Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the next vote is on the amendment that actually does what the previous amendment says the sense of Senate should do. If you really believe with the sense of the Senate that we should do this, the question is, Do you believe we should do it now? The question here, it seems to me, is one of priorities. If 8 million senior citizens are paying $1,500 more in taxes because of the change in 1993 and you want to repeal that change, then this particular amendment will reduce taxes for those 8 million Americans. Is this a greater priority than the issue of dividends and other issues in this bill? In my judgment, this is a greater priority. If you really believe you want to cut taxes for 8 million senior citizens by $18 billion, now is the time to do that. Now is the time to make the change to do that. If you choose not to, it is really hard to say you support this kind of a change.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, following the presentation, then, it would be my opportunity to yield time; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this was an interesting and clever argument to listen to. I have great respect for my colleague who chairs the Finance Committee. We have worked on many issues together. But I listened to his argument, which was more about motives with respect to this amendment than it was about merits. It is, I guess, perfectly plausible to talk about the motives of others. I won't do that at this moment, but he was describing the motives of people dealing with this amendment. Let me talk a bit about the merits and correct some of the misstatements, if I might, and then describe why this is an important amendment. Let me take the last point first. My colleague says this is going to take away the tax cuts for middle Americans. Nonsense; simply untrue. Is this going to take away the tax cuts for the child credit, which is going to be very significant to that single mom? Does this take that away? The answer is no. So if someone says this takes away the tax cuts for middle Americans, they are wrong, just wrong. It is not supported by the facts. I will go through a whole list of others that this does not take away. This does take away the tax cut that accelerates the rate reductions going down to the 28 percent. It is not all those above 10 percent, as my colleague suggested. But let me go back to the top and take his arguments one by one. The Senator from Iowa is right, this was put in place 10 years ago as part of a large plan. I was not happy it was there 10 years ago, but it was part of a plan we passed. Twice, since that time, I have supported efforts to get rid of this tax on Social Security--the 50 percent to 85 percent--but we have been unsuccessful. The question now is, Are we willing to cut taxes now by abolishing the 85 percent back down to 50 percent? That is the question for us now. As a result of the 1993 new economic proposal, which included this piece, we had unprecedented economic growth that turned this country around, turned the biggest budget deficits then into the biggest budget surpluses we have ever had. Now, we have people who are still huffing and puffing that it really was not the result of that economic plan, but, notwithstanding that, the fact is, that put this country back on track. This piece was a part of it. I am not pleased it was, but it was. As I said, I voted previously to try to get rid of this piece. Now we have the opportunity. If the prospect of the majority is to come to the floor of the Senate and say, let's have very large tax cuts, the question is, it seems to me, Where do you start? Who benefits most? Wouldn't it be a good thing to cut these taxes so 8 million senior citizens who are paying $1,500 a year more in taxes as a result of that change 10 years ago would be able to begin to pay less as a result of our repeal of that provision? My colleague said: Gee, there was just an amendment offered by Senator Bunning on the floor of the Senate that dealt with this very issue. Total nonsense. It was offered during the budget debate, and the budget debate did not have anything to do with what we were going to do on specific tax cuts. That can only be done with respect to the Finance Committee and on the floor of the Senate. The Bunning amendment was a proposal to increase the overall tax cut by $146 billion. But the Bunning amendment--if I just ask you to go read it--says nothing about this issue that I have as a matter of the amendment today. I assume my colleague will say: Everybody knew what he was doing. No, you can't do that during a budget debate. There is no vote during the budget debate that is going to affect what the Finance Committee does to cut taxes at some point later. So the Bunning issue is a specious issue. We are told this is a jobs bill, and we are also told by my colleague as to this ``debt situation,'' don't worry so much about that because we are going to grow the economy and the debt isn't going to happen. This reminds me of that old joke in the movies: Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? Well, let's take a look with our own eyes here. When somebody says, this doubling of the Federal debt, from $6 to $12 trillion, is probably not going to happen, let me refer you to the budget that was passed by this Senate, embraced by the previous speaker and all on his side of the aisle, I believe--or almost all--except two. On page 4 of that conference report, they say, if they get all they want--they grow the economy, they create the jobs, they get all they want in budget and appropriations and tax cuts and so on--they say they will have a $12 trillion debt in the year 2013. This isn't a case of, well, if we grow the economy, the debt situation will not happen. No. This is what they predict will happen if they get all they want. So I would refer you to page 4 of the conference report, that you voted for--I say to those who voted for it--and ask yourselves: Were you creating a plan and supporting a plan that doubles the Federal debt? The answer is yes. Case closed. No more discussion about that, I am sorry. Now, the question was asked: Do we want to repeal this or don't we want to repeal this? The reason I have offered the amendment is, yes, I think we ought to repeal that provision. I did not like that provision when it was put in, but it was. It was part of a larger plan we all protected in order to make that plan work. The fact is, I did not like it then. I do not like it now. I think we ought to repeal it. The question now is not, What did you think about someone doing that 10 years ago? The question is, In the year 2003, do you support repealing this provision or don't you? This, in fact, is a tax cut for senior citizens, 8 million of them who have reached their declining income years and who have earned the opportunity to go back to the provision we used to have where 50 percent of their Social Security payments are counted as income for tax purposes rather than the 85 percent. That is what my proposal does. We are told that what this larger tax bill is about is putting money in the pockets of American taxpayers. That is true. It will be borrowed, of course. We are going to borrow money to provide tax cuts. But if we are going to provide tax cuts, it is perfectly appropriate to ask the question: What are the priorities? Who ought to be first in line? Those at the very top of the income ladder who earn the biggest dividends, should they be first in line? Is that who edges up to the trough here? Or perhaps should we take a look at the issue of the tax burden on senior citizens and especially the income they receive from Social Security? If this is about putting money in the pockets of the American taxpayers, I say without respect to the motives of those who disagree with me, if the motive is to put money in the pockets of senior citizens who have had to pay a higher tax than they should have to pay, this amendment gives you the opportunity to vote yes or no. We can have people stand and steam and bluster about other people's motives, but in the end, we will vote on this. And the vote is going to be, do you believe we ought to relieve senior citizens of this tax obligation they have had to pay? In my judgment, the answer ought to be yes. My hope is that enough colleagues will join me so we can make this kind of affirmative change that will be helpful to cut taxes for 8 million senior citizens to the tune of $1,500 a year. These are taxes that ought to be cut. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. One more time. There are a lot of mirages created in this Chamber, a lot of word castles being built: We will grow; we will create jobs; we will grow the economy; we will expand all these things that we hear about. It is not contestable that we have a fiscal plan passed by one vote in this Congress that says: Let us borrow a great deal of money, provide very large tax cuts mostly to upper income folks, double the Federal debt from $6 to $12 trillion, increase funding on defense, increase funding for homeland defense and security, and then shrink domestic discretionary and at the same time double the Federal debt. That is a legacy we will leave to our children if everything goes as is predicted. I happen to think this fiscal policy makes little sense. If we are going to cut taxes, let's make sure we have a priority in terms of the value system we want to exhibit as we cut taxes. I say those who have reached their declining income years and who are now paying higher taxes because of this provision put in 10 years ago deserve the opportunity to see this provision repealed, and my amendment does exactly that. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask if the Senator from Iowa wishes to use some of his time at this point.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was unable to hear.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not object, but I want to clarify with the Chair, do I control the time on the amendment on this side?

