[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3913-S3987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 23, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S3914]]


       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 23) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2004 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal year 2003 and for fiscal years 2005 through 
     2013.

  Pending:

       Boxer amendment No. 272, to prevent consideration of 
     drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-
     track budget reconciliation bill.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Senator Conrad authorized Senator Boxer to control the 
final 40 minutes of debate. Do we not have 40 minutes on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-one minutes is controlled by the 
sponsor.
  Mr. REID. Senator Conrad has authorized me to delegate that 41 
minutes to Senator Boxer for allowing other Senators to speak during 
that 41 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 272

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this point, I will yield to four people 
in sequence: Senator Bingaman, 10 minutes; Senator Durbin, 5 minutes; 
Senator Murray, 5 minutes; Senator Stabenow 5 minutes. That will be the 
total of our speakers and then we will be happy to yield an equivalent 
amount of time to the other side, if that will be acceptable. These 
Senators would like to give their short statements and then go back to 
their committees.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, the Senator is trying to 
block in how much time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Twenty-five minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, let me consult with my 
colleague from Alaska.
  Mrs. BOXER. As I understand it, I control 41 minutes of time. Is that 
correct? Instead of just standing here and speaking myself about this 
amendment, I have suggested we allow it to go in this sequence and then 
back to my colleagues on the other side, just for the sake of my 
colleagues' schedule.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. When I left the floor last evening, I yielded to my 
colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, and it was my understanding 
the time would be charged against the bill. Instead, I understand it 
has been charged against the amendment. I ask the manager of our bill 
to allocate to us an equal amount of time as remains for the Senator 
from California under the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend and 
colleague from Alaska an hour on the bill so he may speak in opposition 
to the amendment of the Senator from California.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from California has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to a real leader on 
this issue, Senator Bingaman, the top Democrat on the Energy Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator from 
California yielding me some time to speak and briefly express the point 
of view that I expressed when we debated this bill last year.
  As all of us know, this issue has been a perennial one. It comes back 
all the time in the Senate and has now for several decades. I rise to 
support the amendment of the Senator from California. The amendment 
would strike the provisions from the budget resolution that essentially 
pave the way for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
oil and gas development.
  There are various reasons, both related to national security and 
related to the environment, that lead me to conclude that I do not 
support going ahead with oil and gas leasing and development of the 
Arctic Refuge. The most compelling reason for not opening the refuge is 
that it will do very little, if anything, to further our national 
energy security. Not a single drop of oil would come from the Arctic 
Refuge for at least 7 years and more likely 10 or 12 years.

  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment for the 
following reasons:
  First, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not an answer to the problem 
of energy security. This chart is familiar to any who were here during 
the debate on the energy bill last year. The U.S. Geological Survey 
estimates the mean economically recoverable oil on Federal lands on the 
Costal Plain of the Refuge at somewhere between 3.2 and 5.2 billion 
barrels and that is at prices of somewhere between $20 and $24 per 
barrel, in 1996 dollars. Clearly, prices are higher today.
  The Arctic Refuge would supply no more than 2 percent of America's 
oil demand in any given year. This chart shows the U.S. oil consumption 
in million barrels per day. The top line is the total oil demand. 
Below, the green line, is domestic oil production. The small red line 
is the ANWR production. Relative to our total consumption it is a small 
item. It will be at least 7 years, more likely 10 to 12, before there 
is actual production on the Coastal Plain if we were to vote today to 
open this area for production. Peak production would not occur for 20 
years or more after the initial production started.
  Another chart shows the same point in a slightly different way, that 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not address in a significant way our 
reliance on imported oil. This chart contains information from the 
Energy Information Administration. The green line indicates the net 
imports with ANWR production and the blue line is net imports without 
production from ANWR. According to our own Energy Information 
Administration, which is part of this administration, they show that 
production would begin in about 2012 and production from ANWR of oil, 
any significant oil, would end by about 2025. Then we are right back 
where we started.
  So our dependence on foreign imports to meet our oil demand will 
continue to grow. It will not grow as much during those years when ANWR 
is in production, but it will grow a substantial amount. The Energy 
Information Agency estimates that production from the Arctic Refuge 
would reduce the net share of foreign oil relied on by consumers from 
62 percent to 60 percent by the year 2020. As this chart shows, by 2025 
we are right back to no reduction as a result of ANWR production 
because ANWR production will have largely played out by that time.
  Another reason I offer to my colleagues today in support of the 
amendment, is that a controversy over the Arctic Refuge diverts 
attention from the real opportunities we have for enhancing domestic 
energy production. There are other ways we can expand production.
  Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Domenici, and I introduced 
the Energy Tax Incentives Act the other day. Unlike the opening of the 
Arctic Refuge, this legislation would provide near-term increases in 
domestic energy production. Not only does the legislation include tax 
provisions that would help us diversify our energy supply and increase 
our reliance on renewable sources of energy and enhance energy 
efficiency, it would also provide specific incentives for increased oil 
and gas production.
  Some would ask, from where is this oil and gas production going to 
come? I have another chart that makes a point people do not focus on. 
This is a map of the North Slope of Alaska showing the ANWR area on the 
right, the 1002 area. It shows the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, 
the large tan-colored area on the map. The National Petroleum Reserve 
Alaska is an area that has begun to be leased by the Department of the 
Interior. Secretary Babbitt began that process when he was in office. 
Secretary Norton is proceeding with that. Frankly, I support going 
ahead with drilling in that area. There is a substantial likelihood of 
very large energy production from that area. There is a real prospect 
of increased oil and gas production from the North Slope.

  Let me mention gas production. I indicated one of the reasons we 
should not focus on ANWR is that it is diverting our attention from our 
other opportunities to deal with our energy needs. One of those great 
opportunities is to bring the gas production from the

[[Page S3915]]

North Slope of Alaska, gas that is already being produced and 
reinjected into the ground, bring that gas down to the Lower 48 States. 
We tried very hard in the last Congress to pass legislation to 
streamline the process for getting a pipeline constructed. I strongly 
support that. We need a pipeline to bring that natural gas to the Lower 
48. Anyone who is dependent upon natural gas for home heating today 
knows the price is high. They are going to notice it even more over the 
next 2 or 3 months as they get the bills during this period of high 
natural gas prices. The best opportunity we have to relieve that 
pressure is building that pipeline to bring Arctic gas down to the 
Lower 48. That is what we should concentrate on: develop more oil from 
the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, bring the gas already produced 
on the North Slope down to the Lower 48. I hope we can do that.
  I also make the point that we need to continue to emphasize 
developing alternative sources of energy. That is something we will get 
into in a large way when we debate a new energy bill this Congress, a 
new proposed energy bill, and we can make the point again.
  The solution to our long-term energy problems is not to open the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. It is an environmentally 
sensitive area, one we have determined to keep off bounds, out of 
bounds, for drilling up until now. I believe that is a sound policy.
  In conclusion, there are many reasons why the Coastal Plain of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not needed and should not be drilled 
for oil and gas. The environmental sensitivity of the area is clearly 
well recognized by all. Opening the Refuge is not good environmental 
policy. Equally important, it is far from necessary as part of our 
national energy policy.
  I urge my colleagues to join in opposition to the oil and gas leasing 
and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to support 
this amendment by the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding Senator Boxer has yielded me 5 
minutes.
  I say to my colleagues who follow this debate, take a look at this 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If you look at the National Academy of 
Sciences' recent report, it is clear that drilling for oil in this 
wildlife refuge in the far reaches of Alaska is environmentally 
dangerous. There are some who write that off and say if we get more oil 
out of it and create some jobs, so what. Frankly, that is 
irresponsible.
  We have a responsibility in this generation to leave to the next 
generation the natural heritage that we were given. If we are not 
forced to go to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the survival of 
the United States or its economy, for goodness' sake, why would we run 
the risk to endanger this important National Wildlife Refuge that we 
have protected for over 50 years?
  Second, this is as shortsighted as it gets, to suggest the only way 
to deal with energy security in the United States is for us to start 
drilling in wildlife refuges, that small part of the world we set aside 
to protect endangered species, topography, and environment that you 
cannot find anywhere else on Earth. Now the oil companies tell us: I'm 
sorry, our energy needs are so substantial, we have to start drilling 
there?
  I say to the young people in America: Following this debate, take a 
look at the parking lots across America if you want to know what to do 
about energy. Take a look at the inefficient vehicles we are driving on 
the road today because this Congress and this country has not shown the 
leadership to have more efficient cars and trucks in America. We can do 
it. We have done it in the past. But this bill, this issue, is 
consistent with what I am afraid is the wrong message to America.
  The message in this bill is: We may be minutes away from a war where 
thousands of American lives are at risk, we may be faced with terrible 
news for families across America and death in Iraq to innocent Iraqis, 
but we can still call for a tax cut for the wealthiest people in 
America. The message in this amendment is: We may face the question and 
challenge of energy security, but rather than to say to American 
families, Do your part, buy vehicles that are more efficient, and to 
Detroit, produce those vehicles--instead of that, no, we are going to 
drill for oil in a wildlife refuge in Alaska. Is that what America has 
come to? Is that what we are all about? Don't we expect our leaders to 
summon us to show our best, to sacrifice for our Nation so we can lead 
and demonstrate to future generations that we care about our natural 
heritage, we care about our spirit of national sacrifice?
  This is an amendment that should be defeated. The Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge should not be drilled. We should not move forward with 
this exploration. And this bill calling for tax breaks for the 
wealthiest people in America as we are poised to go to war is a 
shameful bill. It is something we should not be considering on the 
floor of the Senate at this moment in our history. This amendment, if I 
understand it correctly, will not change the budget levels. This 
amendment failed by only 1 vote, on a party-line vote, in committee. 
But I believe we will win it now.

  Let me begin by saying that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
provision has no place in the budget. For those who want to propose oil 
and gas development in this area of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, we can debate that in a more appropriate context, such as the 
energy bill. This important issue should not be snuck into the budget 
through a legislative back door, but should be debated in an open, 
honest way through the normal legislative process.
  Let me also note that the full Senate has already defeated proposals 
to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because it is bad 
policy. We should end this perennial debate once and for all, and move 
to more reasonable matters that deserve the Senate's attention. There 
are better, longer-term solutions to our energy crisis than drilling in 
our few remaining frontier areas, including making automobiles more 
fuel efficient.
  The Refuge is not the answer to energy problems. The most stunning 
statistic in this whole debate is that the Arctic coastal plain would 
only yield 6 months' worth of oil for our country; and we wouldn't get 
it for 10 years. And this is under the most optimistic assumptions.
  There is no doubt that we are over-dependent on foreign oil in our 
country. We need to address this issue on multiple fronts, including by 
exploring alternative sources of energy, such as fuel cells, and by 
promoting efficiency and thereby reducing consumption. I have talked 
with coal developers who say that we may be able to use coal to isolate 
hydrogen for use in fuel cells in automobiles. I have also talked with 
automobiles researchers, who have told me of myriad existing 
technologies to improve fuel efficiency in the transportation sector, 
the largest user of oil.
  So to say that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only answer 
to our energy questions in completely off-base. In fact, it is not even 
one of the viable answers, because it holds so little oil compared to 
what we demand as a country.
  The Refuge deserves protection. The 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a clear candidate for protection 
under the Wilderness Act of 1964. That is why I am cosponsoring Senator 
Lieberman's bill to designate this 1.5 million acre area as wilderness. 
This swath of land is surrounded on three sides by 8 million acres of 
land already designated as wilderness.
  The Arctic Refuge includes boreal forests, dramatic peaks, and 
tundra. If features a complete range of arctic and subarctic 
ecosystems, with an extraordinary assemblage of wildlife. Polar and 
grizzly bears, wolves, muskoxen, and snow geese are just a few of the 
more than 200 animal species that use the coastal plain. Also the 
coastal plain is the most significant on-land polar bear denning 
habitat in the U.S. In addition, the 155,000 member porcupine caribou 
herd has used the coastal plain as a calving area for 20,000 years or 
more. There is no alternative to this sensitive habitat for the caribou 
herd.
  Research has documented the ecological importance of this land, and 
the effects of oil and gas development there. On March 5, 2003, the 
National Academy of Sciences released a new report that details the 
serious, detrimental, and cumulative effects of oil

[[Page S3916]]

and gas activities on Alaska's North Slope. The report finds numerous 
effects, including ``a large oil spill in marine waters [which border 
the coastal plain] would likely have substantial accumulating effects 
on whales and other receptors because [current cleanup efforts are 
inadequate].'' This is especially significant, given that there is an 
average of 423 oil spills annually on the North Slope.
  The report also finds that species population decline, including 
reduction of some bird species such as black brant, snow geese, eiders 
and probably some shorebirds, is common in industrial areas in the 
North Slope.
  In an important new discovery, the report finds ``climate changes 
during the past several decades on the North Slope have been unusually 
rapid.'' Climate changes can change ice flow and the entire ecosystem 
of this area.
  The report further finds that only about 100 acres--1 percent--of the 
habitat affected by gravel fill on the North Slope have been restored. 
The National Academy of Sciences concluded that unless major changes 
occur, it is unlikely that most disturbed habitat on the North Slope 
will ever be restored. Because natural recovery in the arctic is slow, 
effects of unrestored structures are likely to persist for centuries, 
and will accumulate as new structures are added.
  Environmental impacts of oil and gas development are real, and that 
is why we need to site such activities in a careful, responsible 
manner.
  In conclusion, Aldo Leopold, the long-time Forest Service employee 
and conservationist said it best in 1949: ``Having to squeeze the last 
drop of utility out of the land has the same desperate finality as 
having to chop up the furniture to keep warm.''
  The Arctic Refuge is one of the last, remaining wilderness areas 
awaiting protection. Let's not destroy it; let's save it. And let's end 
this perennial debate once and for all. There are better, longer-term 
solutions to our energy crisis than drilling in our few remaining 
frontier areas, including making automobiles more fuel-efficient. And 
if we want to debate energy policy, the budget resolution debate is not 
the time to do it.
  Out of respect for the proper legislative process, and out of respect 
for the seriousness of this decision in terms of energy and environment 
issues, and in terms of the impacts on the present and future 
generations of this country, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boxer 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield his remaining time for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wonder if the Senator had seen this chart which shows 
by the year 2030 how much energy is yielded by these various factors. 
This would be how much energy we would get from the Arctic Refuge 
production, 2.38 billion barrels of oil. If we just put better tires on 
our cars, it would result in better fuel economy, we would save more 
energy.
  If we just closed the SUV loophole, meaning we got those SUVs up to 
the same mileage as cars, we would save 10 billion barrels. And, by the 
way, if we did fuel economy, as my friend suggested, up to 35 miles per 
gallon, which is very modest, look at what it would save: 18 billion 
barrels. Here is what the Arctic gets us, and we destroy a region that 
looks like this, instead of going this way.
  Mr. DURBIN. I know my time is running out. I just want to say, when 
you turn to the conservatives in Congress and say: Can't we improve the 
efficiency of our vehicles? No, that's the heavy hand of Government.
  Let me tell you, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
the heavy hand of Government in a part of our world we should be 
protecting. It is saying to oil companies, make a profit so we don't 
have to ask American families and automobile manufacturers to do the 
right thing for our future.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to take 1 extra minute off the 
bill, if I might, to simply send to the desk a letter from Jimmy 
Carter, former President Jimmy Carter. Last night it was implied by 
several colleagues--I have their words actually--I will not go through 
them now--that President Carter supports drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. Just to quote from a little bit of his 
letter, he says:

       We can have the untouched sublime wilderness. Or we can 
     have oil field development. But we cannot have both.
       Opening the coastal plain for oil exploration and 
     development would be, despite all the much-vaunted 
     technological promises, severely damaging to wildlife and the 
     ecosystem. And it is inherently fatal to the wilderness 
     qualities of this matchless example of America's natural 
     heritage.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            The Carter Center,

                                   Atlanta, GA, February 27, 2002.
     The Honorable Senator,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: Every decade or so we seem to have a great 
     national debate about whether or not to preserve the very 
     best of our natural heritage. In the 1960s it was over 
     building dams in the Grand Canyon, a desecration comparable 
     to oil drilling in Yosemite or Yellowstone.
       Now, an equally significant showdown is over the fate of 
     the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an 
     area first set aside for protection by President Dwight 
     Eisenhower.
       Rosalynn and I have crouched on a peninsula in the Beaufort 
     Sea to watch the defensive circling of musk oxen that 
     perceived us as a threat to their young. We have sat in 
     profound wonder on the tundra near the Jago River as 80,000 
     caribou streamed around and past us in their timeless 
     migration from vital calving grounds on the coastal plain. We 
     have watched dens of wolves, large flocks of Dall Sheep, and 
     isolated polar bears. These phenomena of the untrammeled 
     earth are what lead wildlife experts to characterize the 
     coastal plain as America's Serengeti.
       Having raveled extensively in this unique wilderness, I 
     feel very strongly about its incredible natural values. I 
     hope you will not be distracted by the argument that oil 
     exploration and development will have minimal impact because 
     the ``footprint'' of modern drilling technology will be small 
     amid the 1,500,000 acres of the coastal plain.
       This simply is not true. While a precise measurement of the 
     exact acres finally to be covered by drill pads, gravel pits, 
     access roads, air fields and the vast spider-web of pipelines 
     might not exceed 2,000 acres, these acres would be spread 
     across a far wider expanse, covering hundreds of square 
     miles, connected by a network of modern transportation 
     routes. The impacts on the fragile tundra ecosystem, on 
     migratory waterfowl and on other wildlife would be much 
     greater than the claims of the oil drillers.
       The point I want to stress to you is that, as with the 
     proposed dams in the Grand Canyon years ago, we face on the 
     Arctic coastal plain a choice about fundamentals. We can have 
     the untouched, sublime wilderness. Or we can have oil field 
     development.
       But we cannot have both.
       Opening of the coastal plain for oil exploration and 
     development would be, despite all the much-vaunted 
     technological promises, severely damaging to wildlife and the 
     ecosystem. And it is inherently fatal to the wilderness 
     qualities of this matchless example of America's natural 
     heritage.
       Through compromises that began more than four decades ago 
     and were concluded when I signed the Alaska National Interest 
     Lands Conservation Act in 1980, 95% of Alaska's North Slope 
     has already been made available for oil exploration or 
     development. We should not sacrifice the last 5%--the area 
     scientists call the ``biological heart of the Arctic 
     Refuge''--for a speculative short-term fix of oil a decade 
     from now.
       As with previous great environmental debates, this issue 
     has assumed gigantic symbolic stature, as some have elevated 
     it as the alleged ``solution'' to everything from higher gas 
     prices to terrorist threats.
       The truth is we could drill every national park, wildlife 
     refuge, and coastline and still be importing more than half 
     our oil, remaining just as vulnerable to the price 
     fluctuations of the global oil market. By contrast, raising 
     the fuel economy of our cars and trucks would save far more 
     of then we import from the Persian Gulf, reduce greenhouse 
     gas emissions, and save billions for American consumers. To 
     put this in perspective, had the United States continued to 
     conserve oil at the same rate we did from 1976 to 1985, we 
     could have weaned ourselves from Middle East oil fifteen 
     years ago.
       I urge you to pass a cleaner and safer energy plan that 
     enhances our security without undermining our nations' great 
     wilderness heritage. Please vote against cloture on any 
     amendment that would authorize oil drilling in any part of 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jimmy Carter.

  Mrs. BOXER. I now yield 5 minutes to Senator Patty Murray who has 
also been a tremendous voice for the environment here in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I rise this morning to support the amendment of my 
colleague from California, Senator Boxer, that will stop this backdoor 
attempt to

[[Page S3917]]

drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I spoke several days ago here on the floor of the Senate at great 
length about what this budget proposal would do, the budget resolution 
that is before the Senate, and how reckless it is. It ignores the cost 
of war, it ignores the cost of the aftermath in Iraq, and it underfunds 
critical priorities here at home such as homeland security, education, 
and transportation.
  But I am appalled that there is something else buried in this massive 
budget that needs to be removed. The budget now before the Senate 
actually assumes increased spending that will result from opening ANWR 
up to exploration and drilling, even though the Senate clearly rejected 
that last year. Exploration and drilling in ANWR is a controversial 
issue, and it should be fully debated. But the appropriate place for 
that debate is on the energy bill which the Senate will consider in the 
coming months.
  Last year, this Senate soundly rejected efforts to open ANWR to 
exploration and to drilling. This year, proponents of drilling are 
using a backdoor approach to try to get support for ANWR in this budget 
reconciliation. The amendment that has been offered by my colleague 
from California will strike that language and leave the ANWR debate 
where it belongs, as part of the upcoming debate on an energy bill.
  The budget reconciliation process was enacted actually to help us 
reduce our deficit. That is even more important now that our country is 
back in red ink. Instead of supporting a process that helps reduce our 
deficit, proponents of drilling are using it to pass something the 
Senate rejected last year.

  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important and unique 
national treasure. It is the only conservation system in North America 
that protects a complete spectrum of arctic ecosystems. It is the most 
biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge. Energy exploration 
in ANWR would have a significant impact on this unique ecosystem.
  I have heard the proponents of this measure argue over the years that 
energy exploration has become what they call more environmentally 
friendly. That may be true. But there are significant environmental 
impacts for this sensitive region. The oil reserves in ANWR, in fact 
the oil reserves in the entire United States, are not enough to 
significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  There are ways to reduce our need for foreign oil. My colleague, the 
Senator from Illinois, spoke about that a moment ago. We can increase 
the fuel economy of our automobiles and lightweight trucks. We can 
reduce our need for foreign oil by expanding the use of domestically 
produced renewable and alternative fuels. We can invest in emerging 
technologies such as fuel cells and solar electric cars, and we can 
increase the energy efficiency of our office buildings and homes. Those 
kinds of strategies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 
protect one of our Nation's most precious resources. That is what we 
should be focusing on.
  I think we should also remember the amount of oil in ANWR is too 
small to significantly improve our current energy problems. The oil 
exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as many 
as 10 years.
  Exploring and drilling for oil and gas in ANWR is not forward 
thinking. It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. The 
Senate should soundly reject this backdoor attempt to use the budget 
process to embrace drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when 
so many in the Senate oppose it. We should debate drilling in ANWR when 
the Senate energy bill comes up, but we should not make a decision on 
drilling in this budget resolution.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment by the 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield her remaining time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my remaining time to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I appreciate her raising the issue of 
the safety here because in the Prudhoe Bay oil field and the Trans-
Alaska we have seen an average 423 spills annually on the North Slope 
since 1996, and that is according to the Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation. Over 1.7 million gallons of 40 different 
substances, from acid to waste oil, have been spilled during routine 
operations from 1996 to 2002. There were 2,958 spills, commonly diesel, 
crude oil, and hydraulic oil.
  My friend is right. Maybe years ago they would have been worse 
spills, but the fact is there are terrible spills now.
  I see that my colleague's time is up. I thank the Senator for 
participating.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Stabenow from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for up 
to 5 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, as I begin, I know I share the 
feelings of all my colleagues, as we are debating this budget 
resolution and this important amendment, that our thoughts and prayers 
go to the men and women who are overseas, our troops who are being 
placed in harm's way. Regardless of our feelings about the policies 
that have brought us to this point, we all stand united in supporting 
our troops. It makes these kinds of debates even more important.
  I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I commend the 
Senator from California for her steadfast leadership on this issue, 
along with a number of colleagues of mine who have consistently stood 
firm about protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I have been pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation to stop drilling 
since first coming to the House in 1997. I also am proud to be the 
author of the ban that we placed on drilling in the Great Lakes, 
another national treasure. I view this area in Alaska as much of an 
irreplaceable and fragile natural and national treasure as the Great 
Lakes. I am very hopeful that today we will, one more time, stop this 
particular drilling policy from moving forward.
  I would like to, once again, speak about some of the same points my 
colleagues have spoken of because I believe we have to keep repeating 
them to make it clear what the facts are.
  First of all, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is, in fact, one of 
the wildest and most pristine places in the United States. We have an 
obligation to protect this area for the future, for those who are 
counting on us to be able to look beyond the immediate time period and 
look to the future for our country and for our children.
  I believe we also have an obligation to stop back-door approaches to 
this issue. We are seeing, one more time, the drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge being placed in a bill where it should not be. 
This is a budget bill. We are focusing on the budget priorities for the 
next year.
  Frankly, we should be debating how much the war is going to cost, and 
making sure our folks on the front line, and our first responders at 
home, police and firefighters and emergency workers, have what they 
need as we enter this very challenging time. Those are the kinds of 
things we should be debating, not seeing a back-door approach to 
drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  Most importantly, we know that drilling in the wildlife refuge will 
not result in energy independence. This is talked about all of the 
time, but it needs to be repeated, that only 2 percent--if we were to 
drill, we are talking about 2 percent of America's oil demand every 
year; and it would take at least 10 years to begin to see this brought 
on to the market.
  We are talking about 2 percent rather than focusing on other areas of 
energy policy that will net alternatives in terms of conservation: 
alternative vehicles, alternative fuels, all of those kinds of things 
we know will allow us to become energy independent sooner and more 
effectively for the long run.
  It is impossible for the United States to drill its way to energy 
security and independence. What we need to have is a debate about the 
energy policy of the country and how we are going to move forward. And 
that needs to be done in the energy bill, not in the middle of the 
budget resolution.
  I am concerned when I hear this particular debate tied to Iraq, the 
serious debate about war and the oil in Iraq. It is important to say 
that gas prices are determined by global supply and demand factors, as 
we all know, not by opening one area to drilling.

[[Page S3918]]

  In addition, Iraq supplies a very small percentage of our U.S. energy 
needs. According to the EIA, only 1.5 percent of the Nation's energy 
supply comes from Iraq. Imports from Iraq were banned in 1990 in the 
wake of the Persian Gulf war, and we obtained no oil from 1991 to 
1995--all with no impact on the greatest economic expansion in U.S. 
history. The fact is, Canada and Mexico together supply more oil to the 
U.S. than the entire Persian Gulf.
  So I encourage my colleagues to join with us in support of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Who yields 
time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I, on this issue, yield as much time to 
myself as I shall need. I ask unanimous consent to do that, and that 
the time come off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I don't know exactly where to begin on this 
particular subject. But I would like for the American taxpayers to 
understand one thing: We maintain a strategic oil reserve. It is 700 
million barrels of oil that is stored in salt caves in Louisiana. It 
costs us $175 million a year to maintain the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. I just want the taxpayers to know what they are paying for.
  The fact is, part of that oil was purchased by this Government and 
put in there, but most of it was taken from royalties. They took the 
oil instead of the money. And that was recovered on the Outer 
Continental Shelf or from public lands. So it is there: 700 million 
barrels of oil that costs the taxpayers $180 million a year to 
maintain.
  I suggest that we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is not 
costing the American people a thing. It is still in the ground in North 
Dakota, found on public lands, where we cannot get to it. It is found 
in Montana, on public lands, where we cannot get to it. That is because 
of organizations that deal primarily in fear, not common sense.
  Abraham Lincoln once said: God must have loved the common man because 
he made so many of us. Then, when we use the same term in the phrase 
``common sense,'' that sort of changes the definition a little bit.
  That Strategic Petroleum Reserve is also maintained, and it is still 
in the ground in ANWR. We do not know how big that reserve is. It has 
been estimated to be anywhere from 5.3 billion barrels upwards. Does it 
answer the question of our shortage? Does it take care of all of that? 
No, it does not. We know that. But, on the other hand, it replaces all 
the oil we buy that is termed ``rogue'' oil--Iraqi oil that we give 
hard dollars for and that you contribute to every time you fill your 
tank at a filling station.
  What is that money used for? We have seen it on television every 
night for the past month and a half. We know what that money is being 
used for. We give it to a tyrant who uses that money to subsidize 
families, to entice them to take one of their children and strap 
dynamite on them and walk onto a bus and blow themselves up, and for 
the development of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological 
warfare. That is what that money has done.
  And yet we sit here today trying again to ban the use of a resource 
that is not only one of the major underpinnings to our economy, but 
also takes away from that $180 million a year we spend to maintain that 
SPR in case of an emergency. That is 90 days. It wouldn't even last 90 
days. We would just go through it, bingo. It defies common sense, what 
we are doing here.

  As far as my State of Montana is concerned, I don't know what the 
impact is. I know during the major exploration and lifting of Prudhoe 
Bay and the North Slope when it opened up, probably 1,500 families in 
Montana worked on the North Slope. It provided a lot of jobs. I am not 
saying that their figure here on the creation of jobs is what some 
would claim, but it isn't zero, I will guarantee you that. It is going 
to put a lot of people to work. Maybe jobs only are important to us if 
they are just in our home state. Maybe it is the welfare of the people 
if it is just in our State. But the impact it has on Alaska is 
terrific, on the people who live there, work there, raise their 
families there, provide services there.
  If you wanted to put it to a vote in Alaska, this debate wouldn't 
even be taking place. The Native Alaskans; ask them, take a vote among 
them, if we really believe in this 50 percent plus 1. It is their 
income. This is just about all they have.
  What you see of the pictures over there is a result of a 30-day 
growing season. Any other time I would look with great interest at a 
photograph that was being displayed last night of the caribou that was 
out in the water. They had water clear up over their back going into 
the sea up there. Do you know why they are standing in that water, 
folks? It is not to cool off. Because they have mosquitos up there that 
are big enough to turn over your dog tags and check your blood type. 
That is what they are getting away from. It is a hostile environment.
  What are we doing here with the new technology: I mentioned a while 
ago the jobs of the families who are affected in my State. Those kinds 
of jobs have moved on. New technology has taken over. We drill 
differently now. We do it all differently with horizontal drilling 
practices, with one little area impacted. You may see the wells. It 
wouldn't be the size of the Chamber of the Senate. It may have a dozen 
wells. That is the way we do it now. Technology has moved on.
  I was interested in the words of my good friend, the Senator from 
Michigan, and the Senator from California. And by the way, California 
consumes 12 percent of all of the transportation fuels produced in this 
country. Yet we cannot drill on the Outer Continental Shelf of 
California. There is a moratorium on that. There is a moratorium on 
Florida. They are quick to talk about the Gulf of Mexico and off the 
coast of Louisiana and Alabama. We can't drill off the east coast, yet 
Canada does. When you get north of the border, they drill all the way 
offshore almost to Iceland. If you want to go east of the United States 
and the Canadian line and the northern territories off Alaska, you have 
gas and oil production all across Canada. The largest exporter of 
energy to this country is Canada, both in crude and in gas.
  Yet the United States is being denied our own resource in our own 
country to supply the heat and the transportation fuels for our own 
people and our own security. And groups would manipulate information on 
ANWR to deny the American people when common sense tells you it is just 
the other way. Those of us who live near and some of us on public lands 
understand what the thinking is.
  I will tell you this, as we talk about this total resolution. If you 
want to see something happen, this President has offered a way to 
stimulate the economy and to have it going when those young men and 
young women come home from the gulf and they go back into the 
workforce. Do you want them to come back into a sluggish economy? Is 
that what we want to do here? Do we want to take a sluggish economy and 
pound it down further and have no opportunities for them outside of 
military life, those reservists and also those who serve in the 
National Guard?

  We are finding out the cost of 50 percent of our force structure and 
military is at home now and not found on military bases, full-time 
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. This is a part of that growth 
package. This is a part of a package that shows immediate return to the 
American taxpayer and also gives us that security, our own home 
security, if it is ever needed. What is wrong with finding out how much 
oil we really have? We can't even explore, let alone lift. And we are 
doing it based on thinking and facts that do not heed common sense. It 
is groups, little tiny groups that propagate misinformation and do it 
on an emotional ``green, fuzzy'' resolution. That you would deny people 
a livelihood, deny them food, deny them the basic needs of education 
and health care in the State of Alaska based on misinformation, that 
can't make one feel very good.
  So if we are looking for job creation, if we are looking for energy 
security, if we want to do away with this little ticket of $175 million 
a year just to maintain oil in salt caves, then when you get the bottom 
line, the answer is

[[Page S3919]]

pretty clear--let alone the promise that this Congress made to the 
State of Alaska whenever they passed the land bill there and also 
created the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
  By the way, we are breaking that word, too. That rests on the backs 
of Congress. So I ask for those who live there, the Natives who were 
raised there, with their traditions--I will tell you, I don't know if 
you have ever seen the caribou come across there. The area is not short 
of wildlife--not from the impact of Prudhoe and North Slope. All the 
benefits that have gone to Alaska and to America as a result of that 
tremendous resource--those tremendous reserves, in a part of the world 
that is fragile, yes; all land is fragile, but it is a land we can take 
care of and still use the resources it provides.
  I ask my colleagues to use some common sense. Go through the same 
figures I have. If you get a different number, you let me know, because 
I am just a country boy; I count bushels and heads of livestock. But 
when you get to the bottom line, it is a plus for America, a plus for 
our security, a plus for jobs, and it is also a plus for the great 
State of Alaska.
  Our technology has not gotten us to the point where we can safely and 
economically do in our transportation fuels, using fuel cells and 
biomass, anything you want to do. That technology is not there yet, 
folks. If you want to cut off the oil today, you will see how fast this 
economy would crumble. But you cannot talk economy, you cannot talk 
numbers, because this is an emotional debate. It is wrong. It is wrong 
to do it to the State of Alaska, and it is wrong to do it to America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from North Dakota 
yield such time as I may consume.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to do so.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are doing our best, in accordance with 
the direction we have gotten from the majority leader, to move this 
bill along. We are trying. I spoke to the manager of the bill this 
morning, and we are trying to do that. We want to offer other 
amendments. We have a couple of minutes left to speak on ANWR. We want 
to offer other amendments. We were ready to vote on ANWR last night, or 
this morning, or early this afternoon--anytime. We need to move this 
legislation along, and we are doing the very best we can, but we have 
amendments we have to offer.
  I hope we have the opportunity to do that. The time is quickly 
dwindling, and we are doing our best not to have many votes on the 
vote-athon; but with each day that goes by, it appears there will have 
to be more because people are not having the opportunity to offer 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time for the 
comments I am about to make.
  The decision whether or not to allow drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is a defining moment for national energy and 
environmental policy.
  This debate reflects two divergent views of our Nation's values and 
future.
  We have a choice: Either we can continue building oil wells in 
environmentally sensitive areas or we can reject the quick fix and 
broaden our Nation's energy base while honoring our commitment to our 
natural heritage.
  It has become apparent that America depends too heavily on some very 
undependable foreign sources of oil.
  Hostilities in Iraq are just the latest chapter in decades of 
instability in the Persian Gulf.
  Meanwhile, production of oil in Venezuela has been brought to a near 
standstill because of domestic unrest.
  For the sake of our economy, for the sake of national security, and 
for the sake of our environment, America must reduce its reliance on 
foreign oil.
  But instead of diversifying energy supply, investing in new 
technologies and promoting efficiency, the Bush administration's 
priority is to look for the next big domestic oil field.
  Last year, the Senate rejected the Republicans' effort to authorize 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in comprehensive energy 
legislation. Now they are back attempting to use the budget resolution 
to grease a change they couldn't make in the energy bill.
  No matter how clever they view this parliamentary sleight of hand, 
the proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge cannot escape the 
facts.
  While endangering one of the most pristine areas in the world, 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do nothing to 
make our country more energy independent.
  We cannot sit silently by while the administration promotes a short-
sighted strategy that mortgages one of our most precious and 
irreplaceable wild spaces for a few months' supply of oil.
  Gasoline prices are soaring today. Yet this proposal would add 
nothing to our oil supply for 10 years.
  Even then, the Arctic Refuge would supply our country with no more 
than 6 months' worth of oil and would reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil by just 2 percent.
  This is not a serious attempt to come to grips with America's long-
term energy needs. America cannot drill its way out of this problem.
  Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is already open to 
drilling and exploration. Even if we drilled in the last 5 percent, 
even if we drilled in the backyards of every American, we could not 
satisfy our Nation's appetite for oil.
  America produces just 3 percent of the world's oil; yet we consume 25 
percent of that supply.
  The answer to our energy challenge will not be found in the Arctic 
Refuge.
  The answer will be found in our willingness to encourage American 
innovation and break the habit of spiraling energy consumption. We have 
met this test in the past.
  In the 1970s, Congress increased fuel efficiency standards and began 
to encourage the development of renewable fuels.
  Today, those fuel efficiency standards save our country the cost of 3 
million barrels of oil every day.
  That, and a wide range of clean, domestic, renewable energy 
technologies would dwarf any contribution the Arctic Refuge could make 
in the future.
  Meanwhile, if drilling in the Arctic Refuge is authorized, our lack 
of vision would come at enormous cost.
  According to the administration's own Fish and Wildlife Service, 
``The Arctic refuge is among the most complete, pristine, and 
undisturbed ecosystems on Earth . . . a combination of habitats, 
climate and geography unmatched by any other northern conservation 
area.''
  There is no alternative to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge once it is 
despoiled. But there is an alternative to this reckless proposal:
  A true national energy strategy that speaks to our core environmental 
values while at the same time frees our country from the dictates and 
uncertain fortunes of foreign oil producers.
  Now more than ever, we should be aware of the real cost of dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Now more than ever, we need real answers and serious stewardship to 
the energy challenges of our Nation's future.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote to strike the 
authorization to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
from the budget resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for 
yielding the time to me to talk about the Boxer amendment and talk 
about the decision we could be making very shortly about the use of oil 
from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. President, what happens is, as these debates get going, sometimes 
we hear statements that are somewhat misconstrued or mistaken. We just 
heard it suggested on the floor that funds from the purchase of Iraq 
oil are used to purchase bombs. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. The fact is, that money is passed through the United Nations to 
buy food to be distributed to the people of Iraq. There is no way that 
money can be used to buy

[[Page S3920]]

bombs. It is important we keep the record straight.

  I want so much to see the Boxer amendment prevail, but in order to 
make the case, apparently, we have to do more than simply justify the 
fact that if we did not do this, we could find other ways to conserve 
oil and not have to invade this snow desert, if one has ever seen it. 
It is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and the last thing 
we ought to do is turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an 
oilfield.
  I traveled to Alaska in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill in 
1989. At the time, I was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee, so I had jurisdiction over Coast Guard funding. I was 
also a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. So 
I had a great deal of interest in the Valdez incident.
  What I saw was shocking, stunning almost. Over 11 million gallons of 
oil spilled into the Prince William Sound. I witnessed beautiful 
wildlife covered in oil, many dead or dying. I saw workers from the 
Department of the Interior, the fire service, and others hand wiping 
oil off birds and other wildlife. It was a devastating tragedy.
  The disaster left a major impression on me. I thought about my 
children, my grandchildren, other people's children, and other people's 
grandchildren. I never wanted to see the dismay on their faces should 
they ever witness this tragedy.
  To this day, 14 years later, the area remains contaminated with a 
persistence that has surprised many scientists. Sadly, the optimistic 
predictions of its recovery proved to be unjustified. Fully 60 percent 
of the area remains contaminated. Pools of toxic oil are still being 
found several feet deep.
  Ecosystems, such as those in Prince William Sound and the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, are so fragile, they are such delicate 
treasures of our Nation.
  I had the privilege of visiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
at the same time, and I can tell you, from personal experience, that in 
addition to the damage caused by drilling and oilspills, the debris of 
human intrusion, acres of rusting pipes and dilapidated structures 
dishonors America's 100-year-old tradition of protecting remote wild 
places.
  On that visit, I flew in a single-engine plane across to a community 
called Deadhorse. It is right near Prudhoe Bay. It was troubling to see 
that area, the tundra littered by refuse left by the same oil companies 
that now avow they will be good environmental stewards should the 
Arctic Refuge be open to drilling.
  Why would we risk devastating these national treasures? For what 
gain?
  There is a dispute as to whether it is a 6-month oil supply or more 
that we will see from the Arctic Refuge, but for this short-term gain, 
what is the long-term risk, the cost?
  I believe the long-term damage is too great. Turning this refuge into 
an oilfield will result in the loss of a national treasure we will 
never be able to replace. Look at what is happening on the North Slope. 
The National Research Council's new report shows that oil drilling on 
the North Slope has drastically reduced the population of nesting 
birds, such as the snow geese, and seismic exploration has displaced 
the culturally sacred bowhead whales from their migratory path, 
according to the National Research Council.

