Continuing Extension Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we invoked cloture last evening on a motion to proceed to legislation that will extend unemployment benefits during what has been the deepest recession since the Great Depression. We have had objections from the other side to extending unemployment benefits as an emergency, saying these cannot be extended because they will cost too much and add to the deficit and this and that.

It is interesting to me that in this country, when our country has experienced an economic downturn, we have always dealt on an emergency basis with the most vulnerable Americans by extending unemployment insurance benefits. Why? For two reasons. No. 1, when you work for a living in this country, you actually pay premiums for an unemployment insurance plan that then kicks in when you lose your job. This is not as if somebody is getting something for nothing. People who are working in this country are actually paying into a plan that provides for unemployment insurance. And, No. 2, extending unemployment insurance during a severe economic downturn is just the right thing to do for the most vulnerable Americans.

I find it interesting that the very people who have been standing in the way of doing this, saying it is the Federal budget deficits, that they are too big--I agree they are too big. But I have not seen any of these folks out here when it really matters. This is taking on the most vulnerable Americans. They are out here taking on that issue.

How about the big issues? How about fighting a war and not paying for one penny of it over a 10-year period? In the 8 years of the previous administration, we went to war, and we were told by President George W. Bush: You are not going to pay for a penny of this; and if you try to pay for it, I will veto the bill. It is all going to be emergency spending. The fact is, we should have seen the same folks out here complaining about that issue.

Or how about going back 10 or 11 years when legislation was passed that built these huge corporate financial pyramids that got engaged in all kinds of unbelievable risky speculation and ran the country into the economic ditch and caused $15 trillion of American wealth to vanish and cause these unbelievable increases in deficits? I did not see them out here on that issue either. In fact, many of them voted for the legislation that repealed the protections that were put in place after the Great Depression and actually allowed to happen what has happened in the last 10 years that caused this collapse.

I don't know. It seems to me this last stand on the budget deficit, to say let's have the last stand when it comes to the most vulnerable Americans, that is our last stand--how about a last stand, for example, on some of the affluent Americans? How about a last stand on carried interest? I encourage my colleagues who have been out here worried about the budget deficit to come out here while I am here and talk about changing the carried interest rules.

What does that mean? It sounds like a foreign language to some. It means some in this country are earning more income than anybody in America and paying the lowest income tax rates. Why is that the case? That is what the law allows them to do. We have been trying to change the law, but some of my colleagues do not want to change the law. That would be increasing taxes.

Let me give an example of increasing taxes. How about increasing taxes on a person who made $3.6 billion in a year--which, by the way, is about $10 million a day--and pays 15 percent income taxes? How about if we say to that person and others like him or her: How about you pay the same kind of taxes everybody else in this country pays? That will reduce the Federal budget deficit.

I ask my colleagues, do you want to join me to do that? I am all for reducing the Federal budget deficit. Tighten our belts, reduce spending--I am all for that. But, also, how about asking people to pay their fair share of taxes?

I said yesterday, as I said before, that we have some of the biggest financial institutions in this country that in the last decade decided to buy sewer systems from foreign cities in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. How about let's make sure we close all loopholes, such as that loophole, that say: You want all the benefits America has to offer? How about paying the taxes and being responsible as an American citizen for things that you are required to do?

If we want to reduce the Federal budget deficit let's take some real big hunks at doing that by, yes, reducing some spending, and there is plenty of waste. I chaired 20 hearings on the biggest waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country; that is, the contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will not go through it in detail today. I am telling you, it is the biggest waste in American history in these contracts.

Let's cut some of that spending. Let's raise some taxes on those who are not paying their fair share, those who are doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes in this country. Let's cut the deficit, but let's not come out here and pretend that the last stand is to take on the most vulnerable Americans at a time when we should extend unemployment insurance. That makes no sense.

Mr. President, if you know much about economics, you understand during a steep economic downturn there is substantially less revenue coming into the Federal Government. We have lost something like $400 billion a year in revenue. At exactly the same time when we have a steep economic downturn, the economic stabilizers kick in--unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs for people who have been laid off, out of work, in trouble. That is exactly what we do during an economic downturn. We have less revenue and more spending. That is temporary because the minute we come out of this and restore economic health, then we do the things necessary to get rid of those budget deficits and put the country back on track to a better course.

I don't know, this has been a Byzantine circumstance to see who comes to the floor of the Senate and say: You know what. Now we are going to make our last stand, and it is going to be when you want to give some unemployment insurance to the most vulnerable Americans, those who have lost their jobs.

Someplace in this country, all around the country today, about 17 million people or so woke up jobless. They have lost their jobs. They do not have work. They got dressed and went out with some hope in their hearts that maybe they could find a job. But tonight will come and they will not have found a job. The question they ask is, Am I going to get the funding I was told would exist, for which I paid insurance premiums for unemployment insurance? Am I going to get that help during this period of time? This was not my fault. I was laid off because of a very steep economic recession.

The answer should be from this Congress: Yes, you are going to get that help. We understand the obligation and the need to do that during this economic recession.

My hope is we will get a little cooperation and see if we can do that. Again, I am very interested in tackling this Federal budget deficit. Let's tackle it in big ways in the areas where substantial additional revenue that should come in is now not coming in because people are avoiding paying their taxes, some of those who are the wealthiest Americans.

Let's also tighten our belt and cut spending in areas I just described. Let's not decide the last stand is to take on the most vulnerable Americans who woke up this morning jobless and, in some cases, hopeless and helpless if they do not have money to buy food, pay rent, and buy medicine.

We can do better than that. There is a moral imperative for this Congress to at long last do the right thing.

I did not come to the floor to say that, but because that is the business of the day, I wanted to, on behalf of Senator Baucus and Senator Reid and others, say that we have an obligation, and we are trying to work through this issue.

Last night by one vote we were able to invoke cloture with almost no help--we got a little help to get cloture invoked. Now we will get on with the business of seeing if we can, during a very deep economic downturn, extend unemployment insurance as we are required to do and as we have an obligation to do.

I hope the answer is yes. That is our responsibility.

That is our obligation. If there are those who come to the floor later wanting to join me in dealing with the issues I just described--spending cuts, revenue increases from those who are not paying their fair share, some of the biggest financial companies in the country--let's join and do that. I am here and very happy to do it.

ENERGY

Mr. President, there are many things on the agenda for this country that need doing. We are trying to work through this list. We worked on a health care reform bill that I understand was very controversial. The fact is, health care is such a significant part of our economy and the costs are growing so rapidly that we have to try to address it, and we did.

There is another issue, however, that I want to talk about today, and that is the issue of energy. We do not think much about energy because it becomes kind of second nature to the way we live. We get up in the morning and the first thing we do is turn off an electric alarm clock, perhaps, and then flick a switch and lights go on. We do almost everything without thinking, and that reflects on our use of energy. Someone makes coffee. They turn on a stove to make coffee or plug in a toaster to make toast. They get in their car to drive to work, perhaps take a shower beforehand with hot water from a hot water heater. All of those, even before they get started, reflect the prodigious use of energy in our country.

Almost two-thirds of the oil that we use in this country comes from other countries outside our shores. I have spoken often about this fact. But we stick straws in this planet and suck oil out of it. We suck out about 85 million barrels of oil a day and one-fourth is destined to come to the United States because that is how much we need and how much we use. The problem is that about two-thirds of it comes from other countries. Some of it comes from countries that do not like us very much.

The question is, How do we provide greater energy security for our country, more energy security so we are less vulnerable? Second, and just as important, how do we change our mix of energy and our use of energy to protect our planet with respect to the issue of climate change?

Let me talk about this for a moment and say the following: First, climate change is important. There is something happening to our climate, and we ought to address it. Even the skeptics should at least be in support of a series of no-regret steps that if 50 years from now you decide that climate change was not happening, at least you have done something you don't have regrets doing because they were the right things to do.

Even the skeptics should agree about that. But, yes, something is happening to our climate and we ought to take some steps to address them. I am in favor of capping carbon. The use of carbon and emitting it into the airshed is a serious problem. We need to have a lower-carbon future. I am in favor of capping carbon emissions. But it has to be done in a smart way and an appropriate way, and I am in favor of that. I am also in favor of putting a price on carbon.

There are some people who I think that I and others who want to bring the Energy bill to the floor of the Senate--which came from the Energy Committee and the work we did last year--don't support addressing climate change. I support the effort to address climate change. I support a cap on carbon, and I support the opportunity to decide that we are going to not only lower carbon emissions, but put a price on carbon, which is a way to accomplish all that. What I don't support is what is called ``cap and trade'' as the mechanism to do that because I don't have any interest or willingness to consign a $1 trillion carbon securities market to Wall Street to speculate on. There are other ways to do this.

Let me just say that the issue of restraining carbon and putting a price on carbon can be done in many different ways. Some of my colleagues say: Well, the only way to do it is what we call cap and trade. I don't believe that, and I don't support that for the reasons I have described. There could be a carbon fee, a straightforward carbon fee, which is much less complicated. There is the cap-and-dividend approach, which has some advantages as well. There is a sector-by-sector approach. There are a number of hybrid approaches being discussed. There is the command-and-control approach, where you simply say: Here is the restriction. So, there are many different approaches to this issue of restricting carbon and trying to price carbon.

But here is what is happening. We passed an energy bill out of the energy committee last June. It was bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats joined together and we passed an energy bill and here is what it does: It will reduce the amount of carbon emitted into the airshed, it will maximize the production of energy from wind and solar sources, which are carbon free, and it will build the transmission capability around the country, a superhighway of transmission so you can gather energy from where the sun shines and the wind blows and put it on the wire to move the energy where it is needed to a load center. We also have a renewable electricity standard, called an RES, requiring 15 percent of all electricity be done from renewables. I would offer an amendment to take that to 20 percent, if we can get the bill to the floor of the Senate.

That is just an example of what is in the bill. In fact, this is a chart reflecting that it will reduce our dependence on foreign energy and it will increase domestic production. It was my amendment that opens the eastern Gulf of Mexico for production. It is the only area that is not now open and has substantial reserves of both oil and natural gas. We establish a renewability electricity standard, create a transmission superhighway. We electrify and diversify the vehicle fleet in our country. Seventy percent of the oil used in this country is used in the vehicle fleet. So that is very important. The bill contains substantial provisions dealing with energy efficiency and new green energy technology.

All those things are exactly what we would do if we had already passed a climate change bill to say: All right. Now how do you implement it? What are the provisions you develop in order to implement this, to have less carbon emitted? This is what you would do.

So many of us have been impatient about trying to get this bill to the floor of the Senate, but here is what I understand. I understand that those who say they want climate change legislation first have said they don't want an energy bill to come to the floor of the Senate because they want there to be some agreement on climate change, and until they get that, they don't want the Energy bill to come to the floor of the Senate. My view is, we should bring the Energy bill to the floor of the Senate. Let's all of us decide this is a priority. When the bill comes to the floor of the Senate, let's reach an agreement on some kind of climate change amendment to this bill and move ahead.

I wouldn't support cap and trade, but there are other things I will support that will put a price on carbon. But why would we end this Congress not having achieved some very substantial achievements in a bipartisan energy bill that will actually reduce the emission of carbon in the atmosphere? That makes no sense to me.

As we go forward, I know this is an issue that requires it fit into a broader set of issues--immigration reform is discussed these days, Wall Street reform or financial reform is going to come to the floor at some point, which will take some time, appropriations bills, and there are many other things--but I still believe it is very important that we diversify America's energy supply, that we maximize the production of renewable energy, and that we produce more here at home and, yes, that includes oil and natural gas. The use of coal is also very important, the use of coal using new technology to decarbonize. We can do all these things. Our legislation includes the provisions that will accomplish that.

So, what we need to have happen is to have our legislation come to the floor of the Senate from the Energy Committee. I would say to all those who wish to work on the broader piece of climate change to add to it as an amendment. I support a carbon cap, and I will support pricing carbon. That does not include support for cap and trade. If we haven't learned anything from the last decade or so about what Wall Street would do with a $1 trillion securities market, then we are pretty ill-prepared to legislate on these issues.

There are not a lot of weeks left in this legislative session, and my fervent hope, I would say to those who have been working on climate change and blocking our ability to bring an energy bill to the floor of the Senate, is that we can perhaps find a way to work together to bring the Energy bill to the floor. That is the way the Senate works. The Senate works by running things through a committee and working hard to achieve compromise. We did that on a bipartisan basis and passed a piece of legislation that is a Democratic-Republican energy bill that reduces carbon, maximizes renewable energy, opens additional areas of drilling in the eastern gulf, builds an interstate highway of transmission capability, has the first ever RES, renewable electricity standard, and all those things are important to this country. We should not leave them at the starting gate. Let's at least decide that this, too, is a priority for our country. Yes, health care is a priority, but so is energy.

Let me make one final point. If tomorrow morning, instead of flicking that switch, shutting off the alarm clock, taking a shower with the use of an electric water heater, putting a piece of bread in the toaster, taking something out of your refrigerator and using all that energy even before you get in your car to go to work, if, God forbid, somehow terrorists interrupted the pipeline of foreign oil coming to this country--and there are a lot of points where that possibility exists--this country's economy would be flat on its back. We are, in my judgment, far too vulnerable with the percentage of our economy that runs on foreign oil and there is a way to respond to that and a way to address it and much of that is included in this legislation that has already passed the Energy Committee on a bipartisan vote.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source