[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7343-S7346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ARCTIC OIL RESERVE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am glad to see that amendment offered 
by the Senator from Delaware to strike a major source of new Federal 
revenues from the budget resolution was rejected by my colleagues. This 
source of new revenue is $2.3 billion from competitive bonus bids from 
leasing the oil and gas resources of an area in the northeast part of 
my State. This is an issue that is important to my State and to our 
Nation. This vote to keep those funds in the budget resolution is a 
clear indication that my colleagues would like to see the revenues from 
the leasing of this area considered in context of the budget deficit 
reduction effort.
  Together with the other members of the Alaska delegation I opposed 
this amendment. The amendment was also opposed by the Inupiat Eskimo 
people who live on the North Slope; by the local government for this 
region, the North Slope Borough; by the Eskimo-owned Arctic Slope 
Regional Corp.; by the State of Alaska; by our Governor Tony Knowles, 
and by an overwhelming majority of Alaskans.
  Mr. President, I want to review the history and the potentially huge 
benefits that opening the coastal plain to oil and gas leasing can 
provide to the Nation.
  In the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Congress 
withdrew more than 19 million acres in northeast Alaska, 8 million 
acres were designated wilderness and another 11 million acres 
nonwilderness refuge lands. However, under section 1002 of that act 
Congress set aside about 1.5 million acres to study for oil potential. 
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the oil and gas values and the 
fish and wildlife values of this area.
  In April 1987 the Department of the Interior released the legislative 
environmental impact statement and coastal plain report to the 
Congress.
  This led to the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior to 
open the 1002 area to oil and gas leasing. Let me quote from the 
report:

       The 1002 area is the Nation's best single opportunity to 
     increase significantly domestic oil production. It is rated 
     by geologists as the most outstanding petroleum exploration 
     target in the onshore United States. Data from nearby wells 
     in the Prudhoe Bay area and in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and 
     Mackenzie Delta, combined with promising seismic data 
     gathered on the 1002 area, indicate extensions of producing 
     trends and other geologic conditions exceptionally favorable 
     for discovery of one or more supergiant fields (larger than 
     500 million barrels).
       There is a 19-percent chance that economically recoverable 
     oil occurs in the 1002 area. The average of all estimates of 
     conditional economically recoverable oil resources (the 
     ``mean'') is 3.2 billion barrels. Based on this estimate, 
     1002 area production by the year 2005 could provide 4 percent 
     of total U.S. demand; provide 8 percent of U.S. production 
     (about 660,000 barrels/day); and reduce imports by nearly 9 
     percent. This production could provide net national economic 
     benefits of $79.4 billion, including Federal revenues of 
     $38.0 billion.

  The report continues:

       Discovery of 9.2 billion barrels of oil could yield 
     production of more than 1.5 million barrels per day. 
     Estimates of net national economic benefits based on 9.2 
     billion barrels of oil production, and other economic 
     assumptions, are as high as $325 billion.

  On April 8, 1991, the Department of the Interior issued a formal 
update of the recoverable petroleum reserves 1987 study and report. The 
major finding from the update was that the probability of economic 
success of finding commercial oil in the 1002 area was increased from 
19 percent to 46 percent. [[Page S7344]] 
  Let me place this in context. The probability of finding oil in the 
lower 48 States in an unexplored area is about 1 percent. As a result, 
46 percent is unprecedented.
  Mr. President, let me quote from the 1991 update:

       The 1991 update of recoverable petroleum resources in the 
     1987 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska Coastal Plain 
     Assessment, also known as the 1002 Report, makes a 
     considerable contribution to the knowledge and understanding 
     of the petroleum geology of the 1002 area of the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Rufuge (ANWR). This study reaffirms most of 
     the conclusions and estimates made in the 1002 Report, and 
     increases the level of confidence that ANWR is part of the 
     North Slope oil province. This is demonstrated by the 
     increase in the marginal probability of economic success from 
     19 percent in the original assessment to 46 percent in the 
     current assessment. The increase in marginal probability 
     means that ANWR has a higher potential for oil discovery. The 
     overall Minimum Economic Field Size (MEFS) for the 1002 area 
     has been lowered from about 0.44 billion barrels of oil (BBO) 
     to about 0.40 BBO. The mean resource estimate has increased 
     from 3.23 to 3.57 BBO.''