  Additional drilling will only compound the stresses on these and the 
200 other animal and bird species that inhabit the region.
  What would the payoff be for recklessly endangering this national 
treasure? We would save more oil than we could drill at the Arctic 
Refuge at the height of production by requiring SUVs to meet the same 
fuel economy standards as regular cars. We never hear talk about 
conservation. We never hear talk about everybody pitching in on the eve 
of a war to economize and use less fuel whenever we can do so.
  There is simply no good reason to endanger this fragile Coastal Plain 
ecosystem.
  More than oil is at stake here. Thoreau wrote:

       In wilderness is the preservation of the world.

  America and the world need the last remaining wilderness places. The 
Arctic wilderness is one of those places. It would be unconscionable to 
despoil it for all time just for a bit of oil. We can find other ways.
  I came across an article that tells us about the risk, a risk we are 
not discussing in pure terms. This is an Internet news report from a 
service called Ananova. The headline is: ``ExxonMobile damages for 
Valdez spill cut to $4 billion from 5; to appeal.'' It is going to be 
appealed further by the ExxonMobile company. They already paid some 
damages to the Alaskans, some money for cleanup, and some money to the 
State and Federal governments. But they have yet to pay a dime for 
punitive damages. This is 1989. We are not talking about recent months 
or even recent years. Fourteen years ago last month that tragedy took 
place, and they have not paid, and they do not want to pay. They are 
going back to court to say, Reduce our damages, even though the court 
the first time assessed them a $9 billion punitive damage claim. They 
are working their way down, and maybe they will get it down to nothing 
one of these days. We ought to stop it right now where it is and not 
permit this to continue. They just want to get their mitts on the money 
that comes from that oil drilling, and it is without regard for the 
consequences.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article by Ananova 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Ananova, December 8, 2002]

ExxonMobil Damages for Valdez Spill Cut to $4 Billion From 5; To Appeal

       A US federal court in the state of Alaska has reduced 
     punitive damages awarded in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill 
     to $4 billion from 5 billion, ExxonMobil Corp said in a 
     statement late on Friday.
       The company, which had been hoping for a far greater 
     reduction in damages, said it plans to appeal against the 
     ruling, saying it is excessive and ``entirely inconsistent 
     with the law.''
       ExxonMobil wanted the damages cut to no more than $40 
     million, a sum which would be ``only slightly less than the 
     largest punitive damages award ever approved by any federal 
     appellate court anywhere.''
       A US appeals court last year sent the case back to the 
     Anchorage District Court with orders to reduce the award to 
     an amount consistent with constitutional limits.
       Company officials said ExxonMobil took immediate 
     responsibility for the spill, cleaned it up, and voluntarily 
     compensated those who claimed direct damages.
       It also paid $300 million immediately and voluntarily to 
     more than 11,000 Alaskans and businesses affected by the 
     spill, 2.2 billion for the cleanup of Prince William Sound, 
     and another 1 billion to state and federal governments.

                   [From Environment, April 20, 1995]

                   Judge Voids Portion of Exxon Fine

       An Alaska state judge, Brian Shortell, ruled that Exxon 
     Corp., did not have to pay $9.7 million in punitive damages 
     to five Alaska native corporations, it was reported March 31. 
     The damages originally had been awarded in recompense for 
     land damage caused by the March 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. 
     The ruling had no effect on the $5 billion in punitive 
     damages that Exxon had been ordered to pay to 14,000 Alaskan 
     natives, fishermen and property owners. [See 1994 
     Environment: Exxon Fined $9.7 Million in `Valdez' Spill, 1994 
     Exxon Fined $5 Billion In `Valdez' Spill; Record Award to 
     fishermen, Natives, 1989 Largest U.S. Oil Spill Fouls Alaska 
     Marine Habitat; Containment Effort Delayed from Onset]
       Shortell said that the corporations already had received 
     adequate compensation from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
     Liability Fund and a $98 million settlement with Alyeska 
     Pipeline Service Co.
                                  ____


                [Exxon Press Release, November 7, 2001]

              Exxon Valdez Appeals Ruling, Stuns Alaskans

                           (By Yereth Rosen)

       Anchorage, Nov. 7.--Exxon Mobil Corp.'s reprieve on 
     Wednesday from a $5 billion punitive fine stunned and angered 
     Alaskans who had sued the energy giant for punitive damages 
     from the 1989 Valdez oil spill disaster.
       The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the fine, 
     ordered by a U.S. District Court jury in 1994 at the close of 
     a summer-long civil trial against Exxon was excessive. The 
     court sent the case back to the trial court for assessment of 
     a new fine.
       One Alaska Native leader in Cordova, the town that is the 
     center of the Prince William Sound commercial fishing 
     industry, described a groundswell of anger at the ruling.
       ``I wouldn't want to be anyone from an oil company in this 
     town today, I'll tell you that,'' said Bob Henrichs, a Native 
     leader in Cordova.
       Anyone associated with Exxon is particularly unwelcome, he 
     said. ``They hired a drunk who couldn't get a license to 
     drive a car and turned him loose with an oil tanker,'' he 
     said.

[[Page S3921]]

       About 40,000 fishermen, Natives, property owners and others 
     affected by the spill sued Exxon over the disaster. Most of 
     the cases were consolidated and heard at the 1994 trial. Many 
     plaintiffs were counting on payments from the punitive 
     verdict to help heal various problems, including a 
     deteriorating fishing economy.
       Now the appeals court ruling has dashed those hopes, said 
     Riki Ott, a Cordova fisherman, marine biologist and 
     environmental activist.
       The ruling means that Exxon Mobil may emerge unpunished for 
     the spill, which continues to harm the area's environment and 
     people, Ott said.
       ``They just go on, business as usual, and try to shove all 
     of us under the carpet by relying on the court system, which 
     favors big corporations,'' she said. ``Exxon has continued to 
     profit off this, and we're all slowly going broke.''


                           Shock and Surprise

       Sue Aspelund, executive director of Cordova District 
     Fishermen United, said she reacted to the news with ``shock 
     and surprise.''
       The fishermen's group on Wednesday was still trying to 
     figure out what to do next, she said. Henrichs, president of 
     a 500-member tribal organization based in Cordova, said his 
     faith in the court system was shaken by the ruling.
       I'd like those judges who made that decision to come up 
     here and confront our people, look us in the eye,'' he said.
       One of the lead attorneys for the spill plaintiffs said he 
     believes the punitive award can be resurrected.
       Attorney Brian O'Neill said arguments over the punitive 
     fine will be made again within months before U.S. District 
     Court Judge H. Russel Holland, who presided over the 1994 
     trial.
       ``And we'll go back and get the $5 billion. Because I think 
     the process was fair, I think the award was fair,'' said 
     O'Neill, who presented most of the plaintiffs' case at the 
     trial.
       ``The thing that I'm sad about and embarrassed about is 
     that it's taken us so long to get here,'' he said. ``It's 
     going to take another year or two longer, but we'll get 
     there.''
       Meanwhile, Henrichs' organization, the Native Village of 
     Eyak, and other Native groups are pushing for stricter 
     regulation of the trans-Alaska pipeline. The 30-year leases 
     that allow the pipeline to operate on state and federal land 
     are up for renewal in 2004.
       Ott is working on a campaign--including a possible new 
     lawsuit against ExxonMobil--to address chronic illnesses that 
     spill cleanup workers said they suffered as a result of 
     working without proper protections.
       The 11 million gallon (50 million liter) spill, the worst 
     tanker disaster in U.S. waters, polluted more than 1,200 
     miles of shoreline and was the deadliest ever to wildlife.
       It killed thousands of marine mammals and hundreds of 
     thousands of seabirds, forced the shutdown of fish harvests 
     and, government scientists say, caused lingering damage to 
     fish, bird and mammal populations.
       The U.S. District Court jury found that reckless behavior 
     by Exxon and tanker captain Joseph Hazelwood had led to the 
     spill. That verdict paved the way for the punitive fine.
       Also during the trial, the jury ordered Exxon to pay $287 
     million in compensation to commercial fishermen, and the 
     company settled some of the Native compensatory claims before 
     the trials's end.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we will wrap up this debate in a very 
short while. We have to look at the full picture. It is not simply 
getting oil here or taking advantage of an opportunity to go into the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to search for more opportunities to 
consume oil at a rate that has never been heard of. We have to step 
back and take a look into the future as to what we want for our 
children and their children.
  I hope the Boxer amendment will get the support it deserves. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New 
Hampshire desire?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I had not calculated it. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire as much time 
as he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. 
As a new Member of the Senate, I bring to this body, as do many of my 
colleagues, experience having served in what we like to refer to as the 
``other body,'' the House of Representatives. Prior to that service, I 
worked in what we sometimes refer to as the ``real world'' in 
manufacturing, having been trained as a mechanical engineer.
  Engineers often try to develop solutions to problems by arguing from 
first principles, and that means simply that you work from the most 
basic understanding of a problem you wish to address. Once you come to 
terms with the central element of that problem, you are far better able 
to craft a meaningful and effective solution.
  What the astute listener might ask is: What does this have to do with 
the Federal budget? And to that I reply, if you really want to put 
together an effective budget and a meaningful budget that will serve us 
well, we need to remind ourselves exactly what this budget resolution 
is for.
  As we listen to much of the budget debate, one might understand or 
come to assume that the budget resolution establishes funding levels 
for every conceivable Federal program, every line item in the budget; 
that it rewrote the Tax Code; that it modernized Medicare, all in and 
of itself without even having the benefit of the President's signature. 
Of course, this is not the case, even though the rhetoric we hear might 
suggest otherwise.
  So what is the budget resolution? It is simply a blueprint. It is a 
vision the Congress puts forward of where we imagine our budget 
priorities should be this year and in future years. We try to set 
priorities for taxes and for spending, try to estimate what we are 
going to collect into the Federal coffers, and try to set priorities 
for modernizing programs like Medicare or Social Security. Above all, 
it reflects a set of priorities.
  For example, listening to the debate this morning, one might get the 
impression it actually authorizes oil exploration in northern Alaska. 
That is simply not the case. What the budget resolution as written 
would do is allow the Senate Energy Committee to write legislation that 
would then be debated on the Senate floor. It would still have to pass 
the Senate to allow exploration or production in northern Alaska to 
take place. The budget simply provides the mechanism allowing that 
legislation to be written and then later brought to the floor.
  Our goal in this debate should be to reflect the right set of 
priorities in our country. To be sure, this is a $2 trillion budget we 
are talking about. If I or any of my colleagues were writing a $2 
trillion budget, I am sure someone somewhere would find something in 
that $2 trillion budget they might disagree with, and I understand 
that. Any Member of the Senate, any citizen of our country, can find 
something in our Federal budget they are not comfortable with, that 
they do not like, that they would disagree with, a program they would 
change. But if we want to do the work of the American people in the 
Senate, we need to put together that budget blueprint. We need to set 
those priorities, and I would hope those priorities would be 
consistent.
  As we listen to the debate over the next few days, unfortunately we 
will hear a lot that is not consistent. We will hear individuals talk 
about their concern for the Federal deficit, and then they will step 
forward and vote for an amendment that raises domestic spending and 
increases the deficit. We will hear individuals raise concerns about 
the cost of military action at this historic time. But after raising 
concerns about those costs, those individuals will then step forward 
and vote for amendments that raise domestic spending.
  We will hear Members raise concerns about economic growth, and then 
instead of stepping forward to propose or support a package that lays 
the foundation for future economic growth, what will they do? They will 
step forward and they will vote to raise domestic spending. There is a 
pattern, to be sure.
  We are in challenging and difficult times, and we have work in front 
of us that will require us to make difficult choices and to set the 
right priorities for our country.
  Why do we need this budget in the first place? We need this budget, 
as I suggested before, to enable us to get our work done. I talked 
about the budget allowing the Energy Committee to come forward with 
legislation crafting a comprehensive energy policy that might include 
exploration in northern Alaska. The budget will also set an overall 
limit on discretionary spending. This year, I think the goal put 
forward in the budget resolution is approximately $784 billion. But we 
need to set that goal, that cap, that target, so the other spending 
committees, the

[[Page S3922]]

Appropriations Committee in particular, can then move the spending 
bills forward.

  This is not insignificant. Last year, we failed to pass a budget in 
the Senate and we paid for it. We paid for it because as a result we 
could not get the work of the country done. We ended up completing that 
work, not in September, October, November, or December of last year, 
but in January of this year. That is simply wrong. That is why we need 
a budget. The budget lays the foundation for critical legislation, and 
not just a comprehensive energy bill. If we want to modernize Medicare, 
pass a prescription drug benefit for retirees in this country, we are 
going to need a budget resolution. If we want to pass an economic 
growth package that helps lay the foundation for job creation in 
America, we are going to need a budget resolution.
  The Senate may well appear chaotic under any circumstances, but 
without a budget we are even more so. I do think it is important to 
note the minority in this case has not offered any comprehensive 
alternative to the budget. We will hear debate and criticism of the 
pending resolution that is before this body, but no comprehensive 
alternative. This is similar to last year when the minority, then in 
the majority, failed to offer and pass a comprehensive budget. As a 
result, not only were we completing last year's business this past 
January, but we were unable to pass a prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare and other work before the Senate was delayed. The budget 
resolution is critical to being able to get our work done in Congress.
  What is in the budget resolution that is before us? What are the 
priorities we have laid out that have been put together by the hard 
work of the chairman of the Budget Committee and the members of the 
Budget Committee? Given the challenge of these times, I think it is a 
very strong package. The overall spending level, $784 billion, 
represents a growth in discretionary spending of a little bit less than 
4.5 percent.
  There is a basic principle at work, and that is we should not be 
expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. We should not 
be increasing domestic spending any faster than an average family 
budget is increasing.
  On the defense side, we all know the challenges we face, the 
priorities we need to set in defense spending. Defense spending has 
increased approximately 3.8 percent. Homeland security, where we need 
to make investments in new technology and new ways of identifying 
threats to this country, has been increased over 25 percent in order to 
help first responders--police and firefighters--around the country.
  As with defense and homeland security, we have to set priorities 
throughout the budget. If the Federal spending level is increasing by 4 
or 4.5 percent, not every program can receive a 10 or 20 percent 
increase. Priorities need to be set.
  On veterans health care, we step forward to provide an increase of $1 
billion in this budget; on education, a 4.5 percent increase, including 
$1 billion for special education, which is an enormous unfunded Federal 
mandate on cities and towns around the country. In science, space, and 
technology research, the budget provides for an additional 5.5 percent 
over last year. Setting priorities in important areas; that is what 
putting together a good budget is all about.
  This budget will allow us to modernize Medicare, to add a 
prescription drug benefit to Medicare, something that is essential if 
we are going to deliver on our commitment to a modernized health care 
system for our retirees.
  As we have heard and will continue to hear over the next couple of 
days, this budget allows for an economic growth package to help get our 
economy moving, to help create incentives to entrepreneurs and risk 
takers across the country to create new economic opportunity and to 
create new jobs.
  I think it is the right set of priorities. I think it makes sense to 
put together a package that focuses on economic growth. I think it is 
the right thing to do to make sure we are not expanding the size and 
scope of the Federal Government any faster than the average family 
might be expanding its budget.
  To be sure, we will hear people argue about the level of spending and 
we will have amendments to increase Federal spending in a number of 
areas. The fact of the matter is, we would hear those arguments and 
have that debate no matter what the spending level in this budget 
resolution was. If it was at $794 billion, we would have similar 
amendments to increase Federal spending. If it was at $800 billion, 
$810 billion, or $820 billion, we would have the same amendments to 
expand the size and scope of the Federal Government, because some 
legislators find it more difficult than others to set priorities and to 
control the size and scope of that spending. Now more than ever we need 
to set priorities.
  We have heard and will continue to hear a lot of discussion in this 
budget debate about the deficit. It needs to be addressed. We cannot 
ignore it. In order to do the right thing regarding the deficit, we 
have to understand why it is there. Why do we have a deficit?
  I just talked about spending growth. Growth in spending, expansion of 
the size and scope of the Federal Government, that alone is responsible 
for 25 percent of the deficit we have projected for the coming fiscal 
year and over the coming 10 years.
  We had surpluses after a long period of expansion that began in the 
early 1980s, with a sharp brief interruption in 1991. Revenues 
increased year after year. We had record revenue growth because we had 
strong economic growth. That enabled us to balance the budget. Coupled 
with control of growth in spending, we were able to balance the budget. 
Some say the surpluses then just provided incentives to ramp up the 
spending level again. As we have seen over the last 5 or 6 years, the 
growth in discretionary spending has been at near historic levels.
  At the same time, we had unprecedented defense and homeland security 
needs that had to be dealt with in the wake of September 11. With the 
recent economic downturn, we have seen unemployment costs increase once 
again. So new spending has been responsible for about 25 percent of the 
deficit. An even larger portion, almost half of the deficit, has been 
caused by the slowdown in the economy and the drop in revenues. This is 
unfortunate, but we all understand we are in slow economic times.
  The result has not been created by tax cuts. Despite the rhetoric, 
the Tax Relief Act signed into law in 2001 was responsible for less 
than 25 percent of the deficit we will see in the coming year. It was 
the slowdown in the economy, cutting Federal revenues by over $150 
billion over the last year, that resulted in 50 percent of the deficit 
we see today. That is why it is important we include in this resolution 
an allowance for an economic growth package. The economy has slowed 
down.
  We need to understand why it slowed down. It is not because of 
inflation. It has not been because of a slowdown in consumer spending. 
American consumer spending has been surprisingly robust over the last 
18 months. It has not been a credit squeeze like we had in 1991. This 
economic slowdown has been driven by and led by a slowdown in business 
investment. Businesses are reluctant to go out and spend additional 
capital on improvements to plants and equipment, on improvements of 
productivity and expansion of their facilities. We know of the slowdown 
in technology investment. That has led this slowdown in the economy.
  If we want to do something about it--and I think we all care about 
the economic growth in this country--if we want to do something, we 
have to address the reason for the slowdown, to address the sharp 
downturn in business investment. That is what the economic package of 
the President has put forward and what this budget resolution attempts 
to do.
  We have other options. We could do nothing. At the end of the day, if 
you watch the votes carefully, you will see that there are a number of 
Members of this body who would just as soon do nothing. They do not 
support an economic growth package. They will argue they do not want to 
increase the deficit. That means do nothing, do not spend any 
additional money, do not put together an economic growth package. I do 
not think with the economy as slow as it is, the American people want 
us to say we are going to do nothing to try to get job creation back on 
track.
  We could spend more money and there will be a series of amendments to

[[Page S3923]]

this budget resolution to do just that. Some will be offered by those 
who decry the short-term deficit, or the deficit that we have had over 
the last year. But they will offer amendments to spend more money and 
ultimately increase the deficit. The idea that we could spend ourselves 
out of a recession is ridiculous. It is absurd on its face.
  We have extended unemployment insurance. That was the right thing to 
do and it is an important thing to do. But in and of itself, spending 
more on unemployment insurance will not rekindle economic growth. We 
need to recognize that in order to create incentives for entrepreneurs 
and risk takers to spur job creation, we need to look at the Tax Code. 
That is where the growth package comes forward.

  Is it a big package? Relatively speaking, not at all. It represents 
less than 2.5 percent of our Nation's revenue collections over the next 
10 years. But it is focused on making the Tax Code more fair: by 
getting rid of the double taxation on dividends; by giving small 
businesses incentives to invest in plants, equipment and the modest 
increases I spoke of; and by tripling the amount small businesses could 
expense over time. It tries to deal with the economic slowdown by 
recognizing the first principles of why the economy has slowed down in 
the first place.
  This budget sets forward a realistic, reasonable and common-sense 
limit on Federal spending. It sets priorities even within those areas 
for veterans health care, special education, science and technology, 
homeland security, and our national defense. It allows us to modernize 
Medicare and add an important prescription drug benefit. It also sets 
forward principles for an economic growth package we all know is needed 
in America.
  It is a strong resolution. With all due respect to the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, it is probably not a perfect resolution. I served 
for 6 years on the Budget Committee in the House, and I am the first to 
admit there is no such thing. But it is a strong set of priorities for 
America. It reflects common sense when you look at the economic 
realities, the budget realities and the national security realities we 
have.
  America was built on a foundation that rests on individual liberty. 
From that very first principle comes our country's commitment to 
property rights, to free markets, and to open trade. As we conclude 
this debate on the budget in the coming days, I hope our budget 
resolution will reflect the importance of these ideas; that it will 
include provisions necessary to strengthen our economy, but that it 
will balance the needs of our Government with the rights of 
individuals. These are not just fanciful ideas, but are bedrock 
principles that enabled America to build the strongest economy the 
world has ever known. They make us strong today and will keep us strong 
tomorrow.
  Although I am just beginning my service in the Senate, I hope it will 
be marked by a consistent and enduring commitment to these ideas. I can 
think of no better way to serve my State and my country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss America's national 
security and the need for American independence from Middle Eastern 
oil.
  America's chronic dependence on foreign oil is a critical national 
security issue. It not only affects citizens and businesses nationwide, 
but also has a direct impact on our Nation's ability to fight and win 
wars. As we prepare to engage in military operations in Iraq, it is 
important to understand that our forces are highly dependent on foreign 
oil, much of which comes directly from Iraq. In other words, we are 
dependent on oil from Iraq to fight a war against Iraq.
  During the 1970s energy crisis, America was 36 percent dependent on 
foreign oil. Today we are 56 percent dependent, and by 2010, we are 
headed for well more than 60 percent. For the military, it now takes 
eight times as much oil to meet the needs of each U.S. soldier as it 
did during World War II. The Department of Defense today accounts for 
nearly 80 percent of all U.S. government energy use. During the 1991 
Persian Gulf war, our 582,000 soldiers consumed 450,000 barrels of 
petroleum products--four times the daily amount used by the 2 million 
Allied soldiers that liberated Europe from the Nazis in World War II. 
Since World War I, the outcome of every war has been influenced by the 
control of the energy. We are talking about a serious national security 
issue.
  As a result of military operations in Iraq, we must prepare ourselves 
for the possibility of disruptions in the flow of oil from the Middle 
East. Iraq has been the fastest growing source for United States oil 
imports. Shockingly, in the year 2000, $5 billion of American money 
went to Iraq to buy oil. After September 11, when asked how U.S. 
dependency on foreign oil relates to our national security, Deputy 
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that U.S. dependency on 
foreign oil ``is a serious strategic issue. . . . My sense is that 
[our] dependency is projected to grow, not to decline. . . . it's not 
only that we would, in a sense, be dependent on Iraqi oil, but the oil 
as a weapon. The possibility of taking that oil off the market and 
doing enormous economic damage with it is a serious problem.''
  It is critical that we develop our own resources and establish our 
energy independence. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has reviewed our 
national energy policy. He has warned that unless we act now, we will 
threaten our national security, damage our economic prosperity, and 
harm our quality of life. Likewise, in both 1995 and 1999, the 
Secretary of Commerce acknowledged, pursuant to a law directing his 
assessment, that our oil deficit poses a threat to national security. 
This threat has been acknowledged by both sides of the aisle.
  According to Secretary Abraham, consumption of energy has risen 
sharply yet production continues to decline. In a report released by 
the Energy Information Administration, the Department of Energy 
estimates that oil and gas reserves totaling 1,166 trillion cubic feet 
are recoverable in the lower 48 states and Alaska. The oil we could 
recover from three square miles of Alaska alone would allow our Nation 
to replace the oil we buy from Saudi Arabia for 30 years.
  The time to act is now--not for some immediate quick fix, but for the 
long-term security of America in the years and decades ahead. Our lack 
of an adequate long-term national energy policy is not a partisan 
matter. It is a supreme national challenge that cannot be continually 
ignored without posing an increasing danger to our security and our way 
of life. Sadly, our Nation has failed for three decades to address this 
issue properly.
  The tired refrain that ANWR ``will destroy the environment'' is so 
out of date and out of touch with reality when we have the technology 
and the know-how to affirmatively protect the environment while meeting 
an important long-term national security challenge. Additionally, I 
wish it were required for everyone who is going to be voting on ANWR to 
take a trip up to the North Slope of Alaska to see what we are really 
talking about. It is not a pristine wilderness. We are only talking 
about a very small, a minuscule part of that area up there, and we are 
talking about an environment where the Eskimos, the local people, are 
begging us to come in and open it up.
  They have estimated that between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels 
of recoverable oil will be found in ANWR's Coastal Plain--up to 16 
billion. That equates to over $300 billion worth of American oil. The 
American people want our country to comprehensively rebuild our 
military, our defenses and our future security on all fronts. This was 
true before September 11. It is only more true today. It is time for 
the Senate to vote, for the Congress to act, and for America to move 
forward towards true and lasting energy independence.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment introduced by Senator Boxer, which would strike the 
provisions contained in the pending Budget Resolution that would allow 
for the commencement of oil exploration and drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I am deeply concerned about the 
irreparable damage these actions would have on this unique and 
beautiful wilderness.
  A mere 6 days ago, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution 
commemorating the Centennial Anniversary of the Wildlife Refuge System, 
established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 with the 
designation of the Pelican Island Reservation on the eastern coast of 
Florida. According to last

[[Page S3924]]

week's resolution, which I cosponsored, the Senate ``reaffirms its 
commitment to continued support for the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, and the conservation of our Nation's rich natural heritage.'' 
The language contained in the pending Budget Resolution, which would 
lead to the disturbance of one of the largest and most pristine 
components of the Wildlife Refuge System, not only falls far short of 
this reaffirmation, but explicitly breaks the commitment laid out by 
President Roosevelt a century ago.
  The principal mission of the Wildlife Refuge System, in President 
Roosevelt's own words, is ``keeping for our children's children as a 
priceless heritage, all of the delicate beauty of the lesser and burly 
majesty of the mightier forms of wildlife. . . .'' Moreover, Roosevelt 
declared that this mission is founded on the basic principle that 
``wild beasts and birds are by right not the property merely of the 
people who are alive today, but the property of unborn generations, 
whose belongings we have no right to squander.'' The environmental 
damage we have seen throughout the country over the past 100 years has 
strengthened and reaffirmed President Roosevelt's wise foresight in 
preserving certain areas of beauty and natural significance for present 
and future generations.
  Proponents of drilling in ANWR have claimed that oil exploration 
activities on the Refuge's fragile coastal plain will result in 
virtually undetectable environmental impact. However, an extensive, 
congressionally mandated report released earlier this month by the 
National Research Council of the National Academies of Science and 
Engineering makes clear that drilling in ANWR will result in 
significant damage to the region. According to the report, which 
examined the cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration and 
production on Alaska's North Slope over the past three decades, 
``[r]oads, pads, pipelines, seismic-vehicle tracks, and transmission 
lines; air, ground, and vessel traffic; drilling activities; landfills, 
housing, processing facilities, and other industrial infrastructure 
have compromised wild-land and scenic values over large areas. . . .'' 
Moreover, ``climate changes during the past several decades on the 
North Slope have been unusually rapid,'' and ``noise from exploratory 
drilling and marine seismic exploration'' have disrupted migratory 
patterns and severely impeded reproductive rates of bowhead whales, 
caribou, native birds, and other species.
  In addition to the major environmental impact that would likely 
affect ANWR should it be opened for oil and gas exploration, the 
resulting energy supply would do little to address our growing energy 
needs. Indeed, ANWR represents only five percent of Alaska's North 
Slope the remaining ninety-five percent of the North Slope is currently 
open to oil and gas exploration and production. According to a 1998 
U.S. Geological Survey study, the total amount of oil that could be 
harvested from ANWR would roughly equal the amount of oil consumed by 
Americans in a 6-month period. Finally, this relatively small supply of 
oil would do even less to address our immediate energy needs. A 2001 
report published by the Congressional Research Service has estimated 
that American consumers would not begin to benefit from oil recovered 
from ANWR for at least 10 years.
  If we truly want to address the challenge of our country's 
overwhelming dependence on foreign oil, causing irreparable damage to 
an area of exquisite beauty in exchange for a small supply of oil and 
gas is not the manner in which we should proceed. It is my strongly-
held belief that we must aggressively pursue sources of renewable 
energy, as well as turn our focus away from increased production, and 
toward greater conservation.
  Mr. President, attempts to open ANWR to oil and gas exploration are 
reckless and shortsighted. I urge my colleagues to honor President 
Theodore Roosevelt's vision by joining me in supporting Senator Boxer's 
amendment to preserve the integrity and beauty of ANWR.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate soon will have the opportunity 
to support an amendment to remove the proposal to increase oil and gas 
exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the budget 
reconciliation bill. By tucking away this proposal into the energy 
section of the reconciliation bill, proponents of this provision would 
smother the open debate the American public deserves on such a 
significant and contentious national issue.
  Just last Friday, on March 14, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of 
the creation of the Nation's first Federal bird reserve on Pelican 
Island, the predecessor of today's refuge system. Today we are debating 
whether to allow further drilling in the fragile arctic environment, 
for reasons that do not add up to justify such a step.
  Consider how far we have come since President Theodore Roosevelt had 
the vision to set aside the 5-acre Pelican Island--a small thicket of 
mangroves off the east coast of Florida--to a system that today totals 
more than 95 million acres consisting of 540 national wildlife refuges, 
thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. The 
National Wildlife Refuge System hosts 35,000,000 visitors annually, 
with the help of 30,000 volunteers. It is home to wildlife of almost 
every variety in every State of the Union, and some part or parts of 
the system are within an hour's drive of almost every major city. It 
would be unwise to sanction the degradation of one of the crown jewels 
of our refuge system--the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  The administration argues that allowing an increase in drilling in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be an integral part of 
alleviating the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. In reality, 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge would only provide the equivalent of what 
the United States consumes in 6 months. Nor would this provision amount 
to any increase in oil production for at least a decade, or truly 
enhance our energy security, or lower prices for consumers, or create a 
significant number of new long-term jobs.
  Furthermore, 95 percent of the potential oil reserves of Alaska's 
North Slope are already designated for potential leasing or open to 
exploration and drilling. The last 5 percent--the Coastal Plain of the 
Arctic Refuge--is the only wild stretch of the coast of Alaska's North 
Slope that remains off limits.
  What are the tradeoffs? According to a recent National Academy of 
Sciences, NAS, report issued just last month, the impacts of current 
activity already adversely impacted numerous wildlife species in the 
Arctic Refuge. The NAS documented displacement to the fall migration 
patterns of bowhead whales due to noise associated from seismic 
exploration and cited an increased number of predators which adversely 
affects the reproduction rates in migratory and resident birds, as well 
as the migration pattern and reproduction rates of one of the greatest 
caribou herds in North America. The NAS study concluded that expanding 
oil and gas exploration into the surrounding refuge lands would result 
in further degradation of soils, vegetation, and aquatic systems in 
this fragile environment.
  Protecting this refuge is our obligation as stewards of this land. As 
President Theodore Roosevelt, the creator of the refuge system, said: 
``wild beasts and birds are by right not the property merely of the 
people who are alive today, but the property of unknown generations, 
whose belongings we have no right to squander.'' Sanctioning these 
incursions not only would damage the environment today, but it would 
take away those tangible and inherent values the refuge will provide to 
future generations--our children and grandchildren.
  Last Thursday, March 13, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution 
marking the Centennial Anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System. This week, we have the opportunity to follow that symbolism 
with a more tangible step in defense of our refuge system, by voting to 
remove the rider on ANWR oil and gas exploration from the budget 
reconciliation bill.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Boxer-Chafee 
amendment that has my cosponsorship along with 14 other colleagues. The 
amendment strikes the reconciliation instructions to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources that would open up the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and drilling.

[[Page S3925]]

  The issue as to whether to open up a pristine and vital habitat 
refuge for a finite amount of oil is a fundamental policy question that 
should not have been injected into the budget process, thereby 
bypassing the Senate committee process. Including the drilling receipts 
and reconciliation instructions in the budget is a major policy 
initiative with serious environmental ramifications.
  The budget process, with its strict rules for limited debate, is not 
conducive to adequate consideration of this issue. In fact, opening up 
the Arctic Refuge proved to be extremely controversial in the 107th 
Congress and was debated at length during the Senate's consideration of 
its omnibus energy bill. On April 18, 2002, by a vote of 54 to 46, the 
Senate defeated a procedural motion to invoke cloture to shut off the 
debate.
  Revenues from oil leases in the Arctic Refuge have been estimated to 
be $1.2 billion over 10 years. I believe that the budgetary effects of 
oil leases in the Refuge are incidental compared with the weight of its 
policy impact. The tradeoffs just don't balance out when considering 
drilling for a finite supply of oil in the biological heart of Alaska's 
coastal plain.
  Drilling in the Refuge is not the solution to our Nation's current 
energy problems, and for years the issue has distracted us from the 
real answers to energy needs. Unfortunately, over the past several 
years, rather than being serious about offsetting the nation's 
increasing thirst for oil by increasing the use of alternate and 
renewable energy sources, we are now more dependent than ever on these 
foreign oil sources. If we are to be serious about addressing our 
energy needs, we should be advancing energy efficiency, energy 
conservation and clean, renewable sources of power so that we can 
reduce our need for fossil fuels, which is mainly responsible for air 
pollution and greenhouse gases impacting climate change.
  As the storm clouds gather today in the Middle East, we should be 
putting our energies into becoming more fuel efficient, for instance, 
by increasing corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards, to 
close the SUV loophole that currently allows the increasingly popular 
sport utility vehicles to get only 20.7 miles per gallon while 
passenger cars must meet a 27.5 mpg standard. Increasing the SUV 
standard to that of passenger cars would help to eliminate the need to 
import oil from the most volatile area of the globe.
  In addition, based on the estimate provided by the Department of 
Energy's Energy Information Administration, it would realistically take 
seven to 12 years from approval to first production of oil, meaning 
that not a single drop of oil would be available to go to market for 7 
to 12 years. In contrast, Paul Portney, Chairman of the National 
Academies' 2001 Report on CAFE standards, stated at the Joint Commerce 
and Energy Committees' hearing that year that ``. . . increases to fuel 
efficiency could be made in a few years.''
  The fact is that, sooner or later, any oil found in ANWR will run 
out--while increasing CAFE standards will continue to decrease oil 
usage. It is estimated that one million barrels of oil per day would be 
saved by the Feinstein-Snowe bill that closes the SUV loophole. 
Improving the gasoline mileage of the Nation's new vehicles by just 
three miles per gallon could take less time and could be expected to 
save more oil than would ultimately be recovered over the lifetime of 
the finite oil resources in ANWR. The United States Geological Service 
estimates a 95 percent probability of 4.2 billion barrels of 
recoverable oil, and a five percent probability of 11.8 billion barrels 
of recoverable oil.
  Interestingly, CAFE increases would keep more greenhouse gases, 
specifically carbon dioxide--the major cause of climate change--from 
going into the atmosphere because less gasoline would be used and 
therefore there would be less vehicle emissions of CO2. In contrast, 
the process of getting oil out of ANWR will add more greenhouse gases 
and air pollution because of the oil drilling facilities and processes 
required for extraction.
  Drilling in the Arctic Refuge poses environmental risks by impacting 
sensitive wildlife habitats. The Refuge is the summer home for 
thousands of migratory birds; year-round home to muskoxen, fox, wolf 
and wolverine; and its lagoons support eight species of marine mammals, 
62 species of coastal fish, and seven species of freshwater fish. Of 
note, the Refuge is the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou herd. 
Much has been said on the Senate floor about the Central Arctic caribou 
herds in the North Slope drilling area that have greatly increased 
since the North Slope pipeline was installed, but these caribou have 
the ability to move south, unlike the Porcupine caribou herd within the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that have no place to go due to the 
geological features of the narrow strip of an island-like area in the 
refuge between the ocean and the mountains.
  Again, I would like to reiterate that including drilling receipts and 
reconciliation instructions in the budget is not the right way to go as 
it is a major policy initiative with serious environmental 
ramifications that must be debated fully in the proper forum of 
committee hearings and subsequent floor and public debates. Consider 
the National Research Council's recently published report on the 
effects of drilling in the North Slope of Alaska. It stated that, even 
though oil companies have greatly improved practices in the Arctic, 
three decades of drilling along Alaska's North Slope have produced a 
steady accumulation of harmful environmental and social effects that 
will probably grow as exploration expands.
  Some of the problems, the report said, could last for centuries, both 
because environmental damage does not heal easily in the area's harsh 
climate and because it is uneconomical to remove structures or restore 
damaged areas once drilling is over. I urge my colleagues to vote to 
strike the language from the budget resolution so that drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does not begin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask we take 10 minutes off our side of 
the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President I will speak a couple of minutes about the 
general budget, and then turn to the ANWR Alaska refuge amendment that 
is pending that I hope will prevail in a vote in a few years.
  I ask unanimous consent Senators Corzine and Clinton be added as 
cosponsors to my ANWR amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will talk about this budget overall 
because I listened to my colleague talk about it in a way that, 
frankly, is stunning because I remember when Republicans wanted a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Now they are embracing 
a budget that has deficits as far as the eye can see. If you like 
deficits as far as the eye can see, you will love this budget and you 
should vote for it because that is what you are getting.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will after I am finished, as I listened to my friend 
talk for quite a few moments.
  If you embrace the idea that deficits are a good thing for the 
country, red ink is a good thing for this country, you will love this 
budget; go ahead and vote for it and that is fine and we will talk 
about it when we go home.
  If you like the idea that we should ignore an enormous cost that is 
staring us in the face as our beautiful men and women are standing on 
the brink of war, if you think this budget should ignore those costs, 
then you should vote for this budget because this is an Alice-in-
Wonderland-type of budget.
  The whole country is focused on what is about to happen--but not in 
this budget. I have seen comments made by friends of mine from the 
other body on the other side of the aisle that said hurry up and get 
this through before we have to deal with the costs of the war.
  When I hear Senator Frist say let's push this through fast, that, in 
my opinion, ties the knot here. The other side wants to get this done 
very quickly even though it has no costs for the war. The first person 
who said the war will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion was 
Larry Lindsey, and as we know, he was shown the door.

