[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14019-14022]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               TAX POLICY

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address the Senate on the 
issue of tax policy. Serving as a member of the Senate Finance 
Committee with jurisdiction over this, I watch tax policy pretty 
closely. We are almost half through the year 2008. Since January 1 of 
this year, several tax relief provisions have expired. I am talking 
about what we call tax extenders that have been on the books in the Tax 
Code for several years, in some cases decades, that sunset from time to 
time that must continue to be extended if you want the benefits of that 
tax policy.
  In most cases, we think this tax policy is good policy because many 
times these policies have been on the books and expired, and we have 
extended them. So the term ``tax extender'' means keeping existing tax 
policy in place; however, it has sunset so Congress must act to keep it 
going.
  The biggest one is called the AMT. Most people know it by the 
alternative minimum tax fix. That affects 25 million families. There 
are a number of other widely applicable tax relief provisions that fit 
into the term ``tax extenders.''
  One provides millions of families with a deduction for college 
tuition, another provides deduction for our schoolteachers for out-of-
pocket expenses that they might pay for that the school district does 
not pay for. One that is very important to innovation in American 
business is called the research and development tax credit, which has 
been part of the Tax Code since 1981.
  All of these tax relief provisions expired not just today but 6 
months ago.
  This Congress has not passed legislation yet to deal with this 
problem. We have had two cloture votes in the Senate on taking care of 
this, but those votes have been on a bill that will not pass the 
Senate. And even if the House bill were to pass the Senate, the 
President would not sign it. So the issue is, do we want to get these 
things extended or not? If you are going to do it, you have to do it in 
a way that is going to get it through the House and Senate, as well as 
the President's signature.
  What is holding up this bipartisan, time-sensitive tax relief? It is 
an obsession with the Democratic leadership, a version of pay-go or 
pay-as-you-go. I have spoken on this before, but the hangup is the 
Democratic Party's feeling and obsession over raising taxes to offset 
continuing current law tax relief policies.
  I have offered a deficit-neutral path to these tax extenders, that 
being a restraint on new spending. But I have no takers from the other 
side. I haven't even received a response on the merits of my offer that 
I made to the other side. The action or lack of action thus far proves 
my point. The leadership of the other party--or maybe all Members of 
that party--is so obsessed with raising taxes that they are willing to 
hold hostage popular bipartisan tax relief measures.
  Democratic spokespersons are threatening to kill these tax extenders 
unless they get tax increases they want so badly. It reminds me of a 
nursery story. I am referring to the story of the big bad wolf. I have 
a chart here so people don't forget who the big bad wolf is. You 
remember the story. The big bad wolf in that nursery story threatened 
the three little pigs. He said something like: I am going to huff and 
puff and blow your house down. The Democratic leadership is playing the 
role of big bad wolf right now.
  Here is what my friend the distinguished House leader said:

       The extender bill is not going to pass unless it's paid 
     for.

  When asked if he would make a similar pledge regarding the $62 
billion cost of preventing the alternative minimum tax from hitting 21 
million more taxpayers, the distinguished leader of the other body 
demurred:

       The extender bill is not going to pass if it's not paid 
     for.

  I call this an obsession.
  I might add, I have been pleased to work with the House majority 
leader in the past, particularly on the children's health insurance 
bill and other matters. But in the case of the tax extenders, I beg to 
differ with the distinguished leader of the other body. That is some 
very serious huffing and puffing. For those millions of families 
sending their kids to college, forget about your tuition tax deduction 
unless the Democrats get their offsetting tax increase. They have 
ignored the spending cut proposal I circulated over a week ago, so they 
are not holding tax extenders hostage to a pledge to pay for them. They 
are holding extenders hostage to their version of pay-as-you-go, which 
is guaranteed tax increases. More revenue, from their judgment, means 
more spending and yet bigger government.
  Now I will show you the big bad wolf can sometimes be a Republican. I 
have another chart with a famous quote on it from a former majority 
leader of this body. Senator Frist said:

       If the Senate kills the trifecta bill, we will not return 
     to it this year. That means we would have no permanent death-
     tax reform, no tax-policy extenders, and no minimum-wage 
     increase. It's now or never. It's this week.

