you how to send certain communications to animals, go back and have a little discussion with those prairie dogs and tell the prairie dogs they are not welcome in the picnic area; that you do not want to spend a quarter of a million dollars of the taxpayers' money to move the picnic area, and you want them to leave. And if they will not leave, I said to the Park Service, here is a cost-free way to deal with it: Get about three 14-year-old boys from somewhere in that area, and they will take care of that problem real quick for you. As I was sitting on this airplane thinking about all the things we confront in rural America--yes in and near the Badlands where I grew up--I was thinking that we are not short of prairie dogs; we are short of people. We have Federal agencies that want to treat lightly that which is serious and then treat seriously that which is light, and they do not quite understand. The real problem in our part of the country, where the Park Service is worried about prairie dogs and picnic areas, is that human beings are becoming an endangered species. All of our rural counties are shrinking like prunes. The counties are shrinking in population. People are leaving, not coming in. Farmers and ranchers are leaving the land at an alarming rate. Small towns are shrinking. Many rural counties are very fast becoming a wilderness area. That is not by Federal designation, it is the way things are working in rural America. I said to the Park Service: When I received your letter about prairie dogs, picnic areas, and environmental assessments, and scoping, it just seemed to be such an unusual bureaucratic effort for such a minor issue. Having prairie dogs move into a picnic area, in my judgment, does not rank up there with having people moving out of rural America. So I said: You have to excuse me for being a little impatient. Just once, I told the Park Service, I would like to see a Federal agency crank up a little energy, a little emotion about the real problems facing rural America. Have my colleagues ever heard of a Federal agency say: This county has shrunk 50 percent; we are going to do a scoping exercise to figure out what we can do to solve that problem. Have my colleagues ever heard of a Federal agency cranking up an effort to do an environmental assessment of what is happening with the creation of wilderness areas, where people are moving out, jobs are leaving, and people on Main Street are having a devil of a time keeping their front door open because rural areas are shrinking? Have my colleagues heard a Federal agency say that matters to them; they are going to make an effort to find out about that? No; oh no. Scoping and environmental assessments are reserved for dealing with furry little creatures that inhabit a picnic area. God forbid a Federal agency ought to spend its money and its time worrying about a few prairie dogs. Again, we are just not short of prairie dogs, we are short of people in rural America. I would like very much just once to have a Federal agency, the Park Service, the Forest Service--you pick it--just once to have a Federal agency get aggressive on something that really matters to us in rural America. I said to the Park Service: You probably regret asking for my advice. You probably certainly regret I had time on an airplane to read your letter and had a laptop available to respond to it. But, frankly, my advice is do not spend the taxpayers' money, do not spend a quarter of a million dollars; get those prairie dogs out of the picnic area and get your people, if you have the time work on things that really matter, to work on things with us that matter to rural America in a real way. I know the Park Service has read my letter because they sent me another letter and said this is not just about prairie dogs and picnic areas, it is now about the bubonic plague or some god- awful thing, and they have developed several areas of new dimensions to this tiny little issue, as is always the case. I am sure they brought in four or five specialists now to respond to this issue that I have raised with them about worrying about all the wrong things. Some days you just scratch your head and wonder whether bureaucracy has any common sense left. I say to the Park Service, and all the others who are engaged in these Federal agencies: Give us some help from time to time on things that really matter to people living in rural America. I live in a wonderful State. It provides a wonderful environment for people who want to live in an area where they have good neighbors, no overcrowding, and very little crime. It is a wonderful place with wonderful values. The fact is, we are fighting a losing battle in many ways trying to keep people, jobs, promote economic opportunity and a future that has some assistance for people who want to live in rural areas. I say to Federal agencies: If you want to worry about something, do not worry about a few prairie dogs in a picnic area. Help us worry about promoting some economic help in rural America for a change. If you don't want to do that, cut some of the positions out of some of the agencies to say you have too many people working on some of the issues. Maybe we can cut down on the idle time. It was therapeutic for me to say this on the floor. It probably was a slow water drip for the Presiding Officer. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I sent to the Park Service on the subject of prairie dogs and picnic areas and scoping and environmental impacts, and I say to them, save your breath and save the taxpayers' money and work on things for a change that do matter.