[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16330-16332]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXPIRING TAX CUTS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be mercifully brief. I wished to 
come to the floor to briefly speak about a couple issues.
  First and foremost, the raging debate that is occurring in the 
country about the expiring tax cuts--the so-called Bush tax cuts that 
were enacted in the year 2001 that cut taxes across the board. They cut 
taxes more generously for the wealthiest Americans, but nonetheless 
they cut taxes for all Americans as well, and they were designed, in 
2001, to expire this year.
  I did not vote for them in 2001. I voted in 2001 against those tax 
cuts and not because I wouldn't want to provide tax cuts to the 
American people, but the proposition, I thought, was flawed. The 
President inherited the last year of President Clinton's fiscal policy, 
which produced the only budget surplus we had had in 30 years. From 
that budget surplus that year, the projection by economists was that we 
were going to have budget surpluses for the next decade. As a result of 
that, Mr. Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, had an 
apoplectic seizure. He said he couldn't sleep because he was worried we 
were going to pay down the debt too fast.
  The Bush administration said: If we are going to have these 
surpluses, we must return surpluses to the American people. We have to 
do that through these tax cuts.
  I stood on the floor, at my desk, and I said: Why don't we be 
conservative? Let's decide to wait and see what happens. If we do, in 
fact, have surpluses, let us provide some tax cuts. But all we have are 
10 years of projections. We don't have the real surpluses; we just have 
projections.
  The response was: No, we are not going to do that. We are not going 
to wait. We are going to have big tax cuts, with the biggest tax cuts 
going to the wealthiest Americans.
  So they were enacted. I did not vote for them, but they were enacted 
nonetheless.
  Almost immediately, we were in a recession. Almost immediately after 
that, our country was attacked, on 9/11, by terrorists. Then we were in 
a war in Afghanistan. Then we were at war in Iraq and a war against 
terrorism generally. We began sending soldiers overseas in harm's way, 
and thousands were killed and tens of thousands were injured in war. 
Still the question has always been and remains now, even while we are 
watching our soldiers walk into harm's way, when do I get my tax cut? 
Will I continue to get my tax cut next year?
  Let me read something Franklin Delano Roosevelt said at a time of 
war. He said:

       Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our 
     enemies in distant parts of the world. Not all of us can have 
     the privilege of working in a munitions factory or a 
     shipyard, or on the farms or in the oil fields or the mines, 
     producing the weapons or raw materials that are needed by our 
     Armed Forces. But there is one front and one battle where 
     everyone in the United States--every man, woman and child--is 
     in action. . . .That front is right here at home, in our 
     daily lives and in our daily tasks. Here at home everyone 
     will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is 
     necessary, not only to supply our fighting men [and women], 
     but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified 
     and secure. . . .

  ``Everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is 
necessary.'' We all know self-denial when we see it. We go to the 
events when the soldiers and National Guard organizations mobilize to 
leave our country, leave their families, leave their jobs, and go to 
Afghanistan to fight, go to Iraq to fight. In the morning, they strap 
on ceramic body armor, load their weapons, and go on their way. 
Yesterday, nine of them were killed in Afghanistan.
  The question here at home is not are we going to pay for the costs of 
war, because we have not, never have in years. And President Bush, who 
pushed the tax cuts, said: You will not pay for them. Some of us stood 
on the Senate floor and said: If we are at war, how about paying for 
the costs of war? Why do we send soldiers to war and charge it and say 
to the solders: You come back and pay the bill.
  We are still at war, we have a $13 trillion debt, not having paid for 
a penny of the war, having put all the debt on the shoulders of those 
who will come home, then, to assume this debt. And now the question is, 
Can we extend the tax cuts for everyone?
  Here is what I think we should do. I understand this economy is weak. 
I am not going to give a speech about what caused that. I have done 
that many times. This economy is still weak. I understand the virtue of 
saying to those earning under $250,000: We will continue to extend that 
tax cut. I would extend it for 2 years. That is what I think we should 
do in terms of being able, 2 years from now, to take a look at what is 
happening in our country, what are our needs in order to lift our 
country's economy back up. We need to tighten our belt on spending. We 
need to cut some spending. We also are going to need some additional 
revenue.
  The question is, for those who are making $1 million a year in income 
and getting an $80,000 tax cut from the 2001 tax bill that was passed 
by this Congress, should they continue to get that $80,000-a-year tax 
cut at a time when we have a $13 trillion debt and we are still sending 
men and women to war, when they are risking their lives and we are not 
paying for any of it? Should we still do that? The answer, in my 
judgment, is no.

[[Page 16331]]

  The American people are waiting and watching for some semblance of 
seriousness here, some serious approaches that will begin to address 
what ails this country. I think what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said is 
dead-on accurate: Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our 
enemy in distant parts of the world, but for most of us, the front is 
right here at home in our daily lives and daily tasks, and here at home 
everyone would have the privilege of whatever self-denial is necessary, 
not only to supply our fighting men but to keep the economic structure 
of our country fortified and secure.
  Is anyone going to think about the economic fortunes of America or is 
it just about ourselves individually? Isn't there a higher calling and 
higher purpose here in terms of making judgments about these things?
  I think it would be wonderful if no one had to pay any taxes. That 
would be wonderful. But that is not the case. Who is going to pay the 
costs of some of the things that make this a great country? Who is 
going to build the roads? Who is going to build the schools and 
maintain the schools? Who is going to pay for the Centers For Disease 
Control? How about the Department of Defense? How about the U.S. Forest 
Service? It goes on and on. We can tighten our belt. Yes, we can spend 
less in a number of areas. I support that. But we have to have a fiscal 
policy that is serious. How on Earth, at a time when we are at war, can 
we decide that our priority is to give an $80,000-a-year tax cut beyond 
next year--an $80,000-a-year tax cut to someone making $1 million a 
year? That makes no sense to me.
  I think it is time for our country to understand that our national 
security is not just about our soldiers who are fighting in the field. 
It is a requirement that we support them, not just by saying we support 
them but by at least some semblance of self-denial, at least by those 
who are making millions of dollars a year. The proposition is only to 
ask that they pay at the same tax rate that they paid throughout the 
1990s when the country was booming, sufficiently booming that we had a 
budget surplus. That is the tax rate the wealthiest in America paid 
back then. It did not diminish the economy; it lifted up the economy, 
the fact that we had a fiscal policy that was not moving us deeper into 
debt but a fiscal policy, rather, that was leading us toward a balanced 
budget and finally a budget surplus.
  I think there is a higher purpose, and all of us need to be called to 
that higher purpose. It is not about, will we get our tax cut tonight, 
tomorrow, or next month? Will the wealthy get it? Will everybody get 
it? That is not what is of interest. What is of interest to everybody 
in this country, I hope, is, what kind of a future will our children 
have in the United States of America? Will we allow them to inherit a 
country that is growing and expanding and providing opportunity for our 
kids?
  I think it is very disappointing that we end this year having done so 
little because so much has been blocked in the Senate.
  I noticed yesterday that another billionaire died in America. Boy, 
let me make sure I say that when someone makes $1 billion in this 
country, in most cases I say: You know what, you are extraordinary. 
That is a pretty extraordinary thing. Many of them have great talents, 
and good for them. But when billionaires die today, they pay zero 
estate tax. Think about that. Five billionaires died this year, and 
this is the year the estate tax went to zero. Some said it is the 
``Throw Mama From the Train'' year. This is the year in which there is 
no estate tax on the assets of billionaires who have never borne a tax. 
Some of the wealthiest people in this country who have billions of 
dollars of assets have it through growth appreciation of stock, and 
they have never borne a tax on that to help pay for a kid to go to 
school or build a road or help support our Department of Defense and 
our national security. What a disappointment.
  This country deserves better from all of us, to get this done. Again, 
I believe the best approach at this point is to say, yes, let's go 
ahead and extend these tax cuts for middle-income workers up to 
$250,000 a year. Let's do it for 2 years, and then let's see where we 
are and let's see what the needs of this economy are in order to be 
sure we have the opportunity to lift this country going forward and 
provide some economic opportunity in the future.
  I wanted to mention one other issue. That is something that I and 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Brownback, and others introduced yesterday. 
It deals with something called RES. That is not a foreign language, it 
is a renewable electricity standard. It is a policy that many other 
countries have and many of our States have. I believe there are 29 
States and the District of Columbia that have renewable electricity 
standards saying it is our policy that electricity shall be produced 
from renewable sources for a certain percentage of the electric load.
  We proposed 15 percent. We passed that on a bipartisan basis out of 
the Energy Committee. Why is this important? Because if we are going to 
be less dependent on foreign oil, move to less dependency on oil from 
countries that do not like us very much in many cases, if we are going 
to be less dependent on that, we have to change our energy mix. That 
means we have to produce more energy from renewable sources. We have to 
gather energy from the wind and the Sun, where the wind blows and the 
Sun shines, put it on a wire, and move it to the load centers. That 
changes the energy mix in our country. The way to do that is the way 
other countries and the way many of our States have already done it: 
drive it with a 15-percent renewable electricity standard. I prefer 20, 
but 15 is what we passed out of that committee, the Energy Committee.
  It appears to me that now we are not going to get a larger energy 
bill in this Congress. That is too bad because we passed a bipartisan 
bill that would provide greater energy security for our country out of 
the Energy Committee. At the very least, let's pass a renewable 
electricity standard that is bipartisan, that will drive the production 
of new capability in wind and solar and other renewable sources.
  In the second quarter of this year, we had a 70-percent reduction in 
wind energy production--that is the production of facilities to build 
wind energy. From last year, a 70-percent reduction. The reason? 
Because we do not have a renewable electricity standard. There was an 
expectation that we would, and we do not.
  Let's not leave this Congress this year with so much unfinished 
business that I believe is essential to this country.
  While I am speaking about it, let me make one additional point, and 
that is on another piece of legislation that must pass by the end of 
this year. It rests now in the Senate Finance Committee and it 
reauthorizes the Special Diabetes Program in this country that is so 
unbelievably important. The Special Diabetes Program helps all 
Americans, but it is especially targeted at Native Americans, who in 
some cases have rates of diabetes that are 10 and 12 times the rate of 
the national average. We must reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program. 
If my colleagues could walk into a dialysis center and see the number 
of people--on Indian reservations especially--hooked up to a dialysis 
machine, in some cases with only one leg or having lost an arm--the 
ravages of diabetes are unbelievable, and the number of new cases of 
diabetes among children of this country is just startling.
  I want to show one chart about this. This chart shows the number of 
people in America over the past 30 years who have been diagnosed with 
diabetes. This is a full-blown, full-scale, unbelievable epidemic.
  The Special Diabetes Program that I and Senator Domenici and Senator 
Collins and so many others have worked so hard on for a long time has 
to be reauthorized. I hope very much my colleagues will understand that 
this is not optional. Go to an dialysis center. Go to an Indian 
reservation and go to a dialysis center and talk to the people hooked 
up to those machines and see the amputations and talk to

[[Page 16332]]

the relatives of people who have died in circumstances where people, 
over 50 years old on average, 50 or 60 percent of them are affected by 
diabetes. Especially take a look at the rate of diabetes among children 
on Indian reservations--and children all across the country. Then say 
to yourself that this bill doesn't matter. You cannot possibly say 
that. We must address this issue.
  This Congress has done some big things, some important things, and 
there are some things yet to be done. It is not the end of the year. We 
have some additional time. My hope is that our colleagues can attempt 
to give us the best of what both political parties have to offer rather 
than the worst of each. The American people expect more and deserve 
more from us.
  I wonder sometimes how the majority leader is able to have the 
patience to try to find a way to steer almost anything through this 
Chamber. I said yesterday that even a Mother's Day resolution would 
likely engender a filibuster. It is very hard because we have people 
who see themselves as a set of human brake pads, whose only destiny is 
to try to stop everything. The problem is that there are a number of 
things that must get done for the economic health of this country and 
for the health of the American people.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________