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me briefly describe the amendment I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Baucus. This amendment deals with repealing the 1993 provision that would increase the amount of Social Security income received by a senior citizen to be reported for tax purposes. Let me describe the history of this a bit and then talk about why I believe we ought to do it. For a good many years after Social Security was created, the Social Security receipts that a senior citizen would receive would not be required to be reported for tax purposes on their income tax return. It was exempt income. Then at one point the Congress decided that one-half of the payments for Social Security that go to a recipient should be described as income on their income tax return. So we went for a long while with 50 percent of the Social Security payments to senior citizens being required to be reported for tax purposes. In 1993, in a rather large piece of legislation that moved this country towards a different fiscal policy in a very significant way-- the results of which throughout the 1990s expanded the economy, created jobs, did a number of things--one of the provisions was to increase from 50 percent to 85 percent the amount of income that would be required to be subject to income tax and reported on the tax return for single beneficiaries with incomes over $34,000, married couples income over $44,000. So moving that 50 percent to 85 percent now means that roughly 8 million senior citizens pay an average increased income tax of about $1,500 a piece per year. I propose that we repeal that provision, go back to previous law which is a 50-percent reporting requirement. Let me talk for a moment about the Social Security issue and senior citizens. There is discussion on the Senate floor--and there will be much more, I expect--that this tax proposal that comes to the Senate will use all of the trust funds that are to be set aside for Social Security to pay for tax cuts. I don't think that is going to be disputed. I don't think that is subject to contest. There will not be Social Security trust funds if we pass this tax cut. This is a circumstance where upper income Americans will receive very generous tax cuts and senior citizens will see their Social Security trust funds depleted in order to finance it. I mentioned yesterday that on page 4 of the Budget Act, which brings us to the floor under reconciliation, the description of what is happening to the debt is it goes from $6.7 trillion to $12 trillion in a decade. Some say: That is not much to worry about. Don't worry about debt. I don't understand that. The debt, of course, is going to be inherited by our children because they will inherit this economy and this country. We are saying to them: We have a new plan. Our fiscal policy plan will double the Federal debt to $12 trillion in 10 years. I have never heard of a plan doubling the debt described as a success. But that is what I am hearing in the Senate. This is a plan that is gearing this country towards long-term economic solvency, economic opportunity, growth, hope, and most especially jobs by doubling the Federal debt to $12 trillion--a rather curious argument. I managed to teach economics for a couple of years. I don't think there is anything in any book anywhere that would have you teach this lesson. This is apparently a new form of economic theory. I recall the book written by Tom Brokaw called ``The Greatest Generation.'' I have visited with many of the folks described in that book, the folks who lie on their belly on the sands of Normandy, risking their lives for their country, seeing their comrades die in foxholes beside them, those who were asked to go halfway around the world to fight for liberty and did so without complaint, never asked for much, but were told by this country a couple things: When you get back from serving your country, we will provide free health care for life for you in the veterans health care system. That turned out to be a promise this Congress is unwilling to keep, regrettably. They also were told: When you come back, there will be a Social Security system you can count on; you can rely on. Of course, what is happening now is we have people who don't support that system, don't believe we ought to keep the promise, don't believe trust funds ought to include the word ``trust.'' If I can digress for a moment, I recall one day going to a veterans hospital in Fargo, ND, about which I have told my Senate colleagues before. When we talk about the greatest generation and senior citizens, I went to a veterans hospital on a Sunday morning to provide the medals that had been earned by a Native American veteran. His name was Edmond Young Eagle. He was dying of lung cancer. I learned later that he died a week after I had been there. His sisters asked if we could get his medals, and so I did. I presented them to him at the VA hospital that Sunday morning. The doctors and nurses gathered, and his sisters were there. We cranked up his bed so that he was in a seated position, and I pinned the medals he had earned during the Second World War on his pajama top. Edmond Young Eagle never had much in life. He fought in Africa and in Europe, and he went where this country asked him to go. He risked his life and served America with great distinction. He came back to live on the reservation, and he never had very much, never had a very good life. He had it pretty tough. That day, on a Sunday morning, having the medals that he earned 50 years previously pinned on his pajama tops, Edmond Young Eagle, 7 days from dying of lung cancer, said: ``This is one of the proudest days of my life.'' He didn't have much, but he deeply valued the service he had given his country. I told him how much this country valued the service he had provided and how proud we were of him. Edmond Young Eagle and millions of others have answered the call to serve this country in so many ways. I talk about the greatest generation. Yes, it was the soldiers and it was ``Rosie the Riveter'' back then. Moving forward, so many people have served this country, and this country made a bargain with them and a promise to them. We said to them: If you will pay from your paycheck, every time you receive a paycheck, a tax that goes into a trust fund to fund something called Social Security, when you reach retirement age, that Social Security payment will be there for you. Yes, we want you to save and invest yourself, but at least this will be a basic insurance retirement payment for you. We have always made that promise. In fact, we changed that promise in 1983 and said: You know what? Because the largest baby crop in the history of this country will retire after the turn of the century--and that is called the war babies, the group of babies who came after the soldiers came home after the Second World War and the largest outpouring of affection in the history of the country occurred, and we had so many babies born, the largest baby crop in the history of America. They will begin to retire now. When they retire and hit the retirement rolls, then we have maximum strain on the Social Security system. So in 1983, we put in place a little different approach. The approach was to say we are actually going to collect more money than we spend on a current basis in order to have a trust fund balance that begins to save so that the resources are there when the baby boomers retire. That is what the trust fund is about. I mentioned that if we decide to increase the Federal debt--as is the case in the bill brought to the floor of the Senate, and as was the case with respect to the Budget Act--from $6 trillion roughly to $12 trillion, there won't be a Social Security trust fund. It is to say that that which is to be put away in a trust fund for Social Security will be used as an offset to provide tax cuts for Donald Trump. I know I should not use his name, but he likes to have his name used. I think he is an interesting guy, a good businessman and investor. He does very well. He puts his name on his buildings, so he certainly won't mind my using his name. The question is, Should we decide that the trust funds we are trying to save for the future, which we need when the baby boomers retire, will be used as offsets so that we can give Donald Trump, or others in the upper income bracket in the country, large tax cuts? Is that what you would sit around a table and decide as an American family that represents the priorities, values, and needs? Is that what you would decide we ought to do now? Is that the urgency for our country in public policy? I don't think so. In addition to trying to save money in a trust fund, in 1993 we changed the mechanisms by which we assessed taxes, and especially with respect to senior citizens. We said: We will require you to report more of our Social Security payments as income on your tax returns--from 50 percent to 85 percent. That means about 8 million senior citizens now pay $1,500 a year in additional taxes. I wish we had not done that in 1993. I voted for a bill that included it because it had a lot of things in it that put this country back on track, but I wasn't pleased that was in it. Twice since then, I have voted to try to repeal it. Now if we are going to have a substantial change in tax laws and evaluate who ought to get a tax break and who should not, and where should we cut taxes or where should we not, perhaps we ought to consider this at the top of the list. Why not make this change now? Why not go back to the 50 percent? That is where it was. Why not say that senior citizens--those who reached their declining income years--are those who ought to get the tax breaks? That is what my amendment does. It is fairly simple. Senior citizens are living longer and better lives. Really, people say we have all these problems with Social Security and Medicare. Do you know what they are? They are problems of success. Just go back to the old life expectancy. People are living longer and better lives. I know a woman who is 89 years old. She bought a car a while back, and she used 5-year financing. God bless her. I have an uncle who is 81 years old. He runs in the Senior Olympic events. He has 43 gold medals. He runs the 400 and the 800. Thirty years ago when one reached 80 years of age, they had to find a La-Z-Boy. You were then at that age where it was time to find an easy chair because you were not going to run races or buy a car and finance it for 5 years. Now things have changed in a very dramatic way. People are living longer and much better lives. But it is true that as they live longer lives, they reach a period of time when their income declines. Inevitably, they stop working and retire. Their income declines. As they reach the declining income years, then the question of what kinds of taxes they pay is a very important question. Do they, as some are required, go into a grocery store, where the pharmacy is in the back, and have to ask themselves: Should I buy groceries first so I can see how much I have left for prescription drugs? Of course, they make those choices. When they reach their declining income years, the question is, What should their tax obligation be? How should we construct this tax obligation? My amendment is devastatingly simple: Let's relieve them of that 30 percent in extra income on Social Security they are required to report, which will save 8 million people $1,500 a year. These are not the top-income folks. These are folks who have retired and now have less income than they had during their working years. In many cases, they are folks who saved and are trying to help their kids and grandkids. They have less income, and they are now in the last 10 years, and they are required to pay higher taxes. This provision will relieve them of some of that burden. I was thinking the other day about this tax debate because it is the case that some will benefit and some will not. There is an old saying: When you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul being grateful. The fact is, this bill is going to make some people in this country very grateful--but it is not the senior citizens, unless we pass this amendment; it is the folks at the very top of the income ladder. We have people come to the floor of the Senate and say the big priority here is to exempt dividends from taxation. First of all, most dividends are not double taxed. I will make that point. Second, if you want to talk about double taxation, why talk about double taxation just for the top of the income heap--those who clip coupons to get unearned income to the tune of millions of dollars a year? Why talk about them being exempt? Why do you have a philosophy that says let's exempt investment and tax work? What kind of value system is that? Nobody is saying let's exempt work, let's just exempt investment. I don't understand that. The tax system ought to be about values. But if you are talking about double taxation, which I think is the principle by which some brought to the floor this issue of dividends, how about double taxation of Social Security? That is a good example. Wages. We tax on your wage, you put some money away, and then you come back and get a Social Security payment, and you have to pay a tax on part of that. It is 85 percent now. I propose 50 percent. Double taxation on Social Security. Is that more or less important? I guess you could talk about almost anything, could you not? Go buy a car this afternoon. You pay taxes on the wages you earn, and when you buy a car, they are going to charge a big old excise tax. Double taxation. So the question I have is, When some people apparently got bottled water and sat around a big old mahogany table and started thinking, the biggest problem in America is double taxation so let's try to get rid of that, how did they come up with the notion that dividends represented that priority? Were there people smoking Cohibas there who were getting a lot of dividends and said: The biggest problem for me is that I get $10 million of dividends and, by God, that is double taxation? Is that where that came from? Or were there perhaps some senior citizens who were supposed to be there and their chairs were empty? I assume they would have said: Double taxation? Here is an example of double taxation. Help us. No, that is not the priority. The priority is not about helping them. The priority is helping the folks at the top and then saying: And if we do that, we are going to create a massive amount of new jobs in America. We have heard this argument before--massive new jobs--new jobs. Jobs is a four-letter word, but it is a good one, as long as jobs are present someplace. We went through this with a very large tax cut 2 years ago, and now we have 2.3 million fewer jobs. It might be because other events happened. They certainly did. One wonders, if the first dose of medicine makes you sick, whether you ought to trot out the same bottle and label another batch to an unsuspecting public. Is there a time perhaps when we decide maybe the way we create new jobs in America is to put the economy back on track and say we are not going to double the debt, we are not going to run the largest deficits in history, and we are not going to tell the working folks who represent, in my judgment, the engine of our economy and of our country: By the way, you do not matter much. I will finish my remarks. I am going afield. The fact is, in the Senate, you speak when you have the opportunity to do so. My amendment deals with senior citizens. I am trying to describe some of the circumstances that would persuade senior citizens to think they have not been treated fairly in this bill, and this is a way to remedy that. It seems to me both political parties have something to offer this country that is constructive in discussing taxation and economic policy. I happen to think those on the Republican side are a little better at trying to make sure we tamp down spending. They are a little better at that than we are. Sometimes I do not think they have the judgment they should have when they tamp down spending, but the fact is they are a little better at it than we are. It seems to me we are a little better at the notion of how you do things that give people confidence in the future that can provide the buoyancy, the growth, and the lift to the American economy. Getting the best of what both parties have to offer is better than getting the worst of either. I think often we get the worst either party can offer this country. My proposal is just to begin to amend this tax bill. I am not saying the bill is worthless. There are some provisions in this bill that have great worth, some provisions I support. The child tax credit and others, I think, make sense. We should do what is contained in these provisions, even as we try to put this economy on track so that the numbers add up. There is not any way the numbers add up. My colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, has spoken on the floor at great length about this issue. We also were together yesterday at a presentation. Even as we do these things, some of which have great worth and some of which, in my judgment, are just waving a flag to the upper income folks in America to say our party is still with you--those on the other side of the aisle--it seems to me you need to do them in the context of saying to the American people that the future of this economy is not going to be a future mired in debt and choking on yearly deficits. I will make one final point. As we do this, understand that what is being proposed now is the largest deficits in history, in fiscal policy, on top of the largest trade deficits in history. Those two problems together potentially can cause very significant problems for the value of this country's currency. As Mr. Friedman says in ``The Lexus and the Olive Tree,'' when the electronic herd runs and begins to move to other currencies, it has a profound impact on your economy, and we should be concerned about that. To come back to my amendment, this amendment is about priorities-- what is important and what is not; what should we do and what should we not do. It seems to me one of the high priorities for us in dealing with reducing taxes ought to be to say to senior citizens, among them the greatest generation and others who are struggling and who are trying to make sure they get through these difficult times, those who have reached their lowest income years: We are going to repeal that portion of the law that was passed 10 years ago. We are going to do it because we believe the 8 million people who are now required to pay $1,500 apiece in additional taxes ought to be relieved of that burden. As I indicated, I have on two previous occasions voted to repeal this tax. It has never gotten done. I know there is disagreement as to whether it should get done. I believe it should get done because, frankly, this is double taxation. It is not just dividends. It is this as well. I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleague, Senator Baucus from Montana, and I assume many other colleagues would like to cosponsor it before they vote. I hope we have a vote on it. I did not mention this will be paid for by offsets. We would not accelerate the scheduled rate reductions in the highest rates, and we would strike the dividend income relief in the bill. We do not increase taxes. If someone stands up and says what you are going to do is increase taxes with your offset, that is not the case. There is no increase in taxes in this amendment, but we do not accelerate the top rates and, at the same time, we decide not to proceed with the dividend income tax relief in the bill, the bulk of which goes to upper income Americans. I hope, perhaps, this amendment will be accepted on a voice vote. If that is not the case, we will have some debate and then I am hoping we will have a successful record vote. Perhaps I will be inspired to speak again after I have heard the debate on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I knew I talked fast, but I didn't think I finished all 7 minutes then. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian as well. I wanted to make a point in response to something said earlier that, well, if this amendment passes, the tax cuts for American families will be gone. That is simply not the case. I will describe that I don't, with this amendment, change the child tax credit. That moves to $1,000. It has nothing to do with that. That stays in place. I don't propose changing expensing to $75,000. That stays in place. The increase in the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, exemption stays in place. Acceleration to the 10 percent bracket stays in place. Acceleration to the 15 percent bracket stays in place. My point is that a lot of things are said on the floor of the Senate, and they are often said by someone who might mean them, but they might be mistaken. It is a mistake to say that this amendment somehow, in some way, jeopardizes tax cuts to most American families. It doesn't. It simply does not. The only question the Senate will be voting on with respect to this amendment is the following: Do we, at long last, repeal the provision put in place 10 years ago? And, yes, many voted 10 years ago for that large package and put the country on track, and that led to awfully good economic times. But do we repeal that provision? I felt 10 years ago it would be better not to have that provision in the package. I have on two occasions voted to repeal it. Let's try again. If we are on the floor saying there will be very large tax cuts, let's ask the question: Should this tax cut be one of them, a tax cut for senior citizens that says to them the $1,500 in additional taxes that 8 million of you are now paying, because we changed the rules on what percent of the Social Security receipts you get should be reported for tax purposes, should that be cut? The answer is yes. While we are talking about double taxation, yes, some dividends-- fewer than 50 percent--are subject to double taxation in this country, but all of this is double taxation--all of this. Senior citizens pay a tax on their wage when they are working. When they retire, they get a Social Security benefit and pay a tax on now 85 percent of that. That is double taxation. If, in fact, the culprit we are chasing is double taxation, why do we start with dividends first? What about double taxation that results in Social Security recipients being taxed while they work on the same income we will now tax when they retire? It does not make any sense to me. The only question is not one of motives of someone who might be supporting this or offering it, as my colleagues suggested a moment ago, the question is when the roll is called, do you believe we ought to repeal this tax increase that senior citizens face? My answer is yes, let's repeal this tax increase. That ought to have a priority over other provisions in the bill. One last point. The Senator from Montana clarified the point with respect to Medicare. I appreciate he did that. I failed to do it. This bill does not jeopardize the Medicare trust funds at all. They are restored in the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague from Iowa just won a debate we were not having. That is an interesting thing to do. I wasn't proposing this amendment as one that would dramatically reduce the Federal debt. I never suggested that or proposed it. My point is, we lost on that issue when my colleague and his party passed in the Senate this budget which, on page 4, says they want to double the Federal debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion. They passed that without my vote. I didn't support it. But I didn't propose this amendment saying it will reduce the Federal debt. I am saying this: Since they won, and since they are going to cut taxes, the question is of choice and priority: Which of the taxes ought to be cut? Which ought to be cut first? My amendment simply says I think it is more important to cut these taxes for senior citizens--8 million of them who pay $1,500 a year, at this point, more than I think they should pay. I think the priority ought to be to cut taxes for them at this point. Is it more important to do that than to, as I said earlier, cut dividend taxation? I think it is. I think those individuals are in the highest income levels. Again, I hope Donald Trump won't mind, but since he names everything after himself, and he is a very successful businessman, he probably doesn't mind my using his name. He is at the top of the income ladder, and God bless him. But it is a reasonable thing to ask: what is the priority? Is it providing tax exemptions that will provide large tax cuts to those at the top or to provide tax exemptions for senior citizens who have reached the lower part of their income in their lives and are struggling to make it? What I propose has nothing to do with the debt. This doesn't reduce the debt. I am not saying it does. If we are going to cut taxes, the question ought to be one of choice and priority. That is what this amendment is. I am going back to the question of debt because it is the very reason I voted against the budget in the first place. We cannot come to the floor and say this debt situation ``isn't real'' because it may not happen because we have this policy or plan that will grow the economy, and if and when we do these debts won't appear. I am sorry, that just doesn't wash. This plan is a plan that says if we get all we want, if we get this economic growth, if we create these jobs, if our plan is approved, we will then double the Federal debt. Are we concerned about that? You bet your life we are. Are some others around here concerned about it? No. There is a lot of thumbing of suspenders and saying, ``Aw shucks, this doesn't matter.'' Well, it matters. Our kids and their kids will inherit this debt. It will be their burden to pay this. We just came through a war, and God bless the soldiers we called on to ask to fight that war. This country is enormously blessed that it lasted only a very short time. But I think it is very unusual that America sends her sons and daughters to war but says we don't choose to pay for it at this point. It is a very costly enterprise. Nobody is saying we ought to pay for this. What we said was: When you come back from the war, you can come back to the welcome arms of your family and then inherit the burden of paying the costs. That is my point about the debt and deficit. Have I used my 7 minutes?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Madam President, my understanding is that when I asked whether I had used the 7 minutes, the response was not accurate and that there are, in fact, 3 minutes left.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, for the remainder of this week we are going to be discussing some very important fiscal policy issues dealing with increasing Federal debt limits and proposals to reduce taxes in our country. We will have a substantial amount of debate about both of those issues. Both of them relate to the question of whether our country's economy is growing or whether it is stagnant, whether it is producing jobs or losing jobs. I want to talk just a bit about that. In the last couple of weeks, we have heard all of the discussions about our country having lost some 2 million jobs over the last 2\1/2\ years. In fact, in the last week or so even Michael Jordan got laid off. It tells you a little something about the state of our economy, I guess. Some while ago, I was reading about an opening for the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile driving position. They had an opening for a driver for the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile. Most people remember what that is because they have seen it in parades or on television. So they posted this in the newspaper: We have an opening for a driver for the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile. Eight hundred college graduates applied to be the driver for the Wienermobile. That also says a little something about the state of our economy and the state of jobs. As we discuss these issues of jobs and economic expansion, I think the first place to start is with this understanding: Both political parties in the Senate want the same thing for our country. We want an economy that expands, that provides opportunity and jobs and growth and hope for the American people. That is what we all want. There is no disagreement about the goal here. The question is, What is the menu of policies we can implement in the Congress that might help achieve this goal? I recall, going back 10 years to the year 1993, when our economy was at that point stagnant, in deep trouble. We had the largest deficits in this country's history at that point. President Clinton came to office, and he said: I want to put this economy of ours on a different track. I want to change some policies. And they were controversial. They passed the Senate by one vote, and passed the House by one vote, were