America At War
With Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2001; 2:30 p.m. EST

When will the economic stimulus measure be passed? How will our nation protect its borders from terrorists? What is the responsibility of the federal government in this post-Sept. 11th world?

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) was online to discuss border security in the north, the Sept. 11th recovery efforts and other topics related to the war against terrorism.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Sen. Byron Dorgan: Good afternoon and I am happy to answer questions.

North Carolina: How will we keep our borders safe from terrorist entry without abandoning the freedom of movement we all cherish?

Sen. Byron Dorgan: We need additional resources in the customs service, immigration service and border patrol. That costs money, but it is necessary to provide security while at the same time allowing the flow of people and goods across the borders.

Alexandria, Va.: From an insider's point of view, do you think the bipartisanship and patriotic fervor seen in the wake of the 11th has brought Congress closer together?

Sen. Byron Dorgan: Yes, it has been a different congress since 9/11. Widespread and strong support for the President in the war against terrorism. Even though now we are beginning to debate some other policies there is still strong support for Bush in respect to the war.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: You're a member of the Senate and as such are a person directly responsible for the conduct and conclusion of the war in Afganistan. You may not want that responsiblity but you ran for the office, the rest of us didn't. What in your view does a successful conclusion to this campaign look like in terms of the actors on stage: the Afghans, their neighbors, us and our armed forces, our active allies, the interested nations of the world represented by the U.N.? And as the agrieved, injured, and bankrolling party in this mess, what must we do to ensure we get a political and security solution the U.S. can happily live with? Thanks much.

Sen. Byron Dorgan: I would take a book to answer that question, but I will try.

The issue is much much more than Afghanistan. It is a war against terrorism. The conclusion of the war will not be a surrender on a battleship. My expectation is that the terrorists will have to be pursued in many regions in the world. I regret to say that terrorism is likely a part of our future, even as we fight this conflict.

My hope is that we will be able to find a way at the conclusion of this war to have a more stable Middle East, but that is problematic at this point. The news of the terrorist acts against Israel and the retaliation against the Palestinians suggests that things are getting worse not better in those areas.

Montreal, Canada: Do you think it is high time for the United States to review its foreign policy, especially Middle East, and how effectively it can influence domestic politics?
Thanks for taking my question.

Sen. Byron Dorgan: Our policy in the Mideast has been to support Israel at the same time that we have attempted to foster a solution to the Palestinian homeland issue. Our country will not abandon Israel. It is a democracy that exists in a very troubled world with neighbors that wish to destroy it.

Alexandria, Va.: Senator Dorgan, what do you think of anti-missile programs in general and the Arrow anti-missile program in particular? Can they measurably increase the security of the U.S. and its allies?

Sen. Byron Dorgan: We have both anti-missile defense programs and theater missile defense programs, and they are quite different. I have supported research in both but I feel that a national missile defense is much more problematic. We still do not have a shield that works against a large-scale assault.

We are continuing to spend a substantial amount of money - 8 billion dollars this fiscal year - on missile defense.

Lexington, Va.: Sen Dorgan,

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions from a national audience.

I have two related questions. Within the past year, I have for the first time become aware of the so called "holds" on nominations for the judiciary or cabinet posts that an individual senator can place on a nominee. This practice leads to a SINGLE senator effectively exercising a veto over the President. This was clearly not the intent of the framers of the Constitution when they spoke of "advise and consent." Yet these are the current "rules" of the Senate. It is maddening as a private citizen to see this type of chicanery take place, on either side. I am sure that it is "cool" to be able to wield such power, but it is surely extra-Constitutional.

What is your position on holds? Do you think that the Senate rules should be changed? And if so, when do you plan on acting on it?

Sen. Byron Dorgan:
Well, a hold does not mean that a nomination or legislation is blocked, it means that it take s 60 nominations to brake it since a hold is a request for consultation, which means that a Senator may want to filibuster. The problem is that the holds have been misused over the years. My feeling is that these holds should not be anonymous and, that way, the American public would be able to put pressure on us to stop them.

I do not support eliminating the filibuster, but I do believe that holds are being abused and we need to reform them.

Alexandria, Va.: Do you believe that the U.S. should use force against Iraq if Iraq refuses to allow inspections of its weapons programs?

Sen. Byron Dorgan: I believe that the US along with its allies should be prepared to use force if Iraq continues to prohibit inspections. We know that Iraq is actively pursuing the production of weapons of mass destruction and it was a mistake to allow them to expel inspectors in the first instance.

Washington, D.C.: Dear Senator Dorgan,
I am concerned about the reported reduction of funds (approved, apparently, by the Bush Administration) used to help Russia secure poorly-secured nuclear facilities and materials. Has this reduction taken place? Will the Senate permit this reduction?
As the head of the International Atomic Energy Commission said, (nuclear) security is as good as its weakest link -- the fact that some Russian and post-Soviet facilities have been secured with U.S. help means little if others remain unsecured.
I appreciate your comment on this VERY important issue. Thanks!

Sen. Byron Dorgan: You have raised a critically important point about nuclear security. Programs such as the Nunn-Lugar Program and the Nuclear Cities Program have helped finance not only the destruction of nuclear weapons in Russia but also the security of their production capabilities and scientists. The Bush administration seems to ignore the value of these programs and we are trying to take steps to remedy that.

Sparta, N.J.: When are the Democrats going to submit an energy bill? It is time for you to take the initiative and propose a reasonable bill that Americans will support. Higher fuel standards, funding for fuel-cell research, and tax breaks for consumers buying solar panels or other renewable energy should be high on the list.

These measures will do more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than drilling in Anwar will ever do. The Democrats are right to support Bush's strong foreign policy and the war, but should not cave in on domestic issues.

Sen. Byron Dorgan: It is a timely question. We are just now introducing a comprehensive energy policy in the Senate. I just finished a news conference with Sen. Daschle on this subject. It is a balanced policy that is forward looking to increase production, promote conservation, efficiency and renewable and limitless resources.

Sparta, N.J.: When are the Democrats going to submit an energy bill? It is time for you to take the initiative and propose a reasonable bill that Americans will support. Higher fuel standards, funding for fuel-cell research, and tax breaks for consumers buying solar panels or other renewable energy should be high on the list.

These measures will do more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than drilling in Anwar will ever do. The Democrats are right to support Bush's strong foreign policy and the war, but should not cave in on domestic issues.

Sen. Byron Dorgan: It is a timely question. We are just now introducing a comprehensive energy policy in the Senate. I just finished a news conference with Sen. Daschle on this subject. It is a balanced policy that is forward looking to increase production, promote conservation, efficiency and renewable and limitless resources.

Anandale, Va.: Senator Dorgan--

I would like your view on three related topics. First, do you believe that we are in a war in the constitutional sense, and can Congress even declare war on a non-nation-state such as Al Qaeda? Second, do you believe a Congressional declaration of war is required and/or sufficient to justify the Administration's policies such as wire tapping attorney-client conversations? Finally, why do you think the Attorney General and the President seem to be more afraid of civilian criminal defense attorneys than of the terrorists themselves?

Sen. Byron Dorgan: Congress explicitly authorized the use of force. It was not a declaration of war in the traditional sense but this is very different conflict. We are not declaring war against a nation-state, rather we are declaring war on terrorists located in many different countries.

Congress has given the president permission as far as wire-tapping and other specific anti-terrorist measures that carefully weigh civil liberty issues.

Sen. Byron Dorgan:
I enjoyed the opportunity to answer a few questions and I hope that those of you reading this will continue to express yourselves to Congress in many ways. I would be a happy to have you visit my homepage as well where you can continue to send me your thoughts.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

   |      |