Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning and part of this afternoon Mr. David Kay who was the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq until he resigned last week testified before the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Kay has been interviewed extensively on media programs, including the ``Today'' show, and interviewed by Reuters, and others, so I have read a substantial amount of what he has said. And I listened today to his testimony, at least in part, before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The debate that has gone on, and I suspect the debate that will ensue from his testimony today, will perhaps be a debate about whether the right decision was made when this country decided to embark on this mission in Iraq with United States troops, which has resulted in the elimination and removal of Saddam Hussein as President of that country. In many ways, I think that is not the most relevant debate to have at this moment. I think the debate to have at this moment is on what the implications of what Mr. Kay has said to us are for the safety and the security of this country, and what its implications are for the ability of this country to understand where dangers exist around the rest of the world, and where our national security is at stake. Let me see if I can paraphrase some of what Mr. Kay has said. He told the Armed Services Committee that the failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has exposed weaknesses in America's intelligence-gathering apparatus. Is there a time in which our intelligence-gathering apparatus has been more important to this country than this particular time? In the shadow of 9/11/2001, with the prospect of terrorists wanting again to commit an act of terror in this country, we are required to accept the judgment of our intelligence community: the best intelligence we have available to us that this is a threat or that is a threat. Now Mr. Kay says that what we believed about Iraq's weapons was almost all wrong. And I certainly include myself here. And he says the intelligence community has failed, quote, unquote, the President. Well, look, if the intelligence community has failed--and it seems clearly to have failed in a significant way--then it has failed not only the President of the United States, it has failed this Senate, and it has failed the people of the United States. I, and all of my colleagues, have sat in the Intelligence Committee room here in the Senate. That very special room, which is designed for top secret briefings, is a room in which all of us have had top secret briefing after top secret briefing from CIA, from Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, and from others. In that room, eyeball to eyeball with our intelligence community, we have been told certain things that they believe to be true with respect to a threat--the threat from Iraq, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and others. If, in fact, there is a failure--and it appears to me that there is a failure; the top weapons inspector says there is a failure--if that failure exists--and it does--then it is a failure not just for the President of the United States, it is a failure for this country and for this Senate. All of us, then, had been told, face to face by our intelligence community, what they expected to be the case in Iraq, and it turns out not to be the case. Now, do people have a right to be wrong? Yes, they do. But we spend billions and billions and billions of dollars on intelligence, and if this country--in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and confronting the prospect of future terrorist attacks--does not have an intelligence community that gives us great confidence, then we are in trouble. I would think the President, and certainly this Congress, should demand to know what happened. We ought to seek answers. There has to be accountability. Where does the buck stop? If, in fact, we have had a failure of our intelligence community-- again, not my words, the words of Mr. David Kay, the top weapons inspector; words he uttered today before the Armed Services Committee, words he uttered in interview after interview--if there is, in fact, a failure, then we ought to demand immediately to understand: What was the failure? How did it occur? Whose responsibility was it? And, most importantly, how do we fix it on an urgent basis? Let me read some of the quotes. I will not read the quotes from today's hearing because I do not have them all, although I was able to listen to much of the hearing. But this is from Mr. Kay's appearance on the ``Today'' show, which I watched with great interest. He was asked on the ``Today'' show about the presentation before the United Nations of Secretary of State Colin Powell. As you know, we received top secret briefings, and then we received briefings in other venues from the Vice President, from Condoleezza Rice, and others in the administration. Following those briefings, the Secretary of State made a lengthy presentation to the United Nations, and he set out chapter and verse, including pictures and charts, of the threat that existed. I want to read to you the question that was asked: Almost a year ago Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. Here's what he had to say. Then they showed a tape of Secretary Powell at the U.N. saying, ``[Our] conservative estimate [is] that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents.'' The interviewer then asked Mr. Kay: ``Is that conservative or is it just plain wrong?'' Mr. Kay responds: No, I think that was the estimate based on information and intelligence before the war. It turns out to be wrong, just wrong. Next question: So what was the problem with the intelligence? Why were we so wrong? Mr. Kay said: Well, don't forget, Iraq is not the only place we have been wrong recently. We have been wrong about Iran. We have been wrong about Libya's program. We clearly need a renovation of our ability to collect intelligence. The question was asked: Here is what you said to Tom Brokaw: ``Clearly the intelligence we went to war on was inaccurate, wrong. We need to understand why that was. If anyone was abused by the intelligence, it was the President of the United States rather than the other way around.'' My point is simple: If anyone was abused in this country by bad intelligence, by inaccurate intelligence, it is not just the President, it is Members of the Senate who sat eyeball to eyeball with our intelligence officers and with those who run our intelligence community who told us what they believed to be the case, which turns out now not to be accurate. The American people were failed. The Senate was failed. To use another word Mr. Kay used, the President was failed. So why is it the case that we don't see someone standing on the tallest stump saying: There is something wrong here. We need to get to the bottom of it, and now. This country's security depends on it. Today somewhere someone is assessing intelligence picked up over telephone lines or computer transmittals or any number of ways to evaluate what is happening with terrorist cells. Where might they be planning to attack us. What might the attack be when they attempt to enter this country once again and kill Americans. Well, that same intelligence community that has been so wrong, according to Mr. Kay-- and I think now according to most Members of the Senate who would assess that--are they the ones still analyzing this? My question is where is the accountability? I think the President and the Congress ought to join together in a common bond and common interest to demand how this happened. There isn't any question that we ought to have a completely independent commission evaluating and studying and investigating this right now. There ought to be an independent investigation right now. I hope finally the Congress will do that. Second, I believe next week, Mr. Tenet, Condoleezza Rice ought to be invited to the intelligence room and all 100 Senators ought to hear their response to this proposition that the intelligence community has failed us. This isn't a politician speaking. This is a top weapons inspector who just came from Iraq. This is Mr. Kay. I remember when Mr. Kay was appointed with great fanfare. This is a straight shooter, a tough guy, no nonsense. He went to Iraq. He came back, and he finally quit. He said there weren't weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was bad. The intelligence community failed this President. He forgot to say, failed this Congress and failed the American people. I am telling you, whether it is tomorrow or next week or next month, this country's security and safety rest on good intelligence. If we have questions about an intelligence community that Mr. Kay says has failed us and if we don't, with great urgency, rush to find out what happened with an independent evaluation, shame on us. This isn't about politics. It is about the safety of America. It is about being effective in the fight against terrorism. It is about having an intelligence community that works, that gets it right, and that doesn't fail this President or this Congress or this country. I hope Senator Frist and Democratic leader Daschle will ask Mr. Tenet to come to room 407 and address all 100 Senators and answer all of the questions of the Senators that stem from this testimony of the top weapons inspector who has said our intelligence community failed us. We ought to do that, and we ought to do it now. Days, weeks, or months should not go by without us having answers to this question. It is easy to be critical. It is much more difficult to be constructive. It is not being critical for Mr. Kay, the top weapons inspector appointed by President George W. Bush, to come to this Congress and tell the truth. When he tells the truth, we have a responsibility to follow that truth wherever it leads. There are some here who don't want to do that. They are worried about politics. It doesn't matter who is President. We have an intelligence community on which we spend a great deal of money. In fact, the amount is classified information. The American people should trust me when I say we spend a substantial amount of money on intelligence. The security and safety of this country and the American people rests on our ability to make sure that money is spent wisely in an intelligence community that gets it right and provides good information to this country. We cannot any longer decide this is business as usual, one more hearing, one more set of questions that remains unanswered. Saddam Hussein is gone, and the world is better for it. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. We opened up football-field-sized graves in Iraq with tens of thousands of skeletons of people murdered by this regime. That is a fact. Saddam Hussein crawled into a rat hole. That says a lot about him. He is now in jail, soon to be on trial, perhaps soon to meet with the ultimate penalty. This is not about Saddam Hussein. This discussion is about whether this country is able to protect itself from a terrorist attack a month from now or a year from now. Do we have an intelligence community that gets it right? Mr. Kay seems to say no. That community has failed us. He says they have not just failed in Iraq, they have gotten it wrong in Libya and Iran. We need a renovation of our ability to collect intelligence. Incidentally, Mr. Kay, former top weapons inspector of this President, said this morning he favors an independent commission to take a look at and investigate the failure of the intelligence community. I hope we will move with great haste to embrace that recommendation. It is not just his recommendation. Senator Daschle and others have made that same recommendation in the Senate. We need to move with great urgency. This is about the safety and security of our country. My colleague from Florida is on the floor and wishes to speak to an issue. Time is short. We have an urgent requirement to pursue this issue. I call on Senator Frist next week to give all of us here in the Senate the opportunity to hear and question Mr. Tenet, head of the CIA, as well as Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser. We should have that opportunity because they, in top secret briefings, gave us information. They represented the intelligence, the community of intelligence and the assessment of the intelligence community prior to going to war in Iraq. That assessment is what Mr. Kay refers to when he says there was a failure. The assessment that apparently was accepted--perhaps embraced, certainly embraced--by the Secretary of State when he went to New York and made his presentation to the United Nations was a failure of intelligence. I think the Secretary of State would want these answers. The President certainly needs these answers. He should demand it this afternoon. The Senate deserves these answers next week at the very latest. I call on Senator Frist to convene a meeting next week of the 100 Senators in our Intelligence Committee room so we can question and hear from the head of the CIA and the head of the National Security Council, Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice. Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice ought to present themselves, and we should begin this process of finding out what happened. Why did it happen. Who is accountable, and where does the buck stop. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. I ask consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I consume.