Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set the pending amendment aside so that I might be able to offer an amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?

Mr. DORGAN. I intended to complete my comments by complimenting Senator Alexander and others on the committee who have taken a position I think provides some leadership in this area. I did not mention those in the committee who, when we marked up these issues, played a significant role in the hydrogen title. I intended to do that at the end of my remarks. So I thank the Senator for allowing me to do that.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Cantwell, Lieberman, Akaka, Clinton, Kerry, Nelson of Florida, Schumer, Harkin, Dodd, Reid, Lautenberg, and Kennedy. I am offering a piece of legislation the Senate has previously passed and endorsed in the consideration of the Energy Bill last year. Let me spend a few moments talking about the amendment specifically. Very simply, this amendment is one that tries to establish some targets and timetables with respect to moving toward a hydrogen economy, which is something the President talked about doing. Targets and timetables, what I mean by that is we cannot enforce targets and timetables that are absolute, but we can as a Senate think big and decide to see if we can establish some targets and goals for the movement toward a hydrogen economy with fuel cells for our economics. I will describe why I think we ought to do this and why this is an important amendment. I will harken back to the Apollo program. On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced our Nation was establishing a goal of sending a man to the Moon and having a safe return from the Moon. He said we will have a man walk on the Moon by the end of the decade. That was 1961. In 1969, Neil Armstrong and then Buzz Aldrin stepped on the Moon. The Apollo project was an enormous undertaking. The NASA annual budget increased from $500 million in 1960 to $5.2 billion in 1965. It represented 5.3 percent of the Federal budget in 1965. Think about that. In today's terms, that would be $115 billion. NASA engaged private industry, university research, and academia in a massive way. Contractor employees increased by a factor of 10, to 376,000 people, in 1965. When President Kennedy said in 1961 it was his vision to have a man walk on the Moon by the end of the decade, there was no technological capability to do so at that moment, no guarantee it could be done. The Soviets had an advantage in space flight. They had put up a satellite called Sputnik. We were eager to see if we could not overcome that advantage. During the height of the cold war, that Soviet advantage was of great concern to us. The technological barriers were very significant. The expense was daunting. Yet, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped down off of that lunar lander and stood on the surface of the Moon; Buzz Aldrin followed him. I recall they actually pantomimed a golf game and jumped around on the surface of the Moon. In a decade, the President said let's set a goal and reach that goal. I will talk about another goal, another big idea, one that we ought to establish now for this country and for its future. That is the goal of deciding, as President Bush has suggested, that we move toward a hydrogen economy and fuel cells for our vehicles. I will describe why I think that is important. This chart says what the President is telling us: America's energy security is threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. America imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes. That is expected to grow to 68 percent by 2025. Again quoting the President: Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline, and they are the main reason America imports so much oil. Two-thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans use each day is used for transportation; fuel cell vehicles offer the best hope of dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That is from President Bush, and I fully agree with that statement. This graph shows what is happening with respect to consumption and domestic supply of oil. We are importing 55 percent of our oil at the moment, much of it from very troubled parts of the world, and that is expected to grow to 68 percent. The American economy is and will be held hostage by our ability to find oil and import it from outside of our country's borders. Should that be difficult for this country? Should it cause all of us great concern? The clear answer to that is yes. That is a very serious problem. Here is another chart. This is a list of the countries that are supplying our oil. Our top supplier is Saudi Arabia. Almost one-third of our oil, incidentally, comes from the Middle East. Iraq has been our fifth largest; it is the sixth largest supplier on this chart. Also listed are Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Angola. And when you look at the amount of energy we are importing from that part of the world, it is a very serious problem. Some want this energy debate to be a debate about two issues. If it is only those two issues, we lose. They are: Should we drill in ANWR? How about doing something on CAFE standards? Well, if this is only about ANWR and CAFE standards, then we lose. We need to pole-vault over those issues. Yes, we can address them, but it seems to me if we don't pole-vault over to new ground and deal with these issues in a much different way, every 25 years we will come back and debate energy and we will be debating exactly the same issues: where next do we drill? How much more efficient can we make a carburetor, through which we run gasoline, much of it imported from overseas? If our strategy for energy for this country's future is simply digging and drilling, then it is a strategy I call ``yesterday forever.'' It doesn't really change very much. Every 25 years, we can redebate the issue of how dependent we are and how dangerous it is for us to be that dependent on foreign sources of energy. I would like to see a different debate, one that says let's break out of this cycle. When I say digging and drilling is yesterday forever, I don't think we should not dig and drill. We will, we can, and we should. We will always use fossil fuels. Using our coal resources in an environmentally acceptable way with clean coal technology makes great sense to me. Using our domestic sources of energy and natural gas--especially oil and natural gas--makes sense to me. We will dig and drill. But if that is our energy