Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Almost all of it was wrong.

Mr. DORGAN. I asked if he would yield for a question. I will ask one simple question.

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Utah has seen the chart I used on the floor that comes from BusinessWeek, not a progressive rag or a conservative business journal, that says this about the major oil companies which the Senator defended so aggressively at the moment: Rather than developing new fields, oil giants have preferred to buy rivals, drilling for oil on Wall Street. While that makes financial sense, it is no substitute for new oil. They are the ones saying the oil companies are not using these profits to drill and build refineries. They are the ones saying it, not us.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes. How do you justify what you said with what is in the BusinessWeek article, and virtually everyone else knows that they are buying back stock, hoarding cash, and drilling on Wall Street?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I object. We are on an amendment on the reconciliation bill.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator to make his unanimous consent request.

Mr. DORGAN. Did he not just ask for time in morning business?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this has been entertaining, if not enlightening, to see my colleague get a full tank of indignation in almost a nanosecond, on two subjects in fact. Let me cover the first at least. My colleague is a good-natured fellow--I like him--my colleague from Utah. In fact, he didn't get angry at me one day some years ago in a full-scale debate when I said to him, if there were an Olympic event for sidestepping, he would win the Gold Medal by far. In fact, he demonstrated that agility again today by sidestepping this point. The center of our colleague's agitation was he said: You cannot produce any more oil because those leftwingers, those environmentalists, will not let you do it. So I ask, well, how does one explain this then? The Wall Street Journal says the major oil companies are drilling for oil on Wall Street. They are paying down their debt, buying back their shares, and hoarding cash. That is what they are doing with their money. How does one explain that? Did not hear anything, did we? No explanation. My colleague said he was sick--he said three times he was sick. It is interesting, I suppose I have felt sick about some debate on the Senate floor over these years. I do not think I have ever admitted that, but I would much prefer to see a colleague of mine agitated about the price of energy in a full-scale agitation about what this is doing to consumers, agitated about what it is going to do when somebody on a fixed income cannot figure out a way to heat their home this winter. I would much sooner see a colleague agitated about that than having just come fresh yesterday from, as he described, a meeting with a major oil company, come to make the case for the major oil companies on the Senate floor, and say: You know what the problem is in this country? It is those populists dripping with venom--that word ``populists''--those leftwingers, those environmentalists on this side of the Chamber, they are what is wrong with this country. Let us see if we can peel back a little bit and expose the truth, if I might. My colleague says those environmentalists and those leftwingers have shut down all of these refineries. Oh, really? No, that is not true. Take it from me, that is not true. By the way, if my colleague would like to come back to the floor of the Chamber at some point, I would love to have a wide-open debate. Let us just talk back and forth and figure out where the facts are. Let me give a few facts about refineries. I will not read them all, but I could. Do my colleagues want to know the names of the refineries that were shut down in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000? Do my colleagues want the names of the refineries? I will give names of refineries, and when I tell the names of the refineries I will say who shut them down. The oil companies shut them down. Now, they did not do that so somebody could come to the Senate floor and blame somebody else. They did it because they were approved for big mergers. They became bigger and bigger, and they decided to shut down refineries. Why? They wanted to tighten the refining capacity and therefore increase margins. And they have done it. I will not say I get sick about somebody coming to the Senate floor to blame others for the oil companies shutting down refineries. But do I think it is fair, and do I think it is truthful? Absolutely not. The evidence is exactly the opposite of what my friend from Utah said. He has a right to say it, and he even has a right to say it with a full tank of indignation. That does not make it right. The American people need to know the truth about these issues. Shutting down refineries has, in fact, occurred in this country. Why? Because as the oil companies merged and merged and became bigger, they were shutting down refineries. And I will read the names if anyone would like me to. But my colleague has gone and will not be interested in these names, I guess. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely.

Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely. These record profits, the highest profits in history, are accompanied, by the way, in most cases--let me give an example. Exxon reports a 75-percent increase in net profits to $9.9 billion and they produced 5 percent less oil and gas at the same time. Part of that was due to the hurricane. But the company admits that even without the hurricane, they would have produced less oil and gas at the same time they had the highest profits in history. How does that square with what our colleague from Utah said? What our colleague from Utah said is not accurate. It is not. He said it with great conviction, he said it with great agitation, and it is wrong. Flat wrong. There are plenty of other things to talk about with respect to this issue. Our colleague raises the suggestion that we can't drill anyplace. You can't drill anyplace. Look, I support drilling in Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. The only place he was accurate about was the issue of ANWR. Do I think we should drill in ANWR as a first resort? The answer is no. I think it ought to be the last resort if we ever drill there. We have people on the floor who want to open up all these pristine places, especially ANWR, that we have set aside and let's drill. Katie bar the door, drill anywhere. We have set ANWR aside, but there are plenty of places I think we ought to drill. This was one of the most partisan rants I have heard for some while on the floor of the Senate. We are used to it. The minute you offer an amendment that does anything to a particularly large industry, I am telling you we have people coming through these doors saying, Who do I stand for? Let me stand for the big interests here. My colleague said he met with a major oil company executive yesterday. Good for him. As I said before, I don't bear ill will toward the major oil companies. But I wish he were as agitated about the impact of these prices on America's consumers. He is not. He has raised a lot of questions about why the oil companies are not producing more oil, why prices are where they are. The fact is, point after point after point has been inaccurate. I say to my colleague with respect to Exxon, let's take Exxon. He says the problem is these Senators and all the environmentalists and all the others prevent them from drilling. What did Exxon do last year? They made $25 billion and used $9.9 or $10 billion to buy back their stock. How does he square that with what he said to the Senate? He is flat wrong. Sigmund Freud had a grandson named Clement. I was thinking about it, as my colleague was supporting the major oil industries' profits tonight. Clement, Sigmund's grandson, said this: ``When you hit someone over the head with a book and get a hollow sound, it doesn't mean the book is empty.'' We have offered a proposal here in the Senate that has great merit. It has been misdescribed by the oil industry for reasons I understand-- I am talking about the major integrated companies--misdescribed by our colleague from Utah tonight as something that would reduce the supply of oil. In fact, the single largest incentive that would exist for expanding the supply of energy in this country would be our proposal because the major integrated oil companies would have a choice. They can either use these windfall profits above $40 a barrel to sink back into the ground, exploring for oil, or building refineries. They can either do that, and therefore be exempt from the windfall profits tax we propose, or they can choose to pay a 50-percent excise tax on the windfall profits--one of the two. Which would you choose? There is no question what you would choose. You would choose to expand the supply of energy and reduce energy prices as a result. That is the incentive in our piece of legislation. That is why it makes so much sense and it is why I was sitting here gritting my teeth, listening to the caricature of this legislation offered by my colleague from Utah and the spirited defense of the highest prices in history by the major integrated oil companies and the disparaging comments about the efforts to see if we can give some relief and give some help and stand on the side of consumers. I chaired the hearings on the Enron scandal several years ago in the Commerce Committee. I had a lot of people there under subpoena, understanding what they did on the west coast with price manipulation. I must say this issue of pricing, pricing of energy is critically important because this is not some luxury item. This is a necessity for every family, for their daily needs. We need to get this right. The question is, when we vote on this: Who do you stand with and who do you stand for? Let me yield some time to my colleague. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield 8 minutes to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield myself 4 minutes. I want to reserve 4 minutes. But let me make a comment. I agree with my colleague from Connecticut. Spirited debate is fine on this floor. I didn't like the representation that was made by our other colleague that somehow what we were proposing here is not only unworthy but part of some cabal that is trying to injure this country and, second, using information that is simply not accurate. The refineries have been closed by the oil companies, not environmentalists. That is a fact. What has happened is when they merged, they closed refineries in order to restrict supply and boost the yields of the refineries. The fact is, we had experts come in. I am talking about experts, I am not talking about politicians. The so- called experts came to the committee. We said, Why are refineries closing? One reason, because their yields are too low and the major oil companies are closing them. That is exactly the case. My colleague from Utah talked about tax breaks he had sponsored for the oil industry. He talked about yesterday he was visiting with an executive of the big oil industry--which is fine. He talked about the price they pay in Europe, $3 or $4 a gallon. The interesting thing is in Europe the money between the cost of oil and the $3 or $4 a gallon doesn't go into the pockets of the oil companies, it goes to build infrastructure in Europe. They collect it in taxes and use it to invest in the infrastructure of Europe. But I think it is important to point out what happens here on this floor. When you offer a proposal such as we offered, it doesn't matter if it is the tobacco industry or pharmaceutical industry or oil industry, we will have people trot through these doors of the Senate and