[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2159-S2227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET--Continued


                           Amendment No. 2926

 (Purpose: To redirect $28.133 billion of risky tax schemes toward key 
 education programs proven to increase student performance, including 
   programs that ensure qualified teachers in every classroom; small 
 classes where every child receives the attention needed; safe, modern 
    schools; extra resources for schools with large numbers of poor 
  children and resources to turn around failing schools and implement 
 tough accountability systems; research-based early literacy programs; 
   public school choice programs; and increased Pell grant funds for 
      students needing financial assistance for college education)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, and 
     Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 2926.

  Mr. Bingaman. 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 4, line 4, increase the amount by $1,930,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $6,230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $5,480,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $5,810,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $6,940,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,930,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $6,230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $5,480,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $5,810,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $6,940,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $5,640,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $7,120,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $6,470,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $7,080,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $8,420,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $1,930,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $6,230,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $5,480,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $5,810,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $6,940,000,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $5,640,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $1,930,000,000.
       On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $7,120,000,000.
       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $6,230,000,000.
       On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $6,470,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $5,480,000,000.
       On page 18, line 19, increase the amount by $7,080,000,000.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $5,810,000,000.
       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $8,420,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $6,940,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,949,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $28,133,000,000.
       Add new Section 105, as follows:

     SEC. 105. RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN THE SENATE.

       Not later than September 29, 2000, the Senate Committee on 
     Finance shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill 
     proposing changes in laws within its jurisdiction necessary 
     to reduce revenues by not more than $19,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 2001 and $1,743,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico 15 
minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have to leave the floor for a while. I 
wanted to indicate that one-half hour of our hour in opposition is 
going to be yielded to the Senator from Texas. He will have half an 
hour.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am offering the amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, 
Senator Daschle, and Senator Wellstone, several of whom will speak.
  It would increase the national investment in education over the 
committee's mark by $5.6 billion in budget authority in fiscal year 
2001.
  Let me put up a chart that shows the difference between our proposed 
amendment and the budget resolution. You can see that the budget 
resolution is $75 billion in 2001. Our amendment will raise that up to 
$80.64 billion.
  It also would increase over a 5-year period the total amount devoted 
to education by $34.7 billion.
  This second chart shows the comparison between the budget resolution 
that came to the floor and what this amendment would do.
  In our view, this increase is essential if we are going to reflect 
the priorities of the American people. All of us know that the top 
priority of the people we represent is to see improvements in education 
and to see every child in this country given the opportunity to get a 
good education. Clearly, the decisions we make in this budget 
resolution will go a long way to determining whether that is possible 
or not.
  The amendment I sent to the desk would use about 15 percent of the 
proposed Republican tax cut. It would reduce the tax cut by that 15 
percent in order to guarantee sufficient funding for programs that have 
been proven to improve student performance in our public schools and to 
assist students seeking a postsecondary education.
  What are those programs? That is the subject of our amendment. The 
amendment that we are proposing would seek to protect many such 
programs.
  First, it seeks to protect a program to increase safety and decrease 
overcrowding in our schools by providing $1.3 billion in grants and 
loans for urgent repair of 5,000 public elementary and secondary 
schools in high-need areas and by leveraging $25 billion in interest-
free bonds to help build and modernize 6,000 schools.
  The amendment also demonstrates a national commitment to building and 
renovating our schools to make sure all children are able to study in 
safe, modern environments by setting aside $3.7 billion of the proposed 
tax cut, which is just 1.8 percent of the total tax cut, to back those 
interest-free bonds for school construction costs.
  These programs I estimate would provide about $200 million in my home 
State of New Mexico where current estimates are that school repair and 
modernization needs exceed $1.8 billion. Many schools are overcrowded. 
Over 69 percent of our schools in my State report plumbing and 
electrical problems; 75 percent have problems with environmental 
factors such as lighting and heating.
  Another program we guarantee funding in what we believe is a 
reasonable

[[Page S2160]]

level is the afterschool programs. We expand existing afterschool 
programs so approximately 1.6 million more school-age children in over 
6,000 new 21st century community learning centers have access to 
afterschool programs in safe and drug-free environments.
  The amendment seeks to ensure an increase of $547 million in these 
programs. The estimate for my State would be about $5.3 million of the 
total amount. Also, in this amendment we support tough accountability 
standards for increasing the funding for title I accountability grants 
by $116 million over last year's level, to the level of $250 million. 
This is essential to accelerate efforts to turn around failing schools 
and to implement tough accountability systems.
  Under current law, States in districts receiving funding under the 
title I program, which is every State and most school districts in the 
country, are required to monitor student and school performance on 
State assessments based on State standards. States and districts are 
required to take action if schools are failing. In committee, we 
strengthened the accountability system, but we did not strengthen it 
enough.
  During the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I 
hope to offer an amendment that strengthens it further. Nevertheless, 
no accountability system is going to prove effective without the 
resources to implement. Although most States have adopted statewide 
standards, they have not directed adequate resources to schools that 
are failing in order to meet those standards. Dedicated funds are 
necessary to develop improvement strategies which create rewards and 
penalties holding schools accountable for continuous improvement in 
their student performance.
  The Federal Government directs over $8 billion in Federal funding to 
provide critical support programs for disadvantaged students under 
title I. However, the accountability provisions in title I have not 
been adequately implemented due to insufficient resources. The 
amendment we are offering today provides for this critical assistance 
and the strict accountability measures for improvement in student 
performance to turn around so-called failing schools.
  My colleagues and I believe this amendment is necessary because the 
proposed budget we are now considering, if implemented, will make 
adequate increases in education spending virtually impossible. Several 
of my colleagues have already pointed out the proposed budget calls for 
at least $168 billion in tax cuts over 5 years; that is the largest tax 
cut ever proposed. These tax cuts, at a minimum, leave nothing in the 
budget surplus for education or for the other priorities so important 
to the American people.

  Without cutting other programs or dipping into Social Security, this 
budget resolution causes Members to choose between tax cuts and 
education. Unless unrealistic cuts are made to noneducation programs, 
the Republican budget resolution disregards these and other national 
priorities and exhausts 98 percent of the total non-Social Security 
surplus on tax cuts over the next 5 years. The budget resolution only 
covers the next 5 years; over 10 years the tax cuts would cost 
substantially more than the projected non-Social Security surplus 
projected by the CBO.
  While the Budget Committee's resolution provides increases for 
discretionary spending for defense, it cuts nondefense discretionary 
funds by $105 billion, or 6.5 percent over the next 5 years below the 
amount the Congressional Budget Office indicates is necessary to 
maintain current funding.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, I am proud to be a 
sponsor of his amendment. The Senator goes to the heart of what our 
country's priority ought to be--frankly, what all of the Republicans 
and Democrats alike say our priority ought to be. When we look at 
numbers, we realize the Republican budget is going to be devastating to 
education.
  I engage my friend in a question about afterschool programs. The 
Senator and I have worked hard in getting more funding for afterschool. 
Thanks to a lot of hard work in this Congress and with the Vice 
President's leadership, we have seen spending on afterschool programs 
go up to about $453 million in the year 2000. By the way, a few years 
ago it was $1 million; then it was $40 million. The need is tremendous.
  The President is asking in his budget to accommodate the waiting list 
of children, which is more than one million children. He envisions 
spending $1 billion on afterschool programs to accommodate that wait. 
In the Republican budget, that number is cut by $547 million; it 
freezes the amount for afterschool.
  I ask my friend, because he works so hard on the issue of school 
dropout rates and helping kids who need a hand, and he does so much 
work on gang violence prevention, does the Senator think this 
Republican budget is going to harm these million children? If we go 
with the President's numbers, they will be included in his programs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from California for the question.
  My own view is there are a great many young people out there who want 
to be in these programs. There are a great many parents who want to 
have their children in these programs. Our estimate is that 1.6 million 
more of the students nationwide would be able to participate if we are 
able to succeed with this amendment and add the $547 million of 
additional funds that the President has requested. That is what we are 
trying to do. Clearly, it is a question of priorities. Where do people 
think this money should be spent?

  My own view is these programs are extremely effective not only in 
improving children's performance but in keeping kids out of trouble. 
The drug problem is real. We all talk about the need to fight the drug 
problem. We are having a great discussion now in the newspapers about 
how much should be spent to deal with the drug problem by assisting the 
country of Colombia. I support doing something significant there.
  Clearly, reducing demand through more attention to young people 
through afterschool programs is part of the solution.
  Mrs. BOXER. I know the Senator is aware, but I want to underscore the 
incredible support afterschool programs have with the American people. 
Ask the American people, and 90 percent of them support safe 
afterschool programs for our children.
  In addition, is the Senator aware that this is a top priority for law 
enforcement? Look at the FBI statistics. Juvenile crime occurs from the 
hour of 3 p.m., and it starts to go down around 6 o'clock or 7 p.m.
  If my friend could answer that question, is he aware that this is a 
priority with the American people?
  Again, I do agree with the Senator from California that this is a top 
priority with the American people and with much of law enforcement. I 
have had law enforcement officers in my State, police from local and 
State Police organizations, tell me they wish we would do more to deal 
with juvenile crime in these types of programs so they would not have 
to do so much afterwards, when crimes have been committed.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me go ahead and complete the summary of this 
amendment, if I could.
  First, I do recognize the Republican resolution, which we have on the 
floor, asserts a commitment to increase spending for a few important 
education programs. We support the committee's decision to commit to 
increased funding for IDEA and for Pell grants and some other 
elementary and secondary education programs. But we do not support 
pitting these programs against other critical programs. We believe the 
more prudent course would be to guarantee the level of funding required 
to protect the programs that have proven themselves in our efforts to 
reform schools and bring improvements in student performance.
  Let me just go through this chart to try to clarify my understanding 
at least of the Republican budget resolution that is before us. The 
resolution asserts a $4.5 billion increase for mandatory and 
discretionary Department of Education programs. But when you try to 
figure out how that $4.5 billion is arrived at, the specific elements 
that are discussed at different parts of the budget add up to more than 
$4.5 billion. For example, there is $2.3 billion set

[[Page S2161]]

aside for a new, mandatory performance bonus fund which is established.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The time of the Senator has 
expired.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 8 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I yield 8 minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. When you look at this $2.3 billion the Budget Committee 
report sets aside for this new, mandatory performance bonus fund, that, 
of course, presumably, should come out of the total amount for 
education. I believe it does very explicitly. Therefore, when you 
subtract that, the resolution asserts a $2.2 billion increase for 
discretionary education programs. Given the size of the tax cut in 
relation to the non-Social Security surplus, this increase does not 
seem possible, as I mentioned before. But if we assume it is, it still 
falls short of covering the priorities specified in their own 
resolution.
  The resolution earmarks, out of the $2.2 billion that remains after 
you subtract the $2.3 billion down here--$1 billion for IDEA, it sets 
aside $1.6 billion for increases in other elementary and secondary 
education programs, and it sets aside $700 million for the increase to 
raise the maximum Pell grant by $200. If you add the $700 million, the 
$1.6 billion, the $1 billion, and the $2.3 billion, you get $5.6 
billion.
  So the unfortunate reality is that there is no way to get it all done 
in the $4.5 billion that is permitted in the way of increases for 
education. Therefore, the $1.1 billion difference between the $5.6 
billion and the $4.5 billion needs to be cut from other education 
programs in order to reach the specified increases.
  Based on what is outlined in the committee-reported budget, Non-
elementary and Secondary Education Act or IDEA education programs would 
have to be cut about 22 percent to meet the assumptions for education 
spending.
  The funding for fiscal year 2001 for discretionary programs under the 
Republican proposal is $2.3 billion below what the President requested. 
If all discretionary education, training, and social programs in 
function 500 of the budget are considered, the resolution is $4.7 
billion below the President's budget.
  Our amendment would guarantee real dollars for targeted efforts, for 
programs that are known to improve student performance. The program 
would provide increases in funding that would allow for this $1 billion 
increase in IDEA. As I said before, we compliment the committee for 
agreeing to that. I believe that is very important.
  Our amendment would also sustain our commitment to the student loan 
program and to the impact aid programs. The amendment would provide for 
a $400 increase in the maximum Pell grant rather than the $200 increase 
proposed by the President and contained in the committee report.
  In addition, the amendment would guarantee increased investments in 
programs that we know are essential to educational reform, including 
those I mentioned before. Let me mention just a few more of those. 
There is a $1.5 billion increase in our proposed amendment for teacher 
quality programs. This is $1 billion over the President's proposal, so 
we can ensure every child is taught by a qualified instructor. Research 
shows that high-quality teachers are the single most important 
determinant of student learning.

  This amendment increases resources for schools with high 
concentrations of poverty. Here we are talking about the title I 
program. We would propose to increase funding there by $1 billion, 
which, frankly, is not enough. During the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act markup, which we concluded in the Health and Education 
Committee just the other day, our committee voted unanimously--all 
Democrats and all Republicans voted unanimously to increase the 
authorization for title I to $15 billion. I would like to work with my 
Republican colleagues to ensure we are at least on the path to meeting 
that goal. At the very least, we need to commit to make a substantial 
increase next year. All of us know the importance of title I funding. 
All of us give speeches about how important it is to adequately fund 
title I. Here is a chance to actually vote to do that.
  The amendment we are offering continues our commitment to smaller 
classes, providing $1.75 billion to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce 
class size in the early grades. In addition, the amendment expands 
support for creating smaller learning communities in large schools.
  This amendment makes college more affordable for many of our young 
people. As I mentioned before, we are increasing the maximum Pell grant 
by $400--we are proposing to do that. That would make postsecondary 
education accessible to 96,000 more recipients than currently have 
access. The amendment increases the GEAR UP program and the TRIO 
Program so more disadvantaged children can be given the support they 
need to attend college. Under the amendment, students in my State would 
receive an additional $5 million in aid under the Pell Grant Program.
  Let me just conclude by saying the public does want its schools 
fixed, even if that means somewhat less in the way of a tax cut. That 
is the issue before us. Should there be something in the range of a 15-
percent reduction in the tax cut in order to adequately fund education 
in this budget? The budget resolution before us does not reflect the 
priorities of the American public. It flies in the face of what 
Americans say their priorities are in this robust economy. In survey 
after survey, American voters have not only told us education is the 
most important issue nationally, but they support action at the 
national level to improve our country's schools. This sentiment extends 
to the funding of education, just as it extends to other changes in our 
education.
  So I believe this is very important. I believe this amendment will 
improve this budget resolution dramatically and will put it much more 
in line with the interests and priorities of the American people. I 
hope very much it will be agreed to by my colleagues.
  I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am sure that anybody following this 
debate might get confused as to what the Democrats are for, but there 
is not any way on Earth they can fail to figure out what they are 
against. They are against a tax cut.
  They are against eliminating the marriage penalty. They are perfectly 
willing to allow the Tax Code, which penalizes people who fall in love 
and get married, to stand.
  They are opposed to repealing the death tax. They are perfectly 
willing to leave in place a Tax Code that says: You work your whole 
life to build up a family business or a family farm, you pay taxes on 
every dollar you earn, and when you die, your children still may be 
forced to sell off the business or sell off the farm to give the 
Federal Government another 55 percent of your life's work.
  They are against those things, and in trying to kill the tax cut, 
they are for many other things.
  As to education, there are a lot of reasons for which one can 
criticize this budget, but not spending enough money on education is 
simply not one of them. This budget provides $47.9 billion for the 
Department of Education, which is $600 million more than the President 
proposed. In fact, last year in our budget and in the appropriations 
process, we spent more money on education than the President proposed.
  Unless we get carried away with euphoria and believe that spending a 
whole bunch of money on education is somehow going to change anything, 
that somehow having a smaller class size is going to improve 
performance--we have been lowering class size since 1965 and 
performance has been declining.
  The real debate about education is about whether or not we ought to 
be the national school board in Congress or whether we ought to let the 
States decide how to spend this money. That is the real debate between 
Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe we ought to have Congress 
say how the money is going to be spent, and Republicans believe we 
ought to let the States say how the money is going to be spent.
  Mr. President, Senator Domenici yielded me 30 minutes to speak. I ask

[[Page S2162]]

unanimous consent that the 30 minutes come off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to talk about the evolution of this 
budget. I want to talk about the last 8 years of the Clinton 
administration and how we came to be where we are today with a balanced 
budget.
  The one thing about history is everybody wants to rewrite it to suit 
themselves, but facts are persistent things.
  What I want to do today is begin with the first budget President 
Clinton ever submitted to the Congress. I want to trace his budgets 
through Congress until we get to the last budget he will ever submit to 
Congress, which is the one we are considering today.
  The objective is to basically try to get a clear picture of what has 
been proposed and what has been done.
  When President Clinton took office, he sent to the Congress on 
February 17 of 1993 a budget entitled ``A Vision of Change for 
America.''
  I have the budget in my hand today. Many people have made a great 
point about the fact that the President did impose the largest tax 
increase in American history, but the result of it was a balanced 
budget.
  I begin by noting that on page 22 of the first budget President 
Clinton ever submitted to Congress, the deficit he started with was 
$319 billion. His first act as President, in addition to proposing the 
largest tax increase in American history, was to raise that deficit in 
1993 from $319 billion to $332 billion. He did that by proposing that 
spending actually go up by more than his tax increase in the first year 
and, in fact, he proposed a stimulus package of $16.262 billion of 
brand new spending.

  Some of my colleagues will remember the proposal was to spend this 
out of a projects book. We were able to defeat this proposal on the 
floor of the Senate, after it passed the House, by pointing out that in 
this projects book were such proposals as an ice skating warming hut in 
Connecticut and an alpine slide in Puerto Rico.
  In the last budget that was adopted when the Democrats had a majority 
in Congress--and I have the conference report from that fiscal year 
1995 budget, which was adopted on May 4 of 1994--that budget has on 
page 4 their deficit for fiscal year 1995 which, not counting the money 
that was being plundered from Social Security, was $239.5 billion. It 
was projected to rise in 1996 to $253 billion, in 1997 to $278 billion, 
in 1998 to $281 billion, and finally, the fiscal year 1999 deficit they 
were projecting in the last budget when the Democrats controlled 
Congress was going to be $300.7 billion.
  When the American people looked at those numbers and looked at the 
Clinton health care bill which proposed having the Government take over 
and run the health care system, they elected a Republican majority.
  When the Republican majority showed up in January of 1995, it was 
greeted by the President's fiscal year 1996 budget. This was a budget 
that Bill Clinton sent to the Republican Congress in February 1995. 
Actually he began to write it in large part before he knew there would 
be a Republican Congress. That budget proposed in January of 1995 that 
we adopt a budget that had a deficit of $203 billion, and it proposed 
in the year 2000 that the deficit would be $194.4 billion. This was the 
budget that Bill Clinton submitted to the new Republican Congress.
  In 1995, Bill Clinton was asked on many occasions, because the 
Republican Congress started talking about balancing the budget, when he 
thought we could balance the budget. He had many different answers. 
This is what he said in 1995: How many years will it take to balance 
the budget? He said: Nine years.
  Then he was asked the question again, and he said: Well, 10 years.
  Then he said 8 years.
  Then he said 9 years.
  Then he said 7 years.
  Then he said 7 to 9 years.
  Then he said 7 years.
  Then he said 9 years.
  And then he said 10 years.
  These are all statements that President Clinton made in 1995 when 
Republicans on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate, 
for the first time in the modern era, were talking about balancing the 
Federal budget.
  He was saying: Yes, we might balance the budget. We could balance it 
4 years after I leave office; 5 years after I leave office; 3 years 
after I leave office. But he never, ever proposed that we balance the 
budget while he was President. Nor did he ever submit any budgets that 
would require it, until it had already been accomplished.
  What happened to the deficit? When Congress arrived in January of 
1995, this was the Clinton budget proposal as it related to the 
deficit: Basically, it was a $200 billion deficit that went on forever. 
The American people in 1994 elected a Republican majority in Congress, 
and it took office in 1995. I ask the people to look at what happened 
to the deficit under a Republican Congress. The deficit fell very 
rapidly, and by 1998 we had a balanced Federal budget.

  Let me, if I might, make the following point, and do it in taking the 
President's new budget. First of all, there is one thing that is 
totally consistent in every Clinton budget. For 8 years, he has 
submitted budgets, and in every year they have had one thing in common: 
massive increases in nondefense discretionary spending.
  Mr. REID. I apologize to my friend from Texas, but I want to say 
this. I stepped off the floor to take a phone call. In my absence, 
there was a request to take 30 minutes off the resolution. I am very 
upset about that. There was an agreement made, before we left, with the 
manager of the bill, that 30 minutes would be taken from your side. I 
ask unanimous consent----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Taken from the amendment.
  Mr. REID. That is right. I ask unanimous consent that the original 
unanimous consent agreement be reestablished.
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. I 
was passed a note saying, given the makeup of time, that it would be 
helpful if I would ask for 30 minutes off the resolution. I made that 
request. If the Senator objects to it, I will be glad to withdraw it.
  Mr. REID. I will just say this. I appreciate very much the Senator 
from Texas.
  I also say this, I am not going to leave the floor anymore. I will be 
here all day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I suggest, I think this is the 
right decision. We had an agreement. I left the floor and he left the 
floor. This time should come off the amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I was not a party to the agreement. I really did not know 
the details of the agreement. I was simply trying to accommodate other 
people who wanted to debate the amendment. I did not get an opportunity 
yesterday, because I was working on a lot of other things, to talk 
about the budget itself. Normally I resent deals that I am not part of, 
but in this case I would be happy to try to comply with it.
  The point I wish to make, in concluding, in looking at the 8 years of 
the Clinton budget, is that on one point they are totally consistent; 
and that point is, they always proposed dramatic increases in 
nondefense discretionary spending. It is an interesting paradox that in 
the first budget that President Clinton ever proposed, his first 
proposal was to increase nondefense discretionary by 12.5 percent. We 
rejected it when we rejected his stimulus package. In the last budget 
that he will ever propose, remarkably, he proposes to increase 
nondefense discretionary by 12.5 percent, which brings me to my final 
point on the budget.
  Increasingly, we are hearing from our Democrat colleagues, and we are 
hearing, in fact, from the President and from the Vice President, that 
somehow our effort to let working people keep more of what they earn is 
risky, that somehow repealing the marriage penalty is risky, that 
somehow repealing the death tax is risky. I guess they say it is risky 
because that is money that we are giving back to the American people.
  But I would ask my colleagues to understand and remember that if you 
take last year's budget, and you take President Clinton's proposal for 
this year's budget, he is proposing an increase in spending over the 5 
years--from 2002 to 2006--he is proposing new

[[Page S2163]]

spending of $494 billion. That is brand new spending in this budget. 
Some 80 new programs in this budget would be funded at a level of $494 
billion above the level we are spending now.
  So what President Clinton is saying, what Vice President Gore is 
saying, what our Democrat colleagues are saying, is, let us start 80 
new programs and let us spend $494 billion.
  It is interesting. My Governor, who has been criticized by the 
President and the Vice President, and many of our Democrat colleagues, 
said: No. Let's take $483 billion and give it back to working Americans 
by repealing things such as the marriage penalty and by repealing 
things such as the death tax.
  Here is what I do not understand. Why is it risky to give $483 
billion of non-Social Security surplus back to working families but it 
is not risky to spend $494 billion on some 80 new programs? Why is it 
risky to let the American families spend the money and why is it not 
risky to let the Government spend the money? Do our Democrat colleagues 
believe that the Government can spend this money better than the family 
can spend it? Does anybody believe that if we have a crisis that we 
will really go back and eliminate these 80 programs and get the $494 
billion back? If we did, it would make history because we have not done 
it. There have been numerous occasions that Congress has raised taxes 
after giving a tax cut.
  I simply repeat the point that gets lost in all this political 
rhetoric, with all the talk about debt reduction: You have to go back 
to when Jimmy Carter was President to find a budget that spends as much 
money as does the new Clinton budget. It spends $494 billion on new 
programs over the next 5 years. That is more money than anyone has 
talked about in terms of tax cuts. Why is it risky to give the money 
back to working people and not risky to have Government spend it? That 
is the unanswered question in this whole debate.
  Let me conclude by making two additional points. We have had a lot of 
amendments on Medicare. The President is talking about Medicare. I want 
to remind my colleagues that five Members of the Senate and 12 other 
Americans who had some knowledge of Medicare and health care in general 
were appointed to a bipartisan commission where President Clinton 
appointed four of the members; the leadership of both Houses appointed 
six members each; and they jointly appointed a Chairman, Senator John 
Breaux.
  With all this talk about Medicare, we had an emerging consensus in 
the Breaux commission that would have reformed Medicare and would have 
provided prescription drugs to Americans who had a modest income and 
had a difficult time paying for their pharmaceutical benefits.
  We would have done it in the context of reform, where we did not 
jeopardize other Medicare benefits, where we did not jeopardize the 
pharmaceutical coverage that other Americans had who had the ability to 
pay for it; but we had a responsible, bipartisan reform program, and we 
provided pharmaceuticals for seniors who needed the help. Help those 
who need the help; do not destroy the coverage of those who already 
have it--roughly 65 percent of all seniors--and do not jeopardize the 
future of Medicare. It was a pretty good proposal.
  What happened to the Breaux commission report? It failed by one vote 
because every single appointee of President Clinton voted no. So while 
we have all this rhetoric today about Medicare, I think it is important 
to remember that the Medicare commission failed by one vote to reach a 
consensus, and four of the ``no'' votes were by the four people the 
President appointed. At some point, I would like to get that commission 
back together to try again to come up with a bipartisan solution.
  A final point, and then I will yield the floor.
  What we have shown on this chart is the history of spending on 
nondefense discretionary spending. This is money that we are not 
required by law to spend on things such as Medicare and Social 
Security. These are discretionary programs. And we are not talking 
about defense. We are talking about nondefense programs.
  What this shows is, over the last 5 years we have done a relatively 
good job of controlling spending.
  The President has consistently urged us to start massive new spending 
sprees, but we have refused to do that over the 5-year period.
  One of the reasons this budget has been difficult to write is that in 
looking at the last 5 years individually, in 1996, when we had just 
elected a Republican majority, we actually were able to reduce spending 
in real terms by 4.1 percent. Then real spending grew by 1.8 in 1997; 
0.8 in 1998; 3.6 percent in 1999; and then by a whopping real 4.7 
percent in the year 2000.
  The point is, there is a real danger that this surplus is going to 
burn a hole in our pocket. There is a real danger that in the midst of 
this great opportunity to rebuild the base of Social Security, to 
reform Medicare and provide prescription benefits to people who cannot 
afford the benefits themselves, with an opportunity to let working 
Americans who face the highest tax rates ever in American history keep 
more of what they earn, unless we are careful, we are going to end up 
spending this non-Social Security surplus.
  We will have some votes later today or tomorrow where there will be 
efforts to strike points of order in the budget which represent our 
discipline in trying to stay with the budget we have adopted. Despite 
all the rhetoric about cuts, there are no cuts in this budget. Defense 
spending grows by almost 5 percent, and nondefense spending grows 
faster than inflation. How many families in America would say they have 
a lower family budget if their income grew by more than inflation did 
this year? Nobody would say that. But then we are not constrained to 
logic or reason or fact when we are talking about these budgets.
  I urge my colleagues, in this golden moment of economic prosperity, 
when revenues are gushing into the Treasury, when Americans are working 
and prospering and rejoicing in it, we have an opportunity to fix 
Social Security forever with an investment-based system so that we 
don't have to cut benefits of people who are retired today and so that 
young people will own their own investments to pay for their 
retirement. We have an opportunity to fix Medicare with reasonable 
reforms that promote economy and efficiency and that help people who 
cannot afford pharmaceuticals to get them without destroying the 
coverage that 65 percent of our citizens have. And we have a chance to 
do things that need to be done--repeal the marriage penalty, repeal the 
death tax.
  If we keep this spending spree underway, if we keep spending more and 
more money, in the end those things are not going to get done. What we 
need to do is to try to exercise the kind of responsibility that 
American families exercise when they look further than just the moment, 
when they look at their future and look at the problems they face and 
opportunities they have.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts to offer a resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the matter that is before the 
Senate at the present time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment numbered 2926 offered by the 
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, to get back to the Bingaman amendment, I 
will take a few moments of the Senate's time to spell out where we are 
today in the area of education. I think most Americans believe there 
ought to be a partnership between the Federal Government, the States, 
and local communities. Most parents want to make sure their children 
are advanced in terms of academic achievement and accomplishment. Most 
Americans want to see opportunities for continued education available 
to their children. Most Americans understand and support programs that 
will assist gifted and talented needy children who want to continue 
their education by getting some help to further their education.
  It is important, as we are considering the budget amendment of 
Senator Bingaman, that we look over exactly where we are and examine 
what has been the record of the Republican leadership on the help and 
assistance to education in recent years.

[[Page S2164]]

  The 2001 GOP budget resolution, I believe, deserves a failing grade 
on education. It is anti-education, it is anti-children, and it is 
anti-family. The Republicans claim their budget makes a substantial 
investment in education, but, as we have had to do every year since the 
GOP took the majority in Congress in 1995, we must be equally vigilant 
of Republicans when it comes to education funding. Over and over, we 
have heard their rhetoric, but the reality is just the opposite. They 
say they want to invest in education, but their record shows they won't 
and don't. Year after year it is the same story.
  If we look back at the contrast between 1980 and 1999, the Federal 
share of education funding has declined. This demonstrates what percent 
of the Federal budget was going for elementary and secondary education: 
11.9 percent in 1980; 7.7 percent in 1999. In higher education, it was 
15.4 percent, and now we are down to 10.7 percent. This is what we have 
had over the last few years: a major withdrawal of Federal 
participation in the area of aid to both elementary-secondary as well 
as higher education.
  Having seen the percentage of our budget allocated to education, look 
at what has happened to the enrollment in K through 12. In 1990, 46.4 
million students were enrolled in school. We are up to 54.4 million and 
continuing to rise. We have seen this incredible expansion of the 
number of children attending K through 12, increasing pressures on 
local communities, increasing pressures on the State, and increasing 
pressures, obviously, if we are going to meet our responsibility. The 
total number of enrollment has been growing steadily--every community 
in this country can tell us that. Talk to the school boards, talk to 
the parents, talk to the teachers. However, our percent of GNP is 
decreasing in education.
  Look what is happening in higher education, the millions of Americans 
who are attending colleges and universities across this country. It has 
gone from 12.2 million in 1985 up to an estimated 15.6 million in 2005. 
An increase in the total number of K through 12 students, an increase 
in the number of students attending higher education, and what has been 
the corresponding Federal response? A decline in terms of helping and 
assisting families across the country.
  Let's look at the record of the Republican history of cutting 
education funding in appropriations bills.
  In 1995, when the Republican leadership took control of the House and 
the Senate, we had a rescission. The money had already been 
appropriated. The President signed it. We had a request to cut back, 
but of all the different areas of the Federal Government, we only cut 
funding in the area of education. This is about the same time the 
Republican leadership wanted to abolish the Department of Education. 
Their 1996 budget would have reduced the Federal investment in 
education by one-third over 7 years, forcing deep cuts in Head Start 
and aid to elementary and secondary education, freezing funding for 
Pell grants, and slashing $10 billion from student loans.
  Their 1997 budget would have slashed education by 20 percent over six 
years, causing 1.3 million students to lose Pell grants, and 344,000 
children to lose Title I support.
  Their 1999 and 2000 budgets were no different. They claimed to invent 
in education, but the numbers always added up to a loss for students, 
families, schools, and colleges across the country.
  This is the fact, Mr. President. We can go through all kinds of 
shenanigans and gimmicks, but these are the facts. They are printed in 
the Record. The current Republican budget will cut education by $4.7 
billion below President Clinton's level. It is no surprise that they 
refuse to address basic education priorities. Once again, the GOP 
budget fails to meet the obvious need. Parents want the help today. 
Parents want to improve the quality of education now.
  The Republican budget claims a $4.5 billion increase in Department of 
Education programs in fiscal year 2001. But, $2.3 billion of that 
amount is for a new mandatory program that is not contained in current 
law, and if it were, it would not direct funding to states until at 
least 2005.
  That leaves an increase of $2.2 billion for discretionary education 
programs in the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. But, the 
Republican budget also assumes a $700 million increase in Pell grants, 
to increase the maximum grant by $200 to $3,500--bringing it to the 
President's level. In addition, it claims a $2.6 billion increase for 
elementary and secondary education programs. That's a total increase of 
$3.3 billion specified for K-12 education programs and Pell grants. 
But, the Republican resolution only allows for a $2.2 billion increase.
  That means the Republican budget robs Peter's education to pay for 
Paul's education. It would force $1.1 billion in cuts, below last year 
for higher education.
  Now, the Budget Committee will say: Well, we have $2.3 billion that 
we may appropriate, and it will be mandatory spending to try to help 
schools improve themselves. We want to try to help improve the schools 
today. That is what the President wants--that is what this amendment is 
about. It is about today and trying to get sufficient resources to try 
to help families across the country.
  So that is the spread, Mr. President. Look at what happens when we 
look at the particular expenditures in the areas of higher education, 
as well as in K through 12. With the President's request, we have a 
$500 million increase in the fiscal year 2001. This includes all higher 
education funding, except Pell grants. The President's would be $500 
million.
  The Republican's 2001 budget resolution forces $1.1 billion in cuts, 
below last year for higher education. Do we understand that? That is 
the reality. We are talking now about higher education funding, except 
for Pell grants. Where are these cuts? I haven't heard a great deal of 
talk from those on the Budget Committee.
  The College Work-Study program would be cut by $282 million below the 
President's request, reducing the ability of 286,000 students to work 
their way through college. Massachusetts students would lose $14 
million in funding for college work study opportunities.
  TRIO would be cut by $222 million below the President's request, 
denying an additional 195,000 disadvantaged students the opportunity to 
prepare for college and attend college. This is a reduction in the TRIO 
Program, which is the program to try to help gifted and talented, first 
generation college students go on to college.
  Under the Republican budget, GEAR UP would be cut by $169 million 
below the President's request, denying 810,000 low-income middle and 
high school students access to academic and support services needed to 
increase their academic achievement and to prepare them to pursue a 
college education. With the money appropriated last year, 80 percent of 
the seventh graders in the city of Boston will have a chance to move on 
to graduate together and hopefully will be guaranteed, when they do 
graduate, that they will be qualified and able to go to college.
  Colleges and middle schools are working together to provide 
additional help and assistance to students by educating their families 
about the importance of a college degree. They are getting whole school 
communities to think that college is a reality for their children. The 
TRIO Programs have been an excellent model for building cohorts of 
young people from different schools. GEAR UP's objective is to build 
the capacity of under-achieving schools by getting all of their 
students to think about college early, prepare for college, and move on 
to achieve the highest education level possible. We have seen 
extraordinary success in different parts of the country where this 
program has been implemented. These important programs would be 
significantly cut back by the budget resolution.
  The Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants program would also be 
cut by $199 million below the President's request, reducing support for 
346,000 needy undergraduate students. Massachusetts would lose $9 
million that helps its colleges and universities provide needy 
undergraduate students with additional financial aid. That adds up to a 
$1.1 billion cut.
  Make no mistake about the great importance of this amendment. If you 
are concerned about the higher education cuts, now look what happened 
here on K through 12 education programs.

[[Page S2165]]

  The Republican budget cuts K through 12 education programs by $1.4 
billion below the President's request. The other side can say they put 
on an additional $1 billion in special education. We agree on 
increasing funding for IDEA--our amendment will match that level. But, 
it's still not enough. All we are trying to do is make sure these other 
programs are getting adequate funding. The Republican budget does 
nothing to ensure the pressing education needs of families and 
communities across the country will be met, and ensure new, substantial 
investments in what works.
  But I remind our friends that when we had the opportunity, even a 
year ago, when the Republicans had their $780 billion tax cut and a 
number of us offered an amendment to try to provide full funding for 
special education needs and reduce the tax cut for wealthy individuals, 
virtually every Member of this side voted in favor of it and there was 
Republican opposition to it. We are glad we have an additional billion 
dollars. But if we are going to compare apples to apples and oranges to 
oranges, we can say this is an increase of $2.6 billion, and that would 
be $4 billion, but you still have the dramatic spread in the area of K 
through 12.
  The Bingaman/Kennedy/Murray Education amendment would reverse these 
unacceptable cuts in the GOP budget and increase the national 
investment in education by $5.6 billion in FY2001 and $34.7 billion 
over 5 years. It will give parents and communities the support they 
need to provide every child with a good public school education, and to 
send every qualified student to college. It would reduce the tax cut by 
15% in the first year, and 18% over 5 years. It would use 14% of the 
on-budget surplus over 5 years.

  The Republican budget cuts $450 million from the President's request 
for the bipartisan class size reduction program, preventing the hiring 
of 20,000 additional qualified teachers to reduce class size in grades 
1-3. Massachusetts communities would lose $7.3 million to help them 
further reduce class size next year.
  Our amendment continues the national commitment to smaller classes by 
providing $1.75 billion to continue the effort to hire 100,000 teachers 
to reduce class size in the early grades. The funding will bring the 
total number of qualified teachers hired to 49,000.
  Research has documented what parents and teachers have always known--
smaller classes improve student achievement. In small classes, students 
receive more individual attention and instruction. Students with 
learning disabilities are identified earlier, and their needs can be 
met without placing them in costly special education. In small classes, 
teachers are better able to maintain discipline. Parents and teachers 
can work together more effectively to support children's education. We 
also know that overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease 
student morale.
  Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. 
Students in small classes performed better than students in large 
classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. Follow-up 
studies show that the gains lasted through at least eighth grade, and 
the gains were larger for minority students.
  STAR students were less likely to drop out of high school, and more 
likely to graduate in the top 25% of their classes. STAR students in 
smaller classes in grades K-3 were between 6 and 13 months ahead of 
their regular-class peers in math, reading, and science in grades 4, 6, 
and 8. Michigan, California, Nevada, Florida, Texas, Utah, Illinois, 
Indiana, New York, Oklahoma, Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, South 
Carolina, and Wisconsin have initiated or considered STAR-like class 
size reduction efforts.
  Our amendment helps communities modernize their schools by providing 
$1.3 billion in grants and loans for the urgent repair of 5,000 public 
elementary and secondary schools in high-need areas. States will be 
able to issue $25 billion in interest-free bonds to help build and 
modernize 6,000 schools.
  Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. 14 
million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in 
substandard buildings. Half of all schools have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental condition. The problems with ailing school 
buildings are not the problems of the inner city alone. They exist in 
almost every community--urban, rural, or suburban.
  In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools, 
communities need to build new schools in order to keep pace with rising 
enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school 
enrollment has reached an all-time high this year of 53.4 million 
students, and will continue to grow. The number will rise by 324,000 in 
2000, by 282,000 in 2001, and by 250,000 in 2002. It will continue on 
this upward trend in the following years.

  According to a report this year, total unmet school modernization 
needs, including technology and infrastructure, totals $307 billion--
almost three times the amount estimated in 1995.
  This amendment expands after-school opportunities for children by 
increasing funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers from 
$453 million to $1 billion for FY2001.
  Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are 
home alone after school. Juvenile crime peaks in the hours between 3 
p.m. and 6 p.m. Children unsupervised are more likely to be involved in 
anti-social activities and destructive patterns of behavior.
  Children who attend quality after-school programs while their parents 
work have better peer relations, better emotional adjustments, better 
grades, and better conduct in schools. They have more learning 
opportunities and more enrichment activities. Research also shows that 
students participating in after-school programs have higher achievement 
in reading and math, are more interested in learning, are more likely 
to stay in school, and are less likely to be involved in crime.
  Our amendment supports tough accountability for results, by 
increasing funding for Title I Accountability grants by $116 million to 
$250 million, to accelerate efforts by states and school districts to 
turn around failing schools.
  Stronger accountability in education is imperative. Effective 
accountability steps--what business leaders call quality control 
measures--can make sure that public tax dollars are used wisely and 
produce better results for children.
  Despite concerted efforts by states, school districts, and schools, 
the accountability provisions in Title I have not been adequately 
implemented due to insufficient resources. In 1998, only 8 states 
reported that their support teams have been able to serve the majority 
of schools in need of improvement. Less than half of the schools in 
need of improvement reported that they received additional professional 
development or technical assistance.
  We must make all our schools accountable for good teaching and 
improved student achievement. We cannot turn our backs on low-
performing schools. We must do all we can to improve them. Schools, 
school districts, and states need additional support and resources to 
address weaknesses soon after they are identified.
  The amendment increases support for Title I by $1 billion to ensure 
that the neediest students get the extra help they need to succeed in 
school. Disadvantaged communities need more help to ensure that all 
public schools give children a good education. Title I is working in 
many schools across the country. We should help bring that success to 
every community.
  Ninety-nine percent of Title I funds go to local school districts. In 
addition, Title I and other federal programs are much more targeted to 
high-poverty districts than state and local funds.
  More than 80 percent of poor school districts, and almost half of all 
districts nationwide, report that Title I is ``driving standards-based 
reform in the district as a whole.'' In addition, Title I funds, as 
well as other federal education funds, are more targeted to high-
poverty districts than state and local funds. Title I now supports 95% 
of the highest-poverty schools and is helping these schools to 
dramatically improve student performance.
  As I mentioned, in the higher education, we are talking about the 
GEAR UP program, which reaches out to low- and middle-income high 
school students to help them so they can continue on to higher 
education. The amendment increases funding for GEAR UP by $125 million 
to $325 million, to put more low-income middle

[[Page S2166]]

and high school students on the path to college. This increase will 
support at least one state or local partnership in every eligible 
state. It will also leverage the resources of more than 2,400 community 
organizations and businesses as partners, and provide services to 1.4 
million low-income students.
  Our amendment would also increase funding for TRIO by $80 million to 
$725 million, to expand and improve postsecondary outreach and student 
support programs for 760,000 minority and disadvantaged students.
  Our amendment increases the maximum Pell Grant by a total of $400--
from the current maximum of $3,300 to $3,700.
  Pell Grants are the most effective way to make college a reality for 
the nation's neediest students. Yet, today, the maximum grant is worth 
only 86% of its 1980 value in constant dollars. Clearly, we have fallen 
behind. We are failing to maintain our commitment to make college 
accessible to the neediest students.
  I am pleased that the Committee accepted the Feingold-Smith amendment 
to increase the maximum Pell grant by $200 to $3,500. But it's not 
enough.
  The average family income of Pell recipients is $14,500. In 1997-98, 
approximately 87% of all Pell Grant recipients had incomes less than or 
equal to $30,000. These students come from working families who 
sacrifice to make sure that their children can go to college. These 
parents understand the importance of education, and they want to make 
sure that their children have every advantage.
  Opening the doors of college to more students should be a high 
priority for Congress. Nearly 4 million students received Pell Grants 
in 1999. Our $400 increase translates into 96,000 new Pell grant 
recipients. In Massachusetts, 4,000 additional students would receive 
Pell Grants.
  Our amendment also increases funding for College Work-Study by $77 
million to $1 billion, which will give 1 million students the 
opportunities to work their way through college.
  Now, Mr. President, finally, I want to mention an extraordinary 
factor in higher education. Mr. President, we know that 89% of children 
who come from families with incomes over $74,000 attend college, but 
only 40% of children from families with incomes below $25,000 attend 
college and only 1 in 4 attend a 4-year college. May I have 5 more 
minutes on the resolution?
  Mr. REID. I yield 5 more minutes on the resolution to the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Family income should not determine whether a 
child goes to college--their academic achievement should be the only 
factor to consider. Let's promise kids a level playing field for 
college. Let's make sure that if a student is qualified to attend 
college, the money will be there so that they have the credentials that 
they need to more fully participate in our economy than their parents 
were able to participate.
  That is a family value, Mr. President. We hear many around here talk 
about family values. Minimum wage is a family value--about respect for 
work and people having an opportunity to live with dignity. A family 
value is the quality to be able to succeed and continue their education 
at a time when it is essential if they are going to have any economic 
opportunities. Every year, we cut back on that opportunity and reduce 
and fly-specking this particular budget, and we diminish this country 
and the promise it has for the children of this Nation. That is what 
this amendment is about. The Democrats believe we ought to invest in 
the young people of this country. We believe that is a higher priority 
than tax breaks for the wealthy individuals.
  We will have an opportunity to call the roll on that. We hope we are 
not going to be denied that chance by our good Republican friends. 
Let's have a vote on this particular measure. I stand with those who 
say if you deny us an opportunity with a second-degree amendment, we 
are coming back again and again on this budget resolution until we get 
a vote.
  What are they going to be frightened of in terms of this particular 
amendment? We are either going to stand for working families, the 
children of working families, and for talented young people to be able 
to have their dream and be part of the American dream, or we want to 
nickel and dime them in order to have a tax break for wealthy 
individuals in this society. You couldn't have a clearer opportunity on 
the issue of priorities: Who is going to stand with the young people in 
this country today, and who is going to stand for a tax cut?
  I hope when the time comes, this body will support the Bingaman 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend to the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts 15 minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator 
from Nevada. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, whose passion and 
understanding of this issue provide the most important leadership in 
the country with respect to the question of education.
  I join him on the floor of the Senate in an absolute state of 
incredulity that the Republicans can turn their backs so brazenly and 
so overtly on the educational opportunities that are needed for young 
people in our country.
  We just had a conference in Massachusetts last Saturday with many 
leaders of what is called the ``new economy.'' I think we are getting 
lost in all of this talk about a new economy and an old economy. What 
we are seeing is an economy in transition. It is in transition because 
we are moving into a very different world --a world where skills are 
more needed than ever before. Every single day, we talk about the 
economy and its changes--about the knowledge-based economy. The 
presumption is that people are able to get the knowledge on which that 
economy is based, that they are able to get the skills.
  But at this conference in Boston, which is one of the leading cities 
in the Nation experiencing the changes in the economy today, we had 
leader after leader after leader of new technologies, not just the 
Internet--everybody talks about the Internet and the Internet 
companies, but there are a host of companies on which this new 
opportunity is based--but companies in biotechnology, artificial 
intelligence, robotics, advanced materials. You could run down a long 
list of critical technologies where the United States of America is in 
the lead today.

  But guess what. We have a bill before the Senate to raise the number 
of visas which permit people to come into the country to fill technical 
slots. They are called H-1Bs. The level of H-1Bs was at 65,000. It was 
as high as 115,000 for a year or so. Several pieces of legislation are 
now seeking to enable up to 200,000 people to come in. But the leaders 
of the new revolution in our economy tell us that we are anywhere from 
400,000 to 1 million people behind where we need to be in terms of 
hiring.
  Here we are with a bill that might let in several hundred thousand at 
the end of this year or next year when the demand is 400,000 to a 
million, and when countless numbers of our citizens are facing a 
transition in their life--movement from the old kind of job to the new 
kind of job or the hope that they are going to be able to find some 
kind of job in the new economy where they can share the higher salaries 
that so many Americans are beginning to experience.
  What do the business titans tell us? What are those leaders and 
entrepreneurs who are breaking the ground of the new economy --who, I 
might add, are in a voracious race with other countries for the market 
share. We are not the only people experiencing this. You go to Europe; 
you have all kinds of companies racing to try to grab their share of 
the markets. You go to Asia; the one thing leaders in Asia will tell 
you today is that they are focused on education. The one thing leaders 
of Europe will tell you they are focused on--and also in Latin 
America--is education because only by educating Americans ultimately 
are we not only going to provide the labor pool to be able to fill the 
jobs of this new economy, but, quite frankly, only by educating 
Americans are we going to have a citizenry that is capable of managing 
our own democracy and making the difficult kinds of decisions we will 
face in the future.
  So one would think the Senate in facing this reality--it is not a 
partisan reality. Most of these leaders of industry

[[Page S2167]]

who are telling us in the Senate to wake up and pay attention to 
education are Republicans. They will tell us it is long since overdue 
that the United States make a more pronounced commitment to the 
education system of the country.
  I know we don't run the education system at the Federal level, and 
none of us is advocating that we should. I understand that. I know no 
one wants Washington telling the local community what to do. I 
understand that. I don't want to tell them what to do. I would like to 
empower them to be able to do what they know they want to do but can't 
do because they don't have the resources.
  All over this country, there are communities in rural areas and urban 
centers of the Nation where they don't have the tax base. In the United 
States of America, for some reason that is beyond me, we still base our 
school systems on the property tax, which is part of the old agrarian 
structure we had when we first founded our public school system. And 
yet, in the urban centers and in many rural centers where they don't 
yet share in the kinds of salaries or the kinds of opportunities as do 
other parts of the country, they don't have a property tax capacity to 
pay the teachers more money, put the equipment into the school, have an 
extended schoolday, have the kind of laboratories for language that 
they need, do the kinds of remedial work with students who are 
troubled, have dance, arts, music, sports, and the kinds of things that 
are the real stuff of a complete education.

  What do these districts do? In some cases, they have received help 
from States because the States have engaged in education reform, and 
there is a State revenue sharing process. But where is the Federal 
Government? Where is the great equalizer which, as a matter of national 
priority, is supposed to help provide the kinds of empowerments to 
communities that federalism embraces? That is the whole notion of a 
national government. It is the whole notion of a Federal system of 
sharing so that all parts of the country are uplifted simultaneously.
  We have some great public schools in Massachusetts. We have some 
great public schools in some urban centers where mayors have paid 
particular attention to help scrounge up enough money. But even in 
those areas, they are desperate for additional Federal assistance and 
for more capacity to do the things they know they need to do. Yet here 
we are with a budget resolution on the floor of the Senate which gives 
a very meager increase to the special needs side of the ledger. We are 
happy for some increase on the special needs side, but we fundamentally 
reduce the capacity of our schools to face this most important mission.
  It ought to be an acceptable national priority that our citizens are 
well educated. It may be a responsibility of the local level to 
actually do it, but it is certainly a Federal priority that it is done. 
If we have the capacity by leveraging resources to the local 
communities to empower those local communities to be able to achieve 
that national priority, we ought to do it.
  Americans may not be aware that in the budget we are about to spend 
$1.8 trillion of collected taxpayers' money. People ask, My God, out of 
$1.8 trillion we cannot find $5 billion additional for education?
  A lot of that budget obviously goes to pay for the entitlement 
programs, including Social Security, Medicare, military retirement, and 
Federal and civilian disability benefits. We will spend over $1 
trillion of the $1.8 trillion on all of the entitlement programs, which 
no one has suggested we will suddenly cut or stop. Then we have the 
defense spending as well as everything else the Government does that 
will come out of the remaining $600 or $700 billion. Out of that $600 
billion, we have to make interest payments on the national debt, pay 
for our defense, build our highways, channel our harbors, finance mass 
transit, pay for housing assistance, nutrition programs, finance health 
research, public health programs, fund crime control, drug trafficking, 
and foreign aid, which is minuscule compared to the total budget. All 
of these are by choice of our majority, and when measured against other 
significant choices, it leaves precious little money for education.
  Why? Because they want to give a $150 billion, 5-year tax break to 
the wealthiest people in America. Every single tax break they have ever 
brought to the floor of the Senate has been with 60 percent or more 
going to the top 20 percent of income earners of America. I have gladly 
voted for many of the tax cuts we have given over the last years I have 
been in the Senate. In the year 2000, we are looking at about a 1-
million-person gap in the high-skilled labor needs of this country.