strategy, we really have not moved the ball forward at all. So the question is, what more can we do? The President suggested in his State of the Union Address that we ought to chart a different course. I introduced legislation prior to the President's State of the Union Address saying let's move to a different kind of technology, a different kind of energy economy; let's move to a hydrogen economy using fuel cells. First of all, using fuel cells and hydrogen is twice as efficient in getting power to a wheel as using the internal combustion engine. Second, when we use hydrogen fuel cells in automobiles or vehicles, we are sending water vapor out the tailpipe. What a wonderful thing for our economy. We double the efficiency of the energy source, and then we eliminate the pollution out the tailpipe. We double the efficiency using hydrogen, which is a ubiquitous source of energy--it is everywhere--and then we decrease air pollution by putting water vapor out the tailpipe of a vehicle. That makes great sense to me. I introduced legislation. It is called the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Act of 2003. I compliment President Bush for proposing in his State of the Union Address that we move in this direction. I have said it is not small or insignificant for a Republican President to say let's do this. It was a rather small thing in terms of his proposal to fund it. It was not a bold approach. It was a rather timid approach. But that should not detract from the fact that this administration put itself on the line to say: Let's move in this direction. The President proposed $1.2 billion in 5 years. Only slightly more than half was new money. It appeared to me some of it came at the expense of other important areas of conservation and renewable energy. Having said all that, in the Energy Committee we came very close to tripling that amount of money. We bring to the floor of the Senate legislation that substantially improves the initiative dealing with hydrogen fuel cells. I think that is a significant step forward, one that I appreciate. What is missing is, in addition to the legislation I introduced, which actually calls for $6.5 billion in 10 years--so more money--and also pilot projects, Federal purchase programs, tax credits, and so on--what is missing is targets and timetables. If we are going to do this program, let's set out targets and timetables. I am not suggesting they can be ironclad. They cannot. If we are going to make this a big proposal, a bold proposal in the spirit of an Apollo project saying let's do this, let's make a difference, let's do this, let's decide that 25 years from now we will not have a debate about how much gasoline we are running through the carburetors of America's vehicles because we found a way to take hydrogen from water, use it as an energy supply, and through fuel cells use it to power America's vehicle fleet, we can do that. Many of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, on the Energy Committee have been supportive of this proposal. There is nothing partisan about this at all. As I said, it was in President Bush's State of the Union Address. It comes in legislation I have introduced. It comes in initiatives my colleagues have talked about and introduced as well. The question is, How do we make progress by establishing some big and bold goals? This legislation I have introduced, taking one piece of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Act of 2003, tries to establish some way points. When I learned to fly airplanes many years ago, they taught me, with modern instrumentation, that I can create way points for my airplane. When you get up in the air, you program into the computers on the plane the way points to which you want to fly. It is a fictitious point 300 or 400 miles away, but once you establish that way point with your instruments, you fly to the way point. When you reach that way point, then you take a new course to the next way point. My point is, we need way points--targets, and timetables--to transfer to some new hydrogen fuel cell economy. If we do not, we will not get there. If we do not, as President Kennedy said, put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, if we do not today make the equivalent of that commitment in deciding how and where we are going to head with this hydrogen fuel cell economy, we are not going to get there. We just will not. Let me show some examples of what is happening in hydrogen fuel cells. General Motors Hy-wire fuel cell concept car unveiled in August 2002. Some say there are no such things as fuel cells. Of course there are. I have driven a fuel cell car that drove from California to the east coast, across this country. Are they commercially available now? No, they are not. Are they horribly expensive? Yes. But we are in the design stage and the research and development stage to make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles affordable. This is the Nissan Xterra fueled by compressed hydrogen tested on California public roads in 2001. This is the Ford Focus fuel cell vehicle. Production is ready for prototype, autumn 2002. This is a hydrogen fueling station by Powertech Labs. This is a picture of a DaimlerChrysler fuel cell bus introduced in Germany in 1997. I have actually ridden in a fuel cell bus running on the streets of this country. The point is, we can do this. Is this easy to do? No, it is not, not at all. What do you have to do to convert to a hydrogen fuel cell economy for our vehicle fleet? Notice, I am not talking about stationary power centers. That also exists as the capability with respect to hydrogen and fuel cells, stationary engines, and so on. I am talking about the vehicle fleet because a substantial increase in the demand for oil comes from our vehicles. I do not have a chart to show that. It is quite clear that unless we do something, especially about our vehicle fleet, we will, 25, 50, and 100 years from now, still be debating on the floor of the Senate how much additional gasoline we run through America's carburetors. What do you have to do to switch? A bold plan means we are going to change our entire infrastructure. We have production. How are we going to produce hydrogen? There are a lot of ways to produce hydrogen. We can use electrolysis to separate oxygen and hydrogen in water and store the hydrogen and use it in fuel cells. Let me give another example. We can put up a wind charger, the new highly efficient wind turbine, a 1-megawatt wind turbine, and take the energy from the air. We can use