[[Page S3926]]

  Vote for this budget if you think we should ignore the costs of the 
war. Vote for this budget if you love deficits. If you like breaking 
promises to our children on No Child Left Behind, cutting afterschool 
programs and the like, vote for this budget because that is what you 
are doing.
  The President posed for pictures with Senator Kennedy and Congressman 
Miller--No Child Left Behind--and then he fails to fund it.
  He is going to kick 50,000 California kids out of afterschool 
programs, unless we fix it. All through the country, he is going to 
kick 500,000 to 700,000 kids out of afterschool programs, including 
kids in New Hampshire and all over our great Nation.
  Our kids deserve more than that. If you like the fact that No Child 
Left Behind is not funded fully, vote for the budget. If you want to 
cut environmental enforcement, vote for the budget. If you want to fund 
the highways and transit at a lower level than what we need, vote for 
the budget.
  Especially vote for the budget if you want to give tax breaks to 
people who earn more than $1 million a year because they will get back 
$87,000 a year. Definitely vote for this budget if your heart bleeds 
for those folks who make more than $1 million a year because that is 
the centerpiece of this budget.
  I hope we can change it. We are going to try to change it. We have a 
few brave souls on the other side of the aisle who agree with us. I 
don't know how it will turn out. But when I hear people talk about why 
our country is in so much economic trouble, it started 2 years ago. We 
lost 2 million jobs because we abandoned fiscal responsibility, we 
abandoned investment in job-producing investments, we abandoned the 
principles that led us to the greatest economic recovery in 
generations. But if you don't want to go back to those good days and 
stick with these bad days, vote for this budget.
  On my time that is remaining, I want to say how excited I am that we 
actually may pass the Alaska wildlife amendment.
  What we have here on this chart is a very simple visual of what we 
will save from various scenarios on imported oil. I had, yesterday, the 
percentages.
  We see that while ANWR would reduce our reliance on imported oil by 2 
percent, if we just did better tires on our cars, which would lead to 
better fuel economy, we could save 4.3 percent of imported oil. If we 
closed the SUV loophole and just had the SUVs get the same mileage as 
cars, we would save 16 percent on the amount of oil we have to import. 
If we increased our fuel economy by 13--to 35 miles per gallon--which 
the automobile people say is absolutely possible; we would reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil by 43 percent.
  The alternative is this reduction of dependence on foreign oil by 2 
percent. By the way, this wouldn't happen for 8 or 10 years. For 
everybody who says it is going to happen sooner, that is not what the 
proof is. The science tells us it will take 8 to 10 years to get it up 
and running.
  This is the alternative, drilling in this God-given area.
  I will give the remainder of my time to Senator Conrad. We are 
talking about a place that looks like this. Yes, in the winter it is 
icy. Yes, in the winter there is not much--it doesn't look as beautiful 
as this, but I don't look as good as I looked when I was young, so that 
happens sometimes. But the bottom line is, it is a beautiful place.
  Here are some other beautiful pictures. We will show you some of the 
wildlife that we have, this beautiful bird which is the whimbrel--quite 
beautiful. It is my chart bird, I call it. That is a beautiful example 
of what we are trying to save.
  I will yield the remainder of my time on the resolution to Senator 
Conrad and hope my colleagues on both sides will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am wondering, I ask my colleague and 
friend from California who showed those pictures of a beautiful area 
adjacent to the Brookes Range--I have been there--I wonder, Has the 
Senator from California visited the 1002 area, the ANWR area?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have been to Alaska and I am going back. I haven't been 
to the 1002 area, but my chief environmental legislative aide took my 
place on a trip that, unfortunately, I had to cancel 6 months ago, and 
just said it was absolutely exquisite.
  As my friend knows, we have hundreds of wildlife refuges. I have been 
to a few. I haven't been to them all. But this is God's gift and 
whether--
  Mr. NICKLES. The answer to the question is you have not been there?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I stated that clearly in the debate. The last time I 
was asked this question, people said these photos were----
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would like to make a couple of comments. I am going to 
speak about ANWR momentarily. My friend and colleague from New Mexico, 
who happens to be chairman of the Energy Committee, wants to speak. But 
many of us have been to ANWR. The picture the Senator from California 
shows, the beautiful part, is of Alaska adjacent to the Brookes Range. 
It is gorgeous. That is not where we are drilling, or proposing to 
drill.
  I will say, there are a couple of people who have been there more 
than the Senator from Oklahoma and that would be Senator Murkowski and 
Senator Stevens. They have been there many times. They know what the 
1002 area is. They know the area we are talking about drilling. It is 
not the beautiful pictures we see that some people are advertising. 
People are not proposing to drill in those areas.
  The area they are proposing to drill on is not nearly as pretty. It 
is very barren. It looks somewhat like a frozen moonscape area, or 
frozen Saharan desert, or something like that.
  My point is, I see the picture of the caribou. I have seen them. I 
have been to Prudhoe Bay as well. I have seen a lot of caribou. The 
caribou happen to like the Prudhoe Bay area and the Alaska oil 
pipeline. There are a lot of caribou in that area.
  I think there is a tradition in the Senate that is being violated and 
that is that we respect home State Senators, when we are talking about 
parks or refuges in their States. We usually assume they know best.
  I heard Senator Murkowski give an outstanding speech last night that 
talked about her State and talked about how important this is to her 
State and our country.
  I heard Senator Stevens, with whom I have had the pleasure of working 
with for the last 23 years and for whom I have great respect, and he 
knows this better than anybody. He used to be Solicitor at the 
Department of the Interior. He goes way back on this issue. He knows 
more about Alaska than the rest of the Senate combined.
  To ignore his comments, or those of the Senator, Ms. Murkowski--or 
Governor Murkowski--on this issue I think is a serious mistake, 
especially if people haven't been there. I encourage my colleagues, if 
they have questions about this area, to go visit it. I think it would 
be very educational. I think it would be very helpful, especially if we 
are going to try to dictate exploration in an area smaller than a 
couple of thousand acres, smaller than Dulles Airport. If we are going 
to try to mandate they cannot forever drill in those areas, I think we 
ought to at least go there and visit the area and know, really, what it 
looks like. If we have not been, I think we ought to defer to the home 
State Senators for their expertise and advice.
  I yield to the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, 
such time as he desires on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield just for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Which Senator is going to ask a question?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  Mr. REID. Last night the Senator from New Mexico said he wanted to 
speak for approximately an hour? How long, just so we can get people 
ready here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator knows I don't have a notebook full here. I 
wanted to make sure. One thing I learned, as a Senator, from Senator 
Byrd is if you want to make a speech, don't agree to the shortest 
amount of time because, sure enough, you never get what you wanted to 
say said. I said an hour. I probably will use an hour.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much.

[[Page S3927]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished minority floor leader.
  Mr. President, fellow Senators, and more importantly, fellow 
Americans who might be watching, I am going to have one of my aides 
turn this chart for a moment. You are going to be able to read the 
print very easily. It says:

       If ANWR was the size of this chart, the total footprint of 
     any development there would be smaller than the box below.

  You see the people running the television here in the Senate have to 
be very careful because if they are not, you will not even see it. ANWR 
is as big as this chart. We have done it to scale, all of that blue.
  Now, regardless of what is said about what you are going to do to 
ANWR, let me submit to you that you are going to do it on this little 
piece, I say to the chairman. Look at this. Can you see it? Maybe I can 
show the chairman of the Budget Committee. Do you see that little piece 
there? I don't think you can even see it, that little piece. That is 
where ANWR is going to have a footprint to produce oil for America.
  Can you imagine we are here arguing about whether or not we ought to 
take this tiny little piece? Here it is. Let me show it to you again. 
Do you see this, Mr. Chairman? I don't think you can see it from there. 
That is the size of the footprint. And the whole chart is the size of 
ANWR.
  Now, I can guarantee you, the thousands of Americans who have been 
writing to their Senators and who joined the Sierra Club to say don't 
do anything in ANWR have no understanding, have never been told--as a 
matter of fact, have been told to the contrary--that of this huge 
wilderness, that is the amount of the footprint which will yield oil 
for America's future.
  I ask the Presiding Officer, are you looking at this chart?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you need any assistance to see it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I can see it from here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You don't have to answer. As a matter of fact, I am 
very hopeful that everybody can see it, because you saw beautiful polar 
bears, you saw fantastic growth everybody is proud of. But can anyone 
believe that little, tiny footprint is going to affect polar bears in 
the ANWR wilderness? Can you believe that much property, used to drill 
oil for America's future, is going to have an impact on America's 
economic future?
  I submit, if the issue had not already been framed, and if, as a 
matter of fact, Senators had not already been convinced, if they truly 
started right here on the floor--let's discuss America; let's discuss 
the amount of oil we have to use each day; let's discuss our future; 
and now let's take a look at ANWR. If we had not received messages in 
the mail, if we had not received requests for contributions from those 
who support keeping ANWR exactly like it is, and not letting us have 
any of the resources that belong to America--if none of that occurred, 
we were here in a closed session, all 100 Senators, and those who 
wanted to say ``no drilling'' got a day, and I got an hour, they could 
talk all they wanted, and I would put this chart up and say, ``Are you 
kidding? You don't even want America to take a look at that?''
  Now, having said that, it has been said on a number of occasions on 
the floor there isn't enough oil in ANWR to amount to anything. A few 
years ago, when I was sitting around and heard somebody say, ``America 
doesn't need this oil,'' I said to myself, ``Who are we kidding? How 
arrogant about our future are we? We don't need the oil that could be 
produced from Alaska because it isn't very much oil?''
  Well, I started, over the weekend, asking, How much oil is it? How 
much oil is it in a way that maybe Americans would understand? And I 
decided we could take a little trip. We could take a trip through 
America and look at where we are producing oil today, and as we came 
upon a State that was producing oil, we would decide whether we needed 
that oil. After all, we are so strong and so arrogant about our 
economic future that there is a lot of oil America might have we 
must not need.

  Guess what happened. The very first State I came upon was Texas. 
Texas. As I rode across America and stopped in various States, I 
stopped in Texas. And what did I find? I went to their Department of 
Minerals and Resources, and I looked, and I said: Could you help me? I 
am trying to find out where oil is produced in America and whether we 
need it or not. And what in the world did I find? ANWR has more oil 
than Texas. So I surmise we do not need the oil from Texas either. I 
surmise Texas oil does not amount to that much, because, after all, for 
comparison purposes, the total reserves in the State of Texas are 5.2 
billion barrels. That is data for the year 2000. Let's repeat that. The 
reserves in the State of Texas for the year 2000 are 5.2 billion 
barrels.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, upon which we as 
policymakers are basing our decisions, ANWR's oil reserves would range 
from a low--a low--of 5.7 billion barrels to a high of 16 billion 
barrels.
  Let's repeat it. The reserves in the State of Texas, because that is 
where I started that sojourn--I would have ended up, had I not found 
that out in Texas--we did not have to go any further--I would have gone 
over to New Mexico and found their reserves, and then I would have gone 
to Oklahoma. But just stopping at Texas, you find the reserves in the 
State of Texas are estimated to be 5.2 billion barrels. And according 
to the experts advising the policymakers, the present Congress, and 
people of America, the reserves for ANWR--from that little, tiny dot--
are 5.7 billion barrels for the low estimate, and 16 billion barrels 
for the high estimate.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska in the Chamber. That 
means, I say to the Senator, if I read it right, that the reserves in 
your State, just in ANWR, if one uses the most conservative estimates, 
are equivalent to or more than the State of Texas. And if you use just 
a middle point, a 50-percent expectancy in terms of reserve estimates, 
I imagine if you do that, the yield is twice the State of Texas. Twice 
the State of Texas. If you like this Senator's estimate, it will be 
twice the State of Texas, it will not be the 5.2 billion barrels 
because that is the lowest estimate.
  Now, I would like, once and for all, whatever has been said in this 
Senate--with the charts up there about us not needing this, that it is 
only a speck of the world's production of oil--I would like to submit, 
we need the production from the State of Texas, and we need an 
equivalent to the production from the State of Texas which would come 
from ANWR. America, as rich as we are, as powerful as we are, as 
willing as we are to say, ``We just don't need this. We will buy it 
from the world. We just don't need American oil. We don't even need as 
much as Texas produces''--right--``Just forget about it; we will buy 
it''--we will buy it, all right. And then, as war looms, the case for 
Arctic oil gets better and better and better.
  As we look at America's future, we hear people get on the floor and 
say: Don't worry about producing more oil; we will just conserve more. 
Well, we will have an Energy bill here on the floor about when we come 
back from the April recess. I welcome Senators to come to the floor and 
tell us how in the world in the future we are not going to have to 
continue to import huge quantities of oil.
  Now, somebody can get up and say: We only want half the automobiles 
we are driving today 4 years from now and 5 years from now. That is 
ridiculous. Or: We are going to use hydrogen cars. Of course, we are 
going to use a few of them each year, and in 20 years we are going to 
use a bunch of them. What do we do in the meantime?
  They will say: Let's use electric cars. We will use them, but how 
many? Everybody understands the oil consumption is not going to come 
down dramatically during the next decade to 20 years. And what are we 
going to be doing? We are going to be depending upon the world for that 
period of time, and well beyond that, to buy it from the world.
  It seems to me that a secondary issue--maybe a primary issue--we are 
debating in the Senate is jobs for Americans. I regret to tell you that 
for those who oppose that little tiny piece of this budget resolution 
called ANWR, they are opposing the biggest job producer this whole bill 
has in mind. I am more certain that if ANWR is permitted to be 
developed, when the time comes that it is producing, it will produce 
more jobs for America than this bill with all its tax provisions and

[[Page S3928]]

at the same time will produce oil for Americans. This is the estimate 
given by the experts of the American jobs, high-paying jobs. We are not 
even including in this the fact that American companies will own it. 
Americans will be part of the rig operators. Americans will be 
producing the pipelines.
  Here is the estimate of employment that would flow from ANWR. You 
could vote against all the tax relief if ANWR was coming on board next 
month. That can't happen because it is a few years away. Here are the 
jobs: 575,000 full-blown American jobs for American men and women and 
American executives, and they have to be high paying. For any State 
that would like to look: for Colorado, there is estimated employment of 
8,000; New Jersey, 17,000; California, 63,000 jobs if ANWR comes on. I 
suppose in the course of things, 63,000 jobs doesn't mean that much for 
a big State such as California.
  Incidentally, if I would have followed that little trip through 
America to see where the oil was produced and I would have passed right 
on by Texas, and passed right on by New Mexico, and passed right on by 
Arizona and a little pinch of Nevada, and ended up in California, and 
gone to their mineral extraction department and said, how much oil do 
you produce? guess what I would have found. I would have found that the 
production in California of crude oil for America is about equivalent 
to what will be produced from ANWR when it is producing oil for 
Americans. Think of that.
  People look at California and say: Boy, if we didn't have that 
production from California, where would we be? Isn't that interesting? 
If we had ANWR on board and producing and we took our little trip 
through America and ended up in Alaska and somebody would have said to 
us, well, that is producing about the same as Texas and California, 
let's just not produce it anymore, what do you think would happen? Do 
you think anybody would vote for that? I mean, it would be such a 
ridiculous proposition that we don't need it, even though it is about 
the equivalent of California and about the same as Texas, that clearly 
this issue to this Senator reaches the point where you can hardly 
understand what we are doing on the floor of the Senate with as close a 
vote as you can possibly get on this issue.
  To the two or three Senators who still might have enough courage, 
enough concern, enough freedom to say I am going to do what is best, I 
submit that they ought to vote to keep ANWR, keep that marvelous huge 
wilderness that President Eisenhower is cited as having been 
instrumental in creating, keep it, and use this tiny piece here to 
produce oil for generations to come.
  There is an excellent review and outlook in the Wall Street Journal 
this morning called ``Drilling for Votes.'' That is probably what they 
assume their editorial is doing, it is drilling for votes. It outlines 
the issues before us. It is rather succinct. It covers what I have just 
discussed, the insignificance of the probable damage to ANWR. I have 
tried to depict it in terms of jobs. It discusses that with words. They 
are wordsmiths, and they have done it in a very exciting, excellent, 
and forthright manner. They discuss jobs, which I just did. They also 
discuss what the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee 
discussed for just a few moments as to what is the nature of this tiny 
piece of geography that is part of ANWR. It is not the beautiful parts 
of this that have been shown in pictures here on the floor. It is 
discussed in this editorial in words as to what it is. It says:

       This oil would come from a tiny piece of land that is 
     nowhere near the ``pristine'' mountains shown in the Sierra 
     Club ads. Exploration would be on Alaska's coastal plain, a 
     sliver of tundra that [the Secretary of the Interior] has 
     described aptly as ``flat, white nothingness.''

  The editorial continues:

       Far from pristine, it is the home of the town of Kaktovik, 
     with its people, cars, boats and airplane hangars. The actual 
     drilling footprint would be about 2,000 acres, the size of 
     Washington's Dulles Airport.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of this editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 19, 2003]

                           Drilling for Votes

       If war in Iraq, sky-high oil prices and a moribund energy 
     bill aren't reason enough for the Senate to finally approve 
     drilling in the Arctic, could someone please tell us what is?
       The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is back in the 
     headlines, and the good news is that Senate Republicans are 
     very close to passing a drilling amendment. By attaching ANWR 
     to the Senate budget resolution, they need only 51 votes and 
     can avoid the filibuster threats (and Presidential 
     aspirations) of certain opposition Senators from the 
     Northeast.
       The arguments for Arctic drilling haven't changed, but it's 
     worth running through them again. The biggest is the ANWR is 
     a new and important supply of oil. The site is expected to 
     produce 10.4 billion barrels, or 1.4 million barrels a day--
     the largest single prospect for future oil production in the 
     country. To put this in perspective, the oil-rich states of 
     Texas and California each offer about one million barrels a 
     day. No, ANWR won't provide ``energy independence,'' but it 
     will give a cushion in the event of future oil-supply crises.
       This oil would come from a tiny piece of land that is 
     nowhere near the ``pristine'' mountains shown in those Sierra 
     Club ads. Exploration would be on Alaska's coastal plain, a 
     sliver of tundra that Interior Secretary Gale Norton has 
     aptly described as ``flat, white nothingness.'' Far from 
     pristine, it is home to the town of Kaktovik, with its 
     people, cars, boats and airplane hangars. The actual drilling 
     footprint would be about 2,000 acres, the size of 
     Washington's Dulles Airport.
       As for the environmental consequences, we'd point to the 
     recent National Academy of Sciences report on the cumulative 
     effects of drilling in the nearby North Slope. Green groups 
     have spun the report as evidence of eco-calamity, but anyone 
     who reads it knows it shows more or less the opposite.
       The report, for instance, found that there had been no 
     major oil spills on the North Slope through operation of oil 
     fields, and that small spills had had no cumulative effects. 
     While some animals had been ``affected,'' the committee could 
     not list any species that were threatened. And it conceded 
     that drilling hadn't led to any large or long-term 
     declines in the much-celebrated caribou herd.
       It also noted that new technology had reduced damage to the 
     tundra. Given the report was measuring the effects of 25-year 
     old equipment, and that a Senate bill would require best-
     technology, we can expect even better results. And the report 
     acknowledged that oil development had resulted in real 
     improvements in schools, health care, housing and other 
     community services for Alaskan communities.
       As good as these policy arguments are, the reality is that 
     drilling ultimately hinges on the environmental politics of 
     the Senate. Republicans have 48 sure votes. They need two 
     more, because Vice President Dick Cheney is standing by at 
     his secure, undisclosed location to break a tie. Most of the 
     focus is therefore on a few moderates, Arkansas Democrats 
     Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, and Republicans Gordon Smith 
     and Norm Coleman.
       If it's political cover these folks are looking for, they 
     might consider the environmental advantages that would accrue 
     to their home states with a yes vote. For starters, the ANWR 
     plan would divert $2 billion of the $2.15 billion in federal 
     royalties from drilling directly to the states for land and 
     water conservation. A gusher of new oil in Alaska would also 
     reduce the incentive to keep drilling in the lower 48, which 
     has its own environmental costs.
       And if these ``moderates'' are truly on the fence, they 
     could give the Administration the benefit of the doubt, vote 
     to keep ANWR in the Senate budget resolution for now and then 
     fly to Alaska to see the site for themselves. At least if 
     they changed their mind in the final budget later in the 
     year, they'd really know what they were voting against.
       We know it is perhaps a forlorn hope that Senators will 
     vote on substance over environmental symbolism. But why not? 
     On the economic and environmental merits, this isn't even a 
     close call.
  Mr. DOMENICI. One remaining issue is: How do you drill for oil today, 
and how did you drill for it 25 years ago or even 30 years ago, when 
some of the wells were drilled in California--maybe hundreds of the 
wells were drilled in California and hundreds, maybe thousands of the 
wells in Texas were drilled? Has America made any strides in changing 
the way we drill for oil in 15, 20, 25 years?
  I can tell you, some of the most dynamic, intelligent engineers in 
the world have spent years finding out how to drill holes in Mother 
Earth. As a matter of fact, the expertise in drilling did not just come 
over these years from people interested in drilling for oil wells. We 
have had an interest in drilling for many reasons.
  Would you believe that the great laboratories of America--Los Alamos, 
Sandia, Livermore--have had a genuine, abiding piece of their research 
directed at, how do you drill holes into Mother Earth?
  One time, they were experimenting in one of the laboratories in 
drilling

[[Page S3929]]

thousands of feet underground to see if they could tap into the 
geothermal heat pockets. They learned all kinds of things about 
drilling. Then they had to drill holes as part of the nuclear weapons 
activities in the deserts of Nevada. Millions of dollars were put into, 
how do you do it so you don't waste time, so you don't produce a whole 
bunch of environmental degradation? Couple that with the resources of 
the energy companies, which wasn't soft; it was pretty big. It was 
pretty hot stuff. You put it together, and you have the most profound, 
innovative ways to drill for oil you could ever imagine.
  Let me just suggest, if oil is about 400 yards over there and you 
found it--about four football fields away--and you don't want to touch 
that ground, you can start here, where I am standing, and you can drill 
over there in what is called slant drilling. It is done with such 
precision today that it can take place for yards and yards and yards 
from the actual point under the earth where you attempt to strike the 
liquid mineral, or the natural gas. That is what will be used if you 
are worried about how will you use this tiny piece, the size of Dulles, 
to go into the hinterland without touching anything.
  That is the answer. You will go in when it is frozen, you will do 
your drilling activity, and when it starts to thaw, you get out and 
wait until it freezes again, you come back and, frankly, you won't know 
anything has happened--except that underground you will be moving ahead 
full speed to make America have more of the oil that is ours, that we 
own, that we will use for our future.
  I have a little picture up here from Science Times. It was covered in 
the Times. It is called ``Hunting For Oil: New Precision, Less 
Pollution.''
  I am sure those who have circulated millions and millions of letters 
and the hundreds of TV ads saying we are going to ruin ANWR--if we take 
a tiny piece of that property, the size of Dulles, which I have just 
shown you on the map, and we drill, they are assuming you are going to 
spoil the earth as you do when you are producing with the conventional 
drilling of wells.
  This is a pictorial of the chronology and the evolution of how you go 
about drilling today.

       Using the latest drilling techniques, oil drilling sites 
     like those in the Alpine Fields of Alaska's North Slope are 
     using cutting edge technology in the hope of reducing 
     environmental damage.
       To reduce the damage, recent advances are lessening the 
     industrial impact on the fragile Arctic ecosystem.

  They proceed to show you an Alpine Field, Alaska. They show you what 
is happening. Let me move over here because I described it in not too 
good a manner a while ago when I said the oil was 400 yards away, four 
football fields. You could drill from here.
  Let's look at this diagram. You see, here is the platform that might 
be the size of Dulles. Here is the drilling. Here is the oil 
underground. And you see, way far away, the oil is underground, and it 
is going to be drilled and come up, and everything is going to be done 
on this platform. The same here. Here is a giant reservoir underground. 
It is many yards from where you have set out to manage and control the 
destiny of the tundra. There you are with this dramatic picture of how, 
just like a curved straw, you put it underground and maneuver it, and 
the ``milk shake'' is way over there, and your little child wants the 
milk shake, and they sit over here in their bedroom where they are 
feeling ill, and they just gobble it up from way down in the kitchen, 
where you don't even have to move the Mix Master that made the ice 
cream for them. You don't have to take it up to the bedroom. This 
describes the actual drilling that is taking place.
  I told you a while ago that I was going to give you just a shirt-
sleeve example, where four football fields over there is where you 
thought the oil was. I used an example that is way too small. As a 
matter of fact, 4 miles--not 400 yards, but 4 miles--away is this oil 
from this drill. It is not yards, not football fields, but miles. How 
many? Four. Now, you tell me that those who are telling America this 
will damage this tundra, damage this wilderness, are scurrying to the 
American people and telling them: Did you know you can set a piece of 
that aside and 4 miles away you can take oil out of the ground? Pretty 
fantastic.

  As a matter of fact, I am using 4, because my staff told me 4. They 
have evidence from the science that it is 4. I don't see any reason it 
could not be more than 4. I don't see why it cannot be 6. In fact, if 
people want to know, we could go ask the experts how far away it can 
be. It can be plenty far away.
  So no hard feelings. Everybody makes their case. I have been here a 
long time. I try to make mine. But I guarantee you, this one has me 
worried. If the Senate cannot say, 1, we need oil; 2, we need American 
oil; 3, if we have got American oil and we can take it out of the 
ground, we ought to properly assess the risk, we ought not to just say 
no. We just established we need it. It should be American, if possible. 
So, third, we ought to properly assess the risk.
  The risk is not properly assessed by saying it is under ANWR, 
therefore no oil. That is not a risk assessment. That is an arbitrary 
decision--that in one swath negates the first two propositions of 
significance and reality. We need oil, and we need American oil.
  It is too bad that we do hear in America--and people are fair 
minded--we should not be using so much oil. I hear that. I am prepared 
to confront that on the floor of the Senate because, when the energy 
bill comes up, some people are going to say we are not a very good 
country because, after all, we use a third of the energy of the world. 
Who do we think we are? Do you know what I say? I say we need it for 
our standard of living, but we don't deny it to the other people in the 
world. We will help them produce more. We will help them produce clean 
electricity so they can grow. But I am not prepared to say, since we 
need it for our standard of living--just because we use a 
disproportionate amount--abandon the oil in Alaska. What does that have 
to do with it? What does that have to do with whether we are using oil?
  Mr. President, the other thing I think Senators and the people of 
this country ought to look at is, what is oil? It is easy to say we 
don't need oil, why should we buy so much oil? But oil is our everyday 
life.
  Fellow Americans, do you want to live without cars? Sure, you do. Can 
you? No, you cannot. I will repeat, would you like to live without 
cars? Most Americans would say, of course, I love cars, I like them. If 
you want to say I wish I didn't, I wish I didn't have a car, I ask you, 
how would you make a living?
  Equally important, where would you live? There are two freedoms that 
are not covered anywhere in the sacred documents of our country that 
have evolved, and they are about as American as the proverbial apple 
pie. They are: The freedom to own a house anywhere one can afford it; 
the yearning to have a house that is your own. We are not going to 
change that until America is no longer America. The second freedom is 
to own an automobile or two so you can go where you want when you want.
  I respect the fact that Americans say: This is our life. But I regret 
to tell my fellow Americans, without oil or if oil becomes so ungodly 
high priced, both of those freedoms will be in jeopardy. There is no 
question, both of those freedoms will be in jeopardy because we have 
built our life around those freedoms being reasonably priced. If we 
make them unreasonably priced and create anger among the American 
people, and if, in fact, part of the reason the oil is so highly priced 
is because you did not want to use your own oil because you did not 
want to touch that little piece of property in ANWR, I surmise people 
will not think you have a very good excuse. I for one would say you do 
not have any excuse at all.
  I want to recap--and I apologize to the Senate if I have spoken too 
long and if I have made any misstatements. I do not think I have, but 
if I have, I will try to correct them.
  In summary, it is almost impossible to prove that ANWR will be 
damaged to any noticeable degree if we produce the oil that is under 
the footprint the U.S. Government would like to lease so we can 
determine whether oil is there and how much. It is almost impossible to 
prove damage.
  I am prepared, although this debate will not go on much longer, to 
take any instrument, any study, any report anybody wants to bring to 
the floor to

[[Page S3930]]

the contrary and debate it. If they want to use the Academy of Sciences 
study that has just reviewed the Prudhoe area, let's debate it. One may 
find a few sentences in there that are cautionary, but they will find 
tremendous amounts of information saying those who claim Prudhoe Bay 
has been significantly damaging are in error, and it produced that 
other part, Prudhoe, which passed this Senate by one vote and has 
produced oil for America without which we would really be in trouble. 
We can debate that issue.
  This is so small in comparison to the size of this wilderness, an 
area in the wilderness for which we are very grateful to whomever 
structures the underground oil reserves that they put it in this part 
of ANWR such that the drilling will occur in the area as I have 
described it: not mountainous and beautiful and full of flowers, but 
level and barren and frozen in a gigantic piece that looks like part of 
New Mexico that turned white and froze.
  The next is we are not strong enough to throw away this much of our 
own patrimony. I do not know where I got the word except it is so 
important to own your own resources that in Spanish-speaking countries, 
such as Mexico, they call the oil of Mexico ``El patrimonio del estado 
de Mexico,'' the patrimony of the state. That is how important oil is. 
This is our patrimony. It belongs to us. For those who say we should 
not drill in ANWR because somebody went there and said, We just should 
not touch this wilderness, to me is absolutely ignoring the reality of 
America's future.
  Every other issue I can think of--new technology which will cause a 
minimalization of environmental degradation, jobs in the future, and 
every other issue one can think of--is on the side of the last two or 
three votes deciding to get this done, not for me, but I have nine 
grandchildren. I hope they can still drive a car and own a house 
wherever they would like and work hard and give us ample time to make 
the transition toward other technologies that will make our lives like 
they are today rather than lock this up for no good reason.

  I close by saying the patrimony of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask to take 5 minutes off the resolution 
to respond to the Senator from New Mexico. I believe I might pause here 
for a unanimous consent request. Mr. President, I ask Senator Nickles, 
is that correct? Does the Senator wish that I wait while he propounds a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will.
  Mrs. BOXER. As long as it does not come off my time. I would like to 
reserve the 5 minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to propound a couple unanimous 
consent requests. I appreciate the cooperation of my colleague.
  It is our intention to have a vote on the ANWR amendment at 3 o'clock 
today. I know there are still some Senators, including Senator 
Murkowski and Senator Stevens, who wish to speak on the ANWR amendment, 
and we will accommodate their request. Also, Senator Graham from South 
Carolina has an amendment. It would be my intention to send it to the 
desk so that discussion and debate can occur on that amendment as well. 
We will not lock in a time for a vote on that amendment, but we may 
vote on that shortly after the ANWR amendment.
  We are also shopping, for the information of our colleagues, for a 
couple other major amendments. It was my intention, and it is still my 
intention, to have a vote on the 350 amendment, the size of the growth 
package, today. I would think that is a major amendment and will 
require some significant debate. That possibly could happen shortly 
after the ANWR vote or maybe early afternoon, maybe by 4 or 5 o'clock 
and have some of that debate between now and that point on the 350 
amendment. That amendment is not ready right now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to 
the Boxer amendment No. 272 occur at 3 o'clock today, with no 
amendments in order to the language to be stricken prior to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, just so everyone within the sound of my 
voice understands, we tried to have the vote earlier than 3 o'clock. 
The Vice President is going to be here for one reason, and I think that 
is a powerful reason we are going to have the vote at 3 o'clock. I have 
no objection to the vote at 3 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may, while the manager of the bill is 
on the floor, I hope this sense of the Senate--I am happy it is their 
turn to offer an amendment, and we have no control over what they 
offer. But I hope, Mr. President, that we will not spend a lot of time 
on this sense-of-the-Senate amendment and that we can get to another 
amendment before 3 o'clock. I hope the manager will work with us so we 
can have Senator Graham debate this amendment as long as he thinks 
appropriate. We will respond, if necessary. I think this will pass 
overwhelmingly, with the little knowledge I have of it, and I hope we 
can get to other amendments.
  I say to my friend, we are ready to move forward on a homeland 
security amendment. We are ready, as we speak, to move forward on an 
education amendment. We hope we can get to those amendments before too 
long, recognizing that my friend, the manager of the bill, wants a vote 
on the best kept secret around here, the $350 million amendment which 
we will vote on sometime.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada. I have been 
working with Senator Conrad, and it is a pleasure to work both with the 
Senator from Nevada and the Senator from North Dakota. It is my hope 
and desire to consider a lot of amendments, the serious amendments, the 
big amendments. I encourage people to give us copies. I have heard 
there is a desire to have a vote on the Hagel amendment. I have seen 
some language, but I am not sure which language.
  That is maybe changing the Budget Act. So we kind of need to see that 
in advance. If people will give us these amendments, on both sides, we 
can try to get these in queue so we can have adequate but not extended 
debate, so we are not just burning time.
  We know there is a limitation on debate. In years past, we have burnt 
all the time and then we have a very unpleasant vote-arama. I want to 
avoid that. I know the Senator from North Dakota wants to avoid that. 
We will cooperate with the managers to try to make that happen.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California will state her 
inquiry.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to make sure I have my 5 minutes to respond to the 
hour-long speech of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That unanimous consent request was granted.


                           amendment no. 279

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
offered by the Senator from South Carolina to the desk and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mr. Graham of 
     South Carolina, proposes an amendment numbered 279.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the urgent need 
    for legislation to ensure the long term viability of the Social 
                           Security program)

       On page 79, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 308. SOCIAL SECURITY RESTRUCTURING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--

[[Page S3931]]

       (1) Social Security is the foundation of retirement income 
     for most Americans;
       (2) preserving and strengthening the long term viability of 
     Social Security is a vital national priority and is essential 
     for the retirement security of today's working Americans, 
     current and future retirees, and their families;
       (3) Social Security faces significant fiscal and 
     demographic pressures;
       (4) the nonpartisan Office of the Chief Actuary at the 
     Social Security Administration reports that--
       (A) the number of workers paying taxes to support each 
     Social Security beneficiary has dropped from 16.5 in 1950 to 
     3.3 in 2002;
       (B) within a generation there will be only 2 workers to 
     support each retiree, which will substantially increase the 
     financial burden on American workers;
       (C) the implementation of a Social Security ``lockbox'' 
     would have no direct effect on the future solvency of Social 
     Security;
       (D) without structural reform, the Social Security system, 
     beginning in 2018, will pay out more in benefits than it will 
     collect in taxes;
       (E) without structural reform, the Social Security system, 
     by 2042, will be insolvent and unable to pay full benefits on 
     time;
       (F) without structural reform, Social Security tax revenue 
     in 2042 will only cover 73 percent of promised benefits, and 
     will decrease to 65 percent by 2077;
       (G) without structural reform, payroll taxes will have to 
     be raised 50 percent over the next 75 years to pay full 
     benefits on time, resulting in payroll tax rates of 16.9 
     percent by 2042 and 18.9 percent by 2077;
       (H) without structural reform, Social Security's total cash 
     shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be more than 
     $25,000,000,000,000 in constant 2003 dollars;
       (I) without structural reform, real rates of return on 
     Social Security contributions will continue to decline 
     dramatically for all workers; and
       (J) absent structural reform, spending on Social Security 
     will increase from 4.4 percent of gross domestic product in 
     2003 to 7.0 percent in 2077; and
       (5) the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting 
     Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Chairman of 
     the Federal Reserve Board, and the President's Commission to 
     Strengthen Social Security have all warned that failure to 
     enact fiscally responsible Social Security reform quickly 
     will result in 1 or more of the following:
       (A) Higher tax rates.
       (B) Lower Social Security benefit levels.
       (C) Increased Federal debt.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the President and Congress should work together at the 
     earliest opportunity to enact legislation to achieve a 
     solvent and permanently sustainable Social Security system.

  Mr. NICKLES. I know I gave that amendment to my colleague from 
Nevada, but I believe the Senator from South Carolina wanted me to call 
up the sense-of-the-Senate amendment No. 274.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                      Amendment No. 279, Withdrawn

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 279.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 274

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 274 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mr. Graham of 
     South Carolina, proposes an amendment numbered 274.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the urgent need 
    for legislation to ensure the long term viability of the Social 
                           Security program)

       On page 79, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 308. SOCIAL SECURITY RESTRUCTURING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Social Security is the foundation of retirement income 
     for most Americans;
       (2) preserving and strengthening the long term viability of 
     Social Security is a vital national priority and is essential 
     for the retirement security of today's working Americans, 
     current and future retirees, and their families;
       (3) Social Security faces significant fiscal and 
     demographic pressures;
       (4) the nonpartisan Office of the Chief Actuary at the 
     Social Security Administration reports that--
       (A) the number of workers paying taxes to support each 
     Social Security beneficiary has dropped from 16.5 in 1950 to 
     3.3 in 2002;
       (B) within a generation there will be only 2 workers to 
     support each retiree, which will substantially increase the 
     financial burden on American workers;
       (C) the implementation of a Social Security ``lockbox'' 
     would have no direct effect on the future solvency of Social 
     Security;
       (D) without structural reform, the Social Security system, 
     beginning in 2018, will pay out more in benefits than it will 
     collect in taxes;
       (E) without structural reform, the Social Security system, 
     by 2042, will be insolvent and unable to pay full benefits on 
     time;
       (F) without structural reform, Social Security tax revenue 
     in 2042 will only cover 73 percent of promised benefits, and 
     will decrease to 65 percent by 2077;
       (G) without structural reform, payroll taxes will have to 
     be raised 50 percent over the next 75 years to pay full 
     benefits on time, resulting in payroll tax rates of 16.9 
     percent by 2042 and 18.9 percent by 2077;
       (H) without structural reform, Social Security's total cash 
     shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be more than 
     $25,000,000,000,000 in constant 2003 dollars;
       (I) without structural reform, real rates of return on 
     Social Security contributions will continue to decline 
     dramatically for all workers; and
       (J) absent structural reforms, spending on Social Security 
     will increase from 4.4 percent of gross domestic product in 
     2003 to 7.0 percent in 2077; and
       (5) the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting 
     Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Chairman of 
     the Federal Reserve Board, and the President's Commission to 
     Strengthen Social Security have all warned that failure to 
     enact fiscally responsible Social Security reform quickly 
     will result in 1 or more of the following:
       (A) Higher tax rates.
       (B) Lower Social Security benefit levels.
       (C) Increased Federal debt.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the President and Congress should work together at the 
     earliest opportunity to enact legislation to achieve a 
     solvent and permanently sustainable Social Security system; 
     and
       (2) Social Security reform--
       (A) must protect current and near retirees from any changes 
     to Social Security benefits;
       (B) must preserve Social Security's disability and 
     survivors insurance programs;
       (C) must not allow the government to invest directly the 
     Social Security trust funds in the stock market;
       (D) must not raise Social Security payroll tax rates;
       (E) must reduce the pressure on future taxpayers and on 
     other budgetary priorities;
       (F) must provide competitive rates of return on Social 
     Security contributions; and
       (G) must prepare and strengthen the safety net for 
     vulnerable populations.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we 
will have a vote on the ANWR resolution at 3. We will have a vote on 
the Graham of South Carolina sense-of-the-Senate amendment sometime 
shortly thereafter. It is my hope and desire that we will get another 
amendment in queue. I would like to see that amendment be the $350 
billion limitation on the growth package. If not, we will work with our 
colleagues to find another substantive amendment to consider and try to 
get that in as quickly as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 7 
minutes following the Senator from California. Is that consistent with 
the way the manager of the bill has been operating the floor? If not, I 
will withhold.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, that has been done. It is not 
the best legislative procedure. I would like to follow a better 
legislative procedure and not stack. In order to manage the floor, 
Senators should be recognized at the conclusion of a speech, and if my 
colleague seeks recognition, I will yield to my colleague as soon as 
the Senator from California concludes her remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 272

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico spoke with 
tremendous conviction about why he wants to drill in the Alaska 
Wildlife Refuge. He said he had no hard feelings for those people who 
felt differently, but he said a number of things that deserve to be 
rebutted, and I am going to do that.
  I certainly believe that whether one has an area that looks like 
this--and my colleagues said this is not a photograph of the area that 
would be drilled, but they are completely incorrect. This has been 
mapped. We have exactly where this is on the back of the photograph. It 
is right in the heart of the refuge. We had this picture last year, 
which then-Senator Frank Murkowski said was not taken in the refuge 
area. We had the head of Fish and Wildlife in Alaska phone in, irate, 
and essentially

[[Page S3932]]

say, yes, this is exactly where they want to drill, where the caribou 
are roaming.
  So let's get that right. I am not going to stand up in front of 
pictures that do not apply to make my case. That is ridiculous. I would 
not do that. That is wrong. It is not a fair way to debate. I want to 
debate on the merit.
  I also have never, ever said in this debate--and I spoke last night, 
as well as this morning--that people on the other side are doing this 
because they get campaign contributions from oil and gas companies and 
other economic interests. I will not do that. I have more respect than 
that. But, of course, my colleague from New Mexico says the only reason 
we are fighting for this is that we get contributions from a few 
environmental organizations. Hogwash. I would like to line up the 
campaign contributions of the environmental organizations versus the 
campaign contributions of big oil and gas companies.
  Let's just cut it out. The Senate should be above that. I speak from 
my heart when I say there is an inconsistency with setting aside this 
beautiful acreage and then saying, oh, well, now we need to drill.
  I received a call this morning from former Representative John 
Seiberling. Last night, his picture was held up by Senator Stevens. 
Senator Stevens said there was a deal cut in 1980 to allow oil 
drilling. Obviously, I was not in that meeting. The fact is I came to 
the Congress in 1982, so I missed that by 2 years.
  Representative Seiberling phoned us this morning. He was the chairman 
of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands. He was in that picture, and 
he said there was no deal to open the Alaska Wildlife Reserve to 
exploration. So I want to state that for the record, just as last night 
I talked about the letter from President Jimmy Carter who said he is 
totally opposed to this drilling, even though he, too, was referred to 
as being part of this so-called deal.
  I also want to show a footprint of the New Jersey Turnpike. Now, my 
colleagues are going to say: Well, Senator Boxer, what does that have 
to do with anything? The fact is, this is the same size footprint that 
the opposition is saying would be the footprint of the oil field that 
would be allowed in this refuge.
  I say to my friends, the way Senator Domenici posed it, he had a 
great big chart and a little dot. Well, what goes on when you drill for 
oil is not a little dot. That is so obvious; it is kind of silly. If we 
even take the footprint that they talk about, the 2,000 acres, that is 
the footprint the size of the New Jersey Turnpike, and I say to anyone 
who has some common sense, no one would say that what happens on the 
New Jersey Turnpike does not have an impact on the surrounding 
community.