signed into law by the President, and put this country on a different track altogether. They were not easy to vote for. I voted for them. But the easiest vote was simply to say no. In the 1990s--as a result of fiscal policy that the American people, that Wall Street, that Main Street, that the bond market could look at and say: This is a sound policy. It puts the country on the right track. It gets rid of these Federal budget deficits. It makes tough choices--but people had confidence, and that confidence was manifested by doing the things you might not otherwise do. If you are confident about your job, about your family, about the future, about your security, then you buy a home, buy a car, take a trip, make a purchase, and do the kinds of things that manifest that confidence you have in the future for yourself and your family and your country. And that is the expansion side of the American economy. In the 1990s, this economy grew and grew and grew. Millions and millions of new jobs were created in the private sector in this economy. But things have changed. We have run into some tough sledding these days. Let me describe some of the circumstances that occurred. We began to run into an economic slowdown which then became a recession. On top of that recession, we had the terrorist attack in this country on 9/11. We had the bursting of the technology bubble and the pancaking of values in the stock market. We had the largest corporate scandals in American history. Companies such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, and others were splashed across the front pages of America's newspapers. We saw some of America's best known executives led away in handcuffs. And we had a range of other circumstances that caused great uncertainty in this country. As a result, instead of gaining jobs, in the last couple of years we have lost jobs. At the start of this period, President Bush was elected and came to town and said: My policy is, I want a $1.7 trillion tax cut over 10 years. And the reason I want that tax cut, he said, is because I can see surpluses as far as the eye can see. This money belongs to the American people, and we ought to give it back. If we are going to have surpluses for 10 years, let's put in place permanent, deep tax cuts for 10 years. Some of us said: Well, we support tax cuts, but perhaps we ought to be a bit conservative. What if something happens? What if we run into some tough times? What if we find some white water on these economic waters of ours? What if we find some difficult circumstances? No, never mind about that, they said. This is about tax cuts right now that are permanent. And they won--by one vote. And the result is long-term, permanent tax cuts. Very shortly thereafter we discovered that we had a recession, and then the terrorist attack, then the war on terrorism, and corporate scandals. And guess what happened. Very quickly, those long-term, big-budget surpluses turned into large projected Federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see. So things have changed dramatically. What do we do about that? The American people are concerned about the future. They lack the confidence that is necessary to provide a boost for the expansionary phase of the economy. What do we do about that? The President says: I have a recipe. My menu is, let's cut taxes once again. Let me describe in economic terms where we find ourselves. In fiscal policy, we have this year a budget deficit of over $1 billion a day that we spend more than we take in--over $1 billion a day. That is our deficit, every day, 7 days a week, 365 days in the coming year. It is pretty hard to be more stimulative to the economy than that. You talk about Keynesian; that is Keynesian economics. Those are very large deficits. How can you be more stimulative than that to the economy? That is a huge fiscal policy stimulus. Monetary policy: The Federal Reserve Board has driven short-term interest rates down about as far as they can go, a percent and a quarter. It is hard to see a monetary policy that is more stimulative than that. So we have policies in place, both monetary and fiscal policies, that are stimulative. Yet our economy is barely moving. It is not producing new jobs; it is losing jobs. So what do we do about that? The President says: Let's cut taxes again. What the President has said is that he wants to cut taxes at this moment. I want to show the consequences of that. On page 4 of the Budget Act, the concurrent resolution passed by both the House and the Senate, it says: Debt subject to limit. This is the Federal debt. It says, in fiscal year 2003, it will be $6.7 trillion. The President says: If I get all that I want from you, Members of Congress, I propose we grow the Federal debt from just over $6 trillion to $12 trillion. What he is saying is: Adopt my plan and double the Federal debt in 10 years. I don't know, I come from a really small town, but that doesn't seem to me like it is moving forward. It seems to me like this is losing ground. We have lost 2 million jobs. We are proposing to double the Federal debt in the next 10 years. I just don't understand how this inspires confidence in the American people that we somehow have our fiscal house in order. I don't understand where conservatives are hiding. I thought being a conservative was to say: Let's be a bit conservative in the way we deal with this. Let's make sure we will have a sound dollar in the future. Let's make sure we have our fundamentals right. Let's make sure we are moving towards some balance in the budget. And let's make sure we are investing in things that produce big dividends for the people. Let me say what the President has talked about. He says his dividend for the American people is to cut taxes. That all sounds good. The easiest lifting in American politics by far is for any politician to say: My proposal is to cut taxes. I guarantee you, that makes you popular. How about the alternative that says: My proposal is to double the Federal debt? The President is not going to say that, but that is what he is proposing. He won't get on Air Force One and go to Indianapolis to say: I have a great proposal for the people; I propose we double the Federal debt to $12 trillion. I would just like to hear it once because here it is. It is in black and white. It is not me saying it. It is the President proposing it here on this document. That is the end result of this fiscal policy. Will that inspire confidence about the future? It will not. So we will have a debate this week on these proposals, and these proposals will be to increase the Federal debt limit by nearly $1 trillion. Let's make sure we understand that. It is actually just $984 billion. It is hard to keep billions and trillions separate in the Congress some days. They have constructed this debt ceiling increase so that it is just under $1 trillion. So let's understand what this means. We will vote this week to increase the debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion. I want to tell you how many times we will do that again in order to meet what the President proposes to happen with this fiscal policy. We will increase it $1 trillion now, $1 trillion later, $1 trillion after that, another $1 trillion later, another $1 trillion, and finally another $1 trillion. Those debt ceiling increases will all be necessary in order to meet the President's objective with a fiscal policy that results in doubling the Federal debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion. Is that putting this country on track? Is that making tough choices? In McCullough's book I have mentioned previously, John Adams writes to Abigail frequently, as he is serving his country in France and England. He writes to Abigail plaintively asking, in different words: Where is the leadership going to come from? Where on Earth, he asks 200 years ago, will the leadership come from to help create this new country of ours? Who will provide it? He laments: There is only us. There is myself, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Mason, Madison, Thomas Jefferson. There is only us. Of course, we understand now, with the hindsight of two centuries, we had some of the greatest talent in human history thinking through how to put this country of ours together. But it seems to me that it is important to constantly ask the question: Where is the leadership going to come from?--in this case on fiscal policy. We have good people on all sides of the political aisle. The President is a good person. Members of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, come here because they have a passion in their heart to want to do good things for the country. They all share the same goal. They want this country to expand and provide opportunity and jobs and prosperity. The fact is, they have different visions about how to approach the goal. Some believe this economic engine runs because you put something in at the top and somehow it trickles down; that which is put in at the top one day will benefit everyone. There are others who believe you give everyone a little something to work with, jobs, especially for working people, and things percolate up, and this engine runs best that way. We have had plenty of opportunities to test those theories. Let me submit that the test in recent years has been quite clear: Put your economic house in order. Give people some confidence that you are making tough choices, that you will carve out a future for their children and grandchildren that is one we can be proud of, and have them inherit a growing economy rather than be saddled with the burden of debt. If we do that, it is quite clear that people will do what is necessary to expand this economy. If we don't, the economy languishes and contracts. I will offer some amendments to the tax bill. I don't intend to vote for a large permanent tax cut on top of what we did in 2001. I don't intend to vote for it because every single dollar that is used for this tax cut--most of which will go to upper income people--is going to come from the Social Security trust funds. Let me use Donald Trump's name because he doesn't mind. Donald Trump puts his name on everything, and I am sure he doesn't mind. He is a very successful American businessman. Assume that a successful American businessman makes $1 million a year in net income. My assumption is that Donald Trump does much better than that. But assume he made $1 million a year in income. Under the President's plan, he will get a $90,000-a-year tax cut. Now, I have just described to you that this process is going to double the Federal debt. You know and I know and everyone in the Chamber knows it is going to make it much more difficult to fund Medicare and Social Security. This plan is going to use the trust funds that we were supposed to save for Social Security. My Aunt Blanche is dependent upon Social Security. And Aunt Blanche is not going to like it when she discovers that Congress has decided to use the trust fund surpluses to provide a tax cut to people at the top of the income ladder. That is just not something she and many other senior citizens want to have happen in this country. It is not something they expect the Congress or the Government to do; yet, we are just hours away from making that mistake. Let me try to describe a couple of amendments I am going to offer as we go through this process. There is a $323 million expenditure included in the large tax cut legislation that will be coming to us from the Senate Finance Committee that is interesting and troubling to me as well. Do you know what it is for? It is to have the IRS go out and hire private collection companies to collect Federal tax bills. I will say that again. In this bill is $323 million, I believe, to have the Internal Revenue Service go out and hire private collection agencies to collect taxes. That is quite a departure. We spend a lot of money on the IRS. They want to hire--the Finance Committee and those in Congress who support this--private collection agencies. Let me give you an example of what happened. They did a pilot project of this in 1996, a test. I didn't support it then and I don't support it now. I will offer an amendment to strike this. They did a little test in which they hired private collection agencies to collect tax debt. The test was a failure. Among other things, an IRS internal audit found some collectors violated their contracts with the IRS by placing telephone calls outside the time frames specified by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In this little test, there were 294 calls placed before 8 a.m., or after 9 p.m. The earliest call was received at 4:19 a.m. How would you like to get a call from a debt collection agency at 4:19 in the morning about a tax bill? I don't support that at all. The IRS ought to collect their own receivables. They ought not turn them over to private collection agencies. This is, after all, the most sensitive of people's financial information. That test also discovered problems with the safeguarding of that information. I am going to offer an amendment that will strike that provision. I don't know whether it will prevail, but it is a terrible idea to suggest we ought to spend hundreds of millions of dollars turning some of the Internal Revenue Service collection rolls over to private collection agencies. I will, with my colleague, Senator Reid, offer an amendment dealing with the issue of concurrent receipt for retired military personnel. At the moment, as most in this Chamber know, if somebody served our country for 20 years in the armed services and they were disabled during that period, they cannot receive both their full military retirement pension as well as veterans' disability compensation. That is outrageous and that ought to be changed. Of all the things to do to disabled veterans, this makes no sense at all. We tried to fix this last year and the President blocked it by threatening to veto the Defense Authorization bill. I hope to offer an amendment with Senator Reid to solve this problem.. I also intend to offer an amendment that will provide a trigger, and perhaps some other colleagues will. If they do, I will probably not offer this. But there needs to be an amendment that decides that we will have these tax cuts, provided we have the capability to offer them. If the on-budget deficit exceeds a certain amount, or the Secretary of the Treasury cannot certify that it such deficit doesn't exceed a certain amount, two things would happen: One, we would freeze some of the tax cuts and, two, we would identify the spending in Federal agencies that represents overhead burden and cut that spending by 5 percent at the same time. So you have a combination of both delaying a tax cut and also cutting some Federal spending. I believe also the income tax increase on Social Security benefits that occurred in 1993 should be repealed. It seems to me the question is, what has more priority, dividend exclusion for those at the upper income level, or dealing with this Social Security tax increase? I will submit an amendment to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security payments. These and other things, I think, represent a number of approaches we ought to take. Also, this week when we deal with the increase in the debt limit, we are going to increase that by nearly $1 trillion--but not with my vote, because I didn't vote for the fiscal policy that creates this. But for those who support it, have at it. You really ought to vote for this increased debt limit. I am going to also propose an trade deficit amendment. The structure is not complete, but I will make this point. We have a debt limit with respect to fiscal policy in this country. When you reach that limit, bump up against it, you either have to extend it, or cut back in certain areas, or freeze spending. The fact is, there is no similar limit with respect to the trade debt. The trade deficit on an annual basis is $470 billion at the moment and growing rapidly. It is Katie bar the door, whatever it is, it is; nobody has to approve it, nobody has to do anything about it. The President and the trade ambassador and the Congress can sleep through it and never utter a sentence, knowing that all their newspaper friends--the major daily newspapers, friends of the Republicans and Democrats who support this trade policy--will never say a critical word about the trade deficit threatening to undermine this country's economy as well. I will offer an amendment that deals with that. I will finish by saying this. What most American families want from their Government is pretty simple. It is what they sit around the supper table and talk about. There are very simple questions they ask each other. The questions are: Do I have a decent job? Does my job pay well? Do I have job security? Do I have decent benefits on my job? Are we sending our kids to schools we are proud of? Do we live in a safe neighborhood? Do Grandpa and Grandma have access to good health care when they reach their limited income years? Are we treating our two uncles who served this country in the Second World War fairly on veterans' health care? All of these are issues families ask about every day. It is what matters to them. It is what makes a difference in their lives. The answers to these questions, in many cases, are what has made this a great country. Just go around the globe and you will see the same green places where there are trees and grass, and you will see the same ground where there is sand and you will see a world that looks pretty much the same. But there is one spot that is dramatically different, and that is this great country of ours. We are lucky to be Americans and lucky to be alive now. We have inherited an obligation for us not to just think about today, but to think about our kids and about tomorrow. The one thing that has made this country, I think, really a remarkable, unique country is that we decided two centuries ago that every child in the country shall be able to become whatever their God- given talents allow them to become. We are not going to separate kids in the education process and say you are going to go to this school, or you will go to trade school and you will go to college. We don't do that. We say every kid who enters a classroom has the opportunity to be whatever their God-given talent allows. It is a wonderful thing. This notion of universal education is a wonderful thing for our country. I told this story before. I will do it again. When I came to Congress, the oldest member was Claude Pepper from the State of Florida. He had, behind his desk, above his chair, two pictures I have never forgotten that were autographed to him. One picture was of Orville and Wilbur Wright making the first airplane flight. It was autographed to Congressman Claude Pepper with admiration from Orville Wright. Before he died, he apparently autographed a picture for Claude Pepper. And Claude Pepper had an autographed picture of Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon. One human being in a picture of the first person to fly and leave the Earth, and the first person to walk on the Moon. What is the difference between those two autographed pictures in one person's lifetime? The distance is education--the science, the math, and the learning that allows us as a country to produce men and women who learned to fly and then take off and fly to the Moon. That is how important education is. It is about progress in this country. The question for us, it seems to me, as we consider this issue