  Kids in our schools test ahead only of Cyprus and South Africa in 
math and science. Kids in our country are reading at a 1988 level that 
hasn't progressed since then. Because of the property tax revolution in 
California, Massachusetts, and a lot of other States, we saw the 
schools decimated over the last 10 years. Programs were cut, libraries 
were shut, and teachers' pay was not raised. We now need 2 million 
additional teachers in the course of the next 10 years. We need 1 
million of those teachers over the course of the next 5 years.
  It is precious hard to find a kid out of most colleges who says, I 
want to teach, when teaching means starting anywhere from $22,000 
though $27,000, and after 15 years of teaching and getting a master's 
degree you can get into the thirties and the forties, depending on the 
system in which you are working in this country. Their colleagues from 
college will be earning $40,000 and $50,000 a year within a couple of 
years of getting out of college. College graduates today have $50,000 
or $100,000 in loans and have to begin paying back those loans 
immediately.
  What kid at the top percentile of their class, with $100,000 in 
loans, will say, yes, I will go into an urban center at $20,000-plus a 
year, so I never have a chance to send my kids to college unless they 
get a scholarship or I somehow qualify for assistance? If that isn't a 
national emergency, I don't know what is a national emergency.
  Yet this budget does nothing to address the question of how the 
Federal Government is going to assist these revenue-starved communities 
to be able to deal with the problem of education in this country. It 
does nothing to answer the question of executives across the Nation 
about how they will have a skilled labor pool in the future that will 
be able to address the question of education. It goes backwards. Under 
their proposal, there will be a cut.
  The President has proposed a hiring of teachers to reduce class sizes 
so we get a nationwide average of 18 students per class. But what 
happens? Under their proposal, 20,000 new teachers could not be hired 
in order to do that. It cuts $540 million from the President's request 
for 21st century community learning centers where approximately 1.6 
million school-age children in over 6,000 new centers would have access 
to before- and afterschool programs. Again, it defies common sense to 
believe we are going to continue to turn our backs.
  I do understand some of it. I understand some of our colleagues on 
the Republican side of the aisle don't want to put money into the 
Federal education system unless it is done in one way--maybe a big 
block grant that has no targeting whatever with respect to any of the 
priorities we might embrace as a Federal Government.
  For instance, if we happen to believe it is important in certain 
States that Head Start be a priority or that afterschool programs be a 
priority or early childhood intervention be a priority, and we think as 
a matter of Federal priorities it is very important that at least the 
Federal Government say, hey, you go decide how you want to spend the 
money--if you want to put it into this kind of child care or that kind 
of child care, that is your business; we just want to make sure some of 
it goes to child care; that is all we are looking for--we cannot even 
get that kind of an agreement.
  The great divide in the Senate is over putting some money into a 
grant where there is so much discretion that States that have never 
chosen to do any of these things could continue to choose not to do any 
of these things. Is that a smart expenditure of Federal dollars? I 
don't think so.
  We are not even going to have an opportunity in this budget 
resolution to guarantee that the kind of dollars that ought to be part 
of that will be part of

[[Page S2168]]

it. So we will see reductions in the total amount of expenditure in 
order to have some huge tax cut as a matter of priority at a time when 
the Federal component of taxation is at its lowest level since I have 
been in the Senate. It seems to me we ought to be measuring our 
priorities a little bit more carefully.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to come 
to the floor and say: We put additional money into the special needs 
sector, into IDEA. They have about $1 billion that goes into IDEA.
  All the other priorities, the real stuff of educating in America 
today, are in the cities and the rural areas that do not have the tax 
base. No matter what they say about money that will go into education 
spending, there is nothing in this budget that will guarantee those 
communities most in need are going to find the additional funding they 
need to address the needs of education in the country.
  We should be talking about putting somewhere between $40 billion to 
$50 billion over the next 10 years in additional funding for education. 
We should probably have a significant separate trust fund that 
guarantees education is going to be the kind of top priority it needs 
to be, so every school in America has the ability to keep its doors 
open into the evening so parents--who are working extra hours, many of 
them single parents who have their kids in child care during the day 
and would like to have ongoing education--can participate in the new 
economy and have the ability to use school facilities well into the 
evening, even while their children may be there also getting their 
homework done in a secure environment so they can go to school the next 
day ready to learn.
  In community after community in the United States, there are kids on 
waiting lists for Head Start, early childhood intervention--for all 
those programs that bring a child to the first grade ready to learn. I 
have talked to so many first grade teachers who tell me they have kids 
coming into a classroom with 25 kids in a class, 30 kids in a class, 
and the kids cannot even do the elementary things kids coming to first 
grade ought to be able to do such as early numbers or recognizing 
shapes and forms and colors. So they have to step aside and they have 
to deal with the problem of that child, magnified five, six, seven, 
eight times over, and try to deal with the mainstreaming of a full 
class of 25 kids at the same time.
  We believe the standard of education that requires you have 18 kids 
and no more in a class is appropriate. These are the kinds of 
priorities left out of this budget. I regret that enormously. I regret 
this budget is a negative against even the rate of growth of inflation. 
I hope we will have a chance to rectify that in the days ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have in opposition to 
the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 36 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield up to 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I 
congratulate him on putting together this budget resolution, which was 
a very difficult task in the present climate. It is ironic; when we are 
running surpluses, it is almost more difficult to put together a budget 
than when we are running deficits. But through the adept and able 
leadership of the Senator from New Mexico, this budget has come 
forward. It is an excellent effort to address the issues which are 
critical to our country, especially the issue of protecting Social 
Security, as he does in this budget, so no Social Security funds are 
spent for anything other than Social Security, and the effort to 
protect some of the on-budget surplus so it will be available for debt 
reduction but also for reducing taxes for hard-working Americans who 
pay that extra money in that is no longer needed by the Government.
  The effort we are talking about today is in a number of categorical 
areas, but specifically today we are mentioning the area of education. 
I wanted to speak to the Bingaman amendment and some of the comments 
that were made, especially by the Senator from Massachusetts, first to 
their inaccuracy and second their inconsistency as to how we address 
quality education in this country. In fact, I can speak to the remarks 
of both Senators from Massachusetts who have spoken on this topic 
because I tend to disagree rather pointedly with both of them.
  Let me begin with Senator Bingaman's amendment. He held up a chart. 
It has been referred to by a number of Senators on the other side. The 
chart showed how much of an increase the Democratic leadership proposed 
in spending, and then they showed the Republican budget on the same 
account, same chart. They showed our budget being about $5 billion 
below what they were. What they failed to put up on the chart--which I 
found ironic and sort of misleading, relative to the way the debate was 
going--is the President's number.
  What did the President ask for in education? What the President asked 
for in education, if they had put it on the chart, would look something 
like this: The President asked for the greenish-blue line here. I am 
not sure what color you would call that--aqua, I guess. The aqua line 
here, that represents the President's request in education. Our 
request, what we put in the budget for education, is the red line. In 
each of the years of the budget, the Republican budget exceeds what the 
President of the United States asked for in education.
  This yellow insert here--which we had to jury-rig because we did not 
actually have the chart of the Senator from New Mexico--would be the 
Senate Democratic proposal. It is a dramatic increase over what the 
President requested and what we have put in our budget, which is an 
increase over what the President requested.
  So there is a bit of inconsistency for the Members of the other side 
of the aisle to come to the floor and savage the Republicans in this 
House, and the Republican budget, on the issue of education and not 
mention the fact we exceeded the President's request. Why didn't they 
savage the President's budget, too? Why didn't the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer--she said we did not care about kids--say the 
President didn't care about kids? Maybe she just forgot. The 
President's budget was actually less--less than what we have put in our 
budget for education.

  I think what we have is a classic attempt at grandstanding, trying to 
throw more money at an issue and trying to address a problem, not by 
addressing it substantively but simply by saying: We outspent you on 
that issue, so you don't do as well as we do on education.
  Actually, we do very well on education. As I mentioned, we exceed the 
President's number in each year. It is not the dollars so much; it is 
the way we spend the dollars that I think is important to note. This is 
where I have disagreements with both Senators from Massachusetts who 
recently spoke on this matter, because there is a fundamental 
disagreement of philosophy on how we should address education. It is 
not a difference over money, really. As I said, our dollars exceed what 
the President requested for education. It is a difference of 
philosophy.
  Stated very simply, there are two philosophical differences. The 
first is that on the Republican side of the aisle, we think when the 
Federal Government says to the local school districts, you must spend a 
certain amount of money on education and we, the Federal Government, 
will help you by paying a percentage of the cost of that spending, when 
the Federal Government puts that type of mandate on local school 
districts, the Federal Government ought to live up to its obligation. 
It ought to pay the money it says it is going to pay. Before it starts 
new educational programs, it ought to pay for the ones it already 
requires from the States.
  What am I talking about here? Special education, IDEA. It has been 
alluded to by the other side of the aisle. It is almost a throwaway 
line there, at least from the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry: 
Oh, sure, the Republicans will talk about IDEA, but we have done more 
about education; we don't have to worry about IDEA.
  IDEA is probably the most significant area you could find where the

[[Page S2169]]

Federal Government has failed to fulfill its obligations to the school 
districts of this country. It is the largest unfunded mandate which the 
Federal Government puts on the States and the school districts, and 
which therefore causes the States and school districts to have to pay 
for the Federal share and, as a result, take local resources and 
reallocate them to pay the Federal obligation and, as a result, skew 
the local budgets.
  Local school districts, which would probably want to have better 
language courses, better computers, maybe more teachers, better trained 
teachers, smaller classes, can't do any of these things, in many 
instances, because they are having to take a large amount of their 
local dollars to pay for the Federal share of special education.
  On this side of the aisle, we have said that is wrong. We have said 
it is wrong now for 4 years. Every one of the President's budgets that 
has come up here over the last 4 years has had virtually no increase in 
special education funding, even though the Federal Government, when we 
arrived as a Republican Senate, was only paying 6 percent of the costs 
of special ed funding in this country when it originally said it was 
going to pay 40 percent of the costs. Even though the Federal 
Government was paying such a minimal part of the cost of special 
education, this administration has never sent us a budget that 
has significantly increased special education dollars.

  They have always taken the attitude, and it has been supported by the 
other side of the aisle: What the heck, let the local school districts 
pick up the Federal share. We are going to start a new categorical 
program that says to the local school districts you must, in order to 
get the Federal dollars, start this new program, too, rather than 
funding the special ed dollars which were originally owed.
  The practical effect of that, as I have said, is to skew the local 
budgets, and too many local school districts have been unable to do 
things they might have wanted to do because they have had to cover the 
Federal share of special education dollars.
  So what did we as a Republican Senate do? We changed that paradigm. 
In the last 4 years, we have more than doubled the funding for special 
education. We have gone from 6 percent up to almost 13 percent of the 
special ed dollars. In this budget, we increase it significantly again. 
It is our No. 1 priority. Yes, it is our No. 1 priority as a Congress, 
as a Republican Congress: Fund special education because that is our 
obligation. We said we would do that back in 1976, when Public Law 94-
142 was passed.
  So it is not a throwaway line for us. It is something we should do. 
Yes, that is where some of our dollars are flowing. When we exceed the 
President's budget in education spending, which we do, some of that 
excess spending in education goes into special ed, a significant amount 
more than what the President requested. He requested virtually none, no 
increase.
  So that is the first fundamental difference. We believe the special 
ed student deserves to get the funds, the funding support to which the 
Federal Government originally committed.
  (Mr. HAGEL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, why do we believe that? We believe it, 
first, because it is an unfunded mandate, but more important, because 
in our school districts across this country, that special-needs child 
and his or her parents are being put in the impossible position of 
going into school meeting after school meeting and being told that 
resources are being used to pay for their child that should be used to 
pay for other children in the school district.
  As a result, the special-needs children and their parents are being 
put in an untenable position. They did nothing wrong. The people who 
did things wrong were the President and this administration for failing 
to fund special ed.
  We are saying let's give the special-needs children in this country a 
little relief, and let's fund special ed.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Massachusetts, who just spoke, talked 
about how their legislation targets those schools in inner cities and 
poor areas that are most in need of this help and that our increase in 
spending will not do that. Can the Senator from New Hampshire tell me 
where the highest percentage of populations of IDEA students are 
located?
  Mr. GREGG. Ironically, in Massachusetts, from where the Senator who 
was just speaking comes, 30 percent of their students are coded as 
special needs. If one looks at it across the country, most special-
needs children, regrettably, do come from lower income school 
districts. They tend to have a higher percentage of kids in special 
needs.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I guess my question is, by putting more money into 
IDEA, are we actually sending more money into the schools on which he 
believes we need to be focusing?
  Mr. GREGG. There is no question about that. As we increase special 
education funding, the Senator from Pennsylvania is absolutely right, 
more of that funding will be flowing to schools in lower income 
districts and also in rural districts.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. The second philosophical difference we have with the other 
side of the aisle is, again, highlighted by the discussion of the 
Senator from Massachusetts who said essentially there are a lot of 
States that do not know what they are doing in the area of education 
and we, the Federal Government, do know what we are doing; therefore, 
the programs from the Federal Government should be categorical so that 
States live up to their obligations to do what we in the Federal 
Government tell them they should do in education.
  It is essentially the attitude of ``we know best'' in Washington how 
to run the school districts across this country; that the people who 
run the school districts--the local school boards that are usually 
elected, the local legislatures that are always elected, and the 
Governors of States who are elected--that these individuals, for whom 
education is usually their No. 1 priority because it is their No. 1 
spending issue, as compared with the Federal Government which has other 
priorities like national defense, Medicare and Social Security, these 
individuals who are almost all elected are not capable of doing their 
job.
  That is essentially the attitude taken on the other side of the aisle 
when they say we in the Federal Government know best how to run 
education and States do not know what they are doing in education; 
therefore, our programs must be categorical. They must tell the States 
exactly what they must do with dollars coming to them from Washington.

  It is a little bit of a disconnect, of course, because the dollars 
coming from Washington did not start in Washington. They started in the 
States. They came to Washington. Then we took 15 to 20 percent off the 
top and sent it back to the States. Maybe they got 80 percent back, but 
certainly not 100 percent. In any event, it is not our money in 
Washington.
  As a practical matter, we do not know more about running a school 
than the local school districts. I, for example, do not contend I know 
more about the Epping School District than the people in Epping or the 
people on the school board in Epping. When they look at their 
elementary school, they know whether they need another teacher or 
another classroom, whether they need computers or whether they happen 
to need a new baseball field or language course. I do not know that. It 
is not my purpose to tell them how to run their school district. So our 
philosophy of education on this side is a little different.
  They say it is a block grant; just send the money. No, that is not it 
at all. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which we passed in 
the HELP Committee a couple of weeks ago, will be before the Senate in 
a few weeks. That bill has a brandnew approach to education. The theme 
is not that we are going to send the money back in a great big huge 
block grant and the States can do whatever they want. It is not we are 
going to send it back with a targeted proposal and tell people what 
they must do with it. It is a different approach.
  The theme is, first, that funds should be spent for purposes of the 
child. The child is the center of our attention.

[[Page S2170]]

  Second, we will look for achievement on the part of the child to be 
sure they are actually learning.
  Third, there is flexibility.
  And fourth, there is accountability.
  We have reoriented these programs so that we send the money back, 
yes. For example, in our Teacher Empowerment Act, we send the money 
back in a rather large lump sum. We take the Eisenhower grants and the 
class size money and put it together. Then we say: You can use this 
money, local school districts. You do not have to hire a new teacher if 
you do not need a new teacher. You can use it to hire new teachers if 
you want to reduce class size. You can use it to improve the ability of 
your teachers to teach. You can use it to give teachers more support. 
You can even use it to pay teachers. They cannot keep the really good 
teachers in the classrooms because they are being hired by the private 
sector. This is especially true of our science and math teachers who 
are leaving because the opportunities are so lucrative outside 
education.
  You can pay teachers more to keep them by using bonus payments. You 
can use it for any of those things, but you have to produce results. We 
are not going to tell you how to produce results. We are not going to 
tell you that you must have 17 kids to every teacher. We are not going 
to tell you that you must have a computer in every classroom. We are 
not going to tell you that you must have a classroom that is 6 feet by 
25 feet or 12 feet by 13 feet. We are not going to tell you how many 
books you must have in your library.
  No, we say: You can get the money and use it for these defined areas, 
and you have flexibility to use it in those areas, but you have to show 
us that the academic achievement of the low-income child--because that 
is where ESEA is basically aimed in the title I funds--is improving in 
relation to the other kids in the school. You have to have tests--not 
designed by the Federal Government; we are not out to design tests 
because that means we end up designing curriculum--tests that are 
designed by the local school districts and the States. Those tests have 
to ascertain annually whether or not the children in the low-income 
categories are improving academically.

  What a radical idea--we expect kids to learn. We are not going to 
tell schools how to teach. We are not going to tell schools the ratio 
of their classes. We are not going to tell schools the size of their 
classes. What we say is take this money and show us that kids are 
learning something and that they are improving in their academic 
achievement.
  That is a very radical idea. It is the idea we are pushing forward as 
an approach to education. It is not a block grant. It is not: Here is 
all the money and you can do whatever you want with it. It is: Here are 
the dollars, but we are not smart enough to tell you, the local school 
district, how to improve your children's education and what you need 
because we cannot look into every classroom and guide every classroom, 
even though they would like to do that on the other side of the aisle.
  On the other side of the aisle, they want to have a string running 
from every desk out to every classroom in America; 30,000 strings 
running off the desks, and pull a string here and there so every 
classroom in America has to fall into exactly what we outline in 
Congress. That is not the approach we suggest.

  The approach we suggest is, take the money and use it in a variety of 
different areas; have flexibility, but then show us, prove to us, that 
achievement is improving amongst those children who are targeted with 
the dollars. That is our approach to education. That is what is funded 
in this bill.
  Let me remind you, one more time, what the Bingaman amendment fails 
to mention: Our funding in this bill exceeds the President's funding in 
his budget. Therefore, our proposals in this bill make a lot of sense. 
They address the IDEA issue; they address special ed; they address the 
need to fund children in schools at a level that is appropriate and 
actually exceeds the President's level, and, more importantly than 
that, they expect the kids to achieve. As a result of achieving, we are 
going to get a much better return for the dollars we spend.
  Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. Sure.
  Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding, reading the Republican budget, 
that $2.3 billion of the money that the Senator claims is for an 
increase----
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will have to reserve my time. If the 
Senator wants to use his time to ask a question, I would be happy to 
yield.
  Mr. REID. We yield, off the resolution, 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. My understanding is, $2.3 billion is for a new mandatory 
program that will not even be spent until the year 2005. That leaves an 
immediate increase of $2.2 billion. But the Republican budget 
resolution also assumes the $700 million increase in Pell grants. That 
brings it up to the President's level. It claims the $2.6 billion 
increase for elementary and secondary education programs alone, of 
which $1 billion is reserved for the IDEA. That means you have 
supposedly a total of $3.3 billion specified for K through 12. But the 
resolution only allows for a $2.2 billion increase because you do not 
even have an expenditure permission until 2005 for $2.3 billion. So 
there is a lot of ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.''
  Is that not true?
  Mr. GREGG. Well, obviously it is not true. As the Senator knows, this 
is budget authority. Maybe the Senator skipped over that point or maybe 
he did not understand it. It is possible either way. But in either 
case, the Senator is wrong.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is not an answer to simply say it is 
wrong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to make a comment, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Massachusetts is yielded 3 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is a classic response to simply say 
the Senator is wrong. But there is no showing to the contrary. The 
language of the budget is absolutely clear. There is no question it 
forces $1.1 billion in cuts. But the way to have a debate is--to simply 
say it is wrong, and question whether the Senator's facts or capacity 
to even understand the facts are correct, I mean, we could talk about 
rule XIX here, but I am not going to do that. But I would suggest, we 
deserve a better debate than that.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished manager.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is yielded 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to offer 
my support and thanks to Senators Bingaman and Kennedy for offering 
this extremely important amendment.
  Senator Kerry is exactly correct. The budget proposal before us is a 
sleight of hand. We should not be duped by that. It is very clear, in 
looking at the budget, that it shortchanges America's students.
  The Republican budget proposal says tax cuts for a few are more 
important than a first-rate education for all of our children. Their 
budget tells students across America a tax cut is more important than 
their future.
  We think that is wrong. We think that is incredibly wrong. We do not 
think America's students should only get the spare change left over 
after the Republican tax cut. America's students should not be the last 
in line in this budget. That is why we are offering this amendment 
today, to make sure all students get the resources they need to reach 
their full potential.
  The Republican budget that is before us is very crafty because at 
first glance it looks as if education funding has been increased. But 
when you look closely at the numbers, it is really an empty promise. 
Senator Kerry of Massachusetts pointed that out. The rhetoric of this 
budget does not meet its reality.
  I do want to acknowledge one thing. This underlying budget does one 
thing right. It does fund special education programs that the Senator 
from New Hampshire talked so eloquently about a few moments ago. That 
is important. We agree with that. Unfortunately,

[[Page S2171]]

that is the only thing this budget does well.
  But every other education investment--whether it is reducing class 
size or improving teacher quality or modernizing our schools--is not 
treated as a priority in this budget. There are no guarantees in this 
budget that those other vital education programs will get the 
investments they need to continue to help America's students.
  This budget funds one program and leaves the other programs hanging. 
It does not have to be this way. That is why I am supporting the 
Bingaman amendment.
  This amendment says we can support special education. In fact, we 
support the same level as the Senator from New Hampshire. We are not 
disagreeing with that. But it says we can fund that and other key 
education investments at the same time. We should not have to choose 
which students get served. We should be serving every student. This 
amendment shows us how we can do that.
  This budget's misplaced priorities will be felt in classrooms across 
the country. I am very concerned that this budget does not provide the 
resources to help our public schools move forward. I am concerned that 
this budget abandons the programs we know are working for students 
across this country.
  Parents are asking us--pleading with us--to become partners with 
their local districts to help them with overcrowded classrooms. This 
Republican budget fails to make a commitment to reduce class size.
  Teachers are asking us for more help in mastering the best ways to 
teach our children the basics. The Republican budget fails to make a 
commitment to teacher quality.
  Students are asking us for schools where they can feel safe and 
secure when they get off that schoolbus or walk to school every day. 
This Republican budget fails to make a commitment to school safety.

  Parents are asking--and pleading--for afterschool programs so their 
children will not get into trouble or become victims of violence after 
school. This Republican budget fails to make a commitment to 
afterschool programs.
  Teachers and students are asking for school buildings that are 
modern. This Republican budget fails to make a commitment to 
modernizing our aging schools.
  The American people are asking for a stronger commitment to the 
programs that make a difference in their child's education. But the 
Republicans are too focused on their exploding tax cut to meet these 
needs of America's students.
  This budget freezes our progress. That is why our amendment would put 
the resources where parents and teachers and students need them the 
most.
  The amendment before us will ensure adequate funding for a number of 
key educational priorities. To reduce overcrowded classrooms, this 
amendment will provide $1.75 billion to continue our Class Size 
Reduction Program. Any Senator here can go home to their State, to 
their local schools that have taken advantage of the class size money 
we have passed over the last 2 years, and talk to teachers, and hear 
them say the same things I hear; which is, it has made an incredible 
difference.
  I have teachers tell me every time I visit one of these classrooms 
that, where 5 years ago, 3 years ago, they had 24, 25, 30 kids in a 
classroom, that today, where they have 16, 17, 18 kids in a classroom, 
the difference is remarkable.
  Teachers tell me in the small classes we have provided dollars for, 
in the first, second, and third grades, that those students--every one 
of them--will be able to read at the end of this year because of that 
reduced class size. This is making a difference. We have to keep that 
obligation going. We need to keep that partnership going.
  Schools tell me every day they could not have done it without the 
commitment and the partnership of the Federal Government. The 
underlying budget fails to meet that. With this amendment, we on our 
Democratic side meet that obligation.
  Our amendment modernizes school buildings by providing $1.3 billion. 
I was in a school a week ago where kids were in portables with no 
running water. In order to go to the bathroom they had to go outside in 
the rain, which is not uncommon in my State, go to another building and 
come back soaked. I saw kids in coats in classrooms because there was 
not enough heat in the school buildings.
  We recognize we have an obligation, a partnership that we need to 
provide at the Federal level to meet these basic needs. Our amendment 
does that. This amendment looks at improving teacher quality. It 
provides $2 billion for professional development to recruit new 
educators and reward excellent teachers. We all understand that we need 
to make sure we have young people today committed to becoming teachers 
for our students tomorrow. We need to provide the dollars to partner 
with our local schools to make sure that they can recruit those best 
and brightest among our young students to be the teachers for our 
classrooms tomorrow.
  This amendment ensures that students have safe educational activities 
at the end of the school day. It ensures adequate funding for 
afterschool programs. I commend Senator Boxer for her tremendous work 
on this initiative. We address that in this amendment.
  To make sure that disadvantaged students have the extra classroom 
attention they need, this amendment will increase funding for title I 
programs by $1 billion. I have heard a lot of rhetoric in the HELP 
Committee and on the floor about local control and sending money to the 
States and that this is somehow miraculously going to happen. Talk to 
your local schools, as I have; talk to your title I schools. They will 
tell you this program has changed dramatically since its inception. 
They will tell you they have much more flexibility and local control. 
They fear us sending a block grant to the State will mean they lose the 
access and the ability to ensure that the money will be there for 
disadvantaged students in the future.
  This amendment recognizes how important title I funding is to ensure 
that the kids at the bottom get the opportunity to learn as well. We 
increase title I funding by $1 billion to address the incredible needs 
out there.
  Finally, this amendment will increase funding for Pell grants, grants 
that help disadvantaged students go to college, by $400 per year for 
each student. I would guess that my colleagues hear the same thing I 
hear when I talk to young people about the incredible amount of debt 
they accrue when they go to college, debt they have to pay off. We have 
to make sure we allow the kids at the bottom to have access to higher 
education. We recognize this in the amendment by increasing the Pell 
grants for students so we can assure that more young people can go on 
to college and our best and brightest will be encouraged to go on to 
college no matter what their income is.
  These are the types of investments we should be making in America's 
young people. Unfortunately, the Republicans have the wrong priorities 
in their budget. They are putting their tax cut ahead of the needs of 
America's students. We know they are wrong, and we have introduced this 
amendment to make sure our students don't lose out.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. For those members of 
the majority who are inclined to oppose it, I want them to know this 
amendment would take only 15 percent of the tax cut and put it towards 
education. I can't think of a better priority for this Senate to 
support. I don't think it is too much to ask for America's students. By 
voting for this amendment, we will be saying that the young people of 
our country are a priority. They deserve a budget that treats them as a 
priority.
  I thank the Chair and yield my time back to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, is 
yielded 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague from Washington leaves 
the floor, let me commend her for a very fine and eloquent statement. 
She brings to this debate not only an intellectual commitment to the 
issue but hands-on experience from her previous life directly involved 
in the education of young children.
  I think it is valuable for us to pay attention to our colleagues who 
bring their life experiences to this Chamber and can help us be better 
enlightened

[[Page S2172]]

about what is needed. We certainly listen to our fellow colleague from 
Tennessee, a good doctor, when he talks about health care issues. We 
listen to other Members who were part of the private sector and add a 
significant contribution to the debate. It is a fortunate moment, 
indeed, that we have an educator, an elementary and secondary 
schoolteacher who was involved in early education, in our midst. I 
thank her for her efforts not only today but over the years on 
education issues.
  I also commend the author of this amendment, our colleague from New 
Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and the other cosponsors of this proposal.
  It has already been pointed out but it is worth repeating: There are 
roughly 55 million children, from Maine to California, every day 
getting up to go to school. Of that 55 million who went off to school 
today, 50 million of them walked through the doors of a public school.
  Our primary obligation is, obviously, to these students in public 
schools. That is not to say we are uninterested or not involved with 
the 5 million who go to private or parochial schools or a home school. 
But our fundamental, basic obligation goes to the public institutions 
that serve all children no matter their means, needs or backgrounds. 
That is primarily where our tax dollars flow.
  Now, the federal investment in schools overall is small, shockingly 
small. Seven cents on every dollar that is contributed to the 
educational needs of children comes from the Federal Government; 93 
cents of every dollar comes from State and local taxes. The lion's 
share of the cost of education is borne at the local and State level.
  Historically, we have contributed as much as 12 percent. Today, we 
are down to 7. Although that is better than some recent years when it 
was even lower. This debate about what we do with our 7 cents may not 
seem like much, but to local communities, to parent-teacher 
associations, to school boards, to teachers, to superintendents, to 
principals at the local level, this 7 cents is important. It helps 
direct scarce and valuable resources towards those elements of national 
educational need that are most pronounced, most in demand, or should 
be.
  For those who argue a block grant approach to the States, we do a 
great disservice to our local communities, where the bulk of the 
education costs are borne. We do a great disservice to them to deprive 
them of the direct funding in the areas they are crying out for help. 
To merely send a check back to the States, knowing full well that so 
many of these local communities lack the kinds of clout and influence 
at the State level, particularly those communities, rural and urban, 
that are most in need, is to do a great disservice to the parents and 
educators, to the citizens of those communities.
  Outside of the dollar amounts, block grants also are a step backward 
in time as well as policy. We tried a block grant approach in the past. 
Basically, it was revenuesharing. I think the American public wants 
more than that. They want us to offer a sense of national purpose, what 
ought to be our goals, how best to achieve them, and support the 
efforts of local schools, local communities in meeting these.
  Our goal is to get the dollars back to the community and the schools 
as fast and in the most direct, targeted way we can and not allow it to 
be interrupted. I hope as we go through the process this year of 
talking about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will keep 
in mind that it is our relationship with our parents, students and 
local communities, not with the States, on which we ought to focus.

  Beyond these policy differences, this budget highlights our 
differences with the funding approach of the majority. When it comes to 
resource allocation, the majority claims that they have, in fact, 
increased spending on our schools, but the numbers just don't add up. I 
will explain why.
  The No. 1 priority in this budget is a major tax cut. Again, I think 
the American public has spoken rather clearly on this issue. This 
budget provides for $150 billion of tax cuts, at a minimum, over 5 
years. Paying down the debt, dealing with Medicare, Social Security, 
and improving the quality of education in this country are a distant 
second, if even that, to that primary goal--A tax cut. Even though 
these other needs hold a far greater sense of priority for most 
Americans than a large tax cut which most people think is not warranted 
in this kind of an economy, the best economy we have had in the history 
of our country. To fund this tax cut, the budget cuts overall 
nondefense discretionary programs by 6.2 percent.
  On education, this budget claims a $4.5 billion increase in spending. 
Keep these numbers in mind. They say $4.5 billion; $2.3 billion of that 
is for a new mandatory program, a new program--it is hard enough to get 
funding for existing ones--a new mandatory program that won't be spent 
until the year 2005, 5 years from now. That leaves an increase of $2.2 
billion of the $4.5 billion.
  The Republican budget resolution also assumes a $700 million increase 
in Pell grants to increase the maximum grant by $200 to $3,500, and a 
$2.6 billion increase for elementary and secondary education programs 
alone, of which $1 billion of that $2.6 billion is for special 
education. If you have had your pencils out and added this up, all of 
these good sounding programs add up to $3.3 billion.
  That means to simply provide funding for these stated commitments, 
and level fund other programs, this budget should provide $3.3 billion 
more than what our colleagues said, but this budget only provides for 
the additional $2.2 billion in spending.
  This gap can only be filled by cutting other education programs--core 
national efforts, such as college work-study, campus-based child care, 
TRIO, and GEAR UP would have to be cut by 22 percent to meet these 
goals.
  There is no great new deal for education in America in this proposal. 
This is just another in the string of Republican budgets that undercut, 
undermine, and underfund education. The math is not complicated here. 
They say $4.5 billion, but this isn't adequate to meet their 
commitments. So to make up the difference within the Department of 
Education, you would have to cut at least amount--22 percent--in the 
areas I have described.
  We have and will continue to take a different approach on education 
funding. This is a key national priority. In the amendment, we are 
offering we make a simple proposition--a little bit less in tax cuts, 
10 percent, in the first year, and 16 percent over 5 years, for an 
additional $4.5 billion in education. That means cutting the $150 
billion tax cut by about $15 billion--a tax cut nobody wants--and 
applying it to education to make all the difference in the world for 
children, families, and educators across this country.
  Let it be clear, the choice is simple here. This amendment would 
support our efforts to accelerate change and improvement in our 
schools. The status quo is unacceptable. Our schools are improving. 
Children are doing better in many areas. Reading and math scores are 
up--not as high as they should be, but they are up--in nearly every age 
group and all the different groups of students across the country, 
particularly in our poorest schools.
  Mr. President, but that is not good enough. We need to accelerate the 
pace of this change, and change doesn't come inexpensively. Someone 
once said, ``If you think education is expensive, try ignorance as a 
cost.'' That is what we are going to get if we don't make intelligent 
investments in these programs.
  What we propose is more resources, with more accountability and 
higher expectation for success. The budget by the majority, which is in 
front of us, of less funding for education goes right along with their 
proposals for education--block granting programs currently focused on 
areas of national need and concern, and transforming targeted, 
successful programs into vouchers for private schools. Remember, 50 
million of the 55 million students are going in the door of public 
schools. This is a recipe for failure in our public educational 
system--dollars frittered away on the status quo, less targeting, less 
funding, less accountability.
  If you want no accountability, put dollars into in a block grant. How 
do you follow that or find out where the dollars have gone if it ends 
up in one big, large block of money that goes back to the States? How 
do you track that and keep account of it? For those

[[Page S2173]]

of us who care about accountability, one sure way to get less of it is 
to have a block grant approach.
  So we want to see less of the status quo approach. Their policies and 
funding for them are tired, timid, and dangerous for our schools. Block 
grants and vouchers are proven failures; why would we waste more 
dollars on them in the beginning of the 21st century?
  Instead, our amendment proposes to reinvigorate our investments in 
our public schools--as I said a moment ago--which serve 90 percent of 
the America's 55 million students.
  It would provide the needed resources to train teachers across the 
country in reading and literacy. It would support local afterschool 
programs for an additional 1.6 million students. It would assist local 
communities as they work to transform school facilities into safe, 
modern, learning environments for all students. It would ensure smaller 
class sizes in the early grades, when students are most in need of 
attention as they learn to read. Mr. President, it would support tough 
accountability and results in targeting resources to the schools that 
are most in need. It would also shore up our national commitment to 
support students as they move on to postsecondary education.

  This is no litany of Federal programs. These are real initiatives we 
can afford to do with the 7 cents--our 7 cents on the dollar spent for 
elementary and secondary education--to assist local communities, to see 
that our towns and counties across this country get the backing and 
support they need in the Federal Government.
  Ask any parent about class size; ask them about afterschool programs 
and about school safety; they are crying out for this help. That is 
what they want, and that is what this amendment offered by our 
colleagues as an alternative to what is in this budget would do.
  The choice is very clear. Can we afford to take about $10 billion or 
$15 billion over 5 years out of this tax cut proposal and put it into 
the one area, Education, that Americans all across the economic, 
racial, ethnic, gender spectrum, say they want to see this Congress 
spend time and effort on? They have never spoken more loudly or clearly 
on an issue.
  In light of that, we think this amendment is a responsible, prudent, 
and efficient way to continue to get the accountability and resources 
necessary to improve the quality of the education of our children as we 
sit on the cusp of the 21st century. With all of the challenges we will 
have, we should offer nothing less than the very best we can to see 
that local communities will have the tools to succeed in what will be 
the most competitive environment any generation of Americans has ever 
had to face in our 210-year history. For those reasons, I strongly urge 
adoption of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the manager of the bill is on the floor. I 
ask to be yielded some time, if he would.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will be patient a moment, how much time 
does the Senator want?
  Mr. GORTON. Ten minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have listened with great care to the 
Senator from Connecticut paradoxically claiming that to create a half 
dozen new categorical education aid programs and keeping control over 
all of them, to enable the U.S. Department of Education to write a few 
hundred pages more of rules and regulations, somehow or another 
enhances local control.
  Mr. President, that is an Alice in Wonderland argument. A debate that 
will be at the heart of education will take place in this body next 
month when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act comes to the 
floor. By a regrettable partisan vote, that committee has proposed an 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act renewal that gives more promise 
to increase the academic performance of our students than has any other 
educational debate in this body for a decade or more.
  On one side, including the chairman of the committee whose bill that 
is before us, are those who believe in true education reform and the 
kind of innovation that focuses not on how well teachers and 
superintendents and principals fill out Federal forms but on how well 
our students actually do. On the other side is the attitude that the 
Federal Government knows best and that somehow or other men and women 
all across the United States of America--parents and teachers and 
principals and superintendents and elected school board members, most 
of them working without compensation--somehow or other don't know or 
don't care what is best for their kids and we have to provide them with 
guidance.
  Recently on this issue, one of my colleagues said that if we give 
these local communities the right to set their own education 
priorities, they will likely use the money for ``building a new locker 
room or redecorating office space.''
  On hearing this charge, one of my superintendents, the superintendent 
of the Oak Harbor School District, had this to say:

       School boards are very close to their constituencies. 
     Probably more than any other type of governing body, they are 
     sensitive to the needs and demands of their communities. 
     After all, they see their constituents on a daily basis at 
     grocery stores, soccer fields and dance concerts. A parent 
     can easily influence all five of our board members. Ten 
     parents can move mountains locally. By contrast, what 
     influence would these same people have on the education 
     department, or even Congress? The best opportunity to avoid 
     wasteful expenditures of education funds is at the local 
     level where individual citizens have the greatest power and 
     influence.

  Yet what do we have from the minority party in the health committee 
on this request? Twenty new Federal education programs. We already have 
teacher training programs, to early childhood programs, to programs for 
delinquent and at-risk youths. They offered these new programs in that 
committee even though the General Accounting Office finds that we 
already fund 127 at-risk and delinquent youth programs in 15 Federal 
agencies and departments, 86 teacher training programs in 9 Federal 
agencies and departments, and more than 90 early childhood programs in 
11 Federal agencies and departments. But, according to them, we need 20 
more to be added to all of these.
  Our view, to the contrary, is just this. We should allow our States 
and local education agencies to make the determinations of how best to 
use this money, and we should hold them accountable in only one way so 
the students actually do better.
  We have offered three alternatives. One is that any State that likes 
the present system, that believes it is perfectly all right to fill out 
these forms, that doesn't mind a bureaucracy with hundreds of different 
education programs, can continue to do it the way they do it today. Any 
State that likes the present system can continue it.
  Fifteen States will be allowed the opportunity under Straight A's 
simply to take all of the money, give 95 percent of it to the school 
districts in the same proportion they get it today, and be accountable 
only for the performance of their students. And all of the other States 
will be allowed the program proposed by the National Governors' 
Association, both Democrats and Republicans, that would require title I 
money at least to go directly down to the school district in exactly 
the amounts that it does today.
  For 35 years under title I, we have attempted to reduce the disparity 
between title I-eligible students and the more privileged students who 
are not eligible for title I. That disparity has not increased. For the 
first time in these programs, we are actually offering an incentive--
more money to those States that work to decrease the disparity and show 
they have actually been successful.
  There is, unfortunately, a great gulf between the two sides on this 
issue. The one side likes the present system and, in fact, apparently 
believes we need more than 127 programs for at-risk and delinquent 
youths, more than 90 early childhood programs, more than 86 different 
and distinct teacher training programs, more forms from the Federal 
Government and from the bureaucracy, and less trust in the ability and 
interest of either State officials or local school officials in making 
the determination as to what our children need to succeed.

  That is simply wrong. The men and women who know our children's names 
know best what they need to succeed in

[[Page S2174]]

education. The accountability we set out for them in our proposal is 
the most fundamental accountability of all. It is: To see to it that 
your students do better, come up with a system of tests that show 
whether or not they are succeeding in their academic subjects, and if 
they do succeed, you will go forward with this flexibility; you will in 
fact get more money.
  The difference is striking. It is a great contrast. But those who 
believe in local control will allow the people in our States and 
communities to have that control, and we will not tell them they have 
to spend their time filling out forms and following hundreds of pages 
of Federal regulations.
  There is a great gulf between the two sides in this debate. But our 
side is the one that believes in the future of our children and 
believes the future can best be determined by their parents, by their 
teachers, and by their elected school board members at home.
  To go down the road putting more money into a failed system is to put 
new wine in old bottles. The bottles will simply burst and the wine be 
wasted.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gorton for the remarks 
he made. I don't think people remember that when we first started this 
movement toward more flexibility and control by local government and 
accountability, Slade Gorton offered the first amendment. And there has 
been a constant evolution in that direction. I personally thank him for 
it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bingaman 
amendment. The single most important thing we do as a government is 
educate our young people. What we should be doing and talking about 
today in this debate is making this decade ``the education decade.''
  We have in the United States the best roads, the best technology, and 
the best economy. But we don't have the best schools. We should be 
working toward making our schools the envy of the world.
  I intend to submit a sense-of-the-Senate amendment later during the 
course of this debate which provides that 10 percent of the non-Social 
Security surplus will be devoted to education. I think it is the kind 
of statement that we as a body need to make to show the American people 
we are committed to providing the resources that are necessary to 
educate our young people.
  If I can make just one comment in response to the Senator's remarks, 
what we are talking about in this debate is simply providing the 
resources for the programs that are so desperately needed, which I will 
talk about in just a minute. We are not talking about placing 
bureaucratic restrictions on State and local school districts. I 
believe very strongly that we don't want our school systems run out of 
Washington. In fact, we need our school systems to be run at the State 
and local level. We need to be sure they have the flexibility to make 
the decisions about what is best for their schools. I support that. We 
support that.
  The issue we are debating today is whether we are going to provide in 
this budget process the resources that are so desperately needed in our 
public schools today. If we don't provide these resources, it is going 
to be impossible for our children to compete in the world. There is no 
doubt that they will be required to compete in a global economy. Our 
responsibility is to give them the tools to compete. They will not have 
the tools to compete unless we provide the resources that are so 
desperately needed by our public schools.
  I would like to talk briefly about four areas.
  First, afterschool programs: We have thousands and thousands of 
children all over this country who are on the waiting list to get into 
afterschool programs.
  I actually have some firsthand experience with afterschool programs 
because my wife and I helped start an afterschool program in Raleigh, 
NC.
  We have computers, we have technology, and volunteer tutors help 
children to learn technology, help them with their homework, help them 
prepare for tests. I have been able to see firsthand what happens when 
kids are put on a level playing field and they are all given a chance.
  We know the time kids are most likely to get in trouble is between 
the time they get out of school and the time their parents get home 
from work. It is nobody's fault their parents have to work. We ought to 
give the kids a safe place to go, a safe environment where they can 
continue to learn and continue to be productive; equally important, 
give them a sense of self-esteem and make them believe they have an 
equal opportunity to compete against all the students around them. I 
have seen firsthand what happens. Their self-esteem grows, their self-
image grows; as a result, their engagement grows and their grades 
improve. It happens over and over and over.
  That is why afterschool programs are so important. This is not about 
a line item on a budget, this is about the lives of our children.
  Class size: Every teacher I encounter tells me they feel as if they 
are babysitting. It is impossible for them to teach when they have 30, 
32, 33 children in a classroom. We have to do something about that.
  We have trouble attracting good teachers. We have trouble retaining 
good teachers. Our responsibility is to give teachers the tools they 
need to do the job they want to do. They are professionals. They are 
professionals who are in this business because they want to educate 
kids. We have to give them an environment that allows them to be 
effective. That is what reducing class size is about. Making our kids 
effective, allowing kids to have access to the teachers they say they 
so desperately want to have access to so they can learn--that is what 
this debate is about.
  School construction and modernization: Just a few weeks ago, I was at 
Wayside Elementary School in Statesville, NC, a small, overcrowded, 
school built more than 50 years ago. They have literally put pieces of 
carpet all over the floor to cover asbestos tiles. The roof is leaking. 
The children have to go outside in order to go to the bathrooms. There 
are trailers, mobile homes, everywhere. The teachers who teach in that 
school a couple years ago got an incentive bonus. These are already 
underpaid teachers, but instead of keeping the bonus money for 
themselves and their families, they turned their bonuses back in to be 
used at the school. It is obvious these teachers are committed to the 
young people whom they are trying to educate. These kids cannot learn 
in a school that is falling apart. They cannot learn when they are 
sitting on top of each other in classrooms.
  What kind of message does it send to the American people when these 
kids go to the local mall, all the stores are beautiful and shiny and 
new and well built, and then they go to Wayside Elementary School, the 
building is falling apart, patches of carpet are everywhere, the roof 
is leaking, and in order to go to the bathroom they have to go outside?
  We need to do something about this. We need to put our kids in good 
quality buildings. We need to modernize the schools. We need to do it 
in a fiscally responsible and sound way. It is critically important we 
put our kids and our teachers in an environment where they can learn--
the teachers can teach and the kids can learn.
  Finally, Title I: Visit the schools in North Carolina, and the one 
thing you learn immediately is, we don't have a level playing field. 
There are some schools in Wake County and Mecklenburg County, Raleigh, 
and Charlotte that are beautiful and new with lots of technology. Go 
out into the rural areas of North Carolina, and we find schools that 
are falling apart, where they can't keep teachers. These are the 
schools at which Title I is aimed.
  Title I has not been as successful as we would like in some areas. 
Although it has done very good things, there is more that needs to be 
done. We need to make sure a child living in the country in North 
Carolina has just as good an opportunity to learn as a child who lives 
in Raleigh or Charlotte. There is absolutely no reason that a child who 
is born in Raleigh, NC, should have an opportunity for a better 
education than a child who is born in rural North Carolina. That is 
what Title I is about. It is about leveling the playing field.

[[Page S2175]]

  There is nothing more important we can do in the Senate this year 
than focus on education. We must send a clear and unmistakable message 
to the American people that we are willing to do whatever is necessary, 
financially and otherwise, to support our public school system, to 
educate our children, to give our children a chance to compete against 
every other child in this global economy. That is what we should be 
talking about today. That is what we should be debating. More 
importantly, that is what we should be committing to do in this budget 
process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I thank 
our Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Massachusetts and so 
many others who have put together this outstanding amendment. This 
amendment is one of the most important amendments we will vote on this 
entire year.
  We have moved into an economy where ideas matter. As Alan Greenspan 
puts it: High value is added no longer by moving things but, rather, by 
thinking things. We cannot afford an educational system that the OECD--
the 22 developed nations in North America, Europe, and Japan--ranks, in 
America, 15th, 16th, or 17th.
  I think Americans have come together on two types of issues: One, 
that we are willing to spend more money on education. We have to. When 
a starting salary for a teacher is $24,000, when we have such shortages 
of classrooms, when we don't have the kinds of things we need for 
afterschool and computers and all the things that make a modern 
education worthwhile, there is only one answer. It is money.
  We all know the local property taxpayer who from the beginning has 
funded education in this country is up to here in property taxes. The 
choices are simple: Let education stagnate or let the Federal 
Government play a more significant role. Most Americans want us to do 
that. It is unfortunate the budget that is put before the Senate does 
not do that.
  The second issue I think we all embrace in general is that we must 
have standards in education. A student who is not reading at a third-
grade level should not be promoted from the fourth to the fifth grade. 
A teacher who is not certified in a subject should not be teaching it. 
We need real standards and real accountability. Put that together and I 
think we can come up with a significant education program that can 
bring Americans together and do the job our country needs.
  Mark my words, if our educational system stays at the present level, 
we will not be the leading economy in the world in the year 2025 or 
2050. This is a crisis that demands some dramatic urgency.
  The amendment put forward by the Senator from New Mexico and others, 
including myself, makes a difference. Let me go over again what it 
does. First, it puts a qualified teacher in every classroom. There is 
$2 billion for recruitment, mentoring, and professional development of 
qualified teachers. Many of the things I have been working on, a 
Marshall Plan for teachers, are included in this amendment. We 
desperately need it in New York. Nationally, for instance, we face a 
teacher shortage of 2.2 million over the next decade. New York faces a 
teacher shortage of 80,000 men and women over the next 5 years. How are 
we going to get qualified teachers? Currently, only 10 States require 
and fund programs for new teachers, 12 pay veteran teachers to be 
mentors. This amendment provides those kinds of resources.
  Second, it helps communities modernize our schools. My children 
attend the public schools in New York City. I will never forget the day 
I went to open school day for my little one, Alison's kindergarten 
class, a few years back. There were two classes in that one 
kindergarten room. You could not hear above the voice of the teacher of 
the other class in the other corner of the room; you could not hear 
what Alison's teacher was saying to her students.
  Left alone to the localities, left with the tremendous burden the 
property tax puts on so many Americans, we will not modernize our 
schools. But our amendment comes to the rescue. It provides $1.3 
billion in grants and loans for the much needed repair of 5,000 public 
elementary and secondary schools in high-need areas. It leverages an 
additional $25 billion in interest-free bonds to help build schools.
  New York currently has an unmet funding need for school construction 
of $50.7 billion, one-sixth the national need of $307 billion. We 
desperately need this part of the amendment.
  The amendment supports tough accountability for results. To put money 
into a program without having it be accountable, as it would be in the 
private sector, has been one of our failures in education--lack of 
accountability.
  I disagree with some of my friends on the left who say that 
accountability is wrong or unmeetable. I plead with my colleagues to do 
two things. First, keep the bar high. That is the only way we are going 
to stay a leading country. But help provide the resources to let those 
get over that bar. The other two choices are unacceptable: to lower the 
bar or to not help people get over it. Neither is good. The tough 
accountability for results in this amendment--$116 million over last 
year to $250 million for accountability--is vital.
  This amendment rejects the cuts that have been proposed in impact 
aid. We have, in New York State, districts such as Indian River near 
Fort Drum and Highland Falls near West Point which would be devastated 
by the cut actually in the President's budget because he eliminates $94 
million in impact aid. This amendment restores that.
  Not least important, this supports a commitment to smaller classes; 
$1.75 billion to hire 100,000 new teachers and reduce class size in the 
early grades. My daughter has seen class size grow in her public 
school, P.S. 230. She is one of millions of American children who see 
that.
  We expand afterschool opportunities for children. I participated in 
afterschool programs and played basketball. It kept me in good shape. 
Many students do not have that opportunity. We increase it.
  We increase support for children with disabilities, and we make 
college more affordable by increasing the individual Pell grant by 
$400.
  These are all important things to do. Compare this with the budget 
that has been proposed by my friends. The problem is twofold. No. 1, it 
does not provide those resources. We can talk and talk and talk about 
education, but, unless we provide resources, we are not going to 
achieve our goal.
  Most Americans support that wish. I think the other side is being 
penny-wise and pound foolish to not support increasing aid for 
education. Ask Americans what is their No. 1 priority, above any other 
spending program, above tax cuts and above retiring the deficits. It is 
education. The budget proposed by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle does not recognize that need. It is woefully inadequate. It 
actually cuts, by $1.4 billion, from what the President did. I am the 
first to say what the President did in his budget was not enough in 
this important area. It is the spending area where we most need an 
increase.
  No. 2, the budget envisions this block grant procedure, which I know 
my colleagues on the other side want to move forward, in the ESEA bill 
on which we will vote. In their budget, under function 500, it says:

       This bill will give States greater flexibility in 
     delivering hundreds of elementary and secondary education 
     programs and will place more decisionmaking in the hands of 
     States, localities and families.

  It is good rhetoric, but I will tell you I don't think we should take 
the Federal taxpayer dollars and let it be frittered away in the same 
way we have seen money wasted in the past. We in this Congress should 
set our priorities for education. We should certainly not mandate on 
the locality that they have to take our priorities. But if they want 
some money, they better improve and reform their systems.

  Crime is the area in which I have the most expertise. I remember when 
we had a crimefighting block grant very similar to this proposal. One 
locality bought a tank. Another State bought an airplane so the 
Governor could fly from Washington to Indianapolis--it was the Governor 
of Indiana--all under the block grant process.
  I do not get the logic. Our friends on the other side say the system 
is not

[[Page S2176]]

working well enough. I agree. Then they give money to the same exact 
people to spend in the same exact way. What sense does that make? We 
are trying to get the localities to reach to a higher goal: Lower class 
size and we will give you some dollars; increase accountability and we 
will give you some dollars; make better classrooms and we will give you 
some dollars. But we are not going to give dollars--I ask the Senator 
from Nevada, may I have an additional 2 minutes?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from New York is yielded 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we set out goals. A block grant is a 
continuation of mediocrity. A block grant does not give families the 
power to spend the money. It gives money so the same local 
institutions, many that have been mired in mediocrity, can do the same 
thing as they have been doing before. Sure as we are sitting here, if 
we have a block grant, do you know where it is going to end up? 
Administrators' folderol.
  The programs in the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico are 
designed to do specific things that all Americans support and, more 
importantly, even that our educational experts tell us are needed to 
improve education. So the fact that the budget is pusillanimous, is 
stingy in the area where we most need help--education--and the fact is, 
instead of laying out a specific guidepost based on careful analysis 
and what the experts say is needed, it just takes a ball of money and 
throws it to a locality or throws it to a State, separating the taxing 
authority from the spending authority. That is probably the greatest 
problem in block grants because when you separate the taxing authority 
from the spending authority, you almost always get wasted money. It is 
free money to others. Those are the two great problems in education, 
our most important priority with the budget that is put before us.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at that 
budget; when they go home and make speeches about how important 
education is, to then ask themselves how they can vote for a budget 
that actually cuts from the President's budget by approximately $1.4 
billion, not including IDEA.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side who criticize the present 
system, why just give, in a mass block grant, money to the same States 
and same localities that have not measured up now? Why not increase the 
amount of dollars but only allow them to go into the classroom, whether 
it be teachers or new classrooms or standards for those classrooms that 
everyone, when they go back home to give speeches, seems to say we 
need?
  I salute the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Massachusetts, 
the Senator from Washington, and all the others who have put together 
this amendment. It is a marvelous blueprint, a well-thought-out 
blueprint of where we need to go in education. Let us stop simply 
giving the American people rhetoric. Let us put together a concrete 
plan that makes a difference in the areas where we need to make a 
difference, such as reducing class size, modernizing and building more 
classrooms, improving the quality of teachers, and improving 
accountability.
  This amendment does it. I urge my colleagues to support it and reject 
the present budget. The budget before us is a pusillanimous and 
unfocused approach towards education.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to reserve 2 minutes. I will speak for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. President, this request has been worked out with the minority. I 
ask unanimous consent that the vote occur in relation to the Bingaman 
amendment at 5:30 p.m. in a stacked sequence, with no amendment in 
order to the Bingaman amendment prior to the vote and, further, that 
there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote for explanation. I 
further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back 
of time on the Bingaman first-degree amendment, the amendment be laid 
aside, and Senator Allard be recognized to offer a first-degree 
amendment relative to debt reduction. I further ask unanimous consent 
that following the use of or yielding back of time, Senator Conrad be 
recognized to offer a second-degree amendment relative to debt 
reduction, and that following the use or yielding back of time, those 
votes occur in a stacked sequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that all votes in the voting 
sequence after the first vote be limited to 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In light of this agreement, the next votes will occur 
today starting at 5:30 p.m. I thank all Members for their cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to alert all Members, especially on the 
minority side, we have been told the majority leader expects to spend a 
lot of time here tonight, and the minority will offer amendments 
throughout the evening.
  It is my understanding the majority leader wants to get the time left 
on this resolution down to single digits. We are now in high double 
digits. We will have to work into the evening tonight to eat up some of 
that time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes, reserving 2 
minutes.
  First, wherever the distinguished Senator from New York referred to 
the Senator from New Mexico, it is more fair he say the Senator from 
New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, because I do not want credit for something of 
which I am not in favor.
  I want to make three quick arguments: First, for those who are 
listening and those in American education who think we are going to 
decide in detail how the money in this budget is going to be used for 
education, I assure them the appropriations subcommittee headed by 
Senator Specter and the Senate is going to determine how the money in 
this budget resolution is spent in education.
  We can come to the floor and talk about all the problems in education 
and say the Bingaman amendment takes care of these things. The truth of 
the matter is that is a wish list. That is what somebody hopes will 
happen. What will happen is what the appropriators decide. Anybody who 
has a wish for education can come down here today and say the Senate 
budget resolution is going to take care of this problem in education, 
and if those listening believe it, then wait around for 3 months and 
see what the appropriators do.
  My second point is that there is a lot of talk about whether or not 
we cut the President's budget. I have a Congressional Budget Office 
analysis of our education numbers. This is what they say: The Senate's 
budget is $47.877 billion in budget authority, program authority; the 
President's is $47.228 billion, a difference of $600 million more in 
the pending resolution than that for which the President provided.
  The baseline from which we start this year is $43.3 billion. 
Everybody can do the arithmetic. We have added more than the President 
to this function. Where it goes will be determined by the 
appropriators.