  I also say to my friend, because he opposes me in a lot of areas--
this is my friend from New Mexico. I served on the Budget Committee for 
years. I have tremendous respect for him, but we disagree. I, with just 
as much fervor as he, will say to my colleagues today I want them to 
look at the footprint for offshore oil drilling off the coast of 
California. It will look really small if the whole coastline is taken 
into account, but my people in California know it is destructive. How 
do we know that? We have seen it. We have seen what happens when oil 
spills. We know that no matter what technology is promised, accidents 
occur. We have certainly experienced that in Alaska given what has 
happened in the past from spills, and I put that in the Record before.
  We know the USGS analysis says that oil in the refuge is scattered in 
many different areas. It would require multiple fields across the 
Coastal Plain, 250 miles of roads, 100 miles of pipeline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask for 3 additional minutes off the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Dakota yield 3 
minutes?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like 3 additional minutes, if I could, off the 
resolution, or I could take it off the amendment; it is immaterial.
  Mr. CONRAD. We are now in a situation where we have had very extended 
debate on ANWR. At some point, we have to draw it to a close.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will take the time from the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. That will be fine, if we take it from the amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. That will leave 1 minute, and I will reserve that.
  I say to my friend from North Dakota, the Senator from New Mexico had 
an hour speech and I believe I need to rebut it. We know from USGS we 
are talking 250 miles of roads, 100 miles of pipeline, airfields, 
gravel pits, power lines, waste facilities, and other structures. We 
are talking about this, not coming from the side of those who believe 
this pristine area ought to be left alone, but from the USGS survey.

  John Seiberling says no deal was cut in 1980; Senator Stevens sees it 
a different way. People can take away different meanings. But I mention 
that in the Record. When we hear President Carter's name as being part 
of a deal, and he writes a letter and says he does not want to see 
drilling here, we ought to set the record straight.
  This is a fair debate. But it ought to be based on the facts as the 
people who were in the room saw it. Senator Stevens laid out how he 
felt. John Seiberling phoned and left his phone number. I am sure if 
Senator Stevens would like to chat with him, that would be fine with 
him.
  Mr. STEVENS. Who should I call?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to answer on your time. May I answer on your 
time?
  Mr. STEVENS. You mentioned my name, thank you very much.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry, I have 60 seconds left to rebut an hour-long 
tirade by someone on the other side who said the reason we are 
preserving the Arctic is because we received campaign contributions.
  I print in the Record the facts, a letter from Jimmy Carter who 
opposes drilling in this area. He talks about it very eloquently.
  John Seiberling, then-chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public 
Lands and National Parks, was in the picture that my friend from Alaska 
held up last night, and has said absolutely there was no deal cut to 
drill in this area. It is important we set that record straight.
  I correct that. He was not in the picture, but in the meetings that 
led to the picture. He was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on 
Public Lands.
  Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy 
of a very important document put together by the Alaska Wilderness 
League. In it there are comments of the National Research Counsel on 
the cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on 
Alaska's North Slope. We keep hearing there is no problem, no problem 
at all, but there are newspaper reports that say the local people who 
live up there claim there is a problem with the caribou herds. They are 
going elsewhere, away from the drilling.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Comments on the National Research Council Report on the Cumulative 
Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope

       Overall: The report documents significant environmental and 
     cultural effects that have accumulated as the result of three 
     decades of oil development on Alaska's North Slope. 
     Industrial activity has transformed what once was part of the 
     largest intact wilderness area in the United States into a 
     complex of oilfields and their interconnecting roads and 
     pipelines that stretches over 1,000 square miles. Many 
     important effects on animals and vegetation extend well 
     beyond the actual ``footprint'' of development. New 
     technologies have reduced some effects, but despite this, the 
     committee concluded that expansion into new areas is certain 
     to exacerbate existing effects and generate new ones.
       While no economic assessment of the environmental costs of 
     oil development on the North Slope has been done, the report 
     estimates that the costs of removing facilities and restoring 
     habitat will run in the billions of dollars. No money has 
     been set aside for this purpose by either the oil companies 
     or the government. Because natural recovery in the arctic is 
     slow, effects caused by unrestored facilities are likely to 
     persist for centuries.


                                animals

       Bowhead whale migrations have been displaced by the intense 
     noise of seismic exploration offshore. Spilled oil poses a 
     great potential threat to bowhead whales due to their 
     specific morphological characteristics.
       The reproductive success of some bird species in the 
     oilfields has been reduced to the

[[Page S3933]]

     point where some oil-field populations are likely maintained 
     only by immigration from more productive ``source'' habitats 
     elsewhere. An important consequence of this phenomenon is 
     that loss of such ``source'' habitats can threaten the 
     viability of a population even though most of the habitat 
     occupied by the species in a region remains relatively 
     intact. The location of important source habitat for birds or 
     other species is not well characterized for the North Slope. 
     Thus, the spread of industrial development into new areas 
     could result in unexpected species declines, even though 
     total habitat loss might be modest.
       Some denning polar bears have been disturbed by industrial 
     activities. Though limited development offshore has taken 
     place to date, full scale industrial development offshore 
     would displace polar bears and ringed seals from their 
     habitats, increase mortality, and decrease their reproductive 
     success. Predicted climate change is likely to have 
     serious effects on polar bears and ringed seals that will 
     accumulate with those related to oil development.

                                Caribou

       Although industrial development has not resulted in a long-
     term decline in the Central Arctic Herd (the herd most 
     affected by current oil development), the Committee concluded 
     that by itself is not a sufficient measure of whether adverse 
     effects have occurred. Female caribou exposed to oilfield 
     activity and infrastructure produced fewer calves, and 
     following years when insect harassment was high, that effect 
     increased, which may have depressed herd size. The spread of 
     industrial activity into other areas that caribou use for 
     calving and relief from insects, especially to the east where 
     the coastal plain is narrower than elsewhere, would likely 
     result in reductions in reproductive success.
       The Porcupine herd, which calves in the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge, has the lowest growth capacity of the four 
     arctic herds and the least capacity to resist natural and 
     human-caused stress. Higher insect activity associated with 
     climate warming could counteract any benefits of reduced 
     surface development by increasing the frequency with which 
     caribou encounter infrastructure.


                       development ``footprint''

       Development has directly affected 17,000 acres spread 
     across an area roughly the size of the land area of Rhode 
     Island. Of this, 9,000 acres are covered by gravel, excluding 
     TAPS, the Haul Road and facilities in NPRA. The environmental 
     effects of oil development are not limited to the 
     ``footprint'' (actual area covered by a structure), but occur 
     at distances that vary depending on the environmental 
     component affected, from a few miles (animals), to much 
     farther (visual effects and seismic effects on whales).


                  climate change and new technologies

       Climate change will continue to affect the usefulness of 
     many oilfield technologies and how they affect the 
     environment. For example, the length of the winter season 
     when seismic and other off road tundra travel is permitted, 
     and ice roads and pads are constructed, has been steadily 
     decreasing since the 1970's. The coastline of the North Slope 
     is presently eroding at a rate of 8 feet per year, the 
     fastest rate of coastline erosion in the United States, and 
     this will accelerate with climate change.


                               wilderness

       Oil development has compromised wilderness values over 
     1,000 square miles of the North Slope. The potential for 
     further loss is at least as great as what has already 
     occurred as development expands into new areas. Roads, pads, 
     pipelines, seismic vehicle tracks, transmission lines, air, 
     ground and vessel traffic, drilling activities, and other 
     industrial activities and infrastructure have eroded 
     wilderness values over an area that is far larger than the 
     area of direct effects. Most analyses of wilderness effects 
     conducted by the government are cursory, out of date, or 
     both, and none has used new techniques for measuring 
     wilderness values, or attempted to coordinate wilderness 
     assessment or planning among different jurisdictions.


                Economic costs of Environmental Effects

       There have been no economic valuation studies of the 
     effects of oil development on the physical biological, or 
     human environment on the North Slope. As a result, the full 
     cost of oil development on Alaska's North Slope has not been 
     assessed, quantified, or incorporated into decisions that 
     affect use of public land. Incorporation of environmental 
     costs into an overall economic assessment of development 
     would alter projections of economically recoverable oil and 
     gas on public land on the North Slope. For example, the U.S. 
     Geological Survey periodically estimates the amount of 
     recoverable oil in various areas of federally owned land on 
     the North Slope. In doing so, the USGS generally projects the 
     amount of oil that is ``economically recoverable'' from these 
     lands given a particular price of oil and given a set of 
     costs associated with development and transportation. By not 
     fully accounting for environmental costs in its projections, 
     the USGS underestimates the cost of development, which in 
     turn inflates the amount of oil considered economically 
     recoverable at a given market price.


                                 Spills

       Hundreds of spills occur each year in the oilfields, but to 
     date they have not been large enough or frequent enough for 
     their effects to have accumulated. Offshore, the industry has 
     not demonstrated the ability to clean up more than a small 
     fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, especially when 
     broken ice is present.


                             Air pollution

       Not enough information is available to provide a 
     quantitative baseline of spatial and temporal trends in air 
     quality over long periods across the North Slope, and little 
     research has been done to quantify effects. More than 70,000 
     tons of NOx, are emitted each year by industrial 
     facilities on the North Slope, along with thousands of tons 
     of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic 
     hydrocarbons, and millions of tons of carbon dioxide. Even 
     though air quality meets national ambient air quality 
     standards, it is not clear that those standards are 
     sufficient to protect arctic vegetation.


                          Lack of restoration

       Only about 100 acres (1%) of the habitat affected by gravel 
     fill on the North Slope have been restored. The Committee 
     concluded that unless major changes occur, it is unlikely 
     that most disturbed habitat on the North Slope will ever be 
     restored. Because natural recovery in the arctic is slow, 
     effects of unrestored structures are likely to persist for 
     centuries, and will accumulate as new structures are added.


                            decision-making

       Decisions about development on the North Slope have 
     generally been made one case at a time, in the absence of a 
     comprehensive plan and regulatory strategy that identifies 
     the scope, intensity, direction, and consequences of 
     industrial activities judged appropriate and desirable. 
     Similarly, the minimal rehabilitation of disturbed habitat 
     has occurred without an overall plan to identify land-use 
     goals, objectives to achieve them, performance criteria, or 
     monitoring requirements. Little consideration has been given 
     to how future trajectories of development would be viewed by 
     different groups, including North Slope residents. In 
     addition, as indicated above, the full cost of oil 
     development on Alaska's North Slope has not been assessed, 
     quantified, or incorporated into decisions that affect use of 
     public land.


           winter off-road seismic exploration and ice roads

       The Committee estimates that more than 32,000 miles of 
     seismic trails, receiver trails, and camp-move trails were 
     created between 1990 and 2001, an annual average of 2,900 
     miles each year. If current trends continue, some 30,000-line 
     miles will be surveyed on the North Slope over the next 
     decade. These trails produce a serious accumulating visual 
     effect and can damage vegetation and cause erosion. Data do 
     not exist to determine the period that the damage will 
     persist, but some effects are known to have lasted for 
     several decades. Seismic exploration is expanding westward 
     into the western arctic and the foothills, where the hilly 
     topography increases the likelihood that vehicles will damage 
     vegetation. The use of ice roads and pads has increased and 
     will continue to do so, but little information is available 
     on how long effects persist.


                           regilatory issues

       The report did not evaluate the adequacy of existing 
     regulations. However in the course of the review, a number of 
     issues arose. Examples include the following.

           Protecting the tundra from winter off road travel

       DNR permits tundra travel for seismic camps where there is 
     an average of 6" of snow and 12" of frozen soil, which the 
     committee concluded are not based on scientific evidence. The 
     only published study of seismic disturbance in relation to 
     snow cover suggests that disturbance occurs at snow depths of 
     10"-28" of snow. In addition, the use of AVERAGE snowpack and 
     frost thickness by regulatory agencies does not take into 
     account differences in snow cover across different land forms 
     or across the slope.

                              Restoration

       Fewer than 1% of Corps permits contain restoration 
     requirements, and those don't generally include specific 
     standards, requirements for long term monitoring, or 
     performance criteria. Only 6 of the 1,179 permits issued by 
     the Corps require the re-use of gravel. The Corps does not 
     have an estimate of the area affected by permits it has 
     issued.

                              Groundwater

       Existing data on groundwater suggests that sub-permafrost 
     groundwater may meet the regulatory definition of a drinking 
     water source more commonly than thought. No testing of 
     groundwater is required prior to waste injection.

                           Water withdrawals

       Water withdrawals from fish-bearing lakes for purposes such 
     as building ice roads and pads are limited to 15% of the 
     estimated minimum winter water volume. The committee cited 
     the lack of data to support this criterion, which it terms 
     arbitrary. For fishless lakes, there were no restrictions on 
     removal of water as of late 2002; all unfrozen water from 
     such lakes can be drained. The effects of such complete 
     withdrawals have not been evaluated.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is very important everyone vote. This 
is a close vote. I don't think this should be in a budget resolution. 
It is very obvious what the proponents of drilling want to do. They 
want to get this into

[[Page S3934]]

reconciliation so those who have deep, strong feelings will not be able 
to talk at length about it, to stop it. I hope we stop it today.
  I reserve 1 minute for closing debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, previously I yielded the Senator from 
Alaska 1 hour on the amendment. Is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12 minutes remaining on the 
amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Alaska not only those 12 
minutes but also such time as he desires on this resolution. I also 
remind him I told the Senator from Alabama that he would be recognized 
for a few minutes, as well. I yield to the Senator from Alaska such 
time as he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am delighted to be here when my 
friend from California mentions my name and someone I should call. I 
assume that would be President Carter. President Carter told the House 
of Representatives not to send him the 1980 bill until after the 
election. And he waited until after the election, but he did sign it.
  The item I read last night is from Jimmy Carter's own record, his own 
words at the time he signed that bill. It is true, since that time he 
has campaigned against a provision of the bill that he signed.
  We have an amendment introduced now by the Senator from Connecticut 
to repeal that provision. But that is the first time there has been an 
amendment to repeal that provision, primarily because the people who 
were here then who made the commitment to Alaska are all gone. It is 
sad we have to wait until those people who make commitments to a State 
that leads to a decision to withdraw over 100 million acres of Alaska 
land, the one decision we got was we would be able to open up 
exploration and development on the Arctic coast if we could show there 
would be no irreparable harm in that area. That was shown with two 
environmental impact statements.
  Later I will make comments about the impact of the provision of the 
Senator from California with regard to the people of California. I 
spent a good period of time in California. I was raised there and went 
to school there--UCLA. I tell the people of California when their price 
of gasoline goes up, call Senator Boxer. Call her and ask her why she 
opposes oil coming from Alaska as it used to. For over 20 years we sent 
oil to California from the same area. Now she refuses to allow us to 
continue to explore in the area that her two colleagues, Senator 
Jackson and Senator Tsongas, in 1980, said would be open.

  There are pretty flowers all over Alaska in the summertime. I can 
show the Senator from California a picture of a million acres of golden 
rod waving in the breeze. It is beautiful. But I can also show a 
picture again of the tundra. This is what the area she had a picture of 
looks like most of the time, the tundra, solid, frozen tundra, and we 
do this in the wintertime. We do not spoil the flowers. We build ice 
roads across the tundra and drill for oil and gas. It is completed when 
it is still frozen land.
  We did not disturb the caribou. As a matter of fact, here is a good 
example. I am sorry the Senator from California has not seen fit to 
come to Alaska and look at the area she talks about. There is the 
caribou right near Port McIntyre field. That is where they come. They 
do not look disturbed to me. I have been up there, and there are so 
many on the runway we had to wait until they decided to leave because 
they get first call on the runway.
  It is time we talk facts. And the fact is, Congress pledged this area 
would be available for oil and gas exploration. The 1002 area was 
specifically reserved for oil and gas exploration. It is not 
wilderness. The Senator from California and others insist on coming out 
here and saying we want to drill in wilderness. That is not true. It 
never was wilderness from the time it was withdrawn when I was in the 
Department of Interior in the 1950s. We specifically allowed oil and 
gas leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act to continue, although the 
area was withdrawn from all other forms of entry under public land 
laws.
  As long as the Senator from California mentions whom I should call, 
she might want to visit with the Eskimos in the Senate gallery. They 
are part of 100,000 Alaska Natives in favor of drilling in this area. I 
intend to spell that out in more detail later.
  I don't need to call a former President. I know where President 
Carter stands now, but I knew where he was when I saw him signing the 
bill. He signed that bill that contained the section 1002, and he gave 
us the right and approved the offer made by Senator Jackson and Senator 
Tsongas to me that if we allowed the million acres to be withdrawn, we 
would continue to have the right to explore in the Arctic.
  I yield to my friend, and I reserve the remainder of my time. I will 
talk right up to the vote and urge Members of the Senate to think about 
one thing, and that is the value of the oil in our area of Alaska as 
compared to the continued dependence upon foreign oil in increasing 
amounts in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for 
his tremendous leadership on this issue. It is a very important issue 
to America. I salute the Presiding Officer for her leadership on it. It 
is so important.
  There is no doubt about it; any activity in this area would have 
minimal environmental impact. This is going to be the most closely 
watched drilling ever to occur in the world, I suppose. It will be 
environmentally sound in every possible way, using the newest 
technology, as Senator Domenici said. It will be on land where you can 
control things better. It will be a minute footprint in these millions 
of acres of land. It is going to be carefully done.
  While we are talking about safely drilling in Alaska, today no one I 
know of is seriously opposing drilling in the Caspian Sea. No one is 
opposing the drilling that goes on in Venezuela. We are drilling off 
the coast of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, and in the Gulf of 
Mexico right now, producing oil and gas in a much more high-risk 
environment than this would ever be. So this is an unbelievable 
argument to me. It goes against all logic.
  This is a minute environmental impact, I suggest. But it represents, 
without doubt in my mind, the greatest economic growth potential of 
anything in the President's package or anything we are dealing with on 
the floor right now. This is an important growth issue for America. The 
reason is, we are talking about new wealth to America.
  Every day, if we do not buy the oil that comes from this region, we 
will be sending our money to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and 
whatever other OPEC nation we would be sending it to--a direct sucking 
sound of American wealth going to foreign nations.
  We have had various studies. One said 735,000 jobs would be produced. 
Another one has come in at 575,000 jobs that would be created.
  I want to make one point. These are going to be critical jobs, high-
paying jobs in drilling--environmental engineers, pump manufacturing, 
shipping, transportation, rail, airlines are going to be active, 
steelworkers, teamsters, and that kind of thing, high-paying jobs. 
Money will be paid to them out of the money that we would have 
otherwise sent outside of this country for foreign oil that would not 
have been paid to American workers. High paid salaries to American 
workers--it will be missed by us.
  So I would say this is big. I will just briefly make this point. How 
big is it? If we had 575,000 jobs, and they are making higher wages, if 
they are a spouse who is working, they may be paying more than the 
figure I would float out, but I suggest these jobs will result in IRS 
payments to Uncle Sam, Uncle Sugar, of probably $10,000 per job.
  You add that up, 575,000 jobs at $10,000 to the tax man of the United 
States, that turns out to $5.75 billion a year to the Treasury of the 
United States. Over 10 years that is almost $50 billion.
  Are we going to pay this to the ``stans,'' to Russia, Venezuela, 
Mexico, Iraq, Kuwait, those countries? That is who is getting it now 
and will be getting it in the future. It is really a tremendous amount.

[[Page S3935]]

  This does not count the royalties that will be paid by the drilling 
companies to the United States. They will be paying $10 to $20 billion 
over the life of this activity.
  We have also not forgotten, I hope, that the drilling here, under the 
legislation as proposed, will result in the payment of $2.5 billion to 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for conservation programs in 
America. I have absolutely no doubt--I know the Presiding Officer 
shares this--that $2.5 billion will do more environmental good 
throughout the entire United States than this 2,500-acre footprint of 
drilling would cause damage in this vast ANWR region of Alaska.
  I really believe this is a tremendously important economic issue for 
America. It is jobs, jobs, jobs. Those of us who are wrestling with a 
budget in this country that shows declining revenues, it will guarantee 
increased tax revenues to the United States. We must not allow 
exaggerated fears to pull us back from this important issue.
  It is great to be with the Senator from Alaska, and know he knows 
this issue so well. I appreciate his leadership. Yes, it is good for 
Alaska, but it is good for America. We thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 274

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I know the Senator from South Carolina 
has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Let me just say I regret that 
because we have done our level best to stop the practice of offering 
sense-of-the-Senate amendments on the budget resolution. We have 
established a point of order against them to try to discourage sense-
of-the-Senate amendments. And we have been so far, until this moment, 
successful on both sides. I just say to my colleagues, if we start down 
this path, we will be right back to where we were in the past. We are 
going to be right back to vote-arama. We are going to be right back to 
a circumstance in which, when all time has expired, we are going to 
face 30 or 40 or 50 votes and nobody is going to have a chance to 
explain them. We are going to have Senators, hour after hour after 
hour, marching down into the well of the Senate to cast votes on issues 
they have not even had a chance to debate or had a chance to discuss.
  I regret very much the sense-of-the-Senate amendment has been put in 
this queue. I say to my colleagues on the other side, if we start down 
this path, the same thing is going to happen over here.
  Let me say, it is not the fault of the Senator from South Carolina. 
He has offered an amendment in good faith. We respect that Senator. But 
the point is a larger question of how we proceed on a budget 
resolution. Both sides have worked very hard to prevent vote-arama.
  We are right now rushing toward that result. I hope everybody thinks 
very carefully now about the decisions we are making because we are 
going to reap the whirlwind.
  Let me just say this to my colleagues. There is an alternative. The 
Senator from South Carolina has gotten in the queue. I hope we can work 
out an agreement on his amendment. I understand staffs on both sides 
are working on that. If we do not draw the line here, it is Katie bar 
the door. And we should all understand that.
  No. 2, I hope after the Senator from South Carolina has a reasonable 
time to discuss his amendment, hopefully during that period our staffs 
can work together and we can reach an accommodation and agreement so 
the amendment of the Senator can be adopted without a vote. I urge that 
course on my colleagues on the other side.
  Next, that we then move to a debate on another amendment with the 
ability to come back and finish off on ANWR before the vote that is now 
scheduled at 3 o'clock. I just hope we all think very carefully, now, 
in these minutes, before we head down this path, of where it leads. At 
the same time, on both sides, we discussed trying to reach an agreement 
on a set number of amendments, those to be debated and those to be in 
vote-arama.
  On our side we are calling a caucus to discuss that very question. I 
hope the other side--I have already talked to Senator Nickles about 
it--will give it close consideration as well, so we avoid this 
spectacle of vote-arama. But right now colleagues should understand we 
are headed for the vote-arama of all time, and it will not reflect well 
on the body, and it probably will not lead to the best results.
  With that, I yield the floor and, again, hope my colleagues consider 
these options.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina addressed the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, while the Senator from North Dakota is 
here, I would like to see if there could be an agreement. I understand 
we are going off this amendment to delete the ANWR provision in this 
budget resolution for a little while. I wonder if it would be possible 
if we could ask unanimous consent that we return to this amendment at 2 
o'clock--the vote will be at 3--and the time between 2 and 3 o'clock be 
equally divided between the two sides.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would certainly be open to that. I would want the 
opinion of the manager and chairman of the committee.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection to that. This is a very important 
amendment. It is one of the reasons why I encouraged our colleagues to 
bring it up. I knew it was going to take some time. I have no objection 
to that.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection on this side.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do offer that unanimous consent request. I point out, 
I could speak from now until 3 o'clock, if the Senate would like to do 
that, but I think it is best we go ahead as the leader requests we do. 
I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, I have a housekeeping 
chore. I would like to submit to the clerk a modification to my 
amendment and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.
  No modification is needed, I am told. Thank you.
  Madam President, Social Security is not only hard to solve, it is 
also hard to get before the Senate. So I apologize for the confusion.
  I understand the concern of my colleague from North Dakota. But 
having a bit of time to talk about Social Security I think is very 
appropriate.
  The budget resolution process is a roadmap to make sure we can 
understand what we are doing as the year progresses in terms of 
spending and taxes and what provisions to take up and when. I applaud 
both the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Oklahoma for 
working together to try to make this as painless on the body as 
possible. But this amendment, hopefully, can be accepted in some form, 
either voted on or accepted by the body.
  If you are going to have a roadmap for America this year or any other 
year, it is time we start putting Social Security on that roadmap. 
Social Security is a system that Democrats and Republicans embrace as 
being vital to the Nation. It is a system that working Americans pay 
into every year. Millions of Americans receive a substantial part, if 
not all, of their retirement income from Social Security, after years 
of paying into the system.

  This amendment is part of this roadmap for America that we are 
talking about. It lays out some findings and some facts that are not 
Republican spin, not Democratic spin, but come from the Social Security 
trustees themselves, the people in charge of telling us, in managing 
the program--``us'' being the House and the Senate--the state of 
affairs with Social Security.
  We are on the verge of a war. Only God knows what will happen here 
shortly. But it is my belief, unless there is some major miracle, we 
will be involved in hostilities with young men and women in harm's way 
protecting our freedom. I know one thing every Member of the body can 
agree on is that these young men and women deserve our support and our 
prayers if ordered into battle. And they will get that support and 
those prayers in a bipartisan way because what they are doing is very 
noble, in my opinion, trying to preserve our freedom and bringing about 
more stability in the Mideast.

[[Page S3936]]

  We can argue about the nuances of the diplomacy and lack thereof in 
some people's opinion that got us to being on the brink of war, but 
once hostilities begin, I am sure everybody will come together and say 
a prayer for our troops and support our President the best they can.
  That same dynamic needs to exist with Social Security, because there 
is a big, gaping hole in America's domestic agenda. You can talk about 
the size of the tax cuts, whether we should have one, whether it should 
be $750 billion or $350 billion or 30 cents or $2 trillion. Whatever 
opinion you have, I respect, and I have my own about that; and that is 
a point of debate.
  One thing we need to understand and come together on quickly, in my 
opinion, is certain facts surrounding Social Security.
  In 75 years--I know that seems forever. But my predecessor, Senator 
Thurmond, turned 100 a few months ago. He is going to be a first-time 
grandfather. Our State's former junior Senator, now senior Senator, is 
81. So in South Carolina, 75 years is not long in politics. It seems 
forever, but it is not, really.
  In 75 years, our trustees, the people in charge of the Social 
Security trust fund, tell us we will be $25.3 trillion short of the 
money necessary to pay benefits. I want to repeat that. I know there 
are a lot of important votes to come on ANWR and tax cuts, and this 
roadmap is about this year; and we are trying get through this day to 
make sure we can get on with the business of the Senate. And that is 
the way politics is, probably to a fault sometimes: getting through 
this day, getting through this amendment, so we can get on with the 
next event of the next day. We are in the middle of an international 
crisis, and our hope is we can get through the coming days as quickly 
as possible and resolve it.
  Time is not on our side in solving Social Security structural 
problems. You could say: Well, 75 years is a long time. But between now 
and 75 years from now, for the obligations of the trust fund, and the 
money to pay those obligations, there will be a $25 trillion gap. And I 
ask, simply, the following question: Where does the money come from?
  People want to know how much the war is going to cost--and the 
occupation. The truth is, it is going to be billions of dollars over 
several years. As we try to find out where the money comes from to get 
us through this day and this year, I hope we will start focusing on, in 
a bipartisan fashion, where does the money come from to keep Social 
Security solvent?

  Seventy-five years from now, if nothing changes--if all we do is run 
ads against each other and belittle opportunities to fix it in a 
partisan way; if the Democratic and the Republican parties stay on 
track, based on the last campaign cycle, of trying to use the Social 
Security issue as a way to capture power for the moment--then we are 
going to allow one of the best programs in the history of the Nation 
not only to become insolvent but create a financial crisis in this 
country that we have not experienced, ever.
  Another date I would like to point out: In 2042, which seems forever, 
but it is not, a problem occurs with Social Security. Seventy-five 
years from now, the unfunded liability in obligation will be $25.3 
trillion. But before you get to that point in time, the next major 
event, according to the trustee report released yesterday, is 2042.
  What happens in 2042? In 2042, the amount of money available to pay 
benefits will be such that benefits will be reduced for the average 
recipient by 28 percent. I want to say that again. If we do nothing 
different, if we just collect the same amount of money, and get the 
same growth rates, in 2042 you are going to reduce benefits for 
everybody on Social Security by 28 percent. The other option is, 
according to the trustees, raise payroll taxes of the workforce in 
existence then by 50 percent. These are two very dramatic and 
unacceptable options, in my opinion.
  Now, in 2042, I doubt if I will be here. But if the history of my 
State stands the test of time, I will be here because I will turn 100 
in 2055. If I can do what my predecessor has done, which I very 
seriously doubt, I will have another term left. I doubt if that will 
happen in my case, but somebody is going to be here in 2042 from South 
Carolina and every other State represented here today.

  My hope is that during my time in the Senate, I can join with my 
colleagues of like mind on both sides of the aisle to make life a 
little better for the American public, the taxpayer, and those who will 
be doing the job we are engaged in today a little better than the 
trustees tell us of what is going to happen in 2042.
  I would like to recognize certain Members of this body: Senator 
Gregg, Senator Breaux, and many others, Senator Moynihan, a former 
Member of the Senate, who have brought ideas to the table, have worked 
in a bipartisan manner, along with President Bush. I compliment 
President Clinton for putting the issue of Social Security on the 
table. I didn't particularly like his solution to better growth rates, 
but he acknowledged that growth rates were a problem. So there is the 
foundation being laid in the last couple years to do something 
constructive.
  I compliment everybody in this body who has been part of that 
process. As a Member of the House for four terms, I tried to be a 
constructive Member dealing with Social Security over there.
  The temptation to achieve political power is great when the Senate 
and the House are so closely divided. Every issue is looked upon as the 
issue that can get you back in the majority or the issue that may cost 
you the majority. My concern is that if we have that approach to 
reforming and solving Social Security--I know the Senator from North 
Dakota who is managing the minority side of the bill is a fine Member 
who loves his country as much as I do--if we keep this partisan 
atmosphere going that has existed in the past and has been bipartisan 
in the demagoguery, we will run into a problem. So in 2042, I would 
like us to avoid what is coming our way. The only way to do is to start 
now.
  Another date the Social Security trustees tell us is a very important 
date is 2018. I have gone from 75 years now to 2042 to 2018. What 
happens in 2018? In 2018, for the first time in the history of the 
program, we will pay more in benefits than we collect in taxes. What is 
going on here? There are a lot of young folks working in the Senate--
pages, interns. We are really talking about their future more than 
anything else.
  In 2018, we pay out more in benefits than we collect in taxes. What 
is wrong with Social Security? Why is it mounting up this unfunded 
obligation? Why are we beginning to pay more in benefits than we 
collect in taxes? Why do we have to cut benefits in 2042, and why are 
we $25 trillion short in the money to pay everybody 75 years from now?
  Well, it is not a Republican or a Democratic problem in terms of 
politics. It is just the way the country has changed. I was born in 
1955. In 1950, a few years before I was born, there were 16.5 workers 
to every retiree. According to the trustees, in 1950, there were 16.5 
people working paying Social Security taxes for every retiree. Today 
there are 3.3 workers to every retiree. Twenty years from now, there 
are going to be two workers for every retiree. That is not a Republican 
problem. It is not a Democratic caused problem. That is not because we 
can't get along up here. That is because the ratios have changed. There 
is no reason to believe they will go back the other way.
  My father and mother are deceased now, but I think in my mother's 
family there were nine members of her family, and my father had eight. 
I am not married. I don't have any kids. My sister has one. I sort of 
reflect what is going on in the world. I hope to help solve the problem 
later down the road. If I do what Senator Thurmond has done, 23 years 
from now, I would have my first child. I doubt if that will happen, 
either.
  But as we kind of mark these points in time and make it personal, the 
problem is that the demographic changes in America have put Social 
Security at risk. It is nobody's fault, but it is everyone's problem. 
You cannot keep the program solvent when the ratio has gone from 16.5 
workers to 1 in 1950 to 20 years from now being 2 to 1. There is just 
not enough money coming into the system.
  Now, when you talk about Social Security spending and what to do and 
the idea that we are spending Social Security surpluses to run the 
Government,

[[Page S3937]]

you get everybody upset. And they should be. I came to the House in 
1995. One of the first things we tried to do was isolate Social 
Security money surpluses and make sure we did not use the Social 
Security dollars paid into the system to run the Government. That has 
been a practice that has been going on for 30 or 40 years. Both parties 
have engaged in that practice.
  Every year we collect more in Social Security taxes than we pay in 
benefits. That extra money is called surplus. We have borrowed that 
extra cash, given the trust fund IOUs that have to be redeemed in the 
future. That has allowed us to grow this Government without a direct 
tax on people.
  That is a bad practice. It is not good government. It is not good 
business. For several years we have been able to avoid doing that in a 
bipartisan way.
  You remember in the last debate there was the lockbox. Let's put 
everything related to Social Security in this lockbox. In my last 
campaign for the Senate, I constantly heard it: If you just left Social 
Security money alone and you didn't take it out to run the Government, 
if you kept it in a lockbox and left it alone, most of these problems 
would go away.
  That is not true. As much as you would like to believe that, that is 
not true. If you took every penny collected from Social Security and 
you dedicated it totally to the trust fund and totally to the benefits 
to be paid, you are still $25 trillion short in 75 years. It still runs 
out of money in 2042. The problem is that two workers paying into the 
system will not be able to support the massive number of baby boomers 
coming into the system.
  Having said that, I would like to work with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to do a better job of protecting Social Security. I 
don't believe there is any party that has been in power for the last 40 
years that could look the American public in the eye and say that they 
have not been guilty of using the surpluses in some fashion for other 
than Social Security.
  In September of last year, I wrote a letter to the Social Security 
Administration asking 17 questions. Here is one of the questions I 
asked: Some have proposed a Social Security lockbox; would a lockbox, 
by itself, extend the solvency of Social Security beyond the year 
Social Security is expected to become insolvent? In a nutshell they 
said, the implementation of a Social Security lockbox would not alter 
this commitment and thus would have no direct effect on the future 
solvency of Social Security.
  Having said that, I do believe we should isolate Social Security 
dollars and dedicate those dollars to the payment of Social Security 
trust fund obligations. That is just good government. But please do not 
tell your constituents back home that will fix this problem because it 
most certainly will not.
  After having heard my rendition, there is probably not much good news 
you have heard yet. The good news: there is a way, in my opinion, to 
make up the $25 trillion shortfall over 75 years, to change the fact 
that you will have to reduce benefits by 2042 by 28 percent--that is 
all the money you will have to pay benefits by then--and to even change 
the dynamic of paying more out in benefits than you collect in taxes by 
2018.
  The good news--just like everything else in Washington, there is a 
bad news/good news part of what I am about to say--is that the growth 
rates for Social Security, the amount of return you get on your FICA 
tax dollars or Social Security tax dollars taken out of your paycheck 
for younger workers, people born in the 1980s, it is less than 2 
percent. If you happen to be a minority in this country, born in the 
1980s, it is less than 1 percent.
  Let me say that again. This is not Lindsey Graham saying that. The 
Social Security trustees have reported back to me in this letter.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Social Security,


                                  Office of the Chief Actuary,

                                Baltimore, MD, September 26, 2002.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Graham: Thank you very much for the opportunity to 
     answer the questions you have posed in your letter of 
     September 6, 2002. The answers below are based on the 
     intermediate assumptions and projections presented in the 
     2002 Annual Social Security Trustees Report and estimates 
     that we have provided for a number of reform proposals over 
     the past several years.
       Many of the questions that you raise are very complex and 
     the answers are subject to considerable uncertainty and even 
     debate. I am providing brief answers reflecting my 
     understanding of these issues based largely on the work done 
     in the Office of the Chief Actuary for the Trustees, the 
     Administration, and the Congress. I hope these responses will 
     be helpful. I look forward to working with you, and Aleix 
     Jarvis and Jessica Efird of your staff in the effort to 
     develop proposals to reform Social Security and restore long-
     term solvency for the program.
       (1) Based on the Social Security Administration's 
     projections, in what year does Social Security begin to pay 
     more out than it takes in?
       Answer. Under the current intermediate assumptions of the 
     2002 Annual Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees 
     to the Congress, and assuming that current law is not 
     changed, we project that annual cash flow for the Social 
     Security program will remain positive through 2016 and will 
     turn negative for calendar year 2017 and later. Annual cash 
     flow is defined here as the excess of income (excluding 
     interest) over expenditures.
       (2) Based on the Social Security Administration's 
     projections, in what year is Social Security expected to 
     become insolvent?
       Answer. Under the intermediate assumptions, full benefits 
     would continue to be payable after 2016 and part of the way 
     through 2041 by augmenting current revenue from taxes with 
     revenue from redeeming special United States Treasury 
     obligations held by the Trust Funds. During 2041, the 
     theoretical combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) 
     and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds are projected to 
     become exhausted and full scheduled benefits would no longer 
     be payable on a timely basis. This condition is referred to 
     as insolvency of the Trust Funds, because available tax 
     revenue would then be sufficient to cover only about 73 
     percent of the cost of scheduled benefits. In fact, the OASI 
     and DI Trust Funds operate separately and the projected dates 
     of insolvency are 2043 for the OASI Trust Fund and 2028 for 
     the DI Trust Fund. For simplicity of analysis, the date for 
     theoretical combined Trust Funds is usually considered.
       (3) Assuming current growth rates remain the same would 
     benefits have to be reduced or taxes increased to keep Social 
     Security from insolvency? If so, how much?
       Answer. The intermediate assumptions for the Annual 
     Trustees Reports reflect the Trustees, best judgment about 
     the continuation of current trends in demographic and 
     economic variables like birth rates, death rates, average 
     wage increases and price increases. Assuming the intermediate 
     assumptions of the 2002 Trustees Report are realized, Social 
     Security will require either a reduction in benefit levels or 
     an increase in revenue starting in 2041 for the combined 
     OASDI program (and in 2043 for the OASI program and 2028 for 
     the DI program). If benefits were reduced to meet the 
     shortfall in revenue for the combined program, the reduction 
     would need to be 27 percent starting with the exhaustion of 
     the Trust Fund in 2041 and would rise to 34 percent for 2076. 
     Alternatively, if additional revenue were provided beginning 
     in 2041, revenue equivalent to a payroll tax rate increase of 
     about 3.3 percent (from 12.4 percent under current law to 
     about 15.7 percent) would be needed for the year. The 
     additional revenue needed for 2042 would be equivalent to a 
     payroll tax rate increase of about 4.5 percent. Thereafter 
     the amount of additional revenue needed would gradually rise, 
     reaching an amount equivalent to an increase in the payroll 
     tax rate of about 6.4 percent for 2076. There is, of course, 
     a great variety of ways in which benefits could be reduced or 
     revenue increased for the Social Security program. Many 
     different combinations of provisions to reduce benefits and/
     or provide increased revenue from taxes could be developed to 
     avoid insolvency of the OASDI Trust Funds throughout the 75-
     year projection period, and beyond.
       (4) If Social Security surpluses were not diverted from the 
     general budget, how would that affect the system? Would it 
     avert a future insolvency?
       Answer. I assume you are referring to the fact that for 
     most years in which Social Security has taken in more tax 
     revenue than it has paid out in benefits and other expenses, 
     the rest of the Federal budget has operated in deficit. In 
     these years, the Social Security tax revenue not currently 
     needed for benefit payments has, by law, been invested in 
     securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United 
     States Government. In practice, this revenue has been 
     invested in special issue United States Treasury securities. 
     These securities represent a commitment to redeem these 
     investments, with interest at the market rate, when the 
     Social Security Trust Funds are in need of revenue. Such 
     commitments to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds 
     have always been met in the past and should be expected to be 
     met in the future regardless of the fiscal operations of the 
     rest of the Federal Government. Therefore, the trust funds 
     are in no way compromised in their role of maintaining 
     solvency as a result of being invested in special Treasury 
     securities. However, redemption of these Treasury securities 
     held

[[Page S3938]]

     by the Trust Funds does require the Treasury to allocate 
     General Revenue for this purpose, and this allocation must be 
     met by increasing taxes, reducing other federal spending, or 
     increasing borrowing from the public.
       (5) Some have proposed a Social Security ``lock box.'' 
     Would a ``lock box'' by itself extend the solvency of Social 
     Security beyond the year Social Security is expected to 
     become insolvent?
       Answer. As suggested above, the Social Security Trust Fund 
     investments represent commitments of the United States 
     Treasury that should be expected to be met when the Trust 
     Funds need to redeem these investments. The implementation of 
     a Social Security ``lock box'' would not alter this 
     commitment and thus would have no direct effect on the future 
     solvency of Social Security.
       However, if the effect of a ``lock box'' were to require 
     that the non-Social-Security Federal budget be in balance or 
     surplus for the years in which Social Security makes 
     investments, then the amount of borrowing from the public 
     might be reduced. In this case the difficulty of generating 
     General Revenue for the redemption of Trust Fund investments 
     in the future would likely be diminished.
       (6) How many South Carolinians do you project will be 
     receiving Social Security benefits when the program becomes 
     insolvent? How many South Carolinians currently receive 
     benefits?
       Answer: In December of 2001, about 704 thousand South 
     Carolinians were receiving Social Security benefits. This 
     represented about 1.5 percent of all Social Security 
     beneficiaries at that time. If this percentage remains the 
     same in 2041, when the combined Social Security Trust Funds 
     are projected to become exhausted, we estimate that about 1.4 
     million South Carolinians will be receiving Social Security 
     benefits at that time.
       (7) What is the ratio of workers per retiree when the 
     program began, in 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, today, 
     2010, 2020, 2030, 2040?
       Answer: The table below provides the historical and 
     projected numbers of Social Security covered workers and 
     beneficiaries. Ratios of covered workers to beneficiaries are 
     shown both where beneficiaries include all beneficiaries and 
     where beneficiaries are limited to retired workers. The 
     number of beneficiaries was extremely small in 1940, the 
     first year that monthly benefits were payable, because only 
     workers with some work in 1937 through 1939 could qualify. 
     This resulted in a very high ratio of covered workers to 
     beneficiaries at the start of the program, which required 
     several decades to mature.