rise to the defense of the pricing policy of the pharmaceutical industry or rise to the defense of the pricing policy of the oil industry. I will ask this. If you are going to get agitated in this Chamber, get agitated about something worthwhile. The agitation ought to be on behalf of some families who are trying to figure out how on Earth will I pay the bill? As I read in tomorrow's paper of the largest profits in the history of this country coming into the treasury of the oil companies, how am I going to pay a 50-percent increase in the bill to heat my home? You want to get agitated, get agitated on behalf of those folks and help us do something. This notion of partisan blame, coming to the Chamber and ignoring the substance of a proposal and then casting partisan blame, in my judgment is a little tired and a little old. This proposal stands on it own merits. If you don't like it, that is fine. I understand that. Vote against it. But don't suggest somehow you are on the side of the consumer if your interest here on the floor of the Senate is to come and stand with the big oil companies, and to believe that profits above $40 a barrel is fine. It is not. It is not fair. We believe one of two things should happen: Either it all ought to be sunk back into the ground or above ground for exploring for oil and building refineries and expanding America's supply of energy and bring down prices, or it ought to be recaptured and sent back as a rebate to the people in this country who are having trouble paying their bills, as a rebate to every American using energy. That is our proposal. Controversial for some? Maybe. Is it the right thing to do for the American people? I believe it is, and I hope this Congress, I hope this Senate will as well. I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have listened with some interest and curiosity over in my office to this fascinating discussion about Social Security, especially the chart about the trust fund. I would like to take my colleagues on a short visit back to the year 2001 when, in fact, we had surpluses. The surpluses came from a fiscal policy that looked truth straight in the eye and put this country back on track. Big budget surpluses were beginning to develop, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: You know something, even before these surpluses exist, for 10 years let us pretend they do, and let us start getting rid of the money and give big tax cuts, most of which will go to wealthy Americans, by the way. And now we end up years later with very large deficits. We will borrow $550 billion this year. My colleague seems surprised by that. Somehow it didn't work out quite the way it was supposed to, and somebody is now using the Social Security trust fund. Interesting. I know who is using the trust funds. It is when the President sends a budget down here with the biggest deficit in history, and he is taking Social Security trust funds to finance the tax cuts. Yes. He is taking money from Uncle Harold and Aunt Gladys to provide some of the biggest tax cuts ever given to the wealthiest Americans. That is the fact. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions in this Chamber. Not everybody is entitled to their own set of facts. I wish to spend a little time talking about the history because I think it is important for people to know. There are important statistics, useful statistics, truthful statistics. I remember I was at a town meeting once, and I used kind of a throwaway piece of information. An old fellow in the front row stood up. I said to this group of senior citizens: Do you know that there are 4 women for every man over the age of 85 living in the United States? Some old codger in the front row got up, leaned forward on his cane, and said: Young man, that is the most useless statistic I have ever heard given. Well, there are useless statistics and then good statistics. There is the truth, and then there is stretching the truth. Let me talk a moment about where we find ourselves and why. What fascinated me is these charts coming from people who want to take apart the Social Security system, the chart that comes to the floor this evening that suggests somehow they are the ones that really support this. I will tell how the Social Security system got started and supported--a man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. By the way, when he died, there was a poignant story written about the long lines of people waiting to see the body of Franklin Delano Roosevelt then lying in State. It was written that a news reporter walked up to a man, a working man who had waited hours in line with his hat in his hand, and the reporter, as this man was waiting to file past the coffin of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said to this fellow: Did you know the President? Do you know Franklin Delano Roosevelt? This man said: No. I didn't, but he knew me. He knew me. What he meant is this President knew the American people, knew and understood working men and women, cared about retired folks. Yes. He knew me. It was under this President that we decided to stop what was happening with senior citizens in this country. They reached retirement age--and at that point one-half of the senior citizens in America were living in poverty. They reached that age where their incomes declined, they could no longer work, and one-half of them were living in poverty in this country, this great country. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and others said, We can do better than that, we can do something about that, and created Social Security. Controversial? You bet your life it was controversial. There were some in this Chamber who said it is socialism, it is going to wreck this country, it is going to throw this country into bankruptcy. Guess what. Now less than 10 percent of our senior citizens live in poverty; 90 percent of them don't. Do you know why? Social Security. The word ``security'' means something. It is there. It is what they can count on when they retire. We have folks all around this Senate, particularly the other side, who think we should privatize it, take it apart. Some of them never liked it. Take it apart and privatize it and stick it in the stock market, in fact. There are a lot of people in this country who rely on Social Security, whose lives are enriched and made better by Social Security. There aren't perhaps many in this Senate who understand its value because perhaps none here will find themselves at the end of their income-producing years having to rely only on Social Security. I know plenty of