[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S474-S476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we will have a piece of legislation come 
to the floor, we believe tonight--and perhaps tomorrow morning--that 
deals with the economic stimulus package, as it is called, to try to 
stimulate the economy. We are either in a recession or near a 
recession.
  The Federal Reserve Board today took additional action to cut 
interest rates by another half of 1 percent. That follows the three-
quarters of 1 percent cut recently by the Fed, within the last week and 
a half. So the Federal Reserve Board is using monetary policy tools to 
jump-start the economy, and the thought was that the fiscal policy side 
coming from the Congress and the President would require--or recommend, 
at least--some kind of stimulus package. So there is a stimulus package 
being developed that would provide payments--rebates of sorts--to 
American taxpayers. The discussion in the U.S. House is $600 per 
taxpayer. The Senate bill that has been proposed is $500 or $1,000 per 
couple.
  One can make a number of observations about this, wondering about the 
advantage and the importance of a fiscal policy that has a stimulus 
package. I think it is probably necessary for psychological reasons, if 
not for economic reasons. It is about 1 percent of the GDP that is 
being proposed. We have a $13-plus trillion economy, and I don't know 
how about 1 percent of that--$130 billion, $150 billion--for a stimulus

[[Page S475]]

package is going to stimulate the economy so much, but I think it is 
probably psychologically important that we do something here, so I 
expect to support it.
  There are a couple of things I intend to recommend. And I don't know 
how many amendments we will be moving on this bill, and I don't know 
what the circumstances might be. I know the bill will be brought to the 
floor with an unending appetite for amendments, so I understand and 
expect that we will have to limit some amendments. I want to suggest, 
however, two amendments that I think have some merit and that ought to 
be considered.
  The first one ought to be really easy, in my judgment. The first one 
is a message we should put on every check that goes out. If we are 
sending checks to American taxpayers, we ought to have on this check 
this statement, in my judgment: ``Support our economy--buy American.''
  Now, why is that the case? Well, because of the trade deficit we have 
in this country. You will see the hemorrhaging of red ink as a result 
of our trade deficits year after year. They have grown unbelievably. We 
now have roughly an $800 billion trade deficit in a year. We have so 
much in consumer goods that are being purchased from overseas, with 
cheap labor overseas, and being brought to the big box retailers in our 
country and purchased by American consumers. So the proposition of 
sending a rebate to American taxpayers, $500 or $600 per taxpayer, the 
purpose of which is to have them spend that and to boost consumer 
spending and, therefore, boost the economy--it does not do much to 
boost our economy if, in fact, we are providing a rebate, a check to 
taxpayers, and they spend it on imported goods. In my judgment, that is 
supporting foreign labor, not American labor.
  This is American money spent in a way that is designed to boost the 
economy, and so it seems to me it ought to be sent with a check that 
reminds Americans: Support our economy--buy American. We are going to 
send, what, probably 150 million checks out in the coming months with 
the stimulus package? Why not have 150 million messages just to remind 
people, to the extent they can, that it is very important to buy 
American, because we are trying to stimulate the American economy, not 
the Chinese economy, not the Japanese economy, and not the European 
economy. We are trying to stimulate the American economy. So it would 
be very helpful if they pay a bit of attention to the notion of what 
this money is about: Support our economy--buy American.
  I hope there isn't one person in this Chamber who would object to 
that. It won't cost anything. This would add no cost to the check that 
is to be printed, and it seems to me an important and timely message to 
American consumers. To the extent they can and to the extent they will, 
they should be reminded that spending these funds in support of the 
product of American workers is what invests in and expands opportunity 
in the American economy. That is an amendment which I think should be 
added. I hope it will be added by unanimous consent, absent a managers' 
package. It is something that should be easy to do, and I would suspect 
no one would object to the message: Support our economy--buy American.
  Second, I wanted to make a point about another amendment that I think 
should be included. I think this is more problematic at this point, but 
it is a piece of legislation I will introduce as well.
  Part of the economic difficulty in our country is the substantial 
runup in the price of oil and gasoline. It is interesting to me that 
even as we have seen the price of oil go up, up, up, we see that the 