  That is what was said approximately 18 months ago. At the time, 
Republicans were in the majority. It was also the last time folks in 
control of Congress were holding extenders hostage for an unrelated 
reason. In that case, the unrelated issue was death tax relief. 
Extenders were part of what was referred to then as the ``trifecta.'' A 
third part of the trifecta was a minimum wage increase.
  Here is what then-Senate majority leader Bill Frist said, kind of a 
repeat:

       If the Senate kills the trifecta bill, we will not return 
     to it this year. That means we would have no death-tax 
     reform, no tax-policy extenders, no minimum-wage increase.

  He went on to say:

       It's now or never. It's this week.

  What we have is huffing and puffing, a threat to blow the extender 
House down--the big bad wolf once again. So you can see my criticism is 
not partisan. I have shown a case where the Republican majority held 
tax extenders hostage.
  As we know, soon the then-Republican leader, the then-majority 
leader, Dr. Frist, came to his senses. He finally brought forward a 
bill that addressed the tax extenders in the lameduck session of 
December 2006.
  The bottom line is, the folks on our side recognized, although it 
took a long time, the merits of continuing tax policy that has been on 
the books for a long period of time, that a vast majority of the 
Congress knows is good policy and it ought to be extended. They 
recognized that the unsuccessful effort to leverage the popularity of 
these tax benefits did not mean the extenders had to die on the vine. 
This recognition occurred despite earlier threats I have already spoken 
to to kill the extenders.
  It will be the same tale of the big bad wolf 2 years later. A 
partisan obsession with a tax-increase version of pay-go or pay-as-you-
go will not, at the end of the day, trump bipartisan popular tax relief 
measures that millions of families are counting on and have been on the 
books for a long time. If I am wrong, the spokespeople for the 
Democratic Party should tell those millions of families and thousands 
of innovative businesses that their partisan agenda is more important 
than doing the people's business. I will continue to wait for a 
response. More importantly, the people should hear the answer.
  I feel very strongly that these are tax matters we ought to address 
very soon. Certainty of tax policy and predictability in tax policy is 
very important for our economy to move forward. In this case, I am 
referring to the bipartisan tax relief this Congress passed in 2001 and 
2003.

[[Page 14020]]