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today the Congressional Budget Office released its summary of what to expect in fiscal policy in this country. I know several of my colleagues have spoken about that today. But they predict that in the coming fiscal year, the budget deficit for this country will be $477 billion--nearly a $500 billion deficit-- easily and by far outdistancing any previous budget deficit. Last week I listened to the State of the Union in the Chamber of the House. The President described the state of the Union as he saw it. There was no discussion about the nearly $.5 trillion budget deficit this coming year. It was as if everything is just fine; don't worry about it; be happy. Days later, the Congressional Budget Office released their January review. Here is what they show. They show that in January 2001, 3 years ago, they expected us to have a surplus of $5.6 trillion during the 10- year period. As a result of that expected budget surplus, we had people scurrying around here like folks who just had not enough to do and they wanted to find some way to deal with their $5.6 trillion surplus. Some of us said this surplus doesn't yet exist. It is just a prediction; maybe we ought to be a little bit conservative, a little bit careful about how we deal with this. No. The President said don't worry about that, and those who supported him in Congress said don't worry about that; be happy; we are going to have a big, long-term, 10-year surplus, and let's have very large tax cuts which, by the way, are token for the highest income earners in this country. If you earn $1 million a year-- and not many do--this Congress passed tax cuts that said we believe you ought to have a tax cut of nearly $100,000. I didn't support it. We got busy in this Congress giving that money back not to working families but the wealthiest people who benefited most from those tax cuts. In January of 2003, 2 years later, the expectation was that most of those surpluses had vanished. A number of things had happened, but most of those surpluses had vanished. Now, 1 year later, we find out there are no surpluses at all. In fact, we face 10 years of deficits equaling somewhere around $2.6 trillion. In a period of 3 years, the Congressional Budget Office expected us to have a $5.6 trillion surplus, and then 3 years later a $2.6 trillion deficit. I didn't go to fancy math classes in my small school, but that adds up to an $8 trillion difference in just 3 years. What happened? As I indicated, the smell of $5.6 trillion in surplus was just too much for some: we have to get rid of this surplus--despite the fact it didn't exist. How shall we do it? Let us give the upper-income Americans a very generous tax cut; and they got it through the Congress. Some of us cautioned, saying maybe something is going to happen. What if something interferes? What if there is an economic downturn? What if we don't have these surpluses? Never mind, we were told; it doesn't matter. Don't worry about it; be happy; we are going to have a long-term surplus and we are going to get about the business of giving it back. In just a matter of months after that debate began, we discovered the country entered into a recession. I know my colleagues are fond of saying President Bush inherited a recession. He did not. That is not true. The recession started in March of 2001. This President didn't inherit a recession. In March of 2001, the recession started. It lasted until about November 2001. So we ran into a recession in March. On September 11, 2001, we had this tragic event in which terrorists murdered innocent Americans by flying airplanes into buildings. Thousands of Americans lost their lives that day. That had a dramatic impact on the economy. There is no question about that. Then we began a war against terrorism, which was expensive; then homeland security, which is expensive; and then an increase in defense spending, which is expensive. Think about it: A $5.6 trillion surplus expected in 10 years, and the fiscal policy coming from the White House was to say, Let's have very big tax cuts for upper income Americans. Then we ran into a recession; September 11, 2001, a terrorist attack; a war on terrorism; homeland security spending; and defense spending up, up, way up. Now we discover that not only is there not a surplus, but we have the largest Federal budget deficit in the history of this country. The President in his State of the Union Address did not mention it. Why would the President neglect to mention this? Is it because there is no fiscal policy coming from this administration that remedies it? Is it because the medicine here is not easy to take? I just finished reading a book that was written by a man named Suskind about former Treasury Secretary O'Neill who was the Treasury Secretary for the first 2 years of this administration during the time this fiscal policy was constructed. That book ought to be read by every American because it says again from the Treasury Secretary of this administration that this fiscal policy is folly. It doesn't result from the best minds sitting around thinking about what is the best policy to advance this country's economic interests. It was nothing of the sort. It was all about politics, all about the easy lifting, saying let us give tax cuts and let us give tax cuts especially to those who supported the administration. I was, frankly, very surprised to read that book. I was very disappointed as well to read that book. The book needed to be written, and it is controversial. I am sure Mr. O'Neill, former Secretary O'Neill, will pay dearly for having been candid. But what he described was the development of a fiscal policy that had nothing at all to do with thoughtful analysis by people who would know. It had everything to do with people in the basement constructing political strategy and how that political strategy should find its way into the fiscal policy of this country and should actually run that fiscal policy. Here we are 3 years later. Instead of a $5.6 trillion budget surplus, we have the prospect of a $2.6 trillion deficit that we will decide our children should pay. Here we are with an administration that has no plan except to say deficits don't matter--an administration that gives us a State of the Union that conveniently forgets we have now the largest Federal budget deficit in human history. I mentioned I went to a very small school with a high school senior class of nine. They didn't teach advanced math. But 1 and 1 equals 2, and 2 and 2 always equals 4. You cannot have a fiscal policy for our country that increases defense spending, increases homeland security spending, and cuts taxes again and again, and have it add up. It just does not, especially in circumstances when we hit a rough patch in the economy and are fighting a continuing war on terror. It simply does not add up. We require--this country demands--leadership on these issues. All of us here in the Congress need to get serious about spending initiatives and tax initiatives. Not too many weeks ago, we had a debate on the floor of the Senate. I offered an amendment and I lost. It had to do with the expenditure of $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of the country of Iraq. I said we ought not spend $20.3 billion to reconstruct the country of Iraq. We did not bomb Iraq in a manner that destroyed their infrastructure. We didn't target their roads. We didn't target their electric grids, nor their dams. We did not target the infrastructure of Iraq, and we did not destroy their infrastructure. It is not the obligation or the burden of the American taxpayers to rebuild it. The country of Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the entire world next only to Saudi Arabia. My proposition was very simple: that Iraq would be pumping 3 million barrels of oil a day, according to Ambassador Bremer, by July 1 of this year, and the sale value of that which is available for export will be $16 billion a year. That is $160 billion over 10 years. That could easily be securitized, and the money from a few years of Iraq oil could easily reconstruct all that is necessary to be reconstructed in Iraq. It is the burden, it seems to me, of Iraq oil, the resource that belongs to Iraq, to reconstruct Iraq. It is not the burden of the American taxpayer. I have felt strongly--and I did when we debated this issue--that Iraq oil owned by the Iraqi people ought to be used to reconstruct the country of Iraq, not the American taxpayer. I lost that vote. That vote was $20 billion. Those who decided, no, it is the American taxpayers' burden, decided we want to spend that money. That is part of Federal spending. We want to borrow the money, which is what we are now doing in order to reconstruct the infrastructure of Iraq. The next time I hear someone come to this floor to say the problem is the big spenders, it is important to take a look at how Members voted on the $20 billion to reconstruct Iraq. Talk about big spending, that is the big daddy of spending, one big chunk, $20.3 billion, not paid for. We borrowed the money, added it to the Federal debt, and said let's send it to Iraq. Now we read in the newspapers that a Halliburton subsidiary has decided to give money back because there were kickbacks, because there was fraud. There are investigations. We discover the price charged to the American taxpayer to haul gasoline into Iraq is probably $1 more per gallon than it should be. Are you surprised? I am not. When we throw money at these issues, which is what happened to the issue of reconstructing Iraq, we find dramatic amounts of waste. That is what is happening. We need a fiscal policy that works. Part of it is beginning to cut back on spending in some of these areas. This would have been a good candidate and would still be a good candidate. We do not have to spend all of the $20 billion. There is still time to take some back and reduce the runup of Federal deficits. Second, we ought to collect some taxes from those who are not paying it, some of the largest corporations in the country, some whose names you would recognize instantly because they advertise all the time. They do a lot of business in this country and are household names. They have decided they want to run their business out of a mailbox in the Bahamas or the Grand Caymans. Why do they want to make a mailbox their corporate headquarters? To avoid paying U.S. taxes. It is time for us to shut that down. The American people pay taxes. They earn a wage; they pay a tax. They do not have flexibility to get out of it. So, too, should the large corporations that do business and earn profits here. Deciding either they want to renounce their citizenship, which is called an inversion, or deciding they want to create all these special enterprises, special subsidiaries, and run them through a mailbox in the Bahamas or Grand Caymans or the Dutch Antilles is not something this country should allow happen. That means tax reform. It is not just the obligation of working families to pay taxes, it is the obligation of all Americans who earn in this country. That includes those at the top. That includes some of the largest enterprises, some of the largest corporations that now have decided they want all the benefits of American citizenship except the requirement to pay taxes for our common defense and for the other things that invest in this country and its future. We have a lot to do. If all Americans will read the Suskind book called ``The Price of Loyalty,'' about former Secretary O'Neill, the first 2 years of this administration, and the construction of a fiscal policy, a reader will shut that book and wonder how on Earth this could have happened. Are there not people involved of good character who want to do the right thing for this country's future? Is it all about politics? Read the book. Then make a judgment. Then ask yourself whether it is not necessary for all, Republicans and Democrats, conservative and liberals, to create a different resolve, beginning now. That resolve is to no longer ignore and pretend, as this administration does, that we have the largest budget deficit in history. I did not mention that in addition to the largest fiscal policy budget deficit in history, predicted today by the Congressional Budget Office of $477 billion, we also have the largest trade deficit in history. Together, these two deficits are very serious for the long- term outlook of this economy. There is no magic. I know the administration says, look, this is not an issue. We will just grow out of it. There is no thoughtful economist I am aware of who believes you grow out of these deficits. You do not. I mentioned an $8 trillion turnaround. The President, in his State of the Union Address, despite not mentioning the Federal budget deficits or a fiscal policy dangerously out of control, in my judgment, did mention he wants to make all of the tax cuts permanent, which will add another $2 trillion to those deficits in the next 10 years. We have a lot at stake. I believe it is incumbent upon both political parties. If the President will not, it is incumbent upon both parties that do work in the Senate to recognize this is a dangerous fiscal policy and we must change it. Men and women of good will serving in this body know that our job is to try to enhance the future of this country. We want to leave things better than we found it. We want our children to live in a better world. We want our children to live in a country that is stronger, whose economy is expanding and producing jobs and opportunities for our children. But that will not happen if we burden our children with a reckless fiscal policy that has the largest deficits in the history of this country. I call on this President to recognize this issue, work with us to solve this problem, and put this country back on track with a fiscal policy that promotes economic growth, that gets rid of these budget deficits, and provides for a responsible fiscal policy, a balanced budget, one