                  SOCIAL SECURITY (OASDI) COVERED WORKERS, BENEFICIARIES, AND RATIOS--1940-2080
                                                 [In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Beneficiaries           Ratio of Covered Workers
                                                      ---------------------------------           to--
                                                                                       -------------------------
                                                        Covered    Retired     Total                    All
                                                        workers    workers               Retirees  beneficiaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1940.................................................     35,390        112        222      316.0        159.4
1950.................................................     48,280      1,771      2,930       27.3         16.5
1960.................................................     72,530      8,061     14,262        9.0          5.1
1970.................................................     93,090     13,349     25,186        7.0          3.7
1980.................................................    113,649     19,564     35,118        5.8          3.2
1990.................................................    133,672     24,841     39,470        5.4          3.4
2002.................................................    152,461     29,123     46,239        5.2          3.3
2010.................................................    165,443     34,126     52,865        4.8          3.1
2020.................................................    172,848     48,324     68,699        3.6          2.5
2030.................................................    178,131     61,740     84,070        2.9          2.1
2040.................................................    184,433     66,895     90,068        2.8          2.0
2050.................................................    189,845     69,692     94,109        2.7          2.0
2060.................................................    194,568     74,937    100,177        2.6          1.9
2070.................................................    198,687     80,635    106,723        2.5          1.9
2080.................................................    202,238     85,939    112,895        2.4          1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Projections are based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2002 Trustees Report.

       (8) What is the sum of the total cash shortfalls that 
     social security is projected to experience from now through 
     2075, from 2025-2050, and from 2050-2075? (in constant and in 
     present-value dollars)?
       Answer. Combining financial values over substantial periods 
     of time is generally done taking into account the ``time 
     value of money''. This is accomplished by accumulating or 
     discounting the separate annual values with interest to a 
     common date. Values combined in this way are referred to as 
     present values as of the date to which they are accumulated 
     or discounted.
       In present-value dollars (discounted at the OASDI Trust 
     Fund interest rate to January 1, 2002) the total net OASDI 
     cash flow for years 2002 through 2076 is projected to be 
     nearly -$4.6 trillion. When the Trust Fund balances of over 
     $1.2 trillion at the beginning of 2002 are added to this 
     value, we get a financial shortfall (or unfunded obligation) 
     for the 75-year period of $3.3 trillion. This unfunded 
     obligation indicates that if an additional $3.3 trillion had 
     been added to the Trust Funds at the beginning of 2002, the 
     program would have had adequate financing to meet the 
     projected cost of benefits scheduled in current law over the 
     next 75 years. It should be noted that if the dollar amount 
     of this unfunded obligation is accumulated with interest to 
     the end of 2076, and then expressed in constant (CPI-indexed) 
     2002 dollars we get $33 trillion.
       The present-value net cash-flow of almost -$4.6 trillion 
     for the p0eriod 2002 through 2076 can be separated into the 
     three 25-year sub-periods:+$0.4 trillion for the period 2002 
     through 2026, -$2.7 trillion for the period 2027 through 
     2051, and -$2.3 trillion for the period 2052 through 2076. If 
     only years of negative cash flow are included then the value 
     for the first 25-year sub-period is -$0.5 trillion and the 
     total for the 72-year period is -$5.5 trillion.
       Summing constant 2002-dollar values from several different 
     years is equivalent to taking their present value and 
     assuming that the operative real interest rate is zero. This 
     may result in values that are difficult to interpret. 
     Constant-dollar values are generally used for comparing 
     separate values over time rather than for combining them. A 
     comparison of constant-dollar values for a series covering 
     many years is helpful in illustrating the extent of real 
     growth in the series over time. There is no meaningful 
     interpretation of the result from summing constant dollar 
     values from many different years.
       Expressing the combined values discussed above in terms of 
     simple sums of constant 2002 dollars (CPI discounted dollars) 
     results in quite different results from present value because 
     much greater weight is placed on more distant future years 
     than would be indicated by current market interest rates. 
     Using this approach produces constant-dollar cash-flow sums 
     of +$0.1 trillion for 2002 through 2026, -$8.6 trillion for 
     2027 through 2051, -$15.3 trillion for 2052 through 2076, and 
     -$23.8 trillion for the entire 75-year period. The sum for 
     the first 25-year period with only negative values included 
     is -$1.1 trillion. The sum for the 75-year period including 
     only negative annual values is -$24.9 trillion.
       (9) As a demographic group, do African-American males 
     receive the same proportional return from the retirement 
     portion of Social Security as other demographic groups?
       Answer. Due to the nature of the Social Security program it 
     is difficult to look at retirement benefits in isolation. The 
     payroll tax rate is specified in two components, one for 
     retirement and survivor benefits and the other for disability 
     benefits. In addition, a significant portion of the benefits 
     payable from the retirement and survivor tax, for years 
     after reaching normal retirement age (NRA), is actually 
     attributable to the fact that many become eligible for 
     disability benefits before reaching retirement age. 
     However, there are some observations that we can make.
       To understand the tradeoffs, first consider the comparison 
     of returns on retirement and survivors taxes for men and 
     women. Men tend to die younger and have higher career-average 
     earnings than women. These factors tend to make the return on 
     contributions for retired worker benefits alone lower for men 
     than for women. However, most men marry, and many have 
     spouses with lower career earnings who receive spouse or 
     widow benefits based on the earnings and contributions of 
     their husbands. This tends to raise the relative return for 
     contributions made by men. Finally, men have higher 
     disability rates than women and thus are more likely to have 
     a shortened career, lessening their lifetime payroll tax 
     contributions without materially affecting their monthly 
     benefit level when retirement and survivors benefits become 
     payable. Thus, with all these factors taken into account it 
     is less clear whether men get a lower return on their 
     retirement and survivor taxes than do women.
       For African-American males the situation is even less 
     clear. Life expectancy for African-American males is lower 
     than for white males. But average career earnings are also 
     lower. These factors have at least partly offsetting effects. 
     Because African-American males have higher death rates, they 
     are also more likely to leave a widow beneficiary if married. 
     Importantly, African-American males are also more likely to 
     become disabled than are white males.
       Some recent studies have suggested that African-American 
     males get a lower return from Social Security retirement 
     benefits. But these studies have not sorted out many of the 
     complicating factors mentioned above. In particular, many of 
     these studies consider actual case histories of individuals 
     who work successfully without becoming disabled up to 
     retirement. For such individuals, life expectancy at 
     retirement is clearly greater than for those who have been 
     disabled prior to that time, but these studies use overall 
     population death rates. Because African-American males are 
     relatively more likely to become disabled, this distortion of 
     overstating death rates for those who do not become disabled 
     is relatively large for them. This is a significant 
     shortcoming that causes a disproportionately large 
     understatement in retirement returns for African-American 
     males. We are working on a more complete model that we hope 
     will address these concerns and will inform you of our 
     progress in the future. But for now, the evidence on this 
     question appears to be inconclusive.
       (10) What is the average current return on investment for 
     FICA tax contributions for someone born before and after 
     1948?
       Answer. Actuarial Note Number 144 ``Internal Real Rates of 
     Return Under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers'' 
     authored by Orlo Nichols, Michael Clingman, and Milton Glanz 
     in June 2001 addressed this issue. This note provides 
     extensive estimates of real internal rates of return for a 
     wide variety of cases.
       The most representative of these hypothetical cases 
     presented may be the married couple with a husband and a 
     wife, each having medium career earnings. For this case, 
     assuming a realistic earnings scale through the working 
     lifetime, the real internal rate of return was computed to be 
     3.50 percent for those born in 1920, declining to 2.33 
     percent for those born in 1943. Assuming that present-law 
     scheduled benefits would be payable in the future with no 
     change in the payroll tax rate, this real rate of return 
     is projected to decline gradually, reaching 2.20 percent 
     for those born in 1964, and then rising

[[Page S3939]]

     gradually as life expectancy rises. However, the current 
     payroll-tax rate is projected to be inadequate to finance 
     scheduled benefits in the long run. Under the hypothetical 
     assumption that payroll tax rates would be increased as 
     needed to finance scheduled benefits in the future, future 
     real rates are return are projected to decline more 
     rapidly, reaching 1.95 percent for those born in 1985 and 
     1.63 percent for those born in 2004.
       In general, real rates of return are higher for married 
     couples with one earner and for workers with low earnings. 
     Rates are generally lower for single workers and for high 
     earners.
       (11) Have policy proposals been introduced that keep Social 
     Security from insolvency, allow for personal accounts, and do 
     not change benefits for those already receiving Social 
     Security benefits?
       Answer. Absolutely. A number of Congressional proposals 
     would accomplish these goals. At a hearing before the House 
     Ways and Means Committee in June 1999, ten plans were 
     presented by Congressional sponsors. The sponsors of these 
     plans were, Archer/Shaw, Kolbe/Stenholm, Nadler, Moynihan/
     BKerrey, Gregg/Breaux, PGramm, NSmith, Stark, MSanford, and 
     DeFazio. We estimated that all ten of these proposals would 
     restore solvency for the Social Security program for at least 
     the full 75-year projection period. None of these proposals 
     would reduce benefits for current beneficiaries, but three of 
     them would slow growth in benefits for current recipients by 
     reducing the size of the automatic cost-of-living adjustment 
     (COLA) either directly, or indirectly (through modifying the 
     CPI). Seven of these proposals provided for individual 
     accounts on a voluntary or mandatory basis.
       Since 1999 additional proposals have been developed that 
     would meet these criteria, including the Armey/DeMint plan 
     and Models 2 and 3 of the President's Commission to 
     Strengthen Social Security.
       (12) Have there been any proposals introduced that would 
     create personal accounts, avert a future insolvency of Social 
     Security, without reducing benefits or increasing taxes? Have 
     there been any proposals without personal accounts introduced 
     that would avert a future insolvency of Social Security 
     without reducing benefits or increasing taxes?
       Answer. The financial shortfalls projected for the Social 
     Security program can only be eliminated by reducing the 
     growth in benefit levels from what is scheduled in current 
     law, or by increasing revenue to the program. In the long-
     run, additional revenue can be generated by expanding the 
     amount of advance funding either in individual accounts or in 
     the Social Security Trust Funds. All of the proposals 
     mentioned above pursue this approach to some degree. However, 
     creating additional advance funding requires additional 
     revenue for a period of time. This additional revenue may be 
     generated by (1) reducing Social Security benefits paid from 
     the Trust Funds, (2) directly increasing the amount of 
     payroll tax or some other tax, or (3) providing transfers or 
     loans from the General Fund of the Treasury. Whether General 
     Revenue transfers or loans represent an indirect increase in 
     taxes depends on a number of complex factors many of which 
     are generally unknown in the context of Social Security 
     reform, so no definitive answer can be given.
       All of the plans that we have analyzed in recent years 
     provide for one or more of the three measures to generate 
     additional revenue both to restore solvency for the Social 
     Security Trust Funds and to provide for additional advance 
     funding. This is true for plans that include individual 
     accounts as well as for those that do not.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Stephen C. Goss,
                                                    Chief Actuary.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. They have laid out the rates of return 
for people born after 1980.
  As I have told you, they are less than 2 percent. Over time, they go 
down because the problem, over time, gets worse. As you pay into the 
system as a young worker, the obligations of the system get greater, 
and there really will be no rate of return. As a matter of fact, by 
2042, not only does your money not work for you, it is not enough to 
pay benefits to people who are already in the system.
  Here is the good news. If we could, in a bipartisan fashion, work 
together, I am confident we could construct a program for younger 
workers--voluntary in nature--that would allow them to take part of the 
money they pay into Social Security, invest it in a different system--
equity and nonequity, depending on what they want to do--that will 
dramatically outpace a 1.8 percent return.
  Here is what I suggest to you as reality. If you had a business and 
you wanted to sell an annuity to young people in America, and you laid 
out the program of that annuity and it mirrored Social Security, nobody 
in the country would invest in it simply because they can get a better 
rate of return leaving it in a checking account.
  Now, everything about Social Security is not total retirement. There 
is a component of Social Security that pays for people who have been 
disabled and injured. That aspect of the program is extremely important 
also.
  But to have a better business view of Social Security is necessary. 
If we could achieve better growth rates--and the trustees tell us that 
if you achieve better growth rates, every dollar in additional growth, 
every time the fund beats that 1.8 or 1.6 rate of return, that extra 
dollar allows benefits to be paid without raising taxes.
  We are going to argue about the tax cut and how to stimulate the 
economy. I remember in my last campaign, when I presented this idea, 
the ad was that ``Lindsey Graham is going to take your Social Security 
tax dollars and put them in Enron stock.'' Well, I didn't wake up one 
day and think investing in Enron with Social Security was a good idea. 
That is not what this program is designed to do.
  There is bipartisan support for personal accounts, allowing 
individual Americans the opportunity, if they choose, to invest in 
plans to get better growth rates. There are visitors here from all over 
the country, most likely, and I welcome them here. One thing about 
being a Member of the Senate, or the House, or a Federal employee in 
any fashion, is that you have the opportunity, if you choose, to invest 
in the Thrift Savings Plan. It is a pretty good deal. I, as a Senator, 
can invest up to about $10,000 of my salary into a thrift plan. It is a 
Government-sponsored plan, administered by the private sector, where I 
can choose between three or four different investment options, based on 
the risk I want to take. There are stock funds, mutual funds, bond/
stock funds, Treasury notes, which I can choose based on the risk I 
want to take.
  All of these funds are supported by the Government in the sense that 
we are going to stand behind them and not let them collapse. It is even 
better than that. The Government puts in 50 cents on the dollar up to 
the $10,000 I put in, and they do the same for every Federal employee.
  I suggest something like that should exist for the average working 
person in this country because under the current tax system, the 
average American will pay more in Social Security taxes than in any 
other form of tax, because this comes out of our paycheck--6.5 
percent--no matter what our income is, up to a certain level.
  For middle- and low-income workers struggling to get by, 6.5 
percent--I think that is the correct number--comes out of your paycheck 
to go into the Social Security trust fund. For younger workers, we are 
taking that money from you. We are giving you no options to invest it. 
We are controlling it for you, and you are going to get that 2 
percent--eventually less than 1 percent--over time.
  I think that is wrong for the people paying taxes. But here is the 
big crime of it all: That system locks in failure for Social Security. 
Some Senate, somehow, someday--if we don't do something relatively 
soon--is going to be dealing with a trust fund that is $25 trillion 
short of the money necessary to pay the obligation, and it is going to 
be dealing with a trust fund from which somebody gets a letter one day 
saying: That check you got last month will be reduced by 28 percent, 
and I am sorry we don't have the money to pay you.
  I don't know who will be occupying this seat then--I doubt if it will 
be me--but I would like to take some of that burden off their shoulders 
and off the working families and the working people in this country, in 
terms of taking their money and getting a better rate of return for it.
  So the hope and purpose of this amendment is to put into the record 
this year, 2003, let it be said--if there is a record that stands the 
test of time, let it be said that in 2003 the Senate will soon adopt 
facts that I think are irrefutable, nonpartisan in nature, that lay out 
the future of Social Security solvency in a very honest, dramatic, and 
chilling way.
  I congratulate my colleagues who are willing to accept this amendment 
as part of the roadmap for the budget this year. The facts are real. 
They are not going to go away unless we make things happen differently.
  One thing I remember from President Clinton--and it was a good line--
is that

[[Page S3940]]

the definition of insanity is doing an event the same way and expecting 
different results. So I think it is insane politically for us to keep 
this system in place expecting different results to fall out of the 
sky. They will not fall out of the sky.
  Our freedom is about to be strengthened because some young man and 
woman chose to volunteer to serve their country and risk their life for 
our freedom. You can debate all you would like whether this is an 
appropriate thing to do. But they have taken on that sacrifice, and 
they will accept the order, if given, to go forward. That model is the 
model that has kept us free for over 200 years--average, everyday 
Americans who are willing to do their part, willing to risk their sons 
and daughters, their own lives, to make sure the next generation can 
have the blessings of liberty that we have enjoyed.
  There was an interview I heard today of a family with twin sons 
serving in the same Marine unit, both of them ready to go tomorrow, if 
that is the day chosen. The mom and the dad were very worried but 
bursting with pride about the fact that both of their sons have chosen 
to serve in the Marine Corps and both of them are on the tip of the 
spear. What they were trying to tell the commentator was that they are 
proud of them because they are willing to serve their country and 
protect their way of life. The parents mentioned the fact that their 
hope is that life will be better for their kids than it was for them, 
and that truly is the American dream. That is what keeps us all going, 
trying to make sure that we pass on to the next generation a future 
with a possibility, with hard work, to be better than the one we have 
experienced.
  I can say with all the confidence in the world that if we don't act 
soon, and act decisively, and if we are not willing to sacrifice 
politically and make some structural reforms to Social Security, we are 
committing political malpractice, and the future of Social Security is 
dismal and the ability to maintain the system is going to be 
unbelievably costly, and you can wind up with a Social Security pension 
plan and the military, and no money to do anything else. That is what 
awaits us as a nation.
  But I am just as confident that we will rise to the occasion, and I 
cannot see how right now--it is beyond my ability as a political person 
to see how all this is going to come together. I am telling you that, 
based on faith, I know it will. The problems facing our troops--there 
are so many scenarios that face them in the aftermath of Iraq. There 
are thousands of different scenarios of ``what if that'' and ``what if 
that.'' I can only tell you I have the same faith that at the end of 
the day we will be successful and at the end of the day the sacrifices 
will be made.
  Unfortunately, some people, most likely, will lose their lives or be 
injured. We are going to get through this thing at the end of the day 
stronger rather than weaker. We are doing the right thing.
  I have faith in our troops and in our President that the dictator, 
Saddam Hussein, will be gone soon. I have faith that this body, 
starting this year--I hope it is this year--will come together to 
address the looming problems that face Social Security. This amendment 
lays out those problems. It puts it as part of the road map for this 
year's budget and, at the end, it encourages all to work together with 
the President to come up with solutions to avoid raising taxes and 
cutting benefits. It is a small step that will hopefully get us to the 
right place one day.
  I am standing on the shoulders of people who have gone before me who 
have addressed problems of Social Security, such as Senator Moynihan 
and other Senators in this body from both parties. I do not know how 
long I will be here. Only the Good Lord and the voters know that. I can 
tell my colleagues one thing for certain: While I am here--I consider 
it to be an honor to be here--I want to do as many constructive 
activities for my country as possible. I think one of the best things I 
can do is to come up with an approach my colleagues from the other side 
can buy into, which means a give and take, to put in place a plan that 
begins to turn around the dynamics that are facing Social Security.
  The good news is if we work together, if we start now, we can beat 
this problem, we can solve this problem. The bad news is if we continue 
to do what we have done for the past decade, we are going to pass on to 
the next generation of political leaders and taxpayers a dismal 
picture. I would argue that would be the first time in the history of 
the country that political leaders passed on a country that was 
diminished, not enhanced. I am confident we will not be the first ones 
to make that mistake.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement. I 
will take a few moments later to respond. Hopefully, we can get an 
agreement on the contents of the Senator's amendment. In the meantime, 
the Senator from Washington has been patiently waiting. I yield her 10 
minutes or whatever time she uses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will later be offering a very important 
amendment on the budget resolution. It will fully fund the No Child 
Left Behind Act, and I will be offering that amendment with Senators 
Kennedy, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, and Johnson.
  Given the bipartisan support for the No Child Left Behind Act a year 
ago, I am disappointed that there are still no Republicans who have 
asked to cosponsor the funding that bill promised to all of our 
constituents.
  A budget is a statement of our priorities. In an environment where we 
cannot fund everything, we have to make choices based on our values. 
Even when times are challenging, certainly as they are today, it is 
important that we continue to fund our children's education and to 
invest in their future.
  This budget that is before the Senate has a meager investment in 
funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, and it fails our children and 
fails their future. It actually fails the very promise that Congress 
and this President made to students just a few years ago.
  Leaving no child behind was a very important, noble goal, and it 
passed with bipartisan support. It was an education reform bill that 
was set out to say we will leave no child behind. But the Republican 
budget that is now before this Senate does not even come close to 
meeting the needs of our students or keeping the important promises of 
that legislation.
  When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we passed it based on 
two commitments. The first was that we would hold schools accountable 
for their progress--an important promise. But we also had a second 
commitment that we would provide those schools with the resources to 
meet those new requirements. We are certainly keeping the first part of 
that bargain, but this budget suggests that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle do not intend to keep the second part of that 
promise.
  We have to ask why this administration is willing to keep a 
commitment to come down very hard on low-performing schools, but it is 
unwilling to keep a commitment to provide the resources that our 
students need to succeed. Tougher accountability without adequate 
funding is not reform. Mr. President, that is politics.
  I want to talk a few minutes about the ways this budget shortchanges 
America's students. The budget before us could cut funds for 
afterschool programs for more than 500,000 latchkey children in this 
country. That is on top, by the way, of the more than 6 million 
latchkey children we already are not serving.
  This budget leaves 6 million of our most disadvantaged students 
behind by not providing the title I funding they need.
  It also falls short on funding for teacher quality, class-size 
reduction, English language acquisition, safe and drug-free schools, 
and rural education.
  At a time when we are demanding more than ever from our students, our 
teachers, and our schools, this budget does not invest in them. Some of 
my colleagues may argue that this budget increases funding for 
education, but let's be pretty clear. This budget before us robs Peter 
to pay Paul to provide that meager increase. Even that increase falls 
short.

[[Page S3941]]

  Title I in this budget is underfunded by almost $6 million. This 
budget assumes the elimination of 46 education programs, including, by 
the way, rural education, support for small schools, and dropout 
provisions.
  This budget also assumes a $400 million cut in afterschool programs 
despite the strong evidence that keeping children safe after school 
reduces juvenile violent crime and prevents children from engaging in 
risky behaviors.

  This budget also freezes most of the other major No Child Left Behind 
programs, including funding for teacher quality, class-size reduction, 
bilingual education, and State test development. The Federal Government 
is not only requiring that States put assessments in place, we are 
requiring those students pass those assessments. That is where our 
obligation to provide the funding promised in No Child Left Behind 
comes in. Students need more tests, they need afterschool programs, 
tutoring, quality teachers, and small classes to pass those tests.
  Given the budget crisis that is occurring in many of our States--my 
State has a $2.5 billion shortfall with which they are dealing--I think 
it is unrealistic to expect the States are going to suddenly pick up 
increased education funding to meet the new Federal mandates that this 
body passed on to them just a few short years ago.
  Setting a high bar is obviously important. We all agree with that. 
But setting a high bar and failing to give our kids the resources to 
succeed is simply setting them up for failure. We know what the needs 
are out there. We know what works to help our children succeed, and I 
am really dismayed that the level of education funding in this budget 
is going to leave many of our children behind.
  That is why later this afternoon I will be offering my amendment to 
fully fund the commitments we made, all of us made, in the No Child 
Left Behind Act. It will provide the resources that parents, teachers, 
and students are asking for. It will fully fund title I at the level 
that was agreed upon in the No Child Left Behind Act. It will continue 
to fund the effort to hire 100,000 fully qualified teachers so we can 
reduce the size of classes in early grades where our children are 
struggling to learn the basics, and when they are in a class of 35 or 
40 students, they simply cannot get the attention they need to assure 
that when they move on in to the later grades they have the basic 
skills they need to be successful.
  My amendment will also put a high-quality teacher in every classroom. 
Every parent knows the most important question you ask when your child 
comes home from school on the first day is, Who is your teacher? Why is 
that? Because they want to make sure their child has the best teacher. 
We promised in the No Child Left Behind Act that we would put a high-
quality teacher in every classroom.
  This budget fails to fulfill that promise. My amendment will also 
allow communities to offer more afterschool programs to keep our 
children safe and in a place where they can learn those high standards 
that we, at the Federal level, are now requiring. It will give children 
with limited English proficiency more support to succeed, and it will 
fund initiatives such as rural education and dropout prevention that 
this President's budget zeroes out.
  We know the needs are there. We know what works to help our children 
succeed. We need the will of the Members of this Senate to make it 
happen.
  I am out in my State, like every other Senator, and everywhere I go 
students, teachers, parents, principals, and community leaders come up 
to me and say: We want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. We want 
our students to be held to high standards. We want our principals, our 
teachers, and all of our administrators to be held to high standards. 
But we cannot do it when you rob us of the seriously needed funds to do 
it. Do not put a Federal mandate on us that is not followed through 
with the resources.
  The amendment I am offering will fulfill the second half of that bill 
that so many Senators spoke so eloquently to a short time ago.
  Two years ago, we started down a road of promising all children in 
this country a quality education. We did the first part by calling for 
schools to be more accountable for their progress, but now we are 
seriously stumbling on the second part, providing the funding so local 
schools can reach those goals that we set at the national level. I hope 
we are going to do the right thing, I hope we follow through on the 
promises that every single Senator in this body made to students 
several years ago, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this amendment and doing the right thing for our children and our 
future.
  We are at a very critical time in this country. We are facing a 
possible war in Iraq within hours. I think every American is feeling 
the anxiety and the angst that all of my constituents are as we move 
forward. Even at this time, we cannot ignore the anxiety that is 
happening in our children's classrooms. We need those children to 
succeed so we can have a strong country in the future. My amendment 
will assure that we keep that part of the commitment that was such an 
important part of No Child Left Behind.
  I look forward to being able to offer this amendment at some time 
later this afternoon, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield 
the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her excellent presentation on this amendment and hope that we can 
proceed with more substantive amendments as soon as possible and that 
we can have a healthy debate and then vote on these matters so the body 
has a chance to indicate their priorities.
  I know there are other Senators wishing to discuss matters. I notice 
the very able senior Senator from South Carolina is in the Chamber. How 
much time is the Senator seeking?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Is it controlled time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, it is controlled time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Ten minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina on the Graham 
of South Carolina amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have a very high regard for my 
distinguished junior colleague, but anybody who puts up this particular 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution relative to Social Security could not 
possibly be voting for the tax cuts.
  I know a majority of our Republican-controlled Budget Committee has 
voted for the tax cuts. The President is for the tax cuts. Right to the 
point, we are about to pass a tax cut in this budget resolution.
  I want to bring into focus the sham of the so-called resolution of 
the distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina because he worries 
about the year 2042 hours before we are going to war and totally 
disregards the law. I will propose an amendment to strike all after the 
enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the Budget Act, section 
13301.
  Section 13301 was a very deliberate and discussed matter that we had 
not only in the Budget Committee, but I had help on both sides of the 
aisle, and we voted on it 98 to 2. It was signed into law on November 
5, 1990, by President George Herbert Walker Bush. It signed into law 
the Greenspan commission. With this particular Graham of South Carolina 
resolution, one would think there was no President Bush commission.
  President Bush's commission was chaired, I think, by one of our 
distinguished former Members, the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, 
who is under the weather and we all pray for his speedy recovery, but 
we have that commission report on what to do.
  This resolution says we really are concerned about Social Security at 
this particular point but, by passing this resolution, we want 
everybody to disregard the fact that this day, this week, this year, 
this budget, we will be spending Social Security trust funds in order 
to afford a tax cut. That is all it is. It is an absolute sham. They 
know it, and I know it.
  Section 21 of the Greenspan commission said, put this money in a 
trust off budget. If we had adhered to it, I think we would have about 
a $1.3 trillion trust fund. The distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Nickles, said we have always taken from the general 
fund in order to pay for Social Security, but that is not

[[Page S3942]]

right. I have two pages of the 2003 annual report of the Social 
Security Commission, page 4 and page 5. I ask unanimous consent that 
those two pages be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               B. Trust Fund Financial Operations in 2002

       The table below shows the income, expenditures, and assets 
     for the OASI, the DI and the combined OASDI Trust Funds in 
     calendar year 2002.

      TABLE II.B1.--SUMMARY OF 2002 TRUST FUND FINANCIAL OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Amounts (in billions)
                                     -----------------------------------
                                         OASI         DI         OASDI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets at the end of 2001...........    $1,071.5      $141.0    $1,212.5
Total income in 2002................       539.7        87.4       627.1
                                     -----------------------------------
    Net contributions...............       455.2        77.3       532.5
    Taxation of benefits............        12.9          .9        13.8
    Interest........................        71.2         9.2        80.4
    Transfer from General Fund of             .4  ..........          .4
     the Treasury...................
Total expenditures in 2002..........       393.7        67.9       461.7
                                     -----------------------------------
    Benefit payments................       388.1        65.7       453.8
    Railroad Retirement financial            3.5          .2         3.6
     interchange....................
    Administrative expenses.........         2.1         2.0         4.2
Net increase in assets in 2002......       146.0        19.5       165.4
Assets at the end of 2002...........     1,217.5       160.5     1,378.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals do not necessarily equal the sums of rounded components.

       In 2002, 85 percent of total trust fund income consisted of 
     net contributions, comprising taxes paid by employees, 
     employers and the self-employed on earnings covered by Social 
     Security. These taxes were paid on covered earnings up to a 
     specified maximum annual amount, which was $84,900 in 2002 
     and is increased each year automatically (to $87,000 in 2003) 
     as the average wage increases. The tax rates scheduled under 
     current law for 2002 and later are shown in table II.B2.

               TABLE II.B2.--TAX RATES FOR 2002 AND LATER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 OASI             OASDI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax rate for employees and employers, each        5.30     0.90     6.20
 (in percent)................................
Tax rate for self-employed persons (in           10.60     1.80    12.40
 percent)....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Two percent of OASDI Trust Fund income came from subjecting 
     up to 50 percent of Social Security benefits above a certain 
     level to Federal personal income taxation, and 13 percent of 
     OASDI income came from interest earned on investment of OASDI 
     Trust Fund reserves. Social Security's assets are invested in 
     interest-bearing securities of the U.S. Government. In 2002 
     the combined trust fund assets earned interest at an 
     effective annual rate of 6.4 percent. More than 98 percent of 
     expenditures from the combined OASDI Trust Funds in 2002 went 
     to pay retirement, survivor, and disability benefits totaling 
     $453.8 billion. The financial interchange with the Railroad 
     Retirement program resulted in a payment of $3.6 billion from 
     the combined OASDI Trust Funds, or about 0.8 percent of total 
     expenditures. The administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security program were $4.2 billion, or about 0.9 percent of 
     total expenditures.
       Assets of the trust funds provide a reserve to pay benefits 
     whenever expenditures exceed income. Assets increased by 
     $165.4 billion 2002 because income to each fund exceeded 
     expenditures, as shown in table II.B1. At the end of 2002, 
     the combined assets of the OASI and the DI Trust Funds were 
     288 percent of estimated expenditures for 2003.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. We can see from the table:
  Assets of the trust funds provide a reserve to pay benefits whenever 
expenditures exceed income. Assets increased by $165.4 billion in 2002 
because income to each fund exceeded expenditures--as shown in the 
table II.B1.
  Unlike what Senator Nickles says at the end of 2002, the combined 
assets of the OASI and the DI Trust Funds were 288 percent of estimated 
expenditures for 2003.
  This resolution of Senator Graham of South Carolina is just cover for 
the looting of the Social Security trust fund. As the distinguished 
Presiding Officer knows, all that is needed to secure the Social 
Security trust fund is quit spending it on any and every other thing 
other than Social Security.
  Is my time up?
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator like additional time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, I would like additional time, if I can have 
additional time.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional 10 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The reason I would like additional time is to amend 
this resolution, and insert section 13301. That is the budget law.
  How can we bring into sharp focus that is the law? I have tried by 
putting different penalties in, but I cannot get the Senate to pass 
them. We have to quit worrying about the year 2042 and start worrying 
about today and getting by. Our soldiers in the front lines are ready 
to go into Iraq, and they are worried about being around this time 
tomorrow, not 2042.
  It is a shame for the Senate to engage in this charade at this hour. 
We are looting the Social Security trust fund. We are running, this 
fiscal year, according to the President, $554 billion in the red. That 
is without the costs of the war, without a supplemental. We ran a 
deficit last year of $428 billion. That right there is $1 trillion of 
stimulus into this economy.
  They should be ashamed to come here asking for tax reform under the 
cover of stimulus. No one believes the relief of taxes on dividends 
will stimulate the economy or the estate tax will stimulate the 
economy. Those with estates and those with dividends, Bill Gates and 
several other witnesses, have said that is the wrong course to take. 
They know it. I know it. You know it.
  I had to speak on the initial amendment of my distinguished colleague 
from South Carolina for whom I have the greatest respect, but we are 
not going to be able to join in these charades. We have to start paying 
the bills, including paying for the war, and not engage in tax cuts.
  Yesterday, I sent a Dear Colleague letter to everyone in this body 
about paying for the war. It is very simple. Here we are saying: GI, we 
want you to go into Iraq and we hope you do not get killed. Then we 
want you to come back. The reason we want you to come back is because 
my generation, this Congress, isn't going to pay for it. You are going 
to have to pay for it. You are not only going to have to fight the war 
but pay for it.
  What do we need in this Congress right now--a tax cut so we can go to 
Disney World? That is the charade going on here, a few hours before we 
commit our troops to freedom in Iraq. We ought to sober up.
  I am informed by the staff that we have to wait until the end of the 
consideration to put up the amendment.
  Everyone is on notice, I would like to strike all of the 
``whereases'' because that is poppycock. We do not all have to be 
worried about 2042, today, as we go into Iraq. We ought to cut out the 
playing of games and get serious around here that we are running the 
economy into the ground.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and I ask that I be able to 
call the amendment at the proper time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the manager has the right of recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I hope we have an understanding from the Chair that the 
managers have the first right of recognition here or we will have a 
real problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator's right.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senators from South Carolina, in describing the 
problem, are correct. The problem with Social Security is severe. The 
Social Security trust fund is currently running surpluses. But we all 
know it is then going to turn to cash deficits. Those are going to 
become very large cash deficits. This is like falling off the cliff. 
This is the Social Security Administration's outlook for the Social 
Security trust fund.
  Why is that? Very simply, the baby boom generation will start to 
retire. They are alive today. They are eligible for Social Security. 
When they start drawing Social Security, there will be 77 million, 
about double the number eligible now. When that occurs, we will have a 
very serious problem on our hands.
  The Senator from South Carolina who offers the amendment has 
correctly described the problem, but he is not dealing with the budget 
resolution before the Senate. It exacerbates the problem severely.
  This chart shows the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The 
green bar is the Social Security trust fund; the red bars are the 
President's tax cuts, both enacted and proposed. One can see very 
clearly as the Social Security trust fund is running surpluses, the 
size of the President's tax cut proposals are growing. At the very time 
the Social Security trust fund turns cash negative, the cost of the 
President's tax cuts explode.
  The result of this is a totally unsustainable plunge into deficits 
and debt. That is the fundamental problem

[[Page S3943]]

with the budget resolution before the Senate; it is the fundamental 
problem with the President's budget before the Senate.
  The budget before the Senate takes out of the Social Security trust 
fund nearly all of the surpluses over the next 10 years. Social 
Security will run surpluses over the next 10 years of $2.718 trillion. 
The mark before us by the chairman takes $2.718 billion of those 
surpluses and uses it for other purposes, uses it to fund tax cuts, 
uses it to fund other expenditures.
  The Senator from South Carolina said that is not an appropriate way 
to proceed. I agree. I hope he will consider opposing the budget 
resolution on that basis.
  However, the Senator from South Carolina is also correct to say even 
if we do not do this, even if we do not raid the Social Security trust 
fund surplus, we still have a problem. This is a necessary step to stop 
this raid, but it is not sufficient. It is necessary because if instead 
of taking these funds and using it for other purposes we were to use 
that money to pay down debt or to prepay the liability, we would be in 
a less severe circumstance going forward.
  The Senator from South Carolina, who offered the amendment, has 
referenced a $25 trillion shortfall in Social Security; that is, if you 
take each year and accumulate it over time. The net present value of 
those gaps between income and outgo for Social Security is not $25 
trillion. The net present value is $3.5 trillion. Yet the President is 
proposing a tax cut with interest costs of $1.96 trillion, even though 
we are already in deficit.
  Both Senators from South Carolina have revealed the flaw in this 
budget. We have record deficits now. The President proposes cutting 
taxes almost $2 trillion with the interest costs included. The result 
is we are taking virtually every penny--under the President's budget, 
every penny of the Social Security surplus over the decade, right on 
the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation. I remind my 
colleagues, what earthly sense does this make? At the very time the 
cost of the Government explodes with the retirement of the baby boom 
generation, the costs of the President's tax cuts explode, driving us 
deep, deep into deficits and debt.
  I hope this budget resolution falls on the basis that it puts us in a 
circumstance of ever mounting deficits and debt right at the time the 
baby boom generation retires.
  If there has ever been an illogical, irrational, dangerous budget, 
this is it. To me, this is it. We are about to make fateful decisions 
we are going to be living with for a long time. Nobody should be under 
any illusion about where this is headed. This is headed right off the 
cliff.
  We can either together find some way to restrain both our spending 
impulses and our tax-cutting impulses or we can wage what we have waged 
so far, which is a rush to deficits and debt.
  It will be a sad day when we wake up from this hangover and from this 
binge of tax cutting and spending that can only lead one place, and 
that is to shredding of Social Security and Medicare and most of the 
rest of Government as we know it.
  We have worked with the Senator from South Carolina to try to reach 
an agreement. I don't know if those modifications have been agreed to. 
If they have, we are prepared to accept them.
  I think Senator Craig is perhaps waiting to speak on this matter so I 
withhold going further. Perhaps the Senator from South Carolina would 
like to speak further. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I compliment the 
Senator. I thought that was a fairly eloquent rendition of where we 
find ourselves. But I would like to add to it and respond to my good 
friend, really, the senior Senator from South Carolina. If anyone has 
earned that title, Senator Hollings has. He is the senior Senator from 
South Carolina.
  But there is a difference between what the Senator from North Dakota 
and the senior Senator from South Carolina were saying that I think is 
important.
  The purpose in my offering this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is to 
take facts that have been reported by the Social Security 
Administration and make them part of this year's roadmap when we decide 
what to do to get through the budget process this year and to remind 
the Senate and get the Senate to focus on the short- and long-term 
problems our Nation faces.
  ``Poppycock.'' I don't know what it means, but it is often used by my 
good friend from South Carolina, the senior Senator. It sounds good. 
Everything he says is intriguing to me, just by his speaking style. But 
I do want to respond to the gist of what he was saying. The sham and 
the fraud which I think has been going on, which has been going on for 
years, is to suggest there is an easy solution. It is to suggest if you 
just left Social Security alone, didn't use it for tax cuts or didn't 
use it for spending, everything would be OK. My senior Senator doesn't 
want to talk about 2042. I do. The reason I want to talk about 2018 and 
2042 is I believe the reason I am here today is to pass on to the next 
generation a country very sound and very fit. If we do not address the 
problem of having two workers for every retiree, versus 16.5 when I was 
born, then we are going to fail and commit political malpractice.
  I think it is political malpractice to suggest that if you just let 
Social Security alone, the problem will go away. Here is what the 
Social Security trustees said about that solution:

       The implementation of a Social Security lockbox would not 
     alter this commitment and thus would have no direct effect on 
     the future solvency of Social Security.