  I wish to emphasize the word ``bipartisan.'' The reason I wish to 
emphasize ``bipartisan'' is too often this policy of 2001 and 2003 that 
ought to be extended is referred to as ``the Bush tax cuts,'' as my 
friends on the other side of the aisle would like our friends in the 
media to call them, and the friends in the media are catching on. But 
why not bipartisan tax relief? Because I remember when that suggestion 
first came from the White House. It was $1.7 trillion worth of tax cuts 
over 10 years. I immediately said we were not going to be able to do 
that because we had to do something in a bipartisan way. So it ended 
up, because of my decision, in conjunction with Senator Baucus, that it 
was not going to be more than $1.3 trillion. So I come to the floor 
with legitimacy to denigrate the label of ``Bush tax cuts'' and 
emphasize bipartisan tax cuts.
  I have actually noticed that my Democratic colleagues like the 
reference ``tax relief.'' They have used the reference on the campaign 
trail of their Presidential candidate. How ironic. My Democratic 
friends label the bipartisan tax relief the ``Bush tax cuts,'' yet they 
call their own tax plan ``tax relief,'' especially when this so-called 
Democratic tax relief is merely an extension of the 2001 reduction in 
tax rates for certain taxpayers, not all taxpayers. I am not surprised. 
After all, it is political season. But I feel a little bit disgruntled 
about it all. Sometimes I get mad about it. But I also am dismayed. I 
am disappointed that the poll-driven use of the term ``Bush tax cuts'' 
flows so easily off the tongues of people in the other party. The media 
folks can't get enough, so they continue to repeat the ``Bush tax 
cuts'' over and over and over. You can imagine how an author of a 
bipartisan tax relief measure would feel if it is referred to this way.
  But do you know what really disappoints me? The fact that the 
spokespeople for the Democratic Party and their Presidential candidate 
are telling Americans who make less than $250,000 a year that their 
taxes will not go up if they vote Democratic in November. I think this 
is intellectually dishonest, and the folks in the media should call 
them on this and make it very clear that it is otherwise. Why do I say 
this? Because my friends on the other side will increase capital gains 
rates. They will also increase the tax rate on dividend income. I told 
this body and any friends in the media that Americans earning less than 
$250,000 a year have capital gains each year. They also claim dividend 
income. Here I will remind my colleagues and the media that over 24 
million tax returns last year claimed dividend income. There is not 
that many taxpayers over $250,000 a year.
  Also, over 9 million Americans claimed capital gains. We have another 
chart on capital gains. You would be correct if you guessed that not 
all of these Americans were making more than $250,000.
  So how do you get away with saying we are just going to increase the 
taxes on people over $250,000 and let the capital gains rate go up, let 
the tax on dividends go up? You are hitting many Americans under 
$250,000. I will bet some of them were even low-income taxpayers 
because we established a policy just a few years ago that under a 
certain income and a very low income, we want low-income people to have 
a savings ethic, not only that, but the ability to actually save, 
people who today have a zero rate of taxation on capital gains--zero.
  Speaking of zero, the junior Senator from Illinois has proposed to 
reduce the capital gains rate for startup companies from 7.5 percent, 
which is the current rate, to zero. I like his thinking on that policy 
because it is going to help small business, it is going to help 
entrepreneurship.
  But the distinguished Senator will increase the capital rates in 
other areas by at least 33 percent. That strikes me as being 
counterproductive. That is rearranging the deck chairs. It is simply 
squeezing the balloon. And in a sense, I consider it hot air and 
certainly not change you can believe in. It is not change I believe in, 
and eventually the American voters are going to see through this.
  Let me get back to the tax increase that Americans making less than 
$250,000 will see. I want to take a moment to talk about an interview 
conducted by Wolf Blitzer of CNN. On his program Sunday, June 15, Mr. 
Blitzer delved into the capital gains and dividend income tax issue. He 
asked his guest--the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
Committee--whether Senator Obama's plan to tax dividends and capital 
gains would increase taxes for Americans of every background, not just 
rich people. I am glad Mr. Blitzer asked the question.
  The most interesting point to this story is the response. The 
response was that Senator Obama will increase the capital gains rate. 
Let me repeat that. If the distinguished Senator from Illinois is 
elected President, he will raise rates on capital gains. Why? 
Apparently the junior Senator from Illinois thinks investment income 
is, quote, unquote, leisure income. He thinks that ``leisure income'' 
should not get the same breaks as income earned through labor.
  I wish to submit for the Record an excerpt of the transcript from the 
June 15 show on CNN so folks in the media can see this. The excerpt is 
the full interview of the DCCC chairman. I have highlighted the portion 
of the interview I wish folks to pay attention to.
  To quote the chairman:

       Obama has said that you shouldn't give a break to leisure 
     over labor.

  The DCCC chairman expounded upon this by saying:

       In other words, people who are making money simply by 
     investing it, rather than through their work in the labor 
     force, shouldn't be getting a break over the people who are 
     going to work every day.

  The DCCC chairman thinks ``that makes sense.''
  So the Democratic leadership, and their Presidential candidate, 
believe the current tax policy favors leisure over labor, and they 
consider that all investment income is leisure income. So what they are 
saying is anyone who saves and anyone who invests is a person of 
leisure.
  Maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle have been reading the 
writings of Thorstein Veblen. Professor Veblen, as shown in this 
picture, authored ``The Theory of the Leisure Class.'' ``The Theory of 
the Leisure Class'' took a satiric approach to American society and 
economics. ``The Theory of the Leisure Class'' characterizes this 
``leisure class'' as individuals who only benefited society in a minor 
or peripheral way because they did not engage in labor-intensive jobs. 
Instead, the ``leisure class'' often prevailed over ``labor income'' 
classes by making profits without producing goods and services.
  Professor Veblen also argued that certain labor income individuals 
began to mimic or emulate the ``leisure class'' to do nothing more than 
achieve a so-called higher status.
  So is the distinguished DCCC chairman, or his Presidential candidate, 
suggesting that all people who invest money are part of a leisure 
class, a leisure class that is making money rather than producing goods 
and services? And as a result, somehow, they should not get any breaks 
over those who are laboring for their money?
  Do they want to discourage those who labor and produce goods and 
services from saving and investing? Do they want to discourage laborers 
from mimicking or emulating those profiting off of investments? They 
seem to think that all folks who invest are higher income people.
  As an aside, if the DCCC chairman were correct, we would not have at 
least 5 million Americans using the low-income saver's credit, adopted 
in a bipartisan way here in this Congress. I have a chart in the 
Chamber. It shows the number of low-income taxpayers on a State-by-
State basis claiming the saver's credit.
  This is data from 2003.
  In Iowa, for instance, there were almost 96,000 low-income families 
and individuals using the saver's credit.
  Chairman Baucus and I designed this policy in the 2001 bipartisan tax 
relief legislation. Now it is permanent law. About 5.5 million low-
income savers--