that energy for electrolysis to separate the oxygen and hydrogen in water and store the hydrogen for use in fuel cells. There are so many ways and different approaches to use hydrogen. We have production issues: How do we produce hydrogen? From what source? But it is ubiquitous; it is all over. That is not an insurmountable problem. How do you produce hydrogen? How do you transport it? How do you store it? How do you make it available at the infrastructure, at service stations across the country for a vehicle fleet? Those are issues we ought to be dealing with and will deal with and the administration will deal with at the Department of Energy. What I say very simply in this amendment--and it has taken me a long time to get to the point, but I wanted to make a presentation on why I think this is very important for our country--I say let's establish, as President Kennedy did, a goal. Let's have 100,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on our roads by 2010, 7 years from now. Let's have 2.5 million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on our roads by 2020. Let's set some goals. Let's set some way points and say: Here is what we strive to do; here is what we aspire to do as a country. If we do not set goals, I guarantee we will never reach the potential that exists for us to convert our vehicle fleet to hydrogen fuel cell fleets and to relieve ourselves of the danger that exists having so much of our energy coming from outside our borders. If we wake up tomorrow morning, God forbid, and terrorists have interrupted the supply of oil to this country--and, yes, that could happen--this country's economy will be flat on its back. It will be flat on its back because we rely, to the tune of 55 percent, on oil from sources outside this country and much of it from very troubled parts of the world. That is going to go to 68 percent, and we ought not let it. If in this Chamber we spend weeks and wrestle and debate energy policy and come out with an energy policy that says what we need to do is just produce more and somehow we will end up just fine, we have done nothing for America's future. We have done nothing for America's future. An Energy bill that makes sense to me has four parts. One is, yes, let's produce more. Let's incent more production of fossil fuels, absolutely. I do not support, for example, drilling of the ANWR region, one of our most pristine and delicate areas. I do not think we need to do that. But let's produce more. There are thoughtful ways to produce more. I happen to believe we ought to be able to produce much more in the Gulf of Mexico in an environmentally sensitive way. Let's conserve more. We waste a huge amount of energy. Production and conservation, that is two parts. The third is efficiency. Everything we use almost every day, in every way, with all of our appliances could, should, and will be more efficient if we pay attention to and provide incentives for efficiencies. Finally, and importantly, is the area of a renewable and limitless source of energy, and that includes ethanol, biodiesel, and many others, but most importantly it includes this proposal: Hydrogen and fuel cells can be our future. It can make this country more secure. It can remove from this country's neck the yoke of having over half of its oil coming from troubled parts of the world. In a very substantial way it can do what President Kennedy did in establishing new goals in space travel for our country. It can inspire our country to be able to control our own destiny with respect to energy. I close as I began by saying that President Bush was absolutely correct in the State of the Union Address, and it is not a small thing for this President to say let's move in this direction. I am putting my administration in support of this direction, this movement. That is not a small thing. It is a big deal. I have said his proposal is more timid than I thought it should be. I do not mean substantial criticism by that. What I mean by that is I think to do this it has to be big and bold. Especially it has to set timetables and targets. The Senate committee has nearly tripled the amount of money the President has proposed. That is a significant start, in my judgment. We could even do more in the authorization bill with the type that I have suggested. This amendment I have offered today is not that authorization bill. It is simple. It says while we have made significant strides in the Energy Committee on this subject, and now that we have a Republican President, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress believe we ought to move in this direction, so let us be bold enough to set some timetables and targets. As I indicated, the Senate has already passed this legislation last year, and I hope the Senate would embrace it once again and pass these targets and timetables. One final point: These targets and timetables simply say the Department of Energy shall report to us on how they establish the strategies to reach these targets. We cannot impose our will in the sense that we cannot tell an Energy Department they must reach these targets. We do not have the capability of doing that. The technology does not exist to get from here to there. But we can ask the Department of Energy to provide for us the strategies by which they could meet these targets, and that is what our amendment asks. My hope is this will be unanimously supported by the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Bodar Tareen and Joe Krueger from my staff be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of S. 14.