people who do. I wish more people understood the consequences of that in this Senate. Someone once asked a question: If a person died and you knew nothing about them, had never met them, and you only had their check register as a piece of information about their life, what could you write as an obituary about that person? What would a check registry tell you about a person you have never met if you had to write the obituary? It would tell you plenty. What did they think was important? What did they spend money on? What were their investments? How did they live their life? The same can be said of a country. Look at what we do, what we think is important, what we invest in, what we spend money on. It will tell something important about the character of this country. What do we support? Do we support the fundamental promise of Social Security? Do we stand for it and believe in it? Do we believe it has strengthened this country? I see Members serving who do not believe that. They come to the Senate with big charts, save the Social Security trust fund. Really? Perhaps the time to have thought about that was when they were called on to vote in the Senate and they decided to provide very substantial tax cuts for the highest income Americans with money we did not yet have. And now we have very large Federal budget deficits. Let me give a couple statistics. Twenty years ago American corporations paid one-sixth of our income taxes. Twenty years later, they are bigger, much bigger, and more profitable, and they now pay one-tenth of this country's income taxes. Guess who makes up the difference. Yes, real people. Let me give another statistic. There are 400 Americans who are the wealthiest Americans--who file income tax returns, in any event--and their average yearly income is $110 million. About 8 years ago their tax rate was 30 percent to the Federal Government. Now it is 22 percent. It has dropped nearly 25 percent. I am talking now about the wealthiest of all Americans, those who have been most generously treated by this country, many of whom are brilliant, I am sure. They make a good deal of money. Good for them. I hope they expect and want to pay taxes to pay for the common needs of this country--defense, roads, bridges, education; you name it. The point is, those very people who now say they are the ones who care about the trust fund of Social Security are the ones who voted to be able to take money out of the Social Security system, take money out of the Social Security trust fund so they can provide a tax cut for somebody who gets $110 million a year in income. It is unbelievable. Just own up to it, in my judgment. If that is what you did, own up to it. Do not bring a big chart to the Senate saying save the trust fund. There was a time to save the trust fund, and you did not do it. Let me take you back to 1993. This country inherited then the biggest debt, which is now small by comparison from the first President George Bush. I recall that President Bush came to office and he proposed a very controversial fiscal policy. It was cut some spending, it was raise some taxes. It raised taxes, by the way, on the wealthiest Americans. But it was tough. It was a hard vote for a lot of Members. Incidentally, in this Senate, when the roll was called--because we were off track and headed down the wrong direction with budget deficits that were increasing that had now reached the highest level in history--when the roll was called, there wasn't one Member of what is now the majority party, not one Member in the Senate of that side of the aisle who was willing to vote for it. It passed by one vote. A new fiscal policy, a new direction got one vote--One vote in the Senate and one vote in the House. Guess what. With all of that controversy--and man, there was plenty-- 8 years later, we were on track. Instead of having record Federal budget deficits, we had no budget deficits. We had surpluses. Those budget surpluses gave us the opportunity to begin putting this country on a solid foundation, a solid financial foundation for Social Security and for many other needs. The estimate was we would have surpluses as far as the eye could see. In fact, Alan Greenspan, who is about to retire as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, was worried we would have too much of a surplus. I remember what he said because I thought-- I know he is not a drinker so I was trying to figure out where this came from. He said: I worry we are going to pay down our debt too fast. Oh, really? Where does that worry come from? Do you have a crystal ball, a strange-looking sort of crystal ball? He was an enabler. As an enabler, he gave permission, gave aid and comfort to the majority that said, you know what, let's take surpluses for the long term that do not yet exist, that are simply projections, and decide we will give them away in the form of tax cuts tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. And they did. So here we are, now 5 years later, borrowing $550 billion this year to this country's debt. The other day I went through the speeches I made at that time. I said, what if something happens and we do not get the surpluses, if there is an unforeseen event? Should we be a bit conservative? Don't worry, the sky is the limit. Things are fine. Be happy. So what happened? They passed their big tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy Americans and then all of a sudden we had a recession. Then we had a terrorist attack; a war in Afghanistan; a war in Iraq; natural disasters. Things went off track. Now we have very large Federal budget deficits. Then we are told, one of the ways to deal with that is to privatize Social Security. The President said, I am taking Air Force One, I am getting that old plane up and I am going across this country. I am going to sell this program. Privatize Social Security. And it did not sell. It did not sell. Because people know better. The word ``security'' means something to people. Social Security works. It has worked for decades, and it will work for decades to come. One of my colleagues says the genesis of this notion of privatizing Social Security is the phrase ``we're all in this alone.'' But in fact we are not. As a country, part of the genius of Social Security is to understand we are all in this together. We have real challenges to try to hang on to the Social Security system with a President who wants to privatize it, with Members of the Senate who come to the floor with big charts talking about raids on Social Security. I didn't bring a chart tonight because I wasn't aware we were