Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I have not followed the order on the floor of the Senate today. I don't know whether the Senator from Utah has. I was told I would be recognized at 5:30 and was prepared to do that. If there has been a process today in which Republicans and Democrats follow each other precisely, then I will understand what the Senator from Utah is trying to do. If not, I am here. The reason I am here is to present remarks following the Senator from New York. If others wish to be involved in the line-up, I will be happy to entertain that. I guess I don't understand the circumstance under which the Senator from Utah is opposing this.

Mr. DORGAN. It was my intention to consume an hour, but I will not do that; it will be a half hour. I would certainly be accommodating to anybody else. I would like to speak, and others are not here. I don't intend to interrupt. If there is an order established, I do not want to interrupt that. I don't know that to be the case.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object--and I will now object--if the other side wishes to protect people who are not here in deference to those who are here, I expect the Senator from Utah would want us to do the same thing on this side of the aisle. If a Republican is waiting to speak, and a Democrat is not yet on the floor, but someone here says it is really the opportunity for the Democrats to speak even if the Republican is here, we will object. So I guess I understand the point the Senator from Utah is making. I will not object to his request as long as he understands that we will do that, I suppose. I don't think it is the most efficient way of handling things. Those who are on the floor and prepared to speak, I expect that is the way we ought to recognize people.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, continuing to reserve the right to object, if this is the process, I will simply at some appropriate point ask for a time certain to speak tomorrow and will be here promptly at that time. I am here now and those who the Senator from Utah is attempting to protect are not here. I will not object because I do not want to interrupt an order apparently they think on that side exists. If that, in fact, is the order, we will certainly make sure that is the case for people on both sides of the aisle as we proceed.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I do not think that is the most efficient use of time in the Senate. It seems to me those who are here want to be recognized to proceed. Recognizing it is not the most efficient use of time, I will not object to the request by the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak following the speech of the Senator from New York.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was reading a piece in a newspaper this morning that misquoted remarks I made on the floor of the Senate recently. The journalist got it plain wrong in this case. He indicated that Senator Dorgan feels that Saddam Hussein is not dangerous. Of course, I have never said that, would not say that, and whoever listened to my remarks previously either chose to reinterpret them in a way that is not accurate or chose to ignore what I said. Let me describe what I said. I talked about the dangers presented by North Korea. I talked about the importance of prosecuting the war on terrorism, and protecting this country against terrorist attacks. And I said that while Iraq and Saddam Hussein are a problem, we have to face these other issues as well. If today trucks are backing up to a plant in North Korea and moving fuel rods that will become processed and become part of a nuclear bombmaking process, and a bomb could be sold by North Korea to other countries, and to terrorists, that is a serious problem. That could come back in a year and a half or 2 years into this country in the form of a nuclear bomb possessed by a terrorist. That is serious business. We are told that the trucks are moving. We are told that is what is happening in North Korea. And yet there does not seem to be the same kind of attention paid to it as is now paid to the country of Iraq. We are told there is an orange level of alert in our country today, which suggests once again the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorist, who have not yet been apprehended. So we are facing terrorist groups, Osama bin Laden, Korea, Saddam Hussein, and Iraq. My point is not that Saddam Hussein is not dangerous; he indeed is dangerous. We ought to deal with him. Frankly, the credit of having inspectors in Iraq at this point belongs to the President; otherwise they would not have been able to enter Iraq and begin the inspections. If Saddam Hussein does not disarm, he will be disarmed either by this country or this country and other countries acting in concert. That is just a fact. My point is that is not the only challenge we face and not necessarily the greatest challenge we face. If trucks are moving spent fuel rods in North Korea today, then we better make a judgment to deal with that. If we have an orange alert in this country today because terrorist groups have mobilized and intelligence suggests that an orange alert is warranted, then we had better be concerned about that. And we had better prosecute that war against terrorism as aggressively as we pursue Saddam Hussein. That is my point. Now I have come to the floor today to speak about a related subject, and that is the subject of energy. We import oil in order to run our country's automobile fleets, stationary engines, and so on. We import 20 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia is our No. 1 importer--Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria--Iraq is No. 6 at 289,000 barrels. Our country is very dependent on energy from a Middle East that is rocked by turmoil. If tonight, God forbid, terrorists were able to interrupt the flow of energy, the flow of oil to our country from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, for example, our economy would be in trouble. That is just a plain fact. Does it make sense for us to continue to be so dependent on oil coming from that part of the world? I don't think so. So what will we do about that? Let me describe a couple of things. Yesterday my colleagues from South Dakota, Senator Daschle and others, Senator Johnson, myself, and Senator Conrad, introduced a piece of legislation dealing with ethanol, renewable fuels. Ethanol is a fuel in which you grow a crop in the field, you harvest it, you take a kernel of corn, you extract from the kernel of corn the drop of alcohol and you have the protein feedstock left. You extend America's energy supply, you still have something for cattle to eat, and you grow it year after year after year and you are not dependent on Saudi Arabia or Iraq. It is a renewable fuel that you produce year after year. Here is the way you produce ethanol. You grow a crop such as corn, finely grind it, separate it into component sugars, distill the sugars to make ethanol, and you put it in a vehicle. It is very simple. You are growing crops to produce America's energy. That is what ethanol is about. You can do it with barley. You can do it with sugar beets, start with sugar beets. You can do it with potatoes. You grow your energy. We import 55 percent of the oil we consume in this country. That is expected to grow to 68 percent by 2025. Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline. They are the main reasons our country imports so much oil. I think this chart shows what is happening with respect to energy in our country. We have a demand line that is going up. You will see that the reason for that, by and large, is transportation. Mostly that is vehicles--cars, trucks, other vehicles. This is where the demand is, transportation. Domestic production of oil, as you can see, is fairly flat. If we were to go up to ANWR in Alaska, as some would like us to do--I don't happen to support it--you would see what would happen as a result of ANWR--almost nothing. Or if we go on into the Gulf of Mexico, which I do support--that will not solve all of our energy needs. We are just not going to solve our problems with those approaches. We have to produce more, and we will produce more--produce more coal, produce more oil, and natural gas. We will do it in ways that protect our environment as much as possible. But that is not enough. We need to do much more than that. One of the answers, in my judgment, is to have much greater production of ethanol. And so we are introducing legislation, as my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, said yesterday, with a renewable fuels provision. It has been carefully negotiated over many months. Twenty groups--National Corn Growers, the Renewable Fuels Association, the American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union--have all sent letters supporting this legislation that we have introduced. We now produce 1.8 billion gallons of pure ethanol. This provision will add 3.2 billion new gallons. So by 2012, we will be producing 5 billion gallons of ethanol. I think with this provision, the ethanol industry will continue to grow. That translates to a new market, for example, for corn as the feedstock for an ethanol plant--1.2 billion bushels. That is new opportunities to farmers to invest in value-added agriculture, new opportunities to extend America's energy supply, new opportunities to make our country less dependent on Saudi Arabian oil, on oil from Iraq. All of that makes good sense. There are substantial economic benefits available with respect to this, and substantial security benefits for our country that will accrue from our passing this legislation. So I rise today to say the introduction yesterday by myself, by Senator Daschle, and many others with respect to this major piece of legislation dealing with ethanol is a significant step forward. My hope is, on a bipartisan basis, we will be able to move this legislation in this Congress, recognizing that having less dependence on oil from the most troubled region in the world is advisable for this country. How do you do that? By extending America's energy supply through the production of ethanol, the production of something that is renewable, year after year after year. It is not something that is depleting, it is renewable. That is why this legislation makes such good sense. There is something else we can and should do. I am going to introduce legislation the day we get back from next week's break. I intended to introduce it yesterday, but for a couple of reasons I have held it, and will continue to refine it just a bit. I will propose a project that deals with the hydrogen economy and fuel cells. The President mentioned this in his State of the Union Address to the Congress. I commend the President for it. It is exactly the right idea. I have been working on this for some long while. In fact, the bill that passed the Senate last year, the energy bill, contained a provision I added that said by the year 2020 America should aspire to have 2.5 million fuel cell cars that are using hydrogen--2.5 million fuel cell cars on the road. Give or take, there are 700 million vehicles in the world. Give or take, there are about 70 million vehicles produced each and every year. Almost all of them are vehicles with carburetors through which you put gasoline and you create power for the engine and you drive off in the automobile. Nothing has changed in a century--nothing at all. My first car was an antique 1924 Model T Ford. I restored it, then sold it. I put gasoline in that little old antique Model T Ford the same way you put gasoline in a 2003 Ford: You pull up to a pump, put the hose in the tank, and start pumping gas. Nothing has changed in 100 years--nothing. The question is, Are we going to pole-vault over all these discussions and move to a new day and a new technology? Sure, we are going to discuss ANWR and CAFE standards and all the other issues that dominated debate last year. But if that is all we discuss, then every 25 years we will come back and discuss the same thing, and our policies will be known as ``yesterday forever.'' Why don't we begin discussing new technology and a new day, a new type of energy for this country's future, a hydrogen future with fuel cells for vehicles? I mentioned our energy security is threatened. We import 55 percent of the oil. That is going to go to 68 percent by 2025. Most of our cars and trucks run on gasoline. That is why we import so much oil. Two- thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil we use each day is used for transportation. Now let me describe a car that uses fuel cells. This chart shows a vehicle, a Ford Focus. It is a fuel cell vehicle, production-ready prototype, unveiled in autumn 2002. I drove one a couple days ago, drove one last summer. In fact, we have had fuel cell vehicles that drove all the way from Los Angeles to New York. This is a picture of a hydrogen fueling station at Powertech Labs. Fueling infrastructure is critically important to make hydrogen fuel cars a reality. Hydrogen cars do not have to be compact. This is a picture of a fuel cell vehicle, a Nissan Xterra, fueled by compressed hydrogen, tested on public roads in California in the year 2001. Finally, a picture of a more futuristic looking vehicle, the General Motors Hy-Wire Fuel Cell Concept Car, unveiled in August of 2002. Let me describe what Europe is doing in fuel cells. The European Commission has invested significantly in fuel cell cars, and industry is commending them for it. Herbert Kohler, director of Environmental Affairs at DaimlerChrysler, said political support was vital for the car industry to move to fuel cells. They can do a lot for themselves, but at a certain point they need fuel, and that means involving others. It means the development of a supply of hydrogen, which is ubiquitous, by the way. Through electrolysis, you can separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, develop the hydrogen supply, and put water vapor out the tailpipe of the car. You have the tailpipe of a vehicle that emits water vapor. What a great thing for the environment! The European Commission, the executive body of the Europe Union, has earmarked more than 2.1 billion Euros, $2 billion, for research over 5 years. A central focus will be hydrogen fuel cells. Let me tell you what Japan is doing. Japanese carmakers are flooring it on fuel cells. Tokyo's fuel cell initiative has all the hallmarks of a far-sighted strategy, Business Week says, and calls to mind Tokyo's blossoming success in hybrids. Americans are snapping up these fuel- efficient, environmentally friendly cars, and fuel cells could turn out to be a bigger, more important chapter in exactly the same book. I don't think we ought to stand around here and continue to debate small issues so that every 25 years we can have a repeat of the same debate. I think we ought to debate big issues. I think we ought to have a world view change here, with respect to how we want to power our vehicle fleet. I think we want to convert to hydrogen fuel. That ought not scare those who produce oil, natural gas, and use coal. In fact, those same companies are some of the companies in the lead, in the forefront of moving to a hydrogen economy. You can produce hydrogen from fossil fuels. We are always going to need and use fossil fuels. But wouldn't it be great to power our vehicle fleet with hydrogen and fuel cells so that we don't need Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be a wonderful future for this country and at the same time improve our environment, because we are going to use hydrogen and fuel cells and put only water vapor out of the back of the car through the tailpipe? That is exactly what we ought to do. How you do you get that done? I have met with representatives of the hydrogen and fuel cell industries. They are anxious. They are engaged in substantial research. But the fact is they cannot do this alone. The conversion of the vehicle fleet in our country to the big idea of the hydrogen economy and fuel cells will not and cannot happen without the support of the Government. I propose an Apollo-like program. When I say Apollo program, I am talking about the program by which John F. Kennedy said, ``We are going to go to the Moon by the end of the decade.'' I think our country should decide to move to the hydrogen economy and fuel cell vehicles with a big idea and in a big way to help make it happen as public policy. The Europeans and the Japanese are moving in that direction, and we should, too. As I indicated, last year I put a piece in the energy bill that says we aspire to have a goal of 2.5 million vehicles on the road in 2020 in this country using fuel cells. Now, the President proposed a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel cell program. Only half of that is new money. That is not a big idea. It is the right idea. But it is not big and bold. I propose a $6.5 billion 10-year program that is really going to move this country to say we want to enact change. We want to move to a hydrogen economy and develop fuel cell vehicles to help create the infrastructure for the production of hydrogen and the storage and transportation of hydrogen. We want to provide incentives for people to buy the fuel cell vehicle. This will be one of the best things this country has done. It will be one of the big ideas of the century. That is why I think it is so important. We talk about this with the backdrop of a troubled world--substantial problems in the Middle East, Central and Southern Asia, terrorism, North Korea, and Iraq. When you think of the difficulties that exist and the small thread our economy hangs on, making sure that tonight, tomorrow, the next day, and every day of the week and every month we get enough oil into this country from places like Iraq, like Venezuela, like Saudi Arabia, and Algeria in order to power our vehicle fleet, then we ought to understand this economy is held hostage by forces we don't control. It is dangerous for this economy to be dependent on things we cannot and will not be able to control in the long term. But we can--as we have in many other areas--create incentives and new technology and new opportunities to solve old problems. That is exactly what I propose with this initiative. I intend to introduce this the day we get back. I expect and hope it will be bipartisan. I have been talking to some Democrats and some Republicans. The President has said this is a good idea. Good for him. I commend him for it. I think he proposed a step in the right direction. And, frankly, having the Bush administration be supportive of this kind of technology change is excellent. It is good for this country. But the Administration's approach is more timid and less bold than it should be. I am going to propose an Apollo-type program that says let us really move and get this accomplished. I hope to have substantial bipartisan support as we begin to write an energy bill this year in the Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, as well as Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel, Senator Johnson and others in introducing this bipartisan piece of legislation today. This bill is extremely important--from an environmental perspective and from an energy security perspective. This bill increase the use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline. That means that we will be increasing the use of renewable sources in the fuel that we pump into our gas tanks. Transportation is the sector that uses the greatest amount of imported oil. By replacing some of the petroleum products in gasoline, we will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The White House recognizes that: ``America imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes; that is expected to grow to 68 percent by 2025. 