  As to the Senator from North Dakota, he is telling us, telling me, 
that now is not the time to cut taxes because of a variety of reasons, 
and one would be it will put pressure on the Social Security trust fund 
beyond the pressure that exists today.

  People on my side would say that additional spending in the past, 
when the Democrats were in control, took money out of Social Security 
to put pressure on the trust fund.
  The point is, the current income stream, diverted or not, is not 
going to save Social Security. We are going to have a $25 trillion 
shortfall in 75 years. And it does compound on itself. That is the 
point. The Senator from North Dakota is right. Every day, literally, 
that we ignore the problem of Social Security, it gets worse by 
billions. The unfunded liability has grown dramatically as we have been 
talking, and nobody is going to fix it except people such as us.
  Here is why I will support the tax cut. One thing that is for sure, 
there are two Senators from South Carolina and we are going to cancel 
each other's vote a lot on taxes. He has his reasons and I have mine. 
The reason I will vote to cut your taxes is to stimulate the economy.
  Where does Social Security money come from? What is the source of 
Social Security dollars? It is payroll taxes.
  Well, who pays payroll taxes? People working.
  How do you get a job? Somebody hires you.
  How do they pay you? They make a profit.
  The economy needs infusion, in my opinion. But I respect the Senator 
from North Dakota tremendously because he is saying let's put no 
pressure on Social Security, let's not have a tax cut. I respectfully 
disagree. I believe a tax cut will help stimulate the economy, making 
the economy and payroll taxes stronger, not weaker. But I respect him 
tremendously because he has bought into the big picture. We disagree 
about what to do today. We may disagree about spending plans tomorrow. 
But the Senator from North Dakota has bought into the big picture. He 
understands what faces our Nation.
  As we argue about how to fix problems each year with the trust fund, 
I encourage him to work with me and others to come up with an overall 
solution that will hit the problem head on. This is a cancer that needs 
to be treated--and not with a Band-Aid. The problem we are facing as a 
Nation is we would not have enough money coming into the system, if it 
was all dedicated, to come close to paying benefits. In 2042--I will 
mention that date again--28 percent reduction in benefits; 2018, you 
pay more benefits in taxes. Every day we talk about it, it gets worse.
  Having said that, I do believe the Senator from North Dakota and 
myself

[[Page S3944]]

will be able to work on a compromise that reflects accurately the facts 
facing the trust fund, the problem the Nation faces, and we will 
disagree about this year's budget and how to have a tax cut or not. But 
I do wish to work with him in the future because I believe he has got 
it. I believe he understands it.
  With that, I will yield 10 minutes to my colleague, Senator Craig, 
from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent I become a 
cosponsor of amendment No. 274.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior 
Senator from South Carolina on a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
expressing that Congress well ought to act sooner rather than later in 
strengthening our Social Security Program for the long term, for the 
young men and women today who are beginning to invest in the system and 
who have grown increasingly to believe it will be unreliable and not 
there when they get to be of Social Security age.
  Why? The statistics have been talked about this morning, but here we 
are again. Year after year, trustee report after trustee report has 
been played out, spoken to, shown on the floor of the Senate. Hearings 
after hearings, month after month in our committee rooms, have given us 
the same message. Whether it is the junior or senior Senator from South 
Carolina, they both agree on the outcome. They may disagree on the 
reasons, but the trustees are always reflecting the graph or the chart 
that is so effectively displayed here. This comes directly from the 
Social Security trustee report of 2002 that we are speaking to this 
morning.
  Current retirees and those approaching retirement age are going to 
get their money. Why? Because Social Security in that sense is solvent. 
But what we are concerned about, and why we begin to express a degree 
of urgency about reform for Social Security, is that you do not reform 
Social Security today for tomorrow, you reform it today for 40 years 
down the road, or 50 years down the road. It is like an insurance 
account. We are the board of trustees responsible for establishing and 
sustaining its actuarial soundness so we do not have to dump large sums 
of general fund money into it at the last minute to keep it whole.
  I think all of us agree with the general understanding and the 
overlook that the trustees and the studies have shown. Social Security 
is solid today for our seniors. I am chairman of the Special Committee 
on Aging. We have spent a lot of time looking at this issue. Some folks 
take umbrage when they hear that Social Security will be broke. I don't 
know of anything that would express it differently than this bright red 
ink that would suggest at about 2020 it breaks beyond the black ink, or 
the break-even, and it heads into deficit. That is exactly what the 
junior Senator from South Carolina is talking about and what I am 
talking about.

  Last month, Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve was before our 
Subcommittee on Aging. He was not there to talk about interest rates. 
He was there to talk about global aging. He testified that the country 
faced ``abrupt and painful'' adjustments down the road as related to 
Social Security if we do not address it sooner rather than later.
  He simply meant that baby boomers were going to get cut. In essence, 
this is what is going to happen: I am a baby boomer. I am afraid my 
grandkids are going to say to me: Grandpa, we can't afford you anymore. 
We can't afford a huge bump in our taxes just to pay for your well-
being.
  And I would not blame them, when we look at the kind of tax scale 
that will result if you stand here and say there is nothing required 
now and in the future to deal with this red ink, except leave the trust 
fund alone, and that in some magical, mythical way you can take it out 
of the general fund of the Treasury of the United States, and that you 
don't spend it, or at least you don't borrow it back to Government to 
spend on other programs until such time as it is necessary and on call 
and Government can afford to pay for it.
  Those are the issues at hand. That is what this resolution is about, 
to push us forward and into action in the near future, to make the 
kinds of adjustments that will assure my grandchildren that Social 
Security is going to be there for them and that grandpa isn't going to 
break them by demanding they keep Social Security whole, because he did 
not have the common sense and the good judgment to deal with it in the 
appropriate fashion.
  I hope I do have that common sense and good judgment. Certainly, the 
group that has been looking at it and the group that reports and talks 
about insolvency down the road and the need to adjust are doing a great 
service to this country.
  Last November, Peter Fisher, the Under Secretary of Treasury for 
Domestic Finance, compared the unfunded promises in Social Security and 
Medicare to those of a spendthrift insurance company unable to make 
good on its promises.
  When I asked Alan Greenspan, well, let's compare Social Security and 
Medicare and fixing it, he said: Frankly, Social Security is not that 
difficult. Why? Because you have real figures and exact numbers in a 
relative sense. You have demographic studies that project the number of 
people who will come online, and you can make the adjustments for it.
  Medicare is tied to a very dynamic health care system. It is growing 
and changing, and its costs will grow and change. It is a much more 
difficult task at hand, if you will, than that of us building up the 
backbone to deal with Social Security.
  To his credit, our President appointed the blue-ribbon panel to 
explore ways of addressing this challenge. The President's bipartisan 
commission to strengthen Social Security was cochaired by former 
Senator Pat Moynihan, our colleague and former Finance Committee 
chairman. He is an undisputed expert on Social Security, with unique 
bipartisan credibility.
  Now the President's bipartisan commission has come forward with three 
models to strengthen Social Security. Many of us are studying those 
models to determine what is the best way to reform not the politically 
possible, because we are going to have to convince ourselves and the 
public about reform--and that is what we are about to do, I hope--but 
what is the right way to reform Social Security, to create the dynamics 
30 or 40 years down the road, to assure that young people who are now 
beginning to invest in it with their hard-earned tax dollars--their 
withheld dollars from their payroll--to assure that it will be there 
for them.

  This week, the trustees have done their job, and they have done it 
well. They have talked about it, and they have determined a status quo 
or do-nothing plan versus a variety of others. The do-nothing plan is 
what the trustees laid before us on Monday. And the do-nothing plan is 
the plan represented right here, in all of the bright red ink that is 
either displayed by my chart or by the chart of the Senator from North 
Dakota. I think my chart is prettier, but the charts are the same. 
Democrat or Republican, the figures don't lie, and we can't lie about 
them.
  We both agree that herein lies the problem. A dynamic economy--people 
working softens it, and that is what this tax cut is about, getting 
people back to work, putting money in the market, creating jobs. We are 
going to have to tighten our belt a little bit on the other side. We 
are going to have to quit spending at the rate we are spending while we 
are stimulating the economy and putting people back to work. That helps 
the bottom line and softens the deficit a little bit.
  But most economists agree, if you do not give a tax cut, and you 
continue to spend at the rate you are spending, you are going to have 
deficits for a long time to come. You can't cut your way out of them. 
You have to grow the economy and put some money back in the Treasury, 
and in doing that, for the short term, you strengthen Social Security.
  But this is what is true about the long term, and in the long term 
are people like me at 55, 50, 57 years of age. I am 57. And in a short 
time we are coming online--62, 65, 67 years of age, eligible for Social 
Security, being part of that baby boom generation, that tidal wave of 
people hitting the Social Security system.

[[Page S3945]]

  The Senator from North Dakota talked about the doubling of the 
numbers of recipients. That is what this red ink is all about. We need 
to create dynamics in the system, and change it, and assure that the 
right kind of investment is going in, that the right kind of energy and 
multipliers are at work there, to assure that not only is the system 
going to be there in the long term for me, but, most importantly, that 
the system is going to be there for the young people who are investing 
in it today.
  I am not alone in condemning the do-nothing plan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wants to inform the Senator he has 
used 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. If the Senator would like additional 
time----
  Mr. CRAIG. If I could have an additional 2 minutes to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may continue.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me the 
time.
  Whether it is former Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat from Nebraska, 
whether it is former Senator Pat Moynihan, Democrat from New York, 
whether it is Republican Larry Craig of Idaho or Republican Lindsey 
Graham of South Carolina, the reality is, we all understand we must act 
now, sooner rather than later, to recreate, strengthen, and ensure the 
future for a Social Security system that is good for my grandkids to 
put their money in, that is a sound investment that will yield for them 
a reasonable supplemental income in their retirement years.
  I am not alone in condemning the do-nothing plan. Our former 
colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey, from Nebraska wrote a letter to another 
former colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, from New York, on 
the eve of his assuming the cochairmanship of the President's 
Commission to Strengthen Social Security. He wrote:

       Dear Pat, In that I have a great and abiding interest in 
     your success on the 2001 Social Security Commission and that 
     I am willing to provide free advice, I offer the following 
     two suggestions:
       1. Start talking about the details of the most popular plan 
     in Washington to fix Social Security. . . . It is called the 
     do-nothing plan. The do-nothing plan discloses no details. . 
     . . Citizens who want to know the rest of the details must 
     look to the Social Security Trustees who will tell them this: 
     The do-nothing plan proposes to cut benefits 25 to 33 percent 
     by 2043.
       2. Wealth should have a goal. . . . Our goal is to 
     eliminate poverty amongst eligible Social Security 
     beneficiaries. By the way, the do-nothing plan will increase 
     poverty rates.

  For every year we delay strengthening Social Security, it will only 
become more difficult to do.
  The challenge calling out to this generation in Congress is how to 
sustain Social Security beyond this generation of retirees without 
overburdening our children and grandchildren with excessive taxes on 
their labor or huge cuts in retirement income.
  It is not too late. We can still do the right thing. We can save 
Social Security by embracing the framework provided by the President's 
Commission and working to strengthen it soon.
  David Walker, the Comptroller at the General Accounting Office, 
testified just this January before the Aging Committee that we have:

     a, window of opportunity to craft a solution that will 
     protect Social Security benefits for the nation's current and 
     near-term retirees, while ensuring that the system will be 
     there for future generations.

  We should embrace that window of opportunity for the sake of our 
children and grandchildren.
  As I said: Here we are again. The trustees are trying to get Congress 
and the public to face the future with confidence and action. The 
challenge for us is to respond.
  That is why the Aging Committee has been and will be holding hearings 
and briefings this year. We will continue to highlight the work of 
the--nonpartisan and bipartisan--General Accounting Office, the 
President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, the Congressional 
Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Social 
Security trustees.
  The call to action begins with understanding what the trustees have 
told us again this week. The consequences of the do-nothing plan will 
be devastating for today's workers and tomorrow's retirees.
  That is what the study was all about. That is what the commission has 
been about. That is what this amendment is all about.
  I thank the Senator from South Carolina for bringing forward this 
concurrent resolution, urging us forward now, to begin to act. 
Hopefully, by 2004, 2005, or 2006, we will have developed the political 
will to do the right thing for the Social Security system and its 
future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, if I may, to put a 
couple things in perspective as we close out the discussion on the 
amendment, No. 1, I have been able to reach accommodation with the 
Senator from North Dakota about the language of the amendment. I am 
willing to accept his changes. I think they are reasonable and helpful.
  I encourage my colleagues, we can have disagreements about how to 
best protect the Social Security trust fund. We can have a debate that 
we should not cut taxes, that we should make sure that we do nothing in 
terms of spending or tax cuts that jeopardizes the dollars coming in. 
That is a legitimate, healthy debate. I believe the best way to protect 
the trust fund is to create additional jobs and grow the economy so we 
will have more payroll taxes coming in to shore up the trust fund.
  The focus of the amendment is to clarify in this roadmap the status 
of Social Security, not based on what a Republican thinks or what a 
Democrat thinks. And here is the summary of that status.
  No matter what happens with the current amount of money coming into 
the system, if it is all protected, or some of it is bled off, if every 
dollar were to be collected that is going to be paid, it is $25 
trillion short to pay bills in the next 75 years. And in 2042, you 
would have to cut 28 percent of the benefit package or increase taxes 
by 50 percent. In 2018, you would pay more in benefits than you collect 
in taxes. Why is that? The amount of money to be dedicated to this 
system, if it is all left alone, is nowhere near the amount of money to 
pay the benefits. It is no one's fault. It is not Senator Hollings' 
fault, and it is not my fault. The problem is we went from 16.5 workers 
paying into the system in 1950 to 20 years from now having two to one. 
There are just not enough people paying taxes to take care of the baby 
boomers.
  One thing I am trying to make crystal clear is, there is no easy fix. 
The demagoguery must stop now. Those who say a tax cut this year or a 
spending plan next year is the problem with Social Security are missing 
the boat and engaging in conduct that is going to prevent us from ever 
finding a solution that works.
  My belief is that you grow the economy to help Social Security. The 
belief of the Senator from North Dakota is that you don't do anything 
to jeopardize the trust fund this year through a tax cut. I respect 
that. I just disagree.
  I hope if there is a vote in any fashion on this amendment, that my 
colleagues would allow the product that the Senator from North Dakota 
and I have come up with to be part of the record because it is vitally 
important that the Senate incorporate information from the Social 
Security trustees that tells us exactly the future of Social Security 
and its status so that there will be something we can agree on and we 
can start working toward a solution sooner rather than later. If we 
can't agree on the basis, if we can't put into the budget resolution 
what the Social Security trustees are telling us about the status of 
the fund in 2018 and 2042 and the structural problems, if we can't do 
that because somebody wants to make a point about the tax cuts for 
political advantage, how in the world are we ever going to solve this 
problem?
  I hope the Senate will overcome the temptation to kind of punch and 
counterpunch on the debate about taxes or any other debate and put in 
the record the real facts about Social Security, a record that has been 
established between myself and the Senator from North Dakota. It would 
be a great day, a small step forward to finally come to grips with the 
problems that Social Security faces.

[[Page S3946]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I must say, when I hear the suggestion 
that cutting taxes now won't affect Social Security in the future, that 
is no economics that I understand.
  Just so we all understand how it works, all the revenue of the 
Federal Government goes in a pot. All the expenditures come out of that 
pot. That is the way it works. When you take revenue away from that 
revenue stream and you already can't pay your bills, guess what. You 
can't pay your bills in an even more serious way. Any family's 
economics would tell them that if you are not able to pay your bills 
now and you go out and cut your income more, you have more bills you 
can't pay. That is what our friends on the other side are trying to 
convince people of. I don't think that is going to work.
  This is the hard reality of the budget before us. There is over $2.7 
trillion of Social Security surplus available in the next 10 years. I 
believe we ought to take that money and either pay down debt or prepay 
the liability. That would strengthen Social Security.
  The other side has offered a budget that takes virtually every penny 
of those Social Security surpluses and uses them to pay for tax cuts or 
other expenditures. That does not help Social Security. That hurts 
Social Security. That makes the shortfall more serious going forward 
because we have not taken the resources, those trust fund surpluses, 
and used it to either pay down debt or prepay the liability.
  The other side tries to posture that one side wants to do nothing; 
the other side wants to do something about economic growth. No. No, I 
don't believe their program improves economic growth. Why not? Because 
the tax cuts are not paid for by reducing spending. The tax cuts are 
paid for by borrowing. You can't borrow your way to prosperity.
  Here is the work of the macroeconomic advisers. These are people 
under contract to the White House and under contract to the 
Congressional Budget Office to tell us what the effect of various 
fiscal policies are on economic growth. Do you know what they tell us? 
If we enact the President's plan, it will actually hurt long-term 
economic growth. It will hurt economic growth. Why? Because of 
increased deficits and debt that put a weight on the economy. What is 
that weight? When you run deficits and debt, that reduces the pool of 
societal savings, that reduces the money available for investment. That 
hurts economic growth. That is exactly what the folks who have analyzed 
this have concluded.
  Is the Senator from South Carolina seeking time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point, when the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho was talking about growing out to it, I 
ask unanimous consent to print page 6 of the budget resolution before 
us in the Record at this particular point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Fiscal year 2012:-$327,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:-$317,115,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $6,687,816,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $7,269,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $7,825,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,366,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $8,885,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,412,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,932,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,443,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $10,971,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,449,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $11,919,328,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of the 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $3,858,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,184,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,446,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $4,661,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $4,828,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,980,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,101,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,190,541,000,000.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. On page 6 you will see that the appropriate levels of 
the public debt are as follows: Fiscal year 2003, $6,687,816,000,000, 
but for the fiscal year 2013, the public debt is $11,919,328,000,000. 
So it is an increase of $5.2 trillion. Good gosh, I said ``trillion.'' 
I was hoping to say ``billion.'' The debt goes up, up, and away. Well, 
we know what the interest cost is going to be on that. That is going to 
be in excess of $600 or $700 billion a year. We just can't afford that.
  Let me say to the distinguished colleague from South Carolina, again, 
I was here in the 1970s. I was here in the 1980s. We didn't spend the 
Social Security trust fund, but we were beginning to drain it at the 
very end of the 1970s. And we appointed the Greenspan commission, and 
the Greenspan commission put on a graduated increase in taxes over the 
years to take care of the baby boomers in the next generation, exactly 
what my colleague from South Carolina is talking about. We foresaw 
that. It was supposed to build up these reserves and surpluses. That is 
exactly what has occurred.
  I refer, since it is already in the record, to page 4 of the annual 
report of the Social Security trust fund that was issued on Monday.
  It shows at the end of 2002, we had assets in the Social Security 
trust of $1.378 trillion. Of course, they have been spending the money 
on any and everything but Social Security. You can propose plan A, and 
plan B. You can talk about 2018 and 2042 and all those other funny 
little things until you are blue in the face. But unless and until you 
stop spending Social Security moneys on everything but Social Security, 
none of those plans is going to work--whether you privatize or not. 
That is why the Congress, under the leadership of President George 
Herbert Walker Bush, in November of 1990, wrote into law section 13301.
  I want to put Section 13301 into the amendment to make it crystal 
clear. I don't mind some of the whereases--and I understand the Senator 
from North Dakota wants to try to move things along and accommodate my 
colleague from South Carolina in taking a sense of the Senate. But 
there is no way in the world to make that a bill because there is no 
way to write it. You have to provide what the budget impact is, and 
everything else like that, and have it appraised. So it remains as a 
sense of the Senate at the desk. So that we can clear the air from this 
particular sham, I raise a point of order under section 305 of the 
Budget Act that sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are nongermane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order is not in order at this time. 
It can only be made when the time of the amendment has been used or 
yielded back.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good. I yield the floor. I think I have made my 
point. I ask the Chair, is it still a sense-of-the-Senate resolution? 
What is the form?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. A sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Right, mine would be 
the sense of the Senate. So I don't know--may I ask unanimous consent, 
then, to be recognized at the end, not to make a point of order?
  I ask unanimous consent that when the time expires, I may be 
recognized to have considered the amendment, or voted on the amendment 
that I have at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, reserving the right to 
object, I believe an effort is being made between my office and Senator 
Hollings' to work something out we can all live with. I ask him to take 
that into consideration. There are negotiations going on as we speak.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Do you object?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. No, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, simply put, a couple 
things: My senior Senator seems to suggest we did something in the 
1980s that has made Social Security sound. Social Security has 
surpluses today, but every day that goes by, those surpluses are not 
enough to pay the bills that are due and yet to come. Here is what the 
Social Security Administration told us yesterday: There are 3.3 workers 
to every retiree in 2002. Twenty years

[[Page S3947]]

from now, it goes 2 to 1. They told us yesterday that without 
structural reform--I emphasize again, structural reform does not 
include leaving Social Security current dollars alone. If you leave 
every dollar owed to Social Security alone and do nothing else, it 
still runs out of money in 2042. It is $25 trillion short in 2075. That 
is not the problem. People who say that are not being forthright about 
the problem.
  Having said that, I join my colleague from South Carolina and the 
Senator from North Dakota to try to make sure we preserve Social 
Security, keep it strong and healthy until we can find a structural 
reform. He has made an argument that cutting taxes reduces the family's 
income. The point is that payroll taxes are the income for Social 
Security. We are in a depressed economy right now.
  We are trying--at least I am trying--to take some dollars and invest 
them back into the families and businesses of America, to create 
additional jobs, to strengthen the revenue flow, and to protect the 
revenue flow of Social Security.
  My friend from North Dakota doesn't believe it will work. I totally 
respect him. But it is very difficult to be lectured to by some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle about needing to be good 
stewards with taxpayer dollars. I came to Congress in 1994. When I came 
here, there were deficits as far as the eye could see. We had not 
balanced the budget in 30 years. We were able to balance the budget and 
cut taxes twice. Now, because of war, recession, and other problems, we 
have a debt. The debt, compared to the gross domestic product, is very 
small as compared to years past. But it is still a debt, and it is a 
real problem, and we need to work together to solve that debt, and we 
will.
  I am asking my colleagues today, whatever you think about the tax 
cut, or other proposals that my party may present today or tomorrow, 
please do not prevent us from having in the Record for the country to 
see the true state of affairs with Social Security. My amendment 
doesn't fix the problem; it identifies it. I have been able to work 
with the Senator from North Dakota to put it into the Record. Today 
could be a good day--a day that the Senate agrees on the outyear 
problems of Social Security and begins to define it in a nonpartisan 
way or today could be the same old politics, where the political moment 
prevents us from talking honestly and openly about the looming problem 
of Social Security.
  I am hopeful this will be a different day because, if not, we have 
lost the opportunity to do something constructive to fix Social 
Security. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota working with me. I 
hope I can reach an agreement with my senior Senator from South 
Carolina to define the problem in honest terms, without anybody putting 
their spin on it, because the wording comes from the Social Security 
Administration. If I fail, I deeply regret the fact that I was not able 
to achieve this small first step. I am hopeful that, working together, 
we can achieve this small first step. That is all I know to say.
  This is a great exercise in what this country faces. I am trying to 
use the Social Security trustees' report to define the problem. I don't 
want the demagoguery of the moment to keep us from doing that, because 
the country loses in the debate of the moment. There are honest 
differences. Let's do something constructive and define the problem in 
the terms given by the Social Security trustees.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, has the Senator from South Carolina now 
seen the modification suggested by the senior Senator from South 
Carolina? Is the Senator from South Carolina, at this point, willing to 
accept the modifications we previously discussed, as well as the 
modification of the senior Senator from South Carolina?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. After having reviewed the documents, I 
am willing to agree to the modifications as offered by my senior 
Senator and the modification offered by the Senator from North Dakota. 
I am willing to do that. I think it is a good first step.
  Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate that and I think that would be a good 
outcome. I will soon seek unanimous consent to accept the amendment as 
modified, and then we will be able to proceed. As you know, at 2 
o'clock, we have to turn our attention back to the ANWR discussion.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, without losing my right to the floor. We are up 
against the 2 o'clock time limit.
  Mr. REID. I would like to get this amendment accepted.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator from South Carolina, including his 
modification, accept that?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That would be acceptable.


                     Amendment No. 274, As Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we accept 
the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator has a right to modify 
his amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 79, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 308. SOCIAL SECURITY RESTRUCTURING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Social Security is the foundation of retirement income 
     for most Americans;
       (2) preserving and strengthening the long term viability of 
     Social Security is a vital national priority and is essential 
     for the retirement security of today's working Americans, 
     current and future retirees, and their families;
       (3) Social Security faces significant fiscal and 
     demographic pressures;
       (4) the nonpartisan Office of the Chief Actuary at the 
     Social Security Administration reports that--
       (A) the number of workers paying taxes to support each 
     Social Security beneficiary has dropped from 16.5 in 1950 to 
     3.3 in 2002;
       (B) within a generation there will be only 2 workers to 
     support each retiree, which will substantially increase the 
     financial burden on American workers;
       (C) without structural reform, the Social Security system, 
     beginning in 2018, will pay out more in benefits than it will 
     collect in taxes;
       (D) without structural reform, the Social Security trust 
     fund will be exhausted in 2042, and Social Security tax 
     revenue in 2042 will only cover 73 percent of promised 
     benefits, and will decrease to 65 percent by 2077;
       (E) without structural reform, future Congresses may have 
     to raise payroll taxes 50 percent over the next 75 years to 
     pay full benefits on time, resulting in payroll tax rates of 
     as much as 16.9 percent by 2042 and 18.9 percent by 2077;
       (F) without structural reform, Social Security's total cash 
     shortfall over the next 75 years is estimated to be more than 
     $25,000,000,000,000 in constant 2003 dollars or 
     $3,500,000,000 measured in present value terms;
       (G) absent structural reforms, spending on Social Security 
     will increase from 4.4 percent of gross domestic product in 
     2003 to 7.0 percent in 2077; and
       (5) the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting 
     Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Chairman of 
     the Federal Reserve Board, and the President's Commission to 
     Strengthen Social Security have all warned that failure to 
     enact fiscally responsible Social Security reform quickly 
     will result in 1 or more of the following:
       (A) Higher tax rates.
       (B) Lower Social Security benefit levels.
       (C) Increased Federal debt or less spending on other 
     federal programs.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the President, the Congress and the American people 
     including seniors, workers, women, minorities, and disabled 
     persons should work together at the earliest opportunity to 
     enact legislation to achieve a solvent and permanently 
     sustainable Social Security system; and
       (2) Social Security reform--
       (A) must protect current and near retirees from any changes 
     to Social Security benefits;
       (B) must reduce the pressure on future taxpayers and on 
     other budgetary priorities;
       (C) must provide benefit levels that adequately reflect 
     individual contributions to the Social Security system.
       (D) must preserve and strengthen the safety net for 
     vulnerable populations including the disabled and survivors.
       (3) We should honor section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement 
     Act of 1990.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senators yield back their time on the 
amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, we are prepared to yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 274, as modified.
  Without objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 274), as modified, was agreed to.

[[Page S3948]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the agreement we had that I be 
recognized now should be vitiated. It is not necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is vitiated by this action.


                           Amendment No. 272

  Mr. CONRAD. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we now in the circumstance 
that we are back on the debate on ANWR for 1 hour preceding the vote at 
3 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Time is equally divided during that time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I believe we have an hour equally 
divided at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield such time as my colleague from 
Alaska, Senator Murkowski, desires. Does she need 10 or 12 minutes?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Ten minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Madam President, the discussion 
about ANWR is more than just pictures. It is more than statistics, 
numbers, and barrels of oil that might be recoverable. ANWR is about 
real people, real jobs, and real opportunities, and that is what we 
need to be focusing on. We do not need to get caught up in the hype of 
the pretty pictures. I will be the first to tell you that my State is 
absolutely drop-dead gorgeous, and I want to keep it that way. I would 
not be supporting anything, and I would not be standing on the floor of 
the Senate suggesting that we should do anything to despoil that.
  I want to talk briefly today about three points and what ANWR means 
to us in Alaska. It is jobs, it is protection of the environment, and 
it is also about economic security--three commonsense, basic issues.
  Let me talk quickly about the environment because it is these attacks 
that I think first and foremost have kept ANWR from being developed for 
the past 20-some years, all the concern of the development of oil and 
gas reserves on the North Slope, on the Coastal Plain. It was intended 
and identified as early as 1960 by President Eisenhower that this area 
had great potential for oil exploration and drilling and should be 
utilized as such.
  We do care for the environment. We have shown that through 
construction of our 800-mile Trans-Alaska pipeline that carries the oil 
safely, bisecting the State from top to bottom. We have done a darn 
good job, and the scientific studies and reports, including the 
National Academy of Sciences' report that came out 2 weeks ago, 
demonstrate that. We do a good job. We care for our environment in 
Alaska.
  The environment and development are not mutually exclusive terms. We 
have demonstrated time and again that they are not mutually exclusive. 
For those who will take the time to visit our oilfields up North, I 
think they will be amazed at the technology, the innovation we utilize 
when it comes to the extraction of our natural resources.

  The good Senator from New Mexico stood in this Chamber earlier and 
talked about the directional drilling and the technique that is now 
available to develop our oil. I think he used the number 4 miles; that 
we can snake this oil well down across a 4-mile area of terrain. He 
used the analogy of a child with a straw and a milkshake and that straw 
could go 4 miles. That is a pretty vivid image. Actually, the good 
chairman of the Energy Committee is incorrect; we can actually go 6 
miles. The technology has come so far in the 30 years since we have 
been drilling on the North Slope.
  We talk about the footprint. The footprint has been described in so 
many ways. You can fit six of the oil development areas in the size of 
Dulles Airport. It is the size of the Pinehurst golf course. The 
visuals are there, but what we need to impress upon people, what we 
have to impress upon people is that the footprint is practically 
negligible in the context of the whole Coastal Plain and certainly in 
the context of the whole of ANWR and even more certainly in the context 
of the entire scope of our State.
  What we are talking about, first of all, is very small. But even if 
it is small, we still need to do it responsibly, and we do that through 
the technology. The State of Alaska is the first to make sure the 
environmental standards are met and the permitting requirements are 
met. Nobody wants to rape, spoil, or ruin the land.
  Madam President, I am third generation Alaskan. I am the first person 
serving in Congress for the State of Alaska who was actually born in 
the State. I was born in the territory. I am the last person to suggest 
we should do anything that would spoil our environment, my environment, 
the environment in which I choose to raise my family. My boys, my 
husband, and I live for fishing, hunting, camping, and backpacking. 
This is the part of Alaska we want to preserve. So let us do it right. 
We know how to do it right.
  I will talk a bit about the jobs. We have talked about jobs 
repeatedly on this floor. Last night, we demonstrated through the 
testimony and the charts that we are talking about some 575,000 jobs 
across the country. We need to remember that when I talk about jobs, I 
do not want people to think that Alaska is interested in opening up 
ANWR just because it means jobs and opportunity for my constituents, 
for the people in my State. It does. It means that, and it means more. 
It means roads, hospitals, schools, and facilities. It enables people 
in my State to live, but it also means jobs across America.
  As I said, this means 575,000 jobs across the country. If we look at 
the numbers, they are all over the board: The State of New Jersey, 
178,000 jobs; the State of Pennsylvania, 27,000; the State of Ohio, 
25,000; the State of Kentucky, 10,000; the State of Texas, 47,000; the 
State of California, 63,000 jobs. We are talking about real jobs for 
real Americans across the country.
  We are considering the economic stimulus package that the President 
has put forth. There is no better economic stimulus than jobs and job 
opportunity. We can provide that for America through ANWR, and they are 
good-paying jobs.
  I made the point last night--and it is compelling--that the job 
opportunities right now for Alaska are approximately 11,000 jobs within 
the petroleum industry. If we were to accept this amendment, if we were 
to strip ANWR from the budget resolution, what these other States would 
be saying is that it is OK for us to have petroleum-based jobs in our 
States but, Alaska, we do not want you to have any more. We are cutting 
you off. In other words, Massachusetts could keep its 20,000 petroleum-
based jobs, New Jersey could keep its 27,000 petroleum industry jobs, 
and New York could keep its 37,000 petroleum industry jobs, while 
Alaskans should look for alternatives.
  The impression I get as an Alaskan, looking from the inside out, is 
that the lower 48 would just as soon lock us up, not allow us to have 
good-paying jobs that will feed our families and allow us to live in 
the State we want to live.
  But, no, the jobs we should have are jobs such as carrying the bags 
for the tourists who come to our State. Yes, we want tourism but we 
also want real jobs, and these petroleum-based jobs are jobs that are 
real for Alaskans.
  It is one thing if the residents of the State of Alaska said we do 
not want this and Congress was trying to shove it down their throats, 
but Alaskans have said yes. We have said we will accept responsible oil 
development and production in our backyard. We will take it, and we 
will do it responsibly. We promise we will be responsible.
  This gets to my last point, which is economic security and basically 
plain old common sense. There is kind of an 800-pound gorilla sitting 
in the Chamber now. We are literally at the brink of war. We do not 
know what is going to happen in Iraq. We do not know if Saddam Hussein 
is going to torch the oil fields. We have no idea. What we do know is 
that in the past several months, we have increased our imported oil 
from Iraq. We have doubled our imports from Iraq in the past couple of 
months. We have sent billions of dollars to Iraq. I am not quite sure 
how the paper trail goes, but I do not think it is too farfetched to 
assume that we send billions of dollars to Iraq to Saddam Hussein, who 
in turn sells us the oil that we place in our aircraft or our

[[Page S3949]]

air carriers and we send our men and our women over to defend no-fly 
zones, to put them in harm's way, when we could be producing 
domestically. If that does not keep us awake at night, I do not know 
what will. It does not make sense at this point in time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for an additional minute.
  Mr. STEVENS. One additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may continue.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I have placed on each Member's desk a copy of Review & 
Outlook from the Wall Street Journal that ran this morning. I urge each 
Member to review that, because it does speak exactly to the issue I 
addressed.
  I conclude by reminding members of some very pertinent facts. ANWR 
has more oil in it than the State of Texas. These are not made-up 
facts. This is Department of Interior, USGS. This is not insignificant 
quantities we are dealing with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her minute.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I ask the Senator from Alaska, is it OK upon my completion of 5 
minutes that Senator Feingold address the Senate for 5 minutes, and 
then we would turn it back to the time of the Senator from Alaska? Is 
that all right with the Senator?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, let's be clear. Ninety-five percent of 
Alaska's North Slope is open for drilling. That is a fact. We are 
talking about the last 5 percent. The debate is whether that should be 
opened as well.
  Clearly, this is going to be a very close vote. I have great respect 
for the Senators from Alaska, but I would welcome it if they wanted to 
help preserve the environment in my State.
  As far as jobs are concerned, there was a report done by the Joint 
Economic Committee on March 14, 2002. They issued a report that said 
there would be 65,000 jobs nationwide by 2020, an employment gain of 
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. workforce, and CRS--that 
is the Congressional Research Service--Report No. R.S. 21030, October 
1, 2001, said under the most likely scenario, full development in the 
Arctic would result in 60,000 jobs.
  I am not one to say 60,000 jobs are no jobs--that is a lot of jobs--
but the more than 2 million jobs we have seen go down the drain in the 
last 2 years, that is a bigger debate.
  I also want to make the point that for those of us in California who 
defend and protect our coastline from oil companies every day of the 
week, we made a choice. Yes, we know there would be jobs developed 
there, but it would destroy that coastline and have the potential for 
horrific accidents and problems because we have experienced those.
  So I say to my friends from Alaska, I hope they will understand the 
people in this country who support keeping this 5 percent of the North 
Slope in its pristine environment are doing so because we think it is 
good for the soul of this country, and we believe there are more jobs 
to be created through other means.
  The reason I have this photograph--and it was challenged not by my 
colleagues from Alaska at all but by others--this is clearly in the 
development area--and also by Secretary Norton, who is quoted in the 
newspaper as saying the image of flat white nothingness is what one 
sees the majority of the year. This is the reason I felt compelled--and 
I was glad to see my colleague from Alaska say she agrees, it is 
magnificent, and I wish every Member could have the chance to take a 
look at this beautiful book, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons 
of Life and Land. It is a photographic journey by this incredible 
photographer through all the seasons. Some of the most beautiful scenes 
are in the winter. I know my colleagues cannot see this, but it shows 
the birds and the snow and all the rest. It is quite beautiful.
  I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe Secretary Norton 
looks at this and comes away with another point of view, and I respect 
that. I just do not happen to agree with it.
  In April--I think it is April 10--there will be an exhibit opened at 
the Smithsonian on the Mall which will show these photographs, and 
more. So I hope people will take a chance to look at it, because it is 
quite breathtaking to see.
  I want to reiterate that I printed in the Record last night a letter 
from the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council. They have asked me to make a 
point of this letter they have written, in which they say:

       We urge you to reject . . . any other proposals to 
     authorize oil exploration and development of the birthplace 
     and nursery of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, the coastal plain 
     and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

  They talk about they support the Gwich'ins to seek permanent 
protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I know the Gwich'in 
people are here. I also know there are other tribal people here as 
well, and I say that I have met with them many times and have been 
touched and moved with their testimony. They are very proud the Alaska 
Inter-Tribal Council that represents 187 tribes is with them, and they 
asked me specifically to put this letter into the Record.
  Let me finish by saying the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a 
beautiful Web site and they say on it:

       The Arctic refuge is among the most complete, pristine and 
     undisturbed ecosystems on Earth . . . a combination of 
     habitats, climate and geography unmatched by any other 
     northern conservation area.