  My other observation is that while in office, this President has 
called himself the education President. He has bragged that he has 
gotten Congress to go along with him on education. There are Members 
coming to the floor saying these are Republican education numbers 
while, as a matter of fact, the President is bragging they are his over 
the last 5 years. I do not know whom to believe, but I think we have 
increased education significantly over the last 6 years while we have 
been in power in the Senate.
  My last observation has to do with whether or not the new bill that 
is going to be reported out of committee and come to the floor is going 
to do away with categorical programs. To those who love the 300 or 400 
categorical programs we have and think they must be helping education, 
I say that is why it has not gotten any better in the last 10 years. If 
they think that is what the bill says, let me tell them it

[[Page S2177]]

is going to have three menu items. One is if schools like what we have 
now, they can keep it. They can keep that program everybody thinks is 
so great or they can opt to take a lump sum with strings attached that 
mean performance and accountability. If they take that, they have to 
account for it; they have to be accountable, and they receive a bonus 
if their accountability is on the plus side. If not, they do not get a 
bonus.
  Actually, we are going to let the schools decide which way they want 
to go. Republicans are already in the field trying out this idea. To 
the amazement of some Democrats, school leaders, school boards, 
superintendents, and principals are opting our way, saying: Give us a 
chance instead of putting all these strings on our education money.
  We have done enough. We do not need the Bingaman amendment. I hope it 
is tabled later in the day. I commend my colleague for his interest in 
education. We have done enough when we do more than the President this 
year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, and 
this will be off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, upon taking office, President Ronald 
Reagan appointed a commission to root out government waste, fraud and 
abuse. Headed by Peter Grace, the Grace Commission reviewed the 
numerous Federal departments and agencies, and called for the 
elimination of tremendous waste. The commission also called for an 
annual report on the implementation of its recommendations. Eighty-five 
percent of the Grace Commission's recommendations were implemented by 
1989, but today not only has Congress abandoned the Grace Commission's 
initiative but is racing in the other direction.
  Section 201 of the Social Security Act requires that Social Security 
surpluses be invested in Treasury bills so that the trust fund can reap 
interest and grow. Paradoxically, section 201 requires that the trust 
fund be spent or eliminated. When you buy Treasury bills you give the 
Government the money and the Government, in turn, gives you a note or 
bond which amounts to an IOU. The only way to have the trust fund 
reflect a surplus instead of a deficit is to require the Secretary of 
the Treasury to maintain in the trust fund cash in an amount equal to 
the total redemption value of its Treasury bills. Today, instead of 
trust fund surpluses of $1,099 billion, the Social Security ``lockbox'' 
is $1,009 billion in IOUs.
  The policy of investing in U.S. Government instruments is sound. Some 
think that the fund could make more money by investing in the stock 
market, but this involves risk that the Congress is determined not to 
take. Fifteen years ago we only owed Social Security $50 billion. We 
were not worried because we were taking in surpluses each year. In 
1990, we amended the Budget Act prohibiting the President and/or 
Congress from reporting a budget offset by Social Security surpluses. 
We wanted the people to know the true condition of the Social Security 
trust fund and the growth of the national debt. Nevertheless, surpluses 
continued to be applied against the national debt obscuring its 
elephantine growth. As the debt grows, carrying charges or interest 
costs grow. Come the year 2013, there will be a day of reckoning. In 
2013, there will not be enough revenue from payroll taxes to pay the 
Social Security benefits. Congress, for the first time, will look to 
the trust fund which was supposed to have been saved to take care of 
the baby boomers. Instead, the Social Security trust fund is projected 
to be in the red $4 trillion. Congress will have two options: cut the 
benefits or raise the taxes. Looking at the increasing need and already 
short $4 trillion, Congress will no doubt cut benefits. In the 
meantime, interests costs on the national debt, the waste that the 
Grace Commission intended to eliminate, grows like ``gangbusters.''
  When President Lyndon Johnson balanced the budget last in 1968 the 
annual interest cost on the national debt was only $16 billion. Today, 
the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates it will be $362 
billion--almost a billion dollars a day for nothing. No one thinks we 
should accumulate $4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund by 
repealing section 201. Yet, the people should be awakened to the fact 
that Congress hasn't paid for the Government it has been providing for 
31 years. CBO estimated in February that we will spend $58.9 billion 
more this year than we take in. Looking at the votes in Congress since 
that time, the deficit will exceed $100 billion. Talk of a surplus is a 
total farce. Talk of not spending Social Security is a total farce. 
Talk of a Social Security lockbox is a total farce. And any proposal 
for a tax cut is no more than an increase in the debt, an increase in 
interest costs, an increase in waste.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator and yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I yield the Senator from Minnesota 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2926

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. I 
especially thank my colleague, Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, not 
only for his amendment but for his work in education and for children.
  Quite often, we will come out here on the floor and talk about how 
great Senator ``so and so'' is. I am not saying it is not meant because 
I think quite often it is meant. But from my point of view, at least, I 
think Senator Bingaman's methodology as a Senator is interesting. He 
never seems to try to claim credit for what he does. He is extremely 
thoughtful. He is very substantive. I believe he is one of the best 
Senators in the Senate. I am proud to support this amendment.
  Really, what this amendment says, as we look at this overall budget--
after all, our budget speaks to our priorities--is that there is a 
difference between the Democrats and Republicans. It is a difference 
that makes a difference.
  Republicans, in their budget proposal, have provided much more 
funding for IDEA. I thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New 
Hampshire, for his strong voice on this. Ever since he came here to the 
Senate, he has been talking about the need to live up to what is an 
unfunded mandate and to provide for more resources in this area. I 
think that is extremely important.
  I also hear from people at our school district levels: Look, if you 
would do the job of providing the funding here, that would help us in 
many important ways. Above and beyond that, what we have done is said 
yes to that. We provide for the same funding, but we go further. We say 
that we think there is an important choice we need to make as Senators, 
and there is an important choice and decision the country needs to 
make: Whether we go down the path of the tax cuts--many of them 
disproportionately flowing to high-income people, to more affluent 
citizens--or whether, as we look over the next 5 years, we could, in 
fact, do better by our children and do better by education with close 
to an additional $35 billion.
  I think I heard my colleague, my friend from New Mexico, whom I work 
with a lot in the mental health area, say: Look, we have done enough. 
Basically, we believe there is enough in this budget.
  I do not agree. I am in profound disagreement. I am in a school every 
2 weeks, most of the time in Minnesota, although sometimes in other 
States, as well. I was a college teacher for 20 years. I love to be in 
schools. I love to teach. I love to meet with students.
  I will tell you right now, in Minnesota, and all across the country, 
we have a lot of crumbling schools. I think in Minnesota we have well 
over a $1 billion challenge ahead of us.
  I will tell you this: It is very difficult to tell students and young 
people we value them and then not invest in these schools to the point 
where the infrastructure is crumbling. What we say to students when we 
do not even invest in the physical infrastructure is: We do not value 
you.

  We have the task of rebuilding crumbling schools. But don't stop 
there, I say to Senators. We need to do more. I do not think this 
budget that our Republican colleagues have presented does near enough. 
I am in profound disagreement.

[[Page S2178]]

  You ask the students--talk to them; in many ways, they are the 
experts on education--what works and what doesn't? They will all tell 
you that one of the keys to a good education is good teachers.
  In the budget proposal that the Democrats have brought to the floor, 
Senator Bingaman taking the lead, we talk about the need to get more 
resources to the school district level so that we can hire more good 
teachers and we can have smaller class size.
  I would argue today and tomorrow and for the rest of this year and 
for the next 10 years, that is one of the best things we can do.
  One of the things we do not include in this budget proposal but 
Democrats have talked about--I wish we would back it more with 
investment--is what we should be doing prekindergarten.
  But let me go on about what we can do and what is in this proposal.
  In addition, we are talking about afterschool programs. I have not 
found any issue where there is a greater community consensus--from law 
enforcement to teachers, to parents, to social workers, to youth 
workers--that we have to give our children and our young people 
positive alternatives after school: places to go, places to be. We 
include that in this proposal. That makes a whole lot of sense.
  We had a debate--sort of a debate--on the Ed-Flex bill. I will admit, 
I was in a minority of one on that. I think the final vote was 99-1. 
But one of the arguments I made--which I believe most Senators agree 
with, I hope--and which is certainly a part of this proposal, is that 
we are talking about flexibility at the same time we are providing 
title I money, which goes to those students who are disadvantaged, 
those students who need additional support. We are funding it at about 
a 30-percent level.
  In my State of Minnesota--I am in inner-city schools all the time--in 
the city of St. Paul, after you go below the threshold of 65 percent of 
your students coming from homes which make them qualified for the free 
or reduced school lunch program, we do not have any funding. Once you 
have 60 percent of your students low income, you do not qualify. We are 
out of money. We can do much better.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we have done enough. 
No, we have not done enough. It is not enough to give speeches. It is 
not enough to have photo opportunities next to children. It is not 
enough to say we are all for education. It is not enough to say we are 
for young people because they are our future. It is not enough until we 
back it up by digging into our pockets and, yes, spending more money 
and making the investment.
  I think this amendment that we bring to the floor is a ``divide'' 
amendment. This is a divide amendment between Republicans and their 
priorities--more tax cuts; more tax cuts disproportionately going to 
wealthy, high-income people, versus more investment in children and 
more investment in education.
  Frankly, I would be willing to debate any colleague who says we have 
done enough, that we should not be making this additional investment.
  Of course, we should be making this additional investment. We are not 
going to provide the best education for every child on a ``tin cup'' 
budget. This additional $35 billion can make a difference.
  Let me also point out, since we have this debate on the floor of the 
Senate--and we will have much more of this debate when we get to the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act--that I am deeply troubled by 
all of the Senators--I hope not a majority--who want to talk about high 
stakes standardized tests and want to say we are for rigor and want to 
say we are for accountability and want to even say that, by gosh, if a 
third grader, age 8, does not pass this test, then she is going to be 
held back, but we are unwilling to make the investment and get the 
resources to the local school district level so that every one of these 
children have the same opportunity to pass these tests. We hold 
children responsible for our failure to invest in their achievement and 
their future. We can't have it this way. We ought to be talking about 
high standards. We ought to be telling our children we expect the very 
best of them, but we also need to have the policy integrity, as 
Senators, to provide the resources to our local communities so we can 
make sure that, as a Nation and as a Senate, we have met the 
opportunity-to-learn standard, that every child in the United States of 
America, regardless of color of skin, rich or poor, low income or high 
income, rural or urban, or boy or girl, will have the same chance to 
reach his or her full potential.

  This $35 billion is not Heaven on Earth. It doesn't make it perfect, 
but it makes it a better Earth on Earth for our children. I believe we 
should support it, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending 
Bingaman amendment to increase funding for education programs in the 
FY2001 budget resolution--programs that have been proven to increase 
student performance. Few of the problems facing us today are as 
important as the challenge of educating our children to meet the 
demands of the future. Yet, the budget resolution put forward by the 
Majority does nothing for key priorities like funding for high-quality 
teachers, smaller class sizes, modern and accountable schools, and 
expanded and improved technology in the classroom. In fact, total 
discretionary spending for education, training and social services 
programs in the Republican budget plan before us is $4.7 billion below 
the President's budget request, reducing discretionary education 
funding to below FY2000 levels.
  I strongly supported an amendment offered during the Budget Committee 
markup to provide increased funding for smaller class sizes, school 
construction and renovation, and teacher quality--initiatives that are 
critical to ensuring an educated citizenry. I regret that Republican 
members of the Committee opposed this amendment, resulting in its 
defeat, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to support the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the quality of teachers and principals is essential to 
student achievement. Research indicates that high-quality teachers are 
the single most important determinant in how well students learn. 
Likewise, research has shown that students attending small classes with 
qualified teachers in early grades make more rapid educational progress 
than students in larger classes. This amendment would increase funding 
in these critical areas, as well as in other areas such as after-school 
programs and school modernization, offset by reducing the irresponsible 
tax cuts included in the Majority's proposal. It would also make higher 
education more affordable and accessible by increasing the maximum Pell 
Grant, and increasing funding for the TRIO and GEAR-UP programs.
  Throughout my service in the United States Senate, I have been 
committed to the goal of ensuring a quality education for all our 
Nation's citizens. This amendment would move us in the direction of 
that important goal and I again urge my colleagues to support it.


                           Amendment No. 2928

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Reid will agree that 
I may offer the Johnson amendment--he asked that it be offered on his 
behalf--and a second-degree from me, and we vote on both of them by 
voice vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Johnson, I send a 
first-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration. I ask unanimous consent this be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mr. Johnson, 
     for himself and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2928.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR MILITARY RETIREE HEALTH CARE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, aggregates, allocations, 
     functional totals, and other budgetary levels and limits may 
     be revised for legislation to fund improvements to

[[Page S2179]]

     health care programs for military retirees and their 
     dependents in order to fulfill the promises made to them, 
     provided that the enactment of that legislation will not 
     cause an on-budget deficit for--
       (1) fiscal year 2001; or
       (2) the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (b) Revised Levels.--Upon the consideration of legislation 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the Senate may file with the Senate 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional 
     levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These 
     revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall 
     be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates 
     contained in this resolution.


                Amendment No. 2929 to Amendment No. 2928

             (Purpose: To limit the amount of the reserve)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on 
this amendment be yielded back and that I may send a second-degree 
amendment on behalf of myself to the desk, that all time be yielded 
back and the second-degree amendment be agreed to, that the first-
degree amendment, as amended, be agreed to, and that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving right to object--I don't know 
whether I will--could I ask the Senator to again summarize the second-
degree amendment. I couldn't hear him.
  Mr. REID. If I could say to my friend from Minnesota, Senator 
Johnson, the sponsor of the amendment, has worked with the majority. 
They have worked something out that is to the satisfaction of Senator 
Johnson. This was his amendment. He believes the second-degree 
strengthens the amendment and that it should be accepted. I personally 
don't know the subject matter of the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thought the Senator had just summarized it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All it does is, it makes it clear that the bill we are 
relating to is to be reported out by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is the second-degree amendment. It makes it clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2929) was agreed to, as follows:

       In subsection (a), after the words ``may be revised for'' 
     insert the words ``Department of Defense authorization'', and 
     after the word ``legislation'' insert the words ``reported by 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate''.

  The amendment (No. 2928), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the pending amendments--the amendments we 
have been working on most of the day--the minority has no more 
speakers. We yield back the time we have on that subject under the 
unanimous consent agreement. I understand the Senator from Colorado 
will now offer his amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back the 2 minutes I have on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2906

 (Purpose: To protect social security and provide for repayment of the 
                             Federal debt)

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk numbered 
2906.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for himself, Mr. 
     Enzi, and Mr. Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 2906.

  Mr. ALLARD. 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 the resolution, insert the following:

       TITLE ____--SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION AND DEBT REPAYMENT

     SEC. ____1. BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT.

       Beginning with fiscal year 2001 and for every fiscal year 
     thereafter, budgeted outlays shall not exceed budgeted 
     revenues.

     SEC. ____2. REDUCTION OF NATIONAL DEBT.

       (a) In General.--Beginning with fiscal year 2001 and for 
     every fiscal year thereafter, actual revenues shall exceed 
     actual outlays in order to provide for the reduction of the 
     Federal debt held by the public as provided in subsections 
     (b) and (c).
       (b) Amount.--The on budget surplus shall be large enough so 
     that debt held by the public will be reduced each year 
     beginning in fiscal year 2001. The amount of reduction 
     required by this subsection shall be $15,000,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2001 and shall increase by an additional 
     $15,000,000,000 every fiscal year until the entire debt owed 
     to the public has been paid.
       (c) Social Security Surplus and Debt Repayment.--
       (1) In general.--Until such time as Congress enacts major 
     social security reform legislation, the surplus funds each 
     year in the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall be 
     used to reduce the debt owed to the public. This section 
     shall not apply beginning on the fiscal year after social 
     security reform legislation is enacted by Congress.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``social 
     security reform legislation'' means legislation that--
       (A) insures the long-term financial solvency of the social 
     security system; and
       (B) includes an option for private investment of social 
     security funds by beneficiaries.

     SEC. ____3. POINT OF ORDER AND WAIVER.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order to consider 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget that does not comply 
     with this title.
       (b) Waiver.--Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     title for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in 
     effect.

     SEC. ____4. MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR REVENUE INCREASE.

       No bill to increase revenues shall be deemed to have passed 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate unless approved by 
     a majority of the total membership of each House of Congress 
     by a rollcall vote.

     SEC. ____5. REVIEW OF REVENUES.

       Congress shall review actual revenues on a quarterly basis 
     and adjust outlays to assure compliance with this title.

     SEC. ____6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Outlays.--The term ``outlays'' shall include all 
     outlays of the United States excluding repayment of debt 
     principal.
       (2) Revenues.--The term ``revenues'' shall include all 
     revenues of the United States excluding borrowing.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator 
Enzi, and Senator Grams, to offer this very important amendment to the 
budget resolution. Our amendment concerns the repayment of the $3.6 
trillion debt owed to the American public. I am eager to join my 
colleagues in this important discussion about the Federal budget, the 
budget surplus, and the American Government's economic future.
  When I was first elected to Congress in 1990, the discussion was 
radically different. The concept of a budget surplus, let alone long-
term projections for a surplus, was foreign. The notion that a national 
debt measured in trillions could ever be paid off was practically 
science fiction. While 1990 was only 10 years ago, we stand on the 
floor of the Senate today a million miles from the bleak fiscal outlook 
of those times.
  We must be careful. While our present fiscal condition may be rose 
colored, fiscal irresponsibility and a refusal to wisely use the budget 
surplus can not only lead us back to our deficit spending ways of the 
past, in my view, it will threaten the fiscal health of our Nation for 
yet another generation of Americans.
  I am here today to urge my colleagues to address the responsibility 
that comes with the $5.7 trillion debt. During the 105th Congress, I 
introduced the American Debt Repayment Act. This legislation provided 
an amortization schedule for the repayment of the national debt.
  The largest purchase an American family will ever make is the 
purchase of their home, and this expenditure is made possible because 
they laid down a plan on how to pay off this mortgage. It is a set 
schedule of payments. When I was crafting the American Debt Repayment 
Act, I studied this traditional form of payment and said, why doesn't 
this apply to our enormous Federal debt?
  Now, 2 short years later, the outlook has changed somewhat, as the 
Federal Government has run and is estimated to continue to run an on-
budget surplus. During the previous two budget cycles, we have 
witnessed an eagerness to spend more and more money. On-budget surplus 
dollars have become lumped into the appropriations process to allow for 
increased spending.
  One result yielded by our time of prosperity has been the use of 
surplus

[[Page S2180]]

money to raise the discretionary spending levels, allowing Congress to 
shy away from making some hard choices. The willingness to spend 
surplus dollars is so strong, in fact, that when Congress adjourned 
last fall, there was no real certainty as to whether we would spend all 
of the on-budget surplus dipping into the Social Security trust fund. 
This, quite simply, is no way to run an enterprise--any enterprise. 
Plowing surplus money back into discretionary spending to the extent 
that Social Security money would be jeopardized is bad policy.
  Today, I rise to offer an amendment that would not only provide an 
opportunity to control the impulse to spend surplus dollars but would 
eliminate the entire $3.6 trillion debt owed to the public, save over 
$3 trillion in interest, and protect the Social Security program from 
annual discretionary appropriation raids. It is simple legislation in 
the model of the American Debt Repayment Act, providing dedicated debt 
repayment over a 20-year period.
  Beginning with the fiscal year of 2001 and for every year thereafter, 
this amendment requires that the Federal Government maintain a balanced 
budget. As most families and business owners know, you must live within 
your means. It provides this payment schedule I have described--I have 
it on this chart--so that, by 2021, we have paid down the debt using 
the on-budget surplus dollars. The on-budget surplus dollars have 
become lumped into the appropriations process to allow for increased 
spending. And if you can live within your means, then you are assured 
better prosperity in the future because it is going to carry you 
through the ups and downs of our economy.

  It is fair and equitable that the Federal Government, I believe, live 
under the same parameters. I believe this is the first and most 
essential step in Federal budget accountability and payment.
  My amendment further provides that Congress must budget for a surplus 
that must be dedicated to the repayment of the publicly held portion of 
the debt. Specifically, again, in fiscal year 2001, Congress will be 
using $15 billion of on-budget receipts to pay down this debt. Every 
succeeding year, the amount of debt repayment must increase by $15 
billion. So that in 2001 there is $15 billion toward debt repayment, 
the next year it goes to $30 billion, and then $45 billion. It 
increases in increments of $15 billion our obligation to pay off that 
debt, which is looking basically at the surpluses we anticipate over 
the years in our budgeting as we move forward. Every succeeding year, 
the amount of debt, again, is increased by $15 billion, so the amount 
Congress must budget for and pay toward the debt in fiscal year 2002 
will be $30 billion, and then $45 billion, and so on. In this system, 
if it is adopted, by year 2021, the entire debt owed to the public will 
be zero.
  We must have a plan to repay the debt, and we must have a repayment 
schedule, the same as you have on your home mortgage, and we will have 
the ability to cut taxes. A plan provides certainty and structure. I 
believe that anyone concerned with the national debt or tax cuts will 
understand the need for a responsible repayment schedule on the 
national debt.
  In addition to the on-budget surplus payment required by this 
amendment, I have added language to require that until such time as 
serious Social Security reform is implemented, Social Security surplus 
dollars must also be dedicated to the repayment of the debt owed to the 
public. Every Member of this body is aware of the enormous obligation 
this country has made to present and future Social Security recipients. 
I believe the policymakers must address the future solvency of Social 
Security.
  I am not here today, and my amendment is not drafted, to address the 
vital issue of Social Security solvency in the long term. What this 
amendment will do, however, is dedicate a surplus in Social Security 
dollars to debt repayment until the Congress can generate an 
appropriate long-term fix to the obstacles that stand in the way of 
this program.
  I note that the 20-year schedule I have introduced does not account 
for the inclusion of Social Security surplus money to repay the debt 
owed to the public. I believe the only sensible use for these funds, 
until such time as they may be used to reform Social Security, is again 
reducing the debt owed to the public. Directing these surplus funds to 
debt repayment will only accomplish total repayment at an earlier date.
  I must stress today, I offer a dedicated repayment schedule to 
eliminate the entire debt owed to the public in 20 years, without using 
Social Security surplus money. The use of Social Security surplus 
dollars will only serve to pay the debt down more quickly, removing the 
burden of the publicly held debt from Social Security in the annual 
budget process.
  In recent weeks, the distinguished Speaker of the House and the 
President have talked a great deal publicly about seizing this 
unprecedented opportunity that lies before us, and that is to pay down 
the Nation's debt. Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee in 
January, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan strongly urged 
Congress to use surplus dollars to pay down the debt. Chairman 
Greenspan stated:

       My first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus 
     to flow through into a reduction of debt to the public. If 
     that proves politically infeasible, I would opt for cutting 
     taxes. And under no conditions do I see any room in the long-
     term outlook for major changes in expenditures.

  I think that very succinctly spells out where we should be. This 
dialog has been tremendously helpful in further drawing the attention 
of the public and elected officials to the importance of debt 
repayment.
  As many of my colleagues can attest, and as I have experienced in my 
numerous town meetings around my home State of Colorado, this is an 
issue that the public understands. It is an issue of basic common 
sense, equity, and responsibility. This amendment is a call to action 
and accountability. It demands that this country and this Congress 
recognize the debt it has created. It structures a disciplined, 
fiscally responsible schedule for the repayment of our debt. In the 
process, it is my view that this legislation will serve to generate 
greater fiscal responsibility with every appropriation cycle, prevent 
future deficit spending, and save the taxpayer more than $3 trillion in 
interest payments. Now, that is $3 trillion that would be better spent 
on necessary expenditures, the strengthening of Social Security, and 
tax cuts.
  I wish to compliment Senator Domenici, and the Budget Committee under 
his leadership, for working to pay down the debt. I recognize their 
sincere efforts in that regard. But during a time of unprecedented 
growth in our country, I think we need to seize the opportunity to make 
a firm commitment to pay down the debt. I am asking that the Senate 
take us a little step further in that process, and this American Social 
Security protection and draft repayment amendment--I haven't introduced 
it as a bill but as an amendment on this Budget Act--deals with several 
issues in order to further our commitment to paying down the debt.
  First of all, it says we are going to have to balance our budget; 
that is, we are not going to spend more than what comes in in revenues. 
We are proposing a plan to reduce the national debt. The amendment I 
have before you talks about a $15 billion commitment every year in 
additional obligations to paying down the debt. We have a provision in 
there to preserve the Social Security surplus and to state, as 
Senators, that we are serious about saving Social Security, and that we 
are going to work hard for the long-term fiscal soundness of a very 
important program for our elderly in America, and that we are going to 
have an option to allow individuals to play a role in their Social 
Security accounts.
  Then, we also have a very important provision that says, look, if the 
revenue projections don't hold up as anticipated, there is a means 
where the Congress will come back on a quarterly review of these 
revenues. If they don't hold up, we are going to have to cut spending. 
It is going to help ensure that when we make decisions as we did last 
year in the budgeting process, where we got to the end of the 
appropriations process last year and we weren't entirely sure whether 
we would have spent Social Security or not until our final figures 
would have come before us in February of this year--now, fortunately, 
those revenue figures held

[[Page S2181]]

up--we do not spend Social Security dollars.
  I have a mechanism in place which protects our position so that when 
we say we are not spending Social Security dollars, we will have an 
opportunity to make sure we are protecting the Social Security surplus; 
that we are staying to our schedule to paying down the debt because we 
in Congress are going to go back and review it on a quarterly basis and 
then help assure the American people that we will stay on schedule.
  We are moving into somewhat turbulent times. If you watched the stock 
market yesterday and the amount of oscillation it went through, it 
reminds us of how the economy is changing.
  I am concerned that at some point in time we will be overly 
optimistic about our revenue, and if we don't have this particular plan 
in place we will find ourselves in trouble and back into deficit 
spending, which I think we need to avoid. We need to utilize this 
prosperous time in our country to pay down the debt, which I think is 
extremely important.
  I think the Congress can do all of those things. We can have a 
schedule to pay down the debt. We can save Social Security. We can also 
have some provisions for tax cuts.
  With a three-pronged approach, the American people will understand 
our commitment to their future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend 15 minutes to the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, now the gamesmanship is revealed.
  Look at this amendment. It says let's spend Social Security.
  Let me read that to you.
  Until such time as Congress enacts major Social Security reform 
legislation, the surplus funds each year of the Old Age and Survivors 
Insurance trust funds shall be reused to reduce the debt owed by the 
public. This section shall not apply beginning the fiscal year.
  They say reduce the debt owed by the public. You are back to playing 
the game of taking one credit card and paying off the other credit card 
and owing the same amount. It is as if I have a MasterCard and a Visa 
card. I want to pay off the Visa card with the MasterCard. I say the 
Visa card is the public debt. And I paid it off--$3.6 trillion--never 
mentioning that my MasterCard bill went up by the same amount.
  My distinguished colleague from Wyoming is a cosponsor. He smiles 
because he is a CPA. He knows what we're talking about.
  As the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Rivlin, says, 
you are just taking the debt from one pocket and putting it in another.
  I want the distinguished Chair and the Parliamentarian to pay close 
attention because a point of order will be made later.
  In other words, over on the third page of the particular amendment, 
it reads: No bill to increase revenues shall be deemed to have passed 
the House of Representatives or the Senate unless approved by a 
majority of the total membership of each House of Congress by a 
rollcall vote.
  That is in violation of Section 305 of the Budget Act. It has not 
been considered and referred to the Budget Committee. That point of 
order can be made in due time.
  I refer to what the law says about the public debt, and not what Alan 
Greenspan says. I worked with Alan Greenspan 20 years ago when I was 
the chairman of the Budget Committee. I have tremendous respect and 
affection for him. But he represents Wall Street. As long as we can 
borrow from ourselves; namely, as long as we can spend surpluses on 
government programs, then we stay out of the stock market. Mr. 
Greenspan doesn't want us coming in with the sharp elbows of Government 
driving out private capital and running up interest rates.
  As long as we play the game for Wall Street, Mr. Greenspan is happy. 
We have had a wonderful economy. Rather than raise interest rates, we 
ought to put in a value-added tax allocated to reducing the deficit and 
the debt. Then we could save trillions of dollars not only in principal 
but in interest costs. That bill is in the Finance Committee. I 
introduced it. I had a hearing when Senator Bentsen was the chairman. 
But I have not been able to get a hearing on it since then. I would be 
glad to start this afternoon with a hearing on that initiative.
  I think that is what we have to do.
  This debt goes up, up, and away, as shown by the numbers published by 
the Secretary of Treasury.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the public debt 
issued by the Secretary of the Treasury.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      THE PUBLIC DEBT TO THE PENNY
               [Current 04/04/2000--$5,758,854,640,223.41]
Current month:                                            Amount
04/03/2000.....................................    $5,750,620,100,381.36
Prior months:
    03/31/2000.................................     5,773,391,634,682.91
    02/29/2000.................................     5,735,333,348,132.58
    01/31/2000.................................     5,711,285,168,951.46
    12/31/1999.................................     5,776,091,314,225.33
    11/30/1999.................................     5,693,600,157,029.08
    10/29/1999.................................     5,679,726,662,904.06
Prior fiscal years:
    09/30/1999.................................     5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998.................................     5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997.................................     5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996.................................     5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995.................................     4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994.................................     4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993.................................     4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992.................................     4,064,620,655,521.66
    09/30/1991.................................     3,665,303,351,697.03
    09/28/1990.................................     3,233,313,451,777.25
    09/29/1989.................................     2,857,430,960,187.32
    09/30/1988.................................     2,602,337,712,041.16
    09/30/1987.................................     2,350,276,890,953.00
 
Source: Bureau of the Public Debt.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you will see that when we started the 
fiscal year the debt was $5.656 trillion It has gone up to $5.750 
trillion.
  We have increased the debt. Everyone is talking about ``surplus.'' 
What are we going to do with all of these great surpluses?
  We do not have a surplus. We had a deficit last year of $127 billion.
  As the debt goes up, I am trying to clear up the confusion in this 
particular body rather than engaging in this charade.
  When the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee keeps talking 
about how he paid down the public debt by $1.1 trillion, here is the 
actual record as provided in the Budget Committee of the non-Social 
Security surplus:
  In the year 2001, $11.1 billion; 2002, $3.2 billion; 2003, $6.5 
billion; 2004, $8.7 billion; 2005, $12.7 billion, for a total of $42.2 
billion.
  The distinguished chairman says he pays down the debt $1.1 trillion. 
It is actually $42 billion in non-Social Security surpluses. And, of 
course, the rest of it--over $1 trillion--is Social Security. Yet, in 
the same breath, he maintains that we are saving Social Security with a 
lockbox.
  I pointed out a second ago that we have nothing but IOUs in the 
lockbox.
  Let me refer to the most recent Congressional Budget Office figures 
on the Social Security surplus. As of last year, 1999, we had a surplus 
of $125 billion. In this past fiscal year, we expect a surplus of $154 
billion; 2001, $166 billion; 2002, $183 billion; 2003, $196 billion; 
2004, $209 billion; and 2005, $225 billion.
  That is how you may be able to use the expression ``pay down the 
debt.'' They say pay down the public debt because they don't want to 
say they are separating, in their minds, the public debt from the 
government debt. You simply can't do that. There is just one debt. We 
owe it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the trust funds 
that have been looted already to balance the budget.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  TRUST FUNDS LOOTED TO BALANCE BUDGET
                [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1999    2000    2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security.................................     855   1,009   1,175
Medicare:
    HI..........................................     154     176     198
    SMI.........................................      27      34      35
Military Retirement.............................     141     149     157
Civilian Retirement.............................     492     522     553
Unemployment....................................      77      85      94
Highway.........................................      28      31      34
Airport.........................................      12      13      14
Railroad Retirement.............................      24      25      26
Other...........................................      59      62      64
                                                 -----------------------
    Total.......................................   1,869   2,106   2,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this particular chart shows that in 1999 
we

[[Page S2182]]

looted $1.869 trillion from all of the trust funds. This year, we are 
on course to loot $2.106 trillion. We have $78 billion in non-Social 
Security surpluses. That is tied up in Medicare, military retirement, 
civilian retirement, the unemployment compensation fund, the highway-
airport trust fund, railroad retirement, etc.
  We are beginning to make the record and have it understood.
  If there is any doubt with respect to the public debt, I refer to the 
particular budget that is now under consideration on page 5, ``Public 
Debt.''
  ``The appropriate levels of public debt . . .''--I am referring to 
the budget; it will get a majority vote. We are going through a little 
exercise. I say ``a little exercise''; it is actually a charade. We 
worked 2 days and nights, and we produced the budget. Upon completion 
of a budget resolution in committee, the chairman is allowed to make 
technical adjustments through a unanimous consent. This year the 
technical adjustment was $60 billion. Imagine that. Tell the 
appropriators they have to cut some $60 billion in order to fall within 
the caps.
  The instrument itself, I refer to S. Con. Res. 101, page 5:

       (5) Public debt.--
       The appropriate levels of the public debt are. . . .

  And then they list the levels for 2000 through 2005 going from $5.625 
trillion to $5.923 trillion. That is without that $60 billion technical 
adjustment. But even there, they list the debt going up $297 billion.
  This is the overall debt, which is not going down. When they say 
``paying down the debt,'' they are instead referring to the public 
debt.
  With the course we are on, by the year 2013 there will not be any 
surpluses of payroll tax revenues sufficiently large to make the 
payments due on that particular year. So we are going to be running 
into a wall, and we will have to either cut the benefits or raise the 
taxes.
  I ran over what we had done on the Grace Commission about cutting 
spending, but each year the spending goes up because health costs are 
going up, the military costs are going up. We have to live in the real 
world. Everybody understands that. Here is the first frontal assault 
according to the Allard amendment: You shall spend the Social Security 
surpluses. Until such time as Congress enacts major Social Security 
reform legislation, the surplus funds of Social Security shall be used 
to reduce the debt.
  What you are doing is using Social Security moneys to make it appear 
that the debt is less and some kind of interest cost is saved. The 
truth is, you have gone from one credit card to the other. That is the 
sort of game we have played each year, making the debt increase from 
less than $1 trillion under President Johnson, when he balanced the 
budget back in 1968 and 1969, to almost $5.7 trillion now. Interests 
costs of only $16 billion back then are now $362 billion, or $1 billion 
a day.
  That is a waste. If we had that $200-some billion we are paying in 
interest costs, I could almost double the defense budget, give you all 
the research for health, build all the highways, bridges, the 
libraries, courthouses. We could do everything anybody wanted to do. I 
could give Gov. George W. Bush's tax cut and Vice President Gore's 
program of spending.
  We are spending the money for nothing. When are we going to get hold 
of ourselves and sober up and cut out this political campaign? The 
worst campaign finance abuse is us. We are using our payroll to run 
around here and give a lark and a story to the American people that we 
are going to save Social Security; no, we are going to pay down the 
debt, pay down the public debt.
  I retain the remainder of our time.
  Mr. ALLARD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 45 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
my friend from Colorado, Senator Allard. This is an amendment that will 
keep our budget balanced. It will protect the Social Security surplus 
by preventing these revenues from being used for additional spending, 
and--this is the important part--it establishes a concrete schedule for 
paying off the publicly held debt payments with non-Social Security 
surplus. This is a true paydown of the debt.
  I am pleased we had the comments from the Senator from South Carolina 
to whom I have been paying attention since I got to this body. I am 
pleased to say I think this is a bill he could sign onto when we have 
an opportunity to explain all the ramifications.
  The first year Senator Allard and I were in the Senate, we talked 
about balancing the budget. It seemed a dream at that time, but it 
happened. Everybody in this body listened to constituents at home and 
said, by golly, they want the budget balanced. And we balanced it.
  Now, a little fluke in that was that we were partly balancing it with 
Social Security surplus. The difference between what people paid into 
Social Security and the amount paid out was a positive revenue; it was 
extra money. And we were spending it.
  We said: That is not honest. The people of America listened, and they 
said: We want some honesty with our Social Security money. Quit 
spending the Social Security surplus. We have done that. Everybody paid 
attention last year. We will have an honest surplus, not counting 
Social Security surplus for the first time in decades.
  Now what we are talking about is debt accountability. Honesty with 
the trust funds is where we are headed. Debt accountability is what we 
need to get there.
  There is a fellow in Gillette, WY, who calls me regularly. Steve 
Tarver is a fellow accountant, retired now. He says: Congress keeps 
talking about the debt being paid down, but I call the Treasury 
regularly and I say: How much is the national debt?
  The debt keeps going up, in spite of the Social Security surplus, 
which is supposed to be used to be paying down the public debt already. 
We are taking the money out of one pocket and putting it in the other 
pocket. Debt to the public becomes debt to the Social Security trust 
fund. But it is IOUs. That debt as of 11:51 this morning: $5 trillion, 
730 billion and some-odd change.
  The U.S. population as of 11:51 this morning was 274,548,318 people. 
A little simple division demonstrates that every man, woman, and child 
in this Nation right now owes, in national debt, each of us, $20,873. I 
love to go to school classrooms and say: Did you know you already owe a 
tremendous debt? That amount is over $20,000. That is pretty staggering 
to a kid in sixth or seventh grade. He or she doesn't just owe that 
$20,000; every single person in each family owes that $20,000. That is 
how big the debt is for the Nation.
  We have gotten some benefits as we have run up the till. But it is a 
debt. I can say as I have traveled across Wyoming, the people 
understand that debt. They don't like the Federal Government being in 
debt any more than they like being in debt. They recognize the debt is 
something you have to pay off sometime. They don't think it is fair 
that we make our kids and our grandkids pay off our debt.
  Maybe the portion that attributes down to them, they could; OK, but 
$5.7 trillion is one heck of a package to pay off. It is a staggering 
package.
  So how do we do it? We do it by starting sensibly. We start with a 
plan. We put this country on a mortgage program. The mortgage program 
is outlined in the bill. It starts with a payment of $15 billion. It 
sounds like a lot of money. Around here it is not much money--$15 
billion. Essentially, the money then that you save in interest, you do 
not run out and spend; you add that to the principal. And the next year 
you pay down the $15 billion. We are adding a little bit to it because 
those surpluses are going up, and it has been predicted, if we pay down 
the national debt, if we honestly pay down the national debt--and that 
is what we are talking about, debt honesty--there will be an increase 
in the national economy. That is the biggest factor that can increase 
the national economy. That means we will have a little additional 
revenue we can add to the $15 billion plus the interest we save. Each 
year we will escalate that payment so in 20 years we pay off the 
national debt, not using the Social Security surplus.
  This is honesty in paying down the national debt. We have to do 
something about these trust funds that are IOUs. People keep talking 
about it. This one

[[Page S2183]]

does not add a dime to the IOUs. This one pays down the national debt 
in a very calculated, fashioned program.
  I do not think we are tied to 20 years on this. I do not think we are 
tied to $15 billion the first year. I do not think we are tied to the 
same additions each year. It is time this country got on a plan to pay 
that debt down. You want to make the loan longer? You want to have some 
years when you have a little flex in it? It does not matter to me. We 
just have to be honest on paying down the national debt. This is one 
that forces honesty. This is a plan that pays off the national debt 
honestly over a 20-year period.
  This amendment makes good economic sense, and it is good for 
America's future. It fulfills our promise to America's seniors without 
savaging our grandchildren's future. For too long, Congress has 
followed the path of reckless abandon in spending money we didn't have 
for programs with short-term benefits and long-term burdens. We have 
left our children and grandchildren holding the mortgage on this $5.7 
trillion Government mansion that they may not even be able to visit. 
That is right. If we fail to rise to the challenge of eliminating the 
Federal debt, we leave our children shackled to the high interest 
payments that were mentioned earlier, and the looming debt created by 
the last 40 years of big Government programs, while the benefits of 
that spending fade into the sunset of history.
  This Congress is in the best position of any Congress in a generation 
to eliminate the debt held by the public--honestly. In 1999, after only 
4 years of a Republican Congress, we were able to balance the budget. 
We have now projected budgeted surpluses beyond the next 10 years, and 
every year those are recalculated and become considerably greater.
  Given this unique opportunity made possible by the ingenuity of the 
American people and the hard work of a Republican Congress willing to 
control Government spending to reduce it from an annual growth of about 
20 percent a year, down to about 2 percent a year--it is still 
growing--we should get our financial house in order by setting up a 
definite repayment plan to eliminate the $3.6 trillion of publicly held 
debt, while ensuring Social Security remains strong for future 
retirees.
  This amendment contains three main provisions that have been 
outlined, three main ones that start out easy and build as we go and 
then continue to pay down the debt, even if Congress enacts meaningful 
Social Security reform next year. It creates a responsible, concrete 
method of paying off the debt while ensuring the future solvency of 
Social Security.
  I have been listening to the budget debate. I found it interesting to 
hear the number of people on the Democratic side of the aisle talk 
about the budget resolution before us being irresponsible because it 
allows for a modest tax cut over 5 years. They argue we could be using 
that money to pay down the debt.
  This is not the first time I have heard this argument. In fact, I 
have heard a lot of these same claims as we debated the Taxpayer Refund 
and Relief Act of 1999, which is the best policy discussion and only 
policy discussion we have had on taxes since I have been in the Senate. 
I think it helped people understand how we could make a more fair, more 
simple Tax Code. It passed. It was vetoed. During that time, I heard a 
lot of rhetoric about how the most important thing was paying down the 
national debt.
  I do not think the people using the rhetoric necessarily believe the 
national debt would be something we would put up as a project, that it 
could actually be done. That is what we are doing here. We are giving 
everyone a chance to back up their rhetoric with real action, by voting 
in favor of debt reduction by voting for this amendment.
  This amendment contains three main provisions. First, it requires 
Congress to continue passing balanced budgets for each and every year. 
Second, this amendment requires yearly repayments to be made from the 
non-social security surplus. This schedule would begin a payment of $15 
billion in the coming fiscal year, and this amount would increase in 
each succeeding year by $15 billion per-year. Third, this amendment 
requires that the entire social security surplus would be used for debt 
reduction until Congress enacts social security reform legislation. 
These last two provisions are essential, because they ensure that we 
will continue to pay down the debt even if Congress enacts meaningful 
social security reform next year. This amendment creates a responsible, 
concrete method of paying off the publicly-held debt while ensuring the 
future solvency of social security.
  As the only accountant is the Senate, I spent a great deal of time 
listening to last year's discussion on tax relief. I was amazed at the 
number of my Democratic colleagues who opposed the tax relief bill 
because they said the money should be used for debt reduction. This was 
the same reason the president gave for vetoing our tax cut. When the 
president submitted his budget to Congress this year, he made clear 
that his rhetoric on debt reduction was a fleeting facade, behind which 
he could hide his real desire for countless new government programs, 
each one requiring substantial new government spending which would 
further threaten our children's economic future. As soon as the threat 
of a tax cut disappeared, so did President Clinton's commitment to debt 
reduction. This amendment challenges my Democratic colleagues to choose 
between a plan that offers real debt reduction or the hollow promises 
of President Clinton which are nothing more than a smokescreen for huge 
new Government spending.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rebuilding a financial house of 
responsibility where our parents and grandparents can retire in peace 
and where our children and grandchildren will be welcomed for years to 
come. We should join together in laying an important cornerstone in 
that foundation today by supporting Senator Allard's amendment to this 
budget resolution.
  I want to mention a few of the things my colleagues have said. The 
Senator from North Dakota said:

       The first choice, it seems to me, ought to be, during good 
     economic times you pay down part of the Federal debt. That is 
     the best gift we can give the children of this country, and 
     that would also stimulate lower interest rates and more 
     economic growth.

  The Senator from Virginia--this is the Democratic Senator from 
Virginia--said:

       I would rather have nothing, notwithstanding some of the 
     good things upon which both sides agree, and simply begin to 
     pay down the debt.

  The Senator from the other side of the aisle from Michigan said:

       That would be the greatest gift of all that we could make 
     for the American people, the reduction on that debt, because 
     that would be a reduction in the interest rates which people 
     pay on their mortgages and cars and credit cards, and that 
     would truly be a contribution to the well-being of our 
     constituents.

  And the Senator on the other side of the aisle from Vermont said:

       I believe Congress should follow three basic principles to 
     continue our strong economy and provide targeted tax relief. 
     First, we must continue to keep our fiscal house in order and 
     pay down the national debt. The national public debt stands 
     at $3.6 trillion. That's a lot of zeros. Like someone who has 
     finally paid off his or her credit card balance but still has 
     a home mortgage, the Federal Government has finally balanced 
     its annual budget but we still have a national debt to pay 
     down. Indeed, the Federal Government pays almost $1 billion 
     in interest every working day on the national debt.

  The Senator from California said:

       Debt reduction is the external debt, the debt that is owed 
     to private people, Americans and those around the world who 
     picked up our bonds. We owe them debt. I see my friend from 
     South Carolina has pointed this out. Because of that debt, we 
     are paying over $300 billion a year in interest payments 
     which, as my friend said, is bad for the economy, it's 
     wasteful, it does no good to anyone.

  And finally the Senator from the other side of the aisle from 
Washington said:

       We will not be able to pay off our debt, a very important 
     issue that is facing us, which we have not left ourselves 
     room for with a massive cut of this size.

  That is a lot of people encouraging us, giving us an indication that 
they would like to see the debt paid down. I hope they will follow 
through on that and help us do it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. ENZI. I am on a limited time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will do it on our time. It is not a question of time. 
I wanted to ask a question because I am referring, on page 2, to line 
12:


[[Page S2184]]


       Until such time as Congress enacts Social Security reform 
     legislation, these surplus funds of Social Security shall be 
     used to reduce the debt.

  So you are using Social Security trust funds to pay down the national 
debt? And yet you are saying we are saving Social Security.
  So if I increase the debt for Kosovo or for regular defense or for 
food stamps or for foreign aid or for your pay and my pay, or whatever, 
that is the debt of the Government. That is the national debt and you 
use Social Security to pay it?
  Mr. ENZI. If I can answer the question, in the State of the Union 
speech, the President said we are going to use the Social Security 
surplus to pay off the national debt. Over a 10-year period, we are 
going to have $1.8 trillion in money we can use to pay off the national 
debt. And I said the same thing you did, that is, moving the money from 
one pocket to the other. That is not honest. But we have made a 
commitment that we will protect that Social Security surplus.

  The one thing that is allowed by law to be done with that is to pay 
off bonds in the public debt. The only investment we are allowed to 
have at the present time for Social Security is bonds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. Bonds are IOUs, so you just increase the 
IOUs.
  Mr. ENZI. No, it keeps the IOUs the same. The Social Security surplus 
will grow; the debt stays the same. Then the interest gets added to the 
public debt because, again, it cannot be taken out. It has to be 
invested in more bonds.
  That is part of the problem with Social Security; the only thing that 
can be done with the Social Security funds is buy U.S. bonds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. ENZI. So there are the public bonds out there and the private 
bonds out there. If we wind up with more private ones, we have to buy 
out some of the public ones. It can be done a number of ways. They are 
all exactly the same. They are transferring money from one pocket to 
another, as the Senator says.
  Paying down the national debt is a commitment this Congress has made. 
We are not changing that commitment. We put that in the bill, and we 
are not changing Congress' commitment. We would like to change 
Congress' commitment. If Congress changes Congress' commitment, they 
can do that. That is what that says.
  In addition, there is an honest debt repayment in the amendment. The 
Senator is choosing to overlook the honest portion of the debt 
repayment, which is the focus of this bill. It is the focus of the bill 
that Senator Allard and I introduced the first year we were here: 
Paying down, with true surplus, the public part of the debt. We are 
going to do that part and another part.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from South Carolina yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator does not have any time.
  Mr. ALLARD. Our time has expired. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has the Senator used the full hour? He 
had a full hour.
  Mr. ALLARD. I am sorry, the time I yielded to the Senator from 
Wyoming has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment, so I 
control the time. Does the Senator from South Carolina want some 
additional time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Two minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield as much time as the Senator wants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming talked about 
the commitment to pay down the national debt, but on page 5, the 
national debt is listed beginning on line 20, fiscal year 2000, as 
$5.625 trillion going up to, on page 6, $5.923 trillion. It's an 
increase in the debt of $297,712,000. Here is the Senator's commitment 
to reducing the national debt.
  There is no commitment that I have seen. I ask unanimous consent to 
print in the Record a listing of the national debt as it has gone up 
since the days of President Truman.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
                                            [In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Annual
                                                                       Unified     Actual              increases
                                                   U.S.     Borrowed   deficit    deficit    National      in
              President and year                  budget     trust       with     without      debt     spending
                                                (outlays)    funds      trust      trust                  for
                                                                        funds      funds                interest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
    1946......................................       55.2       -5.0      -15.9      -10.9      271.0  .........
    1947......................................       34.5       -9.9        4.0      +13.9      257.1  .........
    1948......................................       29.8        6.7       11.8       +5.1      252.0  .........
    1949......................................       38.8        1.2        0.6       -0.6      252.6  .........
    1950......................................       42.6        1.2       -3.1       -4.3      256.9  .........
    1951......................................       45.5        4.5        6.1       +1.6      255.3  .........
    1952......................................       67.7        2.3       -1.5       -3.8      259.1  .........
    1953......................................       76.1        0.4       -6.5       -6.9      266.0  .........
Eisenhower:
    1954......................................       70.9        3.6       -1.2       -4.8      270.8  .........
    1955......................................       68.4        0.6       -3.0       -3.6      274.4  .........
    1956......................................       70.6        2.2        3.9       +1.7      272.7  .........
    1957......................................       76.6        3.0        3.4       +0.4      272.3  .........
    1958......................................       82.4        4.6       -2.8       -7.4      279.7  .........
    1959......................................       92.1       -5.0      -12.8       -7.8      287.5  .........
    1960......................................       92.2        3.3        0.3       -3.0      290.5  .........
    1961......................................       97.7       -1.2       -3.3       -2.1      292.6  .........
Kennedy:
    1962......................................      106.8        3.2       -7.1      -10.3      302.9        9.1
    1963......................................      111.3        2.6       -4.8       -7.4      310.3        9.9
Johnson:
    1964......................................      118.5       -0.1       -5.9       -5.8      316.1       10.7
    1965......................................      118.2        4.8       -1.4       -6.2      322.3       11.3
    1966......................................      134.5        2.5       -3.7       -6.2      328.5       12.0
    1967......................................      157.5        3.3       -8.6      -11.9      340.4       13.4
    1968......................................      178.1        3.1      -25.2      -28.3      368.7       14.6
    1969......................................      183.6        0.3        3.2       +2.9      365.8       16.6
Nixon:
    1970......................................      195.6       12.3       -2.8      -15.1      380.9       19.3
    1971......................................      210.2        4.3      -23.0      -27.3      408.2       21.0
    1972......................................      230.7        4.3      -23.4      -27.7      435.9       21.8
    1973......................................      245.7       15.5      -14.9      -30.4      466.3       24.2
    1974......................................      269.4       11.5       -6.1      -17.6      483.9       29.3
Ford:
    1975......................................      332.3        4.8      -53.2      -58.0      541.9       32.7
    1976......................................      371.8       13.4      -73.7      -87.1      629.0       37.1
Carter:
    1977......................................      409.2       23.7      -53.7      -77.4      706.4       41.9
    1978......................................      458.7       11.0      -59.2      -70.2      776.6       48.7
    1979......................................      504.0       12.2      -40.7      -52.9      829.5       59.9
    1980......................................      590.9        5.8      -73.8      -79.6      909.1       74.8
Reagan:
    1981......................................      678.2        6.7      -79.0      -85.7      994.8       95.5
    1982......................................      745.8       14.5     -128.0     -142.5    1,137.3      117.2
    1983......................................      808.4       26.6     -207.8     -234.4    1,371.7      128.7

[[Page S2185]]

 
    1984......................................      851.9        7.6     -185.4     -193.0    1,564.7      153.9
    1985......................................      946.4       40.5     -212.3     -252.8    1,817.5      178.9
    1986......................................      990.5       81.9     -221.2     -303.1    2,120.6      190.3
    1987......................................    1,004.1       75.7     -149.8     -225.5    2,346.1      195.3
    1988......................................    1,064.5      100.0     -155.2     -255.2    2,601.3      214.1
Bush:
    1989......................................    1,143.7      114.2     -152.5     -266.7    2,868.3      240.9
    1990......................................    1,253.2      117.4     -221.2     -338.6    3,206.6      264.7
    1991......................................    1,324.4      122.5     -269.4     -391.9    3,598.5      285.5
    1992......................................    1,381.7      113.2     -290.4     -403.6    4,002.1      292.3
Clinton:
    1993......................................    1,409.5       94.2     -255.1     -349.3    4,351.4      292.5
    1994......................................    1,461.9       89.0     -203.3     -292.3    4,643.7      296.3
    1995......................................    1,515.8      113.3     -164.0     -277.3    4,921.0      332.4
    1996......................................    1,560.6      153.4     -107.5     -260.9    5,181.9      344.0
    1997......................................    1,601.3      165.8      -22.0     -187.8    5,369.7      355.8
    1998......................................    1,652.6      178.2       69.2     -109.0    5,478.7      363.8
    1999......................................    1,703.0      251.8      124.4     -127.4    5,606.1      353.5
    2000......................................    1,769.0      234.9      176.0      -58.9    5,665.0      362.0
    2001......................................    1,839.0      262.0      177.0      -85.0    5,750.0      371.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government FY 1998; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 2001 Economic and Budget
  Outlook, Feb. 16, 2000.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one can see how that debt has gone up. 
One can see we were doing pretty good under the Budget Act, which was 
the solution we had in 1993 under President Clinton. We came from a 
$403.6 billion deficit. We were spending over $400 billion more than we 
took in, until 1993 when we reduced it to $349.3 billion. And in 1994, 
it went down to $292.3 billion. Then in 1995, it went down to $277 
billion. In 1996, it went down to $260.9 billion. In 1997, it was 
$187.8 billion. In 1998, it was $109 billion. In 1999, it was $127 
billion. It went back up last year.
  Under this chart, it shows we are going back down. These are CBO 
figures.
  As I related a minute ago, with the votes we have had, it is going to 
be over $100 billion. I am always trying to jump off the Capitol dome 
to emphasize a point. I make that offer again to my distinguished 
chairman--I will jump off the Capitol dome if we balance the budget. 
Watch. Come October, when we adjourn for the year and start the new 
fiscal year, we will be running a deficit again. I yield the floor and 
retain the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, earlier 
I offered an amendment to provide for a tax reduction. At this time, I 
speak on behalf of the Allard-Enzi-Grams amendment because I believe it 
is a responsible way in which to deal with the problem of reducing the 
national debt.
  First, we need to pay down our national debt so we can decrease our 
interest payments on that debt, a debt which stands at $5.7 trillion. 
The way I calculate it, the interest we'll pay this year comes out to 
over $224 billion. We pay about $600 million a day on interest costs 
alone. Out of every Federal dollar we spend, 13 cents goes to pay 
interest on the national debt compared, for example, with 16 cents for 
national defense and 18 cents for nondefense discretionary spending. We 
will spend more money on interest this year than we do on Medicare.
  These numbers make me determined to do all I can to decrease our debt 
even further. I believe every fiscal decision we make in Congress 
should be measured against the backdrop of how it will decrease our 
national debt. And I am not the only one who believes that. In fact, in 
Congressional testimony in January of this year, CBO Director Dan 
Crippen stated:

       Most economists agree that saving the surpluses, paying 
     down the debt held by the public, is probably the best thing 
     we can do relative to the economy.

