[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 152 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12924-S12940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 295

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing us to 
have this time. I have a unanimous consent request to make for the 
Record. This has been approved by the majority leader and minority 
leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that the consent agreement relating to S. 
295, which is a bill about China currency, which was entered on July 1, 
be modified so that it is applicable under the same terms including any 
days in December that the Senate is in session but under no 
circumstances no later than March 31, 2006, with all other provisos 
remaining.
  At this time, I yield to my colleague from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague Senator 
Graham, who has been a pleasure to work with on this issue, for his 
help and support.
  This extends the privilege we have been granted by the majority 
leader and minority leader to bring our bill, our proposal, on Chinese 
currency up at a later date. After our bill on April 6 got 67 votes on 
a procedural motion, Senator Graham and I agreed to an up-or-down vote 
on our bill, S. 295, before the August recess.
  In July, at the behest of Treasury Secretary Snow and Federal Reserve 
Chairman Greenspan, we agreed to delay our vote on our bill until the 
end of the first session of the 109th. Well, that may well be this 
week. We are finishing up business while the President is, in fact, 
going to be in China. Senator Graham and I do not think it would be 
appropriate to vote on this bill while the President is there so we 
have agreed to delay.
  Senators may recall that back on July 21, China promised to let 
market forces work and they revaluated their currency by a small but 
significant 2.1 percent. But they said the market should allow the 
currency to rise or fall about .3 percent a day. Unfortunately, that 
has not happened. Since the original 2.1 percent revaluation of the 
yuan, the currency has moved as much in nearly 4 months as China said 
it would allow it to move in a single day. So in the whole 4 months, it 
has not even moved a day's worth. Senator Graham and I, frankly, are 
disappointed in the progress so far. We said at the time it was a good 
first baby step, but we need additional steps. Thus far, none have been 
taken.
  We are hopeful the President's trip to China will produce positive 
results. We are willing to forestall our amendment to see what happens 
on the President's trip.
  Under the new agreement, Senator Graham and I can call up the bill in 
early December, when Congress returns for votes, or early in the second 
session, with a promise that the bill will be considered no later than 
March 31, 2006.
  We hope and pray China will move. We do not want to dictate anything 
to the Chinese. We do not want to tell them how quickly they should 
move or to what degree, but we do need to see some more movement on 
something that just about everyone agrees ought to happen. The delay of 
this resolution will be salutary, we believe, to bringing some results.
  I yield back my time to my colleague Senator Graham for some 
concluding remarks. I would also yield the 5 minutes I have been ceded 
to Senator Graham so he may finish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for giving a very 
good explanation of where we started and where we are today and where 
we hope to be in the future. Where we started was a situation where 
China saw no self-interest in allowing their currency to meet 
international monetary standards of being valued by the market.

  The practice of pegging the yuan to the dollar has created a 
tremendous manufacturing disadvantage for our manufacturers. It has 
hurt every competitor China deals with. It is a practice that needs to 
change because China has changed.
  Our goal is to allow that change to come about in a reasoned way, in 
a win-win fashion. The change that occurred, as Senator Schumer spoke 
about, where there was a slight revaluation, was a very good signal 
coming from China. It was an optimistic event. Since then, 4 months 
later, very little has happened.
  I know the President is going to put it on the table when he goes to 
China. We stand behind our President in this regard, that we in the 
Senate, 67 of us, anyway, and the President, through Secretary Snow, 
and the President himself, have been urging the Chinese to change their 
currency practices. It is the position of the administration that it 
should float, while it is also the position of the Senate that China 
needs to change their currency practices. As Alan Greenspan has said so 
well, it is in China's self-interest.
  I do hope, as Senator Schumer said, that after this meeting with 
President Bush there will be further progress. So I am guardedly 
optimistic but resolved to make sure we have a level playing field when 
it comes to dealing with China. This is an opportunity for a win-win. I 
hope the Chinese will take us up on it and we can have a better 
relationship.
  This one issue is one of the defining moments in the U.S.-China 
relationship economically and we will see what time yields in terms of 
these negotiations.
  I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is agreed to.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from New York and 
South Carolina. This is an appropriate way to handle this issue. 
Clearly China pegging their yuan to the dollar has caused immense 
dislocations. It is also fairly clear that a 27-percent tariff on 
Chinese products coming to the United States is an untenable position 
and it would not be the right action for the United States Congress to 
enact legislation which would enact a 27-percent tariff on Chinese 
goods coming into the United States that, in effect, is a 27-percent 
tax on products that American consumers would otherwise be purchasing.
  Having said that, it is a problem--that is, the Chinese failure to 
let their currency float. They did let it float a little bit by a 
couple percentage points not long ago, but most all observers agree 
that is not enough. To some degree, this issue is tied to Chinese 
banking reform. Chinese financial institutions have asked the United 
States and other countries for advice on how to reform their system. 
There are too many nonperforming loans in the Chinese banking system, 
which is related to China's inability thus far to let its currency 
valuate totally freely. There will come a time--and the time is 
probably sooner rather than later--when this will become an issue and 
it will come to a head.
  Right now is not the time. The Finance Committee clearly takes this 
issue very seriously. We in the Finance Committee will pay great 
attention to the degree to which this measure, the Schumer-Graham 
amendment, should be taken up and passed or modified before reporting 
it to the floor. Waiting until the end of March of next year certainly 
is appropriate.
  I say to everyone concerned with this issue, we will act in time, and 
hopefully it is a time when it is an accommodation rather than a 
confrontation. It is up to both sides of the Pacific, frankly--China 
and the States--to recognize that we have to get a resolution here. We 
are two great countries. It is by far better for each country to gauge 
each other appropriately with eyes wide open. It is not appropriate for 
either country to sort of stiff-arm each other.
  We are here. We are on the world scene. China is on the world scene. 
China has a huge interest, of course, in China's development but also a 
huge interest in the stability of the U.S. economy. And vice versa; we 
do, too, in China.
  I urge real leadership in both countries to try to find a solid 
resolution so we can avoid confrontation. I again thank my friends from 
New York and South Carolina for their statesmanlike approach to this; 
namely, not pressing the issue abruptly but rather agreeing to 
postpone, until March 31, the next deadline.
  Mr. President, I would like to turn to the bill before us. The Book 
of Proverbs counsels: ``Do not quarrel with a

[[Page S12925]]

man for no cause.'' One might rephrase that for modern times: ``Know 
when to take `yes' for an answer.'' That is how I feel about this tax 
bill before us today.
  Last Tuesday, when the chairman of the Finance Committee gave notice 
of his intention to hold a markup on the tax reconciliation bill, I 
thought that we were going to have a knock-down, drug-out fight over 
capital gains, dividends, and the budget deficit. Now it appears that 
we are going to have an entirely different debate.
  When Chairman Grassley first raised the issues of this tax bill with 
me, I told him: If you take capital gains and dividends out of the 
bill, I can support it. And the chairman and now the Finance Committee 
have taken capital gains and dividends out of the bill. And now I do 
support it. I am willing to take ``yes'' for an answer.
  I am gratified that the chairman and the committee have chosen to 
forgo the capital gains and dividend provisions that they once 
contemplated. That is a fundamental change. And from this side of the 
aisle, that is a welcome change.
  The job of a committee chairman is a large part of brokerage job. A 
committee chairman tries to do the most that he can with the votes that 
he has. I compliment the chairman of the Finance committee for being 
among the best at counting the votes. And I think that the bill that 
the Finance Committee brings before us today represents the moderate 
consensus of the Senate.
  For many reasons, the bill before us today is not all that I would 
have preferred. It is not always the case, as with any Senator. I would 
have preferred that we had handled this tax cut legislation outside of 
the reconciliation straightjacket. I would have preferred that we had 
done more to address the immediate needs of the people affected by the 
hurricanes that ravaged the gulf States. I would have preferred that we 
had done more to address active financing, the provision that we have 
to help our companies be competitive with companies overseas. And I 
would have preferred that the committee would have paid for the tax cut 
in this bill. It is not appropriate by any stretch of the imagination 
that we add to the deficit rather than not adding to the deficit.
  But I know that the chairman and the majority leader would have 
preferred that the votes had added up a little differently in other 
ways. That would have been their preference. I gave my preference. 
They, their preference. Neither of us prevailed.
  There are many good things in this mark. Extension of the R&D credit 
is crucial for American businesses to remain competitive. The 
devastated Gulf States desperately need the help to rebuild that is in 
the mark. And I appreciate the work that was done to extend the tax 
provisions that we all know need to be extended. This is the business 
of the Finance Committee, to make sure that these extensions are 
extended so there is no cutoff date which causes a lot of problems for 
people trying to plan, trying to determine what the future is. That is 
also the business of the Senate.
  The bill before the Senate today thus advances what we have in 
common. It avoids a massive quarrel.
  Later, we will need to resist the fiscally irresponsible road down 
which the House of Representative seems headed. If the conference 
reports comes back to the Senate with capital gains and dividends it 
is, we will be back to a different bill. And will be back to the knock-
down, drag-out fight we have thus far avoided.
  I am pleased that we have a bill before us without capital gains and 
divided tax cuts it in. I am pleased that we received ``Yes'' for an 
answer. ``Proverbs'' is something I think we should listen to from time 
to time. And as a result, I look forward to fewer quarrels on this bill 
over the balance of the week.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. I will ask the 
quorum call be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to tell my fellow Senators why 
they should support this legislation, and most importantly thank 
Democrats for being so patient while Republicans were figuring out a 
compromise that we could get a majority of Republicans and all members 
of the committee behind. I thank Republicans for helping us work 
something out that we could get done. I have enjoyed the cooperation of 
Senator Baucus. Even though we haven't agreed on the details of this 
specific piece of legislation--I think you heard Senator Baucus speak 
about the bill that just passed the Senate, the pension bill--there was 
full cooperation not only between Republicans and Democrats but between 
two different committees that had jurisdiction over it. There will be 
differences between Republicans and Democrats on this bill.
  I compliment my colleague, Senator Baucus, for helping us move things 
along and being so patient in the process.
  This afternoon we begin consideration of an important tax relief 
measure. The bill before the committee today does three important 
things. First, it acts on our commitment to provide rebuilding 
assistance to areas of the country devastated by this year's relentless 
hurricane season. Second, it provides tax relief for American families 
by ensuring that there is no interruption in tax provisions that are 
expiring this year. And third, it provides incentives for increased 
charitable giving while prohibiting transactions that misuse or abuse 
charitable organizations and their assets.
  An important part of this bill is delivery on a commitment we made to 
residents of the gulf region, as well as more recently impacted areas 
of Texas and Florida, to provide much-needed relief and resources for 
economic rebuilding to those areas.
  I want to thank the members of the delegations from States that were 
devastated by Katrina, Rita, and Wilma during this hurricane season. 
Specifically, I would like to thank Senator Lott, a senior member of 
our Finance Committee. I would also like to thank Senators Cochran, 
Landrieu, Vitter, Shelby, Martinez, and Bill Nelson for their input.
  I know some are disappointed we could not do more, especially with 
respect to Rita and Wilma. But, with the revenue available, we could 
not answer every need.
  As promised, we have made our best effort to marry up our compassion 
for displaced persons and damaged communities with attention to fiscal 
discipline and the best use of taxpayer dollars. This hurricane relief 
package represents an effort to most efficiently and effectively use 
resources under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction to assist in the 
rebuilding and revitalization of those regions. I will reiterate the 
guiding principles of our hurricane relief legislation.
  First, because market forces will be the driver in getting these 
regions back on their feet, our bill includes only provisions that 
encourage and incentivize redevelopment.
  Second, our package provides resources only to those who incurred 
uninsured losses and does not provide for a bailout of those who 
assumed risk as an insurer in our capitalist, free-market system.
  Third, we have focused our limited Federal resources on those most in 
need--like the many devastated small business employers who were the 
backbones of these economies and who will be the engines of their 
future growth and prosperity. And, finally, the bill provides front-
loaded incentives on a timely basis to encourage people and businesses 
to return to the region as quickly as possible.
  This bill also extends popular tax relief ranging from tax deductions 
for families sending kids to college to relief from the expanding reach 
of the alternative minimum tax. If we let these provisions lapse, we 
are raising taxes on a significant number of taxpayers.
  I would like to talk briefly about some of the important initiatives 
in our bill. The largest provision in the bill--about $30 billion of 
tax relief--amounts to half of the net tax package and is designed to 
keep people out of

[[Page S12926]]

the Alternative Minimum Tax. This piece of the package affects 14 
million American families in every State in this Nation. The AMT is 
terrible and should be repealed. Until such time, we owe it to American 
taxpayers to ensure that they are not hit by this stealth tax.
  I have a chart here dealing with the AMT. It shows, by magnitude, the 
number of taxpayers, mostly families with kids, who would benefit from 
the so-called AMT ``hold-harmless'' in this bill.
  Now, everyone should know this information comes from the IRS 
Statistic of Income. This is the latest available government data on 
State-by-State effects from tax relief proposals in the 2001 and 2003 
legislation. With respect to the AMT, the number for 2006 will roughly 
double what is shown on this chart. So, any Member who looks at his or 
her State, should understand the number of families affected will 
double next year.
  There will be critics. You are familiar with them. We all know who 
they are. They will appear with their charts and their over-the-top 
rhetoric. They will appear here today and they will claim that our 
hold-harmless isn't good enough. These critics are very good at 
criticizing. Let me assure everyone that I don't just want the hold-
harmless. I want to reform or eliminate the AMT. I challenge the 
critics in advance, just as I did in the Spring debates on the budget 
resolution, to propose an AMT reform plan. Don't just whine about it. 
Join me in fixing it. I look forward to the critics' plan to fix the 
AMT.
  This bill also includes popular and broadly-applicable tax benefits. 
I will talk about them individually and use charts as I move along.
  Let's take a look at the deductibility of college tuition. This is a 
benefit for families who send their kids to college. By definition, 
this benefit goes to middle-income families. A lot of these folks 
aren't low-income, so their kids don't qualify for Pell grants. But 
they are not high-income either. They get the full benefit of the 
deduction if they make up to $65,000 as a single person or $130,000 as 
a couple. Beyond those levels, the benefit phases out. A lot of these 
folks are paying significant Federal, State and local taxes and they 
get no help in defraying the high cost of their kids' college 
education.
  This tax deduction provides help to these hard-pressed middle-income 
families with a benefit and furthers an important national goal of 
support for higher education. This deduction runs out at the end of 
this year. These families will face a tax increase if we don't act on 
this bill. This chart shows the number of families on a State-by-State 
basis that benefit from the deduction.
  Another benefit addressed in this bill is the small savers' credit. 
Here, I am talking about a tax credit for low-income folks that save 
through an IRA or pension plan. We all think savings is important. We 
all want low-income folks to save for retirement. This chart shows the 
number of low-income savers who benefit in this bill on a State-by-
State basis.
  The bill also extends a tax deduction for teachers who buy their own 
supplies for their students. This provision, developed by Senators 
Warner and Collins, makes whole teachers who go the extra mile by 
paying out-of-pocket expenses. Who could argue with that? I'm going to 
point to a chart that shows on a State-by-State basis the number of 
teachers taking this deduction.
  This bill also extends small business expensing. Many small 
businesses use this benefit to buy equipment on an efficient after-tax 
basis. It is good for small business. It is good for small business 
workers. It is good for economic growth.
  My final chart deals with the State and local sales tax deduction.
  For the States of Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South 
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming, this bill helps 12.3 
million taxpayers in your States. Tennessee is the home of my friend, 
the majority leader. He has worked hard to get this bill to the floor. 
Nevada is the home of my friend, the Democratic leader. Unfortunately, 
the Democratic leader has fought this bill tooth and nail. Hopefully, 
he will see the light now that we are on the floor. I hope he will work 
with me to guarantee that folks in his State will be able to deduct 
their sales taxes next year.
  These provisions are bipartisan and millions of American taxpayers 
rely on them. Every Senator ought to help us pass this bill for these 
provisions alone.
  The bill addresses expiring business and individual provisions known 
as the ``extenders.'' These provisions include the research and 
development tax credit and the work opportunity tax credit.
  This bill also includes many of the charitable incentives introduced 
in the CARE Act and which have previously passed the Finance Committee 
and the Senate. I appreciate the work of Senators Santorum and Baucus 
in working with me to balance these incentives with several of the much 
needed reforms that are supported by the charitable sector, the 
Treasury Department, I.R.S. and donors and taxpayers overall.
  Last, but not least, this bill contains loophole closers and tax 
shelter fighting provisions that raise revenue.
  This bill is bipartisan. I thank my friend and ranking member, 
Senator Baucus, for his cooperation. He and I were not partners on this 
bill at the beginning and through a large part of the process, but we 
teamed up yesterday in the Finance Committee. As always, his 
cooperation and good humor make a big difference.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent it be charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from North 
Dakota?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota 
for purposes of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was not aware that time had to be 
yielded for the purpose of offering an amendment. I appreciate that, 
but the Presiding Officer was asking ``who yields time.'' My 
understanding is a Senator can seek recognition and, therefore, offer 
an amendment on his own volition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Chair was not 
aware that the Senator from North Dakota was going to offer an 
amendment, but thought we were in general debate.


                           Amendment No. 2587

   (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 
   temporary windfall profit tax on crude oil and to rebate the tax 
    collected back to the American consumer, and for other purposes)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Dodd, Senator Boxer, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senator 
Lieberman. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2587.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is not a new subject. It is one 
myself, Senator Dodd, and others have spoken about on the floor, as a 
matter of fact, in recent days and weeks.
  Let me describe briefly that it is, in fact, an amendment that is 
identical to the legislation we have offered that would create a 
windfall profits tax on profits of the major integrated oil companies, 
profits above $40 a barrel for oil, the purpose of which would be to 
collect that money and rebate it in its

[[Page S12927]]

entirety to consumers. Or in the alternative, if the major integrated 
oil companies are using that money to invest into the ground or to 
build refineries above ground to expand the supply of energy and, 
thereby, bring down the price, they would be completely exempt from the 
windfall profits tax.
  If they are using their profits above $40 a barrel for the purpose of 
buying back stock, ``drilling for oil on Wall Street,'' as I will 
describe in a few minutes, or for other purpose that will not expand 
the supply of oil or the supply of energy, then they would be paying a 
windfall profits tax on profits above $40 a barrel at the rate of 50 
percent--a 50-percent excise tax--all of which would come into the 
Federal Government, all of which would be rebated by check to 
individuals in this country in order to help pay for the higher cost of 
energy that individuals are now facing.
  This is very simple. This is not a complex amendment. We are not 
trying to recalculate income or do things that are particularly 
difficult. The proposition is simply this: Last year, the major 
integrated oil companies in this country earned the highest profits in 
their history. The average price for a barrel of oil was $40 a barrel, 
and at that price the major integrated oil companies had the highest 
profits in their history.
  Now the price is dramatically above that. It has bounced around from 
$50 to $60 to $70 a barrel, well above the $40 a barrel, and the 
profits by the major integrated oil companies--and that is all our 
amendment deals with, the major integrated oil companies--the profits 
have been extraordinary.
  The third quarter profits: $9.9 billion for ExxonMobil. I have a list 
of a number of them I can show. But the third quarter profits are very 
substantial--the highest in the history of corporate America. So you 
have all of this gain by the major integrated oil companies, and then 
all of the pain on the other side. The major integrated oil companies 
have all of the gain. Who has all the pain? All the American people who 
are trying to pay for the price of a tankful of gas or trying to figure 
out how they are going to heat their home in the winter or trying to 
figure out, if they are a farmer, how on Earth they can order that next 
load of fuel so they will be able to go into the field in the spring. 
How do they pay for all that? That is where all the pain is. You have 
all the gain on one side, and all the pain on the other side.
  Now, we are told this is just a free market. In fact, I had kind of a 
mini-lecture about that from the president of Exxon, the CEO of Exxon. 
He came to the Commerce-Energy Committee hearing we had, the joint 
hearing, and he kind of gave me a short little mini-lecture about the 
marketplace: This is the marketplace. Interestingly, he did not say: 
The free market. He said: The world market.
  Well, let's think about this for a moment: the world market. For 
ExxonMobil, $9.9 billion in profits they made just in the last quarter. 
The world market, he says. Well, let me tell you about the world 
market. The world market, first, is the OPEC ministers sitting around a 
table someplace in a closed room talking about production and, 
therefore, the impact on price. Second, it is the major integrated oil 
companies that are larger by far than they have ever been because of 
blockbuster mergers. They all have two names now. It used to be Exxon 
and Mobil. Now it is ExxonMobil. It used to Chevron and Texaco. Now it 
is ChevronTexaco. We didn't know they were dating, and they got 
married. Now, pretty soon, it is going to be 
``ChevronTexacoShellExxonMobil.'' It will be all one name. They don't 
seem to drop any names; they just get bigger and bigger.
  So the second part--after the OPEC ministers talk about production 
and price--is these folks, the major integrated oil companies, that are 
bigger because of blockbuster mergers and have more raw muscle in the 
marketplace than they have ever had before.
  Third, and finally, we have what are called futures markets. The 
futures markets are supposed to provide liquidity for trading. Instead, 
it has become a speculative bazaar, a grand bazaar of speculation. And 
that then gives us what is called the world price--not a free market 
price. This has no relationship to either freedom or the marketplace. 
This is not a free market. What we have is all of this gain and all of 
the pain on the part of the consumers.
  Let me describe a little about what is happening here. Last year, we 
had the highest profits in our history for the major integrated oil 
companies. BusinessWeek wrote an article. BusinessWeek is not some 
liberal rag someplace. We are not talking about some progressive 
magazine. BusinessWeek is a solid, conservative business magazine. Here 
is what they say: Why isn't big oil drilling more? Rather than 
developing new fields of oil, giants have preferred to buy rivals, 
drilling for oil on Wall Street.
  All right. They were talking about last year. Last year, ExxonMobil 
made $25 billion in net income. They spent almost $10 billion to buy 
back their stock. Does anybody think that expands the supply of oil? 
No. No. No. That is an approach that certainly makes the stock options 
of the CEOs much more valuable. It enhances and enriches the 
corporation. It does nothing at all with respect to expanding America's 
energy supply and thereby bringing down prices.
  So BusinessWeek says: Why are they drilling for oil on Wall Street? 
Oil has been over $20 a barrel since mid-1999. That should have been 
ample incentive for companies to open new fields since projects are 
designed to be profitable with prices as low as the mid-teens. 
Nevertheless, drilling has lagged. Far from raising money to pursue 
opportunities, oil companies are paying down debt, buying back shares, 
and hoarding cash.
  That, from BusinessWeek. Question: If this was the case at $40 a 
barrel, and oil goes to $60, $65, and $70 a barrel, and consumers bear 
all of this pain--an increased pain from high prices that in many cases 
they cannot afford--for a product they must have to drive to work, to 
heat their homes, to prepare for spring planting, is that fair?
  The answer clearly is no.
  Will somebody do something about it? Will somebody stand up and say 
it is time to do something about it? I hope the answer to that is yes.
  Just a few headlines. This is from last month: High energy prices 
lift profits of ConocoPhillips by 89 percent. Its third-quarter profits 
almost doubled, the first big American company to report earnings for 
the third quarter. Net income jumped 89 percent.
  ExxonMobil, from October 27: $9.9 billion in one quarter, up 75 
percent.
  From earlier this year: Big Oil's Burden of Too Much Cash. The 
world's ten biggest oil companies earned more than $100 billion in the 
year 2004, a windfall greater than the economic output of Malaysia. 
Their sales are expected to exceed $1 trillion for the year 2004, more 
than Canada's gross domestic product.
  It goes on to say: ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded 
company, earned more than $25 billion last year and spent $9.95 billion 
to buy back its own stock.
  I mentioned that earlier, but that, in fact, is the case. At the 
hearing with the major CEOs of the big oil companies, I asked that 
question of the CEO of ExxonMobil. These were people that run 
ExxonMobil gas stations in the Washington, DC-Virginia-Maryland region. 
September 9, this is titled, ``Finger Pointing Begins As Gas Prices 
Jump 24 Cents in 24 Hours; Exxon Dealers Say They Are Chafing Under 
Higher Prices Decreed From Atop; Station Owners Accuse Big Oil Company 
of Profiting From Impact of Hurricane Katrina.''
  That is very important to point out. Hurricane Katrina hurt these oil 
companies. Oil was well over $60 a barrel before the first hurricane 
started circulating in the gulf. That is not what got us $60-plus-per-
barrel oil. You have gasoline station dealers saying that Exxon was the 
one that said, through wholesale prices, you must charge 24 cents more 
in a 24-hour period. They said: What is going on here?
  So I asked Mr. Raymond. Well, he wasn't sure that happened. I said: 
This was a public charge about your company. Didn't you investigate it?
  No. We didn't. We might have. I don't know. He wasn't sure.
  Let me back up a step to talk about the slightly larger picture and 
then come back to this question of fairness. We have a serious problem 
with energy, there is no question about it. This old planet of ours 
hosts the U.S. citizens in this little part of the planet. There are

[[Page S12928]]

about 6.4 billion people who live on this planet as we spin around the 
Sun. We have a prodigious demand, a huge demand for oil in this little 
spot called the United States. We suck up--when I say ``we,'' the royal 
``we''--everybody sucks up about 84 million barrels of oil every day 
from this earth. Eighty-four million barrels a day are produced from 
underneath this earth. We also use 84 million barrels a day on this 
planet. It turns out that 21 million of that 84 is used right here in 
this country. This country uses one-fourth of all of the oil that is 
pulled out of the ground.
  Is that going to change? Sure. China now has 20 million cars on the 
road. By the year 2020, 15 years from now, it will have 120 million 
cars. Add 100 million cars to the mix and the demand to run something 
through those carburetors or fuel injectors, probably gasoline, ask 
yourself, in a planet where you are pulling up 84 million barrels a day 
and this country is using 21 million, one-fourth of it, and we have a 
demand that now comes from other countries saying, We want some of 
that, and by the way, we want to have more vehicles on the road--China, 
as an example--where does the additional oil come from? We have serious 
issues and significant long-term problems that we have to deal with.
  I have my own feelings about that. I largely helped write the 
hydrogen fuel cell title in the Energy bill. I have ideas about what we 
need to do. We need to grow energy in our fields with renewable fuels, 
ethanol, biodiesel. There are so many other things we need to do, 
including encourage the transition of hybrid cars as we move toward a 
hydrogen fuel cell future. All of those things I will discuss at 
greater length at some other time. But at the moment, we live now. We 
can talk about the longer run. John Kenneth Galbraith used to say, in 
the long run, we are all dead. But we go into this winter, as consumers 
in this country, confronting a fuel bill that has dramatically 
increased over last year, and then reading in the newspaper in the 
morning, wearing a sweater in a home that you have to keep a couple of 
degrees cooler in order to afford to heat your home, that ExxonMobil 
has a 75-percent or 89-percent profit or all the majors are showing 
massive profit increases. So while they sit there fat and happy, 
racking up the profits, everybody else is trying to figure out how they 
pay the price. How do you scrape up the money to heat the home, to fill 
the car, to fill the tanks so that your tractor and farm equipment is 
ready in the spring?
  People say: Well, if that is a problem for you, that is tough luck. 
There are a couple of economists writing in recent days--I won't name 
them--who can tell us everything about the future but can't remember 
their home phone number. You know the type. They are telling us what 
will happen here is if people can't afford to pay the cost of energy, 
it will force them to conserve more. Easy to say for one of these 
economists who drive around town in their Volvo or Mercedes cogitating 
about the future. What about the people who have to use a car to drive 
to work, have to fill the tank with gas but don't have the money to do 
so, or the people who understand they live in the northern part of this 
country where we have tough winters and they have to pay the heating 
bill and it costs a lot of money and they don't have it? What about 
that?
  Senator Dodd and I have offered a proposal. It is widely reviled by 
the major oil companies. I understand that. For them, it is the hog 
rule: Give us what we want, we want everything, and what you don't get 
doesn't matter to us. After all, energy is not something that is like 
every other commodity.
  I did an interview with a radio person the other day, and he said: If 
you are going to have a windfall profits tax with respect to oil 
profits above $40, what about a windfall profits tax on the shares of 
Google? I said: Do you drive up to your gas station and say, Fill it up 
with Google? Gasoline is different. Gassing up your car, providing 
natural gas or home heating fuel for your home is different. It is a 
necessity. Everybody needs to do it. It is part of what we are as 
Americans. It is the way we live. In the long term, we have to make 
some changes, maybe so. But in the short term, we live now at a time 
when the major oil companies are exhibiting the highest profits in 
their history, and everybody else is trying to figure out how on earth 
to pay the bills.
  Senator Dodd and I put together the simplest possible plan. We have 
said: If oil continues at this level, understanding that last year, at 
$40 a barrel, they had the highest profits in their history for the 
major integrated companies, we say, for the major integrated oil 
companies, if the price of oil is over $40 a barrel, we believe that is 
a windfall profit having nothing to do with fairness or the free 
market. If the oil companies, however, use that extra money to sink 
back into the ground for exploration and drilling or to build 
refineries above ground, to do the things that would expand the supply 
of energy and thereby reduce energy prices, our proposal will not 
impact them at all. They will not be taxed. We still don't like the 
prices, but it won't affect them. They are doing the right thing to 
expand the supply of energy, which will ultimately bring down the price 
of energy. But if they do not do that--and they are not; they are 
buying back their stock, hoarding cash, drilling for oil on Wall 
Street; they are not doing the right thing--then they would be subject 
to a 50-percent excise tax on those windfall profits above $40.

  Senator Dodd and I, unlike others, would not suggest we bring that 
money into the Federal Government and let it rest here. We suggest that 
money be brought here and sent out immediately in its entirety as a 
rebate to the consumers of this country who are paying the bills. They 
are the ones who are hurt. They are the ones from whom these profits 
came. They are the ones entitled to have the rebate, if the oil 
companies are not going to use those profits to expand the supply of 
our country's energy and oil.
  This is a hard proposal to misunderstand. Let me just say, there are 
many who have deliberately done so. Yesterday, a study came across my 
desk that appeared to have been paid for by an entity called Investors-
Shareholders Alliance. Actually, I Googled them on my computer to find 
out who on Earth this is. But they have been able not to leave traces, 
even with a Google search. But I don't need to know who they are 
without understanding who funded that study. That study purported to 
evaluate a windfall profits tax by number, which was our bill, and the 
two authors of the study had not bothered to read it, misdescribed it, 
and analyzed it in a way that was dishonest.
  So the press people called me and asked for my reaction. I said: It 
is a complete joke, perhaps a Ph.D. joke. These people have really big 
degrees and tiny glasses and think they are pretty smart. It is just 
that they forgot to read our legislation because they evaluated 
something else and attached our number to it. I am assuming that was 
paid for by the big oil companies. God bless them. They have plenty of 
money. They will have lots of money to defend themselves against this 
proposal that we offer today.
  I wish no ill will toward the oil companies. I don't. That is not the 
purpose of this. We produce oil in my State, and I have done plenty of 
things to be supportive of those who really want to expand America's 
energy supply and drill for oil. But when I see $65-a-barrel oil and I 
see people who can't afford to pay the price struggling to figure out 
how to live day to day, putting gas in the car and heating homes, and 
then I see record profits announced every single day in the newspapers, 
I say something is wrong, something is disconnected. It seems to me it 
falls on the shoulders of this Congress to stand up and do something 
about it.
  On this vote, the question is, Who do you stand with and who do you 
stand for? We have separate interests, the interests of the largest oil 
companies who would like even higher profits. When one person said to 
me, Well, why is it a windfall at $65 a barrel, I said, Let me ask you 
a question. What if it were $165 a barrel? Would you think that was too 
much, or doesn't that matter to you?
  At $40 a barrel, I would say, finally, last year the major integrated 
oil companies, larger by far than they have ever been because of 
blockbuster mergers, made the highest profits in their history. Now 
they have dramatically expanded those profits at the expense

[[Page S12929]]

of American consumers. I believe it is unfair. Our amendment would at 
least begin down the road to try to do something about it. I am pleased 
to have offered the amendment with my colleague from Connecticut, 
Senator Dodd.
  I yield the floor so he may amplify on my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from North Dakota who 
has more than adequately and eloquently described this simple proposal 
that has some significant implications but, nonetheless, one that is 
clear and straightforward. Let me repeat what my colleague from North 
Dakota has stated.
  First and foremost, these are not two Senators who believe that oil 
companies ought not to be able to earn a profit. In fact, our economy 
depends entirely on the capitalistic system, the profit motive. But all 
of us have learned historically that there are times when, in the 
absence of some restraint, the profit motive can cause such disruption, 
such a misalignment in economic circumstances, that it is imperative 
that those in positions of responsibility try to step in to do 
something about it. That is clearly what we are trying to do here. The 
underlying purpose of this amendment is to provide some relief to 
consumers.
  The New York Times reported the other day that one business has been 
paying roughly $700,000 for its energy needs. The company anticipated 
its energy costs this year will be $1.4 million, virtually doubling the 
cost of its energy needs in a brief period of time.
  We know, as a result of these rising costs, what consumers are likely 
to pay for home heating oil. And while we have seen some abatement in 
the cost of the price of gasoline, clearly the prices are still very 
high. We believe these individuals deserve a break.
  We talk about tax breaks for people who need them. Clearly, the 
people who will be paying these costs deserve to have some relief. But 
we quickly point out that this is a choice the industry can make 
because what the Senator from North Dakota has said is: If, in fact, 
you do what you ought to be doing, and that is to plow these profits 
back into energy creation, energy production, development of resources, 
there won't be an excess profits tax. That is an option that the 
industry can have at this juncture and one we would hope they would be 
engaging in. It was stunning to find out that they are taking virtually 
half of their profits and just buying back their own stock rather than 
investing in the expanded development of energy resources.
  So at the outset, I want to be very clear. We do not begrudge any 
company, even an oil company, making a profit and a good profit. It is 
the engine that keeps our economy moving forward. But as we have said, 
there is a huge difference between profits and profiteering, and it is 
profiteering, in our view, that is occurring here.
  In the opinion of many, the big oil companies have been engaged in 
just that, in profiteering. The concept of profiteering is not a new 
one, and this would not be the first time that the Congress of the 
United States has acted as a watchdog against such profiteering.
  One of the most high profile cases was during World War II when Harry 
Truman, then a Member of this body, chaired an investigation into the 
profiteering that was going on among wartime businesses. The concept of 
profiteering is also not new to this particular industry which operates 
in a market dominated by the OPEC cartel and a few large corporate 
conglomerates.
  Over the past several years, we have seen a steady and steep increase 
in the price of oil. In the year 2000, when the Northeast Heating Oil 
Reserve was established because of concerns that I and others had about 
heating oil supply and price, crude oil was trading at $30 per barrel. 
Today, just five years later, the price of crude oil has more than 
doubled. Refining capacity is near 100 percent, yet over the past 25 
years, 176 refineries have closed in the United States. And last month, 
the five largest oil companies recorded record third-quarter profits.
  So here we are. Refining capacity is nearly 100 percent, and 176 
refineries in the last 25 years have closed their doors.
  ExxonMobil, as this graph here points out, had profits in one 
quarter, 3 months, of $9.92 billion. Imagine the work that went on in 
the accounting department to make sure it wasn't $10 billion--we will 
squeeze it down to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit ever 
reaped by an American corporation in the history of our Nation. In 
order to make that profit, ExxonMobil took in a record $100.7 billion 
in revenue in just those 3 months. To put those numbers in perspective, 
it is larger than the annual gross domestic product of the United Arab 
Emirates, a large oil-producing nation. Shell Oil earned third-quarter 
profits of just over $9 billion. BP earned profits of $6.53 billion, 
and ChevronTexaco earned $3.6 billion. ConocoPhillips earned profits of 
$3.8 billion. That is all in 3 months. That is a total of $32.8 billion 
in profits in 12 weeks.
  Mr. President, we all recognize that the gulf coast hurricanes 
temporarily shook the oil industry as it did other industries, 
interrupting refining and distribution systems across the country, and 
it may be some time before all operations are back to normal. We 
recognize that. But that does not explain the steadily rising oil and 
gasoline prices that consumers and businesses experienced in the months 
before the hurricanes. Long before any wind and rain hit the gulf 
coast, these prices were skyrocketing.
  There is evidence that the oil industry deliberately restricted 
supply to boost profits.
  Let me explain using their own language in their own reports, by the 
way. One major oil company in their 2004 annual report says the 
following:

       We achieved the highest net income in our history, 18.2 
     billion. This was 48 percent higher than in 2003 as a result 
     of higher oil and gas prices.

  The report goes on to say that these higher profits occurred at the 
same time that the company produced 3 percent less oil than the year 
before. They produced less and had almost a 50-percent jump in profits. 
Mr. President, that is not a coincidence, in my view. It was a 
deliberate move to raise prices by restricting supply.
  It was not long ago that Enron traders were caught on tape colluding 
to manipulate energy prices during the California energy crisis of 
2001. One trader was reported telling the operator of a power plant:

       We want you guys to get a little more creative and come up 
     with a reason to [shut the plant] down.

  Mr. President, we don't have anything on tape here from these oil 
company CEOs, but clearly when you look at some of the reports, they 
brag about 50 percent profits and yet also point to a 3-percent drop in 
production.
  So given the circumstance of fewer refineries operating at or near 
capacity, coupled with the increased demand for oil and gas, all we are 
asking is that these industries reinvest their profits to find 
alternative sources and types of energy.
  In the Energy bill that passed only a few weeks ago, we provide 
massive tax breaks for the energy industry, and yet even with that they 
don't want to go out and invest in energy resources to boost energy 
supply. Instead, profits are used to buy back stock or engage in these 
mega mergers.
  My colleague is right to point out; just look at the names. There 
used to be a Conoco; there used to be a Phillips. Now it is 
ConocoPhillips. There used to be a Chevron; there used to be a Texaco. 
Now it is ChevronTexaco. There used to be an Exxon; there used to be a 
Mobil. Now it is ExxonMobil. I was born at night but not last night, 
Mr. President. I know what is going on. You don't have to be an 
economist or have a Ph.D. in economics to figure out what is going on 
here.
  The simple question is, Do we let this happen and just twiddle our 
thumbs or do we try to do something about it? And we have offered a 
simple alternative. The alternative is to provide the rebate and give 
the people who are paying these increased prices a break.
  Let me also be clear that the windfall profits rebate is nothing like 
the one imposed in 1980. First and foremost, the money would be rebated 
to consumers. The 1980 windfall profits tax was passed to ensure that 
the oil industry paid its fair share of taxes to the

[[Page S12930]]

Federal Government. We are not suggesting that here at all. Just as 
important, this amendment would apply only to large integrated oil 
companies, not the independent producers and refiners. They are exempt 
under the Dorgan-Dodd proposal. The structure of the tax is different 
as well. In 1980, the tax was imposed on the difference between the 
market price of oil and the statutory 1979 base price, adjusted 
quarterly. Our amendment proposes a 50-percent profits tax only on the 
profit over $40 per barrel. As my colleague from North Dakota has 
already eloquently pointed out, that number was not chosen arbitrarily.

  At that level, record profits were earned by the industry. Yet that 
price today is substantially more than $40 per barrel. In 1980, the tax 
included nearly every barrel of oil produced, and thus domestic 
production suffered. If oil companies do the right thing to increase 
supply, then there will be no windfall profits tax incurred. I don't 
know how else to get their attention. Jawboning doesn't seem to work. 
So why don't we join in a bipartisan way and say to the oil companies--
invest in the energy needs of our Nation and, if not, provide some 
relief to the people out there who are paying these tremendously 
increased prices.
  If domestic production stays relatively constant at 5.2 million 
barrels a day and oil continues to sell at nearly $65 a barrel, then 
the windfall profits tax will be approximately $65 million a day.
  This is money that constituents of ours across the country could use 
to offset the record price increases expected for home heating oil this 
winter or to combat the rising costs of goods and services that are 
transported on trucks and rails.
  I pointed out one business that the New York Times identified the 
other day as expecting their energy costs to double from $700,000 to a 
$1.4 million. Obviously, they are going to pass it on as a cost of 
production. The consumers will pay the additional cost.
  I noticed--I see my good friend from Utah--last night the snow was 
beginning to fall in the home State of my spouse and the State the 
distinguished Senator represents. This is not just a New England issue. 
It is going to happen across the country where many expect record cold 
temperatures this winter. This is not a situation where consumers have 
a choice. You don't have a choice to stay warm or not warm, to provide 
for your family or not provide for your family. These people who travel 
to work every day don't have a choice whether to get into an 
automobile. They don't have mass-transit systems. There is no other 
choice but to put gasoline in that car and go to work. Those companies 
have no choice other than to shut down or swallow the cost and pass it 
on to their customers.
  It is clear that rising energy costs are a drag on the economy, for 
individuals, for families, businesses, or farmers, and while gasoline 
prices are coming down all across the Nation to some degree, they are 
still on average 32 cents per gallon higher than they were just a year 
ago. And as the winter weather begins to bear down on us, consumers are 
bracing for higher heating costs. The prices in my State and across the 
northern tier States are going to go up.
  This windfall profits rebate is a solution for working families 
across our Nation. It is more than the administration or many of our 
colleagues have proposed. Every time we try to ease the financial 
burden on individuals and families, we are met with opposition. We have 
not been able to raise the minimum wage in 9 years. We can't increase 
the funding for low-income home energy assistance at all. We have been 
unable to realistically address fuel efficiency. Senator Jack Reed of 
Rhode Island has offered the home heating assistance amendment. Senator 
Kerry of Massachusetts has also offered it. In the past, we have had 
joint efforts by Republicans and Democrats on the LIHEAP program. That 
has all been turned down. Why not do this? If you don't want to have 
the general revenues pay for increased help, why not ask that these 
additional huge profits that are being made go back and provide some 
relief to people?
  The administration has been asleep at the wheel for the last several 
years and was adamantly opposed to embracing conservation measures. In 
fact, in 2001, Vice President Cheney said:

       Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not 
     a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive 
     energy policy.

  So you can imagine my surprise when the administration trotted out a 
conservation program, headed by the ``Energy Hog,'' as they call him. I 
applaud their late arrival to the benefits of conservation, but I am 
very disappointed that they have done nothing to stem the rising cost 
of fuel in our Nation. They brought the oil companies in when they were 
originally crafting their energy policy, but they have been unwilling 
to jawbone either OPEC or the large oil companies when individuals, 
families, and businesses are suffering.
  This is an amendment that will have tangible benefits to consumers 
without undermining the oil industry. It gives the oil companies a 
choice. I hope our colleagues here on both sides of the aisle would 
embrace the Dorgan-Dodd amendment. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I came over to make some remarks in morning 
business until I heard the remarks of my colleagues on the other side. 
I have to say that the windfall profits tax that we enacted a number of 
years ago, I voted against it. It did not work. It was a disaster. I 
think this would be an equal disaster. A lot of these folks on the 
other side are the people who today own a lot of drilling offshore 
where we know billions of gallons of oil are, who have fought against 
ANWR where they have estimated at least 6 to 8 billion barrels of oil 
lie ready to be recovered from a plot of ground as small as 2,000 
acres--equal to the Dulles airport acreage.
  And you could go on and on about how they have made it almost 
impossible to drill, to build refineries, to do the things that have to 
be done to bring oil and gas prices down--almost every argument that 
has come from the other side. And now we are here trying to tax the 
companies that now are making very good profits, the very companies 
that are considering how can they find more oil and gas, how can they 
drill offshore, how can they drill up in Alaska where there is a lot of 
oil and gas, and how can we duplicate what they have done up there in 
Canada with their tar sands. Canada has not been stupid about recovery, 
and it has cost billions of dollars of investment by oil companies to 
do what they are doing.
  Today Canada is producing a million barrels of oil a day, and before 
too long that number will grow to 3.5 million barrels a day, mostly 
from their tar sands. I might add that they now have the second largest 
oil reserves in the world today, second only to Saudi Arabia, and that 
is 1 million barrels a day from the tar sands and approximately 1 
million barrels from other energy sources. We have just as big of a 
resource in the U.S., but our companies can not get access to it. It's 
becoming too difficult to get the necessary permits which are often 
completely bottled up by the environmentalists, even in areas where 
drilling would be environmentally safe.
  I think the height of stupidity was locking up the Saudi Arabia of 
coal, which happens to be in Utah, by creating the Grand Staircase-
Escalante Monument. President Clinton closed up 60 miles south of Utah, 
an area larger than the Grand Canyon, without having talked or 
consulted with one political official in all of Utah--not the Governor, 
not Members of the Senate or House of Representatives, not even 
Democrats in Utah. That coal is high-moisture, low-sulfur content, 
environmentally sound coal, which, if blended with the less clean coal 
of the east and the central part of our country would save billions of 
tons of particulates in the air. The arguments for closing off that 
huge source of clean energy are very similar to the arguments being 
made today by my two illustrious colleagues, for whom I care a great 
deal.
  It is wonderful for some to get out here and beat up on the big old 
oil companies. It was just yesterday when I was chatting with one of 
the largest oil companies, and more than anything, they want to invest 
in new development and take advantage of incentives we put into the 
Energy bill. They want to develop the tar sands and oil shale

[[Page S12931]]

in our country, we are 15 to 20 years behind Canada on this, so that we 
can lower the price of oil and gas in this country, so that our good 
friends in the eastern and northeastern part of this country do not 
have to pay the high prices they are paying. These oil companies are 
often not able, even when they make these profits, to drill because 
they cannot get permits and, in some areas, cannot even drill where we 
know there are billions of barrels of oil that would lower the price of 
oil and gas.
  That is why I have found this a little hard to take, as I have been 
sitting here--I didn't plan on talking on this issue. But I am one of 
those who put into the Energy bill incentives to develop our tar sands 
and oil shale, our geothermal, our natural gas, and to develop more 
refineries because over the last 35 years, we have lost 200 refineries 
and only built 1. Why? Because it is so doggone hard to get approvals 
to build refineries in this country.
  We can't even produce the amount of refined petroleum we need for our 
automobiles on the road now. Why? Because we have gone so far to the 
left wing extreme that we cannot develop our own resources, even in an 
environmentally sound way.
  Also, in that bill I put in the CLEAR Act, which provides incentives 
for alternative fuel vehicles, alternative fuels, alternative fuel 
stations, alternative fuel cells. Given some time and some investments, 
I believe we can solve an awful lot of the pollution problems in our 
country the right way, through incentives, not by punishing the very 
companies that make our country work. We need to give incentives and 
government cooperation so companies can get permits to develop more oil 
and gas, so that we could bring down the price of oil and gas. But 
every time they want to do that, every time one of these companies 
wants to do something like that, guess who is throwing up every 
roadblock they possibly can and all in the interest of politics, in my 
opinion, which I think is the sum and total of most of the remarks made 
today on the floor by my two friends and colleagues--and they are 
friends--on the other side.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a 
question?
  Mr. HATCH. I listened to the Senator from North Dakota, and I will be 
happy to take a question. I didn't come here to talk about this, but I 
got a little bit upset listening to what I consider to be political 
talk, which we have all too much of on this floor.
  Everyday we have people coming around here giving these populous 
talks about how we have to bring oil and gas prices down, and yet they 
make it almost impossible to do it. Come on, America, wake up. I am 
sick of it. I used to be in the oil business. I know how hard it is.
  Let me tell you, in eastern Utah, western Colorado, and southern 
Wyoming, we have upwards estimated 3 trillion barrels of oil, 1 
trillion or more of which they say is recoverable, at probably $30 or 
less per barrel. But developing that oil will take billions of dollars 
of investment and all kinds of bureaucratic anguish to get the 
permitting and other steps necessary to go in and do it. And we are 20 
years behind Canada. They didn't allow this type of talk to stop them 
from developing their tar sands.
  I talked to a company yesterday who said they may be willing to put a 
tremendous multibillion-dollar investment in there, and when industry 
is through, it will be over $100 billion, close to $120 billion 
invested. Mr. President, where do we think this money is going to come 
from? By the way, that 1 trillion barrels of oil in eastern Utah, 
southern Wyoming, and western Colorado is more recoverable oil than all 
the proven reserves in the Middle East. But it is going to cost more to 
come out because it is a different form of extraction. To do it costs 
billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment over the 
years. But it will save our country if we have the wisdom and the 
fortitude and the foresight to go and do it.
  I might also add that we haven't built a refinery, as I have said, in 
35 years--1 refinery and we have lost 200 of them. Why? Because it is 
so difficult to get anything done because of the so-called 
environmentalists, and I have to call some of them extreme 
environmentalists because true environmentalists should want us to get 
some of the things I put into the Energy bill.

  I don't believe that oil companies should make excessive profits that 
they are unwilling to use for furthering their business interests 
either, but if they are given a chance to use them and go out and get 
more oil for us and more gas for us, they are going to do it. But every 
step of the way, they are stymied by the very people here who have been 
complaining.
  I am personally tired of it. I feel sorry for the people in the 
Northeast. I feel sorry for the people in Utah. Our folks are paying 
more than I wish they had to pay for gas. I feel sorry for those over 
in Europe, where they have paid more than $4 a gallon for gasoline now 
for decades, some as high as $6 a gallon for gasoline because they were 
overrun by the same type of philosophical talk. And that is all it is, 
talk that we get on this floor.
  I can tell you, the American people have to wake up. This populist 
talk is not what is going to get us oil and gas, nor is it going to 
bring prices down, nor are rebates going to help our people over the 
long run. What will help our people is to develop, in environmentally 
sound ways, resources that will help get us out of these difficulties.
  As for that Saudi Arabia of coal I mentioned in the Kaiparowitz 
Plateau in southern Utah, we now have the capacity to take that high-
moisture, low-sulfur content, environmentally sound coal, and develop 
clean-burn diesel and clean-burn jet fuel. We have that ability today, 
and it is locked up because of what I consider to be a political stunt 
that we are stuck with, for now. It wasn't on this side of the floor or 
this administration that caused that political stunt.
  I think it is time to get rid of the populist talk and start talking 
reality. It is nice to come out and beat up the oil companies who are 
making great profits, but who would use those profits if they could to 
develop more of their products.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Utah will 
yield on that point.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator from Utah, I have 20 minutes left, 
and I will use them after the Senator from Utah is completed. It may 
take all the 20 minutes to correct the errors of his presentation.
  Mr. HATCH. I would be interested in the corrections because I don't 
believe you can find what I said to be false.
  Mr. DORGAN. Almost all of it was wrong.
  Mr. HATCH. No, it wasn't wrong. I lived in this industry. I 
understand it. If you have a question----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators need to be reminded that they have to 
go through Presiding Officer.
  Mr. DORGAN. I asked if he would yield for a question. I will ask one 
simple question.
  Mr. HATCH. OK.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Utah has seen the chart I 
used on the floor that comes from BusinessWeek, not a progressive rag 
or a conservative business journal, that says this about the major oil 
companies which the Senator defended so aggressively at the moment:

       Rather than developing new fields, oil giants have 
     preferred to buy rivals, drilling for oil on Wall Street. 
     While that makes financial sense, it is no substitute for new 
     oil.

  They are the ones saying the oil companies are not using these 
profits to drill and build refineries. They are the ones saying it, not 
us.
  Mr. HATCH. Do you have a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes. How do you justify what you said with what is in the 
BusinessWeek article, and virtually everyone else knows that they are 
buying back stock, hoarding cash, and drilling on Wall Street?
  Mr. HATCH. First of all, BusinessWeek is not a conservative 
publication. Anything that is not liberal you consider conservative on 
that side. Secondly, the fact of the matter is, I have been making a 
pretty good case that it is pretty tough to get permits and get past 
the environmentalist roadblocks. It is in my State and every other 
State that has energy. Thirdly, I mentioned the coal that has been 
locked up because of the machinations of the Clinton administration, 
the last administration.

[[Page S12932]]

  Fourthly, I don't think it is even plausible that the oil companies, 
if they can get permits fast enough to do it, would not invest in more 
production, since that is their business. Some of them are going to 
China, to Russia, and elsewhere to make these profits because they are 
forced to.
  I think it is very unfair for my colleagues, as much as I admire you, 
it is very unfair to come on this floor and brand the oil companies as 
a bunch of antipatriotic companies.
  Let me finish with my remarks, and I will yield the floor. I have 
been in this business. I know doggone well what it takes and how much 
it takes and how much it costs to develop oil and gas. I also know how 
difficult it is to get past the roadblocks environmentalists put up.
  I get tired of the populist rhetoric on the other side of the aisle 
that never gives any consideration to how difficult it is to be in this 
business. I don't have any financial interest in oil. All I can say is 
that I have been there, I know what it is like. Of course, these 
companies are out to make money, and if they have a business plan to 
buy back their stock, good for them. There are a lot of companies that 
are buying back their stock so they can compete.
  I feel strongly about this, which is why I fought for incentives in 
the Energy bill--and I fought hard to get them there--to develop the 
tar sands and oil shale, to develop geothermal, to develop refineries. 
We hear all this rhetoric about how these oil companies are making all 
this big money and not building refineries, tell me where they can 
build them; tell me where they don't have to spend billions of dollars 
to build a refinery or hundreds of millions to build a refinery, all 
because of what many people would argue are pseudo-environmental 
arguments and delays.
  We have gone so far on that side that we made it almost impossible 
for us to develop our own natural resources for our own benefit.
  I don't like any company that gouges, and if these companies are 
gouging, then let's do something about it. But let's not take away, as 
we commonly do around here, their ability to be able to go out and find 
oil, drill for oil and do what I think both of my colleagues sincerely 
want them to do, to go out and produce energy.
  You talk to any oil company executive and talk about how difficult it 
is to get permits and to do what has to be done in this country, it is 
amazing.
  I again point out--and it was not false--the fact that I chatted with 
one of the major oil companies recently that is going to go into the 
tar sands and oil shale at the tristate area, and their estimate is 
that it could cost industry as much as 120 billion bucks. That is a lot 
of money even for the oil companies. But, boy, would that save our 
country.
  But it will never happen if we keep doing this type of stuff on the 
Senate floor. I think we have done it for so many years now that we are 
getting used to it and we ought to answer it.
  Mr. President, I want to address another subject that I came here to 
address. I apologize to my colleagues if I offended them, but do not 
tell me that what I am saying is false. I know it is true. I for one am 
doggoned tired of this type of rhetoric.
  I want to address the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be 
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and I would like this put in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I object. We are on an amendment on the 
reconciliation bill.
  Mr. HATCH. I have the floor, do I not?
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator to make his unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HATCH. I just got the unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has been yielded time 
and may speak on any subject.
  Mr. DORGAN. Did he not just ask for time in morning business?
  Mr. HATCH. I will withdraw the morning business request, and I will 
put it in this Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The understanding is that the statement would 
be placed in morning business, not under this debate but under morning 
business, and the time will be charged.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?
  Mr. HATCH. Of course, I will.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would just like to know how much time 
has been yielded to the Senator from Utah, as well as how much time is 
remaining on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 24 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Utah does not have a limit on his time, but 
he is speaking on the amendment, for which there is 40 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this has been entertaining, if not 
enlightening, to see my colleague get a full tank of indignation in 
almost a nanosecond, on two subjects in fact. Let me cover the first at 
least.
  My colleague is a good-natured fellow--I like him--my colleague from 
Utah. In fact, he didn't get angry at me one day some years ago in a 
full-scale debate when I said to him, if there were an Olympic event 
for sidestepping, he would win the Gold Medal by far. In fact, he 
demonstrated that agility again today by sidestepping this point. The 
center of our colleague's agitation was he said: You cannot produce any 
more oil because those leftwingers, those environmentalists, will not 
let you do it.
  So I ask, well, how does one explain this then? The Wall Street 
Journal says the major oil companies are drilling for oil on Wall 
Street. They are paying down their debt, buying back their shares, and 
hoarding cash. That is what they are doing with their money. How does 
one explain that? Did not hear anything, did we? No explanation.
  My colleague said he was sick--he said three times he was sick. It is 
interesting, I suppose I have felt sick about some debate on the Senate 
floor over these years. I do not think I have ever admitted that, but I 
would much prefer to see a colleague of mine agitated about the price 
of energy in a full-scale agitation about what this is doing to 
consumers, agitated about what it is going to do when somebody on a 
fixed income cannot figure out a way to heat their home this winter. I 
would much sooner see a colleague agitated about that than having just 
come fresh yesterday from, as he described, a meeting with a major oil 
company, come to make the case for the major oil companies on the 
Senate floor, and say: You know what the problem is in this country? It 
is those populists dripping with venom--that word ``populists''--those 
leftwingers, those environmentalists on this side of the Chamber, they 
are what is wrong with this country.

  Let us see if we can peel back a little bit and expose the truth, if 
I might. My colleague says those environmentalists and those 
leftwingers have shut down all of these refineries. Oh, really?
  No, that is not true. Take it from me, that is not true. By the way, 
if my colleague would like to come back to the floor of the Chamber at 
some point, I would love to have a wide-open debate. Let us just talk 
back and forth and figure out where the facts are.
  Let me give a few facts about refineries. I will not read them all, 
but I could. Do my colleagues want to know the names of the refineries 
that were shut down in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000? Do my 
colleagues want the names of the refineries? I will give names of 
refineries, and when I tell the names of the refineries I will say who 
shut them down. The oil companies shut them down.
  Now, they did not do that so somebody could come to the Senate floor 
and blame somebody else. They did it because they were approved for big 
mergers. They became bigger and bigger, and they decided to shut down 
refineries. Why? They wanted to tighten

[[Page S12933]]

the refining capacity and therefore increase margins. And they have 
done it.
  I will not say I get sick about somebody coming to the Senate floor 
to blame others for the oil companies shutting down refineries. But do 
I think it is fair, and do I think it is truthful? Absolutely not. The 
evidence is exactly the opposite of what my friend from Utah said. He 
has a right to say it, and he even has a right to say it with a full 
tank of indignation. That does not make it right. The American people 
need to know the truth about these issues.
  Shutting down refineries has, in fact, occurred in this country. Why? 
Because as the oil companies merged and merged and became bigger, they 
were shutting down refineries. And I will read the names if anyone 
would like me to. But my colleague has gone and will not be interested 
in these names, I guess. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, since 1980, 176 refineries have 
closed their doors, not because environmentalists shut them down. Is it 
not true, I ask my colleagues, these were decisions made by the 
industry themselves?
  Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely.
  Mr. DODD. Does my colleague not further agree that in recent reports 
one of the major companies we are talking about, in effect, bragged 
that they had reduced production by 3 percent while profits over the 
same year had increased 50 percent? That was not some environmentalist 
reducing production by 3 percent. That was the industry itself that 
made that decision. Is my colleague familiar with that?
  Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely. These record profits, the highest profits in 
history, are accompanied, by the way, in most cases--let me give an 
example. Exxon reports a 75-percent increase in net profits to $9.9 
billion and they produced 5 percent less oil and gas at the same time.
  Part of that was due to the hurricane. But the company admits that 
even without the hurricane, they would have produced less oil and gas 
at the same time they had the highest profits in history. How does that 
square with what our colleague from Utah said? What our colleague from 
Utah said is not accurate. It is not. He said it with great conviction, 
he said it with great agitation, and it is wrong. Flat wrong.
  There are plenty of other things to talk about with respect to this 
issue. Our colleague raises the suggestion that we can't drill 
anyplace. You can't drill anyplace.
  Look, I support drilling in Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. The only 
place he was accurate about was the issue of ANWR. Do I think we should 
drill in ANWR as a first resort? The answer is no. I think it ought to 
be the last resort if we ever drill there. We have people on the floor 
who want to open up all these pristine places, especially ANWR, that we 
have set aside and let's drill. Katie bar the door, drill anywhere. We 
have set ANWR aside, but there are plenty of places I think we ought to 
drill.
  This was one of the most partisan rants I have heard for some while 
on the floor of the Senate. We are used to it. The minute you offer an 
amendment that does anything to a particularly large industry, I am 
telling you we have people coming through these doors saying, Who do I 
stand for? Let me stand for the big interests here.
  My colleague said he met with a major oil company executive 
yesterday. Good for him. As I said before, I don't bear ill will toward 
the major oil companies. But I wish he were as agitated about the 
impact of these prices on America's consumers. He is not. He has raised 
a lot of questions about why the oil companies are not producing more 
oil, why prices are where they are. The fact is, point after point 
after point has been inaccurate.
  I say to my colleague with respect to Exxon, let's take Exxon. He 
says the problem is these Senators and all the environmentalists and 
all the others prevent them from drilling.
  What did Exxon do last year? They made $25 billion and used $9.9 or 
$10 billion to buy back their stock. How does he square that with what 
he said to the Senate? He is flat wrong.
  Sigmund Freud had a grandson named Clement. I was thinking about it, 
as my colleague was supporting the major oil industries' profits 
tonight. Clement, Sigmund's grandson, said this: ``When you hit someone 
over the head with a book and get a hollow sound, it doesn't mean the 
book is empty.''
  We have offered a proposal here in the Senate that has great merit. 
It has been misdescribed by the oil industry for reasons I understand--
I am talking about the major integrated companies--misdescribed by our 
colleague from Utah tonight as something that would reduce the supply 
of oil. In fact, the single largest incentive that would exist for 
expanding the supply of energy in this country would be our proposal 
because the major integrated oil companies would have a choice. They 
can either use these windfall profits above $40 a barrel to sink back 
into the ground, exploring for oil, or building refineries. They can 
either do that, and therefore be exempt from the windfall profits tax 
we propose, or they can choose to pay a 50-percent excise tax on the 
windfall profits--one of the two. Which would you choose? There is no 
question what you would choose. You would choose to expand the supply 
of energy and reduce energy prices as a result. That is the incentive 
in our piece of legislation. That is why it makes so much sense and it 
is why I was sitting here gritting my teeth, listening to the 
caricature of this legislation offered by my colleague from Utah and 
the spirited defense of the highest prices in history by the major 
integrated oil companies and the disparaging comments about the efforts 
to see if we can give some relief and give some help and stand on the 
side of consumers.
  I chaired the hearings on the Enron scandal several years ago in the 
Commerce Committee. I had a lot of people there under subpoena, 
understanding what they did on the west coast with price manipulation.
  I must say this issue of pricing, pricing of energy is critically 
important because this is not some luxury item. This is a necessity for 
every family, for their daily needs. We need to get this right. The 
question is, when we vote on this: Who do you stand with and who do you 
stand for?
  Let me yield some time to my colleague. How much time remains on our 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield 8 minutes to my colleague from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you. I may not use all that time because we made our 
points. But I want to join with my colleague and friend from North 
Dakota.
  Let me say at the outset I have a great friendship with my colleague 
from Utah. We have done legislation together over the 24 years we have 
served together in this body. He has been here a little longer than I 
have. I enjoyed that relationship. I am somewhat stunned when my 
colleague from Utah becomes as exercised as he was over the oil 
industry and its profits. They have done very well. There is no reason 
to be upset about the oil industry. The profits they recorded in the 
space of 12 weeks are unprecedented in American history.
  I began to wonder whether my colleague from Utah had even read the 
amendment the Senator from North Dakota and I offered. It very simply 
says that, with the profits when oil is in excess of $40 a barrel, you 
either pay an excise tax which would rebate to consumers to the tune of 
about $65 million a day, which could be meaningful to families who will 
be paying much higher costs this year, or reinvest this money, these 
additional profits, into increased production or developing 
alternatives the industry says it wants to do. That is what the 
amendment says.

  We have watched the industry shut down 176 refineries in 25 years. 
One company brags about how profits are up 50 percent, and they 
themselves reduced production by 3 percent.
  In any class in 101 economics, when you reduce supply like that, 
obviously it gives a justification for increasing price. They admit it 
in their annual reports. I didn't make up that quote. I am quoting one 
of the major integrated companies in its message to its shareholders: 
Profits are up 50 percent, we reduced production by 3 percent.
  Then I hear my colleague from Utah talking about some 
environmentalists as if somehow they had shut down the refineries or 
they were responsible for reducing refinery capacity. It is the oil

[[Page S12934]]

industry itself that has been closing refineries.
  There are not going to be many more opportunities because we are 
about to adjourn here. We will not be back until the middle of January. 
This may be the one opportunity we have to express ourselves on whether 
we think the industry ought to be doing a better job when it comes to 
increasing production and providing some relief for the people out 
there who will be paying these increased costs.
  This is not an excessive request. It is one that goes right to the 
heart of what we have talked about, what we talked about during the 
consideration of the Energy bill. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, we 
provide literally billions of dollars in tax breaks for the industry to 
go out and do some of the things the Senator from Utah talked about.
  I voted against that Energy bill, not because there were not some 
things I liked in the bill but, frankly, because I thought those tax 
breaks were unnecessary. When you are recording $9 billion, almost $10 
billion in profits in 12 weeks, why do you need a tax break? But when 
the integrated companies report more than $32 billion in profits in 12 
weeks and we turn around and provide billions of dollars in tax breaks, 
I didn't understand that. But that is what we decided to do.
  Here we have a chance to say: Listen, you got these additional 
profits. Put them into energy production or provide a rebate to the 
people of this country who are going to be paying these increased 
prices. It is one chance here to decide which side you are on. As I 
mentioned earlier, we tried to get Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
increases for the poorest of our poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, 
and that has been denied over and over again despite amendments even in 
the last few days and weeks to provide some relief. That has been 
repeatedly voted down.
  What about providing some relief for people who are going to be 
paying these additional costs? That is what we are trying to do with 
this amendment. I commend my colleague from North Dakota. I know some 
people say, It is a futile effort, why do you even bother? We bother 
because we think it is right to stand up here.
  Other Congresses in other times--where are the Harry Trumans today? 
We are in the middle of a war right now in the Middle East. He stood up 
as a Member of this body and he called it profiteering, and he was not 
accused of being a populist. We celebrate Harry Truman today as someone 
who had the guts to stand up and tell the truth, whether people wanted 
to hear it or not. We ought to tell the truth now. These companies are 
making excessive profits at the expense of our economy and hard-
working, honest people. They look to us to provide some help.
  That is what we exist for, in part, to make sure you don't have 
unrestrained activities that will do damage to the average person or 
average business out there trying to make ends meet.
  I again urge our colleagues to support this amendment. It is one 
chance we have to try to make a difference for these people.
  I yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me yield myself 4 minutes. I want to reserve 4 
minutes. But let me make a comment. I agree with my colleague from 
Connecticut. Spirited debate is fine on this floor. I didn't like the 
representation that was made by our other colleague that somehow what 
we were proposing here is not only unworthy but part of some cabal that 
is trying to injure this country and, second, using information that is 
simply not accurate.
  The refineries have been closed by the oil companies, not 
environmentalists. That is a fact. What has happened is when they 
merged, they closed refineries in order to restrict supply and boost 
the yields of the refineries. The fact is, we had experts come in. I am 
talking about experts, I am not talking about politicians. The so-
called experts came to the committee. We said, Why are refineries 
closing? One reason, because their yields are too low and the major oil 
companies are closing them. That is exactly the case.
  My colleague from Utah talked about tax breaks he had sponsored for 
the oil industry. He talked about yesterday he was visiting with an 
executive of the big oil industry--which is fine. He talked about the 
price they pay in Europe, $3 or $4 a gallon. The interesting thing is 
in Europe the money between the cost of oil and the $3 or $4 a gallon 
doesn't go into the pockets of the oil companies, it goes to build 
infrastructure in Europe. They collect it in taxes and use it to invest 
in the infrastructure of Europe.
  But I think it is important to point out what happens here on this 
floor. When you offer a proposal such as we offered, it doesn't matter 
if it is the tobacco industry or pharmaceutical industry or oil 
industry, we will have people trot through these doors of the Senate 
and rise to the defense of the pricing policy of the pharmaceutical 
industry or rise to the defense of the pricing policy of the oil 
industry. I will ask this. If you are going to get agitated in this 
Chamber, get agitated about something worthwhile. The agitation ought 
to be on behalf of some families who are trying to figure out how on 
Earth will I pay the bill? As I read in tomorrow's paper of the largest 
profits in the history of this country coming into the treasury of the 
oil companies, how am I going to pay a 50-percent increase in the bill 
to heat my home? You want to get agitated, get agitated on behalf of 
those folks and help us do something.
  This notion of partisan blame, coming to the Chamber and ignoring the 
substance of a proposal and then casting partisan blame, in my judgment 
is a little tired and a little old. This proposal stands on it own 
merits. If you don't like it, that is fine. I understand that. Vote 
against it. But don't suggest somehow you are on the side of the 
consumer if your interest here on the floor of the Senate is to come 
and stand with the big oil companies, and to believe that profits above 
$40 a barrel is fine. It is not. It is not fair.
  We believe one of two things should happen: Either it all ought to be 
sunk back into the ground or above ground for exploring for oil and 
building refineries and expanding America's supply of energy and bring 
down prices, or it ought to be recaptured and sent back as a rebate to 
the people in this country who are having trouble paying their bills, 
as a rebate to every American using energy.
  That is our proposal. Controversial for some? Maybe. Is it the right 
thing to do for the American people? I believe it is, and I hope this 
Congress, I hope this Senate will as well.
  I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield whatever time he consumes to the majority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Immigration and Competitiveness

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in 1882, an Irish immigrant named Marcus 
Daly set off an explosion that shook the world. It happened 300 feet 
under the ground, near Warm Springs Creek, 26 miles west of Butte, MT. 
When the dust settled, Daly saw before him the shiny ore of the largest 
copper deposit ever known.
  The rich copper vein transformed the American economy. It made 
America the world's largest copper exporter. And it inaugurated an 
economic boom for my home State that lasted for decades. It also 
enriched many parts of America.
  Thousands of immigrants made the boom happen. They came from Ireland 
and Italy, Canada and Scandinavia, Serbia and Croatia, Greece and 
Syria. They came to America to find work in the new mining town, 
christened Anaconda. By 1900, immigrants made up 40 percent of 
Anaconda's population.
  These new Americans formed the backbone of the mining economy. And 
their descendants have woven the colorful fabric of Montana.
  Immigrants helped build the American economy. In the 1850s, hundreds 
of

[[Page S12935]]

thousands of young Chinese men helped construct the Transcontinental 
Railroad. At the beginning in the 1870s, Basque shepherd immigrants 
helped shape the western ranching economy. Beginning in the 1890s, 
hundreds of thousands of Norwegian farmers lay the foundations of a 
competitive farming economy in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and the 
Dakota territories. And in the first decades of the 20th century, more 
than 100,000 Jewish immigrants created New York City's famous garment 
industry.
  Immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators revolutionized the American 
economy. Scotsman industrialist Andrew Carnegie transformed the 
American steel industry and consolidated the Nation's railroads. 
Hungarian Joseph Pulitzer produced a legacy in newsprint. Polish-born 
producer Samuel Goldwyn left his mark on film.
  Once-foreign names became American household brands. Russian-born Max 
Factor made makeup. Bavarian-born Levi Strauss manufactured clothes. 
Hessian-born Adolphus Busch brewed beer.
  And today, immigrant innovators still populate the cutting edge. 
Moscow-born Sergey Brin helped found Google. Taiwan-born Jerry Yang 
founded Yahoo. French-born Pierre Omidyar founded eBay. And Hungarian-
born Andy Grove founded Intel.
  America remains a nation of immigrants. More than 33 million people 
living in America were born abroad. More than 9 million came to our 
shores just between 1990 and 2000.
  Since colonial times, immigrants have been vital to the American 
economy. Their skills and their labor have made our companies, our 
industries, and our economy more competitive.
  Some immigrants come with little more than their strength and 
ambition. They become our economy's machine operators, factory workers, 
farm laborers, and service workers.
  But many come with master's and doctorate degrees. They work in 
research laboratories and universities. They sharpen our economy's 
cutting edge.
  This is my seventh address to the Senate on economic competitiveness. 
Since summer, I have highlighted the importance to competitiveness of 
education, international trade, healthcare, national savings, and 
energy, all components we must focus on to make our country more 
competitive so we have better high-paying jobs and more paying jobs for 
more Americans. Today, I speak about immigration and economic 
competitiveness.
  Immigrants make our economy more competitive in at least four ways.
  First, immigrants provide labor. Marcus Daly needed workers to dig 
his Montana copper mine. Similarly, today's booming industries require 
global talent.
  Without foreign-born workers, the largest economic expansion in our 
Nation's history would not have been possible. In the boom years of the 
1990s, the labor force grew by nearly 17 million workers. Nearly 40 
percent of them were born abroad. Most of these immigrants came when 
unemployment was at record lows. They filled 4 out of 10 job vacancies, 
often in regions short on workers, and often in jobs that natives had 
no desire to fill. Had these immigrants not lent us their strength, our 
economy would surely have faltered.
  Second, immigrants help balance the budget. Tally up taxpayer-funded 
benefits to immigrants--education, healthcare, social security--and 
match those costs against what immigrants pay in State, local, Federal 
taxes. On balance, each immigrant provides a net benefit to the 
American economy of about $90,000 in taxes over a lifetime. Overall, 
immigrants contribute $15 billion to our economy every year.
  And immigrants will make an important fiscal contribution as the baby 
boom generation retires. In just 5 years, the number of Americans 
approaching retirement will increase by nearly half. Most new foreign-
born immigrants, on the other hand, are between 10 and 39 years old. 
And immigrants are likely to have more children than the U.S.-born 
population.
  These younger workers will help fund the coming Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid benefit payments. Immigrants bolster the 
deteriorating ratio of workers to retirees. Immigrants provide a shiny 
vein of ore in a graying economy.
  Third, immigrants push the envelope of innovation. Foreign students 
earn more than a quarter of the Nation's science and engineering 
degrees. They earn more than a third of science and engineering 
doctorates. Most of those are in computer sciences and electrical 
engineering. Foreign students account for as many as four out of five 
doctoral students in a number of highly-ranked universities. And 
foreign students bring $13 billion a year to our economy in tuition and 
fees.
  Foreign students' minds help sharpen our economy's cutting edge. 
Foreign student researchers support work on new medicines, software, 
and other innovations. Universities patent this research. A 10 percent 
increase in the number of foreign graduate students would increase 
patents granted by more than 7 percent.
  Patents mean new inventions. Inventions mean new products. And new 
products mean new profits and new jobs.
  Just as important, nearly three-quarters of highly-skilled students 
stay in America. Instead of taking their skills home and using them to 
compete with us, they join highly specialized professions in research 
and academia. They contribute their knowledge to our economy.
  At IBM Research and Intel, for example, foreign nationals make up 
about a third of high-level researchers. At the National Institutes of 
Health, foreign-born workers make up about half of researchers. In 
America's top immigration States, foreign-born workers account for 40 
percent of teachers and more than a quarter of physicians, chemists, 
and economists.
  Fourth, immigrants drive entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the 
irreplaceable genius that sparks economic growth. For every famous 
immigrant entrepreneur like Hungarian financier George Soros or Belgian 
designer Liz Claiborne, legions of other immigrants push the limits of 
the economy, or simply provide a neighborhood service.
  For more than a century, immigrants have been more likely than 
native-born Americans to be self-employed entrepreneurs. Since the 
1970s, immigrants have helped reverse a national decline in self-
employment. Immigrant-run businesses create jobs, tax revenues, and 
growth. Even small neighborhood businesses can revitalize entire 
neighborhoods. And small businesses are the primary driver of new jobs.
  Immigrants also swell the ranks of high-technology entrepreneurs. 
Most of the foreign-born scientists and engineers in Silicon Valley 
have helped found or run a start-up company. Sixty percent of Indian 
scientists there have participated in start-ups. And fully three-
quarters of Indians and most of the Chinese scientists there have plans 
to start a business. These entrepreneurs are thinking about tomorrow's 
economy today.
  Immigrants devote their labor. They boost our balance sheets. They 
drive innovation. And they energize entrepreneurship. Immigrants are 
vital to our economic competitiveness.
  Unfortunately, America is not welcoming global talent and labor. In 
some cases, we have pulled in welcome mat.
  State Department visa procedures and security checks intended to keep 
out terrorists are instead keeping out talent. In the post-September 11 
world, America must vigilantly protect its borders. But we must also 
strike a balance between this vigilance and economic health.
  Look at the case of foreign students who want to study at American 
universities. In 2003, foreign applications to American engineering 
doctoral programs fell by more than a third--with Chinese applications 
dropping nearly in half. Despite considerable efforts to reverse this 
trend, total foreign graduate school applications declined further last 
year, by double digits in some cases. This year, the number of 
international students entering American graduate schools finally held 
steady, despite a 5 percent drop in applications from foreign students.
  The decline in applications is not an anomaly. It is a clear trend. 
At the same time, our economic rivals are actively attracting the 
world's brightest. Canada doubled its foreign student enrollment last 
year. And South Korea will triple its foreign student enrollment by 
2010.
  We unfortunately have also closed the door on talented workers who 
drive

[[Page S12936]]

our companies' competitiveness. Our leading high-tech companies--
companies like Intel, Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard--are imploring 
Congress to raise the cap for visas for highly-skilled workers--known 
as H-1B visas. These visas are capped at 65,000. That limit is so out 
of line with demand that we reached the 2005 cap months before 2005 
began.
  Today's visa and immigration restrictions also make it difficult for 
major American companies to employ and train their workforce.
  Take this example: A global American entertainment company with 
headquarters in New York hired Indian managers to run its Bangalore 
office. The company wanted to train these new hires to company 
standards, as it does with all employees. The company wanted to send 
the new hires to New York to receive this training, as it does with all 
management. The company applied for visas on behalf of its soon-to-be 
Indian office managers.
  What happened? The company filed the paperwork. Months came. Months 
went. It took 3 months just to get an appointment at the U.S. Embassy. 
Delays continued. Patience wore thin. Costs mounted, with untrained 
managers on the payroll. And the company finally gave up.
  The company applied for visas to Ireland, where the company had its 
European branch. The visas came in 4 days. The company trained these 
new managers at the company's facilities in Ireland, and then sent them 
back to India to work. This created jobs in Ireland, because the 
company set up a training program there, instead of using existing 
trainers in America.
  This is no way to do business. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.
  We must lift the cap on H-1B visas. We do not have a centrally 
planned economy. The American Government does not tell companies how 
many workers they need each year. But the cap has that effect, the 
effect of a centrally planned economy. That is wrong. Let us listen to 
business leaders and help them maintain and improve their 
competitiveness. When our premier global companies implore us to lift 
the H-1B visa cap or risk hampering their growth, the time for politics 
is over.
  We must simplify temporary entry for foreign workers who need to come 
to America to help our companies succeed. If we wish to remain a 
cutting-edge economy, we can no longer obstruct companies from training 
their overseas employees, participating in meetings and conferences, or 
traveling to trade shows. Our companies have global markets, global 
supply chains, and global strategies. We need a global workforce.
  Our current commitment of 65,000 H-1B visas each year is outdated. It 
is outmoded and out of touch with today's needs. We should make a bold 
commitment to expand that cap. Such a commitment would allow us to lock 
in similar commitments from our trading partners and enhance exports 
and American services.
  We must actively encourage talented foreign students to study, do 
research, and innovate at American universities and American research 
institutions. Visa renewals during multiyear studies need to be 
routine. These renewals should not require all students to first return 
to their home countries.
  For the most exceptional of these students, who have earned advanced 
science degrees at American universities, we need a simpler process to 
obtain permanent residence. These are talented, highly educated 
individuals, who are in a position to keep our economy competitive. If 
we do not welcome them into our economy--guess what--then China, India, 
Europe, or Japan will welcome them into theirs.
  Three weeks ago, the National Park Service designated the old mining 
town of Anaconda, MT, as a national historic landmark. Anaconda's 
mining boom times are now preserved as part of our Nation's history. 
But Marcus Daly's explosion--when he found all that copper ore--
continues to reverberate through the American economy today.
  Let us not stamp out the spark of future booms. Let us, rather, 
welcome the labor, the innovation, and the entrepreneurship of our new 
immigrants. Let us ensure for ourselves and for our children the 
shining ore of boom times to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
from the manager's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2587

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber to respond to some 
of the arguments that have been made by some of our colleagues in 
support of an amendment that would impose a so-called windfall profits 
tax on crude oil and the use of the tax collected to provide an energy 
tax credit to consumers.
  This is an amendment that, while it may make Senators feel good to 
try to lash out at the oil companies that are making admittedly 
significant profits, it is the wrong thing to do for reasons I wish to 
explain.
  I think we are here representing our various States to do more than 
make popular arguments. We are here to make arguments that ultimately 
make sense and benefit the national interests of the United States of 
America. I believe passing a windfall profits tax would damage America. 
It would damage our national security by making us even more reliant on 
imported oil and, conversely, less reliant on domestic oil because 
there would be less of it. It would essentially confiscate the legally 
earned profits of a legal business that has actually made less money 
than other industries that I will talk about in a minute.
  If we are going to determine in the Congress how much of a profit is 
too much and how much is not enough, I think we are sending a very bad 
signal. We are ostensibly believers in the free enterprise system in 
the United States. Certainly there are examples of gouging and illegal 
profiteering, but those are at the margins. We should not be in the 
business in the Senate of saying how much is too much and how much is 
not enough.
  I point out the bill pending on the floor already includes a $4.9 
billion tax penalty on large integrated oil companies. That is already 
in this bill--without this windfall profits tax--and imposes a 
significant penalty tax on the oil industry.
  Now, proposals to limit so-called windfall profits are premised on 
the notion that the oil industry profits are somehow excessive. I would 
point out to my colleagues that in the second quarter of 2005, the oil 
industry earned 7.7 cents, not quite 8 cents, for every dollar of 
sales. The average profit for all U.S. industries during the second 
quarter was 7.9 cents. In other words, the average profit was two-
tenths of a cent more for sales across all industries.
  There were 13 industries in the United States that earned higher 
profits in the second quarter than the oil and gas industry, including 
banking, at 19.6 cents; software and services, at 17 cents; consumer 
services, at 10.9 cents; and real estate, at 8.9 cents. Are we going to 
impose a windfall profits tax on each of these industries that reaped a 
higher return on their investment than the oil and gas industry? Well, 
I doubt it. And thank goodness we are not. It simply is wrong to target 
an industry, particularly one that has not made excessive profits 
relative to other industries in the United States during this last 
year, and say: We are going to treat you differently, we are going to 
discriminate against you because we know you are unpopular, and we are 
going to tax you at a higher rate than we would otherwise tax business 
activity in the United States.
  Now, we have seen a spike in gasoline prices, up to, on average, 
$3.07 a gallon, which, thankfully, has dropped a lot now. I was back in 
Texas this last weekend, and I saw gasoline selling for $1.98 a gallon. 
That was certainly good news. Those prices are a little bit higher in 
other parts of the country, obviously, but the good news is, the price 
is coming down.

  It is that law that does not emanate from inside the beltway but one 
that governs all of our economic activities that applies here. It is 
the law of supply and demand--the law that this amendment would attempt 
to tamper with and create perverse incentives that are not good for 
America. They do not just target this industry, they actually are bad 
for our national security. They are unfair when you consider other 
industries. And it violates our fundamental principles as a nation

[[Page S12937]]

that believes in the benefits of a free market.
  But the fact is, one of the things that cramped the supply of 
gasoline recently was the hurricanes that have damaged refineries and 
oilfields, including out in the Gulf of Mexico. A lot of the refineries 
and the oil wells have been offline while they have been repaired and 
now are largely being restored. What we are seeing, as they are coming 
online, with more supply, and given the same demand, is that the price 
is coming down.
  But the fact is, as well, that significant portions of the profits of 
the oil industry are going to have to be used to restore prehurricane 
infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico and in the affected region.
  One of the problems with this ill-conceived windfall profits tax is 
it will reduce needed investment. One of the things we need in this 
country, of course, is a greater supply of oil and gas because we know 
we are in a worldwide economic competition with countries such as India 
and China that are becoming increasingly industrialized and consuming 
more energy than they produce. Here again, the law of supply and demand 
pertains.
  By actually putting a tax on the profits that oil and gas companies 
have received as a result of their lawful business activity, we will 
deny them money they can and will invest back into creating a greater 
supply--exploring for more oil and gas, expanding their refineries--
which will, in turn, bring down the price of oil and gasoline.
  The other thing I would point out is, we have been here before. We 
have been there. We tried it. And we found that the effect of a 
windfall profits tax--no matter how good it feels--simply does not 
solve any problems and, in fact, creates more problems.
  In 1990, the Congressional Research Service analyzed the effects of 
the windfall profits tax that was enacted between 1980 and 1988. The 
Congressional Research Service found that the tax reduced domestic oil 
production from between 3 and 6 percent and increased oil imports from 
between 8 and 16 percent over its lifetime.
  At a time when Senator after Senator, Congressman after Congressman, 
has stood on the floor of our respective bodies and said, We need to 
reduce our dependence on imported oil and increase our domestic 
production, this tax, if imposed, would do just the opposite. It would 
decrease domestic production. It would increase our reliance on 
imported oil. It would make America less secure. And it would damage 
our domestic companies that employ hard-working Americans.
  It seems like there are so many good reasons not to adopt this 
amendment. I cannot think of a single good reason to do it, other than 
perhaps it makes Senators feel good to try to punish the big bad oil 
companies for making an excessive profit. But I do not think we want to 
be in the business of determining how much is enough and how much is 
too much.
  The last thing the Federal Government needs to do is get its clumsy 
hands on the free enterprise system in a way that damages our precious 
energy supply. We should be encouraging domestic production. We should 
be encouraging alternative forms of energy, which, by the way, the 
higher the price of oil and gasoline gets, the more people begin to 
look at what are other commercially available alternatives. That is 
good because what it does is it diversifies our dependency on an energy 
supply so we are not dependent on just one type of energy.
  That is the reason we need to--in addition to producing more oil 
domestically, expanding the size of refinery capacity so we bring the 
price down--look at nuclear energy, which is, in part, what we did 
through our Energy bill we passed this last summer. France, for 
example, generates 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power. 
We need to look at other alternative forms of energy that reduce our 
dependency on fossil fuels, which cause environmental problems. 
Everyone who cares about the environment should care about our looking 
at alternative forms of energy.
  There are so many reasons this amendment is bad. I hope my colleagues 
will consider these arguments. I hope we do not stampede into adoption 
of this bad amendment based on the populist arguments that oil 
companies are big, so they must be bad, or somehow argue that to make a 
profit implies some sort of corruption or inappropriate activity. We 
have laws on our books against those who violate our anti-gouging laws, 
but it is no crime to make a profit in a free market system.
  It is that profit that creates an investment that expands the supply 
and ultimately brings the price down. It is the profit earned by these 
companies that allows them to employ hard-working Americans. If we want 
to put Americans out of business, if we want to increase our dependency 
on imported oil and reduce the production of domestic oil, then I guess 
we should pass this ill-conceived amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
reconsider and vote against the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am glad that we are debating this bill 
on the floor of the Senate. Despite some concerns which I will discuss 
later, I supported this bill in the Finance Committee. I have heard a 
lot in the last few weeks from some of my colleagues talking about how 
we can't afford the so-called tax cuts that this bill was expected to 
contain. As we have been saying for weeks, the growth package is not 
about tax cuts. It is about stopping tax increases, tax increases that 
will affect American families.
  The so-called tax cuts that Democratic Members of Congress are 
talking about are nothing more than keeping current tax law in place. 
There are dozens of provisions that American families and employers 
have come to rely on that will expire at the end of this year, if we do 
not pass this bill. These are provisions that are important to our 
constituents and to our economy. Let's take a look at some of the items 
that are in the bill before us.
  First, the research and development tax credit will expire at the end 
of this year unless we act. This is an important provision of the Tax 
Code that spurs innovation and new technologies. A majority--believe 
me--of Senators have supported this provision in the past. The bill 
before us not only extends this provision, it also adds some 
improvements to make it more relevant to today's economy.
  A lot of other important provisions also expire if we do not pass 
this bill. The deduction of tuition expenses, that provision affects 
36,000 Kentuckians; the tax deduction for teacher classroom expenses, 
this one affects 38,000 Kentucky teachers; and the low-income saver's 
credit affects 94,000 low-income Kentucky taxpayers. These are 
Kentuckians that do not deserve a tax increase. I am going to do all 
within my power to make sure they don't get one.
  I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not contain a 
provision that I considered to be a vitally important one--keeping the 
tax rate on dividends and capital gains income from increasing. It is 
very important that we extend this 15-percent rate through the end of 
the budget window. As this bill moves through the legislative process, 
I will fight to make sure that the bill that the President ultimately 
signs includes these vital provisions. It is very hard to dispute the 
positive impact that the 15-percent rate has had on the macroeconomy. 
Dividends paid by companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 have been up 
over 50 percent since this tax change was implemented. Capital gains 
revenues from taxes to the Federal Government is estimated by some to 
exceed the CBO forecast by billions of dollars in fiscal year 2006.
  But let's talk about which taxpayers are benefiting from these 15-
percent rates. In my State, Kentucky, 18 percent of taxpayers benefited 
from the reduced rates on dividend income, and 13 percent benefited 
from the lower rate on capital gains income in 2003. These numbers are 
especially interesting when you consider that Kentucky has a median 
income that is below the national average. This does not even count the 
millions of workers and retirees who hold these assets inside their 
401(k)s. As we all know, these dividends are very important to the 
elderly. Many of our retired folks rely on dividends to supplement 
their fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security.
  While it is true that the lower rates do not sunset until the end of 
2008, it is

[[Page S12938]]

important that we send a message to the economy by extending these 
rates this year. If we have not made these provisions permanent, 
investors and financial markets will grow increasingly uncertain about 
the future tax treatment of dividends and capital gains as 2008 gets 
closer. We cannot risk adding unwanted volatility to the markets and 
the economy which continue to grow.
  Again, let me be clear, the proposals that we are planning to extend 
in this package are not new tax proposals, they are simply current law. 
If we do not extend these provisions, we will cause a substantial 
increase in the tax bills of American families and businesses.
  I also express my concern about two provisions currently part of this 
bill that I strongly oppose. First is a provision that will limit the 
ability of taxpayers who itemize their taxes to take a deduction for 
their full charitable contributions, as they do under current law. This 
change would amount to a tax increase on some taxpayers who make small 
charitable contributions, and I strongly oppose it.
  The second is a provision that will change accounting rules for the 
oil industry. The accounting rules at issue are not some loophole for 
the oil industry. All taxpayers with inventories can elect to use LIFO 
inventory rules--all. It would be unfair to impose different rules 
standards on only one industry and would set a dangerous tax precedent.
  Additionally, as my colleagues well know, we just passed an energy 
bill this summer. It contains incentives to increase refining 
production which is so desperately needed and which we have been 
neglecting for too long. To turn around and take away these incentives 
just a few months later, as this bill does, makes no sense whatsoever. 
Our focus needs to be on trying to increase domestic production of oil 
and refining capacity, and this provision will do exactly the opposite.
  I am planning to support this bill on the floor of the Senate, but I 
am only doing so with the expectation that we will improve it and that 
the bill that lands on the President's desk will ultimately reflect the 
views of the full Senate and this Congress.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           A Need For Answers

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, tonight the Vice President has come out of 
his bunker and is speaking at a gathering of Washington, DC, insiders. 
Of course, it is closed to the press.
  Unfortunately, he brought his bunker mentality with him in the 
speech. He is repeating the same tired attack we have heard from 
administrative officials over the last 2 weeks.
  Mr. President, in the last 24 hours in faraway Iraq 10 of our brave 
soldiers have been killed. On such a night, you would think the Vice 
President would give a speech that honors the fallen and those still 
fighting by laying out a strategy for success. But no, instead we have 
the Vice President of the United States playing politics like he is in 
the middle of a Presidential campaign.
  Yesterday, a bipartisan majority of this body, the Senate, gave the 
administration a vote of no confidence for its Iraq policy. The Senate 
said the era of their no-plan, no-end approach is over.
  Apparently, though, the White House didn't get the message. The Vice 
President's speech tonight demonstrates that once again this 
administration intends to stay the course and continue putting their 
political fortunes ahead of what this country needs, a plan for 
success.
  Our troops and the American people deserve better.
  The White House needs to understand that deceiving the American 
people is what got them into trouble. Now is the time to come clean, 
not to continue the pattern of deceit.
  So again, Mr. President, I ask Vice President Cheney to make himself 
available and answer the American people's questions. If he has time to 
talk to DC insiders, as he is doing tonight, oil executives, and even a 
discredited felon, Ahmed Chalabi, who by the way is under investigation 
for giving this Nation's secrets to Iran, it would seem he has time to 
answer the questions of the American people.
  Mr. Cheney needs to stop stonewalling and hold a press conference.
  Finally, I would urge the members of the Bush administration to stop 
trying to resurrect their political standing by lashing out at their 
critics. Instead, they need to focus on the job at hand, giving our 
troops a strategy for success in Iraq.
  This week we have seen Stephen Hadley, Donald Rumsfeld, President 
Bush, and Vice President Cheney lash out at their critics. Yet they all 
remain silent when it comes to giving our troops and the American 
people a plan for success in Iraq. I believe this tired rhetoric and 
these political attacks do nothing to get the job done in Iraq. I truly 
believe, Mr. President, America could do better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the purposes of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2596

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2596.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the provision 
 of health care for children before providing tax cuts for the wealthy)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING HEALTH CARE FOR 
                   CHILDREN BEFORE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) There are more than 9,000,000 children in the United 
     States with no health insurance coverage.
       (2) Sixty-seven percent of uninsured children live in 
     families with at least one full-time worker.
       (3) According to the Center for Studying Health System 
     Change, uninsured children, when compared to privately 
     insured children, are--
       (A) 3.5 times more likely to have gone without needed 
     medical, dental, or other health care;
       (B) 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical 
     care;
       (C) 5 times more likely to go without needed prescription 
     drugs; and
       (D) 6.5 times less likely to have a usual source of care.
       (4) More than half of these children are eligible for 
     coverage under either the State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program (SCHIP) or Medicaid, but are not enrolled in those 
     safety net programs.
       (5) Most States, struggling with budget deficits, have 
     curtailed outreach efforts.
       (6) A focus on simple and convenient enrollment and renewal 
     systems, as well as proactive outreach and educational 
     efforts, could help reach these children and reduce the 
     number of uninsured American children.
       (7) Some States, seeing that the Federal Government is not 
     providing assistance to middle class families who can't 
     afford health insurance, are trying to extend coverage to 
     some or all children.
       (8) State efforts to cover all children will not be 
     successful without financial assistance from the Federal 
     Government.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Senate should not vote to extend the capital gains 
     and dividend tax cuts, a majority of the benefits of which go 
     to households with incomes over $1,000,000, until Congress 
     has taken steps to ensure that all children in America have 
     access to affordable, quality health insurance;
       (2) the Senate should vote instead to use the funds 
     generated by the expiration of the capital gains and dividend 
     tax cuts to further the goal of ensuring that children have 
     access to health insurance coverage by--
       (A) awarding grants to States, faith-based organizations, 
     safety net providers, schools, and other community and non-
     profit organizations to facilitate the enrollment of the 
     6,800,000 children who are currently eligible for enrollment 
     in the State Children's Health Insurance Program but who are 
     not enrolled;
       (B) paying to each State with an approved State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program or Medicaid plan, an amount equal to 
     90 percent of the sums expended for the design, development, 
     implementation, and evaluation

[[Page S12939]]

     of enrollment systems determined likely to provide more 
     efficient and effective administration of the plan's 
     enrollment and retention of eligible children; and
       (C) establishing a grant program under which a State may 
     apply under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to 
     provide medical assistance under the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program to all children in their State.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we gather in the Senate this evening, 
there are 45 million Americans who are uninsured.
  I have introduced this sense-of-the-Senate resolution and invite 
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle to establish a national goal 
that we will eliminate the 45 million uninsured in the next 10 years.
  Some are critical of a sense-of-the-senate resolution saying this is 
``pie in the sky,'' we could not do that, we could not eliminate 45 
million uninsured in America in the course of 10 years. I disagree. If 
we set it as a bipartisan national goal, if the President and Congress 
agree it is goal we are going to seek, we can reach that goal.
  The amendment which I have just offered will eliminate 20 percent of 
the uninsured Americans--20 percent of them.
  Now, which would be the first group that you would turn to, to give 
health insurance and give the protection of health insurance? Well, I 
think most Americans, certainly most American families, would say our 
children. Would we not want to take care of them first?
  There are 9.1 million children in America without health insurance. 
Let me show you what 9 million children might look like in this 
depiction. Look at the States in yellow. If you took the children in 
every one of these States, they would total 9 million children. It 
gives you an indication of the gravity of this challenge. And it also 
tells you that we need to do much more. The number of children without 
health insurance in our Nation exceeds the number of all children 
living in 21 States and the District of Columbia combined.
  According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, uninsured 
children when compared to privately insured children in the year 2003 
were, first, 3\1/2\ times more likely to have gone without needed 
medical, dental or health care; second, 4 times more likely to have 
delayed seeking medical care; third, 5 times more likely to go without 
needed prescription drugs; fourth, 6\1/2\ times less likely to have the 
usual source of care.
  Let me give you the hard number. Six million children went without 
needed health care in America in the year 2003.
  I am sad to report this year I am afraid it is even more. There are 
more than 250,000 children in my State of Illinois without health 
insurance. Most come from working families, such as the Akeys family of 
Chicago. Annette and her husband own a real estate company. They make 
about $60,000 a year. That is not a huge sum of money in the city of 
Chicago. They were forced to give up their family health insurance when 
their premiums rose to $500 a month. Unfortunately, their 6-year old 
daughter Katana became ill with a kidney problem and a heart murmur.
  Katana was in the hospital for 3 days and the Akeys were left with a 
$10,000 medical bill to pay out of their own pocket. How did they do 
it? They took a second mortgage on their home.
  The Baldwins from Moline, IL, are another working family who can't 
afford insurance. Amanda Baldwin manages a fast food restaurant. She 
makes $556 every 2 weeks. Her husband David is a truck driver. He 
grosses $1,100 every 2 weeks. They have a 1-year-old son Zachary, but 
the Baldwins of Moline, IL, have no insurance. Why? Because it would 
cost $400 a month, which is about one-sixth of their monthly income.
  Paula Brooks of Adwardsville, IL, has coverage through the nonprofit 
agency where she is employed, but she can't afford to add her daughter 
Brittany, who is 9 years old, to her policy.
  There isn't a State in this Union, there isn't a city or town or 
village in this Nation where you could not find this story repeated 
over and over and over again--families that can't afford health 
insurance, children that go without protection.
  Let me tell you what has happened since Congress has failed to 
address this issue. If this is impossible to read as you are following 
this debate, it is because the print is so small, but what I have is 
the response of 19 States that have decided they are tired of waiting 
for Congress. They are trying to expand health care to their citizens. 
It is pretty clear that many of these States have become desperate. 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, my home State of 
Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, and 
Wisconsin, they are doing what we are not doing; they are showing 
leadership on the issue of expanding health coverage to the people 
living in their State. For the life of me, I can't explain why this 
President and this Congress ignore one of the most pressing problems 
facing America today.
  Luckily for the kids of my home State of Illinois, Governor 
Blagojevich signed a bill yesterday that covers all the children in the 
State. He calls it the All Kids Program. It will offer Illinois's 
uninsured children comprehensive health care that includes doctor 
visits, hospital stays, prescription drugs, vision care, dental care, 
and medical devices, such as eyeglasses and asthma inhalers.
  Parents will pay monthly premiums based on their income. For 
instance, a family of four that earns between $40,000 and $60,000 a 
year will pay a $40 monthly premium per child and a $10 copay per 
physician visit.
  But let's make it clear, this Governor in my home State is trying. In 
Illinois, we are doing something that is not being done in Washington. 
In Washington, we are not even trying. At the very least, Congress 
should take steps to ensure all American children have access to 
affordable, quality health insurance coverage.
  Does anyone doubt the popularity of that suggestion, that if you went 
to the people of America and said, I have a plan that will make sure 
every kid in America will be covered for a hospital stay, can get to a 
doctor, can have their prescriptions filled when they need them, 
regular dental care and vision screenings, is there anyone in America 
who believes that is an extravagance? I don't think so.
  Kids are the least expensive people to insure. The average cost to 
cover a child in the program in Illinois is $93.23 a month. To cover 
all 9.1 million children in America, if we decided to expand the 
program in Illinois to all of America, the cost would be $10 billion 
per year. Now if you are following this and you say, $10 billion, wait 
a minute, Senator, that is a huge amount of money for a program, 
remember this: It is health insurance for every child in America.
  Where would we find the $10 billion? We would find it in the 
legislation that is being debated by the House and the Senate right 
now: the 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts, tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The 2-year cost from 2008 to 2010 is 
$20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing 
for the wealthiest people in America, if we say they are not going to 
receive that tax break for the next 2 years, we would have enough money 
to provide basic health insurance for every uninsured child in America, 
and we would eliminate 20 percent of the uninsured Americans with that 
single act alone.
  We could cover all the kids in America for 2 years for the cost of 
capital gains and dividend tax cuts, and that figure doesn't even 
include the State share of the program.
  The first thing Congress can do is provide States more funding to 
enroll children who are eligible but not enrolled in SCHIP. These kids 
account for more than half of all uninsured children.
  Before his last election, President Bush campaigned in Pennsylvania, 
and here is what he said on October 22, 2004:

       We'll keep our commitment to America's children by helping 
     them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with Governors 
     and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure 
     every eligible child is enrolled in our Government's low-
     income health insurance program.

  President Bush, then a candidate, went on to say:

       We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to 
     stand between millions of children and the health care they 
     need.

  That was a few days before the election. Since then no proposal to 
cover the uninsured children in America has come from this White House 
nor from

[[Page S12940]]

this Congress--a campaign promise that hasn't been kept.
  The majority leader inserted $25 million in funds for outreach in 
last week's reconciliation bill. That is hardly enough. That isn't 
going to reach and insure these children. The bill of the Senator from 
Tennessee to fund outreach to kids would appropriate $100 million. Once 
we get all eligible kids enrolled, we should provide the Department of 
Health and Human Services with funds to grant to States that want to 
cover more children in their State.
  Very briefly, here is what my amendment does. It expresses the sense 
of the Senate that the Senate should not vote to extend the capital 
gains and dividend tax cuts until Congress has taken steps to ensure 
that all children in America have access to affordable, quality health 
insurance.
  The majority of the benefits of capital gains and tax cuts go to 
households with incomes over $1 million a year. Aren't kids in America 
a higher priority than millionaires? And how many times do people in 
the course of a campaign or on this floor talk about family values and 
moral values? Here is a nice moral choice for the Senate: Is it more 
important to give a tax break to someone making more than a million 
dollars a year, or provide health insurance for 9 million uninsured 
children in America?
  How does that play out, whether your inspiration is the Bible, the 
Torah, whatever it happens to be? I think most who have religious 
convictions and feelings and believe there are moral values we are 
fighting for say this is a pretty simple choice: a choice between tax 
cuts for people making over $1 million a year or health insurance for 9 
million uninsured children.

  Specifically, my amendment would provide grants to States, faith-
based organizations, safety net provider schools, and other community 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate the enrollment of 6.8 million 
children currently eligible for SCHIP and not enrolled.
  It covers 90 percent of the costs associated with the design, 
development, implementation, and evaluation of enrollment systems that 
will provide more efficient enrollment and retention of eligible 
children.
  It will establish a grant program under which a State may apply for a 
waiver to expand coverage of children in their State.
  When I go back home and speak to the families I represent, time and 
again they say to me: Are you people in Washington in touch with the 
reality of what is facing us in America? Whether it is a business owner 
who had to cancel his health insurance because one of his employees had 
a sick baby which drove the premiums through the roof for every other 
employee in the pool, whether it is a member of a labor union who says, 
I am working harder this year, I am getting paid more this year, but I 
have no take-home pay because it is being taken away from me in health 
insurance premiums and, Senator, I am getting less coverage, or whether 
it is a parent worried about a sick child and a medical bill they might 
never be able to repay--these are the realities of the life in America. 
It is not the reality of the debate in the Senate. We live in a 
different world in the Senate. We live in a world where people with a 
straight face can stand before us and say it is a much more moral thing 
to do and the right thing to do to give a tax cut to a wealthy person 
than to provide basic health care for a child in America.
  That is the choice, and that is what my amendment will offer to the 
Members of the Senate. I hope they will choose the children over the 
millionaires.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time for 
debate on the amendment I just offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________