[[Page 14021]]

and these are not people of leisure--use the credit. I would tell the 
DCCC chairman and the junior Senator from Illinois that these low-
income savers are not figments of somebody's imagination. They are real 
people. I do not think they consider themselves members of the 
``leisure class.''
  I encourage everyone to study this transcript. You will see that the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, according to his surrogates, wants 
to tax investments because he believes that making investment income is 
leisure. He believes that hard-working Americans should not get a break 
on this type of income. He believes that taxpayers do not work hard 
enough to earn money they can invest and then, in turn, have investment 
income, and that those who do work hard should not be given an 
incentive to invest.
  I wish my friends on the other side to know that investments begin 
with taxpayers' hard-earned income. So in order to invest it, they 
first have to work hard to even earn it.
  Also, I would like my friends on the other side, who agree with the 
DCCC chairman, to ask any taxpayer who saves, any taxpayer who invests 
their money, whether they think investment is easy. Investment is hard 
work. You have to educate yourself. You have to make prudent decisions. 
Ask them if investing their own money is leisure. The other side thinks 
it is kind of like sitting out there on the beach in the Sun all the 
time, not having a worry in the world.
  It is almost like the other side is reviving the ``two Americas'' 
that the former Democratic Presidential candidate--former Senator John 
Edwards--was all about. But here, my friends on the other side are 
saying that higher income people--or folks in the ``leisure class,'' 
according to Professor Veblen--are the only taxpayers who invest. They 
contend that these folks are bad, that this ``leisure class'' should no 
longer have incentives to invest.
  At the same time, my friends are taking away incentives for hard-
working Americans to save and invest. The implication is if you save 
and invest, you are bad, and if you do not save and invest, you are 
good.
  But that is going too far. It is off the reservation. Separating 
workers who save and invest from workers who do not save and invest is 
new territory for the other party and should not go unchecked.
  The junior Senator from Illinois eloquently states that we need to 
move past division and that we as Americans need to come together. Who 
is going to disagree with that? My friend talks about his disdain for 
old-style politics and emphasizes change. But it is interesting to hear 
the surrogates of Senator Obama reaching back to the class warfare 
discussions that took place in the last century.
  This is not change you can believe in.
  Middle- and low-income investors should be appalled--appalled because 
their Government believes their pursuit of the American dream is all 
leisure and that the Government wants to increase their taxes, yes, on 
Americans who make less than $250,000.
  So following the question of Mr. Blitzer, I wish to ask my friends on 
the other side of the aisle--or whoever wants to speak for them--
whether Americans making less than $250,000 will see a tax increase 
under a new Democratic administration. Because if you take their words 
for what they are now, you are going to see a lot of big tax increases 
for people making less than $250,000 a year.
  I wish to know whether they agree with Senator Obama and the 
Democratic leadership and believe that investment income is leisure.
  My Democratic friends may respond that the junior Senator from 
Illinois wants to give middle-income folks a tax cut. But this middle-
class tax cut is fiction for those middle-income taxpayers who save and 
who have investment. I challenge my media friends to tell Americans 
what is going on here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the excerpt from the 
transcript of ``CNN Late Edition'' of June 15, 2008, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Excerpt From Transcript of CNN Late Edition--June 15, 2008

       BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. I'm Wolf Blitzer in 
     Washington. The Democrats are hoping not only to win the 
     White House this fall, but also to increase their majorities 
     in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We're joined 
     now by the man in charge of that effort in the House, the 
     Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris 
     Van Hollen. He is a Democratic congressman from Maryland. 
     Congressman, thanks very much for coming in.
       VAN HOLLEN: It's good to be with you.
       BLITZER: You happen to be my congressman as well since I 
     live in your district. But that's not going to make this any 
     easier for you.
       VAN HOLLEN: Come on, Wolf.
       BLITZER: No favorites. All right. Let's talk a little bit 
     about what we just heard from John Boehner. Why not start 
     drilling? There are enormous amounts of oil right here in the 
     United States on the coast, on the East Coast, the West Coast 
     and Alaska. That could dramatically increase supply and as a 
     result reduce the price per barrel and the price at the pump. 
     What is wrong with that?
       VAN HOLLEN: Well, we are drilling. There is nothing wrong 
     with drilling. We have lots of oil companies in the United 
     States that are drilling.
       BLITZER: Nancy Pelosi votes against everyone of these 
     drilling propositions.
       VAN HOLLEN: And in fact, there are 60 million acres of 
     federal land that are currently leased to the oil and gas 
     companies that are sitting idle. They're not drilling. They 
     like the status quo. They like the way things are going. 
     We're going to have legislation that is going to be 
     considered shortly that is use it or lose it. If you are 
     going to hold up these 68 million of federal lands, you've 
     got to start drilling for oil or else somebody else should 
     have an opportunity to do it.
       VAN HOLLEN: Because the fact of the matter is they've been 
     idle for all these many years. So the point is there's lots 
     of acreage out there already under lease . . .
       (CROSSTALK)
       BLITZER: Here is Congressman Roy Blunt, the number two 
     Republican in the House, speaking out on this issue this 
     week.
       (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
       REP. ROY BLUNT, R-MO: Who's to blame are policies that 
     wouldn't allow us to use our own resources. Every other 
     country in the world looks at their natural resources and 
     sees them as an economic asset. Democrats in Washington look 
     at our natural resources and see them as an environmental 
     hazard. That's a mistake.
       (END VIDEO CLIP)
       BLITZER: All right. What do you say?
       VAN HOLLEN: Facts are stubborn things. Sixty-eight million 
     acres of federal lands, currently leased to the oil and gas 
     industry, sitting idle. We're going to say to them, ``Use it 
     or lose it. Get pumping.''
       The issue isn't whether or not we should use our natural 
     resources. The issue is exactly where. And what you're saying 
     is, when you've got 68 million acres of federal lands already 
     leased, you should use that before you start looking 
     elsewhere.
       BLITZER: They say they can drill in Alaska in an 
     environmental safe way. You just heard Congressman Boehner 
     say that.
       VAN HOLLEN: As John McCain said, there are already areas 
     where they can drill. We shouldn't be drilling there.
       And let me point out that the Department of Energy, our own 
     department of Energy, has said, if you drill in Alaska, first 
     of all, you won't see any results at the pump for 10 years. 
     And after 20 years, you might see a reduction of two cents 
     per gallon.
       This is not a way to solve our energy problem. The problem 
     is the oil--the Republican Party has been very tight with the 
     oil and gas industry for many years. And all they're 
     proposing is more of the same, more subsidies for the oil and 
     gas industry. I think it's important to point out that, since 
     George Bush was elected president, the oil and gas industry 
     has contributed over $94 million to the Republican Party and 
     its candidates. So I'm not surprised . . .
       BLITZER: How much have they contributed to the Republicans?
       VAN HOLLEN: A whole lot less. I mean, we're talking about, 
     maybe, 80 percent to Republicans, 20 percent to Democratic 
     candidates, generally.
       The DCCC--we don't take money from oil and gas PACs. And I 
     think what you see, in the results, is the policy.
       They're calling for more of the same. We should not be 
     giving more subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Our 
     proposal is to say, let's take those funds and invest them in 
     renewable energy and energy efficiency.
       BLITZER: The DCCC is the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
     Committee, which you're in charge of. You're the chairman and 
     your job is to get more Democrats elected to the House of 
     Representatives.
       You say that you don't accept money from the oil and gas 
     PACs. But you do accept money from lobbyists and other PACs, 
     even though Barack Obama doesn't accept that money for his 
     campaign. And he's now told the DNC not to accept that kind 
     of money.