  This is a quote from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is very 
clearly the point of view of most people, and I hope that we would 
honor this God-given treasure today and vote to strip this language 
from the bill and take a stand in favor of keeping this area pristine.
  I look forward to the remarks of Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to support this amendment 
which is similar to one I offered in the Budget Committee. It would 
strike the reconciliation instruction to the Energy Committee contained 
in the budget resolution before us.
  This instruction requires the Energy Committee to produce $2.15 
billion by reporting out legislation by May 1, 2003, with the 
assumption that they open the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
  Management of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain has been hotly debated 
for many years. Some Senators, like myself, believe that this area 
should be designated as a Federal wilderness area. Other Senators 
believe that this area should be explored for its oil potential.
  I support this amendment because I believe that the fate of the 
coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is a question of Federal National 
Wildlife Refuge management, not budgetary policy. If a Senator believes 
that oil reserves which may be located under the coastal plain are 
needed today, or 20 years from now, for reasons of enhancing this 
country's energy security, then the fate of the refuge is a question of 
energy policy, not budgetary policy.
  No matter where a Senator might consider himself or herself in the 
discussion over the fate of the refuge, and this issue was debated at 
length during the Senate's consideration of the energy bill last year, 
no Senator has said that the primary reason to change the management of 
the refuge was because we just needed the revenue.
  In fact, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Nickles, again 
stated, when I offered my amendment in committee, that these 
instructions are included in the budget resolution because Arctic 
drilling is needed to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and produce 
oil, not for purposes of revenue.
  I know there are strongly held views on this topic, and I do not 
intend here to go into all the reasons why I have concerns about the 
possibility of oil drilling in the refuge. Other Senators who join in 
offering this amendment will be making that case and making it 
effectively.
  I feel that the fate of the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is too 
important to become a number in the budget process.
  I also think that, for several reasons, Senators who support drilling 
in the

[[Page S3950]]

refuge should support this amendment and object to using the budget 
resolution and reconciliation to achieve that goal.
  As Senators know, debate on a reconciliation bill and all amendments, 
debatable motions, and appeals related to it is limited to a total of 
20 hours. After 20 hours, debate ends. Consideration of amendments then 
may continue without any debate.
  I am concerned that using a fast track procedure like reconciliation 
to open the refuge exposes the Senate to criticism that we are using 
the refuge revenues in part for tax cuts, or to authorize new spending 
programs.
  Particularly, the Senate may be accused of dispensing refuge revenues 
in unrelated accounts to gain political support for refuge drilling. 
Our constituents may also be concerned that we will have to spend a 
great deal to implement a drilling program in the Arctic refuge because 
much of the infrastructure needed to bring oil from the refuge to the 
rest of the country does not exist today.
  As well, I am concerned that some Senators are supporting drilling in 
the refuge because they feel that it can be done in an 
``environmentally safe'' way or they feel that it should be done 
jointly with energy efficiency, oil savings, and alternative energy 
programs to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.
  Reconciliation limits the way in which Senators who are concerned 
about these issues, and who do not serve on the Energy Committee, are 
able to address those issues on the floor. ``It'' cuts it off. You 
cannot have a real debate about what should be done. It is simply a 
budget number.
  The Congressional Budget Act explicitly prohibits the offering of 
nongermane amendments to a reconciliation bill. If a Senator felt that 
the Energy Committee's reconciliation bill opening the refuge did not 
go far enough to regulate environmental impacts associated with Arctic 
drilling, or to promote alternative energy in light of Arctic drilling, 
the Senator may not be able to offer amendments on the floor to improve 
the bill.
  Such amendments, which might improve the bill from an environmental 
standpoint, might well be considered extraneous because they do not 
raise revenue.
  I would caution all members of the Senate who have committed to 
support Arctic drilling only in certain cases, or only if certain other 
legislative or regulatory actions take place, to think seriously about 
whether reconciliation serves their interests and their constituents' 
interests.
  Finally, I oppose using reconciliation because I believe it is being 
used to limit consideration of a controversial issue. The American 
people have strongly held views on drilling in the refuge, and they 
want to know that the Senate is working to pass legislation to manage 
the area appropriately in a forthright and open process.
  That will not be achieved if reconciliation instruction on the Arctic 
refuge is included in the resolution before us. I urge support for my 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from California could not 
be more in error about the amount of land on our north arctic 
shoreline. It is not 95 percent open. There is the naval reserve No. 4. 
That is 52 percent of the coastline closed. She knows it is closed.
  Beyond that, the Senator from California comes in with a letter from 
the Inter-Tribal Council of Alaska. That is a group of dissidents in 
Alaska, as far as I am concerned. The 100,000-member group of Alaskans 
known as the Alaska Federation of Natives--my colleague Senator 
Murkowski had printed in the Record last night their Resolution 9505 
absolutely supporting opening of this area to oil and gas drilling.
  The main thing is, in 1985 it was drilled pursuant to a law passed in 
1980 to drill a test well to see if the area could produce oil and gas. 
The exact results have been classified, but we know it does have the 
largest basin on the North American continent. If it is drilled, we 
expect it to produce enormous amounts of oil. One estimate I have 
before me is the total expected reserves for oil and gas in nongas 
liquids from Alaska, not taking into account the price per barrel, is 
32.5 billion to 69.36 billion barrels.
  When they first told us about the discovery in the Arctic known as 
Prudhoe Bay, they said the estimate was about a billion barrels. Last 
year, we produced the 17 billionth barrel, and it is still producing. 
As a consequence, we face a process of discrimination. We are crying to 
be treated equally. In California, they have four refuges. Three of 
them produce oil and gas: Hopper Mountain, Seal Beach, and Sutter. The 
fourth has a producing well and did not produce until 2000.
  The Senator from California says, protect the pristine wildlife 
refuges. This is an enormous area. Her area is less than 100,000 acres, 
and they are drilling it. It comes down to the question, How much are 
you influenced by the extreme environmental movement in the United 
States?
  This comes down to a question of jobs. It is jobs. There are many 
Alaska Native people in the gallery now. They need jobs. This is their 
area. This is a chart showing how many of the wildlife refuges in the 
United States have oil and gas drilling: California has 4, two northern 
States have 4 each, Illinois has 4, and there are 17 in Louisiana. 
Louisiana has proved you can have oil and gas drilling and compatible 
protection of wildlife at the same time.
  All we are seeking is to be treated equally. We have a whole series 
of points that have been made in the last few days. And when I have 
this debate--there have been a lot of debates here since 1980. The 
commitment was finally made by two friends of mine who are now 
deceased, Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas. After they made their 
pledge, I helped them to get the whole bill passed, over 100 million 
acres.
  There were newspaper ads: Ted Stevens, come home; you made a mistake. 
If we lose today, I probably did make a mistake because I trusted the 
Senate. I trusted the Senate to follow the law. I hope the time comes 
when other people face the same proposition and they can rest assured.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am finding the source for the comment 
I made that Senator Stevens took issue with that the 5 percent of the 
North Slope was available for drilling. That comment was made by the 
Interior Secretary to the Senate in the committee. That statement was 
made in 1995. I am putting my hands on the exact words.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut who has been a real 
leader in this fight, Senator Joe Lieberman.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from California for 
the steadfast and spirited advocacy she has made of this amendment.
  We come in about half an hour to another moment of truth. President 
Bush said earlier in the week that we were at a moment of truth with 
regard to Iraq and Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. I 
agreed with him. In half an hour we come to a different kind of moment 
of truth in the long, ongoing battle about whether we will preserve the 
magnificent natural gift we received from our Creator in the Arctic 
Refuge known as the American Serengeti and inhabited by so many 
magnificent species of wildlife, for a very small amount of oil.

  This question, this moment of truth also raises the question about 
whether we will accept a contention of the Bush administration that 
somehow, by doing this, we are solving America's energy problem. With 
all respect, there could not be a more ridiculous contention.
  The facts are clear. If drilling occurs by the year 2020, our 
dependence on foreign oil, as a result of the oil from the Arctic 
Refuge, will be reduced from 62 percent to 60 percent. That is not the 
road to energy independence.
  Those of us on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, 
who oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge support new domestic energy 
production, including new fossil fuel energy production. In fact, it is 
worth pointing out that the previous administration leased more land 
for energy development than either of the preceding two. But it opposed 
drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge. Those decisions need not be 
hazardous to our environment. They need not destroy precious places. 
Each must be evaluated in light of the

[[Page S3951]]

specific environmental consequences of the exploration, and our most 
important shared environmental treasures must be placed off limits.
  The Arctic Refuge, in my opinion, is one such place. We simply would 
not gain enough in oil or energy independence to justify long-term harm 
to this place. The facts in that regard are clear. Setting up the 
intricate infrastructure required to pump oil out of the refuge will 
despoil the land and its ecosystems forever. After hundreds of pin 
pricks, the refuge will be in that sense bleeding, its wildlife will be 
reeling. We will never be able to get it back to where it was.
  Supporters of drilling insist on numbers that grossly overestimate 
the benefits and underestimate the cost. Could the drilling in the 
refuge coexist with wildlife? Not by a long shot. The USGS, part of the 
administration, confirmed that development of the refuge would result 
in substantial environmental destruction.
  Do we want to tear up this magnificent piece of America for such a 
tiny reward, when harnessing American technology to improve 
conservation and efficiency and developing alternative energy sources 
could reap many times the benefit? To me, the answer is clear. Oil 
drilling in the refuge is not a path to energy independence. It is not 
a path to economic security. It is, in fact, a road to ruin, 
environmental ruin of this wildlife refuge. The oil that would be 
gained will come and go in almost no time. But the destruction will 
last forever.
  This is an unsettled time in our Nation's history. People feel 
insecure about so much--about the war in Iraq, about terrorism, about 
economic insecurity. It does seem to me that the decision we make today 
relates to that. There have to be some places, some things, some 
values, some natural treasures that do not change, that we have to 
protect, particularly at this moment. This is a place from which we 
gain strength, from which we gain purpose, from which we gain 
tranquility. Let us not, in the pressures of the moment, let it be 
destroyed forever.
  I quote, finally, the words of Theodore Roosevelt, who may be 
considered in his time to be an extreme environmentalist. In 1916 TR 
said:

       The greatest good for the greatest number applies to the 
     number within the womb of time, compared to which those now 
     alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the 
     whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain 
     an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the 
     heritage of these unborn generations.

  The final sentence from TR, President Teddy Roosevelt:

       The movement for the conservation of wildlife and the 
     larger movement for the conservation of all of our natural 
     resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and 
     method.

  Those are timeless words which come home to us almost a century later 
as we face the moment of truth for today and for tomorrow in this vote. 
I urge my colleagues, please support the best of America. Vote for this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield myself just 1 minute while the Senator from 
Connecticut is here. We have 77 percent of all the wild refuges in the 
United States in Alaska. We are talking about 2,000 acres out of almost 
90 million acres of land.
  I don't understand people who stand here and say save this pristine 
part of the United States. I invite all of them--I will take them up 
there right now and let them see the Arctic Slope. It is frozen tundra. 
Look at this map. That shows how much of this area is withdrawn. The 
Senator from California says it is 95 percent--look at it. If you go 
from the coast on the Arctic coast of Alaska, it is not open. The only 
part of Federal land that is really open now is 1.5 million acres that 
was left open by the Jackson-Tsongas amendment. The rest of it is 
closed.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry: Could you tell me how much time 
remains on the Senator from Alaska's side and how much on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 12 minutes 29 
seconds; the Senator from Alaska has 13 \1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask the Senator, what is your preference? Senator 
Chafee would like to speak, but if you would like to take some time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I was waiting for Senator Domenici. I 
think Senator Chafee was waiting for time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was just asking my colleague if he preferred Senator 
Domenici to go since he just spoke.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will wait.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes for Senator Chafee. I want to say he is 
a leader on this issue, and he is one of six Republicans who signed a 
letter saying don't deal with this issue in the context of a budget 
resolution. I look forward to hearing his 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I accepted an offer last August to go to 
ANWR, to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Since I have been here 
for 3 years, I have heard a lot of debate about it, and I assumed I 
heard a lot of exaggeration also. I wanted to go myself and so I 
accepted the invitation.
  I took a bush plane from Fairbanks over the Brooks Range, as you see 
here. The Brooks Range is very desolate, almost devoid of any sign of 
life, any sign of vegetation. It is quite a trip over the Brooks Range. 
As we cleared that mountainous terrain, stretching out before the 
Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort Sea, was the most gorgeous grasslands, the 
last thing I expected to see that far north.
  We banked around with our bush plane and you can see here where we 
landed. As we banked in for a landing, scurrying through the brush was 
a big, brown, cinnamon-colored beast, a grizzly bear.
  We got out of our plane and immediately were covered with tremendous 
amounts of mosquitoes. It was quite an experience. We pulled the nets 
on our hats over our heads and set up our tents, which we can see here. 
We had some chow and then that night it snowed. We came on the Brooks 
Range earlier, and they had no snow on them, but the snow came that 
night. Thankfully, we never saw another mosquito, so we had the great 
experience of having mosquitoes but then had 2 days--3 days in order to 
hike around the area. Every day we would hike for as much as 4 or 5 
hours, then come in for lunch, and go out and hike for the afternoon 
another 4 or 5 hours.
  In August, it is just as light at 3 in the afternoon as it is at 3 in 
the morning, so it is quite an experience that far up.
  I will have to say, Senator Stevens, this is the most beautiful 
place. I have been in 49 out of 50 States. The only one I have not been 
in is Hawaii. This is the most beautiful place I have ever been.
  Mr. STEVENS. The oilwells are just 25 miles away; does he know that?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. I will conclude in that direction. Not only did we 
see the grizzly bears and one caribou--the caribou migration had gone 
through, but we did see one caribou--but we saw all kinds of life: 
Ground squirrels, prairie chickens--I think they call them ptarmigan. 
We also saw all sorts of birds and saw also the signs of life--musk ox 
droppings. We didn't see musk ox, but we saw the droppings all over the 
place. So obviously they had been there. All kinds of caribou droppings 
were everywhere you went.
  What a surprise it was to go this far north and see such beautiful 
country. It is like the plains of Wyoming or Montana. And it was a 
great surprise to me.

  So all the environmentalists who talk about it being the Serengeti of 
America, they are right. This is unique. It is special. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment for that reason.
  On the trip, we then had an opportunity to go to Prudhoe Bay. And 
what a change it is, as you go west from the 1002 area, which is where 
we were camping, to Prudhoe Bay. Before we leave the 1002 area, here we 
are, as shown on this picture. There I am, my wife Stephanie, the small 
band of us up there braving the elements, experiencing the 1002 area.
  When we went to Prudhoe Bay, it was a change in the topography. It 
gets much more pockmarked with water. It is a lot different from what 
we saw here in ANWR. And it seems more suitable for man's incursion and 
for drilling as you get closer to Prudhoe Bay.
  We landed in Prudhoe Bay. We went to the hotel, which was a 
collection,

[[Page S3952]]

really, of trailers put together. And the proprietor of the hotel at 
Prudhoe Bay said: Be careful. There is a grizzly bear in town. His name 
is Toby. When you walk around, just be careful. You never know. You 
don't want to surprise him and have him attack you. So just keep your 
wits about you.
  We had a great tour of Prudhoe Bay. And after we left and came back 
to the States, about 2 months later, I saw, in the New York Times, a 
little filler article, that Toby was getting into the inn where we were 
staying and they had to put him down. So it made the New York Times, 
Toby getting into the inn and having to be put down.
  But the point is, there should be places for the Tobys of the world. 
And then there are other places where we should drill. And, obviously, 
they are incompatible. No one wanted to harm Toby, but it just came to 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may continue.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, that is the point. There should be areas of the 
world for man and drilling, and then there should be areas of the world 
for the Tobys of the world. And if we are going to proceed with 
drilling in ANWR, absent any effort at conservation--and many of the 
Senators who are going to vote in favor of drilling in ANWR did not 
vote for raising the CAFE standards that would save much more of our 
resources in natural fuels--that is a bad policy and a wrong direction 
to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am delighted the Senator from Rhode 
Island has gone to our State and seen it in August. I would invite him 
to come up and join me right now, and go take a look at that same 
place.
  But what I would really like for him to do is to remember, if I had 
not changed my vote in 1980, there would have been no refuge at all. It 
was a wildlife range. My colleague wanted to block it entirely, and I 
associated myself with Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas and got the 
job done, and got it withdrawn, so we could proceed with development. 
And now the colleagues you have joined want to renege on the commitment 
that was made to me as a Senator by two distinguished leaders of the 
Senate, the Senator's father included.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 13 minutes; the 
Senator from California has 6 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield the Senator from New Mexico 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, I come from New 
Mexico. New Mexico is right next to Mexico. Mexico has oil underground, 
God made. Do you know what they call it? They call it their patrimony. 
It is so important that they claim it is theirs and it is their 
future--not locked up under the ground--to use. It is their patrimony. 
In fact, in Spanish, they say: ``El patrimonio del pais es el 
petroleo.'' That is how important it is.
  Now, for all of those who have been here giving speeches about making 
sure we protect the ANWR wilderness, look at this picture. Look at this 
picture with me. You see this big, blue picture? I am going to go 
around the edges for you. Isn't that big?
  Senator, do you want to take a look? That is drawn to scale. That is 
ANWR. Unless you have very good glasses, very good eyes, you can't see, 
from your seat, where ANWR's drilling sites will be, because it will be 
that big, Senator. Can you see that little spot?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, I can.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is how big the development for oil for America 
will be out of this wilderness.
  Now, anybody who blesses this floor piously about preservation is 
ignoring the reality. America cannot live without oil. I wish we could.
  Alaska is America. Oil in Alaska is our patrimony, just like oil in 
Mexico is the patrimony of the Republic of Mexico. To say that using 
that piece of property--see it. I am not sure our TV cameras are 
showing it to Americans, that is how big it is.
  It is now said, that is all you need to drill for oil--to do what?--
to produce as much oil as the State of Texas produces. There are even 
environmentalists who say, in their literature, it is an irrelevant 
amount of oil, it is not needed.
  Well, Madam President, as I crossed America, looking to find 
comparisons, as soon as I got to Texas, I asked, how much oil is there? 
They told me, it is almost the exact amount of billions of barrels of 
reserve as is in this tiny piece of property as big as the properties 
at Dulles here in Virginia.
  So if this is irrelevant to America, I assume we should not have 
drilled in Texas. How much oil might it produce? About the same amount 
as California per year. I ask Senator Nickles, is one to say 
California's production is not needed? We are so rich and arrogant 
about our wealth that we can throw away this huge amount of oil? We 
don't need it for America?
  I believe to turn this down is not an insult to Alaska; it is not 
reneging on something to Ted Stevens; it is an absolute denial to the 
American people of the increased prospect of reasonably priced oil for 
the future.
  If you are worried about the future high prices of oil and you want 
to blame someone, I say, blame the vote this afternoon. If this is 
defeated, you can put it right up there along with any other country 
that you assume is out to raise prices on the American consumer. 
Because that vote, denying the right of Americans to produce this oil, 
will just as assuredly result in the prospect of increased costs of oil 
to Americans.
  I wish we could stand on the floor and say: Americans, we have a 
plan. We are going to dramatically reduce the number of automobiles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, could I have 1 additional minute?
  He said yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just say, I wish we had a plan that said: In the 
future, we do not need all this; we do not need all these cars; we can 
get by with far less. But, frankly, I believe, under any scenario, for 
the next 25 to 30 years, our children, our way of life, our standard of 
living, demand that we do right and that we use that tiny piece of real 
estate without doing damage to this gigantic wilderness to produce 
energy for our great country.
  I thank Senator Stevens for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time 
remains on each side, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 6 minutes 13 
seconds; the Senator from Alaska has 7 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to retain my time to close debate, if it is 
all right with the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield my colleague 2 minutes, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it has been suggested in the past few 
minutes and last evening that instead of opening ANWR, we need to look 
to conservation; we need to discuss CAFE standards; we need to look to 
alternative fuels.
  We need to keep ANWR in context. This is not an either/or debate. 
These concepts are not mutually exclusive. We have to have increased 
conservation efforts, of course. That is reasonable. But as the Senator 
from New Mexico has stated, we will never be entirely free in our 
reliance on oil, on petroleum products.
  When you look at what we get from petroleum products, it is not just 
the gasoline that goes in our vehicles. That is not the only issue. We 
use it in our

[[Page S3953]]

plastics. We use it for Band-Aids, for perfume, for so many things that 
you can't even imagine. We will continue to need gas. We will continue 
to need oil. These are necessary for us as a society.
  To suggest that we are going to conserve our way out of reliance on 
petroleum is not reasonable. It is not feasible. We have to accept 
both. We need the domestic energy sources that only ANWR can provide to 
us. We have heard it repeated time and time again today and yesterday 
and in the years throughout the debate, this is where the energy 
reserves are. We can't deny that. We can't be put off or led astray by 
looking at nice pictures and thinking that somehow or other in order to 
preserve this area, we have to give up development.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 5 minutes 24 
seconds. The Senator from California has 6 minutes 13 seconds. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, momentarily we will be voting on the 
Boxer amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I compliment my 
colleagues, Senators Stevens and Murkowski. I listened to the debate 
last night and today. If people are interested in the facts, they 
happen to know the facts. They live there. They have been there. A lot 
of people are pointing out pristine pictures of wildlife.
  That is not the 1002 area that would be drilled. I have seen that. We 
can do drilling in that area in a very environmentally sensitive and 
sound way. We can do it. Our country happens to need that million 
barrels per day of domestic oil that can be produced. We need it. If 
not, we will be buying it from Iraq. We will be buying it from the 
Middle East. We will be buying it from areas that are a lot more 
vulnerable than Alaska. This way we can keep the jobs in the United 
States. This way we can keep production and our dollars in the United 
States.
  We have a tradition in the Senate that we listen to home State 
Senators in areas that concern their State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield myself an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Certainly.
  Mr. NICKLES. For people who live outside the State and have never 
been in this area to try to dictate that we should never drill there, 
without living there, and override and superimpose their will over the 
two home State Senators, I find to be almost incredible. It is denying 
Alaska a chance to grow. It is denying our country a chance to grow.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to Senator Stevens, to listen to 
Senator Murkowski, and let's allow some environmentally safe and sound 
production that our country desperately needs.
  I thank my colleagues from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask the Chair to let me know when I have 1 minute 
left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this is a diagram of the 1002 area. I 
pointed out previously that in 1958 there was a well drilled just east 
of Kaktovik. It is still classified as the result of overwhelming 
interest by the oil industry after that to conduct seismic in this 
area. This is the Marsh Creek anticline. East of that area is where 
this enormous reservoir is. To the west going over to the river, where 
this is the Prudhoe Bay area, that has all been very prolific. There 
was a well drilled off shore in Camden Bay. There has been a series of 
wells drilled offshore. The only well that has been drilled onshore was 
in 1985.
  This is an area, as I said, a million and a half acres that in 1980 
was kept open for oil and gas exploration by the Tsongas-Jackson 
amendment. The balance of this area is wilderness. This has never been 
wilderness. We heard repeatedly about wilderness.
  I have now been here 35 years. I have trusted the Senate quite often. 
The one time I really trusted Senators was when I decided to work with 
Senators Tsongas and Jackson to get this bill passed, get it done. We 
thought we had a substantial concession in the fact that the Arctic 
Slope would continue to be open for oil and gas exploration as it was 
intended by President Eisenhower, as it was intended entirely up until 
1980.
  Through the period of the discussion of this matter, since 1980, I 
have had a series of Senators tell me, I will be with you if you need 
me. They know who they are. This is the day that I need them. This vote 
is going to be very close. It represents a vote that culminates some 
substantial period of my life because I started working on this area in 
1956.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will save it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California. In a short 
statement I would like to identify what has happened since 1989 when 
the Exxon Valdez ran aground, since the period of time when the court 
said that ExxonMobil should pay $9 billion in punitive damages for the 
havoc it created in Prince William Sound. Lest we be fooled that these 
environmental stewards are going to take good care of our assets, of 
our natural resources, let's look at what happened.
  The fine is now down $4 billion. This is since shortly after 1989. 
And who is paying the tariff here? Well, the Anchorage Daily News on 
August 4, 1998, reported ``Apparently Delay Pays.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Exxon is earning $90,000 an hour, about $2 million a 
day, or nearly $800 million a year, on the same $5 billion as long as 
the case drags on. And the money stays in its coffers. They are not 
even paying for it. In fact, what they are doing is making money, 
interest on that money which belongs to the citizens of the country and 
for the protection of our environment.
  What we are looking at is a corporate behavior that should be 
unacceptable under any standard and where they are using this 
opportunity to cash in on delays by skillful lawyers instead of paying 
their obligation as it fell upon them through the courts.
  It is an outrage. We cannot trust these people to take care of this 
environment of ours for our children and our grandchildren. I hope the 
Boxer amendment passes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 5 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to be told when I have a minute left.
  We are reaching the end of a tough debate. It is a very close vote, 
no doubt about it. The Vice President, I understand, is on his way over 
in case it is a tie vote. I want to pick up on something Senator 
Nickles said when he kind of cast aspersions on those who live outside 
of the State of Alaska and are speaking up in favor of this Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge.
  Let me be clear. I come from a State that has millions of acres of 
wilderness, thousands and thousands of acres of beautiful Federal land. 
We are very proud of it. We have forests, desert, wetlands, and the 
rest, including Yosemite National Park. Let me be clear. I welcome the 
support of my colleagues. I don't shun it. I welcome them to help me 
preserve those acres for the people of California and the people of the 
country and, indeed, the people of the world. In our State, we consider 
these treasures not only to be God-given resources, but we look at them 
as God-given resources that we, the people of this planet, have to 
protect.
  I am interested in Senator Domenici's presentation. It was well done. 
He has a big chart and he has a dot on the chart. He says: Look at 
this, it is a dot on this chart. Well, if you go up into space and you 
look at the Earth, it looks like a little marble. Does that

[[Page S3954]]

mean we should not care about what happens on God's Earth?
  So I think we are getting to the point at which we have to make a 
choice. Do we want to change the policy and go into this beautiful 
refuge or do we want to look at other ways to get more energy--I 
underscore, much more energy?
  Look, if we just close the loopholes on SUVs--by the way, I represent 
a lot of soccer moms and let me tell you, they want their SUVs, and 
they want to get better fuel economy from them. I live in a community 
where almost every other car is big because I live in suburbia. They 
want to have the option to drive those cars and not have to spend $100 
every time they fill up the tank. If we were just to close that SUV 
loophole, we would save, by 2030, 10 billion barrels of oil. This is 
what we are talking about. That is far more than you would get out of 
the Arctic. If you moved up the fuel economy just to 35 miles a 
gallon--listen to this--we would be 43 percent less dependent upon 
foreign oil. With ANWR, it is 2 percent.
  Vote for the Boxer amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  The Senator from Alaska has 1 minute 2 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, again, I think this is the most 
important vote in the history of my service in the Senate. I worked on 
this with President Eisenhower. Our people were about ready to go to 
war. He said in World War II that our ships, our planes, and our tanks 
must have oil. That will continue on into the future. Opening this area 
will not give our people oil now but will assure that we have a greater 
reserve in the future.
  My last comment is this. In the time I have served here, many people 
have made commitments to me, and I have never broken a commitment in my 
life. I make this commitment: People who vote against this today are 
voting against me, and I will not forget it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this is a country of laws, not men. This 
is a country that treasures its God-given gifts--from the mountains, to 
the prairies, to the oceans white with foam. God bless America, my home 
sweet home.
  This isn't about us being here for 2 years, or 6 years, or 10 years, 
or 20, or even 50. We will be gone. But we need to think about the 
future. We can do more for our troops were we just to increase fuel 
economy. We will save far more doing that than by drilling in a 
pristine area that has wildlife that looks like this picture.
  Mr. STEVENS. Regular order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I hope we will stand with the 
environment and vote for the Boxer amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 272. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 272) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam 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. Madam President, I have been authorized by the manager of 
the bill to yield 20 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia, Senator 
Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                      america's image in the world

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I believe in this great and beautiful 
country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its 
magnificent Constitution and its inimitable history. I have marveled at 
the wisdom of its Founders and Framers. Generation after generation of 
Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great 
Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and 
their strength.
  But today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent 
months with a heavy, heavy heart.
  No more is the image of American one of strong, yet benevolent 
peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our 
friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are 
questioned.
  Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand 
obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam 
Hussein, we seem to have succeeded in isolating ourselves. We proclaim 
a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few but feared by 
many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower 
on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on 
terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any 
international body. As a result, the world has become a much more 
dangerous place.
  We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat U.N. 
Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity 
by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. 
After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more 
than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image 
around the globe.
  The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation 
with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and 
circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity 
of this war for one simple reason: This is not a war of necessity, but 
a war of choice.
  There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11, 
at least up to this point. The twin towers fell because a world-wide 
terrorist group, al Qaida, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our 
wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one 
of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful 
Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of some of the passengers who 
were on board that plane.

  The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks 
we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate 
efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of Western values 
upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined 
to territorial borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many 
names, and many addresses.

[[Page S3955]]

  But, this administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and 
grief which emerged from the ashes of the Twin Towers and the twisted 
metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and 
hate and attack. And villain he is. But he is the wrong villain. And 
this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably 
drive him from power. But the zeal of our friends to assist our global 
war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
  The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to ``orange 
alert.'' There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many 
questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the 
cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?
  A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty 
to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while 
scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty 
in Iraq.
  What is happening to this country--my country, your country, our 
country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our 
friends and calls them irrelevant? When did we decide to risk 
undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire 
approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon 
diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for 
diplomacy?
  Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies 
not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?
  War appears inevitable. But I continue to hope that the cloud will 
lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will 
somehow still prevail. I along with millions, scores of millions of 
Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent 
civilians--women, children, babies, old and young, crippled, deformed, 
sick--in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland.

  May God continue to bless the United States of America in the 
troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for 
the present eludes us.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use time 
under the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I observed the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia concerning the events which 
are about to transpire within the next hour or so, or days. I did not 
really look forward to coming to the floor and debating the issue. It 
has been debated. It has been discussed in the media. It has been 
discussed at every kitchen table in America. But I felt it would be 
important for me to respond to allegations concerning the United States 
of America, its status in the world, and, in particular, what happens 
after this conflict is over, which I do not think we have paid enough 
attention to, perhaps understandably, because our first and foremost 
consideration is the welfare of the young men and women we are sending 
in harm's way.
  But to allege that somehow the United States of America has demeaned 
itself or tarnished its reputation by being involved in liberating the 
people of Iraq, to me, simply is neither factual nor fair.
  The United States of America has involved itself in the effort to 
disarm Saddam Hussein, and now freedom for the Iraqi people, with the 
same principles that motivated the United States of America in most of 
the conflicts we have been involved in, most recently Kosovo and 
Bosnia, and in which, in both of those cases, the United States 
national security was not at risk, but what was at risk was our 
advocacy and willingness to serve and sacrifice on behalf of people who 
are the victims of oppression and genocide.
  We did not go into Bosnia because Mr. Milosevic had weapons of mass 
destruction. We did not go into Kosovo because ethnic Albanians or 
others were somehow a threat to the security of the United States. We 
entered into those conflicts because we could not stand by and watch 
innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered, raped, and 
``ethnically cleansed.'' We found a new phrase for our lexicon: 
``ethnic cleansing.'' Ethnic cleansing is a phrase which has incredible 
implications.
  The mission our military is about to embark on is fraught with 
danger, and it means the loss of brave young American lives. But I also 
believe it offers the opportunity for a new day for the Iraqi people.
  Madam President, there is one thing I am sure of, that we will find 
the Iraqi people have been the victims of an incredible level of 
brutalization, terror, murder, and every other kind of disgraceful and 
distasteful oppression on the part of Saddam Hussein's regime. And 
contrary to the assertion of the Senator from West Virginia, when the 
people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another 
chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America, that 
we will fight for the freedom of other citizens of the world, and we 
again assert the most glorious phrase, in my view, ever written in the 
English language; and that is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, 
that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with 
certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness.
  The people of Iraq, for the first time, will be able to realize those 
inalienable rights. I am proud of the United States of America. I am 
proud of the leadership of the President of the United States.

  It is not an easy decision to send America's young men and women into 
harm's way. As I said before, some of them will not be returning. But 
to somehow assert, as some do, that the people of Iraq and the Middle 
East are not entitled to those same God-given rights that Americans and 
people all over the country are, that they do not have those same hopes 
and dreams and aspirations our own citizens do, to me, is a degree of 
condescension. I might even use stronger language than that to describe 
it.
  So I respectfully disagree with the remarks of the Senator from West 
Virginia. I believe the President of the United States has done 
everything necessary and has exercised every option short of war, which 
has led us to the point we are today.
  I believe that, obviously, we will remove a threat to America's 
national security because we will find there are still massive amounts 
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  Although Theodore Roosevelt is my hero and role model, I also, in 
many ways, am Wilsonian in the respect that America, this great Nation 
of ours, will again contribute to the freedom and liberty of an 
oppressed people who otherwise never might enjoy those freedoms.
  So perhaps the Senator from West Virginia is right. I do not think 
so. Events will prove one of us correct in the next few days. But I 
rely on history as my guide to the future, and history shows us, 
unequivocally, that this Nation has stood for freedom and democracy, 
even at the risk and loss of American lives, so that all might enjoy 
the same privileges or have the opportunity to someday enjoy the same 
privileges as we do in this noble experiment called the United States 
of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO).
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 284

(Purpose: To fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act in 2004 and reduce 
       debt by reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, 
Johnson, Sarbanes, Edwards, and Clinton. 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Harkin,

[[Page S3956]]

     Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Edwards, and Mrs. Clinton proposes an amendment 
     numbered 284.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I offer is the one I spoke 
about earlier today. Clearly, we are in a very important day in the 
history of this country, and really of this world, as we wait to find 
out what is going to happen in Iraq. All of our thoughts and prayers 
are with the young men and women who wait, as we do, to see what is 
going to happen. Certainly our country is anxious and on edge, and we 
all hope they are successful. We all hope this endeavor leaves us where 
this country needs to be. But certainly a lot else is going on as well.
  Here we are on the floor of the Senate debating a budget resolution 
that has been put forward by the majority party.
  I am one of those who come to the Chamber to express my serious 
concern that the budget before us does not include any funds to pay for 
the war in Iraq, nor does it pay for the peace we hope will ensue 
afterwards. We do not know what the cost is going to be. Yet hidden 
inside this budget is a major tax cut that will make it impossible for 
us to be able to provide what is important for the country, whether it 
is a war in Iraq or, as my constituents are worried about, a conflict 
in North Korea, if one occurs there as well.
  Also, in this budget we are looking at tremendous cuts to the 
education of our young children. It is especially important today, as 
we face the uncertain future of where we go from here, that we give 
some certainty to the children in our classrooms, because now more than 
ever we need to make sure they have a solid education, that they are 
capable of making it through school with the skills they need so they 
can help get our economy back on track and make us strong for whatever 
future conflict the country may find itself in, but also so they can be 
productive adults.
  Not very long ago this body passed a bill called No Child Left 
Behind. It was a promise from the President and all of us who worked on 
it that we would put in place for the first time strong accountability 
rules for the public education system. We would hold schools, teachers, 
and principals accountable to make sure our students met the high 
standards we were setting. But that was not all the legislation 
promised. It also promised that we would fund what was necessary to 
help our children reach those goals.
  It promised that every classroom would have a high-quality teacher. 
That is a problem in our country today where many teachers are in 
classrooms where they don't have the skills they need to teach the 
subjects they are required to teach. It requires in this bill that we 
have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. That doesn't just 
happen. It happens because we make sure the resources are there to do 
it. Without the money to make that happen, we have passed on an 
unfunded mandate to the States.
  We said in No Child Left Behind that children will be in an 
environment where they can learn. Far too many children are in 
classrooms that have 35 or 40 children in first, second, and third 
grade classrooms. There is no way those children who come to class, 
many of them in very difficult situations, have the ability to learn 
basic math, science, English, writing skills because they don't have 
the time of a teacher when there are too many kids in the classroom. We 
need to make sure we help provide the resources so we don't set kids up 
to test but that we actually provide the resources so they are in a 
small enough classroom with a highly qualified teacher.
  The budget before us does not provide funds for this. It only comes 
through with half of the promise we gave to our children several years 
ago that we would leave no child behind. It leaves the promise of 
testing, but it does not fulfill the promise of funding.
  The amendment I have sent to the desk will fully fund the No Child 
Left Behind Act. It says it is a priority of our country that we will 
not just pass an unfunded mandate on to States but that we will assure 
that children have afterschool programs so they can get the extra 
skills they need to catch up and pass the tests we are requiring them 
to take. It means we will fully fund title I funding so that 6 million 
of our most disadvantaged students will not be left behind. It provides 
funds for English language acquisition and safe and drug free schools 
and, importantly, rural education.

  The Presiding Officer knows, as I do, that in many of our rural 
school districts we have a difficult time attracting qualified 
teachers. They often leave to go to urban or suburban schools where it 
is easier to teach. We want to make sure that even if there are only 40 
kids in a school building, that they get the same help and instruction 
and qualified teachers so they can learn the skills they need to pass 
the tests we have required of them. My amendment will make sure that we 
fund the rural education programs.
  If we don't do this, we are passing an unfunded mandate on to States 
at a time that they cannot afford to take it. My State legislature is 
facing a $2.5 billion budget deficit right now. They are struggling to 
come to some difficult decisions. It is extremely unfair of us at the 
Federal level to tell them, while they are struggling through these 
budget decisions, that they now have a new unfunded mandate of making 
sure children pass tests; otherwise, their schools are failing and not 
providing the funds to make sure that happens.
  Our State legislators do not have the funds to fund a Federal 
mandate. If we will not follow through with the funding, we cannot keep 
the first half of No Child Left Behind that says that schools have to 
be held accountable. I don't want to lower the standards. I don't want 
to take that accountability away. But I also do not want to pass on an 
unfunded mandate to schools today when they are struggling with fewer 
resources because our own State legislatures are having difficulty in 
these tough economic times giving them the tools they need. I hope we 
don't fail at No Child Left Behind by not providing funding but 
providing the mandates.
  It will be imperative for this Congress to come back and revisit this 
if we don't provide the funds because I assure you every school board 
member--and I was a school board member at one time--will be back here 
screaming about unfunded mandates. We will end up having to take steps 
backward in accountability in order to accommodate them. I don't think 
that is where any Member here wants to go.
  The amendment I sent to the desk will help us reach that goal by 
fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act so we can keep both sides of 
the promise that we made to the children and to the parents and to the 
school employees and to the districts across the country that when we 
said No Child Left Behind, we said accountability, but we also said 
resources.
  I stand here terribly conscious that Senator Wellstone no longer sits 
behind me because of the tragedy that occurred right before the 
election of last year. I know if Senator Wellstone were here, he would 
be walking up and down this aisle yelling about the fact that we can't 
educate kids on a tin cup budget.
  I will tell you, the Republican budget that is before us today is a 
tin cup budget. It is a budget that does not provide the resources that 
our young people need in order to be able to learn, in order for 
teachers to educate our children, and for them to be a success.
  It would be a tremendous setback for this country in terms of 
education if we don't pass this amendment and assure that our schools 
are funded.
  It is a difficult day for all of us to be in the Senate debating 
these critical issues. We all know that hanging over us is a war that 
could possibly begin at any time. Our hearts are heavy with what could 
occur in the next few weeks and months. But it is also a time that we 
cannot abandon our young children. They are counting on us as the 
adults to make the right decisions for them and not to forget them in 
this time of crisis. If we don't pass this amendment and fully fund No 
Child Left Behind, it will send a message to every child that we have 
forgotten them. I will not do that. I will work hard every day to make 
sure we fund the important education structure and give our kids the

[[Page S3957]]

opportunity to learn and succeed. That is a commitment every one of us 
should take as a tremendous responsibility.
  I know there are other Senators who wish to speak on the amendment. I 
will yield the floor in a few minutes.
  I want to make a few more comments before I do that. I see Senator 
Gregg is here as well. I know we have to debate what is full funding 
and what should be our responsibility. But I think the outlines of No 
Child Left Behind are fairly clear in what our commitment is to young 
people. If we don't fully fund title I to give disadvantaged students 
the opportunity to learn, we are requiring them to take a test and not 
giving them the resources they need, coming from a disadvantaged 
background, to be able to pass those tests. I think that is a pretty 
sorry statement in the Senate.