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.'' Let me point out the top countries from whom we import crude oil: our top supplier is Saudi Arabia. Almost one-third of our oil comes from the Middle East--and Iraq is our fifth largest supplier. Venezuela is our fourth largest supplier. Their country has been rocked by crisis for the last couple of years. So, it is in our best interest to reduce the amount of oil we import from these nations. This bill is also important because it will phase-out MTBE nationally. MTBE has been shown to contaminate water supplies and to have the ability to cause potentially harmful side effects. This is important. We have attempted to do this here in Congress for several years. We should not be exposing ourselves and our children to such harmful contaminants. Now is the time to act to remove this from our gasoline and from our water supplies. No more delays. I urge may colleagues to work with me to move this important legislation in a timely manner. Today, ethanol reduces the demand for oil and MTBE imports by 98,000 barrels per day. To me, this just makes good sense: take starch from corn or wheat, break it down into simple sugars, then ferment it to produce ethanol that can be used for energy. The byproducts can be used, too. renewable fuels provision in the bill The renewable fuels provision has been carefully negotiated over a period of months and years. Now, 20 groups, including the Nation Corn Growers Association, Renewable Fuels Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmers Union, have sent a letter expressing their support for this legislation. 1.8 billion gallons of pure ethanol are currently produced each year. This provision would add 3.2 billion new gallons over a period of years for a total of 5 billion gallons by 2012. And, this provision will ensure that the ethanol industry continues to grow. This translates to a new market for 1.19 billion bushels of corn and other agricultural products. This also means new opportunities for farmers to invest in value-added processing of a product they're already growing. While we are seeing mergers and acquisitions in the petroleum and other industries, the ethanol industry is diversifying, as farmers invest in local processing. north dakota I am excited about the wide range of opportunities ethanol presents. One unique opportunity is being created in my home state of North Dakota. The aerospace program at the University of North Dakota and the Environment and Energy Research Center (EERC) are researching the potential for using ethanol as aviation fuel. Aviation fuel is the last fuel in the U.S. that still contains lead. UND is now teaming up with South Dakota State University and the Federal Aviation Administration on a program to get ethanol approved and certified to help replace this lead-based aviation fuel. And we are working on building E85 (blended ethanol fuel) stations in North Dakota. economic benefits According to some estimates, the ethanol industry is responsible for more than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs, creating more than $1.3 billion in increased household income annually, and more than $12.6 billion over the next five years. During the past year, industry has built 12 new facilities. Ten new facilities are under construction, and dozens more are in the planning stages. The ethanol industry adds--directly and indirectly--more than than $6 billion to our economy each year. I am excited by the opportunities this sector presents for my State, the region, and the entire Nation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, as well as Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel, Senator Johnson and others in introducing this bipartisan piece of legislation today. This bill is extremely important--from an environmental perspective and from an energy security perspective. This bill increase the use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline. That means that we will be increasing the use of renewable sources in the fuel that we pump into our gas tanks. Transportation is the sector that uses the greatest amount of imported oil. By replacing some of the petroleum products in gasoline, we will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The White House recognizes that: ``America imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes; that is expected to grow to 68 percent by 2025. 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.'' Let me point out the top countries from whom we import crude oil: our top supplier is Saudi Arabia. Almost one-third of our oil comes from the Middle East--and Iraq is our fifth largest supplier. Venezuela is our fourth largest supplier. Their country has been rocked by crisis for the last couple of years. So, it is in our best interest to reduce the amount of oil we import from these nations. This bill is also important because it will phase-out MTBE nationally. MTBE has been shown to contaminate water supplies and to have the ability to cause potentially harmful side effects. This is important. We have attempted to do this here in Congress for several years. We should not be exposing ourselves and our children to such harmful contaminants. Now is the time to act to remove this from our gasoline and from our water supplies. No more delays. I urge may colleagues to work with me to move this important legislation in a timely manner. Today, ethanol reduces the demand for oil and MTBE imports by 98,000 barrels per day. To me, this just makes good sense: take starch from corn or wheat, break it down into simple sugars, then ferment it to produce ethanol that can be used for energy. The byproducts can be used, too. renewable fuels provision in the bill The renewable fuels provision has been carefully negotiated over a period of months and years. Now, 20 groups, including the Nation Corn Growers Association, Renewable Fuels Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmers Union, have sent a letter expressing their support for this legislation. 1.8 billion gallons of pure ethanol are currently produced each year. This provision would add 3.2 billion new gallons over a period of years for a total of 5 billion gallons by 2012. And, this provision will ensure that the ethanol industry continues to grow. This translates to a new market for 1.19 billion bushels of corn and other agricultural products. This also means new opportunities for farmers to invest in value-added processing of a product they're already growing. While we are seeing mergers and acquisitions in the petroleum and other industries, the ethanol industry is diversifying, as farmers invest in local processing. north dakota I am excited about the wide range of opportunities ethanol presents. One unique opportunity is being created in my home state of North Dakota. The aerospace program at the University of North Dakota and the Environment and Energy Research Center (EERC) are researching the potential for using ethanol as aviation fuel. Aviation fuel is the last fuel in the U.S. that still contains lead. UND is now teaming up with South Dakota State University and the Federal Aviation Administration on a program to get ethanol approved and certified to help replace this lead-based aviation fuel. And we are working on building E85 (blended ethanol fuel) stations in North Dakota. economic benefits According to some estimates, the ethanol industry is responsible for more than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs, creating more than $1.3 billion in increased household income annually, and more than $12.6 billion over the next five years. During the past year, industry has built 12 new facilities. Ten new facilities are under construction, and dozens more are in the planning stages. The ethanol industry adds--directly and indirectly--more than than $6 billion to our economy each year. I am excited by the opportunities this sector presents for my State, the region, and the entire Nation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today the Medicare Cholesterol Screening Coverage Act of 2003, along with my colleagues, Senators Campbell, Bingaman, Inouye, Lincoln, Landrieu, Warner, Johnson, Cantwell and Talent. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representative Dave Camp and Representative William Jefferson. I think it is appropriate to be introducing this bill during ``American Heart Month.'' For the last 40 years, Congress and the President have recognized American Heart Month because of the need to continue the fight against heart disease--our country's #1 killer and a leading cause of disability. Cardiovascular diseases take an enormous human and financial toll on our Nation. Every 33 seconds, an American dies from cardiovascular disease. About 41 percent of deaths each year are from cardiovascular diseases--more than the next 6 leading causes of death combined. Adding cholesterol screening testing to the menu of preventive services already covered by Medicare is yet another step we can and should take in the fight against these insidious diseases. Cardiovascular diseases account for one-third of all of Medicare's spending for hospitalizations. Yet the identification of one of the major, changeable risk factors for cardiovascular disease--high levels of cholesterol--is not covered by Medicare. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association recommend that all Americans over the age of 20 have their cholesterol levels tested at least once every five years. But when an American turns 65 and enters the Medicare program, their coverage for cholesterol screening stops. That is just not right. Adding a cholesterol screening benefit to Medicare is a common-sense, cost-effective step. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this benefit would cost only $20 million a year--a small fraction of the $26 billion that Medicare spends each year for hospitalizations of patients with cardiovascular diseases. I am pleased that language similar to my bill was included in S. 3018, bipartisan Medicare legislation introduced last fall by the leaders of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus. Unfortunately, however, the Senate did not act on this bill before adjourning last year. I hope Congress will act soon to provide Medicare coverage of cholesterol screening, and I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Another way my colleagues can help in the fight against heart disease is by joining the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition. The Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition was founded in 1996 and I am honored to serve as one of its co-founders and co-chairs. Since its inception, this bicameral, bipartisan Coalition has grown to nearly 200 Members. Its purpose is to raise awareness among Congress and the public about heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases and to support public policies to prevent, treat, and ultimately cure these diseases. I encourage those Members who have not already joined the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues to add a cholesterol screening benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and to make progress in the fight against cardiovascular diseases. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing today the Medicare Cholesterol Screening Coverage Act of 2003, along with my colleagues, Senators Campbell, Bingaman, Inouye, Lincoln, Landrieu, Warner, Johnson, Cantwell and Talent. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives today by Representative Dave Camp and Representative William Jefferson. I think it is appropriate to be introducing this bill during ``American Heart Month.'' For the last 40 years, Congress and the President have recognized American Heart Month because of the need to continue the fight against heart disease--our country's #1 killer and a leading cause of disability. Cardiovascular diseases take an enormous human and financial toll on our Nation. Every 33 seconds, an American dies from cardiovascular disease. About 41 percent of deaths each year are from cardiovascular diseases--more than the next 6 leading causes of death combined. Adding cholesterol screening testing to the menu of preventive services already covered by Medicare is yet another step we can and should take in the fight against these insidious diseases. Cardiovascular diseases account for one-third of all of Medicare's spending for hospitalizations. Yet the identification of one of the major, changeable risk factors for cardiovascular disease--high levels of cholesterol--is not covered by Medicare. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association recommend that all Americans over the age of 20 have their cholesterol levels tested at least once every five years. But when an American turns 65 and enters the Medicare program, their coverage for cholesterol screening stops. That is just not right. Adding a cholesterol screening benefit to Medicare is a common-sense, cost-effective step. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this benefit would cost only $20 million a year--a small fraction of the $26 billion that Medicare spends each year for hospitalizations of patients with cardiovascular diseases. I am pleased that language similar to my bill was included in S. 3018, bipartisan Medicare legislation introduced last fall by the leaders of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus. Unfortunately, however, the Senate did not act on this bill before adjourning last year. I hope Congress will act soon to provide Medicare coverage of cholesterol screening, and I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Another way my colleagues can help in the fight against heart disease is by joining the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition. The Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition was founded in 1996 and I am honored to serve as one of its co-founders and co-chairs. Since its inception, this bicameral, bipartisan Coalition has grown to nearly 200 Members. Its purpose is to raise awareness among Congress and the public about heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases and to support public policies to prevent, treat, and ultimately cure these diseases. I encourage those Members who have not already joined the Congressional Heart and Stroke Coalition to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues to add a cholesterol screening benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and to make progress in the fight against cardiovascular diseases. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following the presentation by the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague from Wisconsin, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, on the nomination of Mr. Estrada to the DC Circuit Court. I also listened to my colleague from Oregon and others who have spoken today. Mr. Estrada has had his name submitted to the Senate by the President, acting under article II of the Constitution. And the President has the right to send nominations for lifetime appointments to the judiciary to the Senate for advice and consent. It is the Senate's responsibility to evaluate the President's nominees and determine whether to vote to confirm those nominees and provide someone a lifetime tenure on one of the Federal courts. That advice and consent is not in any way subordinate to the President's right of sending a nomination. We both have constitutional obligations. One is for the President to select and send nominations to the Senate. The other is for the Senate to evaluate and provide its advice and consent. The DC Circuit Court is the second highest court in the land. It is very important that for a lifetime appointment, we decide carefully whether we want to confirm a nominee sent to us by the President. Most of us would not know the nominees personally. That is certainly the case in this circumstance. I don't know Mr. Estrada personally. I have been to one hearing where he appeared. I was there for only a brief period because a candidate for a Federal judgeship in North Dakota was being heard at that time. This was a nomination of President Bush's. I was pleased to be there to support President Bush's nomination and to support the candidate whose name had been sent to us. I went down to the hearing and supported Mr. Hovland's candidacy. I am proud to say he is now a Federal judge in the West District of North Dakota. He is going to be a credit to the bench. He will be a wonderful Federal judge. I was very pleased to support President Bush in sending this nomination to the Senate. On that day when he was also testifying, Mr. Estrada was there. That is the only time I have seen him. I was there for only a couple questions, and I don't know a great deal about him but have read a lot about him since. It is the case with respect to Mr. Estrada's appearance before the committee and also the interviews and discussions prior to his appearance before the Judiciary Committee, that Mr. Estrada decided he would not answer some basic questions put to him by Members of the Senate. Members of the committee were asking some pretty basic questions. Tell us a bit about your judicial philosophy, because you don't have experience as a judge and you have not served as a judge at any level in the judiciary system. Tell us about how you see this job. Evaluate for us some of the decisions that have been made over time by the Supreme Court, and so on. Mr. Estrada essentially said, I don't care to do that. Contrast that for a moment, for example, with Dan Hovland who is now a Federal judge in the West District of North Dakota. He was asked: What three U.S. Supreme Court cases can you identify that you disagree with? This is Mr. Hovland. He said: Well, Behrens v. Peltier, 1996; a 2002 case, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center; and then, of course, the case I suspect most would cite, Korematsu v. the United States. That is, of course, the case in which the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a person of Japanese ancestry for a violation of a curfew order solely because of the individual's ancestry. I think now most would view that Supreme Court decision as a profound mistake. Mr. Hovland did. He was asked a simple question. He gave a straightforward answer. He said: Here is my notion of three Supreme Court decisions with which I would disagree. It gave Members a bit of an insight into who Mr. Hovland was, what he thinks. That was helpful. The same question was asked, for example, of Freda Wolfson: What three U.S. Supreme Court cases can you identify that you disagree with. Plessey v. Ferguson, that would come to mind almost immediately for everyone. They held that the State statute requiring passenger railroads to provide separate but equal accommodations for African Americans and Caucasians did not violate the 13th or 14th amendments. It seems to me that is probably an obvious case one would disagree with. Yet questions of that type were asked repeatedly of Mr. Estrada, and he said he just wouldn't offer an opinion, wouldn't answer the questions. So then the members of the committee said: Well, you served in the Solicitor's Office at the Justice Department. Could we be provided with the memoranda written there, the advice you were offering, to get some insight into how you feel about these issues, how you reason, how you think? He said, no, those are confidential. Those should not be released. Well, they have been released in the past. On other occasions candidates have indicated they wanted those papers released. They were released. It gave the committee, when making a lifetime appointment, some better judgment about how this person thinks, how this person reasons, what approach this person takes to dealing with some of these questions. Mr. Estrada said, no, he couldn't do that. What has happened with this