[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 151 (Monday, November 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11421-S11423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE SENATE AGENDA

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to comment on where I think 
we are today and where I think we need to go.
  Certainly I am very proud of Americans since September 11. I think it 
has been amazing how everyone in this country has come together with a 
commitment. I am proud of their work and their dedication to find where 
we are with these terrorists and to do something about it and to get 
rid of terrorism around the world.
  As I go home to Wyoming, I am very pleased that even though Wyoming 
is quite a ways from here, those folks are just as committed, just as 
involved, and just as interested as the rest of us. I am very pleased 
about that.
  When we are challenged and attacked by terrorists, this country 
demonstrates its commitment to freedom and its commitment to doing away 
with the things around the world that cause terrorism.
  I am very proud of this Congress after September 11. Everyone in both 
parties in the House and the Senate came together to do the things that 
were necessary, to do the things the President asked of us regardless 
of party lines, to do the things for defense, and to do the things for 
New York and Virginia in terms of the need because of what happened, 
and then to continue to do that. I am very pleased about that.
  Obviously, in the Senate and the Congress, everyone has different 
ideas about how we should go forward. Once we get past the emergency 
kinds of things, we, of course, go back to not having universal 
agreement on everything that we talked about doing. That is the way it 
is. That is the way it should be. We are here to represent different 
views as we have different views on things that should be undertaken.
  I believe we have a number of things that we ought to accomplish 
before we leave, and indeed it seems to me that we should. One of the 
reasons we have done the things we have done is so that we can continue 
to live a relatively normal life as well as meet our emergencies. I 
think one of the things that calls for normalcy is for us to leave and 
go home after Thanksgiving and during Christmastime. I suspect that 
rather than sine die, we will be leaving at the call of the Chair. I 
will support that. If it is necessary for us to return, we could do 
that.
  But we have a number of things we must do. One of them is certainly 
appropriations, on which the Presiding Officer has given leadership. 
Obviously, appropriations are a very important and vital part of what 
we do in Government. I think we completed 5 of the 13 appropriations 
bills. We are moving forward. We need to continue to do that.
  We need to have an economic stimulus package. Our economy, of course, 
about a year ago began to weaken. Then, of course, with the September 
11 tragedy, it took a rather sharp decline. We have to do something 
about that decline, and we can.
  I think it is necessary for us to complete the airport safety bill 
that we

[[Page S11422]]

have passed in the Senate and now has been passed in the House. We have 
to come together on some differences that exist.
  So these are the issues I think we need to complete. Quite frankly, 
most of the other issues we have before us are not necessarily issues 
that have to be done prior to the beginning of next year's session, in 
my opinion. Obviously, not everyone agrees with that opinion.
  Also, at the end of a session--any session; and I think particularly 
this one where there are things that have to be passed--we are going to 
find ourselves with items that anyone has ever wanted to be passed 
hoping to be attached to a vehicle for passage. Frankly, that is wrong. 
We ought not to legislate that way.
  I hope that in the appropriations process we stay within budget. 
Obviously, we are going to have special spending that is outside the 
budget. We recognize that. We have authorized that. I think we have 
spent $55 billion in one of the first shots, and we will probably spend 
another $75 billion, or more, in this stimulus package. Those are 
obviously special things that need to be addressed.
  We have said we will stay within the budget except in times of 
emergency, and this is a time of emergency. But I hope we do not use 
this as a reason for expanding our normal spending, for building 
permanent programs that might only be needed right now. I believe it is 
quite important to be careful.
  I believe the economic stimulus package should be defined as to what 
its purpose is, what we want to have accomplished with it, and that is 
basically to have some sort of immediate impact on the economy.
  I have to admit--and I am a member of the committee that deals with 
this--even though we have talked to some of the most knowledgeable 
economists in the whole country, not everyone is quite sure what has 
the greatest impact immediately. But we need to do the best we can to 
make sure the things we do will have an immediate impact.
  I hope we do not end up with a Christmas tree. There will be lots of 
interest in tacking on everything that anyone has ever thought of 
passing, whether it be long-term taxes or health care programs that 
will go on for whatever. I hope we will limit that spending basically 
to the package for which the President has asked. We should do that. It 
is not a time to put in a program that is attractive but will go on 
forever after the economic crisis is over.
  We are going to have to put some dollars in the package. The tax 
proposals will not do it entirely. We have to put some dollars in there 
to help extend unemployment insurance for those who need it when that 
expires, although relatively few have had and will have theirs expire 
in the next several months.
  We certainly have to do something about health insurance for those 
who are unemployed and have lost their health insurance. But I hope we 
do not develop a whole new Government health insurance program that 
goes on forever. We ought to use a technique to help people in this 
fairly short term of what we should do in an emergency.
  Also, we are dealing, of course, with energy. I do not know whether 
it will happen--there is considerable difference of view about an 
energy bill--but I happen to think, in this instance, energy is one of 
the most important issues we have to deal with; it has been for some 
time. We have needed an energy policy. Now we have gotten involved in 
the Middle East; knowing that nearly 60 percent of our oil comes from 
overseas, we find ourselves more at risk. So energy has become part of 
this matter of economic development and security.