that will promote growth in this country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on just one more issue, quickly, the Democratic leader was in the Chamber moments ago speaking of something I am very concerned about as well. This is the front page of the Wall Street Journal today and it says: ``Halliburton Tells the Pentagon Workers Took Iraq-Deal Kickbacks.'' Let me read from the report. Halliburton Co. has told the Pentagon that two employees took kickbacks valued at up to $6 million in return for awarding a Kuwaiti-based company with lucrative work supplying U.S. troops in Iraq. That disclosure came just days after the top Defense Department auditor asked the office to investigate whether Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root overcharged for fuel deliveries by more than $61 million. This isn't the first whisper of this kind of issue. Week after week after week, for months we have been hearing these charges. Do you think anybody in the executive branch seems very concerned about them? Apparently the auditors in the Defense Department are. But do you see anybody scrambling to hold a hearing about it and do some investigation and some inquiry to bring somebody to account for this? It is as quiet as church mice around here. In the last 6 or 8 years, every time there was a hiccup there would be a Senate investigation or a congressional investigation and we would hire special counsel and lawyers and have people under oath. Here is an example of what we ought to be investigating as well. How about getting to the bottom of this issue. The U.S. taxpayers are being overcharged $200 million, perhaps, for hauling gasoline into Iraq by a company that is charging $1 more than anybody else is charging for hauling the same gasoline into Iraq. How about some accountability for the American taxpayer. After all, this money comes from the American taxpayer. Overcharging, kickbacks, cronyism, preferential contracts, nonbid contracts--this demands, this begs for an investigation. This Congress has a responsibility to do it. I suppose the administration, this Congress, and the majority party can ignore this for another week or another month. This is not going to go away. Kickbacks, overcharges--this isn't going to go away. The fact is this company just got a new contract. This is a slap on the wrist, a pat on the back. That is what this is all about. Let us have an investigation to find out who is doing this. Let us suspend those contracts right now. If we have work to do, if we have fuel to haul, if we have supplies to buy, if we have projects to finish, let us get contractors to do that. Let us have contracts to haul that fuel and to provide those supplies so that we are not going to have to wonder whether there are kickbacks or overcharges or fraud. I am sick and tired of reading this in the papers and seeing inaction in this Congress--none. Week after week after week we have read about Halliburton and its subsidiary. It is not just us. The auditors in the Department of Defense think the taxpayers have been bilked--not by a thousand dollars or a couple hundred thousand dollars, but by tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars. Auditors in the Department of Defense believe that and are asking these questions. Yet this place looks as if it is at parade rest; won't move a muscle. There needs to be an investigation by the committees and the leadership of this Senate. My colleague, Senator Daschle, described that obligation this morning. There needs to be an investigation. I hope this will happen soon. It was my great concern, as I expressed when the Congress passed nearly $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq, that this was throwing money up in the air in a way that called for a carnival of greed. It looks like hogs in the cornfield. You have all of this money--billions and billions of dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq--and you have contractors running around trying to grab some of it. This contractor was one of the first with no-bid contracts, now we see these allegations--and they have been going on for months--about overcharges. Now we see allegations of kickbacks. The taxpayers deserve better than that. The taxpayers deserve accountability. This money is not some money that vanishes somewhere. This is money that comes from the pockets of the American taxpayers. We tax the taxpayers to get their money, and then this money is spent for the reconstruction of Iraq--a country, incidentally, which we did not destroy. We are reconstructing facilities that we did not damage, such as roads, bridges, the electric grid, and dams. We didn't target them. We didn't destroy them. Now we are told that we must reconstruct them with American taxpayers' money--a position that I voted against, a position that I think is absurd--in a country with the second largest reserves in the world, Iraq, next only to Saudi Arabia, which ought to be able, in my judgment, to sell the oil that it produces to reconstruct itself. For that country to rely, as the President insists it must, on American taxpayers' funds for reconstruction is absurd. But, nonetheless, that is what happened. The majority of this Congress decided they wanted to spend nearly $20 billion of American taxpayers' money to do that. Now we see at least part of the result of it, and there will be more. But the signal this Congress ought to send is one of accountability and demanding through public hearings and a thorough investigation. Can we not be as aggressive as the auditors in the Defense Department? Can we not at least express the same concern that auditors in the Defense Department express about the potential of our being bilked out of hundreds of millions of dollars? That is the least the American taxpayer should expect from this Congress. I think this Congress has not heard the last of this. I and others will be on this floor attempting to demand investigative hearings. The taxpayers, in my judgment, deserve hearings on these subjects. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to, at the conclusion of my remarks, offer a resolution on behalf of myself, Senators Dayton, Coleman, and Conrad. This resolution deals with the issue of trade negotiations that have been conducted with the Central American Free Trade Agreement countries. It also relates to my concern about the trade negotiations that are underway today, this morning, in Washington, DC, with Australia to try to create a free trade agreement with Australia. I will explain the resolution. After the whereases, it says: It is resolved that the sense of the Senate is that the President should renegotiate provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement relating to access to the United States sugar markets so as to grant no greater access to the U.S. sugar market than is currently enjoyed by the signatories to this CAFTA agreement; 2, the President should not include sugar as an element of negotiations in any bilateral or regional free trade agreement. I want to explain why we feel this way. I will also observe that this is bipartisan in its offering. It is very important to our region of the country. First, let me explain sugar. Sugar comes from sugar beets and sugarcane produced by our growers. With sugar beets, it is in the Red River Valley between North Dakota and Minnesota. We have the opportunity to plant beets and process the resulting crop into sugar, and in this country we have a robust sugar industry with many growers living out on the land and producing a crop and contributing to our economy. Most of the sugar internationally around the world is traded between countries on a contract basis--country-to-country contracts. That is the way most sugar is traded. But there is surplus sugar outside of those contracts that represents dumped sugar; it is surplus dumped sugar, priced at a nickel a pound, or 5, 6, 7 cents a pound, and then thrown all over the world wherever it may rest, and it devastates local markets. Let me describe with this chart what we have in this country. Our U.S. consumption of sugar is about 7.8 million metric tons, and we import a little over a million metric tons. We are now engaged in trade agreements with countries that produce a massive quantity of sugar, much of it for export. This is the potential exports from countries with whom we are engaged now in negotiations for free trade agreements. You can see the CAFTA countries--Central American Free Trade Agreement countries--which are Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica which has not yet signed on, El Salvador, and so on. This is Australia, Thailand, the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, which includes Brazil. You can see this is a giant amount of sugar. The proposition is this. Our trade negotiator has put sugar on the table in grade negotiations on these bilateral agreements. The result of it is death by a thousand cuts to our domestic sugar producers. If we end where I think we will end with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and others, we will end up as a country without a domestic sugar industry. The sugar beet growers who live on the land and produce sugar beets will not be there in the future because they cannot compete and should not be expected to compete against dumped sugar. Yet that is where we are heading. This ought not be a part of the trade agreements the trade ambassador is now negotiating. The larger question with respect to sugar trade ought to be dealt with in the World Trade Organization, not individual trade agreements, with the Central American Free Trade Agreement--the free trade agreement with the Americas. That is the position we take, Senator Conrad, Senator Dayton, Senator Coleman, myself, and others here in the Senate. Let me tell you what has happened. In the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. Ambassador put sugar on the table and negotiated an agreement that was going to allow incremental sugar to come into our country. Will that quantity of sugar by itself destroy our industry? No, it will not. But the precedent will. That is because that precedent means sugar will be in the Australia agreement and the FTAA agreement and the quantity of sugar that is going to come into this country at dumped prices will inevitably destroy our sugar industry. That is why we must stop it. Let me tell you what happened yesterday. Yesterday, in Inside U.S. Trade--that is the publication--and also in North Dakota newspapers was a story: ``U.S. Withholds Sugar Offer in Australia Trade FTA Negotiations.'' U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has said the U.S. position is not to provide Australia with any increased market access for sugar, said a U.S. trade official. Good for them. That is exactly the right position and one I support, one I aspire to achieve, to stop having sugar as part of these negotiations. Let me read to you today's news. A U.S. trade official is being quoted as saying Bush administration trade negotiators have asked Australian negotiators to settle for a free trade agreement which does not open the U.S. market to any more Australian sugar. But the official denied U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick had told a North Dakota radio station that sugar had been taken off the table. So they are saying a representative of the trade ambassador is quoted as saying sugar will not be in the Australia agreement--yesterday. But today, the official, a trade official from this administration, denied that Ambassador Zoellick had told a North Dakota radio station sugar had been taken off the table. Mixed messages, I would say. But at least today's news from the USTR is sugar is a part of this. It will be a part of it. That is the concern we have with the Central American Free Trade Agreement. When you put it in that agreement, they will want to put it in Australia's and Brazil's agreement, and there you go, one step at a time toward disaster for our growers, our farmers out there who are trying to make a living. They can make a living by competing. I don't mind asking them to compete and they don't mind competing. But they can't compete against dumped sugar that represents a world price of a nickel or 6 cents a pound, that has no relationship to the cost of production. All that has is a relationship to dumped price. It will destroy our industry. We are offering a resolution today--my two colleagues from the State of Minnesota, my colleague from North Dakota--a resolution that says to the President: Renegotiate the provision of the Central American Free Trade Agreement relating to access to the sugar market, No. 1. No. 2, do not include sugar as an element of negotiations in any bilateral or regional free trade agreement. I hope the Senate will pass this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I hope we can get a vote on it. I hope the Senate will express itself to the trade ambassador and the President: Don't do this. It is unfair to our growers, unfair to our farmers, unfair to an industry that produces substantial numbers of jobs and economic opportunity. The sugar beet industry in the Red River Valley of North Dakota has $1 to $2 billion of impact in our economy, and once again I say they can compete and they will compete when asked to compete anywhere around the world, but they cannot compete against unfair trade, and dumped sugar is unfair trade, yet that is exactly what we are connecting to in these trade agreements and that is why we want to stop it right now before it goes further. Australian representatives are in Washington, DC, now. The ambassador for the United States who negotiates trade agreements says he wants to finish this agreement by the end of January. If they finish this agreement with