nomination, a circuit court nomination is that, both the President's administration and the candidate himself, Mr. Estrada, have said: I don't intend to answer questions, and I don't intend to make the information available with respect to what I was doing as assistant in the Solicitor's Office. If that is the case, Mr. Estrada is then a blank sheet. What are we to make of Mr. Estrada? Who is he? How does he think? How does he reason? Would he be a good judge? This is, after all, a lifetime appointment. This isn't an appointment for 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years. We are being asked by the President to take Mr. Estrada's nomination and say, yes, we will put him on this Circuit court forever, for his entire life, and we have no right to get answers to basic questions, to understand a bit about the philosophy of Mr. Estrada, a bit about his approach, his thinking. We have no right to that? I have been astounded to hear some colleagues on the floor say: You have a responsibility to approve this nomination. No, we have a responsibility under the Constitution to advise and consent. The President has a responsibility to send us a nomination. We have a responsibility to evaluate it and make a decision. Is this someone who should be given a lifetime appointment or not? That is our judgment. That judgment doesn't rest with others. It rests with us. I would like very much for Mr. Estrada to give us the information requested. My colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have repeatedly requested this information. I would like very much to see the information. It is entirely possible I would see all of this information, understand a bit more about Mr. Estrada, and decide to support his nomination. I don't know. I would like to see the information and make a judgment. I believe I have voted for virtually all the nominations the President has sent to Congress with respect to judgeships. I would hope to be able to support this and others as well. But I don't intend to decide that we should force the Senate to vote for a lifetime appointment for a candidate on the DC Circuit Court who tells us nothing about himself. He seems to suggest, I am here for a job interview, but I will not tell you anything about me. That would be a job interview that would last a very short time. It ought to last a very short time here. When Mr. Estrada and the administration provide the information that is requested, then, in my judgment, this Congress has a responsibility to consider it, and consider it with great seriousness because this is, after all, a Federal judgeship, not just a district judgeship, but a circuit court judgeship of DC, which is the second highest court in the land. Judge Scalia once said--and I am not prone to quoting him often: Indeed, even if it were possible to select judges who didn't have preconceived views on legal issues, it would hardly be desirable to do so. What are the preconceived views on legal issues of Mr. Estrada? Does anyone know? Does anyone who has spoken in support of this nomination know? Can you answer that question? The answer is no one in this Chamber knows; no one in the Chamber can answer the question because Mr. Estrada and the administration say you are not entitled to know. They are wrong. The Constitution requires us to know. It says we are entitled to know. I don't believe we ought to vote on this nomination until we have received the information requested. When we do, I think we should vote on this nomination. But until then, in my judgment, this is not a problem of our making, this is not something someone from the other side should shoehorn over here. This is a problem the administration and Mr. Estrada created by deciding on a strategy that, if we allow to continue, would essentially say to the Senate, you consider us for lifetime appointments and we won't give you any information about ourselves as we ask for that consideration. There are reciprocal obligations here--ours, the President's, and the nominee's. We will and should meet ours as soon as others have met theirs. The first test of that is to send the names of qualified people to the Senate for judgeships. Mr. Estrada may well be very well qualified. The ABA says he is well qualified. The second obligation on the part of those who send his nomination to us is for the candidate himself, or herself, to make themselves available to the Senate, answer questions, and allow us to evaluate whether this is the kind of person we want to provide a lifetime appointment to on the Federal bench. That hasn't been the case at this point. With respect to this nominee, we are waiting; but we should not vote, and no one in this Chamber ought to pressure others to vote until we have the basic information we have requested. What is so secret about all of this? What is there we should not know? Is there anyone qualified to serve on the second highest court of the land who doesn't have some basic views on past Supreme Court decisions--especially some of the controversial ones--they might explore with us in order to give us some evaluation of how they think and reason, what kind of capability they have to sit on the bench? If such a nominee is sent to the Senate, that nominee ought not ever be confirmed. I don't believe that is the case with Mr. Estrada. I think he has views on all of these issues. He certainly could tell us his views about Supreme Court decisions with which he would disagree and why, so we could develop some notion of his reasoning. He just refuses to do that. I don't know why. I assume if this is the case with this candidate and the Senate says that is fine, we will see future nominees refuse to answer anything; our advice and consent will become a rubberstamp; and we will not ask people to give us basic information. Then the next candidate will do exactly the same thing and we won't have a constitutional responsibility at all here in the Senate. We will say, all right, whatever it is you decide to give us, we will take, or whatever you decide to withhold, we will accept. I am not willing to do that. Why not the materials from the Solicitor's Office? It has been done in other nominations. Why not now? Why won't the candidate answer basic questions? Again, I come here not as a member of the committee and as someone who has a preconceived notion that Mr. Estrada would not do a good job. I don't know. And no one else in the Senate knows. There is nobody in the Senate who can stand up and say Mr. Estrada has answered these questions for us, because he has refused to answer the questions for all Senators. Some in the Senate might be perfectly comfortable deciding the constitutional role granted us in this process of lifetime appointments on the judiciary is not very important. But I am not among them.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, midday today President Bush is going to give a speech here in Washington, DC, on the subject of the development of fuel cell vehicles and moving to a hydrogen economy. I was glad to hear the President express support for the concept of hydrogen and fuel cells in his State of the Union Address. After his speech, I gave him credit for discussing that with the American people. Since last year, I have made a number of presentations on the Senate floor about fuel cells. Today, I would like to share with my colleagues my thoughts about the development of a hydrogen economy and the use of fuel cells in our future. I have told all my colleagues previously that my first vehicle when I was a kid was an antique car I purchased for $25. It was a 1924 Model T Ford. I am sure people are tired of hearing me talk about it. I was 16 years old, and I was the owner of an antique 1924 Model T Ford. I restored it. It took me a year and a half to 2 years to do that. I lovingly restored this old Model T. Then I sold it. I discovered, later in high school, that I wanted to date, and a Model T was not exactly a modern way to date. The point of the story is, when I was a kid I put gasoline in a Model T Ford--a 1924 Model T Ford--the same way you put gasoline in a 2003 Ford. Nothing has changed in three-quarters of a century. You pull up to a pump. You pull the hose and put the nozzle in the tank and pump gas. The core technology has not changed. Over the years, however, our dependence on a foreign source of that petroleum has worsened, and become very dangerous for our economy. Yesterday, the Secretary of State made a presentation at the United Nations about the country of Iraq. Frankly, Iraq produces a lot of oil. So do other countries in that region. It is a very troubled region. Yet our economy is dependent on foreign sources of energy, much of it from that region. Is that something that makes sense for us, for the American economy, for the American people? The answer is no. By talking about a technological change to a hydrogen economy and to the use of fuel cells, I am not suggesting we should not and will not mine for coal, drill for oil and natural gas. I believe we will continue to use fossil fuel in our economy for a long while. And I believe we need to do that. But we also need to understand that it is time to change. After a century of running gasoline through the carburetors of our vehicles, it is time for our country to think in different ways, about how can technology change our energy future. I would like to talk a bit about that. Again, let me say that I credit the President for talking about it in his State of the Union Address. I think this is a step forward on the part of the administration--a baby step to be sure--but an important step. Mr. President, $1.2 billion is what the President announced last week and is talking about today. That is not all new money. In fact, the majority of it is not new money. So it is a timid, small step forward, but, nonetheless, a step in the right direction, for which I give this President credit. Let me talk a bit about why we need to take strong action. I have in the Chamber a chart that shows oil consumption--in millions of barrels per day. This shows total demand, and you see the line going up, up, up, and up. It also shows transportation demand, and that growth in transportation demand is the bulk of the growth in energy needs and energy usage in our country. As you can see from the chart, shown here is domestic production. Domestic production does not come close to meeting the demand that exists in our country. So what do we do to meet the difference? What we do is we import oil from other parts of the world. The issue of energy security is a significant issue for all of us. The White House issued a press release on that subject in connection with its hydrogen proposal, noting the gap between our projected demand for oil and our domestic supply. And that gap is going to increase, not decrease--even if we would drill in ANWR, which I do not think this Congress will decide to do. This is what the White House had to say in proposing development of fuel cells: America's energy security is threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. Absolutely. There is no question about that. America imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes; that is expected to grow to 68 percent by the year 2025. Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline. 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. The President went on to say: Fuel cell vehicles offer the best hope of dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil. If tonight, God forbid, a network of terrorists interrupted the supply of imported oil to this country, tomorrow morning this economy would be in desperate, desperate trouble. That is the jeopardy we have in this country with our dependence--overdependence--on foreign sources of energy. Let me describe where this dependence resides. And one can make one's own judgment about the stability of it all. Our top supplier of oil is Saudi Arabia. That is not exactly describing a region of stability. Saudi Arabia is our top supplier. And then you have Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Norway, Colombia. Mr. President, 3.4 million barrels are imported into this country from these countries. And you understand--everyone understands--that Venezuela is in trouble. There is enormous turmoil in the country of Venezuela. Saudi Arabia, Iraq--these are areas of the world where there is not great stability. It makes no sense to continue along, merrily whistling our way into the future, believing that our country will be just fine even as our economy is so dependent on sources of oil from outside our borders. One-third of our oil comes from the Middle East. Iraq is the sixth largest supplier of oil; Venezuela is the fourth; Angola and Colombia, the seventh and ninth--both countries are also plagued with difficulties. Hydrogen fuels offer a way out. The supply of hydrogen is inexhaustible. It is everywhere. It is in water. The issue of hydrogen fuels is an interesting one. The notion of using hydrogen and the development of fuel cells is not new. In fact, a man named William Robert Grove was one of those larger-than-life characters who in the 19th century could do almost anything. He studied law at Oxford, became a barrister and a judge. In his spare time, he was also a professor of physics. He ran into a patch of ill health and had his legal career interrupted, so he turned to science to occupy his time, and he developed what he called a gas voltaic battery, the forerunner of modern fuel cells. He based his experiment on the notion that sending an electric current through water splits water into oxygen and hydrogen. He figured if you could reverse the reaction, combining hydrogen and oxygen, you can produce electricity and water. In effect, he burned the hydrogen to produce electricity. Hydrogen can be derived from all sorts of energy sources. You take the hydrogen from water and use it to move through a fuel cell and use it to power an automobile and out the back tailpipe, you get water vapor. What a wonderful thing. This is a picture of a Daimler-Chrysler fuel cell vehicle that in June of last year went from San Francisco to Washington, DC. This technology exists. It is being perfected. The next chart shows a Ford fuel cell vehicle ready for production, a prototype, in autumn 2002. This is not a futuristic technology; there are fuel cell cars on the road today. I have driven a fuel cell car out in front of the Capitol Building, a car that is run by batteries powered by a fuel cell, that is using hydrogen as a fuel source. The challenge is to make this technology cost effective. I have been meeting with the CEOs and representatives of companies, Shell Hydrogen, Methenex, UTC Fuel Cells, Union of Concerned Scientists, Siemens Westinghouse, just to name a few, to get their ideas. A broad coalition of interests is coming together because they recognize the promise of a hydrogen technology, going to a hydrogen economy using fuel cells in our future. I mentioned a Ford Focus fuel cell car. Here is a picture of Ford Focus fuel cell car that is being filled at a hydrogen fuel station. If we were to convert the automobile fleet to fuel cells, what would we have to do? We would have to build vehicles with fuel cells. We would have to find a reliable supply of hydrogen, determine how we will get the hydrogen, and then we have to have the infrastructure, fueling infrastructure and stations and technology to make this a commercial reality. That is one of the issues we have to deal with. Fuel cell cars don't have to be limited in size to a Ford Focus. For example, Nissan has another fuel cell prototype car--we are seeing more and more companies involved in this--the Nissan Xterra, fueled by compressed hydrogen, tested on California roads in the year 2000. General Motors now has an innovative prototype called the Hy-wire. This particular car has a detachable exterior so you can buy multiple exteriors with one chassis so you can switch between an SUV or sedan. It has no steering wheel or pedal. It is operated with a joystick. This is a fuel-cell-powered vehicle. To make this vision a reality, the private sector is going to need public investment. You might ask, why is that the case? Virtually all of the new technologies, the pole vaulting to new technologies, requires Federal involvement, requires governmental involvement. People these days forget, when they go on their computers and on to the Internet, they don't remember that the Internet exists because the Government developed a project to create the Internet. Otherwise, the Internet would not exist. That was a government creation that then became privatized, democratized, and is now a ubiquitous presence all around the world. If we are going to change the basic construct of our vehicle fleet-- and yes, stationary engines and other approaches to the use of power as well--but especially with respect to vehicles, because of what I described with the increased use of oil in our transportation fleet, the only way that will happen is if we do what we have done in other major technological challenges: We need to think big. We need to be bold. When we decided we were going to explore space, President John F. Kennedy said, we will put a man on the Moon, and he set a time deadline. America is going to put a man on the Moon. We need an Apollo-type project with respect to the development of a hydrogen-based economy and the use of fuel cells, especially in our transportation fleet. We need an Apollo-type project--not timid, not baby steps, bold, big steps--that says: Here is our goal. Here is what our country intends to do, and here is how. The President has proposed $1.2 billion over 5 years for this fuel cell initiative. About $700 million at most is new spending. And his proposal has substantial redirection of funds from a range of other technologies we also need to be developing: solar energy, wind energy, biomass, and the other renewable and limitless sources of energy that exist. We need to continue to fund the research that is so important on those limitless sources. This initiative--one the President supports, one I credit him for supporting--in my judgment deserves a strong financial commitment and aggressive and strong goals to be set. It should not come at the expense of research into other renewable sources of energy. The Europeans are investing big in hydrogen. As discussed in a New York Times article in October, the European Commission has committed $2 billion over 5 years. They want to have a hydrogen economy. The Japanese are betting big on hydrogen, as discussed in a Business Week article. The Business Week article says that: Tokyo's fuel cell initiative has all the hallmarks of a farsighted strategy and calls to mind Tokyo's blossoming success in hybrids. Americans are snapping up these fuel- efficient, environmentally friendly cars. Fuel cells could turn out to be a bigger, more important chapter in the same book. I propose legislation that is bold. It is an Apollo-type project that says: Let's set bold goals, $6.5 billion in a 10-year program for hydrogen fuel cell research, development, and infrastructure. I have been working with a number of industry leaders in natural gas, oil, energy, methanol renewables, and fuel cell industries. Interestingly enough, the very companies that are now involved in the development of oil and natural gas and electricity are the companies that are going to be involved in this technology. They are the ones on the leading edge, involved in cutting-edge technology with respect to a hydrogen economy. This initiative will not displace current energy firms. They will be very actively involved in the creation and development of this new future. What I propose is a substantial boost over what the President is proposing to date, saying it is the right direction, but it is many steps short. Let's do this and do it boldly. We need to fund infrastructure, fund