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, and Senator Wellstone to introduce the Rural Broadband Enhancement Act to deploy broadband technology to rural America. As the demand for high speed Internet access grows, numerous companies are responding in areas of dense population. While urban America is quickly gaining high speed access, rural America is, once again, being left behind. Ensuring that all Americans have the technological capability is essential in this digital age. It is not only an issue of fairness, but it is also an issue of economic survival. To remedy the gap between urban and rural America, this legislation gives new authority to the Rural Utilities Service in consultation with NTIA to make low interest loans to companies that are deploying broadband technology to rural America. Loans are made on a company neutral and a technology neutral basis so that companies that want to serve these areas can do so by employing technology that is best suited to a particular area. Without this program, market forces will pass by much of America, and that is unacceptable. This issue is not a new one. When we were faced with electrifying all of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When telephone service was only being provided to well-populated communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. The equitable deployment of broadband services is only the next step in keeping America connected, and our legislation would ensure that. If we fail to act, rural America will be left behind once again. As the economy moves further and further towards online transactions and communications, rural America must be able to participate. Historically, our economy has been defined by geography, and we in Congress were powerless to do anything about it. Where there were ports, towns and businesses got their start. Where there were railroad tracks, towns and businesses grew up around them. The highway system brought the same evolution. But the Internet is changing all of that. No longer must economic growth be defined by geographic fiat. Telecommunications industries and policy-makers are proclaiming, ``Distance is dead!'' But, that's not quite right: Distance will be dead, only as long as Congress ensures that broadband services are available to all parts of America, urban and rural. I look forward to working with my colleagues colleagues to pass this legislation and give rural America a fair chance to survive.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, and Senator Wellstone to introduce the Rural Broadband Enhancement Act to deploy broadband technology to rural America. As the demand for high speed Internet access grows, numerous companies are responding in areas of dense population. While urban America is quickly gaining high speed access, rural America is, once again, being left behind. Ensuring that all Americans have the technological capability is essential in this digital age. It is not only an issue of fairness, but it is also an issue of economic survival. To remedy the gap between urban and rural America, this legislation gives new authority to the Rural Utilities Service in consultation with NTIA to make low interest loans to companies that are deploying broadband technology to rural America. Loans are made on a company neutral and a technology neutral basis so that companies that want to serve these areas can do so by employing technology that is best suited to a particular area. Without this program, market forces will pass by much of America, and that is unacceptable. This issue is not a new one. When we were faced with electrifying all of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When telephone service was only being provided to well-populated communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. The equitable deployment of broadband services is only the next step in keeping America connected, and our legislation would ensure that. If we fail to act, rural America will be left behind once again. As the economy moves further and further towards online transactions and communications, rural America must be able to participate. Historically, our economy has been defined by geography, and we in Congress were powerless to do anything about it. Where there were ports, towns and businesses got their start. Where there were railroad tracks, towns and businesses grew up around them. The highway system brought the same evolution. But the Internet is changing all of that. No longer must economic growth be defined by geographic fiat. Telecommunications industries and policy-makers are proclaiming, ``Distance is dead!'' But, that's not quite right: Distance will be dead, only as long as Congress ensures that broadband services are available to all parts of America, urban and rural. I look forward to working with my colleagues colleagues to pass this legislation and give rural America a fair chance to survive.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Does the Senator from Montana support complete repeal of the estate tax?

Mr. DORGAN. Further inquiring, I do intend to offer an amendment following the amendment offered by Senator Kyl today. I might say that, while I support reform and have long supported reform of the estate tax, I do not support total repeal of the estate tax for reasons which I will describe later.