of fiscal policy and tax cuts, is about choices. What is it in the choices we make in public policy in America that strengthens our country? What produces dividends, growth, opportunity, and hope in our country? What makes our country unique? Those are the choices we have to make, and part of that, in my judgment, has always been we have been willing to choose the kinds of things that give people an opportunity. Education is about opportunity. Education, health care--one can think of a whole series of these policies that we have over many years said: Let's set these policies in place to give people opportunity. The policies we see today coming from the Finance Committee and from the White House are to say the choice for us in every circumstance, whether it is tax cuts versus Medicare for the elderly, tax cuts versus Social Security, tax cuts versus education, tax cuts versus veterans' health care, you name it, the choice for us is tax cuts. I know there are some in this country who say that is a pretty logical choice because, frankly, we pay too much in taxes. The fact is, with these tax cuts, we will inherit a deficit that will burden our children and their children. The President often says: This is your money; people should be able to keep more of their money. That is certainly true. It is also the case that this is your debt, and when this $6 trillion debt turns to a $12 trillion debt, the question is, Isn't this debt something with which we are saddling America's children and grandchildren, and is that sound public policy? Is that the seedbed for economic growth? Does that produce and inspire confidence in the American people about the future of this economy? The answer clearly is no. That is why my hope would be, in the coming days at least, that we could find some common ground. Perhaps there is an appetite for tax cuts that says we have to do this unabated under any circumstance, but there is perhaps another appetite by people who say: Let's do a series of things. Let's together both deal with Federal spending and Federal taxes and also the choices of investment in education, health care, and other issues. Let's do it in a way that represents sound thinking, sober thinking; in a way that gives people confidence and inspires them that we are going to have a better future. I do not know how this is going to come out this week. I worry a great deal that we have a viewpoint that has been expressed that says: There is only one way and that is our way. It is tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. You have big surpluses, then tax cuts. Big deficits, tax cuts. The economy is doing well, tax cuts. The economy is in the tank, tax cuts. It seems to me that for every politician who ever has run for public office, the instinctive reaction to understanding how to be popular is to propose tax cuts. The American people, in my judgment, deserve better than that. They deserve an answer to the question John Adams kept asking: Where is the leadership going to come from to make tough choices; choices that may not be so popular, not so attractive in the short run but, in the long run, will produce opportunity, economic growth, and new jobs? Those sometimes are choices that we are required to make in public service. I think this is one of those times. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Well, Mr. President, now that I have that off my chest, let me go on to talk about energy. I am proud to be on the floor of the Senate in support of the ethanol amendment, which is bipartisan. It is interesting to me that this legislation dealing with ethanol is an amendment that comes to the floor by virtue of Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, myself, Senator Talent, Senator Johnson, and so many others, with strong bipartisan support. It is saying: At least one part of this country's energy strategy that makes sense is to take the starch and sugars from a kernel of corn, ferment that, and get a drop of alcohol and extend America's energy supply. You do a couple things with that: You expand the opportunity for markets for agricultural products and help family farmers, and you actually grow your energy supply in America's farm fields by producing corn that can be then used to produce ethanol. What a remarkable thing to do. It makes good sense to extend our energy supply by producing ethanol. Now, let me talk a bit about what sets us up to do this. First, we have to have a serious discussion about America's energy future. I have spoken of this before, but I wish to do it very briefly again. We need to use fossil fuels in this country's future. There is no question about that: coal, oil, natural gas. We use them, and we will use them. But if our energy strategy is only that--if America's future energy strategy is only a dig and drill strategy--then it is a ``yesterday forever'' strategy. Every 25 years we can come to the floor of the Senate, we can have another debate about how much we are going to dig, how much we are going to drill, and probably satisfy our urge to speak. But we will not have satisfied this country's need for a different kind of energy strategy. So an energy bill that makes sense for this country's future is one that does dig and drill, with environmental safeguards, but it must do more than that. It should, first, include incentivized production, but, second, it should provide conservation measures, because a barrel of oil saved is a barrel of oil produced in our economy. Then, in addition to production and conservation, an energy bill that makes sense is an energy bill that has a title that deals with the efficiency of all of the appliances that we use in our daily lives. And, fourth, it should include a provision that deals with limitless and renewable sources of energy. That is what this amendment is about. So production, conservation, efficiency, and limitless and renewable sources of energy--that is what an energy bill is about, if it is balanced. Add in the limitless and renewable sources of energy, for my money, it means we should pole vault over all of these 25-year debates and say, we want to move to a new energy future. One hundred years ago, when you wanted to gas up an old Ford, a Model T Ford, you pulled up to the gas pumps, you stuck that hose in the gas tank and began pumping. One hundred years later, we do exactly the same thing. If you happened to have driven a Ford this morning, and stopped at a gas pump, you did exactly the same thing they did a century ago: You run gas through the car's carburetor. And God bless us, we have great cars, and we have fuel at every gas pump, and no waiting lines. That is the way we fuel our automobile, our transportation fleet. Let me describe what is happening with respect to energy in this country. If you look at the total demand for oil, and then look at transportation, you will see that the fastest rising demand for energy in this country, for oil particularly, is in transportation; it is in our vehicle fleet. That is where our demand for energy is rising. What I believe we should do is heed the words of President Bush, who said: Let's move to a hydrogen fuel cell future. When President Bush called for that in the State of the Union Address, I said: This makes great sense. I had previously introduced a piece of legislation suggesting the same. I suppose that is why I thought it made great sense. But the fact is, for this President to put his administration on the line in support of a hydrogen future with fuel cells is a very important step. To be sure, his plan is not very bold. I suggest that his plan is rather timid: in fact, it is $1.2 billion, half of which is new money, and part of which comes out of other important energy initiatives, particularly in renewables. But I don't want that to diminish the fact it is very important that this President--a Republican President, who comes from an oil State--says: Let's move to a different kind of energy future, especially with respect to transportation and the vehicle fleet. Let's see if your children, and our grandchildren, might not be able to turn the key on an automobile that uses hydrogen in fuel cells. Hydrogen is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. Hydrogen is in water. You can put up a windmill, with more efficient turbines, and take energy from the wind, produce electricity, and use that electricity--through the process of electrolysis--to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, and then store the hydrogen, and use that to power our vehicle fleet. That is one application: using wind energy to produce electricity to produce hydrogen. But there are so many ways to produce hydrogen, and it is everywhere. So what we have to do is begin to solve this problem of moving to a hydrogen future--the problem of production, the problem of transportation, storage, and infrastructure. But the fact is, although these are problems, they are not insurmountable. I drove a hydrogen car yesterday that was here on Capitol Hill. It is the second one I have driven. This was a General Motors car. One was United Technologies. Hydrogen vehicles are twice as efficient in getting power to the wheel as the internal combustion engine. Do you know what they put out of the tailpipe? Water vapor. What a wonderful thing: You find an engine that is twice as efficient, using a fuel cell, and you clean up the environment by putting water vapor out of the tailpipe of a vehicle. What a wonderful thing to do. Now, I can't tell you how important it is to have the President's support on this. I nearly tripled what the President wanted by pushing, along with Senator Domenici, and others in the Energy Committee, to say: Let's substantially increase the amount of resources we are going to put towards moving in this direction