Australia, my hope is the Senate will have expressed itself by that time in a way that says: Do not do this with respect to sugar. Do not take steps that potentially destroy the sugar industry in this country, that potentially destroy the opportunity of beet growers in the Red River Valley to make a living. That is not a step forward; that is a step backward for this country. I hope the trade ambassador hears this. I don't understand for the life of me why we got a message yesterday saying, I am going to do the right thing, I won't have sugar in the negotiations with Australia, and then today--and this is on ABC, incidentally, Online, you can go to the Internet and see it--today the United States trade official denied that the trade ambassador said that. I don't understand this at all. My hope is the Senate will do what it has done before on this issue of sugar. The Senate has taken a position on this before. The sugar program of ours works. It provides good prices, advantageous prices for the American consumer, it provides assured quality of supply, and it provides an opportunity, with fair trade, for our growers to make a living in this country in the sugar industry, an industry that is important to our country. I am going to have this resolution introduced at the conclusion of my remarks. My hope is my colleagues in Congress will support it. I know there are many who are strong supporters of the position that it is fine to negotiate trade agreements but it is not fine to undercut our country's interests with trade agreements. It is almost impossible for me to begin talking about trade without describing the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We have the largest trade deficit in human history right now, the largest deficit ever after our trade negotiations and agreements have been put in place--the largest deficits ever. We have an agreement with Canada and take a modest trade deficit and turn it into a big one. We have an agreement with Mexico and take a trade surplus and turn it into a big deficit. The trade deficit with Japan just keeps growing. The deficit with China is out of sight, well over $100 billion and will probably reach $130 billion this year; almost a third of a billion dollars a day in trade deficit with just China alone. With Europe? I can't even begin to describe the problems we have with Europe in beef and other areas. The fact is, we need to fix this. Will Rogers said many years ago, the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He must surely have been thinking of our trade negotiators. It takes them no more than a week or two to come back with a trade agreement that undercuts especially the interests of American agriculture, but if you look at the trade deficit, I would say undercuts this country's economic interests. It is not in this country's economic interests to continue to see this trade deficit grow and grow and grow. That trade deficit, incidentally, is connected to the process by which jobs stream out of this country, by companies that decide they want to produce elsewhere and ship into this country, by companies that decide they want to move jobs offshore. ``We want to create a new mailbox someplace in the Bermudas or Bahamas or some other tax haven country in order not to have to pay taxes to the U.S., and at the same time close our factories and ship jobs overseas.'' That is what this measure is, that is the consequence of this, and that is why this has to change, in my judgment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. He has been an assertive and strong voice on a number of these trade issues, including specifically the sugar issue. I am proud to have him as a cosponsor on this resolution.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. This happens to be a steak. I would ask if there is anyone who could tell me where this particular steak came from? The answer is no. It is not labeled. Did it come from Canada? You do not know. Did it come from Mexico? You will not know. Guatemala? No. This meat is not labeled. Let me read something about a packing plant in Mexico for the interest of the consumers in this country. In May of 1999, one inspector paid a surprise visit to a meatpacking plant in Mexico. This is what he said he found: ``Shanks and briskets were contaminated with feces . . . diseased-condemned carcass was observed ready for boning and distribution in commerce.'' But then the Mexican officials went to work to restore that plant's ability to sell meat into America. The Mexican plant regained its export license. It switched owners. It changed its name. It sells meat into America. And USDA has never returned. It has never again been inspected. Do you want to know whether this meat came from that plant? I do. The American consumer ought to know. This Omnibus appropriations bill contains something that is pernicious on this issue. We passed a law that is the law of the land that requires food labeling, meat labeling, and the Department of Agriculture will not implement it. This appropriations bill, with no debate and no discussion in the Congress, put a provision in this appropriations bill that says we shall delay, by 2 years, the implementation of this act. Why? Because they want to kill it. Why? Because the big packing plants got to them, and they don't like this. The USDA says it is hard to implement. Nonsense. We can drive a vehicle on the surface of Mars and we cannot put labels on meat? Total nonsense. This is about big interests versus others. It is about consumers and farmers and ranchers being together in whose interest it is that we label meat and food. On the other side are the big grocery manufacturers, the big packing houses that have fought this tooth and nail, and this administration and the majority in this Congress who listen to only one voice; and that is the biggest interests--the bigger interests. They are the winners. They are always the winners in this fight. So the country-of-origin labeling provision in this bill is wrong. It was never debated. It was never agreed to. It ought to come out. Those who went into a room and wrote these provisions and stuck them into this appropriations bill ought to go back into the same room and fix it. We do not know which room it is. We do not know who they are because this was a partisan exercise. They did not invite Democrats. It was a partisan exercise. What they did is they served big business interests by sticking this sort of nonsense in the bill. That is country-of-origin labeling. Let me describe something else. How about overtime? This is not about meat. I will put the meat away. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to show a piece of steak on the floor of the Senate. There is not one Member of the Senate who would know where that meat came from because it is not labeled. It might have come from a plant in Mexico. It might have come from Guatemala. You do not know. I do not know. We do not know, but we ought to know. That is what the majority wants to prevent us and all consumers from knowing; and that is why they are wrong. Let me talk about overtime. Let me talk about workers in this country. Do you know, for 65 years we have had a kind of pact in this country, a rule and a law that says if you want to work somebody overtime, you have a responsibility to pay them overtime pay? It is called the 40-hour workweek. We say, if you want to tell your employees you are going to work overtime, 10 hours of overtime every week, yours is a 50-hour week, you have a responsibility to pay them overtime pay. The Department of Labor is now preparing to decide that they are going to change the overtime rules. Why? To make it easier for business to work people overtime without having to pay them. People whose judgments I respect say that up to 8 million Americans would be required to work overtime with no pay under this provision. So we in the Senate and in the House, on a bipartisan basis, put a provision in this appropriations bill that says you cannot do that, Department of Labor; you cannot do that to the American worker. Guess what. In that same closed room, they took that provision out. It was bipartisan, voted on in both the House and Senate, but big business didn't like it, so it is gone. It is just gone. The American workers deserve better than that. Do we really want to say to 8 million workers out there that we don't care about their families, about their income needs? We just care that after 65 years we want to change the overtime requirements so if their employer wants to work them overtime, they can. They don't have to hire more people. Why would they have to do that? They could just work people 50 hours a week because it doesn't cost any more. They can work them 50 hours a week with no overtime pay, or they can get rid of their job and hire somebody else. For 65 years, we have had this overtime rule. These folks want to change it and hurt up to 8 million American workers. That is in this Omnibus bill--the exclusion of the provision that Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate put in. It was wrong to do that. They ought to put that exclusion in so we can block these rules and stand on the side of the American worker. Let me talk about one more: Broadcast ownership. I will tell you why I am talking about these. It may be that those who do this have ear plugs; maybe they hear nothing. I don't know. I have told often of my hometown of 400 people, a tiny town in the southwest ranching country of North Dakota. I used to go down to see a blacksmith, John Krebs. I was fascinated to watch him work. He wore these big gloves and he had this forge. He would pump that thing and get a fire going, and then I would watch him put a piece of steel in this fire. The steel would heat up until it was almost white hot, and they would take it out with a big tool and go over to an anvil and start to pound on it and bend it. You can bend it when you put heat on steel. That is a lot like politics. When you apply heat, that is when things bend in politics. That is what this is about, trying to apply heat to those who went into a room and said we are going to get rid of meat labeling, or we are going to let the Labor Department tell 8 million people they have to work without overtime pay for more than 40 hours a week, or broadcast ownership, which is interesting for me. Broadcast ownership. Who owns America's radio and television stations? That is a big issue. We voted on that issue in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. The judgment and decision we made was taken out of this conference after the conference made the decision and closed the title by unanimous consent. I was a conferee; that is how I know. The conference report on this Omnibus bill dealt with what both the House and Senate had decided, and that is that we will restrict to 35 percent national ownership, the ownership of television stations. And that was standing up to the big interests, taking on the big broadcast interests. We did it, Republicans and Democrats together. We passed legislation in both the House and the Senate, with Republican and Democratic support. When we finished, we went to conference. Sitting in the conference, when we came to that title, I asked the chairman of the conference: Let me understand what you now intend to put in this conference report because they were about to close the title. I said: On the broadcast ownership issue, will this conference report include the 35-percent restriction that passed the House and Senate on a bipartisan basis? The answer was that, yes, it includes the position of the House and Senate, the 35 percent. I said that I will then have no objection to closing this title. Bang, the gavel came down, the title was closed, and the conference resolved that issue. It was done. Mr. President, that is not what is in this bill. That is not what came from the conference. I was driving down the road in my car about a week later and I heard on the radio that the Senate was negotiating with the President on a different number. That is what is in this bill. Apparently, conferences don't matter. The gavel doesn't matter. The chairman closing a title doesn't matter. None of it mattered. None of it was on the level. What is in this conference report expands the ownership capability of broadcast ownership in television and radio-- television with respect to this issue--in a way it abridges the decision made first by the House, then by the Senate, then by the conference. I would like just one person to explain to me that process, or the rules that allow that process to bring that to the floor of the Senate. What is this about? It is about whether you are going to stand up in this country for broad-based economic ownership, or whether you believe in the area of broadcast properties--those who determine what we see and what we hear and read, which increasingly are just a few people in this country--whether you believe they ought to be bigger and bigger and bigger. One company now owns over 1,200 radio stations in this country. I could bring out charts about all the broadcast properties in television and radio. You would see there is this orgy of mergers and acquisitions and a dramatic and damaging concentration. That is what this fight was about in the Senate and House. In fact, the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval that I, along with Senator Lott and others, on a bipartisan basis, passed in the Senate--a resolution that disapproved the entire Federal communications rule dealing with expanding the ownership capabilities of the big groups for radio and television and allowing cross ownership of newspapers and broadcast media. We passed that resolution of disapproval in the Senate that would disapprove the entire rule. That