  Mr. President, since this 1991 update, a number of new wells have 
been drilled near the 1002 area. A large number discovered oil and gas. 
Some of these wells may be commercial oil- fields. These discoveries 
reflect very favorably on the prospect that the coastal plain contains 
major reserves of oil and gas.
  As the reports quoted above make clear, the economic benefits of the 
coastal plains oil and gas reserves far exceed the $2.3 billion assumed 
in the pending budget resolution. The 1987 report notes that a 
discovery of 3.2 billion barrels of oil would produce net national 
economic benefits of $79.4 billion, including new Federal revenues of 
$38 billion. A discovery of 9.2 billion barrels would yield net 
national economic benefits of $325 billion and new Federal revenues of 
around $150 billion over the life of the oil fields.
  The Department of Energy and Wharton Econometrics have done 
independent studies which project that leasing the coastal plain could 
create 250,000 to 732,000 new direct and indirect jobs in all 50 of our 
States.
  Mr. President, in addition to providing a major stimulus to the 
economy and creating new jobs, opening the 1002 area will allow my 
State to continue to produce 25 percent or more of the Nation's 
domestic oil for an additional 30 or 40 more years. This is very 
important because Prudhoe Bay is now in decline. Since 1990, oil 
production has fallen from 2 million barrels a day to 1.6 million 
barrels a day. Every barrel of oil produced in Alaska is a barrel the 
United States does not have to buy abroad.
  Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson authored the Alaska Statehood Act 
and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Senator Jackson 
was a tough, no nonsense moderate Democrat. He was fair. He was 
accessible. He was informed. And he was balanced. Senator Jackson heard 
from all of the special interest groups, but he made his own decisions, 
based upon all of the facts and the interest of people and of the 
Nation.
  Jackson, along with the senior Senator from Alaska, authored the 
legislation to open Prudhoe Bay to oil production by authorizing the 
Trans Alaska Pipeline Act in 1973. In the face of major opposition from 
the national environmental organizations, this legislation was adopted. 
As a result, the Nation has enjoyed two decades of major economic 
benefits.
  Scoop also worked out the compromise that was reached which led to 
the study and report authorized in section 1002. The reason the 1.5 
million acres was set aside was to consider the great oil potential in 
the area. Scoop included the provision of the national security 
concerns associated with our country being reliant on foreign oil. We 
are more reliant on foreign oil than ever before. We imported more than 
50 percent of our oil consumption for the first time in 1994.
  Mr. President, the opposition to opening the coastal plain to oil and 
gas leasing comes from the leaders of some of the Nation's large 
environmental organizations. My view is that the leaders of these 
organizations are misguided and poorly informed. I suspect that their 
opposition has more to do with ``fundraising'' objectives than it does 
with ``wilderness'' values.
  The leaders of the environmental community have invested a great deal 
of time, effort, and money in the Gwich'in Indian steering committee. 
The steering committee is composed of some of the 400 Athabascan 
Indians who live in two villages on the Venetie Indian Reservation. The 
steering committee opposes opening the coastal plain. They are 
concerned that leasing and development might, in some unknown way, 
adversely impact the porcupine caribou herd. This herd of 160,000 
animals annually migrates between Canada and the United States. In some 
years, the herd uses the southern portion of the coastal plain for 
forage and calving. Last year, North Slope Eskimos and Athabascan 
Indians took about 380 caribou from this herd of 160,000 animals for 
subsistence uses.
  I respect the right of the Gwich'in steering committee to oppose 
resource development in the coastal plain. It is a decision, however, 
which is contrary to experience at Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere in the 
Arctic. Caribou are very adaptable. At Prudhoe Bay, the central Arctic 
caribou herd is flourishing with oil development. Since oil was 
discovered in Prudhoe Bay the central Arctic caribou herd has increased 
from 3,000 to 23,000 animals.
  Further, the Gwich'in steering committees opposition to oil and gas 
leasing is a new development. In 1980 the Gwich'in people of Arctic 
village and Venetie villages leased all of the lands in their 1.7 
million acre reservation to the Rouget Oil Co. of Tulsa, OK. This 20-
page oil and gas lease did not contain any meaningful provisions to 
protect the porcupine caribou herd. This herd migrates annually through 
or near the Venetie Reservation. Yet, the Gwich'in leased all of their 
lands for $1.8 million on the basis that oil exploration and oil 
development would not adversely impact the herds well-being. I believe 
this leasing decision by the Gwich'in was correct. It is supported by 
studies of caribou and oil industry experience elsewhere, including 
Alaska's North Slope.
  In 1984, the Gwich'in people hired a consultant to lease their 
reservation lands a second time after the Rouget Oil Co. oil and gas 
lease expired. And again, no concerns were expressed by the Gwich'in 
about any adverse impact on caribou.
  The North Slope Inupiat Eskimo people are now asking for the same 
opportunity the Gwich'in had in the 1980's. They regret and I regret 
that the oil company that Gwich'in leased their lands to did not 
discover major reserves of oil and gas on their lands. The North Slope 
Eskimo people want the same right to do as the Gwich'in did in 1980. 
They want the right to explore the 92,000 acres of land they own at 
Kaktovik along with the surrounding Federal lands. And if these lands 
contain oil and gas in commercial amounts, they want the right to 
develop their land.
  Mr. President, I am glad to see that the amendment from my colleagues 
from Delaware was defeated. We now can proceed with consideration of 
responsible oil and gas exploration and development of the best 
prospect for a major oil find in North America.
                           Amendment No. 1151