  Here again, there seems to be a good deal of resistance over a couple 
of issues, such as ANWR and so on, which are not the biggest issues in 
the world but they seem to hold up something that might very well move 
right along as part of this package.
  Interestingly enough, there is a good deal of discussion about 
agriculture and an Agriculture bill. The Agriculture bill that is 
presently in place does not expire until September of next year. 
Nevertheless, the House has passed a bill that would last for 10 years, 
as a matter of fact. I am hopeful we can do something that does not 
last quite that long so we can have another opportunity in 5 years to 
look at the issue; it has been our history to reevaluate bills to see 
how they have worked.
  There are lots of ideas and very little agreement on the Agriculture 
bill. I am hopeful, quite frankly, that we do not do it this year. I 
think we have to have more time to take a look at it. We have eight or 
nine different titles. We have only dealt with one title in terms of a 
markup. It would be a very stressed situation to now try to deal with 
all these different programs.
  Most of all--and this is not something that is new nor unique to our 
situation now--I hope, as we look at these issues and we look at the 
problems, we will try to see if we can get a little forward vision into 
what we want to have happen over a period of time.
  Over the last 6 or 8 months, I have had a series of meetings in 
Wyoming we have called Vision 20/20. We began to try to talk to people 
in communities about what they would like to see in terms of their 
families, in terms of their communities, in terms of their State in 10 
or 20 years. Then, as they begin to get a vision of what they would 
like to see, where they would like to be, then it makes it much easier 
to make the decisions now and to measure whether those decisions, in 
fact, lead to where they want to go over time.
  One of the real obvious issues this applies to is agriculture. What 
do we want agriculture to be? Obviously, all of us who have farmers and 
ranchers--and I come from an agricultural background--want to make it 
economically suitable for them to exist, to be a very important part of 
our economy in Wyoming and other places as well.
  We hope agriculture is part of a conservation movement where we have 
trees and fields and where we have planned growth in open spaces. 
Agriculture can contribute to that greatly. These are the things we 
want to see over time.
  I think we want to see an economic safety net for agriculture. On the 
other hand, certainly we would like to see agriculture responding to 
the marketplace. That is where all businesses ought to be. We ought to 
be building more and more markets as we can overseas. We are going to 
have to have agriculture that fits with today's trade issues.
  WTO is meeting right now. It is fairly easy to sit down and say: Hey, 
we have some real problems; we need to do this right now. But then you 
ask yourself, where will that lead.
  It is the same thing with energy. Where do we want to be with energy? 
Obviously, we want to have energy available for us. It should be 
available, to a large extent, domestically so we are not totally 
dependent on imports. We ought to have energy that is created in an 
environmentally sound manner to have the multiple use of public lands, 
for example, having energy produced there as well as preserving the 
lands.
  Those are the kinds of things that I think all of us want to see over 
time. We would like to have conservation so that we find ways to do the 
things we want to do in our lives with less energy, if we can. And I 
suspect we will find new ways over time.
  I remember being in a meeting in Caspar, WY, years ago where somebody 
made a point which I have always remembered: We have never run out of a 
fuel. Before we run out, we always find something else that moves us 
forward. We started with wood, then coal, then gas. We have nuclear. We 
have had all these sources of fuel. We will continue to have sources of 
fuel, I am sure, over time.
  I know it is difficult--and I certainly am not critical--but I do 
think it is necessary that we address ourselves to those issues that 
should have a priority for us before we leave this session of Congress 
somewhere near our normal time. I think it is up to the leadership and 
up to the rest of us to do that, and to get those issues on the floor 
and to come to some agreement--which is not easy, I understand--to deal 
with them. After that, we can then move on to do other things.
  Mr. President, thank you for the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dayton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1629

[[Page S11423]]

are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be recognized 
following my comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________