going to talk about raids on Social Security. But I would love to give a history lesson on who has been raiding Social Security. Paint that money purple and I will point you to the purple pockets in this Senate. I will tell you who has been raiding Social Security funds right along. It is a fact that hooking up a pipe to the Social Security trust fund, hook up the pipe on one end and hook it to pockets at the top of the income ladder for corporations, because that is where the money is going--big, old tax cuts. The philosophy is trickle down. Pour it in on top and somehow it all trickles down and even the people at the bottom are helped. One day a fellow said to me, I have heard about this trickledown for 8 or 10 years and I ain't even damp yet. I happen to think there is a better approach called ``percolate up.'' Give the American families something to work with, good jobs and an economy that expands opportunity, and things do pretty well in this country. It is fascinating to watch this discussion, especially given the history of where we have been in recent years, a discussion about people who have embraced a fiscal policy that has injured the foundation of this country's finances, who now suggest they are the ones who want to protect Social Security. That is a curious thing to watch. It is a little like an illusion in an amateur magic act. It is an illusion that is attempted, but you can see all the moves so it does not look like magic, does it? My understanding is the President has now parked Air Force One, at least with respect to Social Security, and has decided not to continue to try to push that. My hope is that we as a Congress will decide, Republicans and Democrats together, that Social Security is something worth saving. Should we stop the raid on the trust fund? You bet your life we should. We have been trying to do that for a long time. But those who aid and abet the raid on the trust fund by hooking that hose up to the trust fund and giving it out in big tax cuts do no favor to senior citizens. This country has many challenges. It will not be made a better country by taking apart the Social Security system. Let me say those who come to the Senate and say the Social Security system is broken, it is bankrupt, it is busted--in fact, President George W. Bush said in 1978 when he ran for Congress, Social Security is busted and it will be bankrupt in 10 years, so we have to privatize it. That was in the year 1978, which tells you this is not about economics, it is about philosophy. Those who say Social Security is bankrupt or busted should remember this: Social Security will pay full benefits under every circumstance without any alteration or any change of any type until George W. Bush is 106 years old. That is hardly a crisis. People are living longer and healthier lives. Does that mean we have to make some adjustments in Social Security from time to time? You bet. Of course we do. We have, and we will. But the basic framework and promise of Social Security, if we have the people with the courage and strength in this Senate to protect it, will be there for the next century and the century beyond. I understand part of the success of Social Security and Medicare in our country has been the increased longevity of people living longer. I have spoken of my Uncle Harold before in the Senate. My Uncle Harold did not discover he could run until he was 72 years old. But at age 72 he went to these State meets where you have races in various events for people of different ages. He discovered there was a category age 70 and above. He entered three races. He entered the 400 meter, the 800 meter, and the 3K. He entered three events. The first time he and his wife Evelyn took the RV and parked it and he entered three races at age 72. He won all three easily. And he thought, this is amazing. I am faster than people my age. So pretty soon he started going elsewhere to run. He went to Minnesota. He entered the Minnesota Senior Games Races. He went to South Dakota. He entered South Dakota races. Pretty soon he was running in California, running in Arizona. He became a 400 meter specialist, and at age 82 my uncle had 43 gold medals and can probably outrun about 80 percent of the Senators--at age 82. People live longer, healthier lives. Thirty years ago he would have been on a Lazy Boy because at age 65 you are supposed to retire, get a Lazy Boy recliner, and stay at home--and do not drive, by the way. Things have changed. People are leading active, wonderful lives. That is born of success, success by increasing the longevity of the American people. My Uncle Harold is one example of that. Are there some strains on Social Security and Medicare from time to time? Yes, a few. Nothing we cannot handle, and nothing that would justify anybody coming along and saying, by the way, let's take Social Security apart. That is a philosophy rooted half a century ago. It is one that those who never liked it cannot seem to overcome. There was a fellow at a meeting I held some months ago with Senator Reid, the minority leader. At the end of this meeting on Social Security, this old fellow, in his eighties, blind, aided by someone walking beside him holding his arm, came up to me and he said: I am old, I am blind, and Social Security is the only thing I have. This 80- plus-year-old man came to that meeting just to deliver that message: I am old, I am blind, and Social Security is the only thing I have. It is so important. This is not just some usual debate. This debate about Social Security is about who we are as a country; about whether we will stand up for things that matter; whether we are going to stand up for people who have lived their lives in this country and helped build America and now reach declining income years and are told they can count on Social Security. Yes, they can count on it, as long as we don't let those who come along and decide they want to privatize it begin to take it apart because they never liked it in the first place. Mr. President, I see my colleague is waiting to speak. I was not even intending to come over until my attention was piqued by a big, old sign that said, ``Stop Raiding Social Security Trust Funds,'' and I thought: Well, that is a curious message from those who supported a fiscal policy that helped drain the trust funds in the first place. I thought I would mention that and talk a little about how important this Social Security fight has been and why the American people--not the Congress, why the American people--have said no to the President and others who want to privatize this important program. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. I don't have a numeric answer to that. But I think it is self- evident that most of the trade deficit we have with China has to do not with fair competition but a manipulation of currency, a refusal to deal with piracy and counterfeiting, a refusal to open their markets. I think that is what it is about. To give you a point of reference, the U.S Trade Ambassador's Office, on April 29 of this year, issued its report. This is our official Government report. It concludes that Chinese piracy was at epidemic levels and that the Chinese had broken promises. Despite the fact the Chinese continued to break promises, piracy of our intellectual properties was at epidemic levels, and two-thirds of the pirated products coming into this country are coming from China, despite that, our Trade Ambassador says it is not ready to file a WTO case against China. Why? Because, instead, we are going to put China on a watch list. Boy, that will teach them. You put somebody on a watch list, and that will strike fear in the hearts of almost anybody. A priority watch list. Here are the deficits with China. Going back to 1996, $39 billion. Go back another 7 years, and we had a balanced trade with China. But it is sinking deeper and deeper into this abyss. Now, all of a sudden we are going to put them on a priority watch list. On behalf of farmers in North Dakota, I can say I know that inside the administration, in the Trade Policy Review Group, they made a recommendation that we should take action against China with respect to unfair trade dealing with wheat. But the State Department said they thought it would be too much ``in your face.'' So they wouldn't do it. They ran it through the State Department. Would this offend somebody if we decided they ought to play fair? Yes. It might offend them. Let us not do that. I have said many times there is not anyone in this Chamber whose job is jeopardized by this unfair trade with these three Asian countries. I could also describe it with Canada, Mexico, and the European Union as well. But because the President is on a trip to Asia, I am talking about the problems we confront there. It is safe to say there is no one in this Chamber serving in the Senate who is going to lose his or her job due to a bad trade agreement, or due to us not having the backbone to demand of other countries that they play fair. Nobody here is going to lose their job. We will just sit around, thumb our suspenders, toot our horn, and put on our blue suits every morning. But nobody's job is in jeopardy. It is just a lot of other people's jobs that are in jeopardy. Do you remember that little Etch A Sketch? Everybody played with Etch A Sketch. There were two knobs on it. You had some sand in there, and you tried to draw a picture on your Etch A Sketch. Gone--gone to China. They are all gone. I could go through a list of 100 companies. In fact, I should bring over just the first 6 months of this year, the Department of Labor's report which is 33 pages, on both sides, single-spaced, of the names of companies that have sourced jobs off our shores. It is 33 pages, single-spaced, the names of companies--not people, companies. It is unbelievable what is happening. They are selling this country piece by piece. When today we import $2 billion more than we export, the financial transaction is we put in the hands of foreigners the currency or securities by which they own part of America. Each day they buy $2 billion more of this country. It doesn't seem to mean a whit to anybody. Last week was the announcement of the $66 billion monthly trade deficit. Did you hear any outcry from this Chamber? I came over and gave a little speech--but nothing. It is almost like everybody pulls their sombrero down and takes a big siesta and sleeps forever on this subject. Then what is going to happen someday--because I think every economist understands this cannot stand. You can't keep doing this. You add this $700 billion trade deficit to a $550 billion budget debt increase this year--yes, this year--that is $1.2 trillion that we sunk deeper in debt in this country. We cannot keep doing that. Every economist understands that. But nobody is saying much because we are all for the jingoistic ``free trade.'' Give folks some tambourines and robes, put them on the street corner, and let them bang around out there chanting ``free trade.'' But when the American people have had enough of it, they will say stop already. We fought for 100 years for good jobs with good benefits and the right to organize; now you will pole-vault over that and ship the jobs elsewhere and go visit them as you talk about trade? At some point when this collapses--and it will; this cannot continue--when it collapses of its weight, we are all going to stand around, thumbing our pockets and saying: We knew it could not last. Really? Read the Washington Post. By the way, if you do read the Washington Post, you will not read both sides of this debate because the Washington Post will run only one side. I have actually gone back for 6 years. We did a column appraisal of what the Washington Post runs with respect to trade. If you are for free trade, which is jingoistic nonsense about shipping America's jobs overseas and running our trade policy through the eye of the needle called foreign policy, if you are for that, God bless you, send some op-ed pieces our way, we would love to run them. If you are on the other side, if you believe in fair trade and that free trade and the monumental deficits are hurting this country and shipping jobs overseas, try to get an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post. Good luck. Take some medicine, it will take some while. It just will not happen. The whole town is like that on this issue. I understand, when we have that much invested in failure, you certainly want to defend it. But there will come a time, in my judgment, when everyone has to understand this is not representing the long-term economic interests of our country. Producing products for 30 cents an hour with kids working 7 days a week so you can ship them to a big box retailer in this country and sell them for pennies might be good, in the short term, for corporate profits, but it is not good for the long-term economic interests of this country. One day enough Members will wake up. It has not happened yet. It did not happen on the Central America Free Trade Agreement which we had in this Senate, another chapter in the book of failures. It did not happen. Enough said. First, let's agree that we will bind our hands and not allow any amendments. So agree not to be original and let's not think about this stuff. And second, when we have the vote, we will also agree to vote for a treaty--and it is a treaty but was called an agreement so it does not need 67 votes--we will agree to something that was negotiated behind closed doors somewhere else. And we will continue to open the new testament of trade dogma believing that somehow it will have a happy ending. It will not. President Bush is on his way to Asia. I want him to succeed. But I doubt whether he will raise these hard-nosed, tough trade issues in a significant way that tells these countries, ``Enough is enough.'' I want our country to stand up for its economic interests. Its economic interest is rooted, yes, in some expanded trade. No question about that. But it is rooted especially in the demand to require full trade. If I might make one additional observation, the same companies shipping companies overseas all in the name of profit because they do not say the Pledge of Allegiance in those boardrooms anymore, those same companies do not want to pay taxes in most cases. Here is an interesting statistic: In the Cayman Islands, there is a five-story white building. That five-story white building is home to 12,748 corporations. They do not all live there. No, no, they get their mail there. It is a mail box. The mail box is for the purpose of being able to say they belong to the Grand Cayman Islands and they can avoid paying taxes in the United States. Isn't that interesting, and also disgusting, that 12,000 companies are claiming one white five-story building in the Cayman Islands as their home? Finally, as part of all of this, this Congress--yes, this Congress-- decided to give a special gift to those that have exported jobs. The gift was to say that in this year, if you have moved jobs overseas, if you have created foreign subsidiaries and you are doing business overseas, we will allow you to repatriate your foreign earnings on which you expected someday to pay a tax in the United States, we will allow you to repatriate those earnings, and you get a special income tax rate that no other American gets. It is a 5.25 rate. Does Mrs. Smith pay that? Mr. Jones? Mr. Johnson? The people of North Dakota pay that? The people of Tennessee? No, no, only one group. Just the group that moved their jobs overseas, made a lot of money overseas, who expect to have to pay income taxes on it. When they bring it back to this country, they are told, Bring it back, we will give you a sweetheart deal, 5.25 percent. That was called a JOBS Act. In fact, we now see the result. Companies are bringing somewhere around $300 billion back, and the very companies that are repatriating these earnings and paying 5.25 percent income taxes--a fraction of what the lowest income American is paying--they are cutting jobs and moving jobs overseas. My colleague who sat in this desk, the amendment that would have stripped that little sweetheart deal for these companies. I supported him, spoke for him, and he lost. Why? Because as in the rest of trade, there are sufficient numbers who will stand up in this Senate and say: Sign me up. Let me give a special deal to those companies that not only do business in that five-story white building in the Caymans but also give them an opportunity to pay 5.25 percent income tax when they repatriate the money to the United States. I hope one day all of those workers in America who had good jobs, who were proud of them, and who were taking care of their families someday march on this Capitol and ask the question: Where is my job? What did you do to my job? How much did you reward the people that took my job and moved it overseas? It would be an interesting question and one that ought to be answered by people in this Senate, by people in the White House, and people in the House as well. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was just asked by a news reporter about the President's trip to Asia. The President is now going to Japan, Korea, and China and will be talking, presumably, about a wide range of issues, including trade. My hope certainly is that he will talk about trade. Last month, we had a trade deficit of $66 billion--in 1 month--one- third of it from China. When the President goes to China, he could visit a lot of American jobs because the jobs that used to be here in America exist now in China--jobs that made bicycles, Radio Flyer's Little Red Wagon, Tony Lama boots. The jobs that used to make a wide range of products now exist in China. An American President--any American President--visiting China could visit a lot of American jobs. They are not the same kind of jobs that existed in America because in America, in most cases, those jobs were performed by employees who made a decent wage and who had benefits. No longer, in most cases. Those jobs in China are being performed by people who are being paid a small amount of money and no benefits. By the way, if they complain about the working conditions, they will be either fired or put in prison. As the President goes to China in the shadow of last month's devastating announcement of a $66 billion monthly trade deficit, one- third of it coming from China, what should the President do? It seems to me the President, with respect to China, Japan, and Korea--all three of those countries--should begin to get tough and exhibit on the part of this country a backbone that says to countries with whom we do business, we expect and demand and deserve fair trade. Fair trade means it is mutually beneficial. It is not fair, and it is not mutually beneficial when last month--when the last month for which we had reporting--we bought one dollar's worth of goods from China, and for every dollar's worth of goods from China we sold them 10 cents' worth. A dollar and 10 cents--that is not fair trade. With a $66 billion trade deficit, with nearly 20 percent of it coming from the country of China, we ought to expect something substantially different. The Commerce Department announced that the trade deficit that shattered all records was in the month of September. Our country had a trade deficit of $66 billion. This is what it looks like. Our country is choking in red ink. Behind this red are American jobs leaving for China. Companies know they can simply get rid of their American workers and save a lot of money by hiring people in Third World countries--in this case, China--and they can presumably boost their profits believing, apparently, that people are like wrenches and pliers. You just get rid of them when you are done with them and