  (Purpose: To restore funding for agriculture and nutrition programs)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1151.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and insert the 
     following: ``budget, the revenue and spending aggregates may 
     be revised and other appropriate budgetary aggregates and 
     levels may be revised to reflect the additional deficit 
     reduction achieved as calculated under subsection (c) for 
     legislation that reduces revenues, and for legislation that 
     will provide $15,000,000,000 in outlays to the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for the purpose of 
     restoring outlay reductions required of that committee 
     pursuant to section 6 of this resolution.
       ``(b) Revised Allocations and Aggregates.--Upon the 
     reporting of legislation pursuant to subsection (a), and 
     again upon [[Page S7345]] the submission of a conference 
     report on such legislation (if a conference report is 
     submitted), the Chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate may submit to the Senate appropriately revised 
     allocations under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974; budgetary aggregates; and 
     levels under this resolution, revised by an amount that does 
     not exceed the additional deficit reduction specified under 
     subsection (d).''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Exon's amendment to restore $15 
billion in agricultural spending is a step in the right direction for 
rural America. It is a step in the right direction for the American 
families who depend on USDA nutrition programs. It stands in stark 
contrast to the Republican budget that takes these funds from rural 
America, not to reduce the deficit, but to fund tax breaks for some of 
the wealthiest Americans.
  The Exon amendment instead directs the $15 billion where it is most 
needed, to farmers who struggle each year to stay on the farm, to keep 
producing America's food and fiber supply, and to families who strike a 
rough patch when there is job loss or other bad luck, people trying to 
put food on the table and keep their families together.
  The Republican budget, on the other hand, raids rural America to aid 
the comfortable. The Republican budget proposal would cut $45.9 billion 
out of the Agriculture Department over the next 7 years. That is likely 
to translate to around $12 billion in direct cuts to farm programs. It 
is a 20-percent cut in farm spending. It will contribute to the further 
deterioration of the economic and social fabric of rural America. No 
other sector of American life is being asked to absorb such a hit. We 
cannot have a prosperous Urban America riding on the back of an 
impoverished Farm America. Yet that's what Republican budget cuts will 
produce.
  Farmers in South Dakota would see a devastating decline in their 
income of over $57 million. Other rural States will suffer similar 
pain. This budget is shortsighted for rural America and self-interested 
for the best off. It is not a balanced, fair proposal. It is not a 
budget that sustains the American tradition of building a strong farm 
sector, a tradition that has enjoyed bipartisan support until this 
Republican majority.
  Make no mistake, the agricultural community recognizes the enormity 
of the Federal budget and is committed to reducing it. Farmers are some 
of our most fiscally conservative citizens. But America's producers--
rightly--feel they should not be asked to bear a disproportionate share 
of spending reductions.
  They are right. America's producers have already contributed their 
share. Long before the budget cutters turned to other programs to see 
where we could cut, farm producers over the last decade have already 
seen commodity program spending decline more than 60 percent. Other 
parts of the Federal budget have expanded, while agriculture has 
consistently been cut back. Now we are cutting into live growth, not 
deadwood. If other Federal sending had been reduced at anything near 
the same rate as agricultural spending has been, we would have a budget 
surplus. In this context, to make farmers take another deep cut just to 
give the richest Americans a tax break adds insult to injury.
  Ideas have consequences and so do choices. If we choose to sacrifice 
a healthy farm sector to the momentary impulse to finance a tax cut, we 
will pay more down the road. We cannot disinvest and disinvest and 
disinvest in rural America, channeling support to virtually every other 
sector, without finally paying the price. The fact is, these cuts could 
easily cost us more than they save. Barely 10 years ago, in the mid-
1980's, we learned the price of misguided and mistaken policies that 
starved rural America. We paid billions to repair the damage done by 
shortsighted farm policies, unforeseen weather patterns and changing 
economic conditions. There were more farm and rural business 
foreclosures and bankruptcies than at any time since the Great 
Depression.
  Right now, producers in South Dakota and across the Midwest are 
suffering from unseasonably wet weather and destructive flooding. They 
cannot get their crops in the ground. So they will be struggling to 
make it through this difficult year even with the current level of farm 
spending. With the cuts in the Republican budget proposal, net income 
will plummet, and land prices will fall again. Another bad year could 
push many producers over the edge into insolvency.
  We can and should do more to streamline agricultural programs, both 
to make them farmer friendly and to curb costs. But there is a 
difference in curbing costs and what this budget proposal does. This 
budget imposes a straightjacket on Congress as we are trying to write a 
better, more responsive and more flexible farm bill. This budget will 
prevent reasonable reform, not promote it. It is exactly the wrong way 
to go.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this amendment, using a $170 billion bonus 
surplus, gives $15 billion to the Agriculture Committee. The rest can 
still be used for tax cuts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are we ready to vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are ready to vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane to 
the provisions of the budget resolution. Pursuant to section 305 of the 
Budget Act, I raise the point of order against the pending amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b) of that act for 
consideration of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are ordered on the 
amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Vote On Motion to Waive the Budget Act

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 31, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Robb
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--69

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 31, the nays are 
69. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, and the Chair 
sustains the point of order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 1152

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding reimbursement to 
      the States for the costs of implementing the National Voter 
          Registration Act of 1993 under budget function 800)

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. [[Page S7346]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1152.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE COSTS OF THE 
                   NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993.

       It is the sense of the Senate that within the assumptions 
     under budget function 800 funds will be spent for 
     reimbursement to the States for the costs of implementing the 
     National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Coverdell amendment is a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution stating that the funds within this resolution 
should be spent for reimbursement to States for motor-voter mandates.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the lead Republican sponsor of the 
National Voter Registration Act, I was very interested in a recent New 
York Times article reporting on the progress of voter registration 
since the bill's implementation in January of this year. Over 2 million 
new voters have been registered in the first quarter of 1995 and the 
National Motor-Voter Coalition estimates that approximately 20 million 
new voters will be registered by the 1996 Presidential election.
  It is very gratifying to hear that this important program is being 
implemented successfully and that the results are exceeding our 
expectations. I realize there are concerns about this law being a 
burden to the States and its financial impact on them. However, I would 
remind my colleagues that many innovative States, including Oregon, led 
the way for the Federal Government by adopting State motor-voter laws 
and supported a national law. Additionally, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office study on the implementation costs of motor-
voter, the aggregate costs for States would be 20 to 25 million 
annually for 5 years. Mr. President, this does not meet the 
requirements of the Federal unfunded mandate legislation passed earlier 
this year by the Senate--which I supported.
  It is our obligation as policy-makers to protect the voting process 
and, at the same time, to make it accessible. The motor-voter law 
effectively achieves both of these important responsibilities and, 
therefore, I voted against the Coverdell amendment to the budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Georgia. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 1152) was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1153

    (Purpose: To maintain public funding for Presidential campaigns)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kerry, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1153.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 64, strike lines 17 through 19 and insert the 
     following: ``$2,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, $37,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $72,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 1996''.
       On page 66, line 6, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 66, line 13, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 66, line 14, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 66, line 20, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 66, line 21, decrease the amount by $215,000,000.
       On page 67, line 2, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 67, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 67, line 9, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this removes instructions to the Rules 
Committee that repeals spending limits and public financing for 
Presidential campaigns, returning to pre-Watergate rules for those 
campaigns. Offset approximately $250 million over 7 years, of reduced 
overhead and administrative costs spread across Government by the 
Appropriations Committee.


                          ____________________