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am happy to be joining my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham in introducing the YMCA Healthy Teen Act. Senator Graham and I are introducing this bill along with Senators Bunning, Corzine, Daschle, DeWine, Durbin, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murray, Roberts, and Smith. This bipartisan legislation will address a critical issue for our Nation's future: the health of our children. Unfortunately, there has been an alarming trend in recent years towards increased obesity in our Nation's youth. On average, America's young people spend 4 hours a day watching television, 1 and \1/2\ hours a day listening to music, 30 minutes watching videos, and 20 minutes playing video games. Only 13 percent of students walk or bike to school. Only one State, Illinois, requires daily physical education in schools. The Surgeon General has reported that 13 percent of children and adolescents are overweight, more than double the number who were overweight in 1970. We are rapidly becoming a country of the unfit, the inactive, and the unhealthy--and our young people are suffering the consequences of a sedentary lifestyle. If ignored, obesity in children leads to obesity in adulthood--and the numerous health problems that come with it including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. These five diseases alone account for more than two-thirds of all deaths in the United States, and caring for them comes at a tremendous cost to society--close to $117 billion annually. On top of the need for increased physical activity and healthier lifestyles, the evidence is all around us that our young people today also need some extra care and support. Kids today face challenges and obstacles that I never dreamed about when I was growing up in Regent. Although recent promising evidence show that rates of smoking, drinking and the use of illegal drugs among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders fell simultaneously in 2002, still half of all high school seniors have reported using illicit drugs at least once in their lifetime. These challenges arise in part from the temptations kids face when they have too much idle time on their own. Every day, millions of American teens are left unsupervised after school. Studies have shown that teens left unsupervised during those hours are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, engage in sexual activity, and become involved in delinquent behavior than teens who participate in structured, supervised afterschool activities. Also, nearly 80 percent of teens who are involved in afterschool activities are A or B students, while only half of those who are not involved earn those grades. To address these crucial issues facing America's youth, I propose we turn to an exemplary organization dedicated to improving kids' lives, the YMCA. Nearly 2.4 million teenagers--1 out of every 10--are involved in a program offered by their local YMCA. In 2001, total membership rolls reached their highest level in history, with 18.3 million men, women, and children--half of them under 18--receiving a vast range of services from their local YMCAs. In the past year and a half, I visited three of the six YMCAs that serve North Dakota teens. Through programs focused on education, healthy lifestyles, physical activity, leadership, and service learning, these North Dakota YMCAs helped 12,500 teens in my State develop character, build confidence, and become healthier within the last year alone. I have seen firsthand what a difference a safe, structured, and healthy afterschool environment can make for our youth. In those communities in North Dakota and across the country, the YMCA is a place to learn, a place to play sports, a place to meet friends, and a place to simply shed the problems that youths face every day in school and at home and just have some fun. North Dakota teens embrace the countless opportunities presented to them at their YMCAs with enthusiasm, and I have no doubt they are not alone. While the YMCA is national in scope, they are local in control and every program is designed and evaluated to meet the communities' unique needs. I am confident that this bill will help the YMCA to reach more teens and continue to provide successful solutions for our Nation's teens and families. To serve more teens in need of healthier lifestyles and safe and structured afterschool programs, the YMCA has set the goal of doubling the number of teens served to one in five teens by 2005. This ambitious campaign is called the Teen Action Agenda. The bill that Senator Graham and I offer today provides funding to help the YMCA reach teens who need safe and structured activities that will promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles. This piece of legislation authorizes Federal appropriations of $20 million per year for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for the YMCA to implement its Teen Action Agenda. This funding would in turn be distributed to local YMCAs that are located in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Similar legislation was passed in the 105th Congress for the Boys and Girls Club and in the 106th Congress for the Police Athletic League to aid in their efforts to reach out to youth. Each program funded through this initiative would include physical activity and nutritional education components, and could also focus on other health risks faced by teenage youths, such as tobacco, drugs, and risky behaviors that lead to injury and violence. This bill will encourage public-private partnerships and leverage additional funding for teen programs. It contains a matching component that will be met by the YMCA through local and private support. The YMCA in 2001 raised $777 million in public contributions, double the annual contribution levels of a decade ago, and continues to grow and gain support from communities for its work. The matching component, along with the support the YMCA programs receive from national corporate sponsors, will turn $20 million in Federal funds into $50 million that will be invested in proven programs that serve teens who are most in need. Adolescence is an opportune time to instill in children positive eating habits and exercise routines that will carry over into adulthood. The YMCA is an established and proven organization that is in the position to reach out and influence thousands of teenagers. This legislation is an opportunity for us to do something for the health of our Nation's teenagers, when they now face greater risks and challenges than ever before. Again, for the sake of our children's future, I urge my Senate colleagues to join Senator Graham and me in cosponsoring this piece of legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Gaginis be granted floor privilege today.