research, and set goals. R&D funding, pilot projects, yes, tax incentives for consumers who buy fuel cell vehicles, all of that is necessary. But it needs to be broad, bold, new money, not reprogrammed money, something that catches the imagination of the American people that we can make a change and decide our country will not be held hostage by oil coming from unstable regions of the world. Is $6.5 billion a significant investment? Absolutely. But over 10 years, my plan would cost an amount equal to less than 1 percent of the President's proposed $675 billion tax cut. Now, in our debate over energy, there will be discussion about where we should drill for oil. As I said before, my State produces oil, coal, and natural gas. I believe we are going to continue to do that, and we should. But if our strategy in energy is only to dig and drill, then our strategy should be called ``yesterday forever.'' And that is not going to solve the problem of dependence on foreign oil. In 2000, the president of Shell Oil attended the World Petroleum Congress, and this is what he said: If the world thinks that carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced, I see this as an opportunity. The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones, but as a result of competition from the bronze tools which better meet people's needs. I feel there is something in the air. People are ready to say this is something we should do. You know, that is what our charge is at this point--to think ahead. We should not develop a policy and debate a policy that is simply ``yesterday forever,'' and not to ignore the needs of those that produce coal, natural gas, and oil. We need to work with industry leaders to make them part of the solution, part of the answer, part of the cutting-edge change that will lead us to a hydrogen-based economy, with fuel cells powering not only stationary engines, but especially that part of our energy usage that is growing so rapidly, transportation. I started by talking about my old Model T that I bought as a young boy. I am hoping that in years to come, someone walking into a showroom to buy a new car will be able to buy a really ``new'' vehicle, powered by fuel cells, a vehicle that is part of a new hydrogen-based economy, one that can move this country into the future, strengthen its economy, and rescue us from dependence on a supply of oil from such enormously troubled parts of our world. Will Rogers used to say: When there is no place left to spit, you either have to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. On energy, there is ``no place left to spit,'' in the vernacular. We have to change. We need to move beyond the same tired debate of where are we going to dig and drill. Let's work with those that produce fossil fuels and say you are valuable to this country and to our economy and will always be. Let's work with them to say you will also be the pioneers in the development of a hydrogen economy, developing fuel cells for our future. We can do that. This President says, let's move in that direction. I say, absolutely, good for you. But I say let's do more than just move. Let's be bold, establish a national goal, and make this happen.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Today I am introducing legislation to correct a long- standing inequity that has caused hardship for American farmers. That inequity is the pricing of agricultural pesticides for American producers in relationship to Canadian pesticide pricing. My bill would solve this inequity by allowing individual States to label Canadian pesticides that have the same formula as those used in the U.S. for use by American farmers. Farmers combine land, water, commercial inputs, labor, and their management skills into practices and systems to produce food and fiber. To sustain production over time, farmers must make a profit and preserve their resource and financial assets. Society wants food and fiber products that are low-cost, safe to consume, and aesthetically pleasing, and wants production systems that preserve or enhance the environment. These often competing goals and pressures are reflected not only in the inputs made available for production, but also in how the inputs are selected, combined, and managed at the farm level. Time and time again I have come to Senate floor to point out the stark realities of free trade. I have talked at length about the flood of imported grain that streams across our border. Come to my State of North Dakota. Every day truckload after truckload of Canadian commodities, wheat, barley, durum, come across our border to compete with commodities grown here at home. These Canadian imports are grown with the aid of pesticides, pesticides of the same makeup and composition as those purchased in the United States. Yet Canadian producers have the luxury of buying those same chemicals at prices substantially lower than those American farmers have to pay. Why? The answer is simple; pesticide manufacturers charge American farmers more because they can. In agricultural policy, benefits from the North American Free Trade Agreement flow the same direction as the Red River of my State, north. This is especially true of pesticide pricing. A recent survey completed by North Dakota State University surveyed 15 different pesticides commonly used in both Canada and North Dakota. All would qualify for registration in North Dakota under this bill. Of the 15, not one, not one, had a price differential in favor of the American farmer. When you totaled it all out, those 15 chemicals cost, in North Dakota alone, $23.7 million more, in 1 year, for the American producer. That's just not right. If we're going to have free trade, let's make it fair trade. If we are going to open our borders to Canadian grain grown with Canadian pesticides, we ought to open our borders to similar pesticides for U.S. producers at the same cost. It's time to level the playing field for American farmers, we must give them the same advantages that Canadian producers have enjoyed for years. If we're going to have a free trade agreement with Canada, let's all sing from the same page, using the same music. Because putting American farmers at a disadvantage in the world marketplace over pesticide prices that are not in harmony with our competitors is a practice that must be stopped. It must be stopped now. Nothing in this legislation harms the environment, unless you're in the environment of profits. This legislation would create a procedure whereby individual states could apply and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the United States. The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use. This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is a number one priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a number one priority for all of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact. It is impossible to defend chemical price imbalance. You can't defend it to the growers, you can't defend it to the chemical distributor, and you can't defend it to the chemical retailer. Most importantly, you can't defend it to the American consumer, who ultimately pays the tab. Let's be clear, this is not the end of the journey but the beginning. We have a long way to go to cure the imbalances of trade between our nations. If we don't begin the journey, we can't end it. This bill is a step in the right direction. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for 20 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Today I am introducing legislation to correct a long- standing inequity that has caused hardship for American farmers. That inequity is the pricing of agricultural pesticides for American producers in relationship to Canadian pesticide pricing. My bill would solve this inequity by allowing individual States to label Canadian pesticides that have the same formula as those used in the U.S. for use by American farmers. Farmers combine land, water, commercial inputs, labor, and their management skills into practices and systems to produce food and fiber. To sustain production over time, farmers must make a profit and preserve their resource and financial assets. Society wants food and fiber products that are low-cost, safe to consume, and aesthetically pleasing, and wants production systems that preserve or enhance the environment. These often competing goals and pressures are reflected not only in the inputs made available for production, but also in how the inputs are selected, combined, and managed at the farm level. Time and time again I have come to Senate floor to point out the stark realities of free trade. I have talked at length about the flood of imported grain that streams across our border. Come to my State of North Dakota. Every day truckload after truckload of Canadian commodities, wheat, barley, durum, come across our border to compete with commodities grown here at home. These Canadian imports are grown with the aid of pesticides, pesticides of the same makeup and composition as those purchased in the United States. Yet Canadian producers have the luxury of buying those same chemicals at prices substantially lower than those American farmers have to pay. Why? The answer is simple; pesticide manufacturers charge American farmers more because they can. In agricultural policy, benefits from the North American Free Trade Agreement flow the same direction as the Red River of my State, north. This is especially true of pesticide pricing. A recent survey completed by North Dakota State University surveyed 15 different pesticides commonly used in both Canada and North Dakota. All would qualify for registration in North Dakota under this bill. Of the 15, not one, not one, had a price differential in favor of the American farmer. When you totaled it all out, those 15 chemicals cost, in North Dakota alone, $23.7 million more, in 1 year, for the American producer. That's just not right. If we're going to