Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me try to describe where we agree and where we disagree on this issue of the estate tax. We agree that the estate tax ought to be repealed for family businesses that are transferred to qualified heirs who want to continue to operate the family business. We do not believe that family business ought to be interrupted by an estate tax. So we agree on that. The difference is when to do it. My amendment will totally repeal the estate tax obligation for the transfer of family businesses in 2003. The bill that is before the Senate will do it in 2011. The most important part of their bill is effective, as they describe it, in 2011. Mine is effective in 2003. That is a big difference. We agree that the rates should go down to 45 percent. My amendment takes the rate to 45 percent. The underlying bill does, too. We agree that the unified credit should go up to $4 million. My amendment does that, and the underlying bill does as well. The difference is, those who oppose my amendment are saying they want to fight for additional estate tax exemptions and/or repeal for all estates above $8 million. That is the difference. Those who do not support this amendment are saying: We insist on an estate tax repeal for those estates over $8 million in value. They say the largest estates in this country need to have their tax burdens eased. I ask this question: Why would someone in the Senate support taxing the income of middle-income Americans who work for their money but then oppose taxing the income, in fact the largely unearned income, of those who inherit more than $8 million a year? It seems to me to be a rather strange set of priorities. We are having this debate about the estate tax that we will vote on this evening. Those who have spoken at great length in this Chamber, I might say, of wanting to protect a family farm or a small business, in my judgment, cannot with a straight face vote against this amendment and then go back home and say: I was supporting you, Main Street business, or I was supporting you, farmer or rancher, because this is the only amendment that, in the year 2003, will repeal the estate tax on the transfer of family businesses to qualified heirs. It is the only opportunity to do that. The underlying bill will only do it in the year 2011, 10 years from now, the sweet by-and-by as Reverend Ike used to describe it. I ask for some support for this amendment. I hope those who have talked at such great length about this subject will now have the opportunity and feel the obligation to vote for an amendment that does what they claim they want to be done. I will speak for a moment more generally on this bill. There is not any question that there is room for a tax cut in this country. We have a budget surplus. It is also the case that we do not know what is going to happen in 6, 8, and 10 years, and we ought to be conservative and cautious about what we commit to in terms of fiscal policy 6, 8, and 10 years from now. About 20 years ago, a very large tax cut was enacted by this Congress and, as a result of a very substantial tax cut and a doubling of the defense budget, this country sailed into some pretty tough economic waters. Those rough waters caused very significant and deep Federal budget deficits that nearly choked this country's budget. It meant a difference in everything we did. It meant a difference in how much we had available to invest in our children, invest in education, invest in child care, yes, invest in a range of things that are important to make this a better life, invest especially in infrastructure--roads, school buildings, and so many other things that are important. It made a big difference in our ability to deal with those issues. We struggled and struggled and, in 1993, we turned this fiscal policy around. We did it by one vote, one single vote in the Senate and one vote in the House of Representatives. I remember those who stood and opposed it and said: You are going to wreck this country's economy. That is when we had a $290 billion annual deficit. They said: You are going to wreck this economy. This economy was headed in the wrong direction in a hurry. By one vote we supported a change in fiscal policy and turned this economy around. We went from the largest deficits in history to now a budget that is in surplus and gives us the opportunity to return some of that surplus to the American people. And, yes, we should do that. No one should call themselves, in my judgment, a conservative who comes to this Chamber and says they know what is going to happen to this economy 6, 8, 10 years out and, therefore, put in place a fiscal policy that could, if our economy turns sour, run this country right back into big deficits once again. That is not a conservative approach. A far better approach, in my judgment, would be to be somewhat cautious. Yes, provide a tax cut, but do it in a manner that is fair, do it in a way that helps American working families, stimulates the economy, and gives some money back to families who could sure use it. This is not the time, in my judgment, to put in place a tax cut of well over $1.3 trillion but when the costs are really added up may well be over $2 trillion in the coming 10 years. It leaves no margin for error if this economy should turn soft. It is almost zero gravity politically to be talking about tax cuts. Those who say their main mission in life is to cut the revenue stream of the Federal Government--that is not a controversial proposal I expect back home. It is almost a certain way for one to be popular with one's constituents to say they support the largest possible tax cut for as long as is possible. But there is another element to this. We should support a tax cut that is fair to all Americans, No. 1, and No. 2, we ought to have enough revenue left to reduce the Federal debt, which stands at $5.6 trillion and which after this fiscal policy plays itself out will stand at $6.7 trillion. This fiscal policy and the budget passed by this Congress, coupled with this tax cut, will increase Federal indebtedness by $1.1 trillion. Think of that. Second, there ought to be enough left to make sure we have the investment necessary to improve our country's schools, to provide the research in health and welfare and other issues we have to deal with in this country, and to make this country a place in which all of us can lead better lives. I know the Senator from New Mexico is waiting to speak. May I ask how much time remains on my amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. Was it reserved?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa yielded his remaining time. Was the time not used by the Senator from Kentucky?