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am happy to be joining my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham in introducing the YMCA Healthy Teen Act. Senator Graham and I are introducing this bill along with Senators Bunning, Corzine, Daschle, DeWine, Durbin, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murray, Roberts, and Smith. This bipartisan legislation will address a critical issue for our Nation's future: the health of our children. Unfortunately, there has been an alarming trend in recent years towards increased obesity in our Nation's youth. On average, America's young people spend 4 hours a day watching television, 1 and \1/2\ hours a day listening to music, 30 minutes watching videos, and 20 minutes playing video games. Only 13 percent of students walk or bike to school. Only one State, Illinois, requires daily physical education in schools. The Surgeon General has reported that 13 percent of children and adolescents are overweight, more than double the number who were overweight in 1970. We are rapidly becoming a country of the unfit, the inactive, and the unhealthy--and our young people are suffering the consequences of a sedentary lifestyle. If ignored, obesity in children leads to obesity in adulthood--and the numerous health problems that come with it including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. These five diseases alone account for more than two-thirds of all deaths in the United States, and caring for them comes at a tremendous cost to society--close to $117 billion annually. On top of the need for increased physical activity and healthier lifestyles, the evidence is all around us that our young people today also need some extra care and support. Kids today face challenges and obstacles that I never dreamed about when I was growing up in Regent. Although recent promising evidence show that rates of smoking, drinking and the use of illegal drugs among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders fell simultaneously in 2002, still half of all high school seniors have reported using illicit drugs at least once in their lifetime. These challenges arise in part from the temptations kids face when they have too much idle time on their own. Every day, millions of American teens are left unsupervised after school. Studies have shown that teens left unsupervised during those hours are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, engage in sexual activity, and become involved in delinquent behavior than teens who participate in structured, supervised afterschool activities. Also, nearly 80 percent of teens who are involved in afterschool activities are A or B students, while only half of those who are not involved earn those grades. To address these crucial issues facing America's youth, I propose we turn to an exemplary organization dedicated to improving kids' lives, the YMCA. Nearly 2.4 million teenagers--1 out of every 10--are involved in a program offered by their local YMCA. In 2001, total membership rolls reached their highest level in history, with 18.3 million men, women, and children--half of them under 18--receiving a vast range of services from their local YMCAs. In the past year and a half, I visited three of the six YMCAs that serve North Dakota teens. Through programs focused on education, healthy lifestyles, physical activity, leadership, and service learning, these North Dakota YMCAs helped 12,500 teens in my State develop character, build confidence, and become healthier within the last year alone. I have seen firsthand what a difference a safe, structured, and healthy afterschool environment can make for our youth. In those communities in North Dakota and across the country, the YMCA is a place to learn, a place to play sports, a place to meet friends, and a place to simply shed the problems that youths face every day in school and at home and just have some fun. North Dakota teens embrace the countless opportunities presented to them at their YMCAs with enthusiasm, and I have no doubt they are not alone. While the YMCA is national in scope, they are local in control and every program is designed and evaluated to meet the communities' unique needs. I am confident that this bill will help the YMCA to reach more teens and continue to provide successful solutions for our Nation's teens and families. To serve more teens in need of healthier lifestyles and safe and structured afterschool programs, the YMCA has set the goal of doubling the number of teens served to one in five teens by 2005. This ambitious campaign is called the Teen Action Agenda. The bill that Senator Graham and I offer today provides funding to help the YMCA reach teens who need safe and structured activities that will promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles. This piece of legislation authorizes Federal appropriations of $20 million per year for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for the YMCA to implement its Teen Action Agenda. This funding would in turn be distributed to local YMCAs that are located in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Similar legislation was passed in the 105th Congress for the Boys and Girls Club and in the 106th Congress for the Police Athletic League to aid in their efforts to reach out to youth. Each program funded through this initiative would include physical activity and nutritional education components, and could also focus on other health risks faced by teenage youths, such as tobacco, drugs, and risky behaviors that lead to injury and violence. This bill will encourage public-private partnerships and leverage additional funding for teen programs. It contains a matching component that will be met by the YMCA through local and private support. The YMCA in 2001 raised $777 million in public contributions, double the annual contribution levels of a decade ago, and continues to grow and gain support from communities for its work. The matching component, along with the support the YMCA programs receive from national corporate sponsors, will turn $20 million in Federal funds into $50 million that will be invested in proven programs that serve teens who are most in need. Adolescence is an opportune time to instill in children positive eating habits and exercise routines that will carry over into adulthood. The YMCA is an established and proven organization that is in the position to reach out and influence thousands of teenagers. This legislation is an opportunity for us to do something for the health of our Nation's teenagers, when they now face greater risks and challenges than ever before. Again, for the sake of our children's future, I urge my Senate colleagues to join Senator Graham and me in cosponsoring this piece of legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield to me for about 1 minute?