Mr. DORGAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me describe briefly what this amendment does. This is amendment deals with the estate tax. I have listened intensely to the debate on the floor of the Senate. Much of the debate on the estate tax has been about Senators' concerns with family farms and small businesses and with parents not being able to pass on those enterprises to their children to operate. I, too, am concerned about this issue and believe that the estate tax should not interrupt the transfer of a family business to qualified descendants who want to continue to operate the business. We should not do that. A Main Street business in Ames, IA; or Butte, MT; or Regent, ND; ought not suffer the death of an owner and then a crippling estate tax obligation that prevents the owner's children from being able to continue to run that business. We don't want the surviving children of that family business to inherit both the business and a crippling estate tax debt. I understand that problem. And I believe we should do something about it. That's why my legislation would exempt from the estate tax family- owned businesses that are passed on to qualified heirs who continue to operate those businesses. My amendment would do that by the year 2003. If the family enterprise is passed on to the qualified heir or lineal descendent, and it continues to be operated as outlined in my legislation, it will be totally exempt from the estate tax. So the next time I hear senators stand up and say that this is their goal, I will say, if this is your goal, then vote for my amendment because the estate tax proposal now on the floor of the Senate doesn't do this until a long time down the road. My proposal exempts all family-owned and operated businesses and farms that are passed on to the next generation by 2003. End of discussion. It is done and done far more quickly than by the bill now being considered by the Senate. My legislation also includes a $4 million unified estate tax credit that will be available to everyone in 10 years, or $8 million for a husband and wife. With respect to the estate tax, what I am saying is: Yes, let's agree that we will exempt family businesses and family farms. Yes, let's agree that we will increase the unified credit in the estate tax. The only question that remains then is: Should we completely repeal the estate tax? My answer is no. Should we repeal the estate tax for those whose estates are worth more than $8 million? My answer is no. Here's why. I have heard lots of discussion today about the so-called death tax. And all of us know--we have read the news stories--that the term ``death tax'' was concocted by a pollster. They used focus groups and found that their purposes were better served by calling this the death tax, not the estate tax. But, of course, dead people do not pay taxes. We know that. Wealthy heirs pay taxes. Trust fund babies pay taxes. The ancient Egyptians thought you could take it with you when you died. There are some demonstrations of that when they discover and open their tombs these days. Has anyone here ever seen a hearse pulling a U- Haul trailer? I don't think so. You can't take it with you, and we don't tax death. If we do, I would like my friend from Iowa and others to describe to me how a dead person shows up at the tax office to pay that obligation. Dead people are not paying taxes. Estates pay taxes, which means the wealthy heirs get less and the trust fund babies get less. It seems to me, that if the point is you can either have a tax incident in death or life, and you decide not to tax death--if I accept that moniker for a moment--then what is left? Then you tax life. What you're saying is: Don't tax unearned income that flows to a benefactor through someone else's death. Rather, to pay for defense and all the other priorities in the country, tax the income earned by people that go to work every day. Is that a choice that makes much sense? Not to me it isn't. There are those who want to repeal the estate tax in its entirety, but they have sold this repeal as a means of alleviating the problems of family farms and family businesses. They should disabuse themselves of that notion. I say let's repeal the estate tax for the transfer of family farms and family businesses. So that that problem is solved. And my amendment does that almost immediately, and much more quickly than in the underlying bill. Once that is out of the way, the question is: What is left over? Those who say we must completely repeal the estate tax, even above $8 million for a husband and wife, say it is a horrible thing to tax unearned wealth or large inheritances. If it is such a terrible thing to tax unearned wealth, than what should we tax? Should we have a tax system that promotes opportunities for all? Or should we have a tax system that protects the privileges of a very few? A substantial portion of the estate taxes actually paid are on estates that have never been taxed. Close to 70 percent of their value has never been taxed. I understand that there are some who feel very strongly there should never have been or even be an estate tax. Let me just make a couple of comments about that position. Without the estate tax, it seems to me, you would have a world with an aristocracy of the wealthy, which means the ability to command resources would be based on heredity rather than merit. Some think that is all right. But let me quote Mr. Martin Rothenberg, President of Glottal Enterprises. He said it quite well, I think, as a business owner. He said: My wealth is not only a product of my own hard work. It also resulted from a strong economy and lots of public investment in me and others. My success has allowed me to provide well for my family, and upon my death. I hope taxes on my estate will help fund the kind of programs