of a hydrogen future. This requires bold, big initiatives. So the bill on the floor is slightly over $3 billion. I would like it to be $6.5 billion. I would like targets and timetables. I would like to see 100,000 vehicles using fuel cells on America's roads by 2010. I would like to see 2.5 million vehicles on America's roads by 2020. Targets and timetables is the way we drive this issue. With research and development in a whole range of areas, and development of infrastructure, we can do this. We won't do it if we just revert back to what we have always done. When I was a little boy growing up in a town of 350-400 people, they decided to try to dig an oil well 5 miles from my little town. It was the biggest thing in the world. We were so excited when somebody said they would try to dig an oil well on Bon Woodruff's farm. We thought it was the biggest thing. I remember driving out there. We used to drive out there all the time, the whole town. We would all drive out to see where the oil well was. We would watch the rig being put up. When it got up, it had lights all over it. They were drilling day and night. People were driving out and parking, watching. There was nothing going on, just lights and a rig. In my town that was a big deal. It was a dry hole. They never got oil. But it was a pretty interesting several months. As a little boy, I thought about the drilling for oil, where we find oil abroad, and how we use oil to power our vehicle fleet. Fifty-five percent of that which we use comes from outside of our country. That doesn't make sense. Much of it comes from troubled parts of the world, a third from the Middle East. We could wake up some day and discover the supply of oil is cut off because of terrorists. Then America's economy would be flat on its back. The 55 percent foreign oil we are now dependent on is going to rise to 68 percent if we don't do something. What is the greatest demand? Transportation. We have to do something big and bold. We have to have an energy policy that says to the people: We will get out of this. We may never be completely independent, but we will sure be a whole lot less dependent on foreign sources of energy. That brings me to the amendment. The amendment dealing with ethanol. I am a big fan of growing part of our fuel in the farm fields. You grow that corn, take that ear of corn, take the kernels off, and with those kernels of corn you produce alcohol. It is important to farmers. It is a new market for their crop. It is important to our country's energy needs because it extends America's energy supply. MTBE, a fuel additive, will be phased out in this legislation. We are discovering when MTBE shows up in America's groundwater, it is harmful to health. We will get rid of it. When we do, it will dramatically increase the demand for ethanol across America. That demand will increase to nearly 5 billion gallons. That means we will see more and more plants built around the country that will use the agriculture feedstock, take the alcohol from it. You still have the protein feedstock left to feed to the cattle, and you have grown some energy in America's fields. It is, therefore, renewable. We are not using it up. It is renewable year after year. I am pleased that now for the first time we see a robust bipartisan group. It is not that it has not always been bipartisan; it has always been a bipartisan debate. But when you have the majority leader and minority leader leading an amendment, that is a big deal. Those of us who care about ethanol understand this is a moment in time in which we register strong support for moving in a different direction, for being bold. I talked about hydrogen and fuel cells. That is one part of being bold. The other part of renewable and limitless sources of energy is ethanol. There is more, including biodiesel, among others. So there is much to do. The legislation we have brought to the floor from the Energy Committee is imperfect. But it has some good features. We will add some additional features. Senator Domenici should be commended. He is a pleasure to work with. Senator Bingaman on our side of the aisle, ranking Democrat, is the same, a terrific Senator who has done a great job. The energy bill needs some strengthening. We need a Renewable Portfolio Standard to improve the future for renewable energy for electricity. We need a Renewable Fuels Standard, which includes the ethanol amendment. We need protections on the electricity title that do not now exist. I chaired hearings in the last year and a half with respect to what Enron Corporation did in the State of California and on the West Coast. When I said during that time that it looked to me like it was massive manipulation of electricity markets, and grand theft going on to the tune of billions of dollars for consumers in California and the West Coast, that was pooh-poohed by everybody. All the conservative columnists and others, Mr. Krauthammer and others, would write: Who are you kidding? There is no manipulation. Every time something likes this goes on, the Democrats claim there is manipulation. We now know there was grand theft going on. Massive criminal investigations are occurring. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which for a long while did its best imitation of a potted plant and decided it would not do anything while the people were victimized, has now said it was not just Enron, but there were a number of companies on the West Coast that decided to take the opportunity to shut down the electricity plants, short the load, drive up prices, and profiteer as a result of it. Strategies like Death Star, Get Shorty, Fat Boy. You don't know what Fat Boy is? Fat Boy was a strategy by which energy traders working for the Enron Corporation colluded to try to see if they could steal from consumers. Death Star, same thing; Get Shorty, there were a dozen of them and more. Even more than the strategies, which were written in memos that we now have, we also have the transcripts of telephone conversations in which they talk about how they will shut down the plant in order to short the load and drive up price. They moved electricity in and out of a couple of States in order to increase the price, in some cases tenfold in 24 hours. What is that called, except stealing? There are going to be people who go to jail for it. The electricity title in this bill must address these issues, wash trades, and others. It addresses a couple of them, but not nearly enough. We need to put consumer protections in here so what happened to the people in California does not ever happen again. We have a lot of people running around the country saying: We need to restructure the electricity title. We need to restructure electricity issues so there is massive competition. We have a bit of experience with that which tells us that when you have very big players who have the ability to control and monopolize markets, and you also have a consumer, if you don't have a referee in between making sure the big interests are not cheating, the little interests get trampled. That is what happened on the West Coast. It is not just petty theft. It is billions of dollars. My colleague who will speak following me, Senator Nelson of Florida, was a member of the subcommittee where we investigated these issues. Frankly, it made you sick to see what was going on. Finally FERC stepped in and imposed a price cap. Finally an investigation was undertaken. The Justice Department is involved. The fact is, we should not and will not pass an energy bill through the Congress without an electricity title that provides protections to make sure this never happens again. There will be other amendments. I am proud today to support this amendment, a bipartisan strong amendment on ethanol. We will also need to include a Renewable Portfolio Standard in the bill. We need to put in provisions that deal with consumer protections with respect to electricity. There is much yet to do. It is a pretty good start. This bill will advance America's energy interests, if we can add the amendments and add some protections. Following the war in Iraq, what we know exists in the Middle East, as well as all of the uncertainties around the world, if anybody still wonders whether we need an energy policy, they have been asleep. This country needs to make sure its economy, its way of life, the future for the American people is not held hostage by the whims, confrontations, tragedies and conflicts in other parts of the world. That is what a good energy strategy, a balanced energy strategy, will do for our future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Florida should know that I offered an amendment in the Energy Committee that failed, I believe, by one or two votes. I intend to offer it again on the floor. It is similar to legislation introduced in the Senate that creates an Apollo-like program on hydrogen and fuel cells. My belief is we ought to do for this as we did with respect to going to the moon. President Kennedy said let's put a person on the moon by the end of the decade. Sure enough, Neil Armstrong stepped off that ladder running and planted his foot on the surface of the moon by the end of the decade. It seems to me if this country really wants to effect substantial change, then you have to set goals and timetables. My proposal, which I introduced with a number of colleagues in the Senate--actually prior to the State of the Union Address in which the President announced his support for this initiative--is a $6.5 billion authorization over 10 years that sets targets and timetables and puts this country squarely behind an aggressive Apollo-type program, saying let's get there and, as a nation, let's aspire to reach a goal. Yes, I intend to offer it as an amendment to the energy bill.