Mr. DORGAN. How much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DORGAN. I do so with the understanding that if the other side reclaims its time, I be restored the 4 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Montana yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if your priority is to help folks on the family farm or family business or their kids or grandkids, then support estate tax reform and my amendment. But if your priority is to make sure, as Leona Helmsley put it, ``Only little people pay taxes,'' support the committee bill. The committee bill also repeals the estate tax in its entirety for all estates in 2011, even the most wealthy estates. My amendment does not. It does abolish the estate tax for all family farms and all family businesses passed on to the qualified heirs who continue to operate them in 2003. It exempts from the estate tax all family businesses and family farms in that category 8 years earlier than the committee's does. My amendment also contains the $4 million unified credit, the 45- percent rate. The only difference is my legislation would continue to impose an estate tax on the estates of billionaires and those in the upper income areas. I think that is a reasonable thing to do. But I do, in this amendment, believe we ought to repeal the estate tax obligation on family businesses and family farms transferred to qualified heirs. This will do it in 2003. The committee bill will do it 8 years later. Those who have talked about this issue as their priority certainly ought to support this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. If I might further inquire, I admit certain changes have occurred that have made this bill better for lower and middle-income groups more recently. But my guess is the Senator from Montana is not saying repeal of the estate tax is not in this bill, even though he says it is sunsetted. This bill repeals the estate tax in the last year; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. The only point I make is, talking about this bill as progressive, by saying if you don't consider the estate tax, it is a progressive bill.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have every right to come to this Chamber and change this tax bill. It was written in the Finance Committee. We as Members of the Senate have a right to say we have better ideas. I will talk about this so-called death tax. The term ``death tax'' was created by a Republican pollster. It is a wonderful moniker for the estate tax. Mr. President, I am going to give my colleagues a chance to vote on something that solves all their problems. Talk about family farms and small businesses, I am going to offer an amendment that repeals the estate tax for all family farms and all family businesses regardless of size as long as they are passed along to descendants and continue to operate as an enterprise. Total repeal. My amendment also would increase the general unified estate credit that is available to everyone to $8 million for a husband and wife; $4 million each. The only estates we are talking about will be over $8 million. And if one comes out and talks about family farms and family businesses. It does not apply. They are already repealed. The question before my colleagues now is the amendment offered by Senator Schumer, and it is about choices. Regrettably, it is about selfish choices. It is about choosing to allow families to deduct tuition expenses for their children versus a choice that was made in the Finance Committee to repeal the estate tax and reduce the rate. They said, no, holding on to that repeal is more important than providing the full tuition deduction. Look, there are a lot of families in this country who scrape and struggle trying to figure out how to send their kids to college. It may not be true with some Members of the Senate, but it is true with almost every family in this country. They are struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college. What do they mortgage? Often they mortgage everything they have to find the money to send their kid to school because they are not going to say no to a kid who deserves the opportunity to get a higher education. What Senator Schumer says, what I say, and what my colleagues say is the value of deciding that we ought to allow the deduction for college tuition is something that enhances our children; it invests in our future. It is the right choice, not the selfish choice. He is weighing it against the issue of a top rate reduction in the estate tax for only the wealthiest estates in the country. Guess what. We have people who stand in this Chamber and say: If you want to know whose side I am on, count me in on the side of the people with the largest estates in America, and do not count me as standing with the folks who are struggling to scrape money together to find a way to send their kids to school. Yes, this is about choices. It is about for whom you stand. Whose side are you on? No, that is not class warfare. We have already chosen what class here. The Finance Committee chose the class way up here with assets where they do not have to worry about where they get the money. That money was banked years ago to send their kids to the best colleges in the world. And God bless them, good for them. Senator Schumer says--and I say, too--there are millions of families out there who do not have the resources. They worked hard, struggled hard, and they want a good education for their family, too. They want a good education for their kids. They want an opportunity for their children. One way to help them provide that opportunity is to allow them to deduct the cost of their tuition expense of sending their children to college. Gosh, I do not understand sometimes, I guess, when people say: We have written this bill. This is our choice. We do not appreciate you coming up here requiring us to make votes on tough choices. That is exactly what politics is. That is what this process is about. I say to the Finance Committee: You made the wrong choice. We have a right to ask the Senate to make the right choice on behalf of America's families and on behalf of America's children. This is not going to stop. We have a lot of amendments. A number of people have amendments. I have amendments that I think will dramatically improve this bill. This amendment is among the most important amendments on which we will vote. I hope we have a strong vote in support of the Schumer amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask an additional question, Mr. President, my understanding is that the beginning of tax relief for the top 1 percent of the income earners in this country starts immediately, but the beginning of trying to deal with the marriage tax penalty starts about 5 years from now. Is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. One additional question. When will the marriage tax relief be fully effective?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I inquire, the list that was just read, are those 30-minute amendments?