is now pending in the House of Representatives at the desk. It is only about 10 signatures short of passing there. They have, I think, 208 signatures. You know what. Somewhere in a closed room, with just a few folks deciding, they abridged the decision by the House, the decision by the Senate, and explicit decision by the conference committee of which I was a member, with respect to broadcast ownership in television. I think that is a horrible policy choice, aside from the fact that, in my judgment, it casts aside all the rules as to how we do business. It is fundamentally wrong for this Congress to weigh in and say, by the way, the sky is the limit; own everything you want. Let's have one company owning 3,000 radio stations. Let's have two companies owning all the TV stations. You know that the FCC rule says that in one big American city it will be just fine if you own three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable company, and the major newspaper. That is fine. It is not fine with me. It is not the way things ought to be in this country. Yet it doesn't matter how we vote in the Congress. What matters is what a few people stick in an omnibus report that comes to us, which contains provisions that were not debated and not supported by either the House or the Senate. Why? I will tell you why. On virtually all of these issues, the White House says if you mess around with what we don't like, we will veto this. We have compliant folks who bow and say if you say ``veto,'' let us take it out. By all means, let us satisfy the White House, forgetting, I guess, that there are separate branches in the Government. We are not the White House. The President has not vetoed a thing since he has been President. If he wants to, that is fine. Does he want to make his first veto the country-of-origin labeling, or the issue of overtime? Does he want to make his first veto broadcast ownership limits? Maybe he wants to explain that to the American people, when the question is whose side are you on? The answer from the White House must always be that they are on the side of the big interests. Maybe he should explain that. But we will never, apparently, confront those issues of the veto threats because in every circumstance in this Omnibus, things were put in, or things were left out that thwart the will of the U.S. Congress. What happened here is arrogant, just plain arrogant. So if you wonder why we are upset, I have explained three of them: overtime, country-of- origin labeling for food, and broadcast ownership. There are six or eight. I could go through more, but I will not. This is wrong, what happened to this conference report, flat wrong. The majority leader is a good man. I am proud to serve with him. When he says to us let's have some bipartisanship, I say to him absolutely. But what they did on a partisan basis is arrogant. There are provisions in this conference report that shouldn't be here, and provisions that should be here that were taken out. It was arrogant. They know it. This is not something we are going to allow to happen again. This place cannot and will not function this way. I want this to be a bipartisan institution as well. While we might disagree from time to time, and we have people of good character having a raucous debate, that is just fine. This country will get, in my judgment, the benefit of what all of us have to offer if we have a good debate. I think Republicans have something significant to offer our country, as do Democrats. There are times when we have aggressive debate about issues, and we pick the best of a competition of ideas. There are other times when we work together where we are near unanimous agreement. But this is not the way to work. This mistreats the minority. We are a significant minority at this point, just a vote short of a 50/50 Senate. What happened here will not be allowed to happen again. I say that to the White House and to the majority. We insist on some semblance of bipartisanship. Let me make one final point. Not only on this but on other issues, the majority decided not to have conferences. They would have what is called ``a virtual conference,'' in which they would conference with themselves and exclude Democrats. That will not happen again in this Congress either. We will not appoint conferees unless there is a commitment from the chairman of the committee that the conference will meet with both members of the conference, Republican and Democratic caucuses. Even more than that, we will not allow again something like this to happen: seven appropriations bills put in one omnibus and then in the middle, a little folder is stuck in that abridges the rights of the majority and minority with respect to specific votes in the Congress. It is not the right way to do business. I accept the majority leader's call for bipartisanship. As far as I am concerned, sign me up on things on which we can work together. I want to do that. People of good will should do that for the good of this country. But we cannot call for bipartisanship unless we renounce the tactics that created this conference report with respect to overtime, country-of-origin labeling, broadcast ownership, and other issues. Those people have a voice in this Chamber as well--people who work hard, people who are consumers. They have a right to be heard in this Congress, and they were not with respect to those provisions in this Omnibus bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a concurrent resolution which I shall send to the desk correcting the enrollment of the omnibus conference report restoring the media ownership language to that which the conferees had originally agreed to; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Missouri and my colleague from Rhode Island are waiting. I thank them for their indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to consume as much time as I will.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague, Senator Frist, who is the majority leader. I have great respect for him. His call for bipartisanship is certainly welcome. I say to him and to others that those of us who serve in the Senate come here wanting to do good things for our country. We have a passion for good public policy that will advance America's interests. But I must say, in the past year or so the evidence of bipartisanship is hard to find with respect to the way the White House and the majority in this Senate have dealt with the minority. We would welcome true bipartisanship. I must also point out, while I think there are areas where we have made progress in this country, there are some very significant issues with which we must deal. We have the largest budget deficit in history, and, no, it is not because of a war, it is not because of a recession. We had testimony at a hearing yesterday that said the largest part of this deficit is as a result of recurring tax cuts, very large tax cuts, the bulk of which went to the largest income earners in this country. If you earn $1 million a year, good for you; you are very fortunate. You, also, under this administration's tax plan, get nearly $100,000 in a tax cut each year as well. We have a very large and growing Federal budget deficit, the largest in history. The President proposes increased defense spending, increased homeland security spending, and then decreased revenue. I went to a really small school, but mathematics is still the same. One and one equals two. That fiscal policy equals very large budget deficits. We have a responsibility--all of us, Republicans and Democrats--to our children to put this fiscal policy back on track. This President inherited a large and growing budget surplus. We now have the largest budget deficit in history, and we must fix it. We have the largest trade deficit in history, and we have to fix that. This administration is negotiating new trade agreements that, incidentally, will once again ship more American jobs overseas. It makes no sense to me for us to do that. We do have a global economy, but we ought not set American workers and American businesses up for competition against those around the world who will work 12-year-olds 12 hours a day for 12 cents an hour and then ship their products to the store shelves in America. That is not fair competition for American workers and American business. That is only about larger profits for multinationals. We need a better trade policy and to reduce those trade deficits as well. We have many problems, significant problems, we have to address. I welcome bipartisanship. I hope Republicans and Democrats, who seek the same goal, who have the same interests and urges to improve this country, can work together. But I want to talk a little about this Omnibus appropriations bill and describe why some of us are concerned about the lack of bipartisanship at the end of the last session and about the partisanship, especially that was exhibited. I want to talk about things that were put in this Omnibus appropriations bill, or things that were taken out, and how that was done, and why that was done, and why we think it is bad public policy. First, let me talk about country-of-origin labeling. That is just a slogan. Not many people, perhaps, know what that is about. Let me describe it. Upton Sinclair in 1906 wrote a book called ``The Jungle.'' He was describing what happened in America's meatpacking plants. They had a rat problem, and so what they did to control the rats was they would take loaves of bread and lace them with poison and lay them around these meat plants so the rats would eat the poison. The rats would die and they would put the bread and the rats down the same hole, and out the back of those packing plants came sausage sent to the American consumer. Well, Upton Sinclair wrote about that, exposed it in a book called ``The Jungle.'' That led to tough new laws, inspections, saying you cannot do that. This is about the health and safety of the American people and the health and safety of America's food supply. Country-of-origin labeling is about labeling food in this country. The necktie I am wearing has a label on it. I looked at it this morning. All neckties have labels. Why? Because they are required to have labels. I know where this necktie was made. In fact, I know where the shoes I am wearing were made. But not everything is labeled. And especially in the advent of a case of mad cow disease, discovered in the State of Washington, with a cow that came into this country from Canada, or the case of the people who died from hepatitis in this country, and the hundreds who remain ill by hepatitis as a result of spring onions that came into this country from Mexico, the American consumers ought to have the right to have their food labeled. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show a piece of meat on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to support legislation that Senator Murkowski introduced last November that would bring some fairness to States such as North Dakota and Alaska with low populations. I am proud to cosponsor S. 1851, the Small State HOME Program Equity Act. This legislation would increase the minimum funding level provided to low-population States for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOME Investment Partnerships Program. The HOME Investment Partnership Program distributes funds to State and local governments to expand housing for low-income families. It is one of the most important tools that States, local governments, and nonprofits have to respond to affordable housing needs. The program helps both renters and homebuyers across the country by rehabilitating substandard housing and funding new construction. The HOME Investment Partnership Program has been enormously successful in providing housing for those in need, and I have been a strong supporter of annual appropriations for this important program. For the last several years, I have joined many of my colleagues in sending a letter to Senators Bond and Mikulski, the chairman and ranking member of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, supporting robust funding for the HOME program. Since 1992, the first year in which funds were appropriated for this program, HOME funds have been dispersed by a statutory formula, which is based in part on a State's population. At the time the program was created, a minimum funding level of $3 million was established for States which would receive a small amount of HOME funds under the allocation formula. Over the last 10 years, inflation has significantly eroded the value of this minimum allocation and it is very difficult for States to meet their housing needs on only the minimum allocation of HOME funds. In Grand Forks County in North Dakota, for example, the wait list for HOME rehabilitation funding is estimated to be 11 years. I would imagine that the situation is similar in the 10 States that are not currently receiving a level of funding that allows them to run effective programs with their HOME dollars. This is unacceptable. States with low populations deserve to have adequate funding to meet the unique housing needs of rural areas where construction and rehabilitation costs are often very high. The congressionally appointed, bipartisan Millennium Housing Commission also recognized this problem. It recommended increasing the minimum State funding level for the HOME program to $5 million in their May 30, 2002, report to Congress. I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski on this important legislation to meet the housing needs of low-income families in rural America.