  On that same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said:

       My first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus 
     to flow through into a reduction in debt to the public. From 
     an economic point of view, that would be, by far, the best 
     means of employing it.

  Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and Main 
Street and encourages more savings--and we need more savings in this 
country--and investment which, in turn, fuels productivity and 
continued economic growth. It also lowers interest rates which, in my 
view, is a real tax reduction for the American people.
  Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the 
only way we can ensure our Nation will not return to the days of 
deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn for the worse or 
a national emergency arise. As Alan Greenspan has testified before 
Congress:

       A substantial part of the surplus . . . should be allowed 
     to reduce the debt, because you can always increase debt 
     later if you wish to, but it's effectively putting away the 
     surplus for use at a later time if you so choose.

  Many in the Senate have argued that putting the Social Security 
surplus in the lockbox will be enough to pay down the debt. I remind my 
colleagues, we will have to use some of the surplus everybody is 
talking about for paying down the national debt in order to fund reform 
of the Social Security system, if we are going to solve the problems of 
Social Security.
  We cannot keep putting off our responsibilities. If we have the 
ability, as we do now, we have a moral obligation to pay down the debt.
  When I go back to Ohio, people say: we're not asking for more tax 
cuts; I want you to do something about Social Security, Medicare, 
health care, and if you have some money, for goodness sake, pay down 
the debt.
  That is what we do in our own families. If we get a little extra 
money and we are in debt, we pay down the debt. That is what the people 
want this Government to do. That is the message I am getting from the 
people in the State of Ohio. I am sure my colleagues who are supporting 
this amendment are hearing from the people in their states.
  Last but not least, I agree with GAO Comptroller General David 
Walker. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee last 
year, he said something that is really very important to those of us 
who have children and grandchildren, as most of us in this body do, 
about our obligation to future generations. David Walker said:

       This generation has a stewardship responsibility to future 
     generations to reduce the debt burden they inherit, to 
     provide a strong foundation for future economic growth, and 
     to ensure that future commitments are both adequate and 
     affordable. Prudence requires making the tough choices 
     today--

  We have to make the tough choices today--

     while the economy is healthy and the workforce is relatively 
     large--before we are hit by the baby boom's demographic tidal 
     wave.

  We should support this amendment. It makes sense. It is good for 
America, and it is good for fiscal responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does Senator Allard have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Allard has 25 minutes remaining.

[[Page S2186]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes. Let's make it 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for Senator 
Allard and all those who are supporting him on this amendment. But I 
surely did not want the debate to end today without talking about what 
we have already done and what this budget resolution does.
  In the last 2 years, we have reduced the debt held by the public. I 
hear people talking about both kinds of debt on the floor. But did I 
hear Senator Voinovich say he was quoting from somebody who stated the 
best thing we can do is reduce the debt held by the public when we have 
a surplus? We have already reduced it by $355 billion. This budget 
resolution--so everyone will know--will reduce the debt by an 
additional $1.1 trillion.
  Frankly, I am going to give an estimate, but I think I will be close. 
If we stay on this path, the interest on the national debt will have 
been reduced between $100 billion and $130 billion.
  I ask, how much is enough?
  There is an argument being made that since this money is Social 
Security trust fund money, it does not really reduce the debt because 
we may have to use it someday. Right now, as we sit in this Senate, and 
as I stand and talk, there is less interest being paid because the 
Social Security trust fund money is not being spent; it is being saved, 
which means we have that much less IOUs to the public.
  We are going to have $1.1 trillion more over the next 5 years, making 
the total, in a period of about 7 years, of almost $1.5 trillion.
  I think that on my side of the aisle, the same Senators who are 
concerned about whether this is real, because someday we have to fix 
Social Security, in my mind's eye I think they are all for personal 
accounts as a solution to the Social Security problem. I suggest that 
if we do personal accounts, then we will not spend this money. In fact, 
it will turn up on the side of the ledger as having been saved rather 
than having been spent. So it is too early to predict what kind of 
reform will occur, and when it will occur, if it occurs, on Social 
Security.
  What we have to look at is right now and the next 5 years in this 
budget resolution. Some would make it sound as if $1.1 trillion applied 
to the debt--a portion of which is from the on-budget surplus--isn't 
enough, that we ought to do more.
  Let me suggest, what is left over after doing that, over the next 5 
years, is about $390 billion. That is what is left over in new money, 
off a freeze.
  You have to take care of defense with that, which I think a fair 
guess would be that by itself it is going to grow at $20 billion a year 
at a minimum. What about all the rest of Government? Are we literally 
going to say we are not going to have a single increase in the rest of 
Government? Of course, we are going to have some.
  What about a tax bill of some type? Sooner or later both sides of the 
aisle--and we are going to get a new President, but we are going to 
have some tax relief. That all has to come out of the remaining money, 
some portion of which they keep saying: Put more on the debt. They can 
argue whichever way they want. Part of it will come out of the tax 
relief in the future; part of it will come out of spending in the 
future; maybe part of it will come out of defense in the future.

  But I do not believe this Budget Committee did anything but the right 
thing in assuming that about $1.1 trillion out of a surplus that is 
probably totally, for both kinds of surplus, about $1.5 trillion, is 
put on the debt.
  Everybody claims they want to do more. Everybody quotes Alan 
Greenspan. My friend, Senator Gramm, once said: Quoting Alan Greenspan 
is sort of like quoting the Bible. It depends on whether you are 
reading John or Matthew; you can get a quote in one of them that faith 
alone gets you to Heaven, and you can quote the other one that faith 
and a little work gets you to Heaven. Choose whichever you like. But 
you can quote either one.
  I am going to say--to quote Alan Greenspan to my way of thinking--the 
best thing you can do is put a surplus on the debt that you owe to the 
public. But then he says, if the next choice is between spending it and 
tax relief, unequivocally, tax relief; and, third, the worst for the 
economy is to spend more.
  Frankly, I am amazed that we have Republicans complaining about not 
having enough on the debt when all we have left over is used for two 
things: $150 billion, spread over 5 years, in tax relief, unless we do 
not do it. If we do not have tax relief at all, it all goes on the 
debt. That is right in the budget resolution. That is binding. So if 
you do not do tax relief, it goes on the debt. The rest goes to 
contemplated increases in defense and a very small amount for the 
myriad domestic programs that we have in our Government.
  We have to be both realists and theorists. We have to be 
philosophical and we have to apply it with some benchmarks to reality.
  To tell you the honest truth, and to share with my fellow Senators, 
never in my life--25 years of which was spent with great deficits--did 
I ever assume we would be applying as much as this budget resolution 
contemplates against the debt. Our interest is going to decline--I am 
corrected here--from about $224 billion a year to about $166 billion by 
the year 2005. That is with the tax relief we have and with the defense 
increases we have. Then, if you want to go out the next 5 years, it 
comes down precipitously thereafter.
  Frankly, this generation of Americans, and those working and trying 
to make a living, are all out there saying: We are putting part of our 
taxes into debt relief. They are asking: How much is enough? Are you 
going to have any left over to give us a little tax relief? Are you 
going to have any left over so we can have an adequate Defense 
Department? Or are you really going to put it all on the debt?
  I understand I am exaggerating when I say ``all,'' but how much more 
can we do?
  I do not believe we ought to go beyond what we have in this budget 
resolution. Democrats will claim maybe $75 billion more ought to go on 
the debt. Senator Allard has it in some formula by the year we ought to 
have more. I think they both ought to lose. I hope, before we are 
finished, they will both lose because the right thing to do is just 
about what the Budget Committee agreed to: about $10 billion, or so, a 
year out of the on-budget surplus; and the entire Social Security 
surplus going unused, staying in the fund.

  When I ask, How much is enough? I suggest that the most significant 
fiscal policy change made to this point--to the benefit of Americans of 
the future--is something that came from our side of the aisle, and in 
particular that I thought up one day; and that most significant fiscal 
change of events is that all the Social Security surplus stays in the 
Social Security fund.
  Ask Dr. Greenspan, looking over the last decade, and from what he can 
see in the future: What is the most significant fiscal policy change to 
the betterment of America? He will say that one, if you live by it. We 
are living by it right here in this budget resolution, and somebody is 
suggesting that isn't enough. Somebody such as Dr. Greenspan thinks it 
is a whopping amount. I imagine if he could write it down on a piece of 
paper, he would say: I really never thought Congress would ever do 
that. If they do it for another 5 or 10 years, what a plus will occur, 
what a positive thing to happen for American consumers, the American 
worker, and America's future.
  I will just summarize by stating a rather unbelievable fact: By the 
year 2005, interest expenses will have decreased from 13 percent to 8 
percent of the Federal budget. That is the only significant portion of 
the budget that has declined, from 13 percent of the budget down to 8 
percent by 2005. Pretty good work, Congress, pretty good work.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a minute?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield whatever time the Senator would like.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments to 
strike section 208 and section 210, and I ask unanimous consent that 
they be qualified and temporarily set aside to be called up later. We 
will have a third amendment pertaining to section 211 to be offered 
later.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, what was the request?
  Mr. STEVENS. That these amendments be qualified and put in line.

[[Page S2187]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will take the opportunity to respond to 
some of the comments of the Senator from South Carolina and also to 
some of the comments from the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  We all appreciate the effort the chairman of the Budget Committee has 
put forth in paying down the public debt. I think he is to be commended 
for his commitment. We have talked about the need to pay down the 
public debt.
  What I am saying with this particular amendment is that we need to go 
beyond 5 years. We need to look at 20 years and put a plan in place. 
This is a minimal plan. We have over a $1.6 trillion budget. We are 
just taking $15 billion of it and saying let's commit each year an 
additional $15 billion to paying down the debt and that we ought to be 
able to do that. I don't care whether it is 15 or 10 or 7. Senator Enzi 
from Wyoming made the same comment. The important thing is that we have 
a plan to pay it down.
  This is a legitimate plan. This is not just a paper transfer. The 
Senator from South Carolina implied that this is just a transfer on 
paper. It isn't. It is taking the on-budget surplus and using that 
towards paying down the debt as a minimal plan. If the Budget Committee 
comes up with more dollars they want to put aside for debt reduction, 
God bless them. Let's do it. I am all for that. But this doesn't 
prevent them from doing more if they want to do it.
  In addition to that, we say, instead of taking the Social Security 
surplus and transferring it over to the general fund where it gets 
spent, hold it in a fund very much like the Domenici lockbox. We put it 
there, and we don't spend it. It stays in that fund until we have 
serious Social Security reform. Then, when we have changed Social 
Security, when we have saved Social Security, then we can relook at 
changing the law, where we have an automatic transfer of surplus and 
Social Security that goes to the general fund to be spent. We can look 
at the implications on our total debt figure.
  What you have here is a minimal plan. If you start including the off-
budget surpluses in the year 2001, you have a total debt payment of 
around $152.4 billion because there is $137.4 billion that comes in on 
top of the $15 billion we have in the minimal plan. Then in the next 
year, in 2002, we go up to $30 billion that we are using in on-budget 
surplus to pay down the debt. That is a minimal plan to pay it down by 
2021. We add on top of that another $143.6 billion to bring it up to 
$173.6 billion at the end of the 2002 budget year. That is assuming we 
don't do anything to reform or change Social Security.
  I think most of us agree that Social Security is going to have to be 
changed. We will have to do something to save it. I am saying, in the 
meantime, instead of leaving the money out there, leaving it 
vulnerable, let's use the money to pay down the public debt an 
additional amount so it doesn't get built into the spending patterns of 
the Congress and obligate us to programs we may not be able to afford 
if we go into a time period where our economy is going to turn down.
  I believe our economy is cyclical. Right now, we are going through 
unprecedented growth. At some point in time, it is going to turn 
around. We are going to regret the day we didn't do more to pay down 
the debt to get us in a position to ride through those economic 
downturns when they occur.
  I think this is an important provision. It is in no way intended to 
be critical of the efforts of the Budget Committee to date. It says we 
can do just a little bit more; instead of looking at 5-year increments, 
let's look at a 20-year increment for paying down the debt. We can do 
that in 20 years, by 2021. It says that in the process of doing that, 
at a minimum, we will save ourselves $3 trillion in interest payments.
  It is a concrete plan. It doesn't eliminate the opportunity, if 
Members of the Senate want to have reduced taxes. It does not eliminate 
that. It has an enforcement mechanism.
  Last fall, we got into a discussion in the Senate as to whether or 
not we were spending Social Security dollars because there was a 
disagreement on what the revenues were going to be at the first of the 
year, and we moved into February. We have provided that if our 
projected revenues don't hold up, we can go in and make adjustments on 
spending so that when we tell the American people we are not going to 
spend Social Security dollars and the revenues don't hold up, we won't 
spend Social Security dollars. We will have saved Social Security. I 
think it is straightforward budgeting. It is accountable. I think it is 
a step in the right direction.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I wonder if we have anyone 
further who wants to speak on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  If neither side yields time, the time will be subtracted equally 
against both sides.
  Mr. ALLARD. Does the other side have anybody who cares to speak? If 
not, I can yield on this side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We do, Mr. President. If, however, the proponent of 
the amendment wishes to continue addressing the Senate, we have no 
objection. We are waiting for people to come by.
  Mr. ALLARD. I think Senator Enzi may want to make a point or two in 
the debate. I will yield some time to him, unless the Senator has 
somebody in line to speak.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be fine.
  Mr. ALLARD. I call on the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and yield 
him 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have been hearing about the Social 
Security surplus, and I hate for the debate to really revolve around 
the Social Security surplus. The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, 
did come up with a marvelous plan last year--the lockbox for Social 
Security--which has been adopted as one of our budget principles now; 
we lock up the Social Security surplus. I can't give enough credit to 
him for his effort, along with those of us who joined him to make that 
preservation of Social Security. It is extremely important. That 
continues under this bill.
  The focus of the bill should be a plan to pay down the rest of the 
national debt over a specified period of time, just as you do a house 
payment. Why is this important? Every family in America will understand 
why that is important.
  I hear some words around here occasionally that if you have extra 
money after you do these other things, then you understand you are 
supposed to pay down your debt. No, that is not how it works, and the 
American people understand that. If you have a debt, you have a payment 
you have to make, and you allocate that payment before you do anything 
else.
  That is what we are talking about here--responsibility, just as you 
have in a family, for paying down the national debt. It would come 
first. It would have to be the first thing we did. We would still find 
the money to do the other things we thought were important, but we 
would first pay down this national debt we have accumulated on behalf 
of our kids and grandkids.
  We have talked about the debt being reduced by $1.1 trillion over the 
next 5 years. That is marvelous. That is taking the Social Security 
surplus and locking it up. It is a very important concept. But that 
does not pay down the national debt so there is money left with which 
to eventually do additional things.
  There was a comment that there is $130 billion in interest savings by 
paying that down. Not if we are being honest about Social Security. If 
Social Security has bonds, Social Security should earn interest. If 
Social Security earns interest, that also has to go into the account 
because we can't spend it. We don't want to spend it, we are not 
supposed to spend it, and we have made it a principle not to spend it. 
But we should still pay the interest to Social Security. It will 
increase the debt reduction on this changing from one pocket to 
another. But it is still interest that has to be paid.
  We are talking about a billion dollars a day of interest on the 
national debt--borrowing from what the Senator from South Carolina used 
as a figure. But I have to tell you, that billion dollars a day is not 
free to be spent until all of the national debt is paid off--all of it.

[[Page S2188]]

 When you pay down a house mortgage, you pay it down a little bit and 
it saves you some interest, but you actually apply that interest to 
your payment because the payment stays constant on a house payment. So 
you can't spend the interest you save on a house payment. We are 
suggesting you can't spend the interest you save on a debt reduction 
payment.
  As the only accountant in the Senate, I spent a great deal of time 
listening to last year's discussion on tax relief. I was amazed at the 
number of my Democrat colleagues who opposed that bill because they 
said the money should be used for debt reduction. This is the same 
reason the President gave for vetoing our tax cut. When he submitted 
his budget to Congress this year, he made clear his rhetoric on debt 
reduction was a fleeting facade behind which he could hide his real 
desire for countless new Government programs, each one requiring 
substantial new Government spending, which would further threaten our 
children's economic future. As soon as the threat of the tax cut 
disappeared, so did the President's determination and commitment to 
debt reduction--other than moving it from one pocket to the other on 
Social Security.

  This amendment challenges all of my colleagues to choose between a 
plan that offers a real debt reduction or the hollow promises which 
were nothing more than a smokescreen for huge Government spending.
  I urge colleagues to join me in rebuilding the financial house of 
responsibility where our parents and grandparents can retire in peace 
and where our children and grandchildren will be welcome for years to 
come. We should join together in laying an important cornerstone in 
that foundation today by supporting Senator Allard's amendment to this 
budget resolution.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time on 
this side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALLARD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation 
regarding the time for any opposition to the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, there are 41 
minutes remaining in opposition.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will speak off the budget resolution 
itself. I have listened with interest to the comments of the Senator 
from Colorado. I salute what he says he wants to do to get the debt 
reduced more than anybody else: Get it lower, bring it down. It doesn't 
matter how we get it there, if we have to burn the house down to get 
it.
  There isn't anybody here who doesn't know we are terribly short of 
funding for programs we need to have in place, that even the Republican 
budget resolution--and I serve on the Budget Committee--was passed by 
the majority without any support from the minority. None of the 
Democrats voted for this resolution.
  I think it is fair to say the principle of paying down the debt was 
established by President Clinton and his administration when they said, 
``Save Social Security, pay down the debt.'' They were almost 
simultaneous acts. Some disagree and say it is another IOU from the 
Government. But it is an IOU from a much stronger balance sheet. I come 
from the business world, and that is the way I look at things.
  I ask the Senator from Colorado, if he will indulge me, what is the 
total savings he hopes to have or the total debt reduction he plans to 
have over the 5-year period?
  Mr. ALLARD. If we look at it overall, we plan on saving, in interest 
over the 20 year period, $3.2 trillion. Now, if we look at our debt 
payment over 5 years in surplus, then we are going to be paying down 
our trust fund. In 2006, we are going to be looking at--let me get the 
figure out here--a total of having paid down the surplus in 5 years of 
$982.7 billion and a savings of the interest, which would be that much 
less since we have to pay interest on it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator be kind 
enough to tell me what the formula says in direct debt repayment over 
the 5-year period? I understand that it is in increments.
  Mr. ALLARD. Fifteen billion dollars.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then $30 billion.
  Mr. ALLARD. Then $45 billion. Yes. So when we get down here to the 
year 2006, we would be making a $90 billion payment for the debt 
payment. But $15 billion of that comes out of the spending for that 
year as new revenues come in. So we are establishing a program.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senator's response. I am trying to 
get it nailed down to a figure so we can discuss it with a degree of 
understanding.
  If it was $15 billion, $30 billion, $45 billion, $60 billion, and $75 
billion, it comes to about $255 billion in 5 years.
  Mr. ALLARD. The program amount paying down the debt would be $90 
billion in the year 2006.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. But we are talking about starting in 2001. It comes 
to $255 billion. We don't have to take this much longer. I was 
surprised to see the Senator introduce a 20-year forecast. Am I 
correct? Was that on the chart?
  Mr. ALLARD. It is not a forecast. It is a plan to pay down the debt 
so we will have completely paid off the debt by the year 2021.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a mandatory retirement of debt each year 
regardless of the financial condition in this country.
  Mr. ALLARD. It includes the Social Security surplus. The bill sets 
the Social Security surplus over here, and says it will not spend the 
Social Security surplus unless we do Social Security reform. On top of 
that, you have the Social Security surplus. If we took 2001 and 2002, 
for example, when you include a Social Security surplus, it is more 
than $15 billion. It is $152.4 billion in 2001, and $173.6 billion 
paying down the debt in both those years. It is pretty similar to what 
the Budget Committee is doing right now.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. To be clear, because I think there is perhaps some 
misinterpretation of what the Senator is looking for, that is pay down 
the debt as a mandate of the budget process--pay down the debt, and 
that is regardless of where those payments come from. I understand the 
Senator wants to get the debt paid down. But I just want to be sure I 
am correct in what I understand his intention is, once again to pay 
down the debt. Regardless, we are going to take $15 billion out next 
year, and the next year it is $30 billion, and then $45 billion, et 
cetera, among the first things. That is a mandate.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is a priority.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I hope it is clear to everybody 
who is listening that this is a cut taken without regard for the 
consequences. It doesn't matter where it comes from. It can come out of 
Medicare, based on what we are hearing. It could come out of education. 
It could come out of COPS. Pull in the FBI, cut the number of FBI 
agents, cut safety programs, cut Coast Guard--cut, cut. It is like the 
harvest at the end of the growing season--just cut it. The only problem 
is we have other obligations.
  Maybe the Senator from Colorado thinks the principal obligation is 
similar to running an accounting office such as H&R Block, or something 
such as that. We cut regardless of the consequences. Take down the 
respirators. Take down the blood transfusions. If the patient dies, the 
patient dies.

  We can't have that. Forgive me, but everybody knows that this is a 
political idea whose time should never come. We cannot plan on 
eliminating the debt without establishing where it is that the funds 
are going to come from to pay down that debt. I did not hear the 
Senator say ``only if there is a surplus.'' He didn't allocate the 
resource to the surplus. Even if we are in debt because of an economic 
downturn of some significance, we will just pay down the debt. We will 
take it out of programs that are life-sustaining programs in some 
cases--or increasing

[[Page S2189]]

taxes. That is where we have to go if there is no accounting. I know 
the Senator, in addition to being a professional, is also, if I may 
say, a businessman. He knows what balance sheets and P&L statements 
look like. We are going to just pay down the debt regardless of where 
it comes from.
  I know the distinguished chairman of the committee on which I serve, 
the Budget Committee, has a word or two he wants to pass along. I must 
say that this proposal, unless we know where and how the funds are 
going to be generated to pay down that debt, you will forgive me, 
borders on the reckless.
  I ask the Senator to answer in short form, because it is on 
opposition time, where does the Senator plan to get the funds to pay 
down this debt?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my response is, we have 4-percent growth 
in outlays projected into the schedule that we have laid out. In 
reality, there are no program cuts. We make provisions for 4-percent 
increases. There is just a plan. It is similar to an amortization 
schedule for your home. If the family runs into problems, they can redo 
that plan to pay down the debt. But the key is that we have a plan to 
pay down the debt. We have allowed 4-percent growth in spending in that 
plan. I think that is reasonable.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am sure the Senator considers it reasonable.
  I point out that this cut would be to reduce the Republican budget 
resolution plan for spending by $205 billion.
  I ask the chairman of the Budget Committee what kind of effect this 
might have if your budget plan for discretionary spending and 
nondefense was cut, and maybe even throw defense in the $205 billion.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that all good 
intentions are attributable to this amendment. But this amendment 
prejudges everything that we need for the next 5 years, and perhaps 5 
years after that. Assuming we know right now about everything we need--
and we ought to use his number, which is 4 percent for defense and 
everything else--and decide all the rest goes on the debt, then budget 
committees will start with those ground rules in the future. Pretty 
soon, we will just write a budget right here on the floor like this. We 
don't have to meet. Nothing happens any differently every year. We just 
determine this is exactly how much will be left over, and all the rest 
goes to the debt.
  I am already against the amendment. I don't think it is the right 
thing to do. I didn't yield time off my amendment, but I would have if 
I had been here.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I could see a hefty tax raise coming to pay off the 
debt.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It could, and it could be tax cuts in the future, which 
is not what Republicans have been thinking either. The Senator from 
Colorado says he doesn't intend to affect them. But the truth is we 
don't know that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have finished with my remarks.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I regret I will be unable to support the 
amendment offered by Senator Allard to provide for budget procedures 
designed to reduce our national debt. While I strongly agree with the 
goal of debt reduction, I cannot support the amendment because of 
several important flaws.
  First, the amendment calls for at least partially privatizing Social 
Security as part of an overall reform plan for that program. While I 
believe we need to pursue modest reforms to Social Security, I strongly 
oppose efforts to privatize that program. For the past seven decades, 
Social Security has worked to keep retirees out of poverty. Roughly 
half of seniors would in live poverty were it not for Social Security. 
It would be a great mistake to eliminate the fundamental shared 
security that program provides by moving to a privatized system.
  Second, while a policy of planned debt reduction may be meritorious, 
there are clearly times when it would be wise to temporarily suspend 
such plans. The amendment provides for one exception, namely a 
declaration of war. However, there are other circumstances under which 
an exception may be needed, in particular, when there is a severe 
economic recession. At such a time, debt reduction may aggravate an 
economic slump. At the very least, the amendment should provide some 
flexibility with respect to the level of debt reduction. Unfortunately, 
it does not.
  Finally, the amendment may be unconstitutional, as it attempts to 
constrain the power of the Vice President, provided in the 
Constitution, to break tie votes in the Senate. It is ironic that 
perhaps the most critical vote of the past decade in the cause of a 
lower national debt, the vote to pass the 1993 deficit reduction 
package, was decided by the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President and 
would have been precluded had this provision been in effect at the 
time. That single vote may be more responsible for the record-breaking 
economic growth we have experienced than any other over the past seven 
years. More importantly, this provision is almost certainly 
unconstitutional, and on that basis alone, warrants opposition.
  This budget resolution would certainly look a lot better were it to 
incorporate the levels of debt reduction contemplated by this 
amendment, and it is regretful that, thanks in large part to the 
fiscally irresponsible tax cuts in it, the underlying budget resolution 
could not sustain the level of debt reduction that Senator Allard 
proposes. While I cannot vote for his amendment, I congratulate Senator 
Allard on his effort, for he has certainly helped to raise the critical 
issue of debt reduction, and given it the priority it deserves.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator Allard's 
amendment, which would protect Social Security and eliminate the 
federal debt held by the public. I believe this is a fiscally 
responsible amendment and it will help us to maintain fiscal discipline 
in an era of budget surplus.
  If enacted, this amendment would stop Washington's spending spree and 
eliminate the entire $3.6 trillion debt owed to the public, save over 
$3 trillion in interest, and protect the Social Security program from 
annual discretionary appropriations raids.
  Mr. President, thanks to our strong economy, we will have a $1.9 
trillion non-Social Security surplus and a $2.3 trillion Social 
Security surplus over the next 10 years.
  Yet there are many proposals to spend this surplus. If we spend it, 
rather than save it, we will confirm the public's worst fears about the 
irresponsibility of their elected leaders.
  This budget surplus didn't just fall from the sky. It is working 
Americans who generated the surplus--not Congress, not the President, 
but Americans' hard work. And it should be returned to taxpayers in the 
form of debt reduction, tax relief, and Social Security reform.
  If we don't lock in the budget surplus and return it to the taxpayers 
in these ways, Washington will spend it all. Last year's appropriations 
spending has proven that my fears are well founded.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has repeatedly advised the 
Congress and the administration that we should use the surplus for debt 
reduction or tax relief, rather than increasing government spending. 
Here is what he said:

       Saving the surpluses--if politically feasible--is, in my 
     judgment, the most important fiscal measure we can take at 
     this time to foster continued improvements in productivity.

  The Allard amendment would achieve this goal by dedicating some of 
the non-Social Security surplus to retire the debt. It also locks up 
the entire Social Security surplus for debt reduction, so we can have 
more cash reserves to save and reform Social Security, and to ensure 
Social Security will be there for our seniors, baby boomers, and future 
generations.
  I am pleased that under this budget resolution, we dedicate the $1.1 
trillion budget surplus to reduce the debt. This is a move in the right 
direction. We should now accelerate and continue the debt repayments.
  The Allard amendment will just do that. Starting in fiscal year 2001, 
this amendment requires Congress to use $15 billion of non-Social 
Security surplus receipts to pay down the debt. Thereafter, in every 
succeeding year, the amount of debt payment must increase by $15 
billion. Under this amendment, we will do more to pay down the debt.
  Futhermore, the Allard amendment leaves plenty of room to provide tax 
relief for working Americans, while protecting the Social Security 
surplus.

[[Page S2190]]

  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about debt 
reduction, but what they really want is to use debt reduction as an 
excuse to deny working Americans tax relief and to increase government 
spending. When I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee to 
dedicate this fiscal year's $26 billion on-budget surplus to retire the 
national debt, all of the Minority party members voted against my 
amendment, claiming that it would cut government spending too much.
  Mr. President, our economy has greatly improved our short-term fiscal 
situation, and we will have a significant budget surplus over the next 
10 years. However, our long-term fiscal condition, such as the 
insolvency of Social Security, still constitutes the primary threat to 
the health of our future economy.
  We must seize the opportunity presented by this budget surplus to 
address our long-term fiscal imbalances caused by the astronomic 
unfunded liability of Social Security. Without reform, the long-term 
financial imbalances will crowd out all of our discretionary spending. 
It will create fiscal hardship for millions of baby boomers and impose 
a heavy burden on future generations.
  The Allard amendment offers us the opportunity to fix the problem.
  The Allard amendment maintains the fiscal discipline we need in an 
era of budget surplus. It requires Congress to budget for a surplus 
that will be dedicated to the repayment of the publicly held portion of 
the debt, while maintaining a balanced budget.
  As I have repeatedly warned, without returning this budget surplus to 
the taxpayers in the form of debt reduction and tax relief, Washington 
will spend all of it. Let's pass the Allard amendment to stop that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the manager of the bill has been 
talking on this most important issue, I have been meeting with staff 
and some others to try to get the remaining time lined up before 5:30.
  I say to the manager of the bill on the majority side that Senator 
Conrad is here and would like to offer an amendment. He can either do 
it when time runs out or he could do it now.
  If the Senator from Colorado wishes to offer an amendment, we could 
take 5 minutes before 5:30.
  Senator Kennedy and Senator Bingaman would also like 5 minutes to 
speak before the vote takes place. The Senator from North Dakota, who 
is going to offer the amendment, needs about 12 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have been working very well together on this but I 
don't want to agree to that. That means on your side you have 10 
minutes to speak on the education matter and you have not yielded 
anything to us in opposition.
  Mr. REID. I have no problem with you having whatever time. I am 
trying to protect Senators Bingaman and Kennedy because they requested 
time a long time ago.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The unanimous consent said each of them can speak 2 
minutes before the vote. That is agreed to in the unanimous consent; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So they have 2 minutes each.
  Mr. REID. If they are here and I get the floor I will yield them some 
time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am ready to let the Senator proceed with his 
amendment although there is time remaining. I want to yield my time. If 
the Senator will yield his time, he will not have time left except the 
2 minutes for each side.
  Mr. REID. I think the two leaders would not agree to that because 
they have alerted everybody the vote is going to take place at 5:30.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Under my proposal, we yield back our time on Allard, he 
yields back his time, and we are finished with Allard except for the 2 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. And then the rest of the time we talk on debt reduction.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Up until the time we allow 2 minutes for each 
amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. I want 2 or 3 minutes to summarize. I can do that and 
then yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Wouldn't you rather speak before your amendment is 
voted on?
  Mr. ALLARD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has 2 minutes under the unanimous consent 
to do that.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the time and assume the time has been 
consumed on the Allard amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                Amendment No. 2935 to Amendment No. 2906

  (Purpose: To increase the amount of debt reduction contained in the 
                resolution by $75 billion over 5 years)

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is simple. It 
reduces the proposed $150 billion tax cut in the Republican plan. It 
cuts it in half and dedicates the savings to debt reduction.
  The U.S. economy is stronger than it has ever been. We have now had 
the longest economic expansion in our history. The question before the 
Senate is: What is the best strategy for keeping this extraordinary 
economic expansion underway? That is the question before the Senate.
  Virtually every economist who came before the Budget Committee, 
virtually every economist who came before the Finance Committee on 
which I also serve, has said the highest priority ought to be the 
further paying down of the national debt. That is what my amendment 
addresses.
  I believe rather than some ambitious, new spending scheme or some 
ambitious, new tax scheme that our priority ought to be paying down the 
national debt. Why? Because that is what has triggered this enormous 
economic expansion, getting our fiscal policy in order.
  In 1993, we had a $290 billion deficit, a deficit as far as the eye 
could see. We were running up the national debt. In fact, we quadrupled 
the national debt in about a 10-year timeframe. That would put this 
economy in the tank. In 1993, when we passed a plan to bring down the 
deficit, a 5-year plan that brought down the deficit each and every 
year, that put us on a course to lower interest rates and of higher 
rates of economic growth, to get the crowding-out factor removed from 
the marketplace so the Federal Government wasn't in competition with 
the private sector for scarce resources.
  The result has been reduced interest rates. The result has been more 
money available for productive investment in this economy. The result 
has been the lowest unemployment in 30 years, the lowest rates of 
inflation in more than 30 years, and the longest economic expansion in 
our history. Those are the facts. The critical component, according to 
every economist that has come before us, is to continue that strategy, 
continue to pay down the debt, lift this debt burden off of the 
economy, pay off this publicly held debt by the year 2013 or before so 
that we have as big an economy as we can possibly grow before the baby 
boomers start to retire. That is the wisest course.
  It is not just the opinion of the Senator from North Dakota; that is 
also the opinion of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who says: Pay 
down the debt first. The best use of the surplus is to reduce red ink.
  Chairman Greenspan said on debt reduction: Saving the surpluses, if 
politically feasible, is, in my judgment, the most important fiscal 
measure we can take at this time to foster continued improvements in 
productivity.
  Listen to Mr. Greenspan on this question:

       . . . there are limited fiscal resources in this country 
     and until we have strong evidence that there is a major 
     structural increase in the surplus, that trying to commit it 
     to various different programs or even tax cuts, I think, is 
     unwise.

  The alternative budget we are offering on our side dedicates 82 
percent of the projected surpluses to debt reduction. This is what we 
are proposing over 10 years; 82 percent of all of the surpluses 
dedicated to paying down the debt. We leave 14 percent for tax cuts and 
other high priority domestic needs such as prescription drug benefits.
  The vast majority of what we are proposing in our substitute is to 
pay down the debt. This includes every penny of the Social Security 
surplus, and it includes the biggest percentage of the non-Social 
Security surplus for paying down the debt.
  I know this is a conservative approach and some are surprised we are

[[Page S2191]]

advocating it, but this is our position. We believe it is the best 
strategy for the economy. We believe it is the best strategy for the 
country, and it is the strategy we are strongly supporting.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle primarily advocate tax 
cuts. Virtually all of the non-Social Security surplus in the plan on 
the other side of the aisle goes for tax cuts. Our alternative is to 
say, yes, there is room for tax cuts, but it ought not to be the first 
priority out of the non-Social Security surplus. The first priority 
ought to be further debt reduction. We dedicate 36 percent of the non-
Social Security surplus in addition to 100 percent of the Social 
Security surplus. In addition, we advocate 36 percent of the non-Social 
Security surplus to debt reduction, the biggest percentage.
  The next biggest percentage is for tax cuts. Yes, tax cuts are called 
for with this prosperity. Yes, we ought to address the marriage 
penalty; we ought to solve it. Yes, we ought to deal with some of the 
other things in the Tax Code that are unfair. For example, I believe 39 
years of depreciation for leasehold improvements makes no sense when 
the economic life of those improvements is 10 to 15 years. We ought to 
change that, too. We ought to change the estate tax. The current 
unified credit is out of date. We ought to update that. We ought to 
dramatically increase what we are doing in terms of relief for people 
with an estate tax problem.
  The top priority ought to be debt reduction. That is what we have 
made the top priority in our proposal. Mr. President, 36 percent of the 
non-Social Security surplus is for debt reduction; 29 percent for tax 
cuts; 23 percent for prescription drugs and other initiatives, and, of 
course, 11 percent for interest costs.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Would a debt reduction be a tax decrease for everybody in 
America?
  Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely. That would reduce interest costs over time. 
Of course, we are burning up a lot of money in the Federal budget in 
interest costs.
  The other thing I think is often missed in this whole question of 
debt reduction, Lloyd Bentsen when he was Secretary of the Treasury 
came to a meeting of the Finance Committee and said the best bang for 
the buck, the biggest bang for the buck is to take measures that reduce 
debt, that reduce deficits, that as a result take pressure off of 
interest rates.
  For every 1 percent we save on interest rates, we lift a $128 billion 
debt burden off this economy, every year--every year. That is bigger 
than any tax cut anybody has come up with, in terms of relief to our 
economy, by lifting the debt burden on this economy.
  The proof is in the pudding. What happened in 1993, when we cut 
spending and, yes, raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent so 
we could reduce the deficits, balance the budget, and get us on a 
course that could be sustained financially? We triggered reduced 
interest rates, increased rates of savings, societal savings that made 
more money available for productive investment that kicked off the 
longest economic expansion in our history. That is what is working. We 
ought to continue that course.
  We ought to stay the effort, continue the effort to pay down this 
debt, relieve the debt burden on the economy, take Government out of 
competition for scarce resources so the private sector has more money 
to invest, so we are better able to grow the economy, so we have a 
bigger economy when the bills of the baby boom generation start to come 
due. That is what every economist has told the Finance Committee. It is 
what they have told the Budget Committee. We have the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve telling us that is the wisest course. Let's do it. 
Let's take some of this tax cut, half of it, and use it to reduce the 
debt. That is the wisest course.
  We know there are things that need to be done on tax relief. I 
mentioned the marriage tax penalty. We ought to eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty. We ought to eliminate that. We have enough money in our 
proposed tax cuts to take care of that problem and also to address 
other serious needs in the tax arena. But when I talk to my 
constituents, they say to me: Senator, pay down the debt. That is 
really the crying need in this economy.
  We know; we have seen the reports in the Washington Post, that 
individuals' taxes have gone down. That is the finding of the 
Congressional Budget Office. That is the finding of the Tax Foundation, 
that taxes on individuals have gone down because we have expanded the 
earned-income tax credit; we provide the $500 tax credit for children. 
As a result, we have provided tax relief, very meaningful tax relief. 
That is one reason people are not clamoring for the additional tax 
relief.
  What they are clamoring for is a continuation of the economic 
strategy that has made us the wonder of the world. It has created the 
longest economic expansion in our history. Whatever we do, we should 
not put that economic expansion at risk. And the best way to foster a 
continuation of this economic expansion is to continue the strategy of 
paying down debt.
  Might I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has not sent up his amendment, so 
the time has not begun to run on his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself, 
     Mr. Kohl, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin and Mr. Robb, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2935 to amendment 2906.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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:

       In the amendment strike all after the first word and add 
     the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provisions of this resolution the 
     following numbers shall apply:
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $6,579,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $12,427,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $15,376,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $18,775,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $21,724,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $6,579,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $12,427,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $15,376,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $18,775,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $21,724,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $6,579,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $12,427,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $15,376,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $18,775,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $21,724,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, decrease the amount by $6,579,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $12,427,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $15,376,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $18,775,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $21,724,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $6,579,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $12,427,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $15,376,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $18,775,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $21,724,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $6,579,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $74,881,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thought we had an implicit 
understanding when I yielded back all my time on the amendment that 
Senator Conrad would offer his amendment, it would be a half-hour on 
his side on his amendment and a half-hour on our side. That is what 
second-degree amendments carry.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thought we had 12 minutes on our side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Twelve only? Whatever anyone wants to do, we have to 
leave some time.

[[Page S2192]]

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield? I say to the Senator from North 
Dakota, I offered a unanimous consent agreement to give him 12 minutes. 
He thought that had been agreed to. It had not been. That is why he 
asked the Chair how much time he had left. He offered his amendment. I 
guess the time will just be split now; is that right?
  Mr. DOMENICI. He has used 12 minutes. How much time has he used on 
his amendment?
  Mr. REID. How much time has the Senator used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator spoke for 11 minutes off the 
resolution.
  Mr. REID. So, 45 minutes, approximately, would be remaining?
  Mr. DOMENICI. At what time are we supposed to vote?
  Mr. REID. We are to vote at 5:30; there are 35 minutes left.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We need 2 minutes to talk about the amendment that is 
up, that is going to be called up. Why don't we split the remaining 
time.
  Mr. REID. That will be fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So we need 4 minutes before we vote at 5:30, and the 
rest of the time will be divided equally, which is giving him a very 
big break, but I am glad to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleagues. We are 
glad to split the remaining time.
  I think the point has been made and hopefully clearly made. I am 
offering a second-degree amendment to the amendment of the Senator from 
Colorado. Let me just speak, if I may for a moment, about the amendment 
of the Senator from Colorado because there is something in his 
amendment that also should concern my colleagues.
  Right at the beginning of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado, 
he defines a balanced budget as one that includes all budgeted outlays 
and budgeted revenues. He says, ``budgeted outlays shall not exceed 
budget revenues.'' That sounds like a balanced budget but, 
unfortunately, under the legal terms to which we have to hold, that is 
a definition of a balanced budget that includes the Social Security 
surpluses.
  We have all pledged here not to do this. We have all pledged not to 
use Social Security surpluses to balance the budget. Now the Senator 
from Colorado comes in here and defines a balanced budget as one that 
uses Social Security revenues to balance. That is precisely----
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. No, I will not. That is precisely what we should not do. 
That is going back to the bad old days around here of using Social 
Security money to balance the budget. That is going back to the bad old 
days of raiding Social Security, of looting Social Security to make it 
look as if we have balanced the budget.

  Why ever would we want to go back to that approach? We have just 
spent years convincing our colleagues and the American people that we 
should not count Social Security surpluses to balance the operating 
budget of the United States. Now we have an amendment from a colleague 
that suggests we ought to go back to the bad old days and we ought to 
raid Social Security to balance the budget.
  I hope we will not go in that direction. I hope we will continue on 
the path of reserving every penny of Social Security for Social 
Security. Let's not, please, colleagues, go back to defining a balanced 
budget as one that raids the Social Security surpluses in order to 
achieve balance. That would be a profound mistake.
  Instead, I hope we take the second-degree amendment I have offered 
that says let's make the top priority debt reduction, let's take every 
penny of the Social Security surplus and dedicate it to Social 
Security, and let's take the biggest chunk of the non-Social Security 
surplus and use it to pay down debt. That is the best game plan for 
maintaining economic prosperity in the country, for extending this 
remarkable period of economic expansion, for broadening and deepening 
economic opportunity in this country.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Conrad have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not want to provoke a long argument 
about who did the most to cause America to have these years of 
prosperity. I will summarize what I think.
  Frankly, I do not believe it is rational to say the Clinton tax 
increase of $290 billion is what caused this American economy to go 
buoyant and produce strong growth rates for the last 7 years. 
Essentially, that is what happened in that first year. Some say it 
added some credibility. To the extent it added credibility, it probably 
should have been taken off after the next year we had credibility.
  In any event, I want to talk about what we are doing here. I do not 
know why it is, with the surpluses we have, that we cannot get to the 
point where those on the other side of the aisle--at least almost all 
of them. They really do not want to have very much tax relief, if any, 
for the American people. When we boil it right down, the difference is 
not paying off the debt --there is a slight difference there--but the 
difference is spending, and that is it. They want to spend more, and we 
say let's give back more to the American people in tax relief.
  This is about as dramatic as I can give it, and it is a pretty honest 
interpretation of the Democrats' budget--that is what the Senator 
alludes to--versus our budget.
  The committee's resolution has 11 percent of the surplus going to tax 
reductions. They have 4 percent. In the committee's resolution, 
spending gets 17 percent of the surplus--this is the total surplus--and 
we put 72 percent of that surplus on the debt. The Democratic plan says 
let's do 4 percent in tax relief and 22 percent in spending.
  If one wants to quote Alan Greenspan correctly--as I said, it is like 
the Bible: It depends on how one wants to read him. But Alan Greenspan 
would say: Do not spend any of it; put it all on the surplus. And if 
you cannot put it all on the surplus, do not spend it; put it on tax 
relief. That is what we did.
  Essentially, when the argument is finished, for some reason, even 
though we get our tax relief down to a small amount--$1 in tax relief 
for $13 in debt reduction in the first year; over 5 years it is $1 in 
tax relief for $8 in deficit reduction--that is not good enough. We 
cannot even give back to the taxpayers $1 out of $9--8 plus 1; $8 in 
reduction of the debt. Here is the difference: We would spend 17 
percent; they would spend 22 percent. It seems to me we are following 
the admonition of the distinguished Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
Board and they are not.
  On the other hand, we can argue all day who is closest to what he 
says. The Republicans are being realistic. Out of these huge surpluses, 
we ought to give a little back to the American people sooner or later, 
and if we spend it, we do not have it to give back. That is just the 
way it is. That is the difference between the two.
  I do not believe I will need all of my half hour. I assume I have 
used 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield to me? Will the 
Senator from New Mexico give me some time to respond to the comments of 
the Senator from North Dakota?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on the Senator's amendment or in 
opposition to the Conrad amendment?
  Mr. ALLARD. In opposition to his amendment. He made some comments I 
want to clarify for the record.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will give the Senator from Colorado 3 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota indicated 
that we include Social Security in our provision when we say we have to 
balance the budget. That is correct. But he did not read the whole bill 
because if he had read another section of the bill, it shows we set 
aside the Social Security surplus and do not spend it. We do treat 
Social Security as an off-budget item, and we keep it there. It stays 
there until there is Social Security reform or we do something to save

[[Page S2193]]

Social Security. We all agree Social Security is headed for trouble. I 
wanted to clarify for the record that we do protect Social Security.
  I point out in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from North 
Dakota that my amendment does more than what he is proposing. We have a 
plan in place that specifically saves Social Security, and we have an 
enforcement mechanism in there.
  I plan to vote against the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota 
because I believe that unless we have the enforcement mechanism, all of 
this is a sham. We need to have the enforcement mechanism that says if 
our revenues do not measure up, we do not spend Social Security.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico for yielding to me so that I 
could clarify the record. I yield back any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the 10 minutes we have remaining, I 
yield 4 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, 2 minutes to the 
junior Senator from North Dakota, and 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts. Senator Bingaman will use our 2 minutes in wrapup.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Colorado, I 
read his amendment. His amendment defines a balanced budget as one that 
includes all receipts and all outlays. That includes the Social 
Security surplus funds as a definition of a balanced budget. That, in 
my judgment, is not a balanced budget. It is exactly the mistake we 
made around here for 30 years. Defining a balanced budget as one that 
includes Social Security surpluses is to set up the circumstance in 
which we could go back to the bad old days of raiding and looting 
Social Security for operating expenses, and that is something we have 
all pledged not to do.
  Maybe the intention of the Senator from Colorado is to protect Social 
Security, but when he defines a balanced budget in the amendment he has 
offered as one that raids Social Security surpluses to accomplish 
balance, he has turned back the clock to the bad old days. That is a 
mistake. That should not happen. We should not vote for it.
  Instead, I say to my colleagues, we should vote for the second-degree 
amendment I have offered that says let's put debt reduction as the 
first priority of this Government; that says we are going to reserve 
every penny of the Social Security surplus for Social Security; and 
that says of the non-Social Security surplus, instead of making a tax 
reduction, a tax-cut scheme virtually the only priority of the non-
Social Security surplus, we ought to adopt a plan that says, no, we 
ought to make the top priority of the non-Social Security surplus debt 
reduction.
  That is the proposal before the Senate: to cut in half the proposed 
tax cut and dedicate the money to debt reduction. That is what the 
economists have told us should be the highest priority for these funds. 
I believe that is the case. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate, and 
it is fascinating. Some things that are debated in the Senate are 
complicated. This is not.
  The question proposed by Senator Conrad is: Will we devote more money 
to reducing the debt? If during good economic times we have a surplus 
and we cannot reduce the debt we have accumulated during tough economic 
times, when are we going to see real debt reduction? I do not think 
there is any Senator who ought to be voting against Senator Conrad's 
second-degree amendment.
  With respect to the point he made about the use of Social Security 
funds, he and I, the Senator from Nevada, and others have been on this 
floor for, I guess, 5 or 6 years talking about this very issue. We 
cannot use these funds as offsets for something else and then say: No, 
we didn't use them; in fact, we created a lockbox. Some lockbox. 
Somebody got away with the key in the middle of the night, apparently.
  Back to the point. The issue here, offered in the second-degree 
amendment, is, if during tough economic times we ran up this Federal 
debt to $5.7 trillion, will we, during good economic times, when we 
have a surplus, begin to make significant payments to reduce that debt?
  Is there any greater gift we can give to America's children to reduce 
that burden on their shoulders of this Federal debt? The answer is no.
  This second-degree amendment is an amendment every single Senator 
ought to be supporting if they believe in basic conservative principles 
of, during good times, paying back what you had to borrow during tough 
times. That is what this second-degree amendment is all about. It is 
very simple. As I said when I started, there are a lot of things that 
are frightfully complicated on which we vote on the floor of the 
Senate. This is not. This is incredibly simple. We ought to support the 
second-degree amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator, do you want to use some of your time? We 
only have 4 minutes left. You have 15 minutes or thereabouts.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do we have anybody else here?
  Mr. President, I said about as much as I can say about the difference 
between the budget resolution and Senator Conrad's approach. I think it 
is shown right behind me on this chart. Essentially, it does not have 
very much to do with who brings the debt down quicker. It has more to 
do with who wants more money for spending?
  I want to repeat that I am firmly convinced that, for some reason or 
another, the other side is not frightened by the idea of spending the 
surplus but somehow they are very frightened about giving some of it 
back to the citizens of the United States. I know Senator Conrad has a 
tax plan also. He is on the Finance Committee.
  But I submit, if we were to adopt his amendment, any realistic change 
in the marriage tax penalty over the next 5 years to make it more fair, 
so millions of newlyweds will not come into April finding out they are 
paying an average of $1,400 a year more in taxes because they are 
married than they would if they were single, filing separately--we 
think that will cost, over 5 years, somewhere between $60 billion and 
$65 billion.
  There is some education tax relief that has passed with rather 
substantial margins. That is about $8 billion. There is health care tax 
relief that is about $13 billion.
  That leaves small business provisions for which both sides have 
voted. They are very good provisions for small businessmen, such as one 
that says anyone who works for an employer that does not have 
insurance, if they buy their insurance as an employee, they can deduct 
it. Isn't that something? I assume Americans thought that was the case 
already. But unless your employer deducts it, employees cannot. So two 
people working for different employers, neither of whom has health 
care, if they pool their resources and buy a health care plan for 
themselves and one child, they cannot deduct a nickel of it.
  But there is some relief we propose here on the floor of the Senate 
that ought to get done, and a number of small business provisions.
  The minimum for those kinds of reforms is somewhere between $100 
billion and $130 billion. We are led to believe we are going to grant 
all kinds of tax relief to the rich people of America, when the plan 
encompasses these ideas because that is what we have been talking 
about. That is what the Finance Committee is going to consider.

  If you take that much of the surplus and say, we are going to put 
that much more on debt, you cannot accommodate these kinds of tax 
relief measures.
  Last but not least, I repeat, how much debt reduction is enough?
  Frankly, I would like to get rid of the whole debt. But we 
accumulated it over 30 years. How in the world we expect one generation 
of Americans to pay that whole debt down is beyond me. I think the $400 
billion we have already done plus the $1.1 trillion in this budget 
resolution in the reduction of debt is pretty good.
  As a matter of fact, I think we will substantially reduce interest 
payments. That ought to permit lower interest rates in this country. 
Although Dr. Alan Greenspan insists on raising interest rates to solve 
other problems, maybe it will not have an impact for some time.