that benefitted me and others from humble backgrounds--a good education, money for research and targeted investment in poor communities--to help bring opportunity to all Americans. Some would say they do not agree with that. That this is not what this is all about. But it seems to me that we ought to make some choices here. When we talk about repealing the estate tax and we describe it as a death tax, it is critically important to understand that what we are about to do is antithetical to good tax policy. We ought to, in my judgment, protect the transfer of family businesses from one generation to another by exempting them from the estate tax. I agree with that. My amendment is the only legislation you will vote on that will do that almost immediately, in 2003. And if you do not vote for this amendment, 6 months or 1 year from now, or 2 years from now, do not come to the floor of the Senate with Kleenex, dabbing tears, talking about how difficult it is to transfer family businesses and family farms to heirs because you voted against the amendment that would have made it possible for them to not have to pay any estate tax at all. This country has about one-half of the world's billionaires, or about 309 billionaires in 1999. The wealthiest 400 Americans had $1.2 trillion in estates. And I say good for them. This country is a country in which you can do well, where opportunity exists. This country has created opportunities in which those who work hard and are fortunate can do very well. I would not want to live in a different kind of country. I want those opportunities to be available for all Americans. But I also believe, when we look at who is going to pay the bills in this country--and, incidentally, everyone in the Senate has spending priorities. This isn't a case of anyone not having them because everyone here has spending priorities. The most conservative Member of the Senate who rails against Federal spending is likely going to be out here saying we need much more money for defense spending. Do you buy bombers or milk? Do you buy military equipment or food for the hungry? Everybody here has their spending priorities--everybody. The question is: How do you tax to pay for those spending priorities? My colleague says that the estate tax ought to be completely repealed. Again, using the moniker ``death tax,'' which is a pollster's creation to describe this tax in some pejorative way, what I say is this: My amendment says that the only estate tax that will be left in this country is one for those whose estates are $8 million and above. I also in my amendment propose reducing the estate tax rate, increasing the unified credit as I indicated, and totally repealing the estate tax for the transfer of family businesses to qualified heirs who continue to operate those businesses. The only estate taxes that are left then are for those whose assets are $8 million and above. One can say: My priority is to come to the floor of the Senate and protect those folks from the hand of taxation, even though almost two- thirds of that money has never been taxed. That's right, two-thirds of the asset base from those estates will never, ever have been taxed. One might come to the floor and say: My mission in life is to support those estates, those above $8 million--not those who have a family business-- but those worth more than $8 million. Everybody has a right to stand on whose side they want to stand on. But it seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is: If someone dies with $6 or $8 billion in assets, to have a substantial exemption at the bottom, which my amendment will do, and then say to them, that the unearned income that is going to your heirs will be diminished some, by an estate tax, that will go into the hands of those who will redirect it to strengthen our school systems in this country, to invest in research and development, to invest in technology, and to make this a better country. There are others who say that is not a priority at all. So be it. I happen to think it is a priority. I think if you were to rank priorities with respect to the Tax Code, you should start right at the bottom, with those people who show up for work and make the minimum wage, with those who struggle at the bottom of the economic ladder to try to make ends meet. They are struggling mightily to figure out how to pay their bills, making just the minimum wage. There are not a lot of folks in the hallways here worrying about those folks today. You bet your life there are not. There are not a lot of lobbyists worrying about the economic interests of those folks at the bottom of the economic ladder. But you can bet your life there a lot of folks around this building that have invested a great deal of time looking after the interests of those who have $10 million, $50 million, $1 billion, or $10 billion, and who want to avoid having to pay an estate tax. Before I conclude, I again say that I hope I will not hear somebody stand up and say that the case for repealing the estate tax is to stop the interruption of the transfer of small businesses or family farms, because my legislation repeals the estate tax for all of those transactions. When you are going to transfer a farm or a business from one generation to another, and the heirs are going to continue to operate it, my amendment is the only proposal that repeals that tax in this circumstance by 2003. It is the only. So you can no longer sell the proposition of repealing the estate tax for the largest estates in the country by putting it on the backs of family farms and family businesses. This is the only proposal that will repeal it and will stop the interruption of the transfer of a family farm or business to qualified heirs. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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