  The amendment I am offering has $8.9 billion in funding for Function 
500, so it will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. As I stated 
earlier, the programs that it will fully fund are title I, teacher 
quality, class size, English language acquisition, afterschool centers, 
and rural education. It also includes sufficient funding to restore the 
President's cuts that are in the Republican budget before us for 
programs such as smaller learning communities and dropout prevention 
programs.
  The amendment also includes $8.9 billion for deficit reduction. I 
think both the education and deficit reduction funding are extremely 
important right now. This is all taken from the dividend tax cut.
  I know we are going to have a tax debate later on, but I have talked 
to many of my constituents across the State of Washington, and when 
they are given the choice of whether or not to have a tax cut that 
actually doesn't benefit many of the residents of the State of 
Washington or this country or the opportunity to provide a good 
education for young children who are in school today, they all choose 
that their money be spent on young children so they can have an 
opportunity.
  Bill Gates is a constituent of mine. He is a wonderful success story. 
He will benefit tremendously from the tax cut in the Republican budget. 
But I think he and most of my constituents agree that they would 
benefit much more from a citizenry that is left behind that is educated 
and capable of producing and capable of producing another Bill Gates in 
the future.
  If we rob our children of an education, we are also robbing ourselves 
of future entrepreneurs who can be successful businessmen, 
businesswomen, and be in walks of life that help create new jobs for 
the future. It is very shortsighted to not fully fund No Child Left 
Behind for the future of the country.
  We will have other amendments, I know, during this budget debate, to 
fully fund IDEA. That is an issue this Senate has taken up and talked 
about many times. We actually had hoped to fully fund IDEA not that 
long ago, but we were told we had to wait for reauthorization. We are 
still waiting for the reauthorization bill to come over, and we still 
have not fully funded IDEA.
  I know Senator Kennedy is on the floor as well. He has been a staunch 
proponent of fully funding education for our young children and is even 
concerned about the Pell grants and their funding in this budget. We 
have many students in college who are struggling to pay their tuition 
and are finding themselves taking out loans of tremendous size just to 
get through school, and they are graduating with thousands of dollars 
in loans. It is really important that we don't leave a generation with 
huge debt, trying to pay them off, if we want our economy to get back 
on track.
  Senator Kennedy will talk later on the importance of increasing the 
Pell grant funding so that we leave fewer students with tremendous 
loans in the future. I know Senator Dodd will be out here also to talk 
about Head Start and day care and other issues affecting young people.
  Let me conclude by saying that there are thousands of young children 
in this country who are waiting anxiously to see if the U.S. Senate can 
live up to the obligations of the No Child Left Behind Act that was 
passed not long ago. Today, we will have an opportunity with the 
amendments that I have to let the young kids know that we in this 
country are ready to stand by them.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORNYN). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote in 
relation to the Murray amendment at 5 o'clock this evening, with the 
time until then equally divided. I know my colleague from Washington 
spoke, but I say the time divided equally on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am trying to understand the amendment. 
I have not looked at it totally. The Senator's amendment would increase 
funding in this education function by $8.9 billion for fiscal year 
2004?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. We have a 10-year budget. Do you increase funding in 
2005 or 2006 or any of the outyears?
  Mrs. MURRAY. This just sets the appropriations level for this year 
and 2004.
  Mr. NICKLES. You also increase taxes, or decrease the tax cut--
whichever language you want to use--by an amount of how much?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The amount in the amendment reduces the tax cut by $17.8 
billion.
  Mr. NICKLES. Now, what percentage of an increase in the--$8.9 billion 
is what percent of an increase over the money being spent this year?
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is approximately an 8-percent increase.
  Mr. NICKLES. My calculation is that it is closer to 40 percent.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Well, I am happy to doublecheck to answer the Senator, 
but I would be astounded--I believe it is an 8-percent increase over 
the funding level.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, absolutely.
  Mr. NICKLES. Doesn't your amendment deal only with No Child Left 
Behind?
  Mrs. MURRAY. It ensures that we fully fund No Child Left Behind for 
fiscal year 2004 and the programs within the No Child Left Behind.
  Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that figure $23.6 
billion, and so you would increase that amount by $8.9 billion, and 
isn't that closer to 40 percent?
  Mrs. MURRAY. You are talking about the overall education funding. I 
am talking about the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Mr. NICKLES. We will have to debate that. I believe I am talking 
about the No Child Left Behind. I believe you are increasing that by 
about 40 percent, which is kind of hard to understand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. 
I want to clarify that the vote that will occur at 5 o'clock will be on 
the amendment that I have offered; is that correct?
  Mr. NICKLES. On or in relation thereto.
  Mrs. MURRAY. No amendments will be in order prior to the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am reserving the right to table the amendment, and no 
amendment prior to that vote. We still would have the option for a 
motion to table, and if a motion to table wasn't successful, to offer a 
substitute amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the budget that is before us at this 
present time is about one basic and fundamental issue, and that is the 
issue of priorities, the issue of choices, how we are going to allocate 
scarce resources in this country.
  The fact is that the Republican budget has said we will add $1.6 
trillion in additional tax breaks, most of which will go to the very 
wealthy individuals in this country.
  The Senator from the State of Washington says, no, let's just take 
$8.9 billion of that and designate that for the No Child Left Behind 
Act, and then let's take another $8.9 billion towards reducing the 
deficit that we are additionally creating with the $1.6 trillion in 
additional tax reductions.

[[Page S3958]]

  The question is very simple: Do we want to educate the children of 
this country, or do we want more tax breaks for the very wealthy? That 
is the issue before the Senate.
  It is going to be clouded up with a lot of other kinds of rhetoric, 
but it is a choice. Do you want to educate the children, or do you want 
more tax breaks? That is the issue. That is the issue.
  Mr. President, I will use figures from the Department of Education. 
The Department of Education--this is their document--for the year 2003, 
the total figure for education is $53 billion. And now the President's 
request is $53 billion. There it is. That is the Republican President's 
request on No Child Left Behind--effectively flat funding. Flat 
funding.
  Now, we know the President of the United States worked with the 
Congress--Republicans and Democrats--to enact the No Child Left Behind 
Act. That added important reforms and accountability--accountability 
for the children to perform, accountability of the schools to teach, 
accountability for the teachers to learn and to be well-qualified, 
accountability for the parents to become involved, accountability on 
the local communities to have responsibilities. It also had 
accountability for the Congress of the United States to fund that 
program, and this administration has abandoned that accountability. It 
has abandoned it. The documents from the administration's Department of 
Education show that.

  At this hour, the Senator from Washington is saying: We do not want 
to abdicate our responsibility. Maybe the administration does, but we 
do not, and the Senate will have an opportunity at 5 o'clock to 
indicate whether they prefer to give additional hundreds of millions of 
dollars to the wealthiest individuals, or to meet our fundamental 
commitment to children and parents, 55 million of them across this 
country, and make sure they have a well-qualified teacher in their 
classrooms, make sure there are going to be after-school programs to 
assist these children, make sure they have a sound curriculum, make 
sure that the tests are going to test those children on that 
curriculum, and that if a child falls behind, they are going to get the 
supplementary services they need. This is all at a time when the States 
are in deficit of $90 billion. A third of that money is education; 75 
percent of that is for K through 12.
  The children are being put through the wringers. They are being put 
through the wringers in all 50 States. I will not take the time to read 
from letters from teachers and superintendents of schools or school 
boards, but that is the message they are sending.
  We made a commitment, a promise to those children and to their 
parents. The choice is very simple: Are we going to meet that 
commitment in supporting the amendment of the Senator from Washington, 
or are we going to give additional tax breaks to the wealthiest 
individuals? It is as simple and fundamental and basic as that, Mr. 
President, make no mistake about it. I hope later on we will have a 
chance to do something about that.
  Finally, on the President's proposal for education, if we look over 
the period to the year 2010, with the requests that are being made in 
the President's budget there are still 5.6 million children left 
behind. There it is under this administration. I remember when the 
administration wanted the title ``No Child Left Behind,'' and we talked 
about that in our conference. As we talked about that, we said: Are we 
really going to leave children behind, or is this going to be a 
commitment? It was clear to me that Republicans and Democrats in the 
conference said: This is going to be a commitment.
  Unless we accept the amendment of the Senator from Washington and 
unless we are going to start on a glidepath towards funding No Child 
Left Behind, we are going to leave millions of children in this country 
behind. Which is it, Senate of the United States: billions more for tax 
breaks for wealthy individuals or investing in the children who are out 
there tonight, today, this evening, studying hard, trying to make a go 
of it and finding out that instead of having maybe 15, 18, 20 pupils in 
a class, this year there are going to be 25 or 30 in it? And we can go 
down the list. Every Member knows that.
  It is a question of priorities, and the Murray amendment is as clear 
as can be. I hope when the time comes, the amendment will be accepted.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma retains 26 minutes. 
The Senator from Washington retains 10 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask to be yielded 15 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I always enjoy hearing the Senator 
from Massachusetts and the Senator from Washington discuss education, 
especially the Senator from Massachusetts. I appreciate the fact we put 
microphones in the Chamber because that certainly helps me hear him as 
we go forward.
  I wish to start, however, with the question of the budget. I thought 
I would bring along the budget on education that we passed last year 
when the Democratic membership controlled the Senate. So I did, and 
here it is.
  You may be asking, Where is it? It did not pass. The budget on 
education was not even brought to the floor last year. An epiphany has 
occurred. Suddenly, they are concerned about education. Suddenly, they 
are interested in education enough to debate it in this budget. But 
where were they last year? Where were they? They were not on the floor 
of the Senate promoting a budget to promote education. This is their 
budget last year on education. A blank page.
  We have to go back in history to find out what the position of the 
membership of the other party is relative to the issue of funding 
education in comparison with what this President has done.
  This President has dramatically increased funding for education, and 
if we compare his commitment to education to the prior administration's 
commitment to education in the years when the prior administration 
proposed education funding, we will see that in the last year of the 
Clinton administration, there was $42 billion being spent on education. 
This year, a proposed $66.5 billion is being spent on education by this 
President.
  President Bush's commitment to education has been the second largest 
factor of increase in the Federal budget over the last 3 years. It has 
meant real dollars going to the issue of education.
  Now let's turn to the question of title I, which is the purpose of 
this amendment, which is the No Child Left Behind issue. Let's look at 
all the issues for a moment. Let's compare what the Democratic 
leadership did when they controlled the Senate versus what we have done 
under Republican control of the Senate over the last few years.
  From the period 2001 to 2004, when we had Republican leadership in 
the Senate, the red bars reflect increases in education funding for 
title I, for IDEA, Pell grants, and total discretionary education. 
Increases from the Democratic side of the aisle during this same period 
were minuscule; in fact, one was even a negative in the Pell grant area 
during that same period. There are dramatic increases coming from this 
President.
  Let's look at title I because this is the most stark, dramatic, and I 
think precise chart we have to reflect what is really being done.
  Since the Republicans took control of the Senate and the Congress, we 
see these huge increases in funding for title I: $1 billion a year 
since President Bush has been in office. Every year, $1 billion, $1 
billion, $1 billion on top of the prior amounts, as compared with 1993 
through 1995. In fact, if we went back further, it would be worse 
coming in from the prior administration. So the commitment has been 
there.
  If we look at the history of title I increases, which is what this 
amendment is about, and compare what President Clinton did when the 
Democrats were in control to what President Bush has done since he has 
been in charge, during the 1994 to 2001 period, over the 8-year period, 
President Clinton proposed $2.4 billion in increases in title I 
funding; in 3 years, President Bush has proposed $3.9 billion in 
increases in funding.

[[Page S3959]]

  It is very easy to come to the floor in a difficult fiscal time when 
we are facing a war, when there are a lot of pressures on us because of 
a deficit, and say you have no responsibility because you do not 
produce budgets that you are willing to increase spending ad infinitum, 
which is what this amendment essentially does. It is a little more 
difficult, however, in a time of deficits, when we are at war, to come 
forward and actually increase spending, which is exactly what President 
Bush did.
  I note, during this period, 1994 to 2001, we were running surpluses. 
The opportunity was there to increase spending without a great deal of 
choice in the area of priorities. Today it is a much tougher situation, 
and the choices on priorities have been made, and President Bush is 
committed to that funding.
  Now I will go to one other chart, which I find absolutely startling 
because I think this shows some of these amendments we are going to be 
getting from the other side, especially on the issue of education, are 
taking advantage of the fact that the other side does not have to 
produce a budget.
  Let's look back when they did, theoretically, have to produce a 
budget. Of course, they did not. We could go back to their budget, 
which was a blank page, but they did produce an appropriations bill, 
which they never passed. In fact, they never even called it to the 
floor of the Senate. It took the Republican Congress 2 weeks to pass 
it. The other side had a whole year. They were not able to do it, but 
we were able to do it. I will get into the numbers there, but the fact 
is when they produced their budget, or their appropriations bill, what 
did they have in their numbers for funding? They had $11.8 billion. 
What was the authorization level? It was $16 billion. So by their own 
terms, the last time they had control, the last time they had the 
opportunity to do the job of governing, they underfunded the title I 
account by $4 billion--by their terminology, not by mine.
  How many children did they silence, to use the term of Senator 
Kennedy? How many are added up in that $4 billion figure? I do not 
know. Personally, I do not think that is a proper way to address it, 
but if those are the terminologies one is going to use, then what is 
good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact is they were $4 
billion short of their own goal. So a lot of what we are hearing today 
is tilting with straw dogs when it comes to the issue of how much is 
being spent and who is spending what.
  Let's look a little bit, though, at what this President has done--a 
145 percent increase in education funding, as compared with health, as 
compared with defense, a huge increase.
  The argument is being made that title I has not been fully funded 
because the authorization levels have not been met. That, of course, 
goes to this chart. If we were to fully fund every bill that has been 
authorized by this Congress--well, just by our committee--we would be 
talking trillions of dollars. We all recognize that authorization level 
is not the level at which we end up. We end up at an appropriated 
level. And the question becomes: How do different accounts compete 
within those appropriation accounts? Who is being successful, who is 
not? Where are the priorities? Where are the choices being made?
  The point this chart unalterably makes is that as far as this 
administration is concerned, the priority is education--a billion 
dollars of new funding for title I every year since this administration 
has been in office--in fact, $1.5 billion one year, I think, and $1 
billion for special education funding every year since this 
administration has been in office, which compares rather starkly, as I 
mentioned, with the Clinton years in the area of title I, where 
essentially there were very little funding increases. Over 7 years, it 
was $2.4 billion as compared with $3.9 billion for the Bush 
administration.
  The issue of whether or not this is an unfunded mandate is a total 
misrepresentation relative to No Child Left Behind. The fact is the 
funding that is flowing into the States to support No Child Left Behind 
is flowing in before the States and the communities have an obligation 
to do things under No Child Left Behind. We are actually prefunding 
many, if not all, of the obligations which the States are assuming 
under No Child Left Behind to the extent we ask them to do things.
  For example, testing regime. In the State of New Hampshire it costs 
about $300,000 to produce a test. Under No Child Left Behind, we have 
asked that instead of testing three grades, they are going to have to 
test three more grades, a number of more grades, actually, but they do 
not have to have those tests up and running for awhile. However, we are 
giving them the money today to design the tests. Not only are we giving 
them money, but on the average we are giving New Hampshire at least 
$500,000 to develop new tests. It only costs them $300,000 to do the 
test. They are making $200,000 per test that they develop, and that is 
true across the country.
  It is also true of the basic funding regime relative to issues, for 
example, like teachers. We heard a little talk about teachers. The 
President's commitment for funding for teachers is up 35 percent over 
what the prior administration did, a $726 million increase coming into 
this year.
  More importantly, under No Child Left Behind, we no longer put 
strings behind those dollars. We say to the local school districts, 
instead of having to use this new money, the 35 percent increase in 
funding for education for teachers and for teacher support, instead of 
having to use that money to hire more teachers, you, the principal, can 
make the decision to use that money to hire more teachers, if that is 
what you need, to pay your best teachers more, if that is what you 
think is going to get you good teachers to stay there, to give your 
teachers better education by sending them out to schools and getting 
supplemental education for them, by giving them technology support. You 
have the choice. You, the school district, are going to get this extra 
money. Plus, you are going to get it without strings. You are going to 
have flexibility as to how to use it so you can make that dollar go 
further.
  So to represent that the teacher side of the No Child Left Behind 
bill has not only been underfunded but is not being adequately managed 
is just inaccurate. The fact is, it has been funded, it has been 
increased, and it is a dramatically more liberal use of the dollars at 
the discretion of the local school district. I know they are going to 
get more for the dollars spent.
  Now I guess we are going to have time later on--I ask the Chair how 
much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. The record on special education is even more dramatic. 
Where the Clinton administration essentially flatlined special 
education for 8 years, this administration has increased it, by 
historic levels, over a billion dollars a year every year--dramatic 
increases for special education.
  We will get into that. We will get into the issue of the Pell grants, 
where the numbers are equally stark, where this administration has made 
huge commitments in comparison to the time when the responsibilities 
for funding education actually fell into the hands of our colleagues 
across the aisle. But what we have today, unfortunately, is an attempt 
to use the lack of responsibility to have to produce a budget to throw 
out numbers which are irresponsible and claim that they are 
responsible.
  The last budget the Democrats produced on the issue of education was 
a blank. That is what they brought to the floor on the issue of 
education last year, whereas the President of the United States stepped 
up to the plate and increased title I funding by $3.9 billion in 3 
years. That is real commitment to the kids of America.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd 
be listed as a cosponsor on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts and 
then 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Department of 
Education's fiscal year 2004 President's budget be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S3960]]



                           DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2004 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
                                            [In thousands of dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2003                         2004       Change from
  Office, account, program and     DIM        2002       President's       2003       President's       2003
            activity                     appropriation     request    appropriation     request    appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributions (DEOA, section         M            485             0              0             0              0
 421)...........................
    Outlays.....................     M            469            85              0             0              0
General fund receipts:
1. Perkins loan repayments......     M        (39,041)      (50,000)       (50,000)      (50,000)             0
2. CHAFL downward reestimate of      M            (27)          (27)           (27)            0             27
 loan subsidies.................
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................  .....       (39,068)      (50,027)       (50,027)      (50,000)            27
        Outlays, Total..........  .....       (39,068)      (50,027)       (50,027)      (50,000)            27
Budget authority total,           .....    55,747,031    60,403,502     60,962,382    63,626,734      2,664,352
 Education Department...........
Discretionary funds.............     D   \2\ 49,505,59  \2\ 50,309,8  \2\ 50,868,75  \2\ 55,383,2     4,514,444
                                                    8            79              9            03
Mandatory funds.................     M      6,241,433    10,093,623     10,093,623     8,243,531     (1,850,092)
 
Outlays total, Education          .....    46,285,284    59,379,318     59,753,542    58,864,922       (888,620)
 Department.....................
Discretionary funds.............     D     41,305,647    50,039,352     50,272,152    51,170,323        898,171
Mandatory funds.................     M      4,979,637     9,339,966      9,481,390     7,694,599     (1,786,791)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes funds for increased agency pension and annuitant health benefits costs, which are currently paid
  from a central Office of Personnel Management fund: $23,728 thousand in fiscal year 2003 and $22,528 thousand
  in fiscal year 2004.
\2\ Excludes a total of $15,011,301 thousand in advance appropriations that becomes available on October 1 of
  the succeeding fiscal year.
\3\ Excludes a total of $17,255,301 thousand in advance appropriations that becomes available on October 1 of
  fiscal year 2004.
 
Note: Appropriation totals displayed above reflect the total funds provided in the year of appropriation,
  including advance appropriation amounts that do not become available until the succeeding fiscal year. The
  total budget authority reflects funds that become available in the fiscal year shown, which includes new
  amounts provided for that fiscal year and amounts advanced from the prior year's appropriation.
 
Note: This budget replaces the table prepared when the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget was transmitted to
  Congress on February 3, 2003, prior to enactment of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. The fiscal year 2003
  appropriation has since been enacted and is included in this table. The fiscal year 2004 President's budget
  remains the same as requested on February 3.

  Mr. KENNEDY. What it shows is the appropriations for 2002, $49 
billion; the President's request is $50 billion. They added $400 
million. Then the appropriations went up $3 billion because of the 
activity on the floor of the Senate. The next year the administration 
asked for $26 million--an increase of 5/100th of one percent. Let us 
look at the point my good friend, Senator Gregg, left behind. The point 
he has not disputed is we have 6.2 million children who are left 
behind. Let's forget what happened to the Republicans, let's forget 
what happened to the Democrats, and say let's accept the Murray 
amendment that will include 3 million more children. Let's not argue 
about the past. Let's argue about the future.
  This amendment will increase by 3 million the number of children who 
will be covered. We have a chance to do that tonight. We have a chance 
to do that at 5 o'clock. That is what we are asking the Senate to do, 
instead of having additional tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals 
in this country.
  Put the children first. That is what the Murray amendment would do.
  I hope my good friend from New Hampshire will join us hand in hand 
together and support the Murray amendment, and we will cut in half the 
number of children being left behind.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield a couple of minutes 
to respond?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 4 minutes to my colleague.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Massachusetts argued it might have 
credibility and might have legs were it not for the fact there is 
presently--because of the huge amount of money the President of the 
United States, George Bush, has put into this account--there is 
presently unspent title I dollars representing billions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. Is this a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. The Senator is not surprised on that because they 
always commit that money in July of the next year. You can use all the 
charts you want; it is committed and it is expended in July. Everyone 
understands that.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's question, and I am sure it was 
a question, although I never really actually heard the question.
  But I make the point this is 2001 money, 2 years ago; August has 
already come and gone for 2001; and 2002 is fast approaching.
  The fact is, we are putting so much money in the pipeline so fast 
because we are prefunding this issue, as we should be, that we are not 
creating an unfunded mandate. We are actually creating a situation 
where many States are, for at least the moment, not making money but 
seeing a significant surplus in the amount of money coming in 
relationship to the amount of money they are having to spend to reach 
the goals of No Child Left Behind, which, as we all know, is to give 
low-income kids a better shot at the American dream by educating them 
properly.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for the 4 minutes I was 
allocated by the Senator from Washington to support the amendment 
Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy have put forward. I compliment them 
on the leadership they provide on education issues and this amendment 
in particular.
  I heard my colleague from New Hampshire talk about how we cannot just 
increase funding ad infinitum, that what this amendment would do is 
throw out numbers that are irresponsible. That was one of his phrases.
  As I understand the amendment, and the reason I am cosponsoring the 
amendment, this amendment proposes to fully fund the No Child Left 
Behind Act. All it is saying is we made an agreement on a bipartisan 
basis. The President participated in that agreement. We told the people 
of our States and our school districts that we were going to provide a 
certain level of support to help them implement the No Child Left 
Behind Act. The budget before the Senate does not do that.
  The suggestion is made that the reason it has not done that is 
because there is surplus money that has come into the State and we 
prefunded things and they have not been able to spend the money in the 
pipeline. This is news to the school districts in my State and to the 
people involved with trying to educate the children in my State. In 
fact, when I go home, what I hear from people in my State is that we 
have these new requirements, we need assistance, we need resources. If 
you want us to train teachers' aides, which we want to do, if you want 
us to raise the level of qualifications of our teachers, which we want 
to do, please help. Please come through with the resources that were 
committed in the No Child Left Behind Act. That is exactly what this 
amendment tries to do.
  The other comment I heard was we cannot fully fund every bill that is 
authorized in this Congress. That is not what the Senator from 
Washington and the Senator from Massachusetts are proposing. They are 
saying, let's just fully fund this bill. Let's take education and 
recognize that it needs to be a priority.
  In this budget resolution, we have over $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. 
Now, is it too much to say that $8.9 billion of additional funds should 
go into education? I don't think that is an unreasonable request. I 
think, clearly, the priorities of the American people would be with us, 
and they would agree, let's fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act 
before we start cutting taxes.
  We all know we have enormous other expenses that are coming at us as 
a result of the war that is imminent in Iraq. I certainly intend to 
support those expenditures, but to suggest that we do not have enough 
money left to pursue our education funding, to keep the promise we made 
to the American people at the time the No Child Left Behind Act was 
signed into law, is very unfortunate.

[[Page S3961]]

  I participated with the Secretary of Education when he came to my 
State and had something of a rally in Albuquerque to talk about No 
Child Left Behind and what a wonderful thing it was for the State. I 
supported that legislation. I supported it all the way through. I 
worked with my colleagues to try to be sure it made good sense and fit 
the circumstances of our State. But I did so always on the assumption 
that we would then come along and provide the Federal support to the 
States for local school districts to implement those improvements.
  I think it is essential we do that. I think it is essential we adopt 
the Murray-Kennedy amendment. I hope our colleagues will support this 
amendment and keep faith with the young people of our country.
  Everyone in this body gives speeches talking about how the future 
lies with the children of the country. We need to do right by them and 
adopt this amendment and make education a priority in this budget.
  The pending budget simply sets the wrong priorities by providing over 
$1.3 trillion in tax benefits to the wealthiest while cutting education 
funding.
  This budget abandons the promise to leave no child behind by cutting 
funding for the No Child Left Behind Act--legislation repeatedly 
embraced by the Administration and passed by a strong bipartisan vote 
just last Congress--by $700 million.
  Under this budget, Title I--the program targeted on districts and 
schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students--would be 
approximately $5.8 billion short compared to the levels agreed to on a 
bipartisan basis in the No Child Left Behind Act. As a result, over 6 
million poor children will be left behind.
  In addition, over 500,000 children will lose access to after school 
services under these funding levels.
  The budget before us also contemplates eliminating funding for key 
education programs--again enacted on a bipartisan basis last Congress.
  For example, the budget contemplates eliminating funding for the 
dropout prevention program, at a time when the pressure is greater than 
ever to push at risk students out so they do not negatively impact 
school performance.
  The budget also contemplates cutting existing programs that provide 
research-based strategies for schools to improve academic achievement 
and reduce dropout rates. For example, the smaller communities program 
provides funds to schools seeking to create personalized learning 
environments that research proves will increase student academic 
achievement, reduce dropout rates, and increase school safety. It is 
exactly the type of reform effort that we endorsed and indeed required 
in the No Child Left Behind Act. It is the type of program that we 
should expand, rather than eliminate.
  If we truly intend to leave no child behind, education funding--
particularly funding for the programs targeted toward the most 
disadvantaged children--must be our top priority, not our last.
  The funding provided in this amendment would achieve that goal by 
providing funding sufficient to serve another 2 million needy children 
under the Title I program. In addition, every one of the 10,000 schools 
currently identified as not meeting the standards provided in the No 
Child Left Behind Act will be able to implement research-based school 
reform models.

  We also will be able to maintain the current level of after-school 
services while expanding after school programs to another 1.3 million 
latchkey children.
  We would be able to make substantial contributions to the quality of 
instruction by providing enough funding to hire 50,000 fully qualified 
teachers and provide professional development to 200,000 teachers.
  Finally, we will be able to continue key programs such as the dropout 
prevention program and smaller learning communities programs.
  This amendment can make a real difference for our states and local 
districts.
  As my colleagues know, State cuts to education caused by ``the most 
ominous fiscal crisis since World War II'' make Federal support ever 
more crucial for local communities. States face a cumulative $80 
billion budget deficit, with a dozen States cutting k-12 spending last 
year and another 11 poised to do so this year.
  States and communities across the Nation are being forced to cut 
services due to increased demands and reduced resources. For example, 
in Oregon school districts are carving weeks of instruction off the 
school year. One thousand teacher positions have been lost in Oregon so 
far this year. The schools in Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and 
Colorado are cutting back to a four-day week to trim costs. In Alabama, 
the schools are being forced to raise the class sizes, cut back 
extracurricular activities, and lay off 2,000 teachers and support 
staff. In Kentucky, 1,000 teacher and support positions have been cut 
and their technology programs have been slashed. In Massachusetts, 
dozens of school nurses have been laid off.
  As a result, it is not a surprise that a bipartisan poll recently 
demonstrated that a majority of Americans support increased Federal 
support for education and more voters name education as their top 
budget priority for next year than any other issue. Education ranks 
more than 10 points higher than the next 2 highest budget priorities--
health care and terrorism/security.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and thank my colleagues 
again for their leadership.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the 
amendment offered by Senators Murray and Kennedy to increase funds for 
the No Child Left Behind Act by $8.9 billion, fully funding this 
critical legislation. The amendment also includes $8.9 billion for 
deficit reduction. Both the education and deficit reduction funding are 
taken from the dividend tax cut. It is imperative that Congress sends a 
strong message in support of education that is accompanied by equally 
strong funding.
  The budget resolution we consider today fails to provide sufficient 
funding for education programs at all levels. Despite the 
Administration rhetoric that places great importance on improving 
educational opportunities for all Americans, President Bush's budget 
underfunds a variety of programs--early childhood education, elementary 
education, vocational education, and higher education--that are 
especially important to families given the weak economy.
  States are struggling with budget shortfalls, rising student 
enrollment, and an increasing number of students with limited English 
proficiency. At the same time, States are working to meet the new 
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I supported the No Child 
Left Behind Act because I agreed with its principles--all public school 
children should be able to achieve and all schools should be held 
accountable when their students fail to do so. I believed the President 
when he said education would be a priority. But now we face a budget 
that does not make education a priority. Instead, we are asked to 
support a budget that somehow finds the money to provide a tax cut for 
the wealthiest individuals, but cannot do so for the education of our 
Nation's children.
  This budget provides only a 2 percent overall increase for education 
programs, and some increases such as those for both Title I and IDEA, 
are largely paid for with cuts to other valuable education programs. 
Funding for the No Child Left Behind Act is cut by $700 million below 
fiscal year 2003 levels. It shortchanges Title I funding by $5.8 
billion below the authorized level. Title I could reach only 40 percent 
of eligible low-income children at this level. This budget also cuts 
funding for teacher quality programs, after school programs, and 
eliminates 46 education initiatives.
  The No Child Left Behind Act places a variety of new requirements on 
States and local school districts, including annual standardized 
testing and increased teacher certification. While we can expect our 
educators to do all within their power to improve our schools, we 
cannot expect this landmark legislation to be effective if they are not 
given the resources to implement these programs. If this amendment 
passes, over 2 million additional needy children will be served by 
Title I, after school opportunities would be extended to an additional 
1.3 million latchkey kids, and 50,000 new teachers could become fully 
qualified.

[[Page S3962]]

  I find it unconscionable that we can consider a tax cut aimed at the 
wealthiest Americans while purporting to be unable to adequately fund 
education programs. Now is the time to move beyond the rhetoric and 
show teachers, parents and students that we are sincere in our efforts 
to help them. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Murray-
Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator 
Murray's amendment to the budget resolution that will fully fund the No 
Child Left Behind Act. I regret that I will not be present for the 
vote, but if I were present I would vote for the Murray amendment to 
increase education funding by $8.9 billion.
  Unfortunately, both the budget resolution that we are debating and 
President Bush's proposed fiscal year 2004 budget do not fulfill the 
funding commitment that Congress made when we passed the No Child Left 
Behind Act into law. In fact, the budget resolution contains a $700 
million cut in funding for the No Child Left Behind Act compared to the 
fiscal year 2003 levels.
  The budget resolution's title I funding leaves more than 6 million 
disadvantaged children behind. There is no increase for teacher quality 
funds, even though nearly 40 percent of title I children are taught by 
teachers without a college degree in their primary instructional field 
and our schools will need to hire 2 million new teachers over the next 
decade. While 6 million latchkey children currently go without 
afterschool programs, this budget cuts afterschool funding for more 
than 500,000 children. And it eliminates all funding for rural 
education, dropout prevention, preparing tomorrow's teachers in 
technology, and smaller learning communities among other things.
  We have said it time and again during debate on No Child Left Behind 
and since it became law: new reforms and stronger accountability 
systems are not going to work if we don't provide resources to ensure 
that all children can learn to high standards. That means providing the 
full authorized amount of title I funding, it means helping schools 
meet the major new requirements for teacher quality that the law 
imposed, and it means increasing not slashing funding for afterschool 
programs. I hope all of my colleagues can support this important 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Murray 
for this critical amendment to deliver on the promise we made to the 
Nation's children by fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act.
  It has been over 1 year since the approval of the No Child Left 
Behind Act. But we are not fulfilling the promise made in that law and 
are, in fact, leaving millions of kids behind. The Nation has made 
little progress toward improving the quality of our children's 
education. In fact, we have taken a huge step backward by actually 
cutting funding for the education reform law that was enacted.
  The Murray amendment will not only alleviate the fiscal crisis in our 
schools so that they can provide a high-quality education for our 
children, but it will provide funding to keep our children safe in 
afterschool programs.
  As the author with Senator Ensign of the bipartisan afterschool 
program that President Bush signed into law as part of the No Child 
Left Behind Act, I want to emphasize how important the Federal 
afterschool program is to children and families across America. Dozens 
of respected, independent studies tell us that afterschool programs 
keep children safe, reduce crime and drug use, and improve academic 
performance.
  However, despite strong evidence that keeping children safe after 
school can reduce juvenile crime and prevent children from engaging in 
risky behaviors, the administration's budget for fiscal year 2004 
slashes Federal funding for afterschool programs by 40 percent.
  This unprecedented cut would result in over 81,000 children in 
California and almost 600,000 children nationally being pushed out onto 
the streets after school. Furthermore, by not fully funding afterschool 
programs at the level that we promised in the No Child Left Behind Act, 
we will be leaving over a million more children not just behind, but 
home alone.
  We cannot afford to neglect our commitment to our Nation's children. 
The time for rhetoric has passed and now it is time to act. It is time 
to fully fund afterschool programs and the entire No Child Left Behind 
Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 10 minutes and 
the Senator from Washington has 4 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New 
Hampshire and other Senators who have been working hard on the Leave No 
Child Behind legislation.
  I am a new Senator and was not here when it was done. I watched it 
from a distance as a former Education Secretary, to see how the Federal 
Government, which contributes about $650 or so out of the $7,000 or so 
we spend per student in this country on K-12 education, could make a 
difference.
  The principles of flexibility and accountability and the addition of 
more options for parents and significant additional funding have been a 
very good bipartisan start. The funding, which is the area at issue 
today, has been generous.
  When I look at my own State of Tennessee, for example, we can always 
use a little more of the Federal dollars to help do what needs to be 
done, but the amount that has come in has been very helpful. For 
example, in fiscal year 2000--and this follows to a great extent what 
the Senator from New Hampshire said--and then in fiscal year 2001, 
President Clinton asked for $8 billion and then $8.3 billion. In fiscal 
year 2000, the Congress appropriated roughly what the President 
requested, and in fiscal year 2001, it appropriated $8.7 billion. 
Tennessee got $137 million in fiscal year 2000 and $141 million in 
fiscal year 2001 for title I funding, the largest federal program that 
helps low-income children. This is the money that focuses on leaving no 
child behind.
  When President Bush came in, he asked for $9 billion and the Congress 
appropriated over $10 billion, and the share of title I funding for 
Tennessee went up to $152 million. In the budget we just finished in 
January, the President asked for $11 billion, and Congress provided 
$300 million more, and Tennessee's share went to $164 million. With the 
newest recommendation from the President, an increase of $1 billion, 
Tennessee is up to $174 million. These increases in title I funding are 
moving more rapidly than other parts of the federal budget.
  Could it be more? Maybe I will suggest over time we spend more. But 
we need to recognize these are significant increases in spending to 
fund the new programs from the Federal Government, while staying within 
a reasonable budget.
  In Nashville last week, I picked up an article about teachers, which 
you do not see that often, that talked about how much they appreciated 
the additional federal funding for ESL, English as a second language, 
and how it was helping and how the new money for this year, which we 
just finished appropriating a few weeks ago, is making its way into the 
school system. One of the teachers said this was the first year for 
major funding and it should really improve services.
  So I stand here today to say that I compliment President Bush, and 
this Senate, and this Congress, for what they have accomplished in the 
last 2 years--significant increases in funding for title I and the IDEA 
program over what was being spent when President Bush took office, even 
in a time when we have a budget under stress and are considering a war. 
Education funding is growing at a more rapid rate, as it should, I 
believe, than virtually any other part of the budget. I am glad to see 
that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Tennessean be 
printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Tennessean, Mar. 17, 2003]

        Federal Funding Helps Defray Local Cost of ESL Programs

                          (By Claudette Riley)

       Students with limited English skills who enter Tennessee 
     schools will now find classrooms that are better equipped 
     than ever to meet their needs.

[[Page S3963]]

       This year, the state received more than $2.24 million in 
     federal funding to help public schools meet the needs of 
     students served in English as a Second Language, or ESL, 
     programs.
       In recent years, local districts have shouldered the cost 
     of providing the required services, with limited help from 
     state funding or grants.
       ``This is the first year for major funding. It should 
     really improve services,'' said Carol Irwin, ESL coordinator 
     for the state Department of Education. ``It should put more 
     professional development in place, pay for materials and 
     technology, and hire more tutors and translators.''
       Tennessee and other states with a steady influx of families 
     from other countries are benefiting from a shift in the way 
     federal ESL funds are allocated. National education officials 
     used census data to determine how much each state would 
     receive for this school year.
       ``It's made a tremendous difference. We went from a teacher 
     and a half to a teacher with two full-time educational 
     assistants,'' said Vivian McCord, director of federal 
     projects for Dickson County schools. ``We meet with the 
     children on a daily basis now, and they are given tutoring.''
       Of the $2.24 million in federal funds allocated to 
     Tennessee this year, nearly $1.8 million went directly to 
     school districts, $112,000 was pulled out for administrative 
     costs and another 15%--or $336,000--was awarded as grants to 
     the school systems with the highest need.
       ``It's just encouraging for districts to know they'll have 
     some financial help,'' Irwin said. ``The districts have been 
     struggling to get this done.''
       Based on existing numbers, the state will get $2.65 million 
     in federal funding for ESL during the 2003--04 school year 
     and nearly $3 million the next year, officials said.
       ``The numbers keep rising, and so we're getting more 
     money,'' Irwin said.
       The extra money is welcome news for the state's 138 school 
     districts, many of which have reached deep into their own 
     pockets to put the ESL programs in place.
       The federal funding is helping us,'' said Sayra Hughes, 
     coordinator of ESL for Metro schools, which received nearly 
     $600,000 from the new funding. ``It's just an added bonus. It 
     has assisted--the local funding is still there.''
       The federal funding isn't expected to replace local 
     contributions, but school officials said it would help them 
     provide more staff and better services and materials.
       Tennessee has 15,007 students in ESL programs, and 28.5% of 
     them--4,283--are in Metro schools. The district received the 
     largest chunk of the new federal funds.
       ``We're been able to purchase a lot of additional 
     materials,'' Hughes said. ``We were able to increase the 
     services provided by the tutor translators.''
       Jan Lanier, chairwoman of the ESL department at Metro's 
     Glencliff High School, said she would like to eventually put 
     in a language laboratory and provide students struggling to 
     learn English with better research materials and bilingual 
     dictionaries.
       ``We have some, but we don't have enough for every class to 
     have a full set.''
       While district officials say the extra federal money is 
     welcome, some note that it won't cover the cost of operating 
     ESL programs.
       We did have more money this year, but it didn't come close 
     to covering what we spend on staff,'' said Andy Brummett, 
     director of Lebanon Special School District. ``The majority 
     of the money we spend to serve these children is local.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island as a cosponsor, and I yield him 2 minutes of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the choice before us is very clear: Are we 
going to devote $8.9 billion to tax cuts, most of them favoring the 
very rich, or are we going to devote $8.9 billion to the children and 
the schools of America? The choice is much more clear since the No 
Child Left Behind Act was passed because we made significant 
commitments to improve the quality of education in the United States 
while imposing significant responsibilities on the schools. The schools 
are expecting this money. The suggestion that there is a lot of money 
in the pipeline is interesting, but I would be shocked because that 
suggests the Department of Education is inept in getting money that is 
there to the schools that desperately need it.
  There are 10,000 identified failing schools in this country. There 
are scores of children being taught by teachers without a college 
degree in their primary field of instruction. All of that needs 
remediation, help, and resources, but instead the budget before us 
provides billions in tax cuts when our schools desperately need that 
money.
  It is not a question of what we did last year, it is a question of 
what we will do this year. It is a question of whether we will meet the 
needs of the American students and whether we will keep the promises of 
the No Child Left Behind Act. We are not keeping those promises in the 
budget that is presented to us by the Budget Committee. We should keep 
those promises, and by doing so, we will do something I believe every 
American wants more than tax cuts that favor very wealthy Americans. We 
want to see every child in this country have a decent education, 
succeed, contribute, and be part of this great country. That is what 
the Murray amendment does.
  The choice before us is clear, compelling, emphatic: Put the money 
with the schools and the children, and our economy will be better, and 
our schools and students will be better. We can afford it because if we 
do not commit the funding to the children, it will go to tax cuts 
primarily to upper income Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes for the Senator from Oklahoma, 2 
minutes for the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, when we marked up our budget, we put in a couple of 
billion dollars actually over the President's request. I mentioned to 
my colleagues then: No matter what we put in, there are going to be 
amendments on the floor to increase education.
  I might show our colleagues--Senator Gregg did this far better than 
I--education funding under this President as compared to President 
Clinton has exploded. It has gone up dramatically. Title I, which 
addresses the issue we have before us on No Child Left Behind--if you 
look at the rate of growth we have in title I grants, it is a dramatic 
increase.
  The Senator from Washington has an amendment. This might even show it 
better. It shows that the spending level basically in the last few 
years, under this President compared to the previous President, has had 
a dramatic increase. As a percentage, I might mention, it went up in 
title I percentages of 10.3, 18.1, 12.9, 8.6--big increases.
  The Senator from Washington has an amendment that says let's do No 
Child Left Behind and let's go from $23 billion--let's add another $8.9 
billion, which would be a 38.7 percent increase for 1 year. It says 
$8.9 billion. It doesn't sound like much. Most of the figures we are 
dealing with are over 10 years. This is 1 year. We only increased 
nondefense discretionary spending by $10 billion. This is $9 billion 
for education, and not all education, just part of education. I 
understand there will be amendments later to deal with IDEA, and we put 
in an additional $1 billion for IDEA, we put in an additional $1 
billion for title I at the request of the chