Energy Policy Act of 2003

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

AMENDMENT NO. 871
    
    Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Chair please state the unanimous consent now before us.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment will take place at 11:30, with 2 minutes of debate.

    Is there objection?

    Without objection, it is so ordered.

    The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

    Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, briefly, the Dorgan amendment to put 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020, with the requisite fueling infrastructure, is one that is going to help grow our economy, make our economy stronger. The amendment by Senator Landrieu and others to cut down on the use of oil by a million barrels a day also is going to help improve our economy by making us focus on things such as ethanol, for example, alternative fuels, renewable energy and, of course, along with the Dorgan amendment, fuel cell vehicles. It all has to do with making us more energy independent, and that has to do with growing our economy. The more we continue to send our hard-earned dollars out of the country for the energy we need, the less dollars we are going to have to rebuild our economy here at home.

    Yesterday, I attended a hearing Senator Dorgan had that was devoted to the question of our economy. The question was: Will the Bush economic plan create jobs?

    Well, I think throughout the hearing what became clear was that the Bush economic plan will not create jobs, unfortunately. The plan advocated by the majority rewards their friends and supporters with large tax cuts but will do very little to create jobs. Many respected economists warned of this months ago, but Republicans and the administration paid them no heed.

    Unfortunately, it is not only experts who believe this prediction; history gives the same warning. These trickle-down economic policies have been tried before, and they have failed before. In 1981, Congress passed massive tax cuts for the rich, just like we did here. Then Director of OMB David Stockman called it a "riverboat gamble."

    Well, it was a gamble. Within 2 years, following the 1981 supply side, trickle-down tax bill, we lost 1.4 million jobs. In 2001, the Bush administration tried it again. They passed the first round of massive tax cuts. And guess what. We lost 2 million jobs. As all major newspapers reported this weekend, the national unemployment rate is now at 6.1 percent, its highest level in 9 years.

    Despite these two previous losing gambles, the President and the majority party in Congress decided to give it a third try last month. I think we ought to call the tax bill that was passed and sent to the President the "Bill Bennett betting bill" because it is going to have the same effect on our country that Bill Bennett's gambling addiction had on him. It cost him, as I understand it, lost millions. It is going to cost our economy lost billions.

    But in the midst of it all, the wealthiest Americans will have massive tax breaks. In fact, on average, those Americans making over $1 million a year are going to receive a tax cut of $93,000 a year. They are going to have a great time. Unfortunately, who is going to pay the bill? Well, it will be paid by the rest of us, especially the younger generation—those now going through college, going out to make their way in life. They will be saddled with a huge, new debt.

    As pointed out on the editorial pages of the Des Moines Register this weekend, these irresponsible policies will create pressure for higher State and local taxes, tuition hikes at State colleges and universities, rising health care costs to those lucky enough to have insurance, and further cuts to important initiatives.

    The wealthiest in America got more than their share under this tax bill, but the folks in the middle class pay the bills. By contrast, the United States took a fiscally responsible approach in the 1990s. In 1993, Congress passed a budget to grow the economy, create jobs. In the 2 years following that passage, 6.4 million jobs were created. That plan put us on a path not only toward the lowest levels of unemployment in memory, but also to balanced budgets, the largest projected budget surpluses ever.

    I find it most remarkable and disheartening that at the very time when it is obvious that economic policies should seek to stimulate demand, stimulate new jobs, the majority party opposes those things that would stimulate the economy the most, such as increasing the child credit for working families making under $26,000 a year.

    Well, the Democratic priority may yet prevail, as it did in the Senate last week. I hope it does. But further stimulus, such as putting people directly to work, building new schools, roads, and bridges, communications systems, upgrading our water and our waste water systems, making sure we weatherize homes all over America, will also save us on imported fuel. These are the things we can do now that will put people to work now. But the majority party says no.

    I also fear that their policies will lead to exploding Government debt. On the same day we passed this "Bill Bennett betting bill"—that is what I call the tax bill—the debt limit was increased by an amount equivalent to putting an additional $3,500 on the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America—$3,500 on the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America—to pay for this "Bill Bennett betting bill."

    Most of us are aware that the real cost to the Treasury of this recent tax cut will be higher than advertised because the bill used gimmicks and tricks to stay within some nominal budget limit. The Speaker of the House was quoted as saying the real cost will be a trillion dollars, at a time when our exploding deficit is approaching $500 billion for this year alone. Well, with typical British clarity, the Financial Times wrote on May 23, the day the tax bill passed: On the management of fiscal policy, the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum.

    The result, as this administration is well aware, is that it will put pressure on Social Security and Medicare. These programs are targeted by the administration for reforms, which means privatizing Medicare and Social Security. We are going to have a debate here, I assume, in the Senate in the coming weeks on how we are going to provide prescription drug benefits under Medicare. But as I see the Medicare bill progressing and developing, it is nothing more than a shell, a subterfuge to move toward the privatization of Medicare, which, of course, has been the Republican Party's dream for many years. Don't take my word for it. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Medicare ought to wither on the vine. The third ranking Republican in the Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, said the Medicare benefit should be phased out.

    So make no mistake, when we are debating the Medicare bill coming up, we have to get out of the weeds. What they are really talking about is taking the first step toward privatizing Medicare. The President's own press secretary was quoted in the story:

    There is no question that Social Security and Medicare are going to present future generations with a crushing debt burden unless policymakers work seriously to reform those programs.

    You pass a tax cut for the richest in the country that the Speaker says is going to cost us a trillion dollars, and then you say we are going to have a lot of pressure on Social Security and Medicare because the money will not be there for them, so now we have to reform them, which is their way of saying privatize them. I hope we now understand the picture: A tax cut for the wealthiest, huge debts for the rest, immense pressure on Social Security and Medicare; therefore, you have to privatize them; turn them over to Wall Street. That is where we are heading.

    Exploding deficits and the debt will act like a cap on our economy. It will increase interest rates when the economy does begin to recover. It will undermine confidence. We need to create jobs in the short term, but we need to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, to take care and protect the retirement security and health needs of seniors. We need to change course. The course set by this administration will only lead to further deficits, further debts piling up on our kids and grandkids, economic stagnation, importing more oil from abroad—which is why I am such a strong supporter of the Landrieu amendment and the Dorgan amendment.

    I am afraid the administration may be opposed to these amendments, just as they are opposed to a sound rational means of getting our economy moving again. As I said, the Federal Government can be a great instrument, doing it in a fiscally responsible manner that actually provides the basis for further private sector growth in our country.

    I was listening to former Congressman Jack Kemp, an old friend of mine of long standing, go on and on about how we need to make sure we have more money in the private sector for investments. I understand that, and that is a legitimate argument, but what about the need for societal investments? What about the need for investing in human capital? What about the need for investing in education? You can give all the tax breaks you want to the richest in this country and the corporations. Are they going to turn around and invest in higher teacher pay, better teacher training? Are they going to invest in rebuilding and modernizing schools all over America? There is no return on that capital, at least not in the short term and not in a way that would accrue to the bottom line of a company.

    As we all know, that kind of an investment accrues to our national economy. Rebuilding our schools all over America—this is something that is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $180 billion. Think of the jobs it would create. When you give someone an extra dollar for consumption right now in our society, they may buy a new shirt, but that shirt may be made in Malaysia, Thailand, or India. They may buy a new TV set, but that TV set sure is not made in America, or a stereo not made in America. They may buy a new car. Maybe that car is not made in America. To be sure, some of that money does fall out in this country because we have people selling those items, storing them, and shipping them. But the bulk of it could go outside the country.

    If, however, you make a societal investment in building a new school, all of the workers are in America. Almost all of the materials used from the lighting to the heating to the wallboard to the sheetrock—everything, building materials—almost all, I would not say all—almost all are made in America. Not only do you put people to work, you build something of a lasting nature that provides for a strong foundation for the private sector in America.

    Take the issue of weatherization. We could save huge amounts of oil and natural gas each year simply by weatherizing homes, and I do not mean just in the North where it gets cold, but I mean in the South where it gets hot in the summertime. Guess what, these are not jobs that take a lot of training. These are jobs we could fill with unemployed people right now. We can put them to work weatherizing homes all over America.

    What do we get? We get immediate job creation. We use materials basically that are made in this country. And we get something out of it that is going to help us: more fuel-efficient homes of low-income people who will not be using their money to pay high heating bills or cooling bills to pay for imported oil.

    Yet, for some strange reason, we cannot seem to do that here. But, boy, we can sure give billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest in our society.

    I will have more to say about this in the weeks ahead. There is another pathway—that is my point—there is another pathway to economic growth and jobs in our country, to which this administration has turned a blind eye, by investing in the veins and arteries—the roads and bridges, the highways, the sewer and water systems, the schools, the education, the scientific research, the mathematical research, the physics research, the chemistry research, the medical research—that will set the stage for future economic growth and prosperity in our country.

    That will not come about by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy or business tax breaks. It comes about by us in the Congress of the United States fulfilling our responsibility to pass tax bills and energy bills that are responsible, that are commonsense, and that will lay this kind of secure foundation for the future. That is why I support the Landrieu amendment so strongly, because it will start to do that, and so will the Dorgan amendment that has been set aside. These are commonsense approaches. These are the programs we should be doing for our economy.

    Mr. President, I yield the floor.