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator is prepared to speak against the Boxer amendment, as his colleague just did. I, too, have come to the floor to speak against the Boxer amendment. The underlying Frist-Daschle amendment creates a narrow prospective safe harbor from liability for defect in design or manufacture of a renewable fuel. There is no liability protection for MTBE in the underlying amendment. I oppose the Boxer amendment. Many colleagues in the Senate feel strongly in opposition, I believe, and we will be able to defeat this amendment. And, to qualify for the limited protection that is in the underlying amendment, a renewable fuel must be evaluated by EPA for toxicity, carcinogenicity, air quality impacts, and water quality impacts, and must be used in compliance with any restrictions imposed by EPA. Further, the burden of cleanup for environmental contamination would not be shifted. That is, the safe harbor provision that is in the RFS amendment would not affect liability under Federal and state environmental laws, and therefore would not affect response, remediation and clean-up. Let me make this point clear: the underlying provision would not affect in any way a company's legal responsibility to clean up the contamination of any groundwater by gasoline, regardless of whether it contained oxygenates or additives of any kind. In addition, the safe harbor provision for renewable fuels does not affect liability under other tort law provisions, including negligence, trespass, and nuisance, and it does not prevent the award of compensatory or punitive damages. Importantly, defective product liability cases only make up 0.002 percent of all civil cases filed each year according to the National Center for State Courts. Finally, an amendment to change or strike the safe harbor provision would destroy this long-standing renewable fuels agreement, and result in the status quo and no national phaseout of MTBE, which has contaminated some groundwater supplies.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business? Vote on Amendment No. 849

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to be reminded when I have consumed 5 minutes. This amendment is really quite simple. It would rescind the provisions of law that now exist authorizing a round of military base closures in the year 2005. The Senate actually voted on this a couple years ago, in a relatively close vote, regarding an amendment offered by Senator Bunning, supported by Senator Lott and myself. I bring the amendment to the floor with my colleague, Senator Lott from Mississippi, today for a number of reasons. Let me begin to describe them. First of all, President Bush says--and he is right--we are at war, a war against terrorism. We do not know when the war will end. We do know that on 9/11 2001, this country was struck by terrorists. Since then we have sent our forces to fight a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, and we know there are significant other challenges that confront us. Yet the 2005 base-closing round, the one that provides for a BRAC Commission, was conceived prior to 9/11. The shadow of 9/11 is long and has changed virtually everything. But we have not changed our pre-9/11 notion that we should have a base- closing round in 2005. Before 9/11 Secretary Rumsfeld said: Let's close as many bases in one round as we did in all four previous base closure rounds. There are two reasons I think this is a bad idea. No. 1 is a military reason. We do not know what the military is going to look like 5, 10, and 20 years from now. We do not know how big it is going to be. We do not know the force structure. We do not know where our troops will be based. We have no idea how many troops will be based in Asia, in Europe, or the United States. If we bring troops home from Europe, for example, where will we base them in the United States? We have mechanized divisions in Europe that were there to protect Western Europe against the Communist threat from Eastern Europe. But, of course, the Warsaw Pact and Communist Eastern Europe no longer exist. So will we bring those divisions home? If so, where will we house them? We know the Army does not have enough large mobilization bases. That was proved when we mobilized the Guard and Reserve in the war against Iraq. So all of these issues beg this question: What is the threat? Is the threat different now since 9/11? The answer is, yes. Do we know the answers to how will we reconstruct, reconfigure, and reformulate our defense establishment and our military to respond to this new threat? As it is now, before we develop the answers to that question, we will be propelled into a round of base closings that, in my judgment, could be very counterproductive to our military preparedness. We might need more bases for homeland security purposes in this country, rather than fewer bases. I do not know. But before we know, the Pentagon wants to go ahead with a round of base closings which itself will be very expensive and very costly. Two things: One, everything has changed since 9/11, except we still have in place this requirement for a BRAC round in 2005. It ought to be struck at this point. If there is unneeded capacity, let us respond to that and do it in a thoughtful way. But let's not put every military installation in this country at risk of being closed. Second, I cannot think of a worse time to be considering this. We have an economy that is sputtering in this country. It is weaker than we would like it to be. In every major city, where there is a military installation, if an investor is told, oh, by the way, this military installation could very well be closed as a result of a 2005 BRAC round, what do you think an investor is going to do? What do you think a lender is going to do? They are going to say, we have to wait. There is no quicker way to stunt economic growth in cities with military installations than to say there is going to be a BRAC round in 2005. Virtually every single military installation will be at risk of closure. In some States, and in some communities in those States, that closure of a military installation, according to studies, will mean there will be 20- to 30-percent unemployment. Do you think it stunts the economic growth in those communities right now to have that specter in front of their military installation? The answer is, yes, of course. So for two reasons, one a military reason and the other dealing with the precarious position of this country's economy, we ought to scrap the 2005 base-closing round. That does not mean that we should not be able to close some military installations that represent excess capacity. Of course, we should. But we ought not to create a commission that is required to meet in 2005, with a judgment that every military installation in this country will be at risk and potentially on the list. We ought not do that in contradiction to what we