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a vote in favor of this legislation, which is designed to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, is a very close call for me. There are some positive elements of this bill, and there are also some flaws about which I am very concerned. In weighing the good and the bad, however, I have decided to support this bill. The final legislation will provide very generous prescription drug coverage for about one-third of the lowest income senior citizens and disabled Medicare beneficiaries who live in North Dakota. For those Medicare beneficiaries whose incomes are below 150 percent of the poverty level, they will receive a benefit that will cover nearly 95 percent of their drug costs. However, for senior citizens with incomes above 150 percent of the poverty level, this prescription drug benefit will not be very attractive at all, in my judgment. There is a $35 per month premium that will increase over time, a $250 deductible that will grow to $445 by 2013, and a period of time when seniors' drug expenditures reach $2,250 and seniors will still be paying premiums but have no drug coverage at all. Only after spending a total of more than $5,100 would Medicare beneficiaries receive catastrophic coverage of 95 percent for prescription drugs. If this prescription drug benefit was a mandatory program, I would vote against it. Because it is optional, I think many senior citizens with incomes above 150 percent of poverty will take a look at the benefit and decide it is not worth it. The one-third of our senior citizens with the lowest incomes will benefit from it. In addition to providing generous coverage for the lowest income senior citizens, the other feature of this bill that I strongly support are the steps it takes to offer some fairness in Medicare's payments for rural hospitals, doctors and other health care providers. Hospitals and physicians in rural States have found that their reimbursement rates under Medicare have put them at a serious disadvantage. If these lower reimbursement rates were to continue, the quality and access to health care delivered to rural citizens would diminish. Rural hospitals have to compete for the same doctors and nurses and use the same sophisticated medical equipment as urban hospitals, and yet their reimbursement rates have been dramatically lower. As a result, many of our North Dakota hospitals are in real financial trouble. This legislation begins the process of establishing some fairness in those reimbursement rates, and I strongly support that. But there are also a number of provisions in this bill that I think are a mistake. First of all, this bill lacks provisions that would begin to contain the rising costs of prescription drugs. That is a dramatic failure. For most senior citizens, the problem with prescription drugs is the steep rise in the prices of those prescription drugs. Unfortunately, the majority party bowed to the pressure of the pharmaceutical industry and failed to put any real cost containment in this bill. That is a serious mistake. In addition, this bill includes provisions that have nothing to do with adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program but that have the potential to do harm. The Health Savings Accounts established by this bill are at best a costly tax shelter for the wealthy and at worst could drive up costs for the traditional insurance market. Likewise, this bill is cluttered up with subsidies to private insurers and a phony demonstration program that adds additional costs to Medicare and could undermine the Medicare program itself if these provisions are not adjusted in the future. As I sifted through all of these provisions, I concluded that providing nearly total prescription drug coverage for one-third of our senior citizens with the lowest incomes is a very important objective to achieve. Add to that the improvement in the reimbursement rates to strengthen rural hospitals and health care providers, and I believe that these two features warranted support for the bill. Again, this bill is a close call because I think those who have written it have created an optional program that is sufficiently unattractive to many senior citizens that they will elect not to sign up for this program. My hope is that we can lock in the support in this bill for the nearly one-third of the senior citizens with the lowest incomes, address the reimbursement inequity for rural hospitals and doctors, and then come back in future legislation and do what should have been done with the rest of this bill. That is, we need to add some real cost containment, fix the drug benefit so that senior citizens aren't paying premiums while they're getting no coverage, and dump the extraneous provisions that have nothing to do with adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare. In summary, I am not pleased with this choice, but I know that if we do not commit the $400 billion that we have now set aside for Medicare prescription drug coverage in the coming 10 years, that funding may not be available in the future. And I know that we may not get another opportunity to fix the reimbursement rates for rural hospitals in the near future. So I will vote for this bill, but I do so with some real regret because this bill could have been so much better.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I express my support for an amendment offered by my colleagues Mr. Hatch, Mr. Harkin, and Durbin earlier this year that provides funding for the Food and Drug Administration to implement the dietary supplements law. I sponsored and voted for the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, of 1994 and continue to support it today because it gives consumers the power to make informed decisions about whether they want to use dietary supplements. Millions of Americans take vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements every day, knowing that if there is a problem with a particular product the FDA has the authority to step in to protect the public. Ever since the tragic death of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler earlier this year there has been increased interest in the potential dangers of taking ephedra. In the wake of that tragedy, the FDA has opened an investigation into the use of ephedra. I support the enforcement efforts and urge the FDA to act as expeditiously as possible. I know some of my colleagues would simply like to see ephedra banned by legislation. My own view is that we already have a review process in place under DSHEA and now it is important for Congress to help the agency do its job. I support the amendment offered by my colleagues because it does just that. We must continue to provide consumers with informed choices about dietary supplements and one way to do that is to make sure the FDA has the resources to do the job as expeditiously as possible. The FDA should conclude its rulemaking on ephedra, as well its ``good manufacturing practices'' rules, and move forward as quickly as possible so that consumers can be better informed.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Energy conference report. While I have some serious concerns about the way this bill was created, I believe our country will be better off with this bill than without it. On balance, it will advance our interests. This bill takes important, major steps toward developing renewable and limitless sources of energy such as ethanol, wind, and biodiesel. It puts us on the road to the development of a new hydrogen fuel cell economy, which is essential if we are to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. And it contains important conservation measures by improving efficient standards on appliances and other devices we use in our daily lives. If we are serious about security our energy future, I believe we must implement these measures without delay. Additionally, this bill enhances our ability to develop more traditional sources of energy, while protecting our environment. It contains strong provisions to promote clean coal technology so that we can more effectively use our coal resources without degrading our environment. The bill also funds a pipeline to access over 30 million cubic feet of natural gas in Alaska and bring it to the lower 48 States. And it provides additional incentives for the discovery and recovery of oil and natural gas. There is much in this bill that is positive, and I intend to vote for it. Having said that, I know this bill is far from perfect. But in some important matters, it is a step in the right direction. The bill omits a renewable portfolio standard, RPS, that would have required utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. That is a serious omission. A majority of the Senate conferees voted to add this amendment to the conference measure and it passed. Unfortunately, the House stripped this amendment out without even debating it. I want to make it clear that I have not given up on this issue. I want to inform those who blocked this provision--get ready. I am going to keep fighting until we get an RPS standards enacted into law. Unfortunately, this bill also provides liability protection for the producers of the fuel additive, MTBE. This is a major mistake. Insulating the big oil companies, while making the mom and pop gas stations of America liable for the costs of cleaning up these contaminated sites is simply wrong and bad policy. I also want to address concerns that the bill waives a number of other important environmental provisions. For years, the administration has complained that the process of siting and permitting new energy projects is cumbersome and in the name of efficiency needs to be modified. This measure does that. But let me caution the administration for a moment. While Congress has provided discretion to the appropriate agencies in an effort to streamline the process, these agencies will be held accountable if they violate the spirit and trust we have given them. I expect these agencies to make informed decisions based on public input, sound science, and common sense. Additionally, as a member and former chairman of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Affairs Subcommittee, let me address the issue of consumer protection. This bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act and does not, in my opinion, go far enough to protect consumers from price gouging. Congress will be watching very closely to ensure that the agencies responsible for preventing market consolidation and market manipulation are doing their job. I believe we must keep pushing to get better protections for consumers. The experience on the west coast in recent years is a painful reminder that corporate power, if left unchecked, can cause serious injury to our consumers. These deficiencies in the Energy bill could have been avoided had the majority party included Democratic conferees in a meaningful dialogue. Instead, Democrats were frozen out of the Energy conference. It was a flawed and arrogant process that prevented the American people from getting the best of what both political parties had to offer in the development of a national energy policy. However, does the lack of involvement lessen the need for us to take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Does it lessen our need to promote energy efficiency and energy conservation? Does it lessen our need to promote the use of renewable energy and renewable fuels and vehicles? I believe the answer to all of these questions is no. I will vote for the conference report, because on balance, this bill is a net plus for America. But my vote is in no way an endorsement of the manner in which the majority conducted this conference. In the future, before conferees are appointed, we will insist on a commitment that both political parties be represented in the deliberations of the conference. These concerns aside, we must remember that energy is vital to our economy and our way of life. We count on a reliable energy supply for our everyday needs--heat, light, electricity, and all of the things that keep our society productive. Our economy would be devastated if we lost access to that supply, and were left without alternatives. If, God forbid, terrorists would shut off the supply of oil to our country tomorrow, our economy would be flat on its back. We now import 55 percent of the oil we use, much of it from troubled parts of the world. That holds our economy hostage to this growing dependence on imported oil, in particular to the Middle East. We need a new energy future that contains strong provisions dealing with conservation, aggressive approaches to renewable and limitless sources of energy, and embraces a new hydrogen fuel cell future which can allow us to break our dependence on foreign oil. If a meaningful energy policy is analogous to a novel, then this bill is just a first chapter. It is not as comprehensive, as wise, or as bold as the American people have a right to expect. Let me reiterate, this is not a be-all-end-all comprehensive Energy bill, no matter who tells you it is. I am prepared to continue to modify, amend, and reform this measure as many times and as long as it takes in order to ensure it does what it is supposed to do: create a fair and balanced national energy policy, one that works to advance our country's interest. In closing, we are left with two choices: one, do nothing and pray we don't have further blackouts, further price spikes, or God forbid, a terrorist strike on our supply of foreign oil; or two, enact the proposed energy legislation and use it as the first brick in the foundation of crafting a comprehensive energy policy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our energy diversity and security. Given these two choices, I choose action over inaction and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Maine. Let me say with respect to the unanimous consent she just offered to pass the FAA conference report, I would like to say that Senator Lautenberg has led the fight in this Chamber to try to prevent the privatization during this coming fiscal year of those who work for the FAA. That fight required us to go through one cloture vote and the majority did not invoke cloture. As a result, the FAA conference report was not passed. Since that time, I and Senators Lautenberg, Hollings, Lott, Rockefeller and others have engaged in discussions with the administration. I want to point out that the letter just printed in the Record by unanimous consent is from Marion Blakey. She says: During this fiscal year we have no plans to initiate additional competitive sourcing studies, nor will we displace FAA employees by entering into binding contracts to convert to private entities any existing FAA position directly related to our air traffic control system. I point out that the reason we were able to move this conference report tonight was because the administration has agreed they will not, during this fiscal year, privatize those positions in the FAA. That is a very important position, one that my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, from New Jersey, fought very hard for. We have achieved that commitment from the administration. For that reason, we were able to move that FAA reauthorization. Let me say how pleased I am because it is so important to virtually every region of this country. The investment in the Airport Improvement Program and the other things that provide strength to the FAA system is very important to our country. Let me thank my colleague from Maine. I wanted to explain the circumstances that have led to this point and especially say I have been pleased to work with Senator Lott, in many contacts over recent days, to try to accomplish this and again say that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, deserves a pat on the back for forcing this result. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to listen to some of the presentations today. I especially listened to my colleague from Arizona and found it interesting. This is a serious discussion for the Congress. I find much with which to agree with virtually all of my colleagues. My friend from Arizona just described the serious fiscal policy problem. He says we are spending more money. He mentioned the Congress. It is true that spending is up substantially. The President has recommended very large spending increases for the military budget, very large spending increases for homeland security, very substantial cuts in revenue. We have a fiscal policy that does not add up. There is no question about that. It starts with the President's fiscal policy and begins and ends as well with the Congress. But we have to have a fiscal policy that adds up. Our economy is dependent on energy. If we don't put in place an energy policy that addresses our concerns about energy and the need for this economy to be satisfied with the energy that is required, we won't have an economy that produces revenue and jobs. If, God forbid, tomorrow night a terrorist interrupted the supply of foreign oil, our economy would be flat on its back. Fifty-five percent of that which we use, in terms of oil resources, comes from outside our borders. Much of it from troubled regions of the world. I have said for a long while that we need to do four things in an Energy bill. We need to incentivize additional production. The fact is, I want to see us move towards a different energy construct and a different energy future. But we are going to use fossil fuels in our future. We are going to use coal, oil, and natural gas. So the question is, how do we incentivize additional production of those fossil fuels while at the same time protecting our country's environment, and then, importantly, how do we conserve? A barrel of oil saved is equal to a barrel of oil produced. Conservation is a very important part of an Energy bill. So you have production and conservation. Third, you have efficiency. The efficiency of all the appliances and the things we use in our daily lives is a very important area of conservation. And fourth, and very important, the issue of renewable and limitless sources and supplies of energy. Those four things need to be in energy legislation. I will describe what is wrong with this bill, and there is plenty. This bill was, in my judgment, constructed behind closed doors in a manner that was arrogant. It is not going to happen again. Never again are we going to allow conferees to be appointed here in the Senate and then have a conference in which Democrats are told they can't participate. That is what happened in this conference. That is not going to happen again. The next time someone asks consent to appoint conferees, we are going to ask the prospective chairman of that conference, Is this going to be a conference in which you close the doors and do it in secret with no Democrats included? Because, if so, you don't get consent. We are sorry. We are not going to proceed. This will not happen again because it is arrogant. It should not have happened this time. The process was wrong. Let me talk about what that process has wrought. Some good things and some not so good. My colleagues have raised a series of concerns and objections about this bill. I agree with many of them. I offered an amendment in the conference committee to deal with MTBE and strip the provision out of this bill that provides protection for those oil companies that produce MTBE, the fuel additive. That amendment was defeated. But I offered that amendment because I feel strongly that this protection should not be in this bill. I strongly supported the amendment to put the Renewable Portfolio Standard in this bill. It ought to be in the bill. The failure to include the 10-percent requirement for electric utilities to produce electricity, 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, that requirement needs to be in energy legislation. It is not here. That is a serious deficiency. There are others. Let me also say that this bill has some elements that are important. In the area of production, providing incentives for production in certain areas is very important. Let me take coal as an example. Coal can cause some very serious consequences for our environment. But we are going to continue to use coal. So we need an aggressive provision in the legislation dealing with clean coal technology so that we can use coal in a manner that is not degrading to our environment. There is a very serious attempt in this bill to address clean coal technology. This piece of legislation deals perhaps more aggressively than we have ever contemplated with respect to renewable and limitless sources of energy. Wind energy. This extends the production tax credit for 3 years. We will see the unleashing, I believe, of substantial new projects to build wind farms in which you take energy from the wind and you extend America's energy supply. That will happen as a result of this bill. Biodiesel, biofuels, a range of areas dealing with renewable sources of energy, are incentivized in a significant way in this piece of legislation. My colleague spoke about ethanol. One of the strongest provisions in the bill, in my judgment, is doubling the requirement for ethanol in this country. We are banning MTBE, and for good reason. We are going to replace it with ethanol and double, to 5 billion gallons, the production of ethanol. Don't tell me that isn't good for this country. It is good to extend our energy supply by growing energy in the fields, and it is renewable. You can do it year after year. It produces new markets for family farmers, extends our energy supply, and is good for this country's environment. Those who call ethanol a boondoggle, in my judgment, don't understand it. It is far preferable to extend our energy supply by growing energy in our fields, producing the agricultural commodity from which you extract the alcohol to make ethanol, have the protein feedstock for animals, extend our energy supply, clean our air, and relieve our dependence on foreign oil. That is a huge step forward for this country. It is not a boondoggle, it is good public policy. Now let me talk about conservation just a bit. One of the things I have been very concerned about is something called efficiency. This deals with all the things we use every day--stoves, refrigerators, toasters, air-conditioners--these appliances all use electricity. What are the efficiency standards by which we should aspire to conserve electricity and energy? This bill includes nearly the identical efficiency standards that we wrote as Democrats when we controlled the Senate. That title, in this bill, is a good one. I support that title. It promotes conservation in a strong and positive way. I believe my colleagues who talk about deficiencies in this bill with respect to the areas dealing with consumer protections are right. I am very concerned about that. But with respect to electricity reliability, the standards in this bill are good ones. They address the issues, not all, but most of the issues that are related to the recent blackouts, which caused electricity outages for 50 million people in this country. As I mentioned before, there are several things in this bill I don't like. As I reviewed this measure last weekend, I asked myself whether or not we would advance this country's interest if we passed this legislation? I concluded that, yes, we would. But, we leave a lot behind. There will be a lot left to do and to correct if we pass this legislation, but, nevertheless, I concluded that deciding not to embrace the advancements in renewable and limitless supplies of energy would be a mistake. Deciding not to embrace those reliability portions in the bill would be a mistake because we need them. Deciding not to have the clean coal technology that will allow us to continue to use coal without degrading our environment--it would be a mistake not to embrace that. To decide not to embrace the efficiency standards in this bill for virtually all of the appliances we use would be a mistake. MTBE should not have been included and I tried hard to take it out. There are other provisions in this legislation that I don't like and they ought to be taken out as well. There are provisions that should be in the bill that are not there. The protections for consumers should have been stronger. If we are going to repeal PUHCA, then we need strong provisions protecting consumers. This falls short, in my judgment. However, I believe, on balance, this legislation will advance our country's interests in energy production, and we need to produce more. Additionally, I believe this legislation charts a new course that looks at a different kind of energy future, a future I strongly support. That future is hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells. I have been working on this initiative for a number of years, believing we cannot continue to run gasoline through carburetors. We cannot continue, as we have for a century, to just stick liquid gasoline through the carburetors and decide that is what our future is going to be. That is our past and we should realize if we keep doing that, we lose. When we began producing automobiles in this country a century ago, we put gasoline through the carburetor. Do you know what we do with a 2003 car? We put gasoline through the carburetor. The power from that gasoline is much less efficient than going to a different kind of energy future, using hydrogen and fuel cells, which would double the efficiency of getting power to the wheel. Hydrogen is everywhere. We can produce it, we can transport it, we can store it, and we can move toward a different future that will relieve us of our dependence on foreign oil. I believe strongly that the $2.15 billion in this bill for the hydrogen initiative should have been doubled. I fought like the dickens on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere for an increase in this funding. It did not happen. The fact is, a $2 billion start is not insignificant. The President proposed in his State of the Union Address something I had already introduced in the Congress as legislation, which is that we move toward hydrogen and fuel cells, as a new energy future. The reason it is important and the reason I support it is because the fastest rising part of our energy consumption is transportation. Why? Because we have decided our automobile fleet has, is, and perhaps always will be a fleet that has a carburetor through which you run gasoline. That doesn't make any sense to me. We need to make a decision at this point. Let's pole-vault over some of these issues and create a new type of energy future. Some environmental organizations said that when the President proposed this initiative in his State of the Union he was just making an excuse not to deal with CAFE standards, and so forth. I don't know what the motives are at the White House. I disagree with the President on a lot of things. But I do know this: If we just keep thinking that 25 years from now, and 50 years from now, our kids, their kids, and their grandkids ought to be running gasoline through carburetors, we lose. That is a philosophy of yesterday forever. I don't believe it satisfies the interests and the needs of this country. You cannot be a world economic power without addressing the issue of energy. We use an enormous amount of energy. We need strong conservation standards, and, frankly, I looked at this bill skeptically last Saturday morning because I worried that the efficiency standards would not be there. But they were--almost the same standards we produced as a Democratic committee when we controlled the Senate. We need conservation and incentives for new production of fossil fuels in a way that protects our