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I observe to the majority leader the reason for the anxiety is we are bringing this bill to the floor under reconciliation. As the majority leader knows, reconciliation limits the amount of time for debate. So there are many people on this side of the aisle who have amendments and want to have the amendments offered and debated. I think that is why hands are being raised requesting time. If this were not brought under reconciliation we would not have to do that. Every Senator would have the right to offer an amendment and the right to have it debated. I ask I be put in the lineup for Monday for 30 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Will we be expecting a vote at the conclusion of the time on this amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. I know my colleague has studied economics. I have studied economics and actually taught a little economics but was able to overcome that experience. When you study economics, you will learn about John Maynard Keynes' saying: In the long run, we're all dead. Right. So it is interesting this tax bill says: Look, here is what we are going to do. We are going to get rid of the marriage tax penalty, and we are going to do this and that and the other thing; and then you look at the fine print and find out that for the marriage tax penalty, they do not start getting rid of it until 2004 or 2005. I guess you say now it has been altered. It does not complete until 2008. So we are really talking about the long run, aren't we? But, yes, if you happen to be earning $10 million a year in income, you are going to get immediate tax relief by a rate reduction right at the start. Right at the get-go, right at the starting line, you at the top are going to get a rate reduction. But there is not enough money to provide relief for the marriage tax penalty right away, so that is deferred 4 years, 6 years, 8 years, or, as Keynes would say, in the long run. One wonders if there is not a short run and a priority that allows us to say, look, the hard working families who are paying a marriage tax penalty, shouldn't they be moved right to the front of the line. Almost everyone jumps up instantly around here the minute you mention the marriage tax penalty and say: I am for getting rid of it. Count me in. I want to vote right now--except this tax bill does not do that. Remember, John Mitchell once said: Don't listen to what we say. Just watch what we do. That might be good advice for this marriage tax issue as well. People say: We are going to get rid of the marriage tax penalty. Not now we aren't, not unless we adopt this amendment offered by Senator Conrad. Of course we ought to adopt this amendment. Of course this is the right priority. Senator Conrad is not saying everyone should not get a tax cut. He is not saying the top rates should not get a tax cut. That is not what he is saying at all. He is saying, the priority ought to be to provide marriage tax penalty relief now--not in 2004 or 2005, not in 2008, but now, for the American people. That makes eminent good sense to me. He is not suggesting that further rate reductions should not occur at the top level. He is not suggesting we defer tax relief for anyone else up or down the chain. He is simply saying, use, as a priority, the money that he has in his amendment to provide marriage tax penalty relief now. If everyone in the Senate is true to the votes they have cast in the last 3 or 4 years on this subject, Senator Conrad will receive 100 votes for this amendment. If so, I will congratulate him and say: Well done. I hope when the vote is cast, we will have people voting the way they have voted in the past 3 or 4 years on this issue to say: Let's provide marriage tax penalty rate relief right now.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the reason I mentioned that everyone in the Senate supports this, no one stands up in the Senate these days and says: I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to have a penalty in the Tax Code for married couples. I don't know of anyone who supports that. The question remaining for the Senate is, Shall we fix that now or shall we wait until later? Senator Conrad says: Let's fix it now. Let's make adjustments to this proposal that is on the floor. If we all agree that the marriage tax penalty should be fixed, the Senator says, let's fix it now rather than much later. That makes sense to me. I am pleased he offered the amendment. I will be pleased to vote for it. I hope every one of my colleagues will do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the time. This issue, as it has been described, is about the marriage tax penalty. There cannot be anyone left in the Senate who does not understand this issue. We have debated it and debated it and debated it. Everyone stands up, almost automatically, in the Senate, and says: I am for getting rid of the marriage tax penalty. Count me in. I want to vote for getting rid of the marriage tax penalty. We have a tax bill that has now been brought to the floor of the Senate, and it says: Do you know what. We have written a bill that gets rid of the marriage tax penalty. It is similar to an employee being called into an office and the employer says: Good news. Do you know what. We are giving you a raise. Then the employee says: When does this raise start? The employer says: 5 years from now. But we aren't going to give it to you all at once. We'll phase it in. It starts in 5 years, and it takes 8 years to get the full amount. Look, if we want to get rid of the marriage tax penalty as we have advertised for so many years, why would we not decide that as a part of this tax bill we are going to give real tax relief right now to middle- income taxpayers who are paying a marriage tax penalty? Why would we wait some 5 years? I ask the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in his proposal in which he says, let's make the marriage tax relief available now--and, incidentally, that is tax relief that principally affects middle-income taxpayers who have a penalty under the marriage tax--let me ask him how he would pay for moving up that tax relief so it becomes effective next year, almost immediately. How does the Senator pay for his amendment?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, tomorrow I believe Vice President Cheney will be releasing details of an energy plan he has worked on for some long while. All of us anxiously await release of that plan, so we can begin discussing what kind of an energy policy this country needs. I think it is the case that with respect to both Republican and Democratic administrations, for many years this country has not had a satisfactory energy plan. We have become more and more reliant on foreign sources of energy. We seem not to have a consistent plan that tracks over a long period of time relating to production and conservation and renewables. So I think it is quite clear we need a new plan. We need a new strategy, one that works for this country. We have Americans today who discover, when they drive up to the gasoline pumps, that the price of gas has increased dramatically. In some parts of the country, people are now paying over $2 a gallon for gasoline. In other parts of the country, the price of gasoline, they say, will probably move to $3 a gallon at some point. Lord only knows what the new projections will be. Those who are trying to heat their homes with natural gas, or family farmers who are going into the field with anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, 80 percent of which is natural gas, are discovering the price of natural gas has spiked and skyrocketed. In many parts of the country, the price of natural gas is double what it used to be, and in some cases is much more than that. If you happen to live in California at the moment, you discover that the price of electricity has dramatically increased. We know that 2 years ago, the price of power in California cost consumers $7 billion. Two years later, it is $70 billion in California, which is nearly a tenfold increase. Those price increases have spread to other parts of the west, as well. We know that in California the use of natural gas to produce power in electric generating plants, in a deregulated wholesale market, has created, in my judgment, a broken market, one in which unregulated sellers sell into a regulated market in California, and in 24 hours the price of an MCF of natural gas can double, triple, or quadruple--in just a 24-hour period. And all of it is non-transparent. No one can see what the pricing is, who made the money, how much money was made. That is what is happening in California today. I have been very critical of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that is supposed to be regulating some of these activities, but instead has done its best imitation of a potted plant for a couple years. They have essentially done nothing because they apparently view markets as some sort of sacrosanct device which will be fair to all. In fact, the market in California is broken. The market for power in California does not work. This is a failed experiment in deregulation. Any lesson we should take from this for the rest of the country--and, I would say, for my home State of North Dakota, is: let us not follow this example of deregulation. They call it restructuring. That is just a fancy name of saying deregulation. In North Dakota, we have been deregulated with airlines, deregulated with railroads, and now they talk about the deregulation of electricity. Every time we have been deregulated, we have been hurt badly. The California experience of deregulation and restructuring ought to send shivers down the backs of the rest of the people in this country who have not yet had this experience. My point is, we have an energy situation that is in chaos in this country: it is at the gasoline pumps in the eastern part of the country, and all the rest of the country; it is in electricity prices in California; natural gas prices for farmers who are about to go into the field; and for people trying to heat their homes. What do we do about all that? First, I happen to think we ought to investigate pricing policies. When you have concentration of power in the hands of a few--I would say, in the oil industry, with the kinds of mergers we have had in recent years--we have larger and larger enterprises that have the capability, that have the economic power and the muscle to impose high prices and to manipulate supply. I do not allege they do it in all cases. I do allege the possibility exists. And we would do the public and this country some good by shining light on pricing policies in many of these energy streams. I suggest we do that by creating a select committee--a joint House and Senate committee--to investigate energy prices. Let me be quick to say, there also are other reasons for the spike in some energy prices. When the price of oil went to $10 a barrel, frankly, there was very little incentive for the energy industry to look for oil and natural gas. I understand that. I accept that. Then the price of oil spiked to $35 a barrel, and we began to see more drilling rigs; more people are looking for oil. We will have more supply coming on line. I accept the fact that there is an imbalance in supply and demand. That is not permanent. That is temporary. I also accept the fact we would be better off as a country not having that kind of roller coaster ride on energy prices. We would be much better, in my judgment, having a more stable pricing structure that would provide incentives for people to search for coal, oil and natural gas, not just sometimes, but all of the time. So I accept that as part of the reason for some of the pricing disparities that exist in this country. But I do not accept that that represents the entire answer for what is happening in this country. I believe there is evidence of price manipulation and supply manipulation, and I think this Congress, which seems to be willing to investigate almost anything in the last 10 years or so, would do the American public a service by creating a select committee of the House and the Senate to investigate energy prices. If there is nothing there, we will not find anything. If we find something, we will do the American public a service by shining light on it, and finding it, and stopping it, with respect to price manipulation. Having said all that, let me say that we welcome the submission by Vice President Cheney tomorrow. It is time--high past the time--that this Congress begin deliberating on a new energy policy. What should that policy be? In my judgment, that policy needs to have incentives and the kinds of mechanisms that will encourage production. Yes, we need more production; no question about it. We need to find more coal, more oil, and more natural gas. So production is a part of it. In fact, there is a substantial amount of production opportunity around this country. The are 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas up in Alaska that we know is there. It is leased. That could be brought down here, if we could only build a pipeline. So in terms of production, we need pipelines. And, we also need facilities to transmit electricity. There are a whole series of infrastructure issues, in addition to the production incentives, that ought to be in a good, sound energy plan. But let me say, with respect to the news report about energy policy that we are likely to get tomorrow, when they say production is the overwhelming urge in this new energy plan, production is an important part of it, but it is not the only part of it. A balanced energy plan that is good for this country will include production. There is no question about that. But a balanced energy plan will especially also include conservation. This country needs to be more conservation-minded. We can conserve much more energy than we do, if we have the kind of leadership that we ought to have, and if we have the incentives for conservation that we ought to put in place. In addition to conservation, we need efficiency. There is no reason that we ought not require more efficiency in appliances and a range of other activities in this country. We know from experience that requiring greater efficiency works, that the manufacturers can develop products to be more efficient and produce these products for our consumers in this country. Efficiency must be a part of a balanced energy plan. Then, finally, a balanced energy plan must--and I emphasize must-- include renewable sources of energy. I know the oil companies have never liked some of them. The oil industry has never liked the production of ethanol. What is ethanol? Taking a kernel of corn, extracting a drop of alcohol from that kernel of corn, and using that alcohol to extend our energy supply makes great sense to me. It is renewable. You can produce that corn over and over again. Once you take the drop of alcohol from the kernel of corn, you have protein feed stock left that you can use to feed animals. What a terrific bargain for this country: Extend your energy supply by using a renewable source of energy and have the protein from the feed stock left for animals. But the oil companies have never much liked ethanol, and I understand why. Because it is a competitor, albeit a small competitor, but it ought to be a much bigger competitor. We ought to develop renewable resources. Ethanol is one renewable source. Another is biomass; still another is wind power. It may surprise some to know that the Department of Energy says the wind power capital of the world is North Dakota. We do not have any wind devices in North Dakota to collect this power and distribute it. The new wind energy turbines are very efficient. They are wonderful devices that can take the wind and create from that wind, and from the spinning of the propeller into a turbine, electricity. North Dakota, they say, is the ``Saudi Arabia'' of wind. Some listening to me from time to time on the floor of the Senate might understand I contribute to that. But if North Dakota is the ``Saudi Arabia'' of wind--and the Department of Energy says it is--then we ought to, not just