know is in the best interest of this country's military needs and also economic needs. That is why Senator Lott and I have offered this amendment. We have had some close votes on these issues, and they should not be represented as votes between people who believe we should never close a base versus those who believe we should always use a BRAC. I think there is room in between. It is just that at this time, at this place, at this intersection, with respect to our military needs and also our economic requirements, we ought not leave in law a requirement for the 2005 base-closing round. So I hope very much that we will receive a favorable vote on our amendment. I am mindful that the White House senior advisers would recommend a veto to the President if this bill had this in it. I am sure my colleagues will point that out. I cannot conceive of a President vetoing this bill because of this particular provision. This bill is a big bill. It is a good bill. Senator Warner and Senator Levin have given the administration almost all they want and need in this bill. This is a significant Defense authorization bill. I cannot conceive of an administration upset that we scrapped the 2005 base-closing rounds and then decide that they should veto this bill. I simply do not think that will happen. They have every right, of course, to use that as a technique prior to our vote to say vote for this and we will veto the bill, but I do not think there is a ghost of a chance of them doing that. I do think it is in the public interest, both for military and economic reasons, for the amendment that Senator Lott and I are offering to be passed by this Senate and to go to conference in the Defense authorization bill with the House of Representatives. I know my colleague from Mississippi wishes to speak. I thank him for his cosponsorship. He has worked on this issue for a long while, not just this year or just last year. Senator Lott has felt very strongly about the process of BRAC and its consequences, and I am pleased to join with him to express these concerns today and hope that we will get a favorable vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we have 15 minutes on our side in support of the amendment; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am waiting for Senator Lott. I know he is near the Chamber. As soon as he arrives, we are ready to go. The Senator from Nevada may proceed first.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to observe that what the Senator said about the chairman and ranking member is something most all of us in the Senate believe. They are two extraordinarily able people, and I am proud to serve with both of them. I think they produced a good piece of legislation. I especially wish to say, as coauthor of the concurrent receipt legislation with Senator Reid, I am pleased this will be accepted. My understanding is this will be part of the bill in the Senate. It is the right result for disabled veterans. I am very pleased they are allowing us to make this a part of the bill today. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Lott, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer, Senator Snowe, and Senator Bingaman, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. I say to my colleague from Nevada, there is no question, these are not families who have dividends. These are not families who collect a lot of interest. These are families who live paycheck to paycheck, trying to make a living, trying to do right by their kids, trying to send their kids to good schools, trying to buy new clothes for the kid to go to school in September. These are families trying to make ends meet. They are always left out. Frankly, I was surprised when I heard the President and others advertising the tax bill, saying we support a child tax credit for America's children--except he left out the colleagues of mine in the Senate who convened in a conference, without our participation. Nobody here was invited to that conference. They wrote a bill that said it is just some American children; it is not children from those families who make $10,000 to $26,000 a year because somehow they are not taxpayers.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I do not quite understand why the ethanol provision had to be pulled at this point. I know an amendment was offered by my colleague and it deals with the child tax credit. It seems to me that could have been dispensed with rather quickly. Let me talk for a minute about the child tax credit. First, I think the ethanol provisions are very important. I am a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and I want this Energy bill done. We have a responsibility to get this moving and through here. My colleague earlier today offered a unanimous consent request dealing with the child tax credit. It is not surprising to me that was offered. It probably would have been offered no matter what was before the Senate. The reason for that is the announcement in recent days regarding the final conference report of the tax package. That told us what most know; that is, when those who wrote this package gathered in a room someplace, there were not a lot of high-priced folks around trying to encourage them to make sure all American children were treated right with respect to the child tax credit. Now we discover around 12 million children in this country are left out of this calculation of child tax credit. Why? Because some people allege--in fact, I heard it on a talk show today--some allege they do not pay taxes. These people do not pay taxes, we are told. I don't know what they are thinking when they say that because these are taxpayers. They work hard. Often these are the kinds of people who have to shower after work, not before work. They work hard all day long and they pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income tax. And they are told by this Senate, they are told by the Congress, they are told by talk show hosts, that they do not pay tax and therefore their kids do not count. This Congress ought to be embarrassed when it hears news reports about what the conference report said: By the way, we will provide a child tax credit, but we will decide that 12 million children are left out. Why? Because their families earn between $10,000 and $26,000. Somehow the Congress has decided they do not work, or they do not count, or they do not pay taxes. What a bunch of rubbish. What a bunch of nonsense. They deserve to be angry about this. We ought to be angry about it. What kind of priority is this? I don't understand it at all. The fact is, when they look back at our work 10 years from now, or 100 years from now, the only thing historians will understand about us is what our value system was. What did we value? What did we think was important? What did we stand up for? Whose side were we on? I watched this tax bill come together, and I waded through crowds of people in the Capitol--basement, first floor, second floor. I guarantee I have never had to wade through a crowd of people who came to Washington, DC, to make sure we were playing fair for these 12 million children, to make sure we were standing up for the families who were earning $10,500 a year to $26,000 a year. I guarantee the hallways are not filled with lobbyists being paid to represent their interests. I guarantee that. But there are a lot of high-priced people around here protecting the interests of the people at the upper end of the income scale. We did not hear reports that they were being shortchanged, that children at the upper end of the economic ladder were left out. No, they were taken right good care of. It is just the folks at the bottom. The folks at the bottom, working people, people who work for $10,500 to $26,000 a year, who have kids, trying to raise a family, they are the ones who know about ``second''--second house, second mortgage, second shift, second job. And now they get second-hand treatment in the tax bill because they are told they don't count because they don't pay taxes. The heck they do not pay taxes. Of course they pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes out of every single paycheck. I am offended that people say people at the bottom of the economic ladder who find a paycheck less than their gross pay--and do you know why? Because they had taxes taken out--I am offended when people say they are not taxpayers. I am offended when somehow it is told they do not deserve a tax cut like all other Americans because the fact that they pay payroll taxes is somehow less worthy than others who pay income taxes. One-half of the American people pay higher payroll taxes than income tax and somehow this tax bill and those who worked on it decided they were not worthy, they were not taxpayers. We will tell their 12 million children they do not count. We will tell them it does not matter they have kids; they do not need the tax credit. There is something horribly wrong with that value system. It is not surprising to me that someone comes to the floor--and if it had not been my colleague from Arkansas, it would have been one of a dozen others today--to say this needs to be fixed--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month. This ought to be fixed now. It ought not take an hour or a day. It ought to take 10 minutes for this Senate to understand its responsibility. It's our responsibility to say to these people, the working people making $10,000 to $26,000 a year, trying to raise kids, working at a job, trying to do right, it is this Congress' responsibility to say to them: You get the same tax cut as other Americans do. We provide the same child tax credit for you as we provide for other Americans. You pay taxes; we intend to recognize it. That is the responsibility of this Senate. I do not, for the life of me, understand why the offering of this amendment persuades somebody to take down the amendment in the Energy bill. That is nonsense. We can pass this in 5 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. To my colleague from Nevada, this hallway in the Capitol outside this Chamber is never ever populated by those who are paid to represent the interests of people who work at the bottom of the economic ladder. They do not have full-time lobbyists crawling the Halls of Congress saying: By the way, give us a break on dividends; give us a break on this issue or that issue. No, unfortunately, it is these families, the families who work hard, at the bottom of the economic ladder, struggling every paycheck, trying to make ends meet, who get the short end of the stick every time you open it up and look at the details. I was surprised. I am a Lutheran Norwegian from North Dakota, kind of stoic. I don't rise to the passion of some of my colleagues from New York, but this makes me angry. That is just because it is fundamentally wrong. It talks about our character, that we decide we are going to give some tax cuts, we are going to help some people out, but you know what. We will take a look at the top people and just give them a thick layer of butter on their bread, but to the bottom people we will say you don't count. I will tell why. Mark my words. It is because those who wrote this bill believe that these are not taxpayers. Do you know why? Because somebody who is making $15,000 a year, trying to raise four kids, trying to patch up their car, seeing if they have enough money for new brake linings, seeing if they can afford to put gas in next week--it is because those people are working at jobs where in most cases they are not paying an income tax. But they are paying a payroll tax. The fact is, as a percent of their income, they pay a higher payroll tax than the people at the upper end of the income scale. But when it comes time for tax cuts, we have people sitting around a table here who say the only people who pay taxes in America are those who pay income taxes. That is pure nonsense and they ought to know better. There are taxpayers in this country--in fact, more than half of the American people pay higher payroll taxes than income taxes. I frankly resent it when people say somebody at the bottom of the economic ladder who pays payroll taxes is not an American taxpayer. If we talk about trying to provide some stimulus to this economy of ours, trying to provide some lift to this economy by giving people purchasing power--and that is what people talk about, providing some purchasing power--the American economic engine is the working families out there. Provide them with purchasing power with tax cuts and they will make the economic engine purr--except they say those most likely to spend the child tax credit, those who need it most, those at the bottom of the economic ladder, working every single day, they should be left out and they and their 12 million kids should not count. I know why it happened. It is because we have colleagues in this Chamber who say they are not taxpayers because they do not pay income taxes. But they pay payroll taxes. We have colleagues who say payroll taxes do not count; you are not a taxpayer. I say that is sheer rubbish.