environment. We need strong incentives for the use of renewables. But as important as those measures are, we also need to think differently about the future. That is why the hydrogen title in this piece of legislation is a step in the right direction. My colleague from New Mexico is in the Chamber. He will not like the fact that when I started I said this process was an arrogant one. I told him during the process, at a time when I was a conferee and was locked out of the meetings, on the floor--and I don't care whether he likes my saying this or not--``You would not accept that in a million years. You would be shouting from the rooftops.'' Again, because my colleague wasn't in the Chamber, this process was awful. This process will not happen again because we will not allow conferees to be appointed--we simply won't allow that--until the prospective chairpersons from the House and Senate agree to have real conferences, where both parties are allowed to have substantive discussions on the pending legislation. Having said all that, and being upset about the way this conference process worked, my main interest today is what is in this legislation for the country. Does it advance this country's interests or does it retard them? Is this a huge giveaway that does nothing to address the country's energy interests? Is it just laden with pork? Is it worthless? Should we start over? As I look at this bill in the four areas I talked about a year ago-- production--production that is sensitive to the environment; conservation--conservation that is real; efficiency--efficiency that really does address those products that we use every day in our lives and the standards by which we improve them and make them more efficient; and finally, limitless and renewable sources of energy--in every one of those four categories, I think this legislation has provisions that commend it for the future of this country. I can think of probably a dozen areas that I want to strip out of this bill, and I can think of a dozen provisions I want to put in this bill. I can't do that because this is a conference report, and also because I had limited opportunity to do it the other evening when we had a bifurcated, abbreviated conference. Having said all that, I don't think in this Chamber you ever give up. The Renewable Portfolio Standard, that is coming. It was kept out of this legislation in conference because some people had the clout to do that, but it is going to happen. As sure as I stand at this desk in the Senate, I will demand and enough of my colleagues will demand, a renewable portfolio standard by which we say to the electric utilities in this country that 10 percent of what you produce must come from renewable energy. As sure as I am standing here, it is going to happen because we will make it happen. Not in this bill because it is a conference report and we cannot amend it. The question is not what is left out or what is in. The question is, Does this product in the aggregate promote this Nation's energy interest as we move forward? Does it advance us or retard us in terms of our desire to do something about energy? Although it is a tough choice, I conclude the right choice is to adopt this conference report. I regret that I disagree with some of my colleagues. I am usually on the floor fighting for the same interests for which they fight for. I don't come to the floor to challenge their assertion that the MTBE provisions shouldn't be in here. I happen to agree with them. I don't challenge their assertion that there should be better consumer protections. I agree with them. But I also hope they understand that when you take a look at a bill which has something that is historic in renewable fuels and limitless fuels, limitless sources of energy--yes, ethanol especially, but wind energy, solar, and so many other areas of renewable energy--and when you have legislation that has real and significant standards of efficiency that represent significant conservation, and when you have legislation that incentivizes the current production of fossil fuels in a way that allows us to continue to use them in a manner that is safe for our environment, such as the aggressive use of clean coal technology, in my judgment--speaking only for myself--that meets the standard of deciding whether or not this legislation advances our country's interests. Let us pass what is good and fix what is wrong. We have time to do that as we move ahead in the coming years. For all of those reasons, I choose to advance this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say with respect to wind energy, if the production tax credit isn't extended, the windmills will not stop turning. We have very efficient turbines, but the projects that are already planned and ready to go simply will not happen. We won't have the initial capacity for wind energy because without the production tax credit, it will not exist. Let me make this point. If energy policy is analogous to a novel, then this is a chapter, and we might well decide this chapter ought to be rejected. I come to the conclusion that it is a chapter that is probably worthwhile and is a starting point. I want to at some point in the future amend it, change it, and improve it, but the choice for us is: Do we do nothing and pray that we don't have further blackouts or further price spikes, or, God forbid, a terrorist interrupting the supply of energy? Or do we enact the proposed legislation and consider it the first brick of a foundation by which we start to construct an energy policy that provides the best of what both political parties has to offer? I come down on the side of believing this ought to be advanced. There are a series of things I have explained that I believe are important in this legislation, so I will make one final point. Earlier, my colleague from Arizona talked about the cost of this bill. We have a $10 trillion to $11 trillion economy. This economy will only grow if it has a supply of energy. If tomorrow, for some reason, our supply of foreign oil were shut off, this American economy would be lying flat on its back. Talk about consequences for jobs and devastating consequences to opportunities in this country. We have to think through all of this and plan ahead. This legislation is not as comprehensive, as wise, or as bold as I hoped it would be, but it is a start. I go back to the issue of hydrogen. My colleague talked about natural gas. We are going to face natural gas price spikes again this winter. We have serious supply problems. We have significant problems in a range of energy sectors, in the short and intermediary term with respect to supply and demand. I think we should offer no apology for supporting increased efforts to produce additional fossil fuels. We have to do that. This legislation has something very important in it dealing with clean coal technology, which I strongly support. So I again regret that I come to a different conclusion than some of my colleagues. I hope my conclusion is right. At this point, as I look at this country's needs and as I balance legislation that has some good features to it, some good titles in it, with some things that should never have been put in it, as I balance all of that, I ask the question: Does this advance the country's energy interest? Do I believe on balance that it makes sense to proceed? The answer for me is yes, and that is why I intend to vote to support this conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am not someone who believes Democrats are all right and the Republicans are all wrong. I believe both political parties contribute to this process. We do not have to debate theory today about jobs. Let's just debate what we know. Here is what we know. In the 8 years under the Presidency of President Clinton, 237,000 jobs a month were created. Since President Bush took over, we have lost 70,000 jobs a month. There were 22.7 million jobs created during the 8 years of the Clinton administration; since President Bush took office, 2.3 million jobs lost. On June 7, 2002, the White House said: The tax cut will help create 800,000 new jobs by the end of 2002. In fact, we lost 1.9 million jobs during that period. Finally, take a look at the red line, and my colleagues will see where these jobs have gone, and my colleagues will see the improvement about which my colleague just talked. They said, gosh, things are turning around. Here is the improvement; right here. All of us want good jobs in this country. They come with three things in my judgment: Fiscal policy that is responsible--no, not $500 billion deficits, which this administration is proposing and running up but fiscal policy that is responsible, trade policies that are fair to this country, to its businesses and workers, and especially as a result of good policies in both of those areas, confidence the American people would have in the future. In 1993, we put a new economic plan in place by one vote in the House, one vote in the Senate, and we didn't get one vote for it on that side of the aisle--not one, not even by accident. As a result: 22.7 million jobs. On your side of the aisle they predicted catastrophe--the economy is going to be in terrible trouble. We had the strongest growth of any President, 22.7 million jobs. Let me talk for just a moment about trade. We now have a trade ambassador trying to negotiate trade agreements in every part of the world. Let me talk just a moment about Huffy bicycles. Mr. President, 850 people in Ohio lost their jobs. They used to put American flags on the front of Huffy bicycles. They replaced that with a globe because they now make them in China. Why? Because the folks in Ohio who make them--who got fired, by the way--were making too much money, $11 an hour. So Huffy bicycles are now made in China for 33 cents an hour and sold at Wal-Mart, Target, and Sears. But they are not cheaper because they pay 33 cents an hour; it is just that Americans lost their jobs. Our trade policy is bankrupt, and we have a trade ambassador right now trying to do three more free trade agreements, more of the same. If you want good jobs in this country, then you have to stand up for American interests. You have to have a fiscal policy that adds up. This administration's doesn't. We are running the biggest deficits in history. You have to have a trade policy that stands for this country's interest, and this trade policy doesn't. We have the highest trade deficits in history, and we have jobs moving wholesale overseas, where you can hire 12-year-old kids, work them 12 hours a day, and pay them 12 cents an hour, and that simply is not fair. As a result of trade and fiscal policies that do not add up, the American people do not have the confidence in the future they ought to have. Confidence, after all, is what relates to the expansion side of the business cycle. When people are confident about the future, they buy a home; they take a trip; they buy a car; they do the things that expand the economy. When they are not confident, they do exactly the opposite. We need to get to work and fix this country's fiscal policy, fix this country's trade policies, and not just go back right over the same old recipe about regulation and taxes and all those sorts of things. We know what creates jobs. We don't have to describe theory here. We can talk about the facts. The facts are we put in place a plan in 1993 that created 22.7 million jobs because it said to the American people we are serious about fiscal responsibility. It said to the American people we are going to stop this sea of red ink, and we did. It was a hard vote, but it was the right vote. I have always been proud of it. Now we have a sea of red ink, the largest budget surplus in this country's history when President Bush took office has been turned to the largest budget deficit in our history, and that is not going to breed confidence for the American people about the future. We need to put this country's economic house in order, and we need to do it soon. Fiscal policy and trade policy that represents the long-term interests of the American people will represent expansion and jobs and opportunity once again for our country.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is an interesting question posed by my colleague from Minnesota, and prior to him posing the question, he talked about more tax cuts and a lid on spending. Frankly, he is proposing and his party is proposing more defense spending, more homeland security spending, more spending in virtually every category, and then tax cuts in addition, which leaves us with very large deficits. But he asked specifically about tax cuts, so let me describe the difference in tax cuts relative to our party and their party. We believe in tax cuts and support tax cuts for working families. In fact, we had a very significant tax cut plan that would have said to working families in this country who bear a pretty significant tax, payroll tax and income tax, that we are going to give you a pretty good size tax cut. But the majority party said that is not what we want to do. But the majority party said: That is not what we want to do. We want to say to the person who is making $1 million a year, you really need the relief. We are going to give you a $93,000 tax cut because we believe the economy works better when you put something in at the top and somehow it trickles down. We happen to believe the percolate-up approach is what makes this economic engine of ours work. And we believe if you give working people something to work with, tax cuts targeted to working people, we will have an economy that regains its footing, provides economic growth, opportunity, and hope once again. That is the way to engineer economic growth and new jobs and expansion of opportunity in this country.