in North Dakota, but around the country, use this new wind energy, which itself is renewable. We have a substantial amount of new wind energy activity in Iowa, in Minnesota, and, of course, there has been a substantial amount in California. But the new turbines for wind energy are highly efficient. We owe it to this country to use these new renewable sources of energy to extend our country's energy supply. So the point I am trying to make tonight is this: If we get an energy policy from the administration tomorrow that says, look, this is a simple solution, all we have to do is go find more oil and natural gas, and maybe crank up another nuclear plant or two, I say that is an answer that would have come 20 years ago or 40 years ago or 60 years ago. We need to do a lot of things, and a lot of things well, in order to resolve this country's energy problems. Let me just digress for a moment to say, one of the interesting things about this country, and about energy, is this: Almost everything in the world has changed in the last century--almost everything. You name an area, and you will find a significant change--except, we still use gasoline in automobile engines. I was a very young boy when I got my first car. My father actually found it in an elevator out on an abandoned farm. He knew who owned the abandoned farm, and he said: Why don't you write to him in Milwaukee and see if you can buy this car? I was a young boy. My dad said: It is a 1924 Model T Ford. You can buy it and restore it. What a great project for a young fellow; and I did. I wrote to the guy in Milwaukee. He wrote back and said: Gosh, I would love to let you have that car. It's sitting there in this little elevator on the farm that is abandoned. Send me $25. I sent him $25, and he sent me the owners manual that he saved all those years and the key that he had saved all those years, as well. I pulled the Model T Ford into my father's service station. I worked on it for a year and restored the little old Model T Ford. It was a 1924 antique automobile. Do you know something? You provided energy for that car--that 1924 car--exactly the same way you provide energy for a car produced in 2001. You stick a gas hose in the tank, and pump a little gas in. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in all of these intervening years. Isn't that interesting? Almost everything else has changed, but we still stick a gas pump in a gas tank of a car--80 years ago, or today, you pump the same gasoline. Quite remarkable. We can do better in this country. I am not suggesting we wean ourselves off gasoline in a short period of time, but there is a car sitting out in front of this Capitol from time to time, owned by our friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, that runs on both gasoline and electricity. It is one of the new hybrid cars. I think that is kind of interesting. I would like to see a whole fleet of them in this country. I would like to see that kind of technology. Perhaps this is just the first step toward the fuel cell, and taking the hydrogen out of water and using it as a fuel, as some say will happen with the new fuel cells. The point is this, we can do a lot of things. This country has the technological capability to do a lot of wonderful things. But here we are, sitting on the edge of this spin in this energy crisis, with the price of natural gas doubling, the price of gasoline $2 at the pump and going north, and the price of electricity in California going through the roof, and blackouts occurring at a time when California is only at about two-thirds of its ultimate power needs for the hot weather. We have a mess on our hands. In order to get out of this mess, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, need to figure out how we construct a strategy on energy that is balanced--that includes production, conservation, efficiency, and renewables. A good energy policy that has all of those elements, that represents the best of all of the ideas brought to the table in this Chamber, will serve this country well. Feuding and fussing with an energy strategy, then coming up with the same tired old strategy we have had in the past, just simply street- corner chanting ``production, production, production''--thinking that somehow that will solve this country's problem, is, in my judgment, a road to nowhere. I am anxious to see, and interested in seeing, what the Vice President has produced. Most of us in this Chamber should be ready and willing to begin working immediately with the Vice President, the administration, and all others, to both construct and demand a balanced energy policy for this country. The American consumers have long deserved it and have never received it. Americans don't deserve to be held hostage by foreign energy supplies over which we have little control. They don't deserve to be held hostage with respect to electric costs we can't control and, therefore, have rolling blackouts in one of our largest States. They don't deserve to have been held hostage by gas pump prices over which they have no control and very little understanding. Tomorrow will be an interesting day. I hope it is the first step on a journey to begin constructing between Republicans and Democrats an energy policy that will really serve this country well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

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