[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 65 (Monday, May 5, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5697-S5698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   INCREASING THE FEDERAL DEBT LIMIT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, later this week, I am told, we will be 
getting in the Senate a proposal to increase the Federal debt limit. My 
assumption is that the increase in the Federal debt limit we will be 
asked to consider will be nearly $1 trillion--$900-some billion. I am 
told it is shaved just enough to be under $1 trillion.
  That increase in the debt limit will equal, incidentally, all of the 
debt accumulated from George Washington until 1980, until Ronald Reagan 
took office. For all of those years, we accumulated less than $1 
trillion in debt. The debt limit increase we will be asked to vote on 
will be just slightly under $1 trillion.
  What does that say about the country's fiscal policy? It says we are 
running very large Federal budget deficits. Two years ago, it was 
expected that we would run large budget surpluses as far as the eye 
could see. President Bush said: Let's have the American people keep 
their own money. Let's move the surpluses back. Let's have a $1.7 
trillion tax cut.
  Some of us said: Maybe we should be more conservative. What if these 
Federal budget surpluses don't materialize? What if we are wrong about 
that?
  They said: Never mind. And they pushed it through the House and the 
Senate, and with great fanfare they signed the bill.
  Two years later, we have budget deficits as far as the eye can see; 
this year, the biggest budget deficit in history and this week, 
apparently, a proposal to increase the Federal debt limit by nearly $1 
trillion. I don't understand that.
  In addition to that, there is a major debate on how much additional 
tax cuts there should be: Should the President get his program of 
additional tax cuts? There are not only tax cuts in what is called 
reconciliation, but tax cut proposals outside of reconciliation, which 
altogether total $1.3 trillion in additional tax cuts.

  The easiest lifting in American politics for any politician anywhere 
in America is to say: I support tax cuts. If in fact tax cuts produce 
new jobs, then sign me up. I propose we have a trillion dollars in tax 
cuts or, better yet, $2 trillion in tax cuts. But, of course, we know 
what we have ahead of us are very large Federal budget deficits.
  For Congress and the President, the question is, What is it that we 
don't want to do in our Government? Do we not want to have regulatory 
agencies that provide protection for American citizens and consumers? 
Do we not want to build roads? Do we not want to fund schools? Do we 
not want to fund the Customs Service, the Immigration Service, the 
Border Patrol, the Food and Drug Administration? What exactly is it 
that we should not be doing? Those are the important questions.
  Of course, there is waste in government. And we ought to cut spending 
where it is wasted. Let me give an example. Senator Wyden and I some 
while ago asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons, why are you advertising 
for a dance instructor? In fact, it was advertising for a dance 
instructor in the State of Texas. Why are you advertising for that for 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons? What do we need that for? What is the 
purpose of that? We have since discovered that the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons has had dance instructors at eight federal prisons. I don't 
understand that. Learning how to dance the salsa when you are in 
prison, is that necessary? In areas where there is waste, let's attack 
waste.
  Let me cite one other example. Senator Wyden and I mentioned this 
past week--and this is not direct spending on our budget--that the U.S. 
Postal System inspector general's office is wasting massive amounts of 
money. The inspector general's office has 700-some people in the Office 
of the Postal Department doing events supposed to promote teamwork, 
where employees wrap themselves in toilet paper. They wear animal 
costumes. They dress up and do role playing. It is the most Byzantine 
thing I have ever heard of. They spend millions of dollars on these 
events. That inspector general ought to lose their job. It is a waste 
of money.
  But there are government functions that are essential for our 
country. Like those nettlesome regulatory agencies that are supposed to 
protect us from the kind of grand theft that occurred on the west coast 
with Enron Corporation and others, where what they did was ratchet up 
the price of electricity. They were turning it, double, triple, 10 
times, charging the consumers on the west coast a massive amount of 
money for electricity as they were manipulating the price. They were 
taking plants offline and manipulating the quantity of energy, and they 
were engaged in efforts that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
and the Justice Department now apparently say are criminal.
  I believe they were criminal. I said so last year when I chaired 
hearings on Enron Corporation. What we have seen on the west coast, 
with respect to what was going on with the pricing of electricity, is 
grand theft. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is now beginning 
to take action, after the fact,

[[Page S5698]]

after the west coast consumers were cheated, bilked to the tune of 
billions of dollars.
  So is that a part of government that we don't want to have around? We 
don't want the regulatory agencies looking over the shoulder of 
companies such as Enron that were manipulating price and supply in 
order to cheat consumers in an approach that now appears criminal? That 
is what FERC says. Do we want to reduce the number of regulators who 
protect consumers?

  What about Wall Street? We saw last week there was a $1.9 billion 
settlement because Wall Street firms were saying: Let's push this stock 
to the customers, despite the fact that internally these firms were 
saying: The stock is a dog; this stock is terrible. Yet what their 
salesmen in the field were being told by research analysts at these 
companies was: Push this stock along to an unsuspecting public.
  Do we want to cut the money for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and others that are supposed to be regulators protecting 
consumers, and say let the buyer beware? I don't think so.
  Fiscal policy has to be sensible and thoughtful. Tax cuts are fine. 
If you can afford tax cuts, that is fine. But when you face deficits as 
far as the eye can see, should this Government say: Let's send our sons 
and daughters to war and, by the way, we won't pay for it? And when you 
come back, what we will do is increase the Federal debt by $1 trillion 
and say, as soon as you take your uniform off, you have to help pay the 
debt, because we wouldn't pay it, or your children and grandchildren 
will have to pay it because we wouldn't?
  We are talking about implementing tax cuts that predominantly benefit 
the upper income people, to such an extent that if you were lucky 
enough to earn $1 million a year, you would get an $80,000 a year tax 
cut. Is that a priority?
  Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, said he didn't 
support it because he said it favors the rich. That is what the second 
richest man in the world said about the President's tax plan. Is that 
what we ought to embrace when we are deep in debt, and headed deeper in 
debt, and about to vote on a $1 trillion increase in the Federal 
debt? I do not think so. There are some activities in Government that 
are important. I mentioned schools and roads. There are activities we 
perform of which we are proud and of which we should be proud.

  I once visited a Communist country. It was a country with which we 
were doing business. I met with the American Chamber of Commerce in 
that Communist country. Do you know what their message was? Their 
message was this is a great market for us to tap, but the problem is we 
need more government in this country to do business.
  I said: What do you mean by that? They said: You cannot do business 
unless you have a judicial system that can sort out the disputes, 
unless you have a system of administrative practices in which you have 
referees and regulators. If you do not have that government, the 
mechanism that establishes the rules and makes sure the rules are 
followed, you cannot do business. You just cannot.
  I said this is really interesting because normally the Chamber of 
Commerce would not be calling for more government, but they are saying 
that in this Communist country, government is essential for us to do 
business.
  We ought to remember that in this country as well--whether it is the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, you name it--there are structures and processes that are 
important for the governance of this country, and to decide they do not 
matter is to suggest our system does not matter. It is to say, let the 
buyer beware. Let the Enrons run wild and overcharge consumers by 
billions, and it does not matter.
  That is not the kind of government I want. I want a government that 
allows the system to work, that helps establish fair rules and enforces 
them.
  I mentioned we have these proposals for tax cuts that are very large 
at a time when we have very large Federal budget deficits. There are 
things we can do. A, we can cut wasteful Federal spending, and B, we 
can go after the tens and tens of billions of dollars that are not paid 
to this country in taxes because the companies that make a lot of money 
selling products to the American consumers have decided they are going 
to locate in tax-haven countries but take advantage of the American 
marketplace to generate their profits.
  If it is the case that $50 billion or $70 billion would otherwise be 
owed to this country in taxes but are not paid because those companies 
have located in tax-haven countries, then this country should take a 
look at doing something about it and say to them: If you want to be an 
American citizen, part of the responsibility of citizenship is to help 
pay the bills in this country, to help pay for that which makes this 
country great--our schools, our roads, our infrastructure, everything 
that makes this a great place in which to live.
  I think that is an area we ought to be tackling and trying to solve 
some problems. I would hope perhaps rather than just talk about tax 
cuts for the upper-income people, we might talk about tax 
responsibility for some corporations that have decided they do not want 
to be a part of American citizenship anymore.
  My solution to all these companies that have decided they do not want 
to be an American citizen is, if you want to go to Bermuda, that is 
fine. If you get in trouble somewhere around the world and some 
government is about to expropriate your assets, who are you going to 
call? Call the Bermudan navy. I think they have 36 people in the 
Bermudan navy. Call them out. If you do not want to be an American 
citizen, then do not ask the American military forces to protect your 
investment around the world.
  That sort of behavior is not, in my judgment, something that is very 
patriotic, and it is something that requires, in my judgment, this 
Congress to do something about.

                          ____________________