find something less expensive. Go and hire that less expensive commodity--in this case ``commoditizing'' labor. This is what our trade deficit looks like with China. We have a $220 billion annual deficit with China. You can see what has happened. We are sinking into a deep abyss with respect to the trade deficit with China. One of the reasons for the trade deficit is piracy and counterfeiting. That is just one of the reasons. Let me describe something interesting. This happens to be the logo for the 2008 Chinese Olympics. It says: Beijing 2008. It is a great- looking logo. It actually belongs to the Chinese. The Chinese know how valuable a logo like this is because in Greece they had the logo for the Greek Olympics, and I am told they raised something over $850 million with this logo. So the Chinese know. First of all, this logo belongs to them. Secondly, it is very valuable. And some people on the streets of China decided they were going to counterfeit this logo. They decided, We are going to pirate this logo. They started selling mugs, coffee mugs, banners, all kinds of things with the official Chinese logo on it for the 2008 Olympics. Guess what. The Chinese Government can, in fact, control piracy and counterfeiting. They demonstrated it. The President, if he gets out of the car and walks down the street in Beijing, will not find someone selling counterfeit goods. They are gone. They are in prison. They are off the streets. The Chinese Government shut them down, just like that, in an instant. So when it is their money that is at stake, they understand how to stop piracy and counterfeiting. They do it. Two-thirds of all counterfeit and pirated goods coming into this country come from China. Does China lift a finger to stop it? Not a finger; don't care; doesn't matter to them. It mattered when it was goring their ox, when they were about ready to lose money. Then it mattered. So the question is, What do we do about this? I could put up a chart that shows Japan, a $60 billion to $70 billion a year--every single year--trade deficit. I could put up a chart that shows Korea and talk about my favorite subject with Korea: that little old Dodge pickup truck called the Dodge Dakota. I kind of like the name because it is named after my State-- Dakota. It is so wonderful they named a pickup truck after it. At a time when 700,000 vehicles come into this country over the high seas from Korea to be sold to the American consumers, we are able to sell, if we are lucky, about 3,800 to 3,900 vehicles in Korea. So 700,000 this way, and 3,800 to 3,900 going to Korea. Why is that? The Koreans don't want American cars in Korea, and 99 percent of the vehicles on the roads in Korea are Korean-made vehicles. That is what the Korean Government wants. The Dodge Dakota folks thought they would have a niche in Korea selling Dodge Dakota pickup trucks. For the first 3 or 4 months they started selling some. All of a sudden, the Korean Government shut them down just like that. With Japan, with Korea, and with China, the fact is, in all of these cases, governments take action to complete trade arrangements with us that are not mutually beneficial--trade arrangements that hurt us, ship our jobs overseas and help them. This trip by the President is very important. The question is, Will this country stand up for its own economic interests? There is no evidence in the past that it will. My colleague, Senator Graham, and I have offered several pieces of legislation on these very issues. But there is a giant yawn on the part of the U.S. Congress, not very interested; giant yawn at the White House, not very interested. Why is that? It is because most of these policies--I am talking about policies that affect the jobs of our citizens, policies that affect this country's economy, and whether we grow or not, whether people have a good job that pays well with benefits--are viewed through the lens of soft-headed foreign policy and not hard-nosed economic policy. That is the problem. You have to run all these things by the U.S. State Department to see if we could begin to be a little bit tough and take some action, maybe, with respect to some unfair trade practices of the Chinese. Oh, no. We are worried about offending the Chinese. Don't do it. They are engaged in managed trade and hard-nosed economic issues, and we are engaged in soft-headed foreign policy.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, for clarification on funding that was included in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations conference report. Under the fossil energy research and development section, the report provided $6,000,000 for the Energy and Environmental Research Center for cooperative research and development. Was it not the intent of the conference committee that the funding identified for the Energy and Environmental Research Center be split with their partners in the fossil fuel research, the Western Research Institute, WRI, in Wyoming?

Mr. DORGAN. Was it also the case that the $1,000,000 in funding for the Energy and Environmental Research Center under the fuels & powers account was meant to be exclusively for the Energy and Environmental Research Center in North Dakota as described in the report?

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Department of Energy National User Facilities

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, for their work in completing the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations bill and conference report. I am aware of the very difficult choices they had to make in order to fall within their tight spending allocation. I appreciate their leadership on this important piece of legislation. If I could, I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada a question regarding an activity at Lake Sakakawea, a Federal lake in North Dakota operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. For the past couple of years, Congress has asked the Corps of Engineers to extend docks and boat ramps around Lake Sakakawea as a result of the low lake levels. Is it not the expectation of the conference committee that the Army Corps of Engineers continue its work on these recreation upgrades within the Corps' fiscal year 2006 operation and maintenance budget for Lake Sakakawea?

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada, and I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. REID, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) FutureGen Funding

Mr. DORGAN

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

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