Byron Dorgan

Is it not the case, then, that in the year 2002 the majority party's budget plan is either $108 billion in deficit or it is balanced by using the $103 billion in Social Security funds? Is that not the case?

We are not having a debate; it is a misunderstanding. These are not cumulated numbers. These are yearly numbers. I said for this year, $69 billion. When you are saying that is wrong, I do not understand.

That chart is a fundamentally improper disclosure of what is happening. You would have to show substantial green surpluses on that same chart.

There are four categories of green, and you just skipped 20-some years of good news to get to the bad news. There is bad news. We are not disagreeing about that.

Exactly. The year 2002 would be a year in which the Federal Government would have balanced its budget plus had a $103 billion additional revenue above the balanced budget as an enforced pool of national savings to be saved for the time we…

There are so many charts showing the deep red canyons, and that chart should have showed surpluses. Let us talk, for a moment, about these surpluses, and let us talk about this one. The year 2002 is the 7th year of a budget plan. In the…

I only responded to the Senator from Oklahoma with respect to identical bills because I believe they are not identical. I do not want the Senator to sometime come to the floor and say, ``Well, he opposed the Nunn amendment.'' But I…

Let me respond. The Senator is under a misimpression, I am sure. He does not understand this. You are asking if this is identical, and the answer is, no, it is not identical. I believe it is not identical. Let me ask you this. As an…

I have heard people stand on the Senate floor and say this issue you are raising about the Social Security trust funds is a bogus issue. There is a fellow, whose name I will not give, who wrote a piece in the Washington Post that said this…

I guess the Senator's point is accurate with respect to what he read from the document in front of him. That is not what is before the Senate. Will the Senator not agree with me that is not what we have laid before the Senate, and if that…

It seems to me a mistake has been made here, and I do not know the genesis of the mistake. As I understand it, we have an amendment that has been offered that suggests there should not be a triggered reduction in discretionary spending…

I say to my colleague from South Dakota, I heard this discussion about delay and stalling. Is it not the case that in a couple recent occasions, just in recent weeks, we have seen legislation filed in the Senate and a cloture motion filed…

I have not heard that, but that is my fear. If someone were to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that says, let us cut the gas tax 4.3 cents per gallon and provide no assurance that that is going to go into the pockets of the…

The explanation that has been given is supply and demand relationships and difficulties with refineries in California and some other imbalances that have occurred. As the Senator from Nevada knows, President Clinton has, I think, properly…

I assume it is politics. I do not understand why they chose the 4.3-cent gas tax. If gas prices spike up 20 or 25 cents a gallon, why not ask the question: Where has the price increase come from? And roll back the price increase if they…

I appreciate that. I guess it is the Senator's contention that there is no Social Security trust fund. I just ask this question. We were told early on that the Social Security trust fund was not being used for any other purpose. Then we…

The Canadians, I think, have created a circumstance that is fundamentally unfair. Karnal bunt does not survive above the 35th parallel, we are told by the scientists. The suggestion that they can use karnal bunt as some sort of an excuse…

I simply wanted to commend the majority leader for his comments about the late Senator Muskie. I did not know him well. I had met him a number of times. This was an era when there is often a caricature created about those involved in…

If I may finally say, you are absolutely correct about strict liability. But the reason for the standard of strict liability is that there are some kinds of activities that are sufficiently dangerous and contain sufficient risks that a…

The State deciding to adopt strict liability with respect to a utility does not put it in the category of products. I do not understand the mixing of the two. Let me take it one step further then. If that is the case, what would the logic…

Let me continue to inquire. I will not take much more time. I still do not understand the answer. Is the answer that the utilities essentially are providing services and are therefore not covered as products under this bill? If that is the…

But the original bill was not written that way or understood that way by this Senator. Is it your understanding there are many States that have adopted a standard of strict liability, which would mean that the way you interpret the…

But you cannot describe in the conference report what the language means. The language means what it says it means. My question, first, is, when this language left the Senate, did it mean that utilities were excluded from the definition of…

Is it the intent, just as in the bill that was originally passed by the Senate, that the exclusion under (B), page 6, would still remain, that electricity, water delivered by a utility, natural gas and steam are, in fact, excluded? They…

But that is not what the language says. It says it is excluded unless the State defines it with a standard of strict liability. I am saying to you that there are 18 States that already have this with respect to electric utility cases…