Energy Department continues to put oil underground; that is, we receive 
royalties from certain oil wells, and they take those royalties in 
kind--that is, they take the royalties in the form of barrels of oil 
and they stick it underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Well, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is now about 97 percent full. 
Even though it is 97 percent full and the price of oil has gone to $80, 
$90, and then $100, we are still taking oil and putting it underground. 
What that does is it takes oil out of supply and puts upward pressure 
on prices. It seems to me we ought to at least take a holiday during 
this calendar year, as long as oil is above $100 barrel. Why would you 
go into the market to purchase very high-cost oil and take it off the 
market and stick it underground? That puts upward pressure on gas 
prices, and it makes no sense for the Government to be doing that given 
the fact the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is now 97 percent filled.
  So I hope--and I have encouraged the Energy Secretary to do this, but 
he has resisted. So my hope will be that either now or at some point in 
the future on some appropriate occasion, the Congress will decide to 
tell him: Do not be buying oil at these prices, taking it off the 
market and putting it underground. By ``buying it,'' I mean taking it 
as royalty in kind. That makes no sense to do that. You talk about 
stimulating the economy, the way to stimulate the economy is to help 
bring some of these energy costs down.
  Now about 8.5 million barrels have gone underground in the last 6 
months. Some will say: Well, that is a pretty small part of the amount 
of oil we have and the amount of oil we use. Well, we held a joint 
hearing between the Energy Committee and the Homeland Government 
Affairs Subcommittee on the issue of energy markets, and particularly 
oil markets. At that hearing we heard from Dr. Phillip Verleger, who is 
an investigative researcher and energy expert. He pointed out that even 
a seemingly small decision with this issue of putting oil back into the 
SPRO at a time when we are short can have significant consequences. He 
says the DOE is taking what is highly sought after, light sweet crude 
that is needed right now, and putting that underground in the petroleum 
reserve. He pointed out the volume of light sweet crude that they want 
to put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve underground has only been 
three-tenths of a percent of the total global supply available, but it 
was adding as much as 10 percent to the price of light sweet crude.
  Yet the Department of Energy insists and maintains that putting this 
royalty-in-kind oil underground has no consequence at all on the price 
of oil. Clearly it does. That is at odds with testimony we received 
before our committees. Clearly it has an impact on the price of 
gasoline. Filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when we have market 
record-high oil prices, as I said, puts upward pressure on the price of 
oil because even small volumes of oil off the market can have a 
dramatic price impact. That is especially true with what is called 
light sweet crude.
  In recent days we saw President Bush visiting Saudi Arabia to ask the 
OPEC countries, particularly the Saudis, to increase production to help 
ease oil prices in our country. Well, the fact is, the OPEC cartel is 
going to meet this Friday to discuss whether any change to production 
is warranted. Their decision will impact the price of gasoline in this 
country this spring.
  But there is another decision that will impact it. That is the 
decision by the Department of Energy to continue taking royalty-in-kind 
oil off the market and sticking it underground. This is exactly the 
wrong thing to do at the wrong time.
  I have always been in favor of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But 
with prices where they are, and an economy that is sluggish, it makes 
no sense to continue to do this. I believe what we ought to do is pass 
some legislation. If I were writing the stimulus bill, I would include 
this provision in the stimulus bill.
  Those are two ideas that I think should be considered. The first I 
would hope would be considered by unanimous consent. I can't believe 
anybody would object to putting on a check that goes out to 150 million 
people: Support Our Economy. Buy American. I do not think anybody 
believes that we want to provide a bunch of money and hope they will 
spend it on goods made in China. That hardly expands opportunities and 
the economy in this country. I am not saying they have to spend it on 
American-made goods, but what I am saying is, we ought to remind them, 
to the extent we can, what we are trying to do here, and what this 
stimulus rebate check is all about.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
437 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')

[[Page S476]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I believe my distinguished colleague from 
Alabama has some comments and questions he wishes to raise, so I ask 
that he be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________