[[Page 14022]]

       VAN HOLLEN: Well, we did something very new this time 
     around. In fact, I led the effort in the House; Barack Obama 
     led the effort in the Senate, to require transparency, for 
     the first time, of bundling by lobbyists.
       That means that, when registered lobbyists are raising 
     money, not just their own contribution but they're going out 
     and raising it from other people, that we're now going to 
     disclose that.
       So what we believe is you should have total transparency. 
     People can make up their mind. But when we tried to do that 
     under the Republican-controlled Congress, when we tried to 
     get that transparency, they said no. So we've seen a dramatic 
     change already.
       BLITZER: But just to clear, unlike the DNC or the Obama 
     campaign, you'll still take that PAC money, that lobbying 
     money?
       VAN HOLLEN: The DCCC is a multicandidate committee, unlike 
     the presidential campaign committee where one person gets to 
     make a decision.
       BLITZER: Listen to John Mc Cain rail against Senator Obama 
     on the issue of taxes. Because he says that, if Obama is 
     elected president, taxes won't only go up for the wealthy, 
     but they'll go up for the middle class as well. Listen to 
     this.
       (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MC CAIN: When Senator Obama talks about 
     raising income tax rates on those making over $250,000, that 
     includes these businesses as well. He also proposes increases 
     in dividends and capital gains taxes. Under Senator Obama's 
     tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes 
     rise.
       (END VIDEO CLIP)
       BLITZER: That's going to scare a lot of voters out there.
       VAN HOLLEN: But it's flat-out untrue. And people need to go 
     and look at what Barack Obama is proposing. What he has 
     proposed is a middle-class tax cut. People in the middle 
     income category will get a tax cut. If you're over $250,000 a 
     year, you may see your Bush tax breaks rolled back some.
       So this is an issue where people have got to look at the 
     facts. Because the Democrats have been pushing for AMT 
     reform. We want to get rid of the alternative minimum tax. We 
     want middle-class tax relief.
       The Republicans, on the other hand, have focused on 
     providing tax breaks to people at the very, very top.
       (CROSSTALK)
       BLITZER: A lot of middle-class families have investments 
     where they get capital gains, where they get, you know, 
     dividends. And he says, under Obama's proposals, they would 
     be paying more tax.
       VAN HOLLEN: Well, what Obama has said is that you shouldn't 
     give a break to leisure over labor.
       In other words, people who are making money simply by 
     investing it, rather than through their work in the labor 
     force, shouldn't be getting a break over the people who are 
     going to work every day. That's essentially his position. And 
     I think that makes sense to most people, that if you're 
     working every day, you shouldn't carry a larger burden than 
     other . . .
       (CROSSTALK)
       BLITZER: So you have no problem seeing the capital gains 
     tax rate go up?
       Because Obama has clearly suggested, if he had his way, it 
     would go up.
       VAN HOLLEN: Well, we're going to be looking at Senator 
     Obama's proposal. We haven't adopted any particular position 
     on that issue, in the House, as Democrats. But I just want to 
     be clear that that's what he said.
       I think what you're seeing here, Wolf, is a feeling in the 
     country--we saw it in these polls--that the Republican 
     leadership in Washington is in a bubble. They're very much 
     out of touch with the economic pain Americans are feeling.
       John McCain said, not long ago, that we have seen great 
     progress under the Bush administration. And if you like 
     George Bush's economic policies, you're going to love John 
     McCain's economic policies.
       What we've seen is unemployment has gone up. In fact, last 
     month, we saw the largest Increase . . .
       (CROSSTALK)
       VAN HOLLEN: But we proposed unemployment insurance 
     compensation. John Boehner and the Republicans opposed that. 
     When people are struggling with their mortgages, they were 
     there to bail out Bear Stearns, but the fact of the matter is 
     they voted against a housing stabilization plan.
       So I think people see this disconnect between the 
     Democrats, who are trying to connect with middle-class 
     families, and Republicans, who are always looking out for the 
     very folks at the top and the oil and gas industry.
       BLITZER: Congressman Van Hollen, thanks for coming in.
       VAN HOLLEN: Thanks for having me.
  BLITZER: Happy Fathers Day.
       VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.
       BLITZER: I appreciate it very much.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________