have free trade, let's make it fair trade. If we are going to open our borders to Canadian grain grown with Canadian pesticides, we ought to open our borders to similar pesticides for U.S. producers at the same cost. It's time to level the playing field for American farmers, we must give them the same advantages that Canadian producers have enjoyed for years. If we're going to have a free trade agreement with Canada, let's all sing from the same page, using the same music. Because putting American farmers at a disadvantage in the world marketplace over pesticide prices that are not in harmony with our competitors is a practice that must be stopped. It must be stopped now. Nothing in this legislation harms the environment, unless you're in the environment of profits. This legislation would create a procedure whereby individual states could apply and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the United States. The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use. This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is a number one priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a number one priority for all of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact. It is impossible to defend chemical price imbalance. You can't defend it to the growers, you can't defend it to the chemical distributor, and you can't defend it to the chemical retailer. Most importantly, you can't defend it to the American consumer, who ultimately pays the tab. Let's be clear, this is not the end of the journey but the beginning. We have a long way to go to cure the imbalances of trade between our nations. If we don't begin the journey, we can't end it. This bill is a step in the right direction. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Kerry and Snowe in re-introducing the Public Good IRA Rollover Act, legislation to allow taxpayers to make tax-free distributions from their individual retirement accounts, IRAs, for gifts to charity. It is more important than ever to provide support to our nation's charitable organizations. Our struggling economy is placing an enormous financial strain on many charities, severely curtailing their funding at a time when the need for their services is greatest. I have heard from charities that people frequently ask them about using their IRAs to make charitable donations. However, many donors decide not to make a gift from their IRAs after they are told about the potential tax consequences under current law. Our IRA charitable rollover legislation would eliminate this concern. This single change to the Tax Code could put billions of additional dollars from a new source to work for the public good. A Salvation Army official once said that providing for IRA charitable rollovers ``would be the single most important piece of legislation in the history of public charitable support in this country.'' Over the years, a number of legislative proposals have been discussed in Congress to increase charitable giving. In his Fiscal Year 2004 budget, President Bush has proposed a substantial package of tax incentives to encourage charitable giving, including a proposal to allow individuals to make certain tax-free charitable IRA distributions after age 65. The President's charitable IRA proposal has a lot of merit, but the Public Good IRA Rollover Act is superior in an important respect: by allowing tax-free life-income gifts from an IRA. Life-income gifts involve the donation of assets to a charity, where the giver retains an income stream from those assets for a defined period. Life-income gifts are an important tool for charities to raise much needed funds, and would receive a substantial boost if they could be made from IRAs, but they are wholly ignored in the Administration's proposal. Under our proposed Public Good IRA Rollover Act, individuals would be allowed to make tax-free charitable life-income gifts at the age of 59\1/2\. Similar provisions were added to a major charitable tax incentive bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee last year, but were not ultimately enacted. As the Finance Committee begins anew to consider a charitable giving tax incentive package in the near future, I urge them to adopt once again the IRA charitable rollover approach used in the Public Good IRA Rollover Act, instead of the approach recently outlined in the President's budget. The benefits of our approach are two-fold. First, the life-income gift provision in our legislation would stimulate additional charitable giving. In addition, people who make life-income gifts often become more involved with charities. They serve as volunteers, urge their friends and colleagues to make charitable gifts and frequently set up additional provisions for charity in their life-time giving plans and at death. Second, this approach comes at no extra cost to the government when compared to other major charitable IRA rollover proposals. So I urge my colleagues to consider the Public Good IRA Rollover Act, as we undertake efforts in the Senate to craft a charitable giving tax incentives bill. As I mentioned at the outset, in these trying times we ought to do everything we can to encourage charitable giving. Let us remember the old adage that ``we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.''

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Kerry and Snowe in re-introducing the Public Good IRA Rollover Act, legislation to allow taxpayers to make tax-free distributions from their individual retirement accounts, IRAs, for gifts to charity. It is more important than ever to provide support to our nation's charitable organizations. Our struggling economy is placing an enormous financial strain on many charities, severely curtailing their funding at a time when the need for their services is greatest. I have heard from charities that people frequently ask them about using their IRAs to make charitable donations. However, many donors decide not to make a gift from their IRAs after they are told about the potential tax consequences under current law. Our IRA charitable rollover legislation would eliminate this concern. This single change to the Tax Code could put billions of additional dollars from a new source to work for the public good. A Salvation Army official once said that providing for IRA charitable rollovers ``would be the single most important piece of legislation in the history of public charitable support in this country.'' Over the years, a number of legislative proposals have been discussed in Congress to increase charitable giving. In his Fiscal Year 2004 budget, President Bush has proposed a substantial package of tax incentives to encourage charitable giving, including a proposal to allow individuals to make certain tax-free charitable IRA distributions after age 65. The President's charitable IRA proposal has a lot of merit, but the Public Good IRA Rollover Act is superior in an important respect: by allowing tax-free life-income gifts from an IRA. Life-income gifts involve the donation of assets to a charity, where the giver retains an income stream from those assets for a defined period. Life-income gifts are an important tool for charities to raise much needed funds, and would receive a substantial boost if they could be made from IRAs, but they are wholly ignored in the Administration's proposal. Under our proposed Public Good IRA Rollover Act, individuals would be allowed to make tax-free charitable life-income gifts at the age of 59\1/2\. Similar provisions were added to a major charitable tax incentive bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee last year, but were not ultimately enacted. As the Finance Committee begins anew to consider a charitable giving tax incentive package in the near future, I urge them to adopt once again the IRA charitable rollover approach used in the Public Good IRA Rollover Act, instead of the approach recently outlined in the President's budget. The benefits of our approach are two-fold. First, the life-income gift provision in our legislation would stimulate additional charitable giving. In addition, people who make life-income gifts often become more involved with charities. They serve as volunteers, urge their friends and colleagues to make charitable gifts and frequently set up additional provisions for charity in their life-time giving plans and at death. Second, this approach comes at no extra cost to the government when compared to other major charitable IRA rollover proposals. So I urge my colleagues to consider the Public Good IRA Rollover Act, as we undertake efforts in the Senate to craft a charitable giving tax incentives bill. As I mentioned at the outset, in these trying times we ought to do everything we can to encourage charitable giving. Let us remember the old adage that ``we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.''

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. What is true is when we got to a new fiscal policy proposal by the administration, they said let's cut $1.7 trillion in taxes because we have surpluses as far as the eye can see. Some of us said--I certainly did--maybe we ought to be a little bit conservative. What if we do not have surpluses forever? What if we run into some tough times? What if the economy runs into trouble? Then guess what happened. Without my vote, Congress passed a very large, permanent tax cut. We quickly discovered we were in a recession. Then we had a terrorist attack on September 11. Then we had a war on terrorism. Then we had the largest corporate scandals in history. All of this happened, it seems to me, suggesting that perhaps some of us who urged caution were right, because what happened is those big budget surpluses are now very big budget deficits. What does the President say we ought to do about that? Let's provide more 10-year tax cuts to the tune of $670 billion. When interest is added to it, it is going to be over $1 trillion. None of that adds up.