[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 129 (Monday, October 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9945-S9946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

  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,

[[Page S9946]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

                          ____________________