[[Page S2194]]

  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Senator Kennedy is now recognized for 4 minutes, with the 
Chair's permission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes of the 4 
minutes.
  I think this chart really tells what is happening in the area of the 
Federal share of education funding. It demonstrates the very 
significant decline from 1980 to 1999.
  The blue on the chart indicates what was being spent in elementary 
and secondary education in 1980. Here we see it was 11.9 percent in 
elementary and secondary education and 15.4 percent in higher 
education. Now we are at 7.7 percent in elementary and secondary 
education and 10.7 percent in the area of higher education. There has 
been a significant decline in terms of the money that is being spent in 
education.
  Look at what has happened in the area of higher education, where you 
see a continuing expansion of enrollment in terms of higher education. 
And it is going to continue. There is an important need in the area of 
higher education, as there is in K through 12. This chart shows the 
enormous rise in the total enrollment in schools all across this 
country. Every parent, every school board, every local group can tell 
you that.
  It is against that background that we find in the President's budget 
there would be $6.9 billion. This increases $2.2 billion. That reflects 
the difference in the Bingaman amendment. We say allocate that money 
before we are going to have a tax break.
  There was a question raised earlier about whether this was an 
accurate portrayal. I will put in the Record the CBO figures, as 
prepared by OMB, that give the whole function that lists education, 
training, and the Head Start programs. The bottom line shows there is 
$4.7 billion less, according to CBO, than the President's budget. Those 
are the figures. Those are the figures in the Bingaman amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that table printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                            FY 2001 SENATE BUDGET RESOLUTION
                                                        [Budget authority in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               SBC res minus CBO                  Percent change
                                                        Inflated     CBO               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                             CBO WODI     base    president     SBC                 Inflated                         Inflated
                                                                                           WODI       base    President     WODI       base    President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500: Education, Training, Employment, &
 Social Services:
    Impact Aid............................        906        921        770        906          0        -15        138          0         -2         18
    Special Education.....................      6,036      6,076      6,369      8,236      2,200      2,160      1,867         36         36         29
    Other Elem and Second Education.......     16,478     16,615     19,678     16,878        400        263      2,800          2          2        -14
    Pell Grants...........................      7,640      7,770      8,356      7,828        188         58       -528          2          1         -6
    Head Start............................      3,867      3,933      4,867      4,122        255        189       -745          7          5        -15
    All other programs:
        Other higher education............      3,687      3,750      4,136      3,521       -166       -229       -615         -5         -6        -15
        Training and employment...........      7,248      7,334      7,851      6,921       -327       -413       -930         -5         -6        -12
        Remaining programs................      8,784      8,965      9,517      8,388       -296       -577     -1,129         -5         -6        -12
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, all other programs....     19,719     20,049     21,504     18,830       -889     -1,219     -2,674         -5         -6        -12
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................     54,646     55,364     61,544     56,800      2,154      1,436     -4,744          4          3         -8
                                           =============================================================================================================
Memo: Department of Education.............     35,498     35,900     39,983     39,998      4,500      4,098         15         13         11          0
                                           =============================================================================================================
550: Health:
    NIH...................................     17,814     18,169     18,813     18,914      1,100        745        101          6          4          1
    Indian Health Service.................      2,391      2,457      2,620      2,620        229        163          0         10          7          0
    All other programs:
        CDC...............................      2,892      2,962      3,239      2,745       -147       -217       -494         -5         -7        -15
        HRSA..............................      4,564      4,648      4,386      4,333       -231       -315        -53         -5         -7         -1
        Substance abuse & med health serv.      2,652      2,699      2,823      2,518       -134       -181       -305         -5         -7        -11
        Remaining programs................      3,445      3,562      3,421      3,270       -175       -292       -151         -5         -8         -4
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, all other programs....     13,553     13,871     13,869     12,866       -687     -1,005     -1,003         -5         -7         -7
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................     33,758     34,497     35,302     34,400        642        -97       -902          2         -0         -3
                                           =============================================================================================================
570: Medicare:
    Medicare Provider Fees................          0          0       -220          0          0          0        220         NA         NA       -100
    All other.............................      3,067      3,175      3,197      3,100         33        -75        -97          1         -2         -3
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................      3,067      3,175      2,977      3,100         33        -75        123          1         -2          4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on CBO estimates. The Republican Budget Resolution is $4.7 billion below the President's budget.

  Mr. KENNEDY. We believe we ought to accept the Bingaman amendment if 
we believe education is the first priority. This is supported by every 
single parent group. It is supported by all of the student associations 
across the country, the NEA, the AFT, the national school boards, the 
Council of Great City Schools, and the American Council on Education 
that represents all of the various universities in this country.
  This makes sense. Which is important for the American people? Putting 
education ahead of tax breaks. That is what the Bingaman amendment 
does. We need that in order to meet our responsibility to the children 
in this country. I hope the Senate will accept the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me use 3 minutes of it.
  I say to Senator Kennedy, I am not arguing with your CBO or OMB 
numbers. I could not tell which it was. You said CBO and then said OMB. 
I do not know which it is.
  Look, I am not arguing about that because that is a total function. 
That is not education. There are other things than education in that 
function.
  Here is the education part. I will put in the Record what is in this 
budget resolution because it is supported by the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that table printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--SBC 2000 MARK VS. CBO WODI 2000 VS. PRES REEST 2000
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Summary                             2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       REPORT TOTAL
Resolution: BA............................................   34,935   47,877   48,043   48,138   48,423   49,321
MARK:
  OP......................................................   24,075   23,191  .......  .......  .......  .......
  OT......................................................   35,988   41,117   44,506   47,001   47,622   48,367
Mar 2000: BA..............................................   34,934   43,384   43,550   43,186   42,776   43,041
WODI:
  OP......................................................   24,075   23,191  .......  .......  .......  .......
  OT......................................................   35,987   41,050   42,791   43,243   42,804   42,848
President: BA.............................................   34,444   47,228   47,434   47,668   48,188   49,099
REEST:
  OP......................................................   24,075   23,191  .......  .......  .......  .......
  OT......................................................   35,532   40,840   44,955   46,475   47,134   47,957
Group 1: BA...............................................        1    4,493    4,493    4,952    5,647    6,280
Group 2:
  OP......................................................        0        0  .......  .......  .......  .......
  OT......................................................        1       67    1,715    3,758   4,,818    5,519
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S2195]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. If we are speaking about education--not AmeriCorps; 
that is not part of education; some might think it is, but it isn't--
according to the CBO, our budget resolution provides $47.877 billion 
for education. The President had $47.228--slightly less, $600 million 
less. What we are spending this year is 43.3.
  To get up and say all these groups support this--of course, if we ask 
them, do you want more money, they will say, of course, we want more 
money. Right? I don't think anybody in the education field, whether it 
is at the State level, the district level, or the national level will 
not affirmatively answer a questionnaire, will you support more money 
for education?
  The question is, Are we treating it with the priority that it 
deserves in this budget? There are two parts to ours. One is the sense-
of-the-Senate language that says we need reform in education, not only 
more money. We don't need to try the same old things we have been 
trying, the so-called status quo, more targeted programs telling them 
precisely what to do, such as we did with special education. Then we 
didn't even fund special education to the amount we promised them, and 
they had to take it out of their regular budgets. We set the standard 
and we told them how to do it. I guarantee you, they would say, give us 
more funding in that program. They would answer yes across America. And 
we do provide more funding. In fact, since the Republicans have been in 
leadership, we have been trying to play some catchup on special 
education funding for the schools across America.
  Everyone should know our history has been for many decades, the 
cities, the States, and the counties pay for education essentially, not 
the Federal Government. So to make this out as a debate on what happens 
to public education in America is to ignore the fact that for most of 
our history we have paid between 6.5 and 8 percent of the total cost of 
kindergarten through 12, somewhere between 6.5 and maybe 8.5 percent. 
The rest is paid by whom? The taxpayers of the sovereign States of 
America.
  We are suggesting that a new program ought to come into being where 
they have more say-so, rather than less, about how our money is used, 
more flexibility and accountability. We have both suggestions in our 
budget resolution.
  I will take 1 additional minute. In every function in this 
Government, even the Economic Development Administration, where we 
understand there are 334 different activities in the Federal 
Government, they want more, not less. In a buoyant economy, growing 
with less than 5-percent unemployment, America putting money into 
economic development so people can run around acting as if they are 
creating jobs, of course they want more money. But the point is, don't 
the American taxpayers in a surplus of this size deserve some 
consideration? Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to say maybe we 
ought to get a little tax relief such as the marriage tax penalty.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will respond briefly to my colleague from New Mexico on 
the question of our plan and what it can accommodate and what it can't. 
I start by saying I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget 
Committee.
  With respect to the marriage tax penalty, we do have sufficient 
resources to address the marriage tax penalty. The tax cuts we have 
provided out of the non-Social Security surplus are net tax reductions 
of $265 billion over 10 years. The plan we offered to address the 
marriage tax penalty in the Senate Finance Committee costs $150 
billion. It is a very simple plan. It says we are going to give people 
the choice of filing as a married couple or filing separately. They can 
file and pay whichever is less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I say to my friend and colleague, who is 
chairman of the Budget Committee, money may not be the answer to all of 
the problems. Just throwing money at a particular problem isn't going 
to be all of the answer. But we do know that in the budget, this 
allocation is a clear indication of what a nation's priorities are 
going to be. That is the decision we are making. We say we ought to 
give a higher priority in the area of education than we should in tax 
cuts. That is what the Bingaman amendment is doing, and that is why I 
believe we should support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from New Mexico 
has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is very interesting; the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts says this is going to show our 
priorities. We have more than the President of the United States in 
education. So one would think that he would have more money available 
for tax reduction. But guess what. He found there are a lot of other 
priorities. So he has a 14-percent increase in domestic programs, all 
with high priorities equivalent to education--increase them all. 
Actually, in truth, the difference is, do you want to spend more money 
on the domestic programs of America, even though we are increasing 
education more than the President, do you want to spend more and not 
even give the taxpayers a shot as to whether or not they should get 
some tax relief via the marriage tax penalty, some small business help 
and those kinds of things?
  That is essentially the difference in priorities. We think ours are 
very good priorities. There is a lot of money in here for education. To 
the extent the Federal Government can be helpful, I believe we will be 
helpful.


                           Amendment No. 2926

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on this amendment has expired. There 
are 4 minutes evenly divided on the Bingaman amendment. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will use the 2 minutes we have to 
summarize the amendment.
  I agree with Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts that this is a simple 
choice we have to make. Is there going to be a reduction in the amount 
of the tax cut? The proposed tax cut is the largest on the Senate floor 
with which I am familiar. And the proposal is to reduce that tax cut by 
about 15 percent and commit 15 percent of those revenues to 
improvements in education.
  The argument is that the underlying budget resolution has $1 billion 
for IDEA, which we support. Our amendment has that, too. There is no 
difference on that issue.
  The argument is that their budget resolution asks for more than the 
President's proposal. The truth is, their budget resolution says that 
of the increase in education, $2.3 billion of it needs to be spent on a 
so-called performance bonus fund. It is committed to that. It is 
dedicated to that. It can't be spent for 5 years. So no school is going 
to see any benefit from that. If you take that out, there is a cut in 
education in the budget resolution on which we are voting.
  Our amendment tries to restore those funds and get the funds up to 
the level in the programs that have been proven to work, programs that 
matter to people all over this country. We believe those programs 
should be adequately funded: programs to improve the quality of 
teachers in the classroom, programs to modernize our schools, programs 
to increase accountability for the expenditure of funds, particularly 
title I funds, programs for after school. Those are the types of 
programs we are trying to see are adequately funded.
  We do not believe those programs should suffer in order that we 
create a new mandatory performance bonus. That is the issue before us 
today.
  I hope Members will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is not often that we are on the floor 
in this mode, where I am opposing my junior Senator's request. On this 
one, I am in opposition and will shortly move to table.
  I suggest the Congress of the United States is going to have an 
opportunity before the year is out to vote on a new Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. That act, as passed, plus the appropriations 
decisions made by Senator Specter and his Democratic minority member, 
approved by the appropriations in the Senate, will determine

[[Page S2196]]

where the specific money goes--not what we are saying on the floor that 
we assume is in our number.
  I believe we are going to reform the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, and it is not going to be filled with targeted programs 
as it is now, or at least the States will have an option to do 
otherwise, to approach this from ``we will receive the money, we will 
sign an accountability agreement, and let us decide where our 
priorities are.''
  One shoe doesn't fit every school district in America in terms of 
aid. In fact, sometimes we tell them to do the things they don't want 
to do.
  I don't believe this is a debate over the enumerated tools Senator 
Bingaman says he is adding. The issue is, are we adding as much as the 
President to a budget of last year, which was $43 billion. The answer 
is, yes, we are. We are going to decide, as the Senate and House, how 
it is spent. We are not deciding that tonight, whether the Bingaman 
amendment is adopted or not; It is going to be up to another series of 
votes.
  I don't know whether we are going to fund the programs that he thinks 
are great programs. Somebody else is going to decide that. We are doing 
as much as the President in program authority; of that, I am confident.
  With that, I move to table the Bingaman amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment of 
the Senator from New Mexico. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10-
minute rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order.


                Amendment No. 2935 to Amendment No. 2906

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Conrad amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my second-degree amendment is very simple. 
Instead of using $150 billion for a tax cut over the next 5 years, we 
take half of that money and dedicate it to further debt reduction. 
Every economist who has come before the Finance Committee and the 
Budget Committee has said the highest priority is to pay down the debt.
  The question is, What do we do to best secure a continuing economic 
expansion in our country? Every economist who has come before the 
Budget Committee and the Finance Committee, as well as the Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve, has said the highest priority is to continue to 
pay down this debt. We take half of the proposed tax cut and use it for 
further debt reduction. That ought to be our priority. That is what 
this amendment does.
  I hope my colleagues will support the second-degree amendment and 
oppose the underlying Allard amendment which defines a balanced budget 
as one that raids Social Security. Let's not go back to the bad old 
days. Let's pay down the debt.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I will shortly 
move to table the amendment. I want to show you a chart that simply 
depicts the difference in priorities between the two sides. Alan 
Greenspan suggested we should put our surplus against the debt, unless 
we intend to spend it, in which event we should reduce or reform or 
give relief to the taxpayer. A big difference between the two is 
exemplified by this. They would give 4 percent of the surplus to the 
taxpayers.
  The difference is very easily depicted. They give 4 percent of the 
surplus to tax relief for the American taxpayer; we would give 11 
percent. They would spend 22 percent of the surplus; we would spend 17 
percent.
  That explains it. Alan Greenspan suggests instead of spending money, 
we ought to give it back to the taxpayers. That is what we are doing--
but a very small amount. As a matter of fact, $150 billion over 5 
years, if we pass it, means $13 goes to debt reduction for $1 in tax 
relief in the first year; 8-1 over the 5 years.
  How much is enough? It seems to me the taxpayer deserves a little bit 
of it. We shouldn't be spending it. We should give it back to them.
  I move to table the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
2935. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2906

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes debate evenly divided 
preceding the vote on the Allard amendment.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I speak in behalf of the amendment. We are 
going through unprecedented good times. We ought to take advantage of 
this time and put in place a plan to pay down the debt. We do not have 
a plan to pay down the debt, and my amendment lays in place a 20-year 
plan to completely eliminate the debt.
  By doing that, we save over $3 trillion in interest payments, and we 
also do not eliminate the opportunity to reduce taxes. In fact, I 
believe repaying the debt is the first step necessary in providing the 
structure to make further tax cuts. Repayment of the debt

[[Page S2197]]

owed to the public by requiring all Social Security surpluses be 
applied to the debt until we have Social Security reform is the proper 
approach. This is a minimal plan in paying down the debt. It will 
probably do more because the Social Security surplus will also go 
towards paying down the public debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First of all, Mr. President, I am sure this amendment 
violates the Budget Act because it is not germane. I will make that 
point of order shortly.
  But I am afraid that if we adopted this amendment, it could, over 
time, preclude the kind of defense spending we need and the kind of tax 
relief in which we might be interested. I believe we are doing plenty 
to reduce the debt in this budget resolution: $177 billion in the first 
year, $1.1 trillion over 5 years. The ratio of tax relief to debt 
reduction, over 5 years, is 8 to 1. In the first year, it is 13 to 1. 
That is a pretty good game plan.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that this is not germane to 
the provisions of the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, 
I move to waive section 305 of the Budget Act for the consideration of 
Allard amendment No. 2906 and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to Allard amendment No. 2906. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 16, nays 84, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

                                YEAS--16

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Campbell
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Grams
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     McCain
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--84

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, Lincoln
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 16, the nays are 
84. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with 
respect to the Byrd-Warner amendment regarding gas tax, all debate time 
be consumed this evening and there be no amendment in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote. I further ask unanimous consent that the 
vote occur on the Byrd-Warner amendment first in any series of votes 
scheduled by the majority leader, after consultation with the minority 
leader, on Thursday. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the 
vote, there be 2 minutes equally divided for closing remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will shortly be speaking on an amendment 
which I will offer on behalf of myself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
Voinovich, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Reid.
  Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Maine would like to 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Yes, for 5 minutes as in morning business to put in a 
bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to 
the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for not to exceed 5 
minutes, after which I will regain the floor.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, and I won't object, but I 
want everybody to know that there will be no more unanimous consents 
for morning business today or tomorrow as long as I am on the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We don't need to have morning business. Let's let her 
speak and count it against the bill. That is what you would like, and I 
would like that also.
  Mr. REID. That will be better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins and Mr. Abraham pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2365 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from West 
Virginia will add me as a cosponsor.
  Mr. BYRD. I would be happy and most honored.
  I ask unanimous consent that the name of Mr. Domenici be added to the 
list of cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2943

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bond, 
     Mr. Reid, and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2943.

  Mr. BYRD. 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 appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE CONTINUED USE OF FEDERAL 
                   FUEL TAXES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND 
                   REHABILITATION OF OUR NATION'S HIGHWAYS, 
                   BRIDGES, AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) current law, as stipulated in the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), requires all federal 
     gasoline taxes be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund;
       (2) current law, as stipulated in TEA-21, guarantees that 
     all such deposits to the Highway Trust Fund are spend in full 
     on the construction and rehabilitation of our nation's 
     highways, bridges, and transit systems;
       (3) the funding guarantees contained in TEA-21 are 
     essential to the ability of the nation's governors, highway 
     commissioners, and transit providers to address the growing 
     backlog of critical transportation investments in order to 
     stem the deterioration of our road and transit systems, 
     improve the safety of our highways, and reduce the growth of 
     congestion that is choking off economic growth in communities 
     across the nation;
       (4) any effort to reduce the federal gasoline tax or de-
     link the relationship between highway user fees and highway 
     spending pose a great danger to the integrity of the Highway 
     Trust Fund and the ability of the states to invest adequately 
     in our transportation infrastructure; and
       (5) proposals to reduce the federal gasoline tax threaten 
     to endanger the spending levels guaranteed in TEA-21 while 
     providing no guarantee that consumers will experience any 
     reduction in price at the gas pump.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals in this budget resolution do not 
     assume the reduction of any federal gasoline taxes on either 
     a temporary or permanent basis.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that 
the functional totals in this budget resolution do not assume the 
reduction of any Federal gasoline taxes on either a temporary or 
permanent basis.
  Mr. President, in 1996, just four years ago, the Senate considered a 
proposal to repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon federal excise tax on 
gasoline. As I recall, the issue was debated in the midst of the 1996 
presidential election, as gasoline

[[Page S2198]]

prices were on the rise. Today, we are considering a similar proposal 
under almost identical circumstances. American consumers are 
understandably upset about the rise of gasoline prices over the last 
year. In February 1999, average U.S. prices were under a dollar per 
gallon. Since then, the average price for gasoline in the United States 
has increased by about 55 cents per gallon. To make matters worse, the 
U.S. government has had to go hat-in-hand to the Gulf nations to beg 
them to produce more oil. Let us all remember that these are the very 
same Gulf states that the U.S. defended during Operation Desert Storm 
in 1991. In answer to the outrage of the American people over this 
latest hike in gas prices, we see, yet again, a proposal for a 
reduction in the federal excise tax on gasoline.
  The repeal of any tax, particularly a tax on gasoline, is always 
politically popular, and quite a temptation for politicians, especially 
in the midst of a campaign season. Additionally, the temptation to 
remind the electorate of a tax increase approved by a political 
opponent is close to irresistible in an election year. However, in our 
rush to craft a pseudo-solution to a real concern in this election 
year, I hope that the Senate will carefully consider the long-term 
implications of its actions. To suggest that the 4.3 cent per gallon 
gasoline tax enacted in 1993 is the precursor of all this pain at the 
gas pump, and that the cure for that pain is a simple repeal of that 
tax, is pure and utter folly.
  A look at the markets over recent months shows that gasoline prices 
have risen because of the basic economic forces of supply and demand. 
First, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 
successfully agreed last year to curb crude-oil production in order to 
raise exceptionally low per-barrel prices--such low per-barrel prices 
that U.S. producers were in danger of being put out of business. 
Second, U.S. crude-oil inventories were allowed to fall to dangerously 
low levels in 1999. Because there was no cushion from U.S. inventories 
to respond to the cuts in oil production, gasoline prices, naturally, 
increased. What we are seeing is classic supply and demand at work.
  OPEC agreed last week to increase oil production, but that oil will 
not arrive from the Gulf states for at least another one to two months. 
In the meantime, there is a more or less fixed supply of oil available 
for U.S. consumption. This short-supply scenario means that even if the 
excise tax were repealed, gasoline prices would likely increase again, 
reflecting, guess what, the classic lack of equilibrium between supply 
and demand. In other words, there is no getting around the basic tenets 
of the problem, which are OPEC's cutbacks on production and low U.S. 
crude-oil inventories.
  Yet, some of my colleagues would have the American consumer believe 
that this tax cut proposal will effect a miracle cure. Faith in snake 
oil never seems to diminish in the Halls of Congress. They argue that 
we can get around the laws of supply and demand altogether by simply 
reducing the gas tax. I, for one, am doubtful that consumers would 
significantly benefit from this latest attempt to treat a serious 
malady with a political placebo.
  As I have said, over the past few months, gasoline prices on average 
have risen by about 55 cents per gallon across the nation. S. 2285, 
would roll back the price of gasoline to the American consumer by only 
4 cents, and only until the end of this calendar year. If average U.S. 
prices increase to two dollars per gallon, this proposal would repeal 
the entire excise tax for this calendar year, which is still a 
reduction of only 18 cents per gallon. Assuming that these prices 
actually filter down to the consumer--a rather large leap of faith--how 
significant a difference will a 4 cent decrease be compared to a 55 
cent increase in gasoline prices? Likewise, if prices reach as high as 
two dollars per gallon, will 18 cents make a noticeable difference in 
the average consumer's weekly expenses?
  As I mentioned before, supporters of the proposal to repeal a portion 
of the gas tax assume that the tax decrease would filter down to the 
consumer. But there is no guarantee that any savings whatsoever will be 
passed on to the consumer. Since this proposal does not address the low 
supply of oil in the United States, the benefits of the tax cut are 
likely to flow to the coffers of the domestic oil-refinery industry, 
not to the pockets of the consumer. As I mentioned before, even though 
refineries would be paying less in taxes to the federal government, 
lower prices at the pump would drive up demand for gas, further 
reducing supply and increasing the price for the remaining scarce 
gasoline. Until oil supplies in the United States increase, gasoline 
will continue to be scarce and prices at the pump will continue to 
climb, regardless of whether or not the federal excise tax is reduced.

  OPEC is also more likely to benefit from this proposal than the 
American consumer. Let us consider this proposal from OPEC's point of 
view for a moment. Gasoline prices can only rise so high before 
American demand begins to wane. Decreased demand means lower profits 
for OPEC, which is why OPEC agreed to increase oil production last week 
in Vienna. Stable prices are in the long-term interest of OPEC. This 
tax repeal proposal, however, would remove the incentive for OPEC to 
maintain stable oil prices. If the Congress chooses to cut the gasoline 
tax to reduce gasoline prices, it would effectively allow OPEC to 
maintain artificially low production quotas, and thus support 
artificially high prices, without suffering from the decrease in oil 
demand that the free market would otherwise dictate. A reduction in the 
gas tax removes the economic incentive for OPEC to keep oil production 
in equilibrium with demand.
  Mr. President, the economics of this proposal notwithstanding, it is 
also important to consider the impact it would have on transportation 
spending, since the excise tax revenues are intended to be reserved for 
maintaining and improving the Nation's highways. Spring is here, and on 
highways and roadways across the Nation, spring is an event marked by 
the thump and rumble of tires hitting potholes and crumbling medians.
  Mr. President, just three years ago, the Senate considered the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21. At that 
time, the Senate debated at length the appropriate mechanism to finance 
the needs of our Nation's infrastructure. I, along with many of my 
colleagues, was determined to reverse the trend begun in the early 
1980's of federal disinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure. During 
the debate on TEA-21, I, along with my colleagues Senator Gramm, 
Senator Baucus, and Senator Warner, championed an amendment that would 
allow the revenue from the 4.3 cent gas tax imposed in 1993 to be used 
for highway construction. Just the year before, Senator Gramm had 
succeeded in seeing to it that the 4.3 cent tax was deposited into the 
Highway Trust Fund. The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment during TEA-
21 was to ensure that the new revenue to the Trust Fund would, indeed, 
be spent on highways as it was intended, and as we informed the 
American people it would be.
  Mr. President, our amendment gathered no fewer than 54 cosponsors on 
a broad bipartisan basis--29 Democrats and 25 Republicans. The entire 
debate on the highway bill was characterized by bipartisanship. Back 
then, we heard talk about all the highway needs that were going unmet 
across our Nation and how the revenue of the 4.3 cent gas tax could 
help address those needs.
  Indeed, during the debate on TEA-21, an amendment was offered to 
repeal the 4.3 cent gas tax. By a vote of 80 to 18, the Senate 
refused--refused!--to waive the Budget Act to consider that amendment. 
Senator Mack's proposal was appropriately rejected by the overwhelming 
majority of Republicans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats. On 
that day, March 11, 1998, the 4.3 cent tax was the difference between a 
highway bill that continued the status quo of disinvestment and a 
highway bill that made real progress in repairing our deteriorated 
highways. With the adoption of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, 
the final highway bill that passed the Senate two days later was almost 
$26 billion larger than the bill reported by the Environment and Public 
Works Committee. And that $26 billion figure was derived directly from 
the Congressional Budget Office's estimate at that time of the expected 
revenue of the 4.3 cent gas tax.

[[Page S2199]]

  Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to the budget resolution, 
on behalf of several of my colleagues whose names I mentioned earlier, 
which states that it is the sense of the Senate that the Federal gas 
tax should not be repealed on either a temporary or a permanent basis. 
I am pleased to be joined in that amendment by five distinguished 
members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works; namely, 
Senators Warner, Baucus, Voinovich, Lautenberg, and Bond; and, in 
addition, Senators Reid and Domenici.
  This amendment provides the Senate an opportunity to vote, up or 
down, on the continued integrity of the Highway Trust Fund and the 
relative importance of infrastructure investment versus a short-term 
tax cut that may never be felt by the consumer.
  The recent effort to repeal a portion of the gas tax attempts to 
create a political issue where there really should be none. Thankfully, 
Republican Senators like John Warner, George Voinovich, Kit Bond, and 
Pete Domenici are not being baited by the hook of this foray into 
election year politics. Nor are senior House Members, including members 
of the House Republican Leadership, such as Richard Armey, J.C. Watts, 
and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud 
Shuster. The nation's governors, the nation's mayors, the state 
legislatures, and the nation's county executives are not going for the 
bait either. The national associations representing all those elected 
officials, both Democrats and Republicans, are all opposed to efforts 
to repeal the gas tax. So is the ``Triple A'' whose sole responsibility 
is to the driving public that is paying the higher gas prices at the 
pump every day. So is the Association of General Contractors, the 
American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American 
Public Transit Association, and scores of other groups.
  For those of my colleagues who wish to portray this issue as a 
political one, let me remind them that less than a decade ago, a bill 
to raise gas taxes for deficit reduction was signed into law by George 
Bush--that is, with George Herbert Walker Bush. I was there at Andrews 
Air Force Base, across the table from OMB Director Richard Darman and 
White House Chief of Staff John Sununu. It was at that summit where a 
5-cent gas tax increase was first discussed. I did not participate in 
the final negotiations over the revenue measures in that agreement 
since they were handled by the Chairmen of the Finance and Ways and 
Means Committees and their Ranking Members. At the end of those 
negotiations, the Bush Administration was supportive of raising the gas 
tax by 5 cents--with 2\1/2\ cents being deposited into the Highway 
Trust Fund and 2\1/2\ cents going to deficit reduction. So it was the 
Bush/Quayle Administration that first laid the groundwork for using gas 
taxes for deficit reduction in 1990. Thankfully, today, every penny of 
the federal gas tax is deposited in the Highway Trust Fund and spent on 
transportation investments across the nation.
  Mr. President, S. 2285, as introduced by the Majority Leader, 
proposes to repeal 4.3 cents of the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax. 
Since every penny of the gas tax is now distributed to the states in 
the form of annual obligations from the Highway Trust Fund, that repeal 
will put at risk more than $7.1 billion in transportation funding 
beginning in 2002. Now, $7.1 billion will fill a lot of potholes and 
fix a lot of crumbling roadways. Under this bill, if the average price 
of gasoline reaches $2 or higher, then the entire 18.4-cent federal gas 
tax will be repealed, putting more than $30 billion in transportation 
funding at risk.
  Additionally, there is some very unique language in S. 2285 that 
seeks to mandate that spending from the Highway Trust Fund be 
maintained at the levels authorized in TEA-21, notwithstanding the fact 
that this bill will keep revenue from coming into the Trust Fund. Does 
anyone truly believe that this is a workable approach? The Chairman of 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Voinovich, clearly does 
not. Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, who joined me in restoring the 
``trust'' to the Highway Trust Fund, certainly do not. I implore all 
Members on both sides of the aisle to join us in rejecting a plan which 
will compromise that trust which would take the ``trust'' out of the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  Mr. President, our highway and transit infrastructure can ill afford 
to forego several billion dollars in annual investment. Let me remind 
my colleagues that we have no reason to be proud of the current 
condition of our highways. According to the Department of 
Transportation's most recent figures, the condition of our nation's 
highways and bridges continues to deteriorate by many measures. Daily 
usage of our highway system has continued to grow each and every year, 
such that more than half of our nation's urban interstate miles are now 
perpetually congested--more than half! Less than half of our rural 
highway miles and less than half of our urban highway miles are 
considered to be in good or very good condition. That means that more 
than half of our nation's highway miles are considered to be at some 
level of disrepair. So when you look at the condition of our nation's 
highway bridges, the situation is no better. Roughly one-third of our 
urban highway bridges are either structurally or functionally 
deficient. The same is true for roughly one-quarter of our rural 
highway bridges. This is not just a matter of insufficient capacity. 
This is a matter of safety. The Senate must not turn its back to these 
troubling facts.

  It is quite appropriate that we are debating this issue as part of 
the budget resolution. Indeed, the Committee report accompanying the 
budget resolution parrots the assumptions contained in S. 2285. The 
report states that ``as part of a five year, $150 billion tax reduction 
package, the Committee-reported resolution could accommodate a 
suspension or repeal of the Clinton/Gore 4.3 cent tax increase on 
fuel.'' Mr. President, I believe we have reached the point where we 
must ask the Senate where it stands on just this question. This 
amendment provides that opportunity.
  This is an election year. I understand that this proposal is being 
presented to the Congress for reasons which just might have very little 
to do with sound fiscal policy. The American people are not foolish. 
They will realize that this bill would have an unfortunate effect on 
transportation spending. They will not thank us for handing them more 
of the congested, crumbling commuter routes they must already deal with 
every day. Likewise, they will realize that such a short-term fix does 
nothing to address the underlying problem of high gas prices--namely 
OPEC and the lack of a national energy policy to protect the United 
States against the roller coaster ride of gasoline price adjustments. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this voodoo chant remedy. We might as well 
hire a witch doctor to shake a tambourine over the heads of the OPEC 
states as adopt this approach. Our energy problems demand serious 
remedies, not pseudo-solutions. Vote against this bill for the people, 
the commuters, the truck drivers and the ambulance and bus drivers, of 
America. We need a serious look at the totality of our national energy 
policy, not a quick fix non-remedy that will only result in more broken 
promises and broken pavement for the American driving public.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements in support of 
this amendment from the following organizations be printed in the 
Record: The Associated General Contractors of America, the National 
Association of Counties, the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the 
American Public Transportation Association, the National Association of 
Regional Councils, the American Consulting Engineers Council, and the 
American Portland Cement Alliance.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, April 5, 2000.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: The Associated General Contractors of 
     America (AGC) strongly urges you to support the Byrd-Warner-
     Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond Sense of the

[[Page S2200]]

     Senate Amendment to the Budget Resolution. The amendment 
     emphasizes the importance of maintaining the link between 
     highway user fees and highway spending, and opposes any 
     reduction of any federal gasoline taxes on either a temporary 
     or permanent basis.
       Any reduction or suspension of the federal gasoline tax 
     threatens to erode the spending levels guaranteed in the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). 
     Moreover, the reduction in gasoline taxes provides no 
     guarantee that consumers will experience any reduction in the 
     price at the pump.
       The United States Senate has consistently opposed repealing 
     the 4.3-cent gas tax. In 1998, 72 sitting Senators voted 
     against repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. The next day, the 
     entire Senate voted to spend the 4.3 cents for highway and 
     transit improvements. AGC urges you to keep your promises--
     don't flip-flop on this highway user fee.
       AGC urges you to vote for the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-
     Lautenberg-Bond Sense of the Senate Amendment to the Budget 
     Resolution.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

                                               Executive Director,
     Congressional Relations.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                     Washington DC, April 5, 2000.
     Re 4.3 cents Federal fuel tax/FY 2001 budget resolution

       Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the National 
     Association of Counties (NACo) to urge that you support the 
     Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond Sense of the 
     Senate Resolution for the continued use of federal fuel taxes 
     for the construction and rehabilitation of our nation's 
     highways, bridges, and transit systems which is being offered 
     as an amendment to the FY 2001 Budget Resolution. This 
     resolution conforms with NACo's opposition to any legislative 
     proposals that would interfere or interrupt the current level 
     of transportation user fees being collected which provide 
     dedicated federal funding for transportation programs.
       At our recent Legislative Conference, NACo adopted a 
     resolution that opposes any legislation that reduces monies 
     coming into the Highway Trust Fund. County governments, which 
     have substantial responsibility for highways, bridges, 
     transit systems, and airports, cannot afford cuts in federal 
     transportation infrastructure funding such as the 4.3 cents 
     reduction proposed in the Budget Resolution. The 4.3 cents 
     tax on gasoline and diesel brings in $7.2 billion annually to 
     the Highway Trust Fund--$5.8 billion for highways and $1.4 
     billion for transit. According to the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation, if the 4.3 cents were repealed, the highway 
     program would be cut by $20.5 billion through FY 2003, the 
     final year of TEA-21. The Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund would go broke in 2003. The aviation program, just 
     reauthorized by Congress, would lose $700 million a year, or 
     $2.1 billion through FY 2003.
       On behalf of the nation's 3066 counties, I urge you to 
     support the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond 
     Resolution. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 
     If you have any questions concerning our views on this issue, 
     please contact Bob Fogel of the NACo staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                   C. Vernon Gray,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                  National Asphalt


                                         Pavement Association,

                                        Lanham, MD, April 5, 2000.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: The National Asphalt Pavement 
     Association (NAPA) strongly supports the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-
     Voinovich-Bond amendment to the FY 2001 budget resolution 
     clarifying that Federal fuel taxes are intended to be used 
     for construction of our nations highways, bridges. 
     Furthermore, the amendment clarifies that the FY 2001 budget 
     resolution does not assume the reduction of federal gasoline 
     taxes on a temporary or permanent basis.
       Repeal of the 4.3 cents would have a catastrophic impact on 
     the highway construction industry including the members of 
     NAPA, and delay--perhaps for years--badly needed highway 
     infrastructure improvement projects that save lives, reduce 
     congestion and improve fuel economy.
       There is a direct correlation between pavement smoothness 
     and fuel economy according to research recently completed at 
     WesTrack for the Federal Highway Administration under the 
     auspices of the National Cooperative Highway Research 
     Program. According to the study, a vehicle's average fuel 
     economy improved 4.5% after the pavement was rehabilitated. 
     In addition, the study found that an increase in pavement 
     roughness increased the frequency of fatigue failures in the 
     vehicles tested at the track.
       If a cut in the fuel tax by 4.3 cents was enacted, revenues 
     in the Highway Trust Fund would be reduced by $7 billion 
     annually and delay by one or more construction seasons 
     highway projects that result in smoother pavements. The short 
     term gain in reducing the excise tax on motor fuel by 
     4.3 cents is offset by the additional 6.8 cents in additional 
     costs a typical motorist pays on average to operate their 
     vehicles on rough pavements that are not rehabilitated.
       While the motoring public might experience a short-term 
     benefit with a 4.3 cents reduction in the price of their 
     fuel, the cost in terms of increased fuel consumption, 
     congestion and safety to the motoring public will quickly 
     erase any benefit and set the highway pavement improvement 
     program back by years.
       NAPA strongly supports the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-
     Bond amendment and strongly opposes a reduction in the 
     federal fuels tax.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mike Acott,
     President.
                                  ____

         American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials, American Public Transportation Association, 
           National Association of Regional Councils,
                                                    April 4, 2000.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: We are writing on behalf of the 
     members of the American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Officials, the American Public Transportation 
     Association, and the National Association of Regional 
     Councils to express our opposition to a temporary suspension 
     or permanent repeal of a portion of, or all of, the federal 
     motor fuel tax. Therefore, we respectfully urge you to 
     support an amendment to the budget resolution that will be 
     offered by Senator Robert Byrd and others to express the 
     sense of the Senate that the budget resolution not assume the 
     reduction of fuel taxes on either a permanent or temporary 
     basis.
       The Highway Trust Fund is the primary funding source for 
     highway, transit, bikeway, pedestrian, and other surface 
     transportation programs authorized under the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). Proposals to 
     temporarily repeal 4.3 cents of the federal motor fuel tax 
     would result in a $4.5 billion loss in revenue to the Highway 
     Trust Fund and yet offer no guarantee that the repeal would 
     result in actual cost savings to the motoring public. The net 
     effect of this action would be to seriously jeopardize the 
     continued stability and reliability of the federal surface 
     transportation program while providing no meaningful solution 
     to the effects of the present oil shortage.
       A 4.3-cent per gallon reduction in the federal motor fuel 
     tax, if passed on to the consumer, would result in about a 
     $13 savings this year, but would at the cost of more 
     substantial tax reductions or of reductions in other domestic 
     programs. Given the intense competition for use of the 
     budgetary surplus, we believe that, absent an ironclad 
     guarantee, it is unrealistic to assume that any portion of 
     the budget surplus to offset the loss to the Highway Trust 
     Fund would necessarily materialize.
       We respectfully urge you to continue to support TEA 21's 
     reliable and stable funding mechanism, and to oppose proposed 
     legislation that would jeopardize the surface transportation 
     program while failing to offer a meaningful solution to 
     impacts resulting from the current oil shortage.
           Sincerely yours,
     John Horsley,
       Executive Director, American Association of State-Highway 
     and Transportation Officials.
     William Millar,
       President, American Public Transportation Association.
     William Dodge,
       Executive Director, National Association of Regional 
     Councils.
                                  ____

                                               American Consulting


                                            Engineers Council,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2000.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Consulting 
     Engineers Council (ACEC), I urge you to support the Byrd-
     Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond amendment to the FY 
     2000 Budget Resolution. The amendment could come to the floor 
     as early as April 5.
       The Byrd amendment would establish the Sense of the Senate 
     that federal fuel taxes should continue to be used for the 
     construction and rehabilitation of our nation's highways, 
     bridges, and transit systems. Congress took the proper step 
     in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act by moving the last 4.3 cents 
     of the federal gas tax into the Highway Trust Fund and away 
     from general deficit reduction. The following year, Congress 
     passed TEA--21, which guaranteed that all deposits into the 
     Highway Trust Fund will be spent each year for their intended 
     purpose.
       In response to the recent surge in gasoline prices, 
     however, legislation has appeared on Capitol Hill to repeal 
     or suspend some or all of the federal gas tax and thus de-
     link the relationship between highway user fees and 
     transportation spending. While the repeal legislation is well 
     intentioned, we believe it will not offer any real consumer 
     relief from high gas prices, and it could devastate 
     transportation improvements and safety programs in every 
     state.

[[Page S2201]]

       Even temporarily eliminating the Highway Trust Fund 
     structure is very dangerous because it would become too easy 
     for Congress to eliminate or reduce the proposed transfer 
     from the general fund ``surplus'' in the future. CBO has re-
     estimated the FY 2000 surplus to be $15 billion. Repealing 
     the gas tax from April 15 to September 30 (as S. 2285 could 
     do) would cost states $15 billion. It is highly unlikely that 
     Congress could spend the entire budget surplus on highways 
     and transit in the face of such competing priorities as 
     general tax cuts, education, and emergency supplemental 
     appropriations.
       Congress is to be applauded for its efforts to bolster 
     investment in infrastructure and for recognizing that the 
     Highway Trust Fund provides an effective and appropriate 
     stream of revenue for transportation improvements. We urge 
     you to reaffirm these priorities by voting for the Byrd 
     Amendment to the Budget Resolution. Thank you for your 
     leadership on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                        Leo F. Peters, P.E. FACEC,
     President.
                                  ____



                            American Portland Cement Alliance,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2000.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: On behalf of the American Portland 
     Cement Alliance (APCA), a trade association representing 
     virtually all domestic portland cement manufacturers, I urge 
     you to support the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-
     Bond Sense of the Senate amendments to the budger resolution.
       The amendment expresses that the budget resolution should 
     not assume a permanent or temporary reduction in the federal 
     gasoline tax. The amendment may be considered as early as 
     today.
       APCA is deeply concerned that any reduction in the federal 
     gasoline tax would undermine TEA-21 and the funding 
     commitment that legislation made to the states for highway 
     and mass transit programs. Any reduction in federal gasoline 
     tax would jeopardize the funding guarantee under TEA-21 and 
     introduce uncertainty for state highway and transit 
     improvement programs, and the construction and material 
     supply industries, such as the cement manufacturers.
       Again, I urge you to support the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-
     Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond Sense of the Senate amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                             Richard C. Creighton,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BYRD. As I close, I again thank Messrs. Warner, Baucus, 
Voinovich, Lautenberg, Bond, Reid of Nevada, and Domenici.
  Let me thank also Mr. Jim English and Peter Rogoff, fine staffpersons 
who have been so helpful in the work on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield off his hour, 1 minute to the 
Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. BYRD. I will.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to explain to the Senate why I am 
supporting this. The actual sense of this resolution says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals in 
     the budget resolution do not assume the reduction of any 
     Federal gasoline tax on either a temporary or permanent 
     basis.

  I might say to the Senate, that is already true. The Senate budget 
resolution does not--does not, in the functional totals. So I am 
delighted to support it. There is some language saying: Within the tax 
provisions. The tax committee can do a lot of different things. One 
thing suggested was temporary repeal of the gasoline tax. I am pleased 
to have an opportunity to vote on whether or not the Senate would like 
that to remain even contemplated. Whether they will be precluded 
because of a vote, I do not know, but I think we ought to vote tomorrow 
on this issue. I support the sense of the Senate that is proposed.
  I ask Senators how many more want to speak on this resolution because 
we have two others?
  Mr. WARNER. I would like to have 7 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much would the Senator like?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. About 4 or 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bond, on this subject?
  Mr. BOND. I would like 3 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would like about 5 minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we could agree, would the Senator object if 
that be the unanimous consent, those Senators in that order?
  Mr. BYRD. Very well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I ask, what is the order?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is the order you arrived on the floor: Senator 
Warner and then the Senator from Ohio, Senator Bond and----
  Mr. HARKIN. I have been on the floor since the last vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let the Senator decide.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. We can do Mr. Warner and Mr. Bond--Mr. Bond 
talked with me several minutes ago. He has to go somewhere. Then Mr. 
Baucus and then Mr. Voinovich, if that is all right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is fair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I commend the distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia. I was the chairman of the subcommittee that 
worked on ISTEA--we called it TEA-21. How well I remember that he, 
together with the Senator from Texas, fought the battle to take the 
4.3-cent tax out of the general revenues and put it into the highway 
trust fund. Now our distinguished colleague and former majority leader 
is once again showing that leadership to keep those funds flowing to 
support America's highway infrastructure.
  The economy of this Nation is dependent upon the efficient use of its 
transportation for people to get to and from their places of work, to 
carry our goods to the ports and terminals, to get them throughout the 
world. Now we are faced with this situation. I, from the first day, 
have resisted--even though I am in opposition to my distinguished 
leadership--the repeal of this 4.3 cents. It was a commitment made by 
the Senate by a vote, if I recall, I say to the senior Senator from 
West Virginia, which was in the 80s of Senators who approved the 
transfer of these funds from general revenue to the highway trust fund.
  Every Senator understands the highway programs in his or her State. I 
recognize that. But stability is the key word, stability in funding.
  We have the former distinguished Governor of Missouri and the former 
distinguished Governor of Ohio who will address those points. But as 
they set down their programs for highway improvement, safety and 
construction, they needed to have some certainty in the funding. It 
took almost a decade for the Senate to finally come to the recognition 
we ought to stop this donor-donee situation, one of the most 
controversial things I ever witnessed in my 20-plus years in the 
Senate. We got rid of that.
  We also, in that bill, made a specific law whereby, when you go to 
the gas pump in your State and pump that gas, those taxes go to 
Washington and make a U-turn and go back to the State. No State got 
less than 90 percent of the return of those taxes.
  That is what we are here for, continuity of action and decisionmaking 
by this body, continuity and stability in planning these programs to 
improve our roads, our infrastructure. There are contracts that reach 
out a year or more, 2 years or more. People have to order materials. 
They have to do design work. They have to engage labor. That is being 
done. We see the slow, steady improvement of our infrastructure. Now we 
are challenged by the 4.3 cents. As the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia said, it could have a triggering mechanism where 4.3 cents 
goes to over 18 cents. As he pointed out, there is no certainty these 
funds will get back to the pockets of those who put the gas in their 
car--no certainty. There are many, many levels where various purposes 
could take off these funds.
  My distinguished colleague from West Virginia talked about the 
groups. He put their letters in the Record. This is a group of 
organizations all across this country that support the highway 
construction program, whose efforts led to the passage of the ISTEA 
legislation in this Senate and eventually had it enacted into law.
  The distinguished Governor from Ohio, who will soon speak, was very 
active in the National Governors' Association and the Association of 
Highway Administrators, which had given sound support through that 
legislation. He did not come by it by accident. It took absolutely 
years to build up to get this done.
  The National Governors' Association, National Conference of State 
Legislatures, Council of State Governments, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
National League of Cities, National Association

[[Page S2202]]

of Counties--these are groups that visit us every day on various 
issues. They write:

       Proposals that would interfere with or reduce revenues 
     coming to either trust fund by suspending or repealing any 
     portion of Federal transportation taxes would undercut 
     critical commitments to the nation's public infrastructure 
     and potentially threaten the credit quality of state and 
     local bonds already issued to finance highway, bridge and 
     airport construction and repair.

  Already the contracts are out. The revenue bonds are out. Even the 
American Automobile Association, one of the most valued organizations 
in the history of this country, stated as follows:

       AAA has serious concerns about efforts to suspend or repeal 
     any portion of the federal gas tax. While attractive at first 
     glance, this course of action will do little to address the 
     root cause of our gasoline price problem today, which is a 
     shortage of supply caused by curtailed production of crude 
     oil by [primarily the] OPEC states.

  Our distinguished senior colleague covered that.
  To reiterate, this Sense of the Senate amendment is critically 
important because of legislation that is pending before the Senate to 
suspend 4.3 cents of the federal gas tax until next January, and 
because of the instructions this resolution gives to the Finance 
Committee to report legislation to repeal the 4.3 cents tax.
  The budget resolution before the Senate indicates that the 
reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee provide $150 
billion over 5 years in tax cuts that ``could accommodate'' the repeal 
of 4.3 cents of the federal gas tax.
  It is unsound budget policy for this budget resolution to assume that 
a portion of the gas tax will be repealed.
  It is unsound for several reasons, and today I will share with my 
colleagues the reasons for my concerns.
  I join with my colleagues in their frustration with the rising price 
of gasoline. It is too high and threatens the continuation of our 
robust economy.
  In our efforts to respond to OPEC's choking off of supply and the 
absence of leadership by this administration, we must not promise 
American's tax relief that they may not get. The entire proposal to 
repeal or suspend the 4.3 cents gas tax and replenish the Highway Trust 
Fund with general revenues is fraught with uncertainty.
  I ask the question, is the repeal, or temporary suspension of 4.3 
cents of the federal gasoline tax going into the pockets of American 
drivers? What is the guarantee that this tax cut will be passed on to 
consumers at the pump?
  How are they protected from the oil refiners and wholesalers chipping 
off their share? Will the free marketplace enable them to charge the 
same price at the gas pump?
  Just last week the Congressional Research Service issued a new 
analysis entitled ``Transportation Fuel Taxes: Impacts of a Repeal or 
Moratorium,'' which stated:

       Current market conditions and the small amount of tax 
     relief incorporated into most proposals, however, raise 
     uncertainty as to whether prices to individuals and 
     businesses would fall and whether any price decline would be 
     meaningful to consumers.

  If it is not passed on to consumers, and the high prices continue, 
Americans will feel betrayed.
  The impact of a repeal on the 4.3 cents is significant on our budget 
surplus. According to the Department of Transportation, this repeal 
will result in a loss of $20.5 billion to the Highway Trust Fund for 
the remaining years of TEA-21--until 2003.
  Efforts to repeal or suspend the 4.3 cents gas tax has generated 
strong opposition from the National Governors' Association, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State 
governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of 
Cities, and the National Association of Counties. They write:

       Proposals that would interfere with or reduce revenues 
     coming into either trust fund by suspending or repealing any 
     portion of federal transportation taxes would undercut 
     critical commitments to the nation's public infrastructure 
     and potentially threaten the credit quality of state and 
     local bonds already issued to finance highway, bridge and 
     airport construction and repair.

  Even the American Automobile Association with millions of members 
dedicated to highway maintenance and safety write:

       AAA has serious concerns about efforts to suspend or repeal 
     any portion of the federal gas tax. While attractive at first 
     glance, this course of action will do little to address the 
     root cause of our gasoline price problem today, which is 
     shortage of supply caused by curtailed production of crude 
     oil by OPEC states.

  The Small Business Legislative Council joins those views with the 
following:

       While small businesses are clearly suffering as a result of 
     the high gasoline prices, we are long time staunch supporters 
     of preserving the integrity of the highway trust fund and 
     making sure that we have the proper infrastructure to deliver 
     our goods and services.

  My colleagues who support this repeal will tell you that the Highway 
Trust Fund will not be harmed--that general fund monies will be used to 
replace lost revenue to the Highway Trust Fund. This replacement, if it 
actually occurs, will be $20.5 billion.
  And, where will this $20.5 billion come from? It will come from our 
limited budget surplus--and it will drain the limited dollars available 
for lasting tax cuts to Americans.
  This budget resolution provides for $150 billion for tax cuts to be 
defined through the reconciliation process by the Finance Committee. I 
support this level of funding to relieve the tax burden on Americans. 
But, do we want to use the on-budget surplus to give a tax cut to 
gasoline wholesalers? Or, do we want to use the funds in the budget 
resolution for other, more certain, tax legislation providing real and 
lasting tax relief.
  That is the course I want to take.
  The budget resolution assumption that the Congress will repeal 4.3 
cents of the gas tax comes to pass, it will have a lasting, negative 
impact on the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is the sole 
source of revenue available to maintain and upgrade our nation's 
highways, transit systems and highway safety programs.
  We are in only the second year of the 6-year TEA-21 legislation. Now 
is not the time to take a step backward on the important investments we 
are making in our nation's transportation infrastructure.
  For over a decade in the Senate, I, along and many others, worked to 
restore faith with drivers who were promised that gas taxes they pay 
when buying gasoline would be used to maintain and modernize our 
highways and transit systems.
  Finally, in 1997, with the steadfast, leadership of Senator Byrd, 
Senator Baucus, Senator Bond, and others, we achieved success. TEA-21 
guarantees that all of the gas taxes motorists pay at the pump will be 
placed in the Highway Trust Fund and spent--100 percent--on highways, 
transit, and highway safety.
  Before TEA-21, the gas tax was increased by 4.3 cents in 1993 to pay 
for spending on many programs other than transportation or deficit 
reduction. I opposed this tax increase, but it passed.
  Later, while debating TEA-21, this body voted 80 to 18 not to repeal 
this tax, now that it was going to the Highway Trust Fund.
  As our nation's transportation infrastructure aged and crumbled, it 
was imperative we transfer the 4.3-cents tax from general revenues to 
the Highway Trust Fund in 1997.
  The TEA-21 spending guarantee reforms resulted in a 40 percent 
increase in transportation spending for each of the next 6 years. We 
are only in the second year of TEA-21, yet we can see in every state 
the transportation construction that is moving forward. We are just 
beginning to see the benefits of TEA-21 with more projects under 
construction, jobs being created, products moving more efficiently 
across the country, and most importantly, improvements in highway 
safety.
  Do we want to turn back the clock and inject uncertainty again into 
our nation's highway program.
  We are being asked to rely on future legislation that will have an 
untested triggering mechanism to restore general revenues to the 
Highway Trust Fund. What happens if it doesn't work.
  Again, this uncertainty will jeopardize the safety of the driving 
public and the thousands of jobs that are now at work under TEA-21.
  We all know that it takes years--far too long--for highway and 
transit projects to make it from the drawing board to construction. 
Severe swings, or even the uncertainty as to the availability of funds, 
in transportation spending will make it nearly impossible for states to 
effectively manage their highway programs.

[[Page S2203]]

  Consistent funding levels are critical to the seamless steps of 
planning, design, engineering, permitting, contract selection, 
materials orders, and construction. A stable program, where states, 
local governments, and contractors have the benefits of a long-term 
funding cycle ensures a reliable supply of materials and an 
experienced, ready workforce.
  Do we want to stop the modernization of our nation's transportation 
system to give the gas middle-man a few more pennies in his pocket? Or, 
do we keep on course to improve transportation and highway safety for 
all Americans?
  Lets use wisely our limited budget surplus for meaningful and lasting 
tax relief--not on promises that Americans may never see.
  I ask unanimous consent the letters to which I referred be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Governors' Association, National Conference of 
           State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, The 
           U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, 
           National Association of Counties, International City/
           County Management Association,
                                                    April 5, 2000.
       To All Senators: We are writing on behalf of the elected 
     leaders of the nation's state and local governments to urge 
     support for the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond 
     Sense of the Senate Resolution for the continued use of 
     federal fuel taxes for the construction and rehabilitation of 
     our nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems, which is 
     being offered as an amendment to the FY 2001 Budget 
     Resolution.
       This resolution conforms to state and local leaders' strong 
     opposition to any legislative proposals that would interfere 
     or interrupt the current level of transportation user fees 
     being collected that provide dedicated federal funding for 
     transportation programs. It supports the critical commitment 
     to transportation infrastructure, and the funding mechanism 
     to support that commitment, made in the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
       Our state and local government members are responsible for 
     almost all the nation's highways, bridges, and transit 
     systems. We cannot afford cuts in federal transportation 
     infrastructure funding such as the 4.3 cents reduction 
     proposed in the Budget Resolution. The 4.3 cents tax on 
     gasoline and diesel brings in $7.2 billion annual to the 
     Highway Trust Fund--$5.8 billion for highways and $1.4 
     billion for transit. According to the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation, if the 4.3 cents were repealed, the highway 
     program would be cut by $20.5 billion through FY 2003, the 
     final year of TEA-21. The Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund would go broke in 2003.
       Again, we urge your support of the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-
     Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond Resolution.
           Sincerely,
     Raymond C. Scheppach,
       Executive Director, National Governors Association.
     William T. Pound,
     Executive Director, National Conference of State 
     Legislatures.
     Daniel M. Sprague,
       Executive Director, Council of State Governments.
     J. Thomas Cochran,
       Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of Mayors.
     Donald J. Borut,
       Executive Director, National League of Cities.
     Larry B. Naake,
       Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
     William H. Hansell, Jr.,
       Executive Director, International City/County Management 
     Association.
                                  ____



                                       AAA, Washington Office,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2000.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: AAA encourages you to cosponsor and 
     support an amendment to the Senate budget resolution being 
     offered by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). The ``Sense of the 
     Senate'' amendment will put the Senate on record in 
     opposition to any repeal or suspension of the federal 
     gasoline excise tax.
       AAA has serious concerns about efforts to suspend or repeal 
     any portion of the federal gas tax. While attractive at first 
     glance, this course of action will do little to address the 
     root cause of our gasoline price problem today, which is a 
     shortage of supply caused by curtailed production of crude 
     oil by OPEC states.
       The benefits to motorists from reducing the gas tax are, at 
     best, minimal--repealing 4.3 cents would amount to about $1/
     week for the average consumer. However, the resulting loss of 
     revenue to the Highway Trust Fund would be disastrous to the 
     important work of fixing the nation's highways and bridges 
     and improving safety.
       It is highway and traffic safety that is of most concern to 
     AAA. Lower receipts to the Highway Trust Fund compromise the 
     safety of the traveling public. We take these roads back and 
     forth to work and on vacations, our children take these roads 
     to school, and our public safety officials use these arteries 
     to respond to emergencies.
       Asking Americans to choose between a gas tax reduction and 
     safety is posing the wrong question. The right question is: 
     How should Congress and the Administration manage an energy 
     strategy that reduces dependence upon a foreign cartel? That 
     way motorists would have the safe highways they've paid for 
     through their gas taxes and an oil supply they can rely on. 
     Short-term fixes, while politically popular, are not in the 
     best interests of highway safety and the overall economic 
     well being of the nation.
       Congress made a very important decision by creating the 
     Highway Trust Fund and establishing the direct link between 
     user fees paid by motorists and trust fund monies being 
     dedicated to improving the nation's surface transportation 
     infrastructure. Because of TEA-21, the trust fund is now 
     dedicated to providing Americans the safe and efficient 
     transportation system for which they have paid and on which 
     they rely.
       AAA urges the Senate to recognize that a gas tax 
     reduction--though well-meaning--will (1) provide little, if 
     any, actual relief to motorists; (2) not solve the real 
     problem, which is supply; and (3) cause real problems as our 
     highways and bridges continue to deteriorate and with that, 
     the safety of the motoring public.
           Sincerely,

                                         Susan G. Pikrallidas,

                                                   Vice President,
     Public & Government Relations.
                                  ____



                           Small Business Legislative Council,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader: On behalf of the Small Business 
     Legislative Council (SBLC), I want to indicate that we must 
     object to the initiative to temporarily roll back the Federal 
     gas tax. While small businesses are clearly suffering as a 
     result of the high gasoline prices, we are long time staunch 
     supporters of preserving the integrity of the highway trust 
     fund and making sure that we have the proper infrastructure 
     to deliver our goods and services.
       We understand that you intend to pay for this roll back 
     using the ``surplus.'' Right now we have many priorities for 
     the use of that surplus. Repeal of the death tax, increasing 
     direct expensing, full deductibility for the self-employed's 
     health care costs, FUTA tax relief, repeal of the installment 
     sales repeal and national debt reduction to name just a few.
       As you know, the SBLC is a permanent, independent coalition 
     of nearly 80 trade and professional associations that share a 
     common commitment to the future of small business. Our 
     members represent the interests of small businesses in such 
     diverse economic sectors as manufacturing, retailing, 
     distribution, professional and technical services, 
     construction, transportation, tourism and agriculture. Our 
     policies are developed through a consensus among our 
     membership. Individual associations may express their own 
     views. For your information, a list of our members is 
     enclosed.
       We appreciate your outstanding leadership on behalf of 
     small business. We believe there must be a better way to 
     provide relief for small business from rising gasoline prices 
     without jeopardizing other small business priorities.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John S. Satagaj,
                                    President and General Counsel.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from West Virginia. It is an honor to be on the floor to join with him 
and Senator from Virginia to make the point very strongly that 
suspension or repeal of the gas tax would be a grave error. Although 
all of us, as Senators, are aware of consumer complaints about the high 
gasoline prices we are facing in our States, we also should keep in 
mind that this is due primarily to factors other than the level of the 
gas tax, as the Senator from West Virginia has pointed out.
  Our declining production of petroleum and the constriction by OPEC of 
the supply of gasoline on the world markets is the most significant 
factor in determining the price at the pump. Cutting the tax would 
merely reduce the revenues available for improving highway safety 
without producing real savings that would be passed on to the 
consumers. Because of the imposition of tax at the refinery level, 
there is no

[[Page S2204]]

assurance it would come to the gasoline purchaser, the automobile 
owner, or the truck or bus driver.
  The CRS has issued a report saying there might not be any appreciable 
evidence of a reduction in tax. The consumers would never see it. Who 
would see it would be those people who are committed to repairing and 
rebuilding our inadequate roads, bridges, and highways.
  In 1998, I worked hard with our friend and dear colleague, the late 
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. John Chafee, on the Bond-Chafee 
guarantee that was incorporated into TEA-21 with the help of the 
Senators who spoke before me--Senator Domenici, Senator Byrd, and 
Senator Warner. That provision created for the first time a real 
guarantee that revenues collected and earmarked for the highway trust 
fund would, in fact, be used for transportation purposes. If we collect 
a dollar gas tax, that dollar must be credited to the highway trust 
fund. This guarantees that for the first time highway users will get 
the transportation benefits in return for the user fee they pay through 
the gas tax.
  We cannot have a guarantee if we continue to change the way the 
program is funded. To hold the trust fund harmless, supposedly by 
having money come from general revenue and projected surpluses, will 
put us back in the same sinking boat--more appropriately, crumbling 
highway--that we were in before. That position was one where off-budget 
or turnbacks were advocated. This amendment makes clear the budget 
resolution does not assume the reductions of any Federal gasoline tax.
  We need a Department of Energy that makes energy policy, not the EPA. 
The administration policy has been no policy. We can stop the raid on 
the highway funds, and we must not repeal or roll back the gasoline 
tax.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is at issue is very clear. I hope my 
colleagues pay attention. The issue is whether this Congress is going 
to break the trust the American people have in the highway trust fund. 
That is the issue.
  Dollars going into the Federal highway trust fund are locked in. 
There is a trust that those dollars are then distributed back to the 
States. The revenue in the trust fund goes back to the States. It is a 
trust, an understanding. That is why we have a highway trust fund.
  We cannot go down the slippery slope of opening up the trust fund and 
replenishing it with general revenue or using general revenue to pay 
for highway allocations because once we start down that slippery slope, 
we will then have broken the trust. We will have sprung a leak, which 
will grow into perhaps a creek or a river, and will drain the highway 
trust fund, as the trust is broken. It is that simple.
  I very much thank the Senator from West Virginia for drawing this to 
the Senate's attention. Not only is it the resolution before us, but it 
is also any potential revenue matters that might come up in this body. 
The essential point is the linkage.

  I strongly urge my colleagues to continue the trust this Congress 
made with the American people when it passed the last highway bill, 
TEA-21. That bill was heralded as a landmark piece of legislation, 
overwhelmingly passed by both bodies. We all touted it, not only 
because of the revenues and dedication to the infrastructure so 
desperately needed but also because of the trust; that is, the 
assurance that the gasoline tax and the diesel fuel tax people pay at 
the pump will come back to the States; that it will not be tampered 
with by the Congress; it will not be changed by the Congress. That is 
something on which the people could count, of which they could be 
assured. It is something that is certain, something they can trust.
  I very much hope we resist the temptation, we resist the siren song 
for a short-term political change, to jigger around with the 4.3 cents, 
repealing it and adding the difference to the surplus or revenue. It is 
an exercise that is not only futile; it is an exercise that is a 
misrepresentation of what we did in TEA-21, and it will be an exercise 
which begins to break the trust.
  Either we keep the trust or we do not. There is no halfway here. 
There is no little breaking of the trust. Either we keep it or we do 
not. I submit the American people want us to keep the trust. They will 
be very upset if we break it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a letter in the 
Record from various organizations--the National Governors' Association, 
the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State 
Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, 
National Association of Counties, International City/County Management 
Association, all in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Governors' Association, National Conference of 
           State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, The 
           U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, 
           National Association of Counties, International City/
           County Management Association,
                                                    April 5, 2000.
       Dear Senator: We are writing on behalf of the elected 
     leaders of the nation's state and local governments to urge 
     support of the Byrd-Warner-Baucus-Voinovich-Lautenberg-Bond 
     Sense of the Senate Resolution for the continued use of 
     federal fuel taxes for the construction and rehabilitation of 
     our nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems which is 
     being offered as an amendment to the FY 2001 Budget 
     Resolution.
       This resolution conforms to the strong opposition that 
     state and local leaders have to any legislative proposals 
     that would interfere or interrupt the current level of 
     transportation user fees being collected that provide 
     dedicated federal funding for transportation programs. It 
     supports the critical commitment to transportation 
     infrastructure, and the funding mechanism to support that 
     commitment, made in the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century (TEA-21).
       Our state and local government members are responsible for 
     almost all the nation's highways, bridges, and transit 
     systems. We cannot afford cuts in federal transportation 
     infrastructure funding such as the 4.3 cents reduction 
     proposed in the Budget Resolution. The 4.3 cents tax on 
     gasoline and diesel brings in $7.2 billion annually to the 
     Highway Trust Fund--$5.8 billion for highways and $1.4 
     billion for transit. According to the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation, if the 4.3 cents were repealed, the highway 
     program would be cut by $20.5 billion through FY 2003, the 
     final year of TEA-21. The Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund would go broke in 2003.
       The nation's state and local leaders look forward to 
     working with you on this very important issue.
           Sincerely,
         Raymond C. Scheppach, Executive Director, National 
           Governors' Association; Daniel M. Sprague, Executive 
           Director, Council of State Governments; Donald J. 
           Borut, Executive Director, National League of Cities; 
           William H. Hansell, Jr., Executive Director, 
           International City/County Management Association; 
           William T. Pound, Executive Director, National 
           Conference of State Legislatures; J. Thomas Cochran, 
           Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of Mayors; 
           Larry E. Naake, Executive Director, National 
           Association of Counties.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for offering this amendment. He knows and the rest of us know that 
repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax is not going to solve the problem of 
high gasoline prices which today confronts this country. In my opinion, 
the administration's lack of an energy policy and total inability to 
react to OPEC's production cut has pushed gasoline prices to $2 per 
gallon in some places in the nation.
  The fact of the matter is, the American people are angry, and I share 
their frustration. The real problem we have today is that we do not 
have an energy policy in this country.
  Two weeks ago, when Department of Energy officials testified before 
the Governmental Affairs committee, I asked them whether or not they 
had an energy policy. I asked them if we were too reliant upon foreign 
oil. Their answer to that was yes we are too reliant on foreign oil.
  I said: Your department is predicting that in the next 10 years we 
are going to be 65-percent reliant on foreign oil. How reliant should 
we be? Is it 45, 50 percent?
  They had no answer.
  I said: As a former Governor, if I had a problem, I would set a 
number and say it is going to be 45 or 50 and then put a plan together 
and move forward and get it done.

[[Page S2205]]

  I hope in this debate over whether or not we ought to reduce the gas 
tax, the administration and Members of Congress take advantage of this 
wonderful opportunity to come together to look at the environmental 
concerns, look at the issue of exploration, look at the problems of the 
stripper well producers in this country who are out of business because 
the cost of a barrel of oil has been too low. We need to get it all on 
the table so that we do not have a repeat performance, and so that we 
are not at the mercy of foreign oil producing nations, some of whom are 
actually avowed enemies of the United States of America.

  I've said many times the price is going to go down because the 
administration is going to put the pressure on these nations. But what 
I would like to know is, what are the promises they are going to be 
making in order to get the price down? We ought not to be in this 
position.
  I happen to have been chairman of the National Governors' Association 
when Congress did TEA-21. Most Governors were opposed to the 4.3-cent 
gas tax in 1993 but we came back and said: If you move that from 
deficit reduction to the highway trust fund, we will support it.
  I want everyone to understand that for the donor States--and Ohio is 
a donor State--without that 4.3 cents, we would not have a guarantee of 
90.5 percent of the money we are sending to Washington. This is the way 
we helped get some of our money back into our State.
  I think if you ask most of the highway directors of the States in 
this country, they will tell you that without that 4.3-cent gas tax, 
they are not going to have any new construction programs. All of the 
rest of our gas tax money goes for the maintenance and repair of our 
highways. The new construction is being paid for by that 4.3-cent gas 
tax.
  There are some people who say: Don't worry about it because the money 
will come from the on-budget surplus or from someplace else. My answer 
to that is, we have a users' tax. The people who use the highways pay 
the tax for the highways. I do not think it is fair that we should say 
to the people of the country what we are going to do is reduce the 
highway users' tax and we are going to make everyone else pay to make 
up for the tax reduction.
  I would like to say I am just prayerful that this amendment passes, 
that it passes overwhelmingly, that we send the message that we are not 
for repealing the 4.3-cent gas tax and that we take advantage of this 
wonderful opportunity to come together and develop an energy policy for 
this great Nation of ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if Senator Byrd could yield me 3 minutes off 
his time?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield whatever time the Senator wishes to consume.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to argue in two parts.
  My first part has to do with the highways and byways and freeways of 
America and our home cities across this land. I think there is no one 
in this Chamber who has not been home to their State and found that 
people somewhere in their State are frustrated because we do not have 
adequate roads to handle the traffic.
  No, I am not suggesting I know how to do that in terms of these very 
heavily congested areas. But there is no doubt, we are way behind the 
curve in terms of supplying highways, freeways, and arteries in our 
cities.
  You are not going to tell the American people they can't have their 
dream. I mean, their dream is to own a house and own a car or cars. One 
of their big dreams is to have that place where they want it. We are 
just never going to succeed in telling the American people: You cannot 
live 5 miles from your employment, as they did in Russia. They had it 
all figured out: They all worked; they all got on one train; and they 
all went to work. In fact, they told them in high school what they were 
going to be.
  That is not America. So we are behind. In fact, I am not sure in most 
places we are gaining on the congestion and traffic. Frankly, I could 
come down here and say I am pretty satisfied that repeal of the 4.3-
cent tax would not hurt next year, but in 7 years actually it would 
hurt.
  The truth of the matter is, we should not deceive anybody. The 
problem we have is the problem that America uses more crude oil and 
crude-oil products than we are now producing.
  Frankly, we have an American policy, I regret to say--especially 
since President Bill Clinton has been in office and Vice President 
Gore--of taking more and more of America, the public lands, out of 
production that you cannot use; you cannot get on it to find oil, even 
if it is there, all under some mystique that on ``public domain'' we 
should not be looking for oil, that we ought to be saving it for 
something.
  Then tonight we are going to have a debate, I say to the Senator. I 
am not sure where everyone is going to be on it. But actually one one-
hundredth of 1 percent of the Arctic wilderness, called ANWR, one one-
hundredth of 1 percent is a little strip of land that they are trying 
to say: Why don't we try to find out if there is oil there?
  You know what they think might be there? Sixteen billion barrels of 
oil. Pretty much. It is as much as we will import from Saudi Arabia 
over the next 5, 6, 7 years. That would be the amount. That is pretty 
good. That is a pretty large amount of oil. All of it would be owned by 
Americans. All of it would be drilled by Americans. Americans would 
have jobs.
  Instead, we say it is just going to ruin that wilderness. Somebody 
who is neutral ought to pass on that, not somebody who wants to save 
this wilderness, including one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the land 
surface.
  If I had my notes from my desk, I would tell you how much we have 
taken out of production in America. We have taken lands on which people 
could find oil, and we have said: You cannot get on it to find oil.
  We have regulations, through the Department of the Interior, that 
instead of saying, hey, get out here and find your oil, they make it 
tough. It is sort of like: Boy, do we have to put up with you? It is 
not like: Boy, I hope you find oil.
  It is American oil. It is sort of like: Maybe it is OK, but it is 
just too bad that we have to do this. What is too bad about it? We are 
going to buy this oil someplace. We have less American oil, fewer rigs 
producing oil, and we are getting more dependent.
  The last point is, according to the independent institute within the 
Department of Energy, the one that is supposed to do analysis of 
supply, they tell us--I hope they are wrong--they cannot find out how 
much the production of the world is. That sounds incredible. If they 
cannot, somebody in our Government should. We should not be surprised 
all of a sudden if somebody says: You know, they are producing 4 
million barrels less. We are hurting.
  We ought to know; there is no way to keep this a real secret. If we 
set out to find it, I am sure we could. In fact, I think there are 
probably some parts of the American Government we do not know about 
that might already know that. But that is very important.
  To summarize, my last point is, we need to build more roads for 
America's congestion, not less. Secondly, we need to take a positive 
approach. If the President does not want to, we will not get it done 
for a while. But we have to decide what are our goals as Americans in 
terms of producing energy? How much should we be conserving? Let's get 
serious about it.
  This will not happen with a bunch of Government regs. This will 
happen when the marketplace of America is opened up to oil and gas 
production. I am even wondering whether the largest supply of natural 
gas is offshore in some parts of America. We have said: No more 
offshore drilling.
  It isn't environmentally dangerous. In fact, I submit to the Senate, 
it is more dangerous to increase our reliance and thus bring more 
tankers into American ports than it would be to seriously consider 
doing more offshore drilling.
  But, of course, for some people what I am speaking about is kind of 
radical. I think it is really kind of common sense about America's 
growing dependence. I am not ashamed or embarrassed about saying I 
would change it drastically. I would recommend that somebody change it 
dramatically. Tell the world we are going to try. We are not going to 
give in.
  We currently think it is an American energy policy to send the 
Secretary of

[[Page S2206]]

Energy--one of New Mexico's sons; my friend--around to make a deal. 
That is America's energy policy? Have you ever heard of anything like 
that being the policy of America? What if they said no?
  In this case, they started asking a few questions and said: Maybe we 
don't want to hurt your economy. Kuwait does not know what we want of 
them. We saved them from the invasion. They do not know whether we want 
to dance on a barrel of oil or what we want. They already said: Look, 
America, you send us so many signals, we don't know what to do. But we 
are on your side.
  I think we ought to be very clear, it is not this 4.3-cent tax. What 
it is, we do not have a policy to produce more and tell the world we 
are growing more independent rather than dependent.
  Whatever time I have, if I have any, I yield back.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
very enlightening statement. I have listened to him on this floor many 
times over the years. I do not think I have enjoyed more any statement 
of his than I have this evening.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Robb, and Senator Lincoln be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I see no other Senator asking for time on 
this side.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under terms of the unanimous consent 
agreement on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, the 
agreement said we would use all time tonight on this amendment. Is 
Senator Lautenberg wishing to speak on the amendment of Senator Byrd 
dealing with gas tax repeal?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. While I wasn't present to hear Senator Byrd's 
presentation, there is no doubt in my mind that the Byrd proposal is 
one we have to support. The last thing we want to do now is to reduce 
that tax in order that we might give OPEC or the distributors, 
whomever, a chance to boost the price for the difference.
  One of the toughest things we have to do is to try to meet our 
obligations with the resources we have available. The American people 
know very well that one of the most important things we do is to 
maintain our transportation infrastructure. I plan to do whatever I can 
to see that that is done.
  My remarks are short, but they are very supportive. I congratulate 
Senator Byrd for his usual wisdom in presenting something that we have 
to think seriously about and, frankly, I support fully. I thank him for 
that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
kind and supportive statement. I thank all Senators who have spoken on 
this subject for their remarks. I thank them for their support, and I 
hope all of our colleagues tomorrow will vote in favor of the amendment 
I have offered on behalf of myself and the other Senators named 
thereon.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the next amendment in order 
will be offered by the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is my understanding. Senator Roth is on the floor, 
I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 2955

(Purpose: To strike the revenue assumption for ANWR receipts in fiscal 
                               year 2005)

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senators Boxer, Baucus, Jeffords, Schumer, Dodd, Feingold, 
Lieberman, Murray, Chafee, Robb, and Torricelli.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], for himself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. 
     Robb, and Mr. Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2955.

  Mr. ROTH. 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 27, line 20, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 27, line 21, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 28, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 28, line 21, decrease the amount by $1,200,000,000.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the gentleman from Delaware consent to 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, and the Senator from 
Nevada, Mr. Reid, being added as cosponsors of the amendment?
  Mr. ROTH. I am happy to have them join as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the Senator from New 
Mexico, for what I consider to be an excellent budget resolution. Over 
the next 5 years, the Budget Committee chairman has protected Social 
Security, funded our priorities such as defense and education, and 
provided for a $150 billion tax cut--something I look forward to 
crafting in the Finance Committee.
  However, there is one point at which I respectfully disagree with my 
distinguished colleague's work. It is in the assumptions of allowing 
leasing for oil exploration and production in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. This budget resolution assumes that $1.2 billion would 
become available in fiscal year 2005 from the bids for such leases.
  My amendment would simply remove that assumed revenue from the budget 
resolution and thereby protect this wilderness area.
  My reason for offering this amendment is based on beauty, not on 
budgets. I do not want to see us make an irreparable mistake in one of 
America's remaining natural treasures. We can afford to forgo this 
momentary revenue, but we can't afford not to protect this Arctic Eden.
  Mr. President, in 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower had the wisdom to 
set aside a portion of America's Arctic for the benefit and enjoyment 
of future generations. His Arctic Range protected the highest peaks and 
glaciers of the Brooks Range, North America's two largest and most 
northerly alpine lakes, and nearly 200 different wildlife species, 
including polar bears, grizzlies, wolves, caribou and millions of 
migratory birds.
  Eisenhower's Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, called the new 
Arctic Range, ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness 
areas in North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated 
elsewhere.''
  The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our 
Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete 
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a 
vital part of our national consciousness.
  The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness 
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and 
glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich 
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, 
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, 
black brant, and more. Birds from the Arctic Refuge fly to or through 
every state in the continental U.S. In all, Mr. President, about 200 
species use the coastal plain.
  Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is good that 
man can come only as a visitor. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
one of those places. These are pristine lands that belong to all of us. 
And perhaps most importantly, these are the lands that belong to our 
future.
  In essence what I am asking my colleagues to support is an 
environmental stewardship that protects our important wilderness areas 
and precious resources, while carefully and judiciously weighing the 
short-term desires or our country against its long-term needs.
  Considering the many reasons why protecting this area is so 
important, I came across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace 
Stegner. Referring to the land we seek to protect, he wrote that it is 
``the most splendid part of the American habitat; it is also the most 
fragile.'' We cannot enter this land ``carrying habits that [are] 
inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.''
  An industrial zone and wilderness cannot occupy the same space. The

[[Page S2207]]

simple fact is that no matter how well done, oil exploration and 
development would have significant and lasting impacts on this 
environment.
  In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that when the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge was formally created under the 1980 Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, it was to conserve fish and 
wildlife populations in their natural diversity. Oil development on the 
coastal plain of the refuge is prohibited without the enactment of 
legislation authorizing development.
  I urge my colleagues, to support my amendment and reject the budget 
resolution's assumptions on oil drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. Let us reconfirm to protect today what can never be 
regained tomorrow if we make the wrong decision now.
  I hope that we can forever protect the coastal plain from 
development. It is certainly premature at this time to assume revenue 
from oil development there.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Roth amendment, 
which expresses the sense of the Senate that we should maintain the 
longstanding ban on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  We have heard a lot of concern lately about the cost of gas at the 
pump.
  I share that concern. I represent Montana. The Big Sky State. Vast 
open spaces. We often drive long distances just to get to the grocery 
store.
  Prices at the pump in Billings have gone from $1.18 in April of 1999 
to $1.59 today. We need to get the price down. The administration has 
made some progress, with the OPEC countries. We may need to do more. 
For example, we may need to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But we 
should not respond to high gas prices by opening the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. That would be shortsighted, ineffective, and 
environmentally harmful.
  Proponents of oil drilling make three main arguments. They imply it 
will lower the price at the pump. They argue that it will enhance our 
energy security. And they argue that it won't really pose a significant 
environmental risk to the refuge.
  I disagree. Let me take the arguments in turn.
  First, the cost at the pump. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge will have absolutely no impact on gas prices, now or in the 
foreseeable future. Think about it. Assume that we pass a law 
authorizing drilling. Assume the President signs it. First, companies 
will need to conduct exploration to determine where to drill. Next they 
will have to build the infrastructure, the roads, drill pads, drill 
rigs, pipelines, gravel pits, waste pits, and living and working 
quarters. This could include hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines, 
production facilities, increased traffic at loading ports, and housing 
and services for thousands of people.
  This work will take years and years. Senator Murkowski himself said, 
in 1998, that ``a future decision on ANWR is one which will take about 
10 years to produce any results in the way of any increased production 
contribution to our current flow of domestic oil.'' Ten years, before 
we see any impact on the price at the pump.

  Let me turn to the longer term issue. Energy security. Let's look at 
what the potential oil of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge means in 
the big picture. At best, the economically recoverable oil would 
represent 2 percent of our daily needs. As a result, oil drilling in 
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge has little, if anything, to do with long-
term energy security.
  Another point. It does not make good strategic sense to use our 
reserves, which account for only 12 percent of the crude oil available 
in the world, while we have access to other sources. After all, once 
our reserves are used up, we will be totally at the mercy of OPEC.
  Instead of continuing our unhealthy dependence on OPEC, we should 
develop a comprehensive energy strategy. We should improve energy 
efficiency. We should diversify our energy sources.
  What are we doing here in Congress? Virtually nothing.
  We continue to prevent an increase in corporate average fuel economy. 
We routinely underfund the development of solar and renewable energy. 
And we fail to seriously consider tax legislation that rewards 
efficiency and increases our energy security.
  In the absence of a comprehensive national energy strategy, drilling 
the refuge is just a band-aid. A quick fix. It's no substitute for a 
real, comprehensive, strategy.
  Putting this all together, drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not 
reduce prices at the pump anytime soon, if at all. And it will not 
significantly enhance our energy security.
  Now consider the environmental impact. The Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is truly unique. It is the only refuge of its type in the world. 
I've been there. It has been referred to, for good reason, as 
``America's Serengeti.'' It's the nation's largest and most northerly 
wildlife refuge. It includes a full range of arctic and subarctic 
habitats. Vast herds of caribou migrate to the refuge, bearing their 
young on the coastal plain. Muskox use the area year-round. The refuge 
is the most important polar bear land denning area in Alaska. One 
hundred eighty bird species migrate there, from throughout the 
hemisphere. Eighteen major rivers contain 36 species of fish.

  Let's look at what development might do. What happens when the 
construction of, say, a pipeline and road forces wildlife away? Take 
the caribou hers. Female caribou seek out the best foraging areas as 
calving areas. These areas change each year. If, in any given year, the 
best foraging and calving area is a site for development, the caribou 
won't use it and fewer calves will survive. Development can also force 
females into areas where there are more predators, or block them from 
climbing onto ridge tops to avoid swarms of insects. Again, fewer 
calves will survive.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the cumulative 
impacts of these effects could significantly reduce the size of the 
caribou hers. The Service has expressed similar concerns about 
muskoxen.
  What about disturbances from road building? There is not enough water 
to build only ice roads. You'd have to build gravel roads, even for 
exploration. Gravel roads will alter the natural flow of water during 
spring breakup, will melt permafrost, and will otherwise damage the 
environment. Taken together, this could harm the habitat for more than 
100 species of birds. This, in turn, will have effects way beyond the 
refuge itself. All of these birds are migratory. They nest and rear 
their young in the Refuge in the summer, then migrate throughout the 
entire hemisphere, including virtually every state.
  Now, the proponents of drilling say that the environmental impacts 
have been exaggerated. They say that the ``footprint'' of development 
is no larger than Dulles Airport. In fact, the development will not be 
concentrated in a small area.
  This map, based on projections by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
shows potential pipelines, drilling pads, roads, and other facilities. 
As you can see, the roads and pipelines stretch across the entire 
coastal plain, bisecting migration paths and stream channels. What's 
more, recent reports by the U.S. Geological Service show that the oil 
reserves in the Refuge are smaller and more widely dispersed than 
previously thought. As a result, oil development will require more, and 
more widely dispersed, roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure. 
Finally, accidents.
  If the Exxon Valdez taught us anything, it is that humans working in 
a cold, harsh environment can make mistakes, and that the environmental 
costs in a fragile ecosystem can be extraordinarily high. Our 
experience elsewhere on the North Slope confirms this. There has been a 
general increase in the number of spills. At least two well-blowouts 
have occurred. At least 76 areas have been contaminated by oil 
development from the Prudhoe Field. Things usually don't go as smoothly 
as we plan.
  That brings me to my final point. It may be that, someday, the need 
will be so great, and the technology so sophisticated, that we decide 
that the benefits of exploration and development of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge are worth it. But we should only make that decision 
after careful deliberation,

[[Page S2208]]

after exhausting all reasonable alternatives, and after assuring that 
this fragile ecosystem will, in fact, be protected. Because there's no 
margin for error. If we make a mistake, and allow development that 
destroys the unique character of this special place, the mistake will 
be permanent and, perhaps, unforgivable.
  Mr. President, pulling all of this together, the benefits of drilling 
simply are not worth it. They are not worth the environmental risks.
  Therefore, I urge Members to vote to maintain the longstanding ban on 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, by voting for the Roth 
amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Roth's amendment to the budget resolution, and I thank the Senator for 
his leadership on matters relating to the future of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. The purpose and rationale behind the Roth 
amendment is simple: We should not include revenue assumptions in the 
budget based on oil development that will not, and should not, occur. 
Such faulty assumptions make poor fiscal policy and poor environmental 
policy. The Arctic Refuge is a national treasure. I support Senator 
Roth's efforts to designate the area as wilderness, and I am pleased to 
add my name as a cosponsor to the Roth wilderness bill.
  The crux of this debate is on our values, our legacy, and what we 
want to pass on to future generations. Senator Baucus mentioned the 
Serengeti National Park in Africa, an area immortalized in the human 
imagination for its beauty and majesty. This amazing park exists 
because previous generations had the foresight to preserve and protect 
this area from development. As Senator Baucus said, the Coastal Plain 
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is referred to as the ``American 
Serengeti.'' And like its counterpart in Africa, this area deserves to 
be protected for us, our children, and our grandchildren.
  In 1980, in recognition of the area's immense environmental value, as 
Senator Roth said, Congress formally established the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. At that time, and after much debate and deliberation, 
Congress made the wise decision to prohibit drilling in the Coastal 
Plain pending further review.
  Now, only a short 20 years later, efforts are underway to open this 
area to development.
  I urge my colleagues to resist these efforts, to look past our short 
term needs, and designate the area as wilderness for future 
generations. The very definition of a ``refuge'' means an area of 
sanctuary, shelter and protection. In the case of our wildlife refuges, 
this means protecting nature from drilling, road construction, 
combustion engines and all of the other harmful effects of human beings 
and their machines. A large portion of the Alaskan North Slope is 
already open to oil exploration or drilling; we should not subject ANWR 
to the same fate.
  Some have voiced concern at our increasing dependence on foreign oil, 
and our lack of a coherent national energy policy. I share these 
concerns, and agree completely that our country must take steps to 
improve our energy security. But the solution to our energy problems 
does not lie underneath the coastal plain of ANWR, and drilling there 
cannot become our energy policy. Remember, by definition, a refuge is a 
place providing protection or shelter--it is a haven, a sanctuary--we 
must make sure that ANWR remains a haven, a sanctuary.
  I thank my colleagues for their consideration, and I respectfully 
urge them to support the Roth amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator for 
yielding. I stand in complete support of his amendment, an amendment 
very similar to the one offered by my colleague, the Senator from 
California, in the Budget Committee.
  It should be kept in context that this budget resolution, without the 
Roth amendment, assumes $1.2 billion in royalties from the sale of oil 
from drilling in the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge.
  I want to say to Members of the Senate that the reason we are 
debating this is because the price of gasoline is increasing in the 
United States. People are more sensitized to the cost of fuel and 
energy and the impact it has on businesses, families, and individuals.
  Those who have been salivating for decades for an opportunity to 
drill in this wildlife refuge in Alaska have jumped at the chance to 
assume that we are so consumed by the increase in energy prices that we 
will cast aside any concern for the environment and the legacy which we 
should leave to future generations.
  Senator Roth is right. We should not be drilling in ANWR. We have to 
consider the fact that on the North Slope, 95 percent is already open 
to exploration. The 5 percent on the Coastal Plain that we have set 
aside is to protect what we have identified as a legitimate, important 
wildlife refuge.
  Oil companies and their supporters can't wait to drill in that 
wildlife refuge. I think it is wrong. I think Senator Roth is right, as 
Senator Boxer was in committee.
  We should say unequivocally in a bipartisan fashion on the floor of 
the Senate that we need an energy policy, but we do not need to walk in 
and desecrate a wildlife refuge designed to be preserved for future 
generations.
  This last Saturday in Belleville, IL, I paid $1.39 a gallon for 
regular gasoline. I then drove 100 miles to Springfield, IL, and paid 
$1.49. Yes, prices have increased. Yes, I am sure for families of 
limited means and some businesses there is sacrifice attached to it. 
But we shouldn't use this as a catalyst or a reason to run headlong 
into this effort to desecrate this important environmental refuge.
  We need to face the reality that America needs an energy policy, and 
we shouldn't wait for a gasoline price crisis to drive us to the point 
to develop one. Such an energy policy is going to include a lot of 
things, such as looking for responsible areas for oil exploration and 
development; also, of course, energy efficiency not only in our 
automobiles but in virtually everything that we use involving energy. 
Of course, it will lessen our dependence on foreign oil sources. We 
need to look for alternative fuels.
  This is an important, complicated but a necessary national debate.
  This quick fix of drilling in ANWR in the belief that it is going to 
bring down gasoline prices is wrong on two counts.
  First, it is not likely to bring them down, if at all, until years 
from now.
  Second, it really avoids the obvious responsibility we have to 
preserve this important refuge.
  Senator Roth is offering an amendment which is consistent with a 
member of his party who served in the United States as President many 
years ago by the name of Theodore Roosevelt, who said in his efforts to 
preserve the environment:

       We must ask ourselves if we are leaving for future 
     generations an environment that is as good or better than 
     what we found.

  Senator Roth's amendment says this Senate will go on record leaving a 
legacy for future generations in the name and in the memory of Theodore 
Roosevelt, ``as good or better than what we found,'' that we will not 
allow this exploitation and exploration of this valuable and fragile 
natural resource.
  I stand in complete support of this amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roth for offering this 
amendment. I offered almost an identical amendment in the Budget 
Committee, and it failed on a tie vote. I am very hopeful that we will 
do better on the floor of the Senate. We were able to pick up one 
Republican in the committee. We had all the Democrats. I think we have 
a good chance of picking up, with the help of Senator Roth and Senator 
Chafee, some more on their side of the aisle.
  This amendment would strike from the budget $1.2 billion in receipts 
that

[[Page S2209]]

the budget resolution assumed would be received from oil exploration or 
drilling operations in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I stand with those who have spoken very eloquently tonight, and say 
that we cannot allow that beautiful, pristine sanctuary--one of the 
most remarkable wildlife habitats in the world--to be spoiled.
  We have a beautiful picture, with which I am sure Senator Murkowski 
is familiar.
  The wildlife refuge was established in 1960 by a Republican 
President, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. And it was for the benefit 
of his generation and future generations; that is, all of us. I think 
we have an obligation to keep that going, just as he kept it going for 
us.
  From the very beginning, support for this refuge has been bipartisan. 
Thank goodness we see evidence of that on the Senate floor. Too few 
times, I am sad to say, do we see such bipartisanship. That is why I am 
delighted to work with Senator Roth on this.
  This land that President Eisenhower set aside in the Arctic 
wilderness is ecologically unique. It is the last remaining region 
where the complete spectrum of Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems can be 
found. It includes the highest peaks and glaciers of the Brooks Range.
  President Eisenhower's Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, called 
the new Arctic Refuge ``one of the most magnificent wildlife and 
wilderness areas in North America . . . a wilderness experience not 
duplicated anywhere else.''
  Nothing has changed since then. It is still there. But we can destroy 
it here.
  I am stunned that the Budget Committee let this go. I am stunned the 
majority on the Budget Committee put in $1.2 billion as if we were 
going to allow this to happen next year. We are not going to allow this 
to happen.
  I would like to say tonight to my good friend from Alaska, whom I 
respect--we have some good arguments now and then, and we probably will 
have them again--that we are going to fight this out. To put $1.2 
billion in as if we were going to start getting receipts from this next 
year makes no sense at all.
  I can guarantee--I shouldn't say that because you never can guarantee 
anything around here, but I believe we will have more than 41 people 
who will stand on their feet as long as it takes to stop that from 
happening.
  To put it in the budget resolution, No. 1, is wrong because it is 
presuming the Senate is going to approve this when I don't believe it 
will happen.
  This area is tremendously rich with nearly 200 different wildlife 
species including polar bears, grizzlies, wolves, caribou, and a whole 
list of others, including millions of migratory birds. Amazingly, birds 
from the Arctic Refuge fly to or through every State in the continental 
United States of America. This is not only an Alaska issue. We all 
benefit from this refuge. I cannot reconcile the concept of drilling 
with a wildlife refuge. It seems to me they don't go together. If you 
are going to set aside a wildlife refuge, you should not allow drilling 
there at all. Drilling will raise disturbing questions about what our 
refuges are for. If wildlife are not guaranteed protection from oil 
drilling, where are they safe?
  My colleague, Senator Roth, has introduced legislation, of which I am 
a cosponsor, which would forever safeguard this great national treasure 
by designating it wilderness area. This permanently protects it from 
oil exploration and development. That protection is warranted and 
reasonable. As Senator Durbin has pointed out, nearly 95 percent of the 
arctic slope is available to industry for oil and gas development. It 
makes sense to shield this last remaining piece. I hope Chairman Roth's 
wilderness proposal will get full consideration.
  Instead, what are we seeing? Instead of moving forward with that 
wonderful piece of legislation that has bipartisan support, we have a 
budget resolution that essentially slaps its hand at Senator Roth's 
legislation and includes $1.2 billion, as if we will open it up without 
a fight.
  It isn't going to happen. It is not realistic. It is funny numbers. 
It isn't going to happen. We are not going to let it happen. What we 
should be doing is passing Senator Roth's legislation for our 
wilderness instead of plugging in a number.
  It reminds me of the fight over the Presidio. Senator Murkowski from 
Alaska helped me save the Presidio. One year, I say to Senator 
Murkowski, there was a plug put in the budget of $1 billion for selling 
the Presidio. As I explained to my friends, that will never happen; the 
city and county of San Francisco would not allow this magnificent 
former military base to become anything other than a park; you are not 
going to get $1 billion there. Finally, I prevailed on my colleagues. 
They backed off and we never put the plug in.
  And we are prevailing tonight. Don't put that $1.2 billion plug in 
because it is not real. It is wrong. It goes against what we ought to 
be doing.
  I understand the rising gas price phenomenon because I am in a State 
that has some of the highest gas prices. Believe me, it hurts at the 
pump. We are looking at $2 a gallon where I come from.
  My constituency wants me to do something about it, and I have come up 
with a plan. The plan is pretty straightforward. No. 1, why are we 
exporting gas from Alaska to other countries when we need to use it 
here? That is 68,000 barrels a day. Second, why don't we increase the 
energy efficiency of SUVs and light trucks? That will bring 1 million 
barrels a day. We can do that to get them up to 27 miles per gallon. 
That can be done.
  Why don't we say there should be a moratorium on the oil company 
mergers? We know less competition brings higher prices. It is the rule 
of a capitalistic system. We need more competition. That is what we 
ought to be doing. We ought not be drilling in a wildlife refuge on the 
coast of California or any of our magnificent offshore areas.
  The American people realize this. I have letters favoring Senator 
Roth's bill. Tonight I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record letters from several environmental organizations, including the 
League of Conservation Voters, that will use this as a scored vote.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                         League of


                                          Conservation Voters,

                                                    April 4, 2000.
     Re Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--Vote ``YES'' 
       on the Roth Arctic Wilderness Amendment to the 2001 Budget 
       Resolution

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the bipartisan political voice of the national environmental 
     community. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the press.
       The League of Conservation Voters urges you to protect the 
     biological heart of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by 
     supporting an amendment offered by Senator Roth (R-DE) to the 
     2001 Budget Resolution that opposes opening the Refuge to oil 
     drilling. Currently the budget resolution assumes revenues 
     from drilling in the Refuge.
       Some members of Congress are using the current high price 
     of gasoline as a pretext to open the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge to oil drilling. The current price of gasoline in no 
     way justifies destroying this national treasure. Development 
     of the Refuge's coastal plain will not impact oil supplies 
     until far into the future, and the amount of oil that lies 
     beneath it is minimal compared to our national energy needs.
       The Arctic Refuge is home to wolves, polar bears, caribou 
     and millions of migratory birds. It is also the last 5% of 
     Alaska's vast north coastline that remains off-limits to the 
     oil companies. And the Refuge plays an integral part in the 
     lives of the Gwich'in people who depend on the seasonal 
     migrations of the caribou for both survival and cultural 
     identity.
       Protecting the wilderness values of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge is one of the top priorities of the national 
     environmental community. LCV urges you to vote ``YES'' on 
     Senator Roth's amendment to protect the Arctic Refuge.
       LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider including 
     votes on this issue in compiling LCV's 2000 Scorecard. If you 
     need more information, please call Betsy Loyless in my office 
     at (202) 785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
                                                        President.

[[Page S2210]]

     
                                  ____
                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                                    April 4, 2000.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the more than 
     400,000 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) members from 
     across the country to respectfully urge you to oppose any 
     legislative provisions that would open up the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration. As you know, the 
     FY 2001 Budget Resolution that the Senate Budget Committee 
     reported to floor includes damaging language that assumes 
     revenues from oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
       Under the guise of combating high gas prices, some 
     legislators are pressing to open the Arctic Refuge's 1.5 
     million-acre coastal plain to oil exploitation. The coastal 
     plain is often called. ``America's Serengeti'' because of its 
     abundant caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolf and other 
     wildlife populations, and represents the last five-percent of 
     Alaska's Arctic Slope not already open to development. It 
     would be ill-advised to open up our nation's Arctic 
     wilderness for a questionable, short-term supply of oil.
       We respectfully encourage you to oppose any bill or 
     resolution that would open up the last pristine wilderness in 
     the Arctic to oil and gas development, and urge you to 
     support Senator Roth's amendment to the 2001 Budget 
     Resolution to strike Arctic Refuge drilling revenues from the 
     federal budget.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John H. Adams,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    National Parks


                                     Conservation Association,

                                                    April 4, 2000.

     Re Oppose degradation of the Arctic Coastal Plain

       Dear Senator: On behalf of our 400,000, the National Parks 
     Conservation Association strongly urges you to oppose efforts 
     to include projected revenues from oil drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain in the pending 
     Budget Reconciliation bill.
       The Arctic coastal plain has long been recognized as a 
     spectacular national gem because of its spectacular scenery 
     and diverse and abundant wildlife. The coastal plain richly 
     deserves its tag of ``America's Serengeti,'' as over 130,000 
     caribou of the Porcupine herd migrate there every spring to 
     their calving grounds, and more than 300,000 snow geese are 
     found there in the fall.
       Attempts to open the coastal plain for drilling for oil 
     have reared their head in Congress over the past three 
     decades. Recent increases in gasoline prices have renewed the 
     call to open the plain for oil production, resulting in an 
     ``assumption'' of revenue from drilling in the Arctic Refuge 
     in the Budget Reconciliation bill.
       Opening up the coastal plain would not be a solution to the 
     short-term increases in gasoline prices, nor would it address 
     the nation's long-term energy strategy. In fact, the United 
     States Geological Service estimates that even if oil were 
     found in the coastal plain, production would never meet more 
     than two percent of our nation's oil needs at any given time. 
     This supply would hardly justify the production facilities 
     and related infrastructure that would destroy the unique 
     character of the coastal plain.
       Your support in opposing efforts to promote oil development 
     and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
     critical. Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tom Kiernan,
     President.
                                  ____

         U.S. Public Interest Research Group, National Association 
           of State PIRGs,
                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2000.
       Dear Senator: The United States Public Interest Research 
     Group (U.S. PIRG) urges you to support an amendment to the 
     Budget Bill to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
     Senator Roth, the sponsor of the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge wilderness bill, will offer an amendment today to 
     strip language from the Senate Budget bill that would allow 
     leasing and drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic 
     Refuge.
       The coastal plain is one of the last unspoiled areas left 
     in the United States. Caribou, muskoxen, wolves, polar, black 
     and brown bears, and thousands of migratory birds rely on the 
     pristine habitat the Refuge provides. The annual migration of 
     the 129,000 member Porcupine river caribou herd evokes images 
     of the long-gone buffalo herds of the Great Plains. Most 
     states, and a number of nations in South America, throughout 
     the Pacific Rim and beyond are visited each year by birds 
     from the Arctic coastal plain.
       The Arctic Refuge is also home to the Gwich'in, the people 
     of the caribou. The Gwich'in have lived in and around the 
     Refuge for thousands of years. To them the coastal plain is 
     sacred. Oil drilling will damage the coastal plain's 
     environment and therefore jeopardize one of the last native 
     subsistence cultures in North America.
       Allowing oil drilling and development in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge would destroy the wilderness, yet 
     would do virtually nothing to ease our energy problems or 
     lower gas prices. A national energy policy that emphasizes 
     energy efficiency, increases auto fuel efficiency standards, 
     and promotes renewable energy would save more oil than 
     thought to be in the coastal plain, preserve sensitive areas 
     like the Arctic Refuge, and reduce pollution.
       U.S. PIRG urges you to support the Roth Arctic amendment to 
     the Budget bill and to Save America's Arctic.
                                                     Athan Manuel,
     Director, Arctic Wilderness Campaign.
                                  ____

                                             Friends of the Earth,


                                        1025 Vermont Ave., NW,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2000.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the thousands of members of 
     Friends of the Earth, we urge you to support efforts by 
     Senator Roth (R-DE) to protect the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge (ANWR) from being opened for oil exploration. 
     Currently, the FY 2001 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 101) 
     includes language that assumes receipts from the sale of oil 
     leases in ANWR. Seismic exploration and oil drilling in a 
     national refuge is an unacceptable short-term approach to the 
     problems associated with the current oil crisis, and one 
     which would have long-term devastating consequences.
       ANWR encompasses 19 million acres of pristine wilderness. 
     Created by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, ANWR is 
     sanctuary for nearly 200 species of wildlife including polar 
     bears, grizzlies, wolves, caribou and millions of birds. The 
     area under consideration for oil exploration--a 1.5 million-
     acre coastal plain--is referred to by many scientists as the 
     ``biological heart'' of the Arctic Refuge and represents the 
     last five percent of Alaska's Arctic slope not already open 
     to drilling. Though some maintain that modern technology 
     allows clean exploration, many scientists have noted that 
     today's seismic oil exploration, consisting of large crews 
     with bulldozers, ``thumper'' trucks, fuel supply vehicles and 
     a variety of other tracked vehicles, is even more damaging to 
     the landscape than it has been in the past.
       Drilling in ANWR would do little to reduce U.S. dependency 
     on foreign oil. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey has found 
     that ANWR would provide us with less than six months worth of 
     oil. A more responsible solution to the problem is to develop 
     and promote sustainable forms of clean energy.
       We should not sell off this priceless wildlife refuge for a 
     short-term energy fix. Support Senator Roth in his efforts to 
     defend the one of the few remaining natural treasures in the 
     United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Courtney Curf,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                                  The Izaak Walton


                                            League of America,

                                                    April 4, 2000.
       Dear Senator: At the IWLA convention in 19u8, IWLA members 
     from all over the United States passed a resolution in favor 
     of Wilderness protection for the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge. In June of 1978, I visited Anchorage, Valdez and 
     Prudhoe Bay with seven IWLA board members, as guests of 
     Arctic Power and the State of Alaska--who wanted us to change 
     our policy.
       After a grueling four-day schedule, during which our 
     members interviewed hundreds of Alaskans, we sat together 
     quietly together and unanimously agreed that our policy 
     should remain unchanged. Our decision was reaffirmed by our 
     1998 convention. While we did not presume to know what the 
     future might bring, and did not go so far as to say that the 
     Refuge should never be opened to oil development, we were 
     certain that it should not be developed today.
       Any oil from the Refuge will have an imperceptible impact 
     on our nation's dependence on foreign oil. Almost any 
     adjustment in CAFE standards would do more. As time passes 
     and technology improves, more oil can be recovered at 
     significantly less impact to the environment if it is indeed 
     needed for national security.
       The 45,000 members of the Izaak Walton League of America 
     support full Wilderness protection for the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge and oppose any oil development in the Refuge 
     at this time.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Paul W. Hansen,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                  Sierra Club,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2000.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: Oil prices are arising because OPEC--the 
     cartel of oil exporting countries--is manipulating the market 
     to drive up petroleum prices. Many in Congress are seeking 
     legislative redress for Americans who face higher prices at 
     the pump. But some in Congress are using the oil price hike 
     to renew their call to open the coastal plain of the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development. 
     Consumers are seeking answers, but drilling the Arctic Refuge 
     is not the solution.
       America cannot drill its way to energy independence. We 
     import more than half of our oil, 56% at present, and the 
     United States contains less than 3% of the world's known oil 
     reserves. Any way you look at it, increased domestic 
     production does not add up to energy independence. Though 
     some say the answer to our nation's energy needs lie below 
     the surface of the coastal plain, the Sierra Club believes 
     that this spectacular landscape should not be sacrificed.
       No one knows how much, if any, oil lies beneath the coastal 
     plain. In 1998, the United States Geological Service (USGS) 
     published a determination of the mean estimate of 
     economically recoverable oil as 3.2 billion barrels of oil. 
     That's less than a six-month supply at current consumption 
     rates and even at peak production, arctic oil would represent 
     only 2% of total U.S. daily demand.

[[Page S2211]]

       95% of Alaska's vast North Slope is already available for 
     oil and gas exploration and leasing. The coastal plain of the 
     Arctic Refuge represents the last 5% that remains off-limits 
     to drilling.
       The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
     America's serengeti. Nestled between the towering mountains 
     of the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea in northeast Alaska, 
     the narrow 1.5 million acre coastal plain in the biological 
     heart of this untamed wilderness. It is home to unique and 
     abundant wildlife: wolves, polar bear, musk ox and wolverine. 
     A myriad of bird species rely on the coastal plain for 
     breeding, nesting and migratory stopovers on trips as far 
     away as the Baja peninsula, the Chesapeake Bay, and even 
     Antarctica. The coastal plain is also the calving grounds for 
     the 129,000 member Porcupine River Caribou herd, which 
     migrates over 400 miles each year to this same place to give 
     birth to their young. It is a migration reminiscent of the 
     buffalo that once roamed the great plains.
       It doesn't matter how much or how little oil may lie 
     underneath the coastal plain. Drilling the Arctic Refuge 
     would be as shortsighted as damming the Grand Canyon or 
     tapping Old Faithful. More drilling isn't the answer--
     reducing our dependency on oil is the solution. America needs 
     a long-term energy strategy that is based on conservation and 
     renewables, alternative energy sources, and raising the 
     Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for automobiles and 
     light trucks. Such a long-term strategy will help America 
     ultimately decrease its dependency on oil and allow us to 
     protect our national treasures like the Arctic Refuge for 
     future generations.
       We urge you to oppose legislative attempts to open the 
     coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas 
     development. The Sierra Club opposes S. 2214, Senator Frank 
     Murkowski's development bill, and will strenuously oppose 
     attempts to insert arctic drilling revenue assumptions in the 
     Budget Resolution.
       Instead, we urge you to support a bill, S. 867, authored by 
     Senator William Roth of Delaware and cosponsored by 24 other 
     Senators, that would grant permanent protection to the 
     coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. OPEC's 
     manipulation of oil prices is no excuse to drill in our last 
     great wilderness. Thank you for your consideration of this 
     very important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Carl Pope,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mrs. BOXER. I also have a letter written by the Ambassador from 
Canada saying that it is very important we support Senator Roth's 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Canadian Embassy,


                                         Ambassador du Canada,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer, I am writing to express Canada's 
     concern with the proposal in the budget under consideration 
     by the Senate to seek revenues from prospective lease sales 
     in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Any decision to 
     proceed with oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge 
     will have serious implications for Canada.
       Canada joins with many Americans in the belief that opening 
     up the Arctic Refuge to hydrocarbon development will cause 
     major disruptions in the sensitive calving grounds and will 
     affect migratory patterns of the Porcupine Caribou Herd on 
     which thousands of Canadian and American native peoples 
     depend.
       In signing the 1987 Canada-United States Agreement on the 
     Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, both governments 
     recognized the transboundary nature of these wildlife 
     resources and our joint responsibility for protecting them.
       In 1984, Canada gave permanent wilderness protection to its 
     portion of the caribou calving grounds by creating the 
     Ivvavik National Park. The critical calving grounds in the 
     United States, however, do not have formal protection and 
     remain vulnerable to development, as evidenced by the recent 
     budgetary proposal.
       Canada has consistently stated that the best way to ensure 
     the future of the shared wildlife populations of the Arctic 
     Coastal Plain is to designate the ``1002 Lands'' as 
     wilderness, thereby providing permanent, equal protection on 
     both sides of the border to these irreplaceable living 
     resources.
       I very much appreciate your support for wilderness 
     protection for all of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I 
     hope that you find Canadian views helpful in your 
     deliberations with your colleagues on this matter.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Raymond Chretien,
                                                       Ambassador.

  Mrs. BOXER. They say we need to do this in order to uphold our 
agreement with Canada to protect the Porcupine caribou herd which 
depends upon the refuge for its survival.
  In closing, I am very pleased to join with Senator Roth. I thank my 
ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for being so supportive of this 
amendment when I offered it in the committee. We delivered every single 
Democrat for the environment. I was proud of that. I was very pleased 
we had an additional vote in the committee from the Republican side, 
Senator Snowe. I thank her from the bottom of my heart.
  Again, this is a bipartisan issue. It dates back to the Eisenhower 
administration. Let us stand together across party lines. Let us get 
rid of this $1.2 billion revenue. It is wrong to put it in there 
because it is wrong to drill in this refuge. It is wrong to put it in 
there because it, frankly, isn't going to happen.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from California yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield on your time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I note that the picture my friend from California 
identified--and that is an extraordinary picture of the Brooks Range, 
as she may not know--is nowhere near the Coastal Plain, the 1002 area 
about which we are talking. It is probably somewhere between 80 and 100 
miles away. That is the wilderness we are committed to support and does 
not represent at all the Coastal Plain which is the issue before us.
  Mrs. BOXER. We were given it from people in your State supporting it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is a beautiful picture of Brooks Range, but it is 
not the 1002 area.
  Mrs. BOXER. They sent it directly from your State.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wouldn't want the Senate to be misled.
  Mrs. BOXER. It comes from your people from your State. If they were 
misleading, I am surprised about that.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the budget resolution assumes revenues 
from leasing the lands in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.
  I, too, support the efforts of the senior Senator from Delaware to 
ensure that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not used as a revenue 
assumption. I have also long been a cosponsor of his bill to designate 
the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge as a wilderness area.
  Not only do I support this amendment along with many Members of this 
body, but also I support this amendment along with Members of the other 
body who have worked so hard on this issue. I particularly recognize 
the efforts of my colleague in the other body, Mr. Vento, who so long 
and so well has led the fight to designate the refuge as wilderness.
  I am concerned this assumption obligates Congress to decide whether 
or not to drill on the Coastal Plain refuge before we decide whether or 
not it should be designated as wilderness. Drilling on the Coastal 
Plain allows an activity that is generally considered to be 
incompatible with designated wilderness areas.
  In addition, I am concerned about the potential impact drilling would 
have upon the existing wilderness, the area that was just being 
discussed, existing wilderness in the Arctic Refuge. Eight million 
acres south of the Coastal Plain are already designated as wilderness. 
I want my colleagues to be aware the drilling question does not only 
impact our ability to make future wilderness designations in the refuge 
but also may impact areas that we have already protected in the public 
trust.
  I suggest even if the previous portrayal by the Senator from 
California was of an area that is already protected, that is part of 
the point. Drilling in this area could have an impact on the already-
protected area. I want to speak to my colleagues who may be considering 
allowing drilling in the refuge in light of current high oil prices. 
Supporters of drilling argue that the Arctic Refuge has the potential 
of yielding 16 billion barrels of oil. That figure, I am afraid, 
represents the outside limit of probabilities for an assessment area 
that includes the Arctic Refuge, Coastal Plain, plus adjacent areas 
where exploration has already taken place. When you look at just the 
Coastal Plain, the correct low-probability estimate of oil is 11.8 
billion barrels of undiscovered oil; 25 percent less than the 16-
billion-barrel figure. Moreover,

[[Page S2212]]

USGS assigns a probability of 5 percent, or 1 chance in 20, to the 
possibility that a field of that magnitude will be discovered. The mean 
estimate for technically recoverable oil is considerably lower, and the 
figure for oil that is economically recoverable is lower still. In 
fact, USGS concluded that the refuge is capable of producing, 
altogether, approximately 3.2 billion barrels of oil. That is only one-
fifth the amount of oil we have heard might be available.

  If including this assumption in the budget resolution may impair our 
ability to make a decision about the wilderness qualities of the refuge 
in the future, and if the refuge does not contain as much oil as we 
thought, why are we considering drilling? Consider this: Oil companies 
with an interest in drilling in the refuge poured millions of dollars 
of soft money into the coffers of the political parties in 1999; 
millions of dollars in just 1 year, and it was an off-year election at 
that. I would like to briefly call the bankroll on just a few of the 
oil companies that would profit from opening the refuge to drilling so 
my colleagues and the public can have a fuller picture of what is at 
stake.
  Last year, giant political donor Atlantic Richfield, its executives 
and subsidiaries, gave more than $880,000 in soft money to the parties. 
The recently merged Exxon-Mobil, its executives and subsidiaries, gave 
more than $340,000 in soft money in 1999. And in 1999, BP Amoco, the 
result of another oil megamerger, gave over $361,000 in soft money, 
along with its executives and subsidiaries.
  This is quite an influx of cash. In a day and age where wealthy 
interests drop $100,000 checks to the parties on a regular basis, the 
huge donations of the oil and gas industry are still remarkable. As we 
examine this issue closely, I think we have to keep the industry's 
donations and the resulting political clout in mind as we debate this 
legislation.
  As I have said, the facts do not point toward drilling in the refuge. 
The refuge does not contain as much oil as we thought. What is more, 
including this in the budget resolution may cause problems down the 
road as we decide about the wilderness qualities of the refuge in the 
future.
  For these reasons, I support the amendment proposed by the Senator 
from Delaware. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Roth 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me for 1 minute?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, I just got a call from the 
Alaska Wilderness League. I want to tell Senator Murkowski what they 
said. They said that photograph was taken by a biologist from the 
Alaska Fish and Game Department, and it is from the 1002 area in the 
Coastal Plain. So that biologist was contacted. I just wanted to 
correct the Record. If Senator Murkowski wants to call that biologist, 
I will get his name, but it is, in fact, a photo----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate it if the Senator will get his name 
so we can contact him.
  Mrs. BOXER. Adam Kolton is the individual who just talked to the 
biologist. I will get the phone number.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. He is a photographer for the Alaska Wilderness----
  Mrs. BOXER. No, he got the picture I showed from the area you 
disputed from a biologist from the Alaska Fish and Game, and he can 
provide you the name of that individual.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The photograph was provided by whom?
  Mrs. BOXER. A biologist from the Alaska Fish and Game Department.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. They gave it to you?
  Mrs. BOXER. They gave it to your people in Alaska, the Alaska 
Wilderness League.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. I 
congratulate Senator Roth for this amendment because this is not an 
easy one for him to do. The fact of the matter is, there is an 
assumption that there would be $1.2 billion in revenues resulting from 
this. But the question is, What is the appropriate thing to do? Again, 
Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, knows only too well 
how difficult it is to raise revenues, but I wanted to make sure we do 
the right thing.
  So I am pleased to support Senator Roth's amendment. It expresses 
very clearly the sense of the Senate that these provisions, those that 
allow drilling in the ANWR, are not to be included in this resolution.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the second largest wildlife 
refuge in the United States. It takes in a lot of territory, 19 million 
acres of mountains, forests, wetlands, wild rivers, tundra. It is home 
to a spectacular variety of plants and animals--caribou and polar 
bears, grizzly bears, wolves, quantities of migratory birds, the things 
that everyone of us would like our children and grandchildren to be 
able to see, to be able to believe that the animals that were here when 
their father or grandfathers or great grandfathers came on this Earth--
that they will be able to see them as well; not just in picture books, 
but in real life--grizzly bears and polar bears, wonderful things.
  A legacy is more important, frankly, than some of the money we are 
talking about to fund programs. The most important legacy we can leave 
our children and our grandchildren is a natural condition that enables 
them to see the animals, see the forests, go fishing in the streams, 
drink the water. That is the issue. The presence of these migratory 
birds, and grizzly bears, so many other species, in a nearly 
undisturbed state, have led some to call the area America's Serengeti.
  I have been to the Serengeti and I have been to the ANWR. I flew up 
there right after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I was up there within 2 
days of the time the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I was chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation, which had the Coast Guard as one of its 
responsibilities. The Coast Guard airplane picked me up and flew me up 
there immediately. I wanted to see what was happening.
  I will never forget the sight of that oil sheen floating across 
Prince William Sound. By then, very good people in our Government, the 
Forest Service and others, were up there picking up birds, seals--oil 
covered, couldn't breathe--on these tiny little islands, put there by 
helicopters. It looked like a dangerous assignment. But you could see 
the reach of the oil just fingering out all across Prince William 
Sound. It was a devastating thing to see.
  I was an environmentalist before I came here and I still am. By 
environmentalist I don't mean I just contribute to the environmental 
organizations or anything like that. I genuinely love the environment. 
It is the one thing that gives continuity through the ages that perhaps 
we can protect.
  The nearby Continental Shelf provides the coastal waters with a rich 
nutrient base, allowing the region high productivity which in turn 
supports an unusually wide variety of marine mammal diversity--ANWR.
  I flew across the ANWR in a single-engine airplane when I was up on 
my visit to Prince William Sound because I wanted to see what the area 
was like. What I saw were abandoned oil rigs in an area called Dead 
Horse, the Prudhoe Bay area.
  I saw rusting derricks and abandoned junk lying there. It was a 
pitiful blight on that beautiful expanse of nature.
  I then flew over the ANWR, this snow desert. I saw signs of some 
animals. It was a breathtaking sight. I then made a pledge to myself 
that I would do whatever I could to protect this pristine area. I owed 
it to my children who may never get up there to see it, but they have a 
relationship with that area that is inexplicable but nevertheless real.
  I returned from the South Pole in January. I am not an adventurer, 
but I am interested in what happens in our world. I went down there to 
see what was happening with climate change and the National Science 
Foundation. I went there to see whether or not there were things we 
could discover about our climate change and our environment about which 
we could do something.

[[Page S2213]]

  Scientists are still trying to search out what it is that is causing 
the ice melts in the South Pole that causes--I address myself to 
Senator Roth--a piece of the ice continent to break up, as they 
described it, twice the size of the State of Delaware and before that a 
piece the size of the State of Rhode Island. The next thing we know, we 
are going to see a piece floating out there the size of Texas, and then 
we will hear a squawk in here because that ice is melting rapidly. 
Seventy percent of the world's fresh water is stored in the South Pole.
  I relate the North and South Poles to our existence, and that 
environmental paradise called ANWR is part of that.
  Arctic ecosystems are delicately balanced and are some of the most 
ecologically sensitive ecosystems in the world. The harsh climate and 
short growing season leave very little time for species that have been 
harmed to adequately recover. The system's short food chains make a 
loss of a portion of the chain even more significant. This delicate 
balance can easily be disrupted by human intrusion.
  Oil exploration threatens the ecosystems that surround it through 
noise pollution, air pollution, on and offshore oil spills, and the 
destruction of the natural habitat. We all remember the horror of the 
Exxon Valdez spill--the images of the birds and seals and other animals 
covered in oil, their life literally being choked out of them. We 
remember the wide eyes on our children's faces as they watched the 
natural beauty of Alaska being destroyed. We saw it on television.
  According to the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, many of the natural 
resources injured in that spill still show little, if any, sign of 
recovery. The danger is real. The Exxon Valdez spill took place in 
1989. There was a lawsuit against Exxon. It was resolved in a damage 
suit which awarded $5.3 billion. Of that, $300 million has been paid--
$300 million in a $5.3 billion award. That was over 10 years ago.
  What restitution was given to the fishermen and those who depend on 
the area for their livelihood? What restitution was made to those 
species that were endangered, whether it was eagles, seals, ducks, you 
name it? Some of them suffocated because of the film of oil that 
covered their natural structure.
  Here we are. That is what happens when the environment is damaged.
  We are all aware of the problems this country is facing from higher 
oil prices, and our people should not have to pay for profiteering by 
OPEC, especially those people in the modest income category who depend 
on oil to heat their homes.
  Prices at the pump have risen dramatically in the last year. My own 
State of New Jersey was hit hard by extremely high prices for home 
heating oil during a surprisingly cold winter, as it was throughout the 
Northeast. The occupant of the Chair who is from the State of Rhode 
Island knows about what we are talking.
  We should use this wake-up call to increase our efforts in 
conservation. I have not heard two words about conservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from the 
resolution.
  We have to talk about energy conservation. We have to work at it, and 
we need the cooperation of everybody--citizens, automobile 
manufacturers, all of us. We need to be energy efficient and explore 
the use of alternative sources of energy, instead of just falling to: 
Well, let's drill in the ANWR.
  We should also strongly encourage our friends in OPEC, as President 
Clinton has, to significantly increase production. I will tell my 
colleagues straight out, I believe they owe it to us. Although I think 
the increase that was just enacted should have been larger, I was 
slightly encouraged by OPEC's decision to increase production which 
will help to stabilize our prices.
  It is essential we continue our efforts on this front, and I look 
forward to another OPEC production increase at their June meeting. We 
have to remind the oil-producing nations in the Middle East that when 
they dialed 911, we answered the phone with over 400,000 of our young 
people put on their soil to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the 
surrounding area. We placed our young people in harm's way to protect 
what was interpreted to be a global interest.
  We sent our young people far from home, into danger, causing a lot of 
disruption in their lives. We are still not sure of the consequences of 
exposure to a polluted environment. Our citizens are suffering, and it 
is time for them to return the favor. Friendship is a two-way street. 
We have to ask for favors as easily as we dole them out.
  I am pleased to tell the American people that some relief is in 
sight. I look forward to more positive news in June. What we cannot do 
is use this situation as an excuse to endanger even more of our 
dwindling natural resources.
  I speak as the ranking member of the Budget Committee. While I 
disagreed with the outcome of the budget resolution, the fact of the 
matter is, we worked diligently to fashion a budget resolution on which 
we could agree.
  One of the things that passed with a majority vote was to gain $1.2 
billion in revenues from drilling in ANWR. Senator Boxer, so eloquent 
in her response, reminds us that even in the Budget Committee there was 
doubtful about whether or not this source of revenue ought to be 
allowed. It was an 11-11 tie. It took a bipartisan effort, even though 
there was only one Republican. It is significant that this Republican 
Senator was voting with the Democrats because that is almost a no-no, 
as we say, but it happened.
  Senator Roth is making an earnest appeal to save a wildlife preserve, 
nature's bounty, for all of us. It is not simply an Alaskan problem, it 
is a national problem. It is a global problem, and we must not allow 
that drilling to take place.
  I commend the Senator from Delaware for his amendment. I hope my 
colleagues will support it. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask my colleague from Alaska to yield me up to 15 
minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield my friend from Oklahoma 15 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I want, one, to compliment my 
colleague from Alaska for his statement on this amendment.
  I would like to make a couple comments in general about our energy 
policies. There has been somewhat of an oil shortage, so there has been 
an increase in gasoline prices. A lot of Americans, a lot of our 
constituents, have said: Well, what are you going to do about it?
  Gasoline prices are going up. OPEC is strengthening their hand. The 
administration has sent Secretary Richardson to go over and beg OPEC 
countries to please increase their production.
  Some of us on this side have complained about the administration not 
having an energy policy. I have tried to correct them. I think the 
administration has an energy policy. I have looked at and reviewed the 
Clinton-Gore administration's energy policy for the last 7 years. It is 
fairly consistent.
  In 1993, they came up with a Btu tax. They were going to have a tax 
surcharge on Btu's. In 1993 the Democrats controlled both the House and 
the Senate, but that did not pass anyway. We defeated it.
  They did pass a gasoline tax increase. As a matter of fact, Vice 
President Gore broke the tie. They increased gasoline taxes. You might 
think that was for roads and highways and infrastructure. No. It was 
for general revenues. So they could spend more money and it passed by 
one vote, the Vice President's vote. In addition, the administration 
has done nothing to increase domestic oil production. So our reliance 
on imports has grown significantly. It has grown very dramatically.
  They did sign the Kyoto accord. Though it is truly a treaty, they 
will not call it a treaty and they have not sent it to the Senate for 
ratification. One of the reasons is, in the Senate we had a vote of 95-
5 that said we would not ratify a treaty that was particularly punitive 
to this country and did not apply to many countries, ``little'' 
countries like China, Mexico, and India. It is a very poorly thought 
out agreement that Vice President Gore is very proud of and that this 
administration wants us to comply with, but they will not send it to us 
for ratification. It

[[Page S2214]]

is the equivalent of increasing costs on all fuels, particularly oil-
related fuels.
  The administration, likewise, has had the policy of restricting 
access to public lands as far as drilling. They want to expand the 
moratorium on offshore drilling. That is the administration's position.
  Vice President Gore, in a political speech in New Hampshire, said he 
wanted to ban offshore drilling. I guess that sells well in New 
Hampshire. But that would mean our reliance on imported oil would grow 
even more.
  They have a policy, but their policy has been a disaster. As a result 
of that policy we are much more dependent on foreign sources.
  What has happened? I mentioned the administration and the Secretary 
running around begging OPEC countries to produce more oil.
  Frankly, one of the biggest increases in oil production of any 
country worldwide is Iraq. What has the administration done with Iraqi 
oil? We have had an embargo on Iraqi oil production since the war in 
1991 where we lost about 147 American lives, where we spent billions of 
dollars, where we had 550,000 troops in Iraq. We fought a war to get 
Iraq out of Kuwait, to stop their aggression, and their efforts to take 
over not only Kuwait but probably to expand throughout the Persian Gulf 
region. We stopped that.
  We also wanted to stop their aggression in building weapons of mass 
destruction. So we set up a compliance regime that said: We are going 
to have onsite inspectors to make sure Iraqis were not building nuclear 
weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. We are going to 
enforce that. Those inspectors are going to make sure they are not 
building those weapons so they could not continue to threaten their 
neighbors.

  Saddam Hussein threatened to burn Israel with the use of chemical and 
biological weapons.
  We had arms control inspectors, and said: We are going to keep the 
strangle hold on their exports, including oil, unless they allow an 
arms control regime. We had arms control inspectors for years in Iraq.
  What has this administration done? Year after year, the 
administration allowed the Iraqis to produce more with less access for 
inspectors.
  Today, Iraq can produce all the oil it wants, thanks to support from 
the Clinton-Gore administration. And there are no arms control 
inspectors--none, zero--in Iraq today. None.
  We have not had an arms control inspector in Iraq for over a year. 
Keep in mind that we have bombed them. This administration has bombed 
Iraq time and time again. Yet, we have no arms control inspectors 
there.
  The real leverage, aside from bombing, was the fuel export valves. 
The administration just said: Open up. As a matter of fact, they just 
supported a resolution that said: We want to assist them in making 
their production facilities grow even more. So now they are producing 
700,000 barrels of oil and we are going to help them produce a lot 
more, but we still do not have one arms control inspector in Iraq.
  I think the administration's policy dealing with energy, dealing with 
Iraq, has been a disaster.
  What can we do? One of the things the administration is supposed to 
be doing is opening up ANWR.
  I saw this beautiful picture shown by my colleague from California of 
this pristine area of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I do not 
doubt that it is absolutely gorgeous. I have been there where they are 
going to drill, hopefully, eventually, in the ANWR area, and it is not 
that picture, unless it has changed dramatically--and I do not see how 
it could in the area I saw. Don't get me wrong, I think Alaska is one 
of the most beautiful States anywhere in the country. It is one of the 
most beautiful places anywhere in the world. It is beautiful, gorgeous. 
But Alaska is a great, big State.
  ANWR covers a lot of land. ANWR, is approximately 19 million acres, 
about the size of South Carolina, a little less than about half the 
size of my State of Oklahoma. That is ANWR, the Alaska National 
Wildlife Refuge. That is a big area: 19 million acres. That is a lot of 
land. That is a big refuge. I am sure it has some beautiful areas in 
it.
  Where they are proposing to drill comprises about 2,000 acres; and 
that area is not at all like the picture just shown. While most of 
Alaska is gorgeous, this area is not the most prestine.
  Drilling can be accommodated there without hurting the environment. 
There are people who say: Wait a minute. Drilling in Prudoe Bay, that 
has been disastrous for the environment. Drilling in Endicott Field, 
which is not too far away from there, has been disastrous for the 
environment.
  I disagree. That is not the case.
  They say: Drilling in that area would be bad for the caribou. That is 
not factually borne out. The caribou around the Alaska oil pipeline has 
been a very big plus. The only place we really have not seen a lot of 
caribou is in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge; they are all over by 
the Alaska oil pipeline. There are a lot of caribou.
  I am all for the caribou. I am strongly in favor of wildlife 
development. We have more visitors in the Oklahoma Wildlife Refuge than 
any other wildlife refuge in the country. We are proud of it. It is a 
beautiful area and a treasure in our state. I want to encourage that. I 
want to encourage it in Alaska. But you can do this in a sound, 
environmental way, and also reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
sources. We can do this and increase production domestically so we will 
not be so dependent, so our Energy Secretary will not have to have to 
hold a tin cup saying: Please give us more.

  We can do so much more. We can do so much better. We can do it in an 
environmentally sensitive manner. We can do it in a way that is 
compatible with the caribou, compatible with wildlife, compatible with 
all the beautiful scenery that we have in Alaska, and not do any damage 
whatsoever to the environment.
  We can have a more sensible, sane energy policy where we are not just 
spending billions and billions of dollars overseas. Our dependence on 
foreign sources has grown so dramatically that we are a lot more 
vulnerable than anyone realizes.
  We had shortages in 1973 and 1979. We were importing something like 
36 percent in 1973. Today we are importing 56 percent. That number is 
growing every year. We will be at two-thirds probably in another 10 or 
15 years.
  We had shortages in 1973 when we imported 36 percent. Today we are 
importing 56 percent.
  In 1979, we had a shortage, and the shortage was significant. That 
meant we had brownouts. That meant factories had to close. That meant 
there were gas lines galore. People were lined up. Their biggest 
problem was getting through gas lines in their cars so they could get 
to work, if their factories were opened because there was an energy 
shortage.
  We do not want to replay that. We do not want to become that 
dependent. Yet we are marching on a dependency line that is 
unbelievable. We can do things to prevent it.
  One of things we could do is supplement Alaska production, which has 
been declining dramatically. I am sure every person who has been 
speaking about how bad it would be to drill in ANWR would also be 
opposed to Prudhoe Bay.
  Prudhoe Bay was at one time producing 2 million barrels of oil at its 
peak. Today, it is declining. Now it is down to about 1.2 million 
barrels of oil a day and continues to decline. We need to supplement 
that or else we will have an even greater dependency. As Alaska 
pipeline Prudhoe Bay production continues to decline, our dependency 
will only rise.
  We can open up ANWR to help prevent this. I urge my colleagues to 
think about the future. It is going to take years to get this on line, 
to alleviate some of the shortages and curtailments and dependency we 
will have 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now. If we 
stay on this present course, we will be importing 60 percent or 70 
percent of our oil needs and be very dependent, frankly, in some cases 
on unreliable, unstable sources such as Iraq, such as Iran, some of the 
other Middle East countries that may get mad at us for whatever reason.
  Again, I compliment my colleague from Alaska. I urge our colleagues 
to vote no on the underlying amendment, the Roth amendment, tomorrow.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ENZI). The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page S2215]]

  Mr. ROTH. I say to the majority whip, we have others waiting to offer 
amendments. Have you completed your time on this amendment? I ask the 
Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on the 
other side as controlled by Senator Roth?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes under the control of Senator 
Roth.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And I believe there is an unlimited time, for all 
practical purposes, on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining on the resolution is 10 
hours 58 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The division of that time, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all under the control of the minority.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And the remaining time on this side relative to the 
Roth amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think that may clarify the time. I am sorry, but I 
did not hear the question posed by the minority whip.
  Mr. ROTH. I say to my friend from Alaska, the majority whip put in a 
quorum call. I was just saying that if you have completed your 
discussion on this amendment offered by Senator Roth, then we would go 
ahead and offer another amendment. The majority leader has told us to 
stay around until we are down to about 8\1/2\ hours. So that is going 
to be another couple of hours.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I don't intend to yield back. Mr. President, I have 
not addressed this matter yet. I yielded to my colleagues on the other 
side, so I am prepared to talk at some length. But out of courtesy, if 
they want to proceed, I will wait.
  Mr. ROTH. We are anxious to hear the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is always amusing to me to learn the 
facts about my State, things I didn't know. I was 6 or 7 years old when 
my family moved to Alaska, and I have lived extensively throughout the 
State and believe I have some knowledge of facts and some knowledge of 
fiction.
  I again refer to the picture my good friend from California 
portrayed. Those mountains are the Brooks Range. As this will show you 
clearly, the Brooks Range is an area we are committed to protect. As a 
matter of fact, it is the wilderness. The wilderness is not in 
jeopardy, in spite of what we have been led to believe by most of the 
speakers who have never been to Alaska in spite of the invitations 
extended over the years.
  There are 19 million acres, as my friend from Oklahoma accurately 
pointed out. What we have done with this, the vision of Congress, was 
to establish both a wilderness and a refuge. The wilderness is 
approximately 8 million acres. The refuge is 9.5 million acres, leaving 
this 1002 area, the Coastal Plain area, which has been referred to as 
the Serengeti of North America.

  Let me tell you what is in it because no one has attempted to 
describe that. I find that extraordinary. It is treeless. It has no 
mountain. I think the hills are 1,100, 1,200 elevation. But those are 
found 20 to 30 miles from this coast. In this area, there are 92,000 
acres of private native land. In the area of Kaktovik, Kaktovik is a 
native village. It has 223 residents and their attendant housing, their 
schools, their stores, their boats, their airstrips, their power lines, 
a variety of other modern-day facilities. The military's Barter Island 
DEW Line radar station is also nearby. It is hardly accurate to portray 
this unique area as the Serengeti of North America. It is unique, there 
is no question about it.
  Now there have been many statements, and unfortunately there is just 
not enough time to respond to all of them. I think we should be 
sensitive to recognizing the reality that OPEC is watching this debate 
tonight. Saddam Hussein is watching this debate tonight. This debate 
addresses whether we are committed to reduce our dependence on imported 
oil or increase it.
  The administration, when it made its profound announcement that they 
had been successful in convincing OPEC to increase its production by 
1.7 million barrels, really left out a few interesting facts. It wasn't 
a net of 1.7 million barrels. It was actually a net of 500,000 barrels. 
We know that because OPEC had been committed to a production level of 
23 million barrels a day in March 1999, but they had been cheating. 
They had been producing 24.2 million barrels a day. So the acknowledged 
difference between the announced 1.7 increase and the 1.2 cheating is 
only a 500,000 increase. To suggest that is all going to the United 
States is a fallacy. We get about 16 percent of it. As a matter of 
fact, the arithmetic suggests it is somewhere in the area of 121,000 
barrels of oil, which is the amount, interestingly enough, that is 
consumed in the greater Washington metropolitan area every day. The 
percentage the United States would get out of that 500,000 barrels is 
somewhere in the area of 78,000 barrels per day. So we don't even stand 
still, if you consider our increasing demand. It is little or nothing 
in comparison to what our needs are.
  Consider some of the facts associated with the lack of an energy 
policy in this administration. You can't help but be overcome by the 
reality that we have learned little from history. We were 37-percent 
dependent in 1973.
  We are 56-percent dependent on foreign oil. The administration 
acknowledges that we are going to be about 64-percent dependent on 
foreign oil by the year 2015 to 2020. What does that mean to the 
coastline of California, New Jersey, or other areas where these tankers 
are going to come? The oil is going to come in, Mr. President. Well, it 
is estimated that that will mean about 30 giant--foreign, I might add--
supertankers, each loaded with about 500,000 barrels of crude oil, will 
have to dock at U.S. ports every single day of the year. That is about 
10,000 ships--as I have indicated, most are foreign flag--unloading in 
our harbors each year. I think this indeed creates a substantial 
environmental risk because you are not going to have many of these 
companies having the deep pockets of Exxon.
  You speak of environmental issues. Isn't it better to promote 
development domestically when we know the global environment is going 
to be protected than to encourage development from Iraq or the Russian 
Arctic, where development is done without regard to the environment? 
Think about that, Mr. President. Think about the environmental 
community's attitude. They don't care where the oil comes from, as long 
as it doesn't come from up here in Alaska. If it comes from the 
Colombian rain forest, that is OK. If it comes from the dilapidated 
infrastructure of Russia, where there are leaks all over, no 
environmental enforcement, that is OK with them. It can come from Iraq, 
and that is OK.
  I find that very ironic. We lost 147 American lives over in Iraq in 
1991. We had nearly 300 wounded and 23 taken prisoner. The American 
taxpayers paid $10 billion to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in; that is 
enforcing the no-fly zone. We have military people stationed over there 
to ensure that he doesn't break out and invade Kuwait or threaten 
Israel. Yet our newest and fastest growing source of oil imports is 
Iraq. It was 300,000 barrels last year; it is 700,000 barrels this 
year.
  I could go on and on, but clearly Saddam Hussein takes this revenue--
and to suggest that he somehow uses it for the benefit of his people is 
obviously misleading. He uses it to keep the Republican Guard, which, 
in turn, keeps him in office--maybe keeps him alive, for all we know. 
Do you know what else he is doing, Mr. President? He is working with 
the North Koreans to build missile technology. What kind of a threat is 
that to Israel, or the United States, or the free world, for that 
matter? We are rebuilding Iraq's cash-flow, which sustains their 
economy.
  I happen to believe charity begins at home when it comes to our 
energy security. We have the technology. We can do it right. Let's look 
a little bit at a map of Alaska. Before we do, I see I have a chart 
here that reflects Iraq's oil exports to the United States. The exports 
were virtually nothing in 1997, and now it is 700,000 barrels a day. 
What the administration did the other day regarding Iraq is, they had 
the Department of Commerce lift the export ban on technology, which 
will allow Saddam Hussein and Iraq to increase their production 
capacity. So the answer of this administration to address our energy 
needs is simply to import

[[Page S2216]]

more oil. Don't worry about any domestic development, we will get our 
oil from overseas.
  There are a lot of politics in this issue, the issue of the 1002 Area 
of the Arctic Coastal Plain. The politics of America's extreme 
environmental community is evidence on this floor; it is evidence with 
the pictures and with the dialog and with the Members. I wish to God 
the environmental community would come to grips with reality and 
recognize the dependence we have on imports and what it is doing to our 
national energy security--come to grips with it and help us develop 
domestic energy sources with their recommendations, with attention to 
their environmental concerns, and help us to do it right.
  So we attempted to do it right in Alaska. The Congress has attempted 
to do it right. We have 56 million acres of wilderness in my State. As 
I have said, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an area the size of 
the State of South Carolina; it is 19 million acres. We have set aside, 
as I have indicated, 9 million acres in refuge, 8.5 million acres in a 
wilderness. But Congress, in its wisdom, left this area aside to 
determine its management status at a later time, with the belief that 
the national energy security of the country might necessitate its 
development.

  Let's look at some factual pictures of what is going on in the real 
Alaska. Here is the real Alaska. Clearly, this is not in the 1002 area 
because there is no exploration activity allowed there. But I defy you, 
Mr. President, or any Member in this body, to look at this area and see 
any difference--you can see the ocean out here--but any difference with 
the general area of the Coastal Plain in the wintertime. This is a 
tough area, with winter 8 months of the year.
  We have heard a lot about pipelines and a lot about gravel roads. 
This is the technology that is used in Alaska today. That is an ice 
road there. It is built up with ice and snow, and sometimes water is 
added. This is a drill pad. That is a factual picture of the technology 
used today. Let me show you what it looks like in the summertime on the 
tundra with that same well capped. That is it. That technology is 
utilized in Alaska today because it is the right thing to do. It is the 
environmentally compatible thing to do. You will not see that in any 
other oil field in the world. It is a long winter up there, Mr. 
President.
  We have capabilities, obviously, to address some of the wildlife 
concerns we have heard so much about tonight. Well, you have seen this 
before. This is a picture in Prudhoe Bay, but you would never know the 
area from the Coastal Plain, with the exception of the pipelines in 
Prudhoe Bay. Here are three bears going for a walk, walking on the 
pipeline where it is warm. It sure beats walking on the snow. Nobody is 
shooting those bears; nobody is running them down.
  We have a picture of some caribou. We have heard a lot about them 
from our experts who have never been to this area. This is in Prudhoe 
Bay. This is an oil field, and this is 35-year-old technology. These 
are some live caribou. I can assure you that those are not stuffed, 
like some of the conversation we have heard tonight. This is factual.
  We have a herd of Caribou called the Porcupine herd and a legitimate 
concern about that herd because the Gwich'in people are dependent on 
it. It is kind of interesting to look at the history of this because as 
you look at Alaska, you also have to look at Canada because we abut. We 
have an interesting issue here. The Canadians, about 20 years ago, were 
very interested in drilling in the Mackenzie Delta, thought there was a 
great opportunity for oil and gas. So they drilled some 89 holes here 
in this area on the Mackenzie Delta, and they also built a highway 
called the Dempster Highway. The interesting thing is that this line on 
the map represents the path of the Porcupine caribou herd. Not only has 
it maintained its general stability during the time these areas were 
drilled extensively by the Canadians, but the caribou cross the 
highway. Now, it is not the beltway--I grant you that--but it is a 
highway that goes up into the Canadian Arctic. They wander into Alaska 
and go into the Yukon, where the Gwich'ins make a substantial take for 
subsistence purposes.
  It is significant that these animals are adaptable; if you don't 
shoot them or run them down with a snowmachine, they can flourish. Now 
we have heard from the Senator from California, mentioning a letter 
from the Canadian Ambassador opposing development of the 1002 area. Yet 
they thought it was OK to drill their area. Maybe they are in a little 
competition between Canada and the United States for energy. We buy a 
lot of energy from them--a lot of electrical energy--particularly in 
the Northeast corridor. They are happy to do that; Alberta is happy to 
sell us gas. Maybe they don't want us to compete. I wonder if that 
could be the motivation of the Canadian Ambassador.
  As we look at our concern over the Porcupine caribou herd, it is 
legitimate and the people associated in these areas are legitimately 
concerned. But we have been able to protect the caribou in Prudhoe Bay 
with 30-year-old technology. The herd has grown from 3,000 when 
development began to over 18,000 caribou. You can't take a gun in. You 
can't shoot them.
  It is the technology that we have going for us now that offers us 
such a tremendous opportunity to develop this resource. If we were back 
before this body some 30 years earlier, we would have heard the debate 
on the appropriateness of opening up Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay was the 
largest oil discovery in North America, and it still is. There was a 
great deal of debate over how to develop it, and what the impact would 
be, because to get this oil out, we had to build an 800-mile pipeline 
across the length of Alaska.
  We have a chart for those of you who wonder where that might be. It 
runs from the Arctic Ocean clear down through Fairbanks on to Valdez, 
where the oil is then shipped down to the west coast where it is 
primarily processed.
  We had a terrible accident. The Senator from New Jersey was there. He 
knows that tanker ran aground in a 10\1/2\ mile wide channel with 
absolutely no excuse. But the accident happened. But that wasn't the 
fault of the pipeline. That wasn't the fault of the oil field. It was a 
human error involving a supertanker, and it was inexcusable.
  But the reality is we have been able to build this pipeline. It has 
withstood earthquakes. It has been shot at. It has been dynamited. It 
is one of the wonders of the world.
  But 35 years ago or so, when we were arguing about this issue, we had 
the same arguments we have today. The doomsayers were saying: You are 
going to build a pipeline, a hot pipeline. It is going to take hot oil 
and pump it through a permafrost area; because that is what the Arctic 
is--permafrost, frozen ice and ground. That hot pipeline is going to 
melt the ground. You are going to lose the foundation. Your pipeline is 
going to break.
  It didn't happen.
  They said this 800-mile pipeline is going to be a fence across your 
State, an 800-mile fence. Your moose, your caribou, your animals are 
not going to be able to cross. It is going to be a calamity. It didn't 
happen.
  There is nearly 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline. It is all unique and 
very much all similar. You look for oil. You find it where you are most 
likely to find it. The geologists simply tell us that the 1002 Area of 
the Coastal Plain is the area where we are most likely to make a major 
discovery; The USGS says 16 billion barrels.
  Let me tell you something to factor in because we have heard so much 
rhetoric around here tonight.
  For Prudhoe Bay, the recovery estimates were 9 billion to 10 billion 
barrels. Prudhoe Bay has been producing some 23 years. We have produced 
over 12 billion barrels, and we are still producing. It is estimated 
that we will probably produce for another decade, or maybe two, because 
the technology is such that we can get greater recovery.
  When you talk about estimates, you had better be realistic. If there 
is no oil up here, nothing is going to happen, except you might have a 
lease sale. You might get a substantial payment from the oil companies 
that are prepared to bid on it. That is the risk they take.
  We don't know what is up there. But the geologists say it is the most 
likely area for a major discovery. That is why Congress, in its wisdom, 
set this area aside for Congress to address and resolve at a later 
time. That is why we are here.

[[Page S2217]]

  The Budget Committee took action because we have a crisis in this 
country. If you do not believe it, ask the Secretary of Energy. He went 
over to the OPEC countries. He said: We have an emergency. You know 
what they said: We are having a meeting on March 27. He said: No. You 
don't understand, its an emergency. We sent 35,000 troops over here. We 
fought a war to keep Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We lost American 
lives. We need help now. We need more oil production in those 
countries. You know what they told him: We are having a meeting on 
March 27. They stiffed him.

  He went to Mexico. He told the Mexicans: We need more production. 
Mexico said: Fine. But where were you when oil was $11, $12, and $13 a 
barrel, and our economy was in the sack?
  We have an emergency. If we don't take steps now to recognize our 
increased dependence on imported oil, one wonders when we will. What is 
going to happen to the security of this Nation from the standpoint of 
energy as we become more dependent on imports, more dependent on Iraq, 
and more dependent on OPEC?
  Those are the realities we face today.
  Let's take a look at something that is very unpleasant. I hate to 
show you this. But this is a terrible picture that ran all over America 
when Saddam Hussein was defeated and when he set the oil fields of 
Kuwait on fire.
  You talk about environmental degradation. That is it. Here you see 
Americans over there trying to put out the fires and stop the 
environmental damage. You can see the burning wells behind him. This is 
reality. This is the kind of individual and the type of country and 
leadership on which we are now depending for our energy security.
  I find it outrageous and inexcusable. I am very critical of the 
environmental community that condones oil coming from a tyrant, one who 
left an environmental scar of the magnitude that Saddam Hussein left in 
Kuwait.
  Let's look at a couple of others because they are all bad. The only 
problem is that they get worse. How we can continue to be misled, if 
you will, through complacency associated with our dependence on Iraq is 
beyond me. Here we see the burning wells and the terrible mess that was 
left. Look at the Americans working in those conditions.
  This Senator is not going to stand by and support increased 
dependency on Iraq when we clearly have an administration whose only 
policy is more imports. Give us more; give us more. It is like an 
addiction. It is pathetic.
  You almost forget. And you can very easily forget that we are 
dependent on oil for transportation. Our truckers came to Washington, 
DC, and expressed themselves. They can't pass on the price. Look at 
your airline tickets. You pay a surcharge now. The consumer--the mom 
taking the kids down to the soccer game--is facing nearly $1.85 or $2 a 
gallon. It shoots a pretty big hole in a hundred dollar bill if she has 
a sports utility vehicle, and many of those aren't paid for.
  But go a little further. Our farmers are getting geared up for 
planting season. What is the cost of that going to be relative to their 
productivity? Can they pass it on?
  It multiplies. What do the farmers use? They use fertilizer. What is 
fertilizer made of--urea. It comes from gas and oil. The multiplier is 
there.
  Look at our balance of payments. One-third of the $300 billion is the 
cost of imported oil.
  Every time oil goes up $10, inflation goes up half of 1 percent. 
There are a lot of uneasy people out there.
  This single issue today is going to send a signal about whether we 
are serious about alleviating our dependence on imported oil and are 
going to do something about it.
  I have heard statements that it will take a while. Yes, it will take 
a while. President Clinton vetoed ANWR the last time it went down to 
the White House. That was in 1995. We would know today if we had oil 
there. We would be on our way to production.
  One of the things that bothers me about the environmental community 
is they sell American technology and ingenuity short. We can do it 
better. We can make a smaller footprint, given the opportunity. And we 
have that opportunity before the Senate today.
  We have heard conversations about oil exports. There has been oil 
exported because there has been excess capacity on the west coast up 
until a short time ago. Those who don't recognize and understand oil, 
unfortunately, don't know that oil used to move through the Panama 
pipeline, and prior to that in smaller ships through Panama, and to the 
gulf coast to be refined there. That changed when Venezuela came on 
production. So we had an excess on the west coast, a modest excess.
  Now with the takeover of Arco by BP Amoco and the divestiture of the 
Arco Alaska properties to Phillips, which has refineries, there will 
not be a surplus. There will not be a surplus because BP will now have 
refineries on the West Coast. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter from BP indicating they have no plans to export 
oil, once the contracts for the current month expire.
  As I understand, Phillips has no intention of exporting oil. That is 
a bogus argument.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 17 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If the Senator from New Mexico desires some time, I 
will yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. From the first knowledge we 
had that the OPEC cartel plus their friends had dramatically decreased 
production, thus having this terrible impact on American energy costs, 
Senator Murkowski has been trying every day, every time he could, to 
tell us we are doing things exactly the opposite of what we ought to be 
doing for America's future. I compliment him. He has a lot of people 
wondering about what we are up to. Frankly, I would like to add a 
little bit to that.
  While the United States grows more dependent upon foreign crude oil, 
we have an administration that, from the first day they went in office 
until today, has been engaged in seeing to it that the United States 
produces less oil--not more--from our own lands by overt, conscious 
acts of withdrawing real estate that we own as a nation on which to 
explore for oil and gas, to a constant insistence that we cannot solve 
the little, tiny problem of what do we do with nuclear waste, which 
every country in the world except America has solved. They have solved 
it at least for 50 to 100 years.
  We sit around acting as if we can continue to be dependent upon the 
very limited sources of energy for this great country's future. I will 
give a couple of facts about what has happened to the American energy 
economy, the production of oil in America, by Americans for Americans. 
In 1990, there were 405,000 jobs in America in the exploration and 
production of oil and gas. As of last year, there were 293,000, a 27-
percent decline in people employed in the exploration and production of 
oil and gas in America. When you reduce the number of people involved 
in oil and gas exploration by 27 percent, there has been something 
consciously happening that says we will produce less in America.

  Ten years ago, there were 657 rigs working on oil exploration in the 
United States. Everybody understands what that is. Now there are fewer 
than 175. We did something wrong. Somebody would stand up from the 
administration and say: The cartel had something to do with that; they 
lowered the price of oil. But we didn't have a policy that said to our 
companies, in spite of that, we will help you explore for more. As a 
matter of fact, we had the opposite policy.
  New refineries in the United States: It used to be, if you could have 
an oil refinery and attach to it all the refined products that go with 
it, you would be delighted. It would employ your people. They are high-
paying jobs. Guess what. In the United States, while we grow dependent, 
here we are with not a single new refinery built in the United States 
since 1976. That means we have decided other countries ought to produce 
the refined products we need and we ought to have such strict 
requirements that it is impossible for Americans to build them with 
American money and American workers to produce more refined products in 
our country--the opposite policy we ought to have.
  If we had another time and another day, we could discuss why 
Americans will not invest in oil refineries in the United States. I can 
tell you one of

[[Page S2218]]

them, and I will use three initials for starters--the Environmental 
Protection Agency of the United States. Unreasonable restrictions, 
costing billions of dollars, that any neutral party would say are 
unreasonable, we impose them. When they can pay for them, they do; when 
they cannot pay any longer, they say: We will not refine anymore; we 
will do it somewhere else.
  There are Federal lands available for exploration. I suggest we have 
done it exactly the wrong way since this President has been in office. 
We have taken lands out of production because we have this kind of 
whimsical idea, if they are public lands, we sure don't want to find an 
oil rig out there. In fact, it is an attitude. We have to put up with 
oil rigs, but we really don't want them, even though it is ``black'' 
money for American workers. It is oil for American cars. It is 
America's investment. But it is like public domain. Man, we ought to 
just save that and forget about this dirty business of producing oil. 
That is America's policy today.
  I wish I could share with you, although I don't have the notes, how 
many thousands and thousands of acres we have taken out of production, 
out of development, because of what I have been explaining for the last 
3 or 4 minutes.
  That leads us to tonight. In the past, I have heard Senators on the 
floor of the Senate talking about their States with great enthusiasm, 
great concern about what is happening to their States. I will tell you 
why Frank Murkowski and Senator Ted Stevens are concerned. If we were 
to produce oil in ANWR on one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the land, 
2,200 acres is what we would need to explore for oil in a modern way 
and produce it in ANWR.
  That would produce 16 billion barrels of oil, produced by Americans, 
American workers, American oil for Americans. What does that mean in 
dollars? It means one-half trillion. Think of that, I say to the 
Senator from Wyoming. In the State of Wyoming, we have oil locked up. 
It is worth half a trillion for your workers, for your companies, for 
your businesses, and we are locking it up for the reasons Senator 
Murkowski stated, that we wanted to lock up Prudhoe Bay.
  We found none of the predictions about Prudhoe Bay were true, and 
none of them will be true about this one either. But it is as if we are 
kind of economically arrogant. We are so powerful and so strong that we 
do not have to worry about American oil for American people, produced 
by Americans, used for American cars. We just have to say this little 
tiny piece of property, just a strip of ANWR that you could go and 
explore to find out if it is there and then insist they advise the 
Congress if there is any environmental damage--they will not let us do 
that.
  I submit we ought to vote on this. I also submit anyone who votes no 
on this ought to be asked: What do you think America's future is? More 
oil from the cartel or less?
  With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I thank 
him.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time is 
remaining because I believe we will have some time tomorrow. Might I 
ask how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will yield to the other side at this time, if they 
care to continue the debate,
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might have a parliamentary review 
for just a moment, I heard the distinguished Senator from Alaska ask if 
this debate could not be continued tomorrow. It is my understanding 
that, once the time is used on both sides, the proponent's and 
opponent's, that time is exhausted and there will not be further 
opportunity to discuss this tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was true for the amendment of the Senator 
from West Virginia. But there have been no subsequent agreements.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are talking now about the amendment of the Senator 
from Delaware.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no agreement in regard to the 
amendment of the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So, as it presently stands, the time once used 
tonight, unless agreed to by unanimous consent for an extension, will 
not be available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no such agreement on this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is no agreement. May I be precise? We are 
talking about 2 hours that was available for the delivery of the 
amendment, and an hour--and time for opposition, equally divided; is 
that right? Two hours?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 hours on this amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. And the time used by the proponents and 
opponents as described by the Parliamentarian--there is some 7 or 10 
minutes for each side? What is the present situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 8 minutes, the 
Senator from Delaware has 11 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So once those 19 minutes are consumed, this 
discussion is over and cannot be brought tomorrow?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If they are consumed tonight, that is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I just wanted to let the Senator know.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the President, if they are not consumed tonight, 
what is the disposition of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For them not to be consumed tonight would take 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Unanimous consent to----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Have them over until tomorrow.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is there any reason why it would not be consumed 
tonight?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I indicated my interest in reserving 
the remainder of my time until tomorrow. I would propose that at this 
time.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Therefore, it is the ruling of the Chair, as I 
understand it, the time in opposition to the Roth amendment must be 
fully utilized tonight or given up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have a little more time, I believe. I defer to the 
other side prior to taking up more of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, I ask the Senator from Delaware if I can 
have 5 minutes of the time?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, 
there are only two ways I can think of that he could save his time: We 
could close up shop right now, and we are not going to do that, so 
there is an hour on each side. You could get consent, and you tried and 
haven't gotten that. So anybody offering an amendment tonight has an 
hour on each side if they want to use it. If they want to yield it 
back, they can yield back. Any amendment to an amendment has a half-
hour, and we go that way until we finish tonight.
  I can tell you, I think you made as good an argument tonight as you 
can make. I don't think there are many votes going to be changed. I 
already complimented you immensely. I do it again.
  There will be 2 minutes before the vote. They will be in your 
control.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield. If the Senator from New Jersey has been 
recognized, I will keep my remaining time and use it tonight.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have asked for 5 minutes from the Senator from 
Delaware, which has been yielded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the 
debate presented by my distinguished colleagues on the other side who 
are for drilling in ANWR: Don't worry about it. After all, look at what 
happened in these other places. They are drilling foreign oil for 
consumption by Americans. We have lost so many jobs in the oil fields.
  I will tell you about those jobs in the oil fields. You tell me where 
there is a shortage of jobs in this country, and I will tell you where 
they can get employed immediately. Tell me where there are people 
looking for work, I

[[Page S2219]]

will tell you where they can get employed immediately.
  The fact is, yes, we are importing more oil. We ought not to be. I am 
no different than anybody else when we talk about those who owe us a 
responsibility to make sure we have the products that we helped save 
when we sent our young people to war in 1990 and 1991. We cannot 
disagree about that. One is not less patriotic than the other. This is 
not a question of loyalty. This is a question of how the world 
functions.
  Right now, those of us in the environmental community say we ought to 
be cautious about the use of our precious, pristine wildlife areas. I 
heard the Senator from Oklahoma say--I do not want to mimic what he 
said, but he did say: Well, that area that is reserved for drilling, 
some 2,000 acres, is not so pretty anyway.
  It was hard for me to believe my ears. What do you mean it is not so 
pretty anyway? We have some areas in our country that are not so pretty 
that attach to areas that are beautiful. It is the not-so-pretty areas 
that help keep the pretty areas, and those that are essential for our 
existence as a species, the human species, to function. So we cannot 
dismiss it like that.
  With all of the best intentions of managing the way we transport our 
oil and we explore for it, it is all subject to human frailties. If we 
have had a pipeline that has worked well for lots of years, I salute 
it. But, remember this, in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ran aground--and 
it was human error, there is no doubt about that but you cannot remove 
it. We lost a spaceship with our precious astronauts aboard because of 
some human error. These things do not happen without human 
intervention. We cannot dismiss this and say: Don't worry about it; 
everything will be all right. We will take care of it.
  I say that is not so.
  I wish we could get all our Senators to do a flyover of the ANWR. I 
guarantee there would be a majority voting the other way, saying do not 
drill there unless there is no other way in the world for us to 
survive.
  We have other sources of oil, other sources of energy being 
considered and developed. There is work going on in Azerbaijan. You 
know, when it is said we should only consume American oil to the extent 
we need oil, I do not believe that is necessarily so.
  I would rather save that reserve. Heaven forbid if we need it some 
day in the future. I would like to bring it in from other sources. 
There are minerals in this country which we do not mine anymore because 
it is cheaper and better on the environment to import some of those 
minerals. That is the way things go.
  We have become a profligate society in our use of energy. We have 
SUVs popping up everywhere. The automobile companies do not mind making 
them. The workers of those automobile companies do not mind working 
there. The guys who work in the gas stations--whether the oil comes 
from Saudi Arabia or from Oklahoma or Texas--do not mind their jobs. 
They have businesses that are based on supplying that energy.
  We are a society that is overblown with riches, and we are using 
whatever energy we want. We consume fresh air with congestion. There 
are more cars out there than we know what to do with, but that does not 
stop us from using our cars.
  We are saying, as long as we are profligate, just wasting it, let's 
get it; let's go up to the ANWR and drill in that pristine area 
described in different fashions as beautiful or not so beautiful or the 
home for some of the animals; they will survive anyway.
  I say do not take the risk. I would rather see us practice 
conservation, which we have not done in this society of ours. I have 
not heard anybody--I am talking about either from the administration 
presently in power or any of us--talk about conservation programs: Save 
it, don't just use it; save it if you are concerned about it. But no, 
look at the traffic lines. Nobody wants to save oil.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I take 5 minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as to this debate about whether or not 
it is American jobs, Americans, thank goodness, are working at jobs 
that are productive and have given us the strongest economy ever seen 
in the history of mankind. We ought to reduce our dependence. I agree 
with my friends on the other side, but that does not mean we have to go 
to a source that raises questions about our ability to preserve the 
environment.
  I said it before, when I think of my children, one of the most 
important assets I see in this country is a good environment, good 
natural resources. Even if they never get to visit Alaska, I have done 
it. I do not want to be a ``Johnny's been all over the place,'' but I 
was also in Kuwait. I saw the situation the Senator from Alaska 
described. I was in an airplane several thousand feet in the air. The 
windshield was covered with soot from the burning oil fields. It was a 
terrible waste of lives and energy, but it happened.
  What we have to do is make sure our allies, the people whom we worked 
to save, understand what we mean when we call on them to help us 
through a crisis. I could not agree more with my friends on that score. 
I believe we should have gotten much tougher than we did.
  I had an occasion to speak to a diplomat from one of the Mideast 
countries. I said: Do you know what you are doing? You may make a 
better profit right now, but you are alienating the American people, 
and you are not going to recover from that so easily. Do not depend on 
us when you issue an alarm--``help save our skins; help save us.'' Some 
of them went to other countries to enjoy themselves when we did the 
fighting. That is not going to happen easily again.

  The Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and 
some of the friends on the Republican side, including Senator Snowe, 
who voted with Senator Boxer on protecting the ANWR--there was a 
commentary in the Washington Post from someone who cannot be declared a 
cockeyed liberal or crazy environmentalist. I will read the quote 
before I identify who it is:

       I totally agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
     a truly unique pristine ecosystem, and I believe we should 
     not damage it. It should be set aside in wilderness 
     designation in perpetuity, Smith wrote to the New Hampshire 
     Citizens for Arctic Wilderness.

  That is Senator Bob Smith, someone we know well, who is chairman of 
the environment committee, and we are hearing from the chairman of the 
Finance Committee that we ought not do this. These are people who 
deserve to be heard, and we know there are other people in the 
Republican Party who agree with us. We are going to find out when we 
put this to a vote. The vote will come sometime tomorrow.
  I hope we will close this debate at this point. While everything to 
be said has been said, not everybody has said everything. I yield back 
any time I requested from the resolution which I did not use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters I have 
received from many organizations which are concerned about the 
environment and support my amendment. These include the Wilderness 
Society, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the National Parks 
Conservation Association, Friends of the Earth, the League of 
Conservation Voters, and the National Resources Defense Council.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Friends of the Earth,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2000.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the thousands of members of 
     Friends of the Earth, we urge you to support efforts by 
     Senator Roth (R-DE) to protect the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge (ANWR) from being opened for oil exploration. 
     Currently, the FY 2001 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 101) 
     includes language that assumes receipts from the sale of oil 
     leases in ANWR. Seismic exploration and oil drilling in a 
     national refuge is an unacceptable short-term approach to the 
     problems associated with the current oil crisis, and one 
     which would have long-term devastating consequences.
       ANWR encompasses 19 million acres of pristine wilderness. 
     Created by President

[[Page S2220]]

     Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, ANWR is a sanctuary for nearly 200 
     species of wildlife, including polar bears, grizzlies, 
     wolves, caribou and millions of birds. The area under 
     consideration for oil exploration--a 1.5 million-acre coastal 
     plain--is referred to by many scientists as the ``biological 
     heart'' of the Arctic Refuge and represents the last five 
     percent of Alaska's Arctic slope not already open to 
     drilling. Though some maintain that modern technology allows 
     clean exploration, many scientists have noted that today's 
     seismic oil exploration, consisting of large crews with 
     bulldozers, ``thumper'' trucks, fuel supply vehicles and a 
     variety of other tracked vehicles, is even more damaging to 
     the landscape than it has been in the past.
       Drilling in ANWR would do little to reduce U.S. dependency 
     on foreign oil. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey has found 
     that ANWR would provide us with less than six months worth of 
     oil. A more responsible solution to the problem is to develop 
     and promote sustainable forms of clean energy.
       We should not sell off this priceless wildlife refuge for a 
     short-term energy fix. Support Senator Roth in his efforts to 
     defend the one of the few remaining natural treasures in the 
     United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Courtney Curf,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                                 Natural Resources


                                              Defense Council,

                                      New York, NY, April 4, 2000.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the more than 
     400,000 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) members from 
     across the country to respectfully urge you to oppose any 
     legislative provisions that would open up the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration. As you know, the 
     FY 2001 Budget Resolution that the Senate Budget Committee 
     reported to floor includes damaging language that assumes 
     revenues from oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
       Under the guise of combating high gas prices, some 
     legislators are pressing to open the Arctic Refuge's 1.5 
     million-acre coastal plain to oil exploitation. The coastal 
     plain is often called ``America's Serengeti'' because of its 
     abundant caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolf and other 
     wildlife populations, and represents the last five-percent of 
     Alaska's Arctic Slope not already open to development. It 
     would be ill-advised to open up our nation's Arctic 
     wilderness for a questionable, short-term supply of oil.
       We respectfully encourage you to oppose any bill or 
     resolution that would open up the last pristine wilderness in 
     the Arctic to oil and gas development, and urge you to 
     support Senator Roth's amendment to the 2001 Budget 
     Resolution to strike Arctic Refuge drilling revenues from the 
     federal budget.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John H. Adams,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                  REP America,

                                     Deerfield, IL, April 4, 2000.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives.
       Dear Senator Lott and Speaker Hastert: This week, Congress 
     takes up the issue of whether potential oil revenue from the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be included in the 
     congressional budget. REP America, the national grassroots 
     organization of Republicans for Environmental Protection, 
     opposes this kind of sleight-of-hand accounting as well as 
     development in the Refuge.
       A strong national bipartisan consensus exists for continued 
     protection of the ANWR. The estimates of finding commercially 
     valuable quantities of oil there are actually quite small. 
     But even if such quantities were found, the oil would not 
     appreciably increase our nation's known reserves or lower 
     gasoline prices. At present, over 90% of America's portion of 
     the Arctic is open to oil and gas exploration and 
     development. Further development within the Refuge is not 
     necessary for the security of our nation, and we should not 
     count unearned and unanticipated revenues stemming from oil 
     that might not exist.
       Frankly, such budgetary maneuvers are very damaging to our 
     party. We Republicans take pride in our history protecting 
     public lands to Alaska and honor the legacy of past 
     Republican leaders. In 1907, when President Theodore 
     Roosevelt established the Tongass and Chugach National 
     Forests, he faced tremendous pressure from special interests 
     lined up to exploit public lands for short-term gain. 
     Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon used executive authority to 
     protect the Arctic Refuge, and as recently as 1990, many 
     Republicans listened to mainstream America and cosponsored 
     the Tongass Timber Reform Act. President George Bush did us 
     all a great service when he signed this important piece of 
     conservation legislation.
       As Republicans, the members and directors of REP America 
     urge you and your colleagues to halt these kinds of budgetary 
     charades, if for no other reason than the fact that it is 
     absolutely destroying our party's image with respect to the 
     environment. Inclusion of funds supposedly derived from the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will hasten the already shaky 
     support our party has for maintaining control of the 
     Congress.
       Thank you for doing your part to keep the ``conservation'' 
     in ``conservative.''
           Sincerely,
                                           Martha A. Marks, Ph.D.,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       The Wilderness Society,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2000.
       Dear Senator: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a 
     spectacular wilderness on the north coast of Alaska. The 
     refuge protects lands of abundant wildlife and tremendous 
     beauty. Millions of migratory birds nest or feed on the 
     refuge each spring and summer between annual migrations that 
     bring them through the backyards and nearby parks and refuges 
     of Americans throughout the rest of the country. The refuge 
     also contains the calving grounds of the 130,000 member 
     Porcupine River Caribou herd on which the Gwich' in people of 
     northeast Alaska and northwest Canada have relied for some 
     20,000 years.
       With rising fuel prices, some would have you believe that 
     oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge would somehow lower the 
     price of gasoline. This is a terrible sham. This proposal is 
     not about filling American's fuel talks; it's about lining 
     the pockets of the oil companies in Alaska. We understand 
     that the Budget Resolution that will soon come to a vote in 
     the Senate may assume federal revenues from oil drilling in 
     the Arctic Refuge. This proposal was rejected by the American 
     public and vetoed by President Clinton in 1995. To assume 
     revenues from this highly controversial and currently 
     prohibited activity is a complete hoax.
       Some have argued that drilling in the Arctic Refuge will 
     somehow eliminate our dependence on oil imports. But just 
     five years ago, Senator Murkowski pushed through a measure to 
     allow oil from Alaska's North Slope to be exported to China 
     and other Asian countries. In it's pending review of the 
     proposed BP/Arco merger, the Federal Trade Commission found 
     that ``BP ships Alaska North Slope crude to Asia to short the 
     West Coast market and elevate prices.''
       Ninety-five percent of the North Slope is already available 
     to oil and gas exploration and development. Under the Reagan 
     Administration, the Department of Interior determined that 
     there is less than a one-in-five chance of finding 
     recoverable oil there. More recently, the U.S. Geological 
     Survey have said that oil companies could most likely only 
     recover around 3.2 billion barrels--only enough oil to meet 
     U.S. needs for a few months. At no time would oil from the 
     refuge be expected to provide more than 2 percent of U.S. oil 
     supply. Of course, no amount of oil would ever justify 
     destroying this great national treasure.
       We urge you to listen to the American public and the 
     Gwich'in people and reject efforts to include oil revenues 
     from the Arctic Refuge in the Budget Reconciliation bill.
           Sincerely,
                                               William H. Meadows,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    National Parks


                                     Conservation Association,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2000.

             Oppose Degradation of the Arctic Coastal Plain

       Dear Senator: On behalf of our 400,000 members, the 
     National Parks Conservation Association strongly urges you to 
     oppose efforts to include projected revenues from oil 
     drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal 
     plain in the pending Budget Reconciliation bill.
       The Arctic coastal plain has long been recognized as a 
     spectacular national gem because of its spectacular scenery 
     and diverse and abundant wildlife. The coastal plain richly 
     deserves its tag of ``America's Serengeti,'' as over 130,000 
     caribou of the Porcupine herd migrate there every spring to 
     their calving grounds, and more than 300,000 snow geese are 
     found there in the fall.
       Attempts to open the coastal plain for drilling for oil 
     have reared their head in Congress over the past three 
     decades. Recent increases in gasoline prices have renewed the 
     call to open the plain for oil production, resulting in an 
     ``assumption'' of revenue from drilling in the Arctic Refuge 
     in the Budget Reconciliation bill.
       Opening up the coastal plain would not be a solution to the 
     short-term increases in gasoline prices, nor would it address 
     the nation's long-term energy strategy. In fact, the United 
     States Geological Service estimates that even if oil were 
     found in the coastal plain, production would never meet more 
     than two percent of our nation's oil needs at any given time. 
     This supply would hardly justify the production facilities 
     and related infrastructure that would destroy the unique 
     character of the coastal plain.
       Your support in opposing efforts to promote oil development 
     and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
     critical. Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tom Kiernan,
     President.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2000.
     Re Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--Vote ``yes'' 
         on the Roth Arctic wilderness amendment to the 2001 
         Budget Resolution.

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the bipartisan political voice of the national environmental 
     community. Each year, LCV publishes the National

[[Page S2221]]

     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the press.
       The League of Conservation Voters urges you to protect the 
     biological heart of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by 
     supporting an amendment offered by Senator Roth (R-DE) to the 
     2001 Budget Resolution that opposes opening the Refuge to oil 
     drilling. Currently the budget resolution assumes revenues 
     from drilling in the Refuge.
       Some members of Congress are using the current high price 
     of gasoline as a pretext to open the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge to oil drilling. The current price of gasoline in no 
     way justifies destroying this national treasure. Development 
     of the Refuge's coastal plain will not impact oil supplies 
     until far into the future, and the amount of oil that lies 
     beneath it is minimal compared to our national energy needs.
       The Arctic Refuge is home to wolves, polar bears, caribou 
     and millions of migratory birds. It is also the last 5% of 
     Alaska's vast north coastline that remains off-limits to the 
     oil companies. And the Refuge plays an integral part in the 
     lives of the Gwich'in people who depend on the seasonal 
     migrations of the caribou for both survival and cultural 
     identity.
       Protecting the wilderness values of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge is one of the top priorities of the national 
     environmental community. LCV urges you to vote ``yes'' on 
     Senator Roth's amendment to protect the Arctic Refuge.
       LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider including 
     votes on this issue in compiling LCV's 2000 Scorecard. If you 
     need more information, please call Betsy Loyless in my 
     office.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
                                                        President.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to read from the letter of the League 
of Conservation Voters, which is the bipartisan political voice of the 
national environmental community. They write:

       The League of Conservation Voters urges you to protect the 
     biological heart of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by 
     supporting an amendment offered by Senator Roth to the 2001 
     Budget Resolution that opposes opening the Refuge to oil 
     drilling. Currently the budget resolution assumes revenues 
     from drilling in the Refuge.

  It goes on to say:

       Protecting the wilderness values of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge is one of the top priorities of the national 
     environmental community.

  How true that is. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains our 
Nation's greatest wilderness. No conservation area in America contains 
as much vast wild land free of industrialization. It is the essence of 
our country's wilderness areas.
  Consider three or four points. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
the only conservation area that protects a complete spectrum of arctic 
and subarctic ecosystems in North America. The Coastal Plain of the 
Arctic Refuge is the only wild stretch of coast on Alaska's North Slope 
that is off limits to oil and gas exploration and development.
  President Dwight Eisenhower was the first to set aside the original 
Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960 for the purpose of protecting 
the wilderness, the wildlife, and recreational values.
  While many refuges in America have been set aside to protect wildlife 
populations and habitat, the Arctic Refuge is the only refuge in which 
wilderness was recognized as a purpose for establishment, the 
controversial 1002 area proposed for oil development as a part of the 
original Arctic range.
  I could go on. It is critically important that we protect this 
valuable refuge for future generations. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of the Roth amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I certainly agree with my friend, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, relative to the interest of America's environmental 
community.
  This is a big issue for them because it generates membership and it 
generates dollars. They have a cause. We have heard from them, the 
eloquence expressed by my friend, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee.
  But what we did not hear was any of the 500,000 American men and 
women who were sent to the Mideast to fight a war against Saddam 
Hussein. They left their loved ones. They risked their lives. What did 
America's environmental community say about that? They did not say a 
word.
  What are they saying today about our increased dependence on Iraq? 
Seven hundred thousand barrels a day of oil; the fastest growing source 
of oil coming into this country. What is the environmental community 
saying? What we all believe in: More conservation, more alternative 
energies, as they drive in their automobile or pick up their plane to 
fly to the next point.
  Come on, let's get real around here. We talk about ANWR potentially 
having a 200-day supply. Under that logic Prudhoe Bay should have been 
a 600-day supply. In reality, It has been supplying this Nation with 20 
to 25 percent of our total crude oil for the last 23 years. That is a 
ridiculous comparison. It suggests that all other oil production is 
going to stop, all other domestic production is going to stop, and that 
is all you are going to have from one source.
  Come on, get real. We can come up with better arguments than that. 
They say 95 percent of the Arctic Coastal Plain is open to oil and gas 
development. That is false. Try and get a lease up there. Only Fourteen 
percent is open.
  This map shows the Naval Petroleum Reserve that was dedicated in the 
1900s. You think you can get a lease in there? Try. Go over to the 
Secretary of Interior and see if you can get a lease. They put up a few 
leases, but you cannot go in and even lease where the high potential 
for oil is in the Naval Petroleum Reserve. If that isn't where you are 
supposed to find oil, I do not know where is.
  Where are you going to find oil? The ANWR area isn't open. This other 
area of the State is partially open. But the reality is, the wilderness 
is closed. The Coastal Plain is closed. The Teshepuk Lake area is 
closed; Barrow is closed. The western portion of NPRA is closed to oil 
production. That is the reality. So do not buy their arguments that 95% 
of the Coastal Plain is available for development because it is ``pie 
in the sky.''
  We are concerned about our Gwich'in people. However, what they 
propose to do is lease their open lands for oil development. They 
offered to lease more than land than the entire 1.5 million acre 
Coastal Plain of ANWR. They offered to lease 1.799 million acres. They 
signed a lease. Unfortunately, the oil company did not find any oil 
there. Maybe they should have taken the leases anyway.
  So we have more myth around here than fiction. No reality. No credit 
for American ingenuity or technology or the realization that this area 
we are talking about is the size of the State of South Carolina.
  Mostly the Members here cannot comprehend size. We had four time 
zones in Alaska during the time I grew up--most of the time I was here. 
We cut them down to one.
  If you overlay Alaska on the United States--you know it and I know 
it--we extend from Canada to New Mexico; Florida to California. The 
Aleutian Islands go out forever. They almost go to Japan. It is a big 
hunk of real estate.
  We have heard a lot of romantic and fanciful notions tonight about 
the Coastal Plain. But we have not discussed and resolved the 
obligation to oversee the national security interests of this Nation. 
This is the Senate. We make decisions on war and peace.
  ANWR is a serious issue. It is so serious that I hope you will all 
remember that if this amendment is adopted, I can assure every single 
Member of this body, we will well be on our way to jeopardizing our 
national security by further increasing our dependence on imported oil.
  I do not want that obligation on my shoulders. It is time to turn 
around the direction in this country, reduce our dependence on imported 
oil, move into the areas where we have potential oil and gas 
discoveries in the Rocky Mountains, the overthrust belt, and my State 
of Alaska.
  We have a Vice President who says he is going to cancel all OCS 
leases. Where are we going to get oil from? Where are we going to get 
the energy? Where are you going to get the fuel for that 747 called Air 
Force One to fly back and forth to New York or wherever it goes? Are 
you going to do it with hot air?
  The Vice President goes around town. Does he drive a battery-operated 
car with the back seat full of batteries?

[[Page S2222]]

 Does he drive an electric car? No. We are not there yet.
  It is serious. This is an issue of national security. We fought a war 
over oil in 1991. We lost 147 lives. We have $10 billion of the 
taxpayers' money invested in keeping Saddam Hussein fenced in.
  It is an issue of the environment. We have the best environmental 
stipulations in the world in the United States. Most of the OPEC 
countries have the worst.
  They are drilling in the rain forests of Colombia. We have proven 
what we can do it right in the Arctic. We have a record. We have 
produced between 20 percent to 25 percent of our domestic crude oil in 
the United States in Alaska for the last 23 years.
  It is an issue with the economy, sending our dollars overseas, our 
jobs overseas. It is a third of our trade imbalance. It is an issue 
that you--when I say ``you,'' I apologize to my colleagues--but no 
Member has addressed the people of my State, the Eskimo people who 
support development of this area.
  You know what they say? They say, ``please put my people, the Inupiat 
Eskimo people, into the picture of ANWR. Stop airbrushing us out.'' Try 
being airbrushed out of the picture or out of your State. That is kind 
of the position to which these people feel they have been relegated. 
What a tragedy.
  This is serious. This is not something that should be taken for 
granted.
  The Eskimo people support development. One of my Eskimo friends, 
Oliver Levitt, to a group of us in Barrow, said: I used to come to 
school to keep warm. My job every morning was to go out on the beach 
and pick up what little driftwood floated down from the McKenzie River 
to the shores near Barrow.
  He came to school to keep warm. That isn't the case in Barrow anymore 
because not only do they have the revenue from oil, but they have jobs. 
They have an alternate way of life that used to depend totally on 
subsistence and following the game herds. That is the record and the 
reality.
  It was 20 below in Kaktovik yesterday, if it makes those of you in 
this body who have been listening to a little of my hot air cool off.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is the real world we live in.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to 
express what I hope is recognized as a reasonable balance, to send a 
signal to Saddam Hussein, and to say that it is time to turn around 
America's energy policy and lessen our dependence on imported oil. This 
is the place to start. And the time is now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent the 
votes relative to the Byrd-Warner amendment and the Roth amendment 
occur at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, with no second-degree amendments in 
order, and there be 2 minutes for explanation prior to each vote.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we will tentatively accept 
this. I just need to say this first: I have spoken to the manager of 
the bill, Senator Domenici. We want to make sure there is an 
understanding, however, that the amendments that we finish tonight or 
that we work on tonight, that there will be a vote on those amendments 
some time prior to the votes in the vote-arama tomorrow.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Assuming the intention of the majority to work toward 
that, they would pursue that tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, is all time yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield back those 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has an amendment 
to offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 2965

  (Purpose: To reduce revenue cuts by $5.9 billion over the next five 
           years to help fund school modernization projects)

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin, 
Lautenberg, Dorgan, Kennedy, Mikulski, Kerry of Massachusetts, 
Bingaman, Baucus, and Graham of Florida, 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 Virginia [Mr. Robb], for himself, Mr. 
     Harkin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
     Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 2965.

  Mr. ROBB. 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 4, line 4, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $521,300,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1,011,200,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1,223,400,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,361,200,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $521,300,,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,011,200,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1,223,400,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $1,361,200,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,322,100,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $1,344,600,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $1.,367,400,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $1,390,700,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $521,300,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $1,011,200,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $1,223,400,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $1,361,200,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $1,322,100,000.
       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $521,300,000.
       On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $1,344,600,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $1,011,200,000.
       On page 18, line 19, increase the amount by $1,367,400,000.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $1,223,400,000.
       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $1,390,700,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $1,361,200,000.
       On page 29, line 3, decrease the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $5,938,100,000.
       On page 29, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``Not later than September 29, 2000, the Senate Committee 
     on Finance shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill 
     proposing changes in laws within its jurisdiction necessary 
     to reduce revenues by not more than $19,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 2001 and $1,743,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2005.''

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to help ensure 
that no child attends a school with a leaky roof, or crowded 
classrooms, or that lacks access to the latest technology and the 
Internet.
  In the words of Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Last 
year's debate about our Budget Resolution is almost a carbon copy of 
this year's debate. There are few times in the legislative process that 
the contrasts between ideologies are more clear than in our debate on 
the Budget Resolution--and this year is no exception. While some

[[Page S2223]]

would have us focus on funding a massive tax cut which will likely be 
directed to those who need it least, others would focus on 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, and 
making critical investments in areas like education. While, 
understandably, there are bound to be philosophical differences about 
achieving these objectives, I am again disheartened that education is 
not higher on our list of fiscal priorities. While I compliment the 
Chairman for including $2.2 billion dedicated to IDEA funding, I'm back 
again to urge that more of my colleagues to support an amendment which 
reduces the size of this massive tax cut to help finance school 
modernization efforts. Mr. President, education should truly be a 
common priority--we certainly know that it's a national priority.
  Mr. President, I'm sure that none of us could imagine holding Senate 
proceedings in a trailer, nor could we imagine having to place buckets 
around our desks to catch rainwater leaking in through the Capitol 
dome. We simply can't imagine what it would feel like to hold our 
summer debates in a chamber that wasn't air-conditioned. And Mr. 
President, if we couldn't stand the heat, we'd get out of the chamber 
and take a recess, but our nation's students simply don't have that 
luxury. A heat-related recess for them means fewer math lessons. It 
means less time with a qualified teacher. It means reduced learning. 
And Mr. President, I'm sure our dedicated clerks here in the Senate 
couldn't imagine doing their jobs today without being able to scan our 
amendments into a computer, making them accessible to staff and the 
nation at a moment's notice. We shouldn't then expect our nation's 
children to master core skills as well as information technology skills 
if we don't give them the keys to the information highway.
  Mr. President, five years ago, the GAO estimated that our national 
school modernization needs totaled $185 billion. This year, that figure 
has risen to $307 billion, according to a recent report by the National 
Education Association. The report indicates that the State Departments 
of Education across the country are reporting a 65% increase in school 
modernization needs over the last five years. That translates into 
$66,849,315 a day. Much like our national debt clock, the tape is also 
running on our school modernization needs. With record enrollments, 
deteriorating facilities, and the immense need to modernize our schools 
with the latest technology, we simply can't afford to sit back and 
claim that the federal government can't or shouldn't help.
  There is an often used argument that the federal government should 
have no role in building or renovating schools. And if you look at last 
year's federal outlays for capital expenses, school construction 
occupies the smallest slice of that pie. Of the $400 billion the 
federal government spent on national infrastructure, only one-tenth of 
one percent--this little piece right here--went to education, training, 
and employment capital expenses. Roughly 55 percent of our capital 
costs were spent on highways, 15 percent on housing, 13 percent on 
community and regional development, with the remaining portion allotted 
to mass transit, airports, and pollution control facilities.

  With over $300 billion in unmet needs, Mr. President, I believe we 
need to expand this pie and invest more in our schools. Our capital 
costs over the years can vary from category to category, depending upon 
what our needs are. Today, the average age of our nation's schools is 
42 years. The last time we made a major investment in our nation's 
educational infrastructure was under the leadership of a Republican 
President, Dwight Eisenhower. Over the course of his tenure, we spent 
roughly $1 billion specifically for school construction--due to the 
boom in our student population. Well, Mr. President, we're in the Baby 
Boom Echo now; those children now have their own children in our 
schools. We have a record 53.2 million children now enrolled in our 
schools today and by 2009, we'll add about one million more. We need to 
make a commitment similar to the one made by our parents and 
grandparents in the 1950's. A billion dollars in 1953 would be about 
$5.4 billion today, if you adjusted for inflation. This amendment 
merely seeks to set aside $5.9 billion over the next five years.
  For every one million students, our nation must build about 1300 
schools, and at an average cost of over $12 million per school, we're 
talking about $16 billion. That's on top of the costs to remedy safety 
code violations, retro-fit schools to accommodate technology, and 
relieve overcrowding.
  Mr. President, in Virginia, there are over 3,000 trailers in use. 
This is a picture of Loudoun County High School in Leesburg, Virginia, 
just 33 miles from here. You see a crane hoisting just one of a whole 
line of trailers that sit in a parking lot of this Northern Virginia 
high school. Loudoun County alone needs to build 22 new schools over 
the next six years to accommodate their skyrocketing enrollments. At an 
average cost in Northern Virginia of about $18 million per school, 
that's almost $400 million for just one county!
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield time off the resolution?
  Mr. ROBB. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada.
  Mr. REID. My friend talked about Loudoun County. Clark County, where 
Las Vegas is located, must build one school a month to keep up with its 
growth.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada. A similar 
statistic could be quoted by any one of our 99 colleagues in this 
Chamber. Many of those colleagues have similar stories to tell.
  This amendment is not an attempt to dictate what kind of school 
modernization legislation we should pass; it merely reserves enough 
funding to pay for such an effort. Given the fact that the Chairman of 
the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Roth, has reported at least three 
tax bills within the last year or so which contain tax incentives for 
school modernization and the fact that Republican and Democratic 
members alike have various proposals to use discretionary spending as a 
vehicle to finance school modernization, there is clearly an interest 
on both sides of the aisle to find a way to do this.
  Even more illustrative of the momentum to fund school modernization 
legislation was the introduction last Tuesday of a truly bipartisan 
school construction and renovation bill in the House. It's sponsored by 
Representatives Nancy Johnson and Charlie Rangel and has 130 other co-
sponsors. School modernization has been a top priority of the education 
community for the past three years. And this community is joined by 
engineers, architects, mayors across the country, civil rights groups, 
and even some religious groups.
  Mr. President, Let's make it a priority this year. This amendment 
reflects a commitment similar to the one that our parents and 
grandparents made a generation ago. I hope we can summon similar 
courage in this generation.
  Even more illustrative of the momentum to fund school modernization 
legislation was the introduction last Tuesday of a truly bipartisan 
school construction and renovation bill in the House.
  It is sponsored by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Charlie Rangel 
and has 103 other cosponsors.
  School modernization has been a top priority of the education 
community for the past 3 years. This community is joined by engineers, 
architects, mayors across the country, civil rights groups, and even 
some religious groups.
  Mr. President, let's make it a priority this year. This amendment 
reflects a similar commitment to the one that our parents and 
grandparents made a generation ago. I hope that we can summon similar 
courage in this generation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Robb's 
amendment which encourages the Senate to make school modernization a 
top priority by providing $1.3 billion in discretionary spending for 
grants and loans for the urgent repair and renovation of public 
elementary and secondary schools in high-need areas, and to leverage 
$25 billion in interest-free bonds in FY2001.
  I also commend Senator Robb and Senator Harkin for their leadership 
on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that 
is necessary to help the nation meet the critical need to modernize and 
rebuild crumbling and overcrowded schools.

[[Page S2224]]

  Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. 14 
million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in 
substandard buildings. Half of all schools have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental condition. The problems with ailing school 
buildings are not the problems of the inner city alone. They exist in 
almost every community--urban, rural, or suburban.
  In Massachusetts, 41 percent of schools report that at least one 
building needs extensive repairs or should be replaced. 80 percent of 
schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. 48 
percent have inadequate heating, ventilation, or air conditioning. And 
36 percent report inadequate plumbing systems.
  In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools, 
communities need to build new schools in order to keep pace with rising 
enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school 
enrollment has reached an all-time high this year of 53.4 million 
students, and will continue to grow. The number will rise by 324,000 in 
2000, by 282,000 in 2001, and by 250,000 in 2002. It will continue on 
this upward trend in the following years.
  For example, in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, enrollments are rising by 
200 students a year. Educators there would like to reduce class size, 
extend special education and bilingual education programs, and hire new 
teachers, but the school system does not have the facilities or 
resources to accomplish these important goals. Instead, Fitchburg has 
been forced to construct four portable facilities--and a fifth is under 
construction--to deal with overcrowding.
  According to a report this year, total unmet school modernization 
needs, including technology and infrastructure, totals $307 billion--
almost three times the amount estimated in 1995. Massachusetts has $9.9 
billion in unmet technology and infrastructure needs.
  The time is now to do all we can to help rebuild and modernize public 
schools, so that all children can succeed in safe, technologically-
equipped schools. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Robb's 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a unique moment in our history.
  We are at the dawn of a new century. And the United States is in a 
period of unprecedented economic prosperity.
  We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades, the number of 
families on welfare has declined and new jobs continue to be created at 
a record pace.
  However, we know that despite the longest economic boom in history, 
some Americans have been left behind. As we look to the future, one of 
our challenges will be to make sure the rising tide lifts all boats. In 
addition, we also face the challenge of keeping the prosperity going.
  The pending budget resolution jeopardizes our prosperity. It 
jeopardizes the economy, threatens the Social Security surplus, and 
shortchanges Medicare. The resolution does not provide an adequate 
prescription drug benefit, provide sufficient debt reduction or invest 
in education.
  The budget resolution undermines the public's priorities and will 
impose deep cuts in domestic programs. Fewer children will be served by 
Head Start, there will be fewer new teachers to reduce class size and 
no additional officers for community policing.
  Instead, the budget proposes a risky tax scheme that jeopardizes our 
nation's future prosperity and productivity.
  The GOP's budget plan squanders the entire non-Social Security 
surplus on a reckless tax cut and provides no funding for national 
priorities such as school modernization. It rejects the President's 
proposal to provide $25 billion in bonds to underwrite construction of 
6,000 new schools. It also rejects $1.3 billion in grants and loans for 
emergency repairs to public schools.
  This budget sets the wrong national priorities. It chooses tax cuts 
for the wealthy over modernizing our children's schools. The Robb-
Harkin amendment corrects this serious shortcoming by providing a 
comprehensive national strategy to repair, renovate and modernize our 
public schools.
  States and local communities are struggling to renovate existing 
schools and build new ones to alleviate overcrowding. School 
construction and modernization are necessary to equip classrooms for 
the 21st Century, improve learning conditions, end overcrowding, and 
make smaller classes possible.
  Our school buildings are simply wearing out. Nearly three-quarters of 
all U.S. public schools were built before 1970.
  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, when a 
school is between 20 and 30 years, frequent replacement of equipment is 
necessary.
  When a school is between 30 and 40 years old all of the original 
equipment should have been replaced, including the roof and electrical 
systems.
  After 40 years of age, a school building begins to deteriorate 
rapidly and most schools are abandoned after 60 years.
  The average school building is 42 years old and technology is placing 
new demands on schools. As a result of increased use of technology, 
many schools must install new wiring, telephone lines and electrical 
systems. The demand for the Internet is at an all-time high, but in the 
nation's poorest schools, only 39% of classrooms have Internet access.
  In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report card 
on our nation's infrastructure. The report found many problems. 
However, the most startling finding is with respect to our nation's 
public schools.
  ASCE reports that public schools are in worse condition than any 
other sector of our national infrastructure. This is an alarming fact 
and should be our call to action.
  The need to modernize our nation's public schools is clear, yet the 
Federal Government lags in helping local school districts address this 
critical problem.
  Because of increasing enrollments and aging buildings, local and 
State expenditures for school construction have increased 
dramatically--by 39% from 1990 to 1997. However, this increase has not 
been sufficient to address the need.
  The National Education Association recently surveyed states about the 
need to modernize public schools and upgrade education technology. 
According to their preliminary report, $253.9 billion is needed to 
modernize the school facilities and $53.7 billion is needed to upgrade 
education technology. For Iowa--$3.4 billion for school facilities and 
$540 million for education technology.
  It is a national disgrace that the nicest places that our children 
see are shopping malls, sports arenas and movie theaters and the most 
run down place they see is their public schools. What signal are we 
sending them about the value we place on them, their education and 
future?
  How can we prepare our kids for the 21st century in schools that did 
not make the grade in the 20th century?
  This amendment provides a comprehensive, two-prong response to this 
critical national problem.
  First, we would provide $1.3 billion each year to make grants and no 
interest loans for emergency repairs to public schools. The Public 
School Repair and Renovation Program would help local school districts 
fix the roof that is leaking, repair fire code violations and put in 
new electrical wiring.
  Mr. President, 25% of schools in New York City are still heated by 
coal and 46% of U.S. schools lack adequate electrical wiring to support 
the full-scale use of technology. Sixteen million children attend 
schools without proper heating, ventilation or air conditioning. Twelve 
million students attend classes in schools with defective plumbing. 
These grants and loans would make it possible to install the modern 
heating systems, plumbing, and new electrical wiring that are 
desperately needed in schools across America.
  In addition, these grants and loans could be used to remedy 
violations of state or local fire codes. The Iowa Fire Marshal reported 
a five-fold increase in the number of fires in schools over the past 
decade. During the 1990's there were 100 fires in Iowa schools. During 
the previous decade there were 20.
  It is clear that public schools have an urgent need to make repairs 
now and these grants and no-interest loans will finance up to 8,300 
repair projects in 5,000 schools. We will install modern heating 
systems, upgrade the electrical wiring, and repair the fire code 
violations.
  These grants and loans will address problems that literally endanger 
the lives and safety of our children.

[[Page S2225]]

  However, some buildings have simply outlived their usefulness and 
need to be replaced. In addition, enrollment in elementary and 
secondary schools is at an all time high of 53.2 million and will 
continue to grow over the next 10 years. Therefore, it will be 
necessary for the United States to build an additional 6,000 schools to 
educate the growing number of students.
  The second part of our comprehensive strategy is to underwrite the 
cost of building nearly $25 billion of new school facilities. Our 
amendment provides tax credits to subsidize the interest on new 
construction projects to modernize public schools. School districts 
would be able to replaced outdated buildings or add more class rooms so 
they can reduce class size. The school modernization bonds would 
finance modernization projects for 6,000 schools.
  Our amendment provides a modest national investment to modernize our 
nation's schools and will make a big difference for millions of 
children. Further, the amendment is fully offset by reducing the ill-
conceived tax scheme in the Budget Resolution.
  I know this kind of approach will work because it is working in Iowa. 
Iowa is in the second year of a school modernization and repair 
demonstration project.
  Like the Robb-Harkin Amendment, the Iowa demonstration also takes a 
two-prong approach toward solving this critical problem. First, the 
Iowa project provides grants for the repair of fire code violations. 
Secondly, the Iowa project provides grants to subsidize the cost of 
constructing new school facilities.
  In a relatively short period of time, we have already begun to see a 
difference in Iowa. Over the past two years, 138 grants have been 
awarded for projects to repair fire code violations. The federal 
government provided $6.5 million to install fire alarms, upgrade 
electrical systems and other repairs to make Iowa schools safer.
  Last year, six Iowa school districts received grants to underwrite 
the cost of building new school facilities. Over and over, school 
officials said the availability of the federal grant was responsible 
for convincing local citizens to support the school bond issue that 
finance the bulk of the project.
  Several school districts passed school bond issues after several 
tries. One superintendent said, ``In the past, our school district ran 
three bond issues unsuccessfully and it is a credit to the Department 
of Education . . . for providing this Iowa Demonstration Grant funding 
as an incentive to help voters pass bond issues.''
  Another Superintendent said, ``It is our opinion that both of these 
grants played a very important role regarding the successful passing of 
the bond issue.''
  The most recent competition was just closed and applications for the 
second year of funding are being reviewed.
  The Iowa School Construction Grant is beginning to show the kind of 
major impact a modest federal investment can have on improving the 
safety of schools and spurring construction of new school facilities. 
The school modernization provisions mirror the Iowa Demonstration and 
will spur the same kind of activity across the nation that we are 
witnessing in Iowa.
  The Iowa School Construction Grant is beginning to show the kind of 
major impact a modest federal investment can have on improving the 
safety of schools and spurring construction of new school facilities. 
Our amendment mirrors the Iowa Demonstration and will spur the same 
kind of activity across the nation that we are witnessing in Iowa.
  Modern, up-to-date school buildings are essential for student 
achievement. Studies show that students in overcrowded schools or 
schools in poor physical condition scored significantly lower on both 
math and reading than their peers in less crowded conditions.
  The General Accounting Office reports that 14 million American 
children attend classes in schools that are unsafe or inadequate. This 
is a serious national problem. And, it demands a comprehensive national 
response. The Robb-Harkin Amendment provides that effective national 
response. I commend Senator Robb for his leadership on this issue and 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the Senator allowing 
me, on behalf of the leader----
  Mr. REID. I could not hear the Senator. Would he start over?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to speak on behalf of the 
leader for the wrap-up that has been prepared.
  I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, the 
Senate resume consideration of the budget resolution for Senator Durbin 
to offer his amendment and the appropriate debate. I further ask 
unanimous consent that following his remarks, the Senate stand in 
adjournment under the previous order.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object. Somebody was talking to me. 
Please repeat that last request.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of 
Senator Durbin, the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous 
order.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we don't have a previous 
order. Before we agree to this, why don't we do the rest of the 
unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will proceed and omit any reference to the previous 
order. I will go to Thursday's consent.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 9:30 on 
Thursday, there be 8 hours and 30 minutes remaining on the concurrent 
resolution, and the pending resolution be the Durbin amendment relative 
to tax cuts. I further ask consent that prior to the vote, relative to 
the Robb education amendment, there be 10 minutes remaining, to be 
equally divided between Senator Robb and Senator Domenici for the 
closing debate.
  Mr. REID. The minority has no objection to these last two paragraphs 
the Senator just read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is strong bipartisan support for 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). To date, 45 
Senators have signed a letter in support of $1.4 billion in regular 
funding, and $300 million in emergency funding, for LIHEAP during 
Fiscal Year 2001.
  I, along with my colleagues from the Northeast-Midwest Senate 
Coalition, will offer this Sense of the Senate to demonstrate the broad 
support for increased LIHEAP funding. The amendment expresses the sense 
of the Senate with respect to increasing LIHEAP regular funding from 
the current level of $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion.
  In my home State of Vermont, this past winter brought temperatures of 
fifteen below zero; and home heating oil prices soared to $2 a gallon. 
Approximately 11,400 Vermont families received benefits, which averaged 
$310 in regular funding for the entire season. Emergency funding 
contributed an additional $50-$135 depending on the fuel source. These 
numbers reveal the frugalness with which this program now has to 
operate.
  I am concerned that emergency LIHEAP funding is being used to make up 
for regular appropriations funding shortfalls. During the first four 
and half months of FY2000, all available emergency LIHEAP funding ($300 
million) was released. There are requests for additional emergency 
funding. This situation demonstrates the need to increase regular 
funding to at least the sum of last year's regular and emergency 
funding amounts.
  There is no doubt that emergency funding was critical during this 
past winter's severe weather conditions and volatile fuel prices. 
However, LIHEAP funding is most effective when states have it in the 
form of regular funding, allowing proper advance budgeting and 
providing funding assistance to low income households before a crisis 
situation.
  In addition, it is critical that we maintain the integrity of the 
LIHEAP program through the regular funding cycle. The decision was made 
last year to consider the program an additional non-routine expense. I 
am concerned that this designation threatens the foundation of the 
program. This amendment seeks to return LIHEAP to its regular funding 
structure.
  LIHEAP is an effective tool for maintaining the basic needs of low-
income households. Nevertheless, stagnant funding has resulted in a 
growing eligible population not receiving benefits

[[Page S2226]]

due to lack of funding. The safety net for our low-income households is 
getting ever smaller and ever thinner.
  The statistics demonstrate the need for LIHEAP best. More than two-
thirds of LIHEAP-eligible households have annual incomes of less than 
$8,000, approximately one-half have annual incomes below $6,000. It has 
been estimated that low-income households typically spend four times 
what middle-income households spend on utility services. Middle-income 
households spend about four percent of their income for energy 
purposes, whereas low-income households spend between 14% and 16%, and 
in many instances up to 25% for utility costs.
  Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address the funding 
needs of this important program. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of this 
important amendment for women who are diagnosed with breast and 
cervical cancer through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early 
Detection Program (NBCCEDP) at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC). I am pleased to join Senators Chafee, Snowe, 
Grassley, Harkin, and others in support of this amendment. This 
amendment says that we Senators believe that we should pass legislation 
to provide Medicaid coverage for certain women screened and found to 
have breast or cervical cancer under the CDC screening program.
  Through March 31, 1999, the CDC screening program has provided more 
than one million mammograms and almost 1.2 million Pap tests. Among the 
women screened, over 6,200 cases of breast cancer and over 550 cases of 
cervical cancer have been diagnosed. Right now, the CDC screening 
program does not pay for breast and cervical cancer treatment services, 
but it does require participating states to provide treatment services.
  The late Senator John Chafee, Senator Snowe, Senator Moynihan, and I 
along with others introduced the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment 
Act of 1999 (S. 662) which currently has 57 cosponsors. This bill gives 
states the option to provide Medicaid coverage for breast and cervical 
cancer treatment to eligible women who were screened and diagnosed with 
these cancers through the CDC screening program. It is not a mandate 
for states. It is the Federal Government saying to the States ``we will 
help you provide treatment services to these women, if you decide to do 
so.'' I am pleased to be working with the bipartisan team of Senators 
Lincoln Chafee, Snowe, Grassley, and Moynihan to pass this important 
legislation.
  Women screened and diagnosed through the CDC screening program depend 
on staff and volunteer time to find free or more affordable treatment; 
they depend on the generosity of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and 
clinics who provide them with free or reduced-cost treatment. The 
demands of managed care can also make it more difficult for physicians 
to provide free or reduced-fee services. In the end, thousands of 
people who run local screening programs are spending countless hours 
finding treatment services for women diagnosed with breast and cervical 
cancer. I salute the individuals who spend their time and resources to 
help these women. But we must not force these women to rely on the 
goodwill of others. Right now, the CDC is only screening 12-15 percent 
of the women who are eligible. As more women are screened, treatment 
efforts will become even more difficult. The lack of coverage for 
treatment services has hurt the program's ability to recruit providers, 
further restricting the number of women screened.
  In short, it is clear that the short-term, ad-hoc strategies of 
providing treatment have broken down. Because there is no coverage for 
treatment, state programs are having a hard time recruiting providers; 
volunteers are spending a disproportionate amount of time finding 
treatment for women; and fewer women are receiving treatment. We can't 
expand the program to serve the other 85 percent of eligible women if 
we can't promise treatment to those we already screen.
  The CDC screening program is celebrating its 10th anniversary 
in 2000. I am proud to be the Senate architect of the legislation that 
created the breast and cervical cancer screening program at the CDC. 
Over ten years ago we saw a need--low-income women were not receiving 
basic well-woman care--they were not getting their mammograms and Pap 
smears to detect breast and cervical cancer. At that time, I and others 
wanted to ensure that we not only diagnosed these low-income women with 
breast and cervical cancer, but that we also provided treatment for 
those cancers. But 10 years ago, we had great deficits and we simply 
did not have the money for a treatment component of the CDC screening 
program. So we made a down payment. We took the first step with the 
belief that it would not be the only step. Well, now the time has come 
to take the next step and include Federal resources for treatment for 
women who are diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer through the CDC 
screening program.

  There are three reasons why we should act now to pass this important 
legislation. First, times have changed since the creation of the CDC 
screening program ten years ago. We are now running annual surpluses, 
instead of annual deficits. We have the resources to provide treatment 
to these women. I think we ought to put our money into ensuring that we 
save lives. Second, prevention, screening, and early detection are very 
important, but alone they do not stop deaths. Screening must be coupled 
with treatment to reduce cancer mortality. Finally, it is only right to 
provide Federal resources to treat breast and cervical cancer for those 
screened and diagnosed with these cancers through a Federal screening 
program.
  I am proud that my own state of Maryland realized the importance of 
providing treatment services to women who were screened through the CDC 
screening program. Maryland appropriates over $6 million in state funds 
annually for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Diagnostic and Treatment 
Program for eligible low income Maryland women. The program has 
provided services to over 15,650 women in Maryland, including eligible 
women screened through the CDC screening program and eligible women 
screened outside the CDC program. The breast cancer mortality rate in 
Maryland has started to decline, in part because of programs like the 
CDC's. But not all states have the resources to do what Maryland has 
done. That's why this bill is needed.
  This bill is the best long-term solution. It is strongly supported by 
the National Breast Cancer Coalition; the American Cancer Society; the 
National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems; the 
National Partnership for Women and Families; YWCA; National Women's 
Health Network; the American Medical Women's Association, and many 
more.
  I urge the Senate Finance Committee to take up this legislation 
before Mother's Day and I urge the Senate leadership to promptly bring 
it to the full Senate for consideration. The Breast and Cervical Cancer 
Treatment Act (S. 662) has 57 bipartisan cosponsors. President Clinton 
has included funding in his 2001 budget to give states the option of 
providing Medicaid coverage to women who have been diagnosed with 
breast or cervical cancer through the CDC screening program. The 
Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives has already 
unanimously approved this legislation (H. R. 1070).
  We must act now to provide a treatment opportunity to all women who 
are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the CDC screening 
program. Breast and cervical cancer treatment is not a partisan issue. 
It's a family issue. It affects mothers, sisters, and daughters, and 
their fathers, husbands, and children. I can't think of any better way 
to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the National Breast and Cervical 
Cancer Early Detection Program than by passing the Breast and Cervical 
Cancer Treatment Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of 
this important amendment.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the amendment that I have submitted is 
a simple one. In fact, it's the same one that I offered last year, and 
it takes the tax cuts proposed in this fiscal year 2001 budget 
resolution and uses that money, instead, to pay down the debt.
  Let me say again: under my amendment, we would take $150 billion that 
is projected to accumulate as a result of our on-budget surpluses over 
the next five years, and use those funds, not for

[[Page S2227]]

tax cuts, but for debt reduction instead.
  Why should we do this rather than use this money to reduce taxes?
  First of all, if we pay down the debt, we are going to decrease our 
interest payments on the national debt--a debt which stands at $5.7 
trillion today. This fiscal year, it will cost us more than $224 
billion to service our national debt--more than $600 million a day in 
interest costs alone!
  Out of every federal dollar that is spent this year, 13 cents goes to 
pay the interest on the national debt.
  In comparison: 16 cents goes for national defense; 18 cents goes for 
non-defense discretionary spending; and 53 cents goes for entitlement 
spending.
  We'll spend more on interest this year than we'll spend on Medicare.
  When I consider these numbers, it makes me determined to do all that 
I can to decrease our debt even further.
  That's why I believe that every fiscal decision we make in this 
Congress should be measured against the backdrop of how it will 
decrease our $5.7 trillion national debt. And I'm not the only one who 
believes that.
  In fact, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee this past 
January, CBO Director Crippen stated that ``most economists agree that 
saving the surpluses, paying down the debt held by the public, is 
probably the best thing that we can do relative to the economy.''
  And on the very same day, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said, 
``my first priority would be to allow as much of the surplus to flow 
through into a reduction in debt to the public. From an economic point 
of view, that would be, by far, the best means of employing it.''
  Lowering the debt sends a positive signal to Wall Street and to Main 
Street. It encourages more savings and investment which, in turn, fuels 
productivity and continued economic growth. It also lowers interest 
rates, which in my view, is a real tax reduction for the American 
people.
  Furthermore, devoting on-budget surpluses to debt reduction is the 
only way we can ensure that our nation will not return to the days of 
deficit spending should the economy take a sharp turn for the worse or 
a national emergency arise.
  As Alan Greenspan has testified before Congress, ``a substantial part 
of the surplus . . . should be allowed to reduce the debt, because you 
can always increase debt later if you wish to, but it's effectively 
putting away the surplus for use at a later time if you so choose.''
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose the tax 
cuts, preferring instead to use the money to increase spending. I 
believe that spending the surplus is an even worse use of the money.
  Now, many have argued that putting the Social Security surplus in a 
``lock-box'' will be enough to pay down our debt. However, I should 
remind my colleagues that in the near future, we might not have Social 
Security surpluses available for debt reduction, because we may need 
them for Social Security reform, especially if we go to a system of 
private accounts.
  We cannot keep putting off our responsibilities. If we have the 
ability--like we do now--we have a moral obligation to pay back our 
debts.
  We must face the fact that because of 30 years of irresponsible 
fiscal policies our national debt has increased 1,300%. During that 
time Congress and our Presidents weren't willing to pay for the things 
they wanted, or, in the alternative, do without those items they could 
not afford.
  I agree with General Accounting Office (GAO) Comptroller General 
David Walker, who, in testimony before the House Ways and Means 
Committee last year, said:

       . . . this generation has a stewardship responsibility to 
     future generations to reduce the debt burden they inherit, to 
     provide a strong foundation for future economic growth, and 
     to ensure that future commitments are both adequate and 
     affordable. Prudence requires making the tough choices today 
     while the economy is healthy and the workforce is relatively 
     large--before we are hit by the baby boom's demographic tidal 
     wave.

  As most of my colleagues know, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
figures show that the United States will achieve a $26 billion on-
budget surplus this current fiscal year, FY 2000.
  However, it is of utmost importance that we oppose the temptation to 
squander this surplus.
  In that regard, I have to commend Majority Leader Trent Lott for 
sticking to his guns on not moving forward on a fiscal year 2000 
supplemental appropriations bill. He has stated his opposition to a 
separate bill, preferring instead, to include funding in the regular 
appropriations bills.
  And we need to get moving on those bills quickly, especially because 
of the need for money to ensure our nation's defense readiness, our 
Kosovo peacekeeping mission and Colombia's drug eradication efforts.
  All we need to do is look at the version of the supplemental that 
passed in the House of Representatives to see why we should not move 
forward with a supplemental bill. Indeed, the House started with the 
President's request of $5.1 billion, reported a bill out of the 
Appropriations Committee that was some $9 billion and passed a final 
bill that was $12.7 billion.
  Imagine the size of the supplemental once the Senate got through with 
it?
  The worst thing that Congress could do now is throw away any portion 
of that $26 billion on-budget surplus that was achieved in FY 2000 on 
non-emergency spending.
  And another reason that we should not pass the supplemental is that 
it can be argued that $22 billion of the $26 billion on-budget surplus 
that Congress would be tapping into comes from the Medicare Part A 
trust fund.
  Instead of squandering this surplus, let's use it to pay down the 
debt. It will be our first sizable on-budget surplus that we've been 
able to use for debt reduction in 40 years, and a truly historical 
accomplishment.
  And let's continue to make history by using future on-budget 
surpluses to pay down our national debt.
  Mr. President, I believe that if we can pass this amendment, and add 
it to the fine work that the Budget Committee Chairman has accomplished 
in this resolution--and with the promise from the Majority Leader on 
the supplemental--I believe we will have made a real difference.
  We will have provided a decent budget that should address some of our 
most pressing problems, and, we will take whatever on-budget surplus 
dollars that come in and use them to reduce the national debt. Not 
spending increases, not tax breaks, but simply paying down the debt.
  Mr. President, again, my amendment is simple: it takes the $150 
billion in tax cuts assumed by this budget resolution and instead says 
to spend it on debt reduction. I urge my colleagues who believe that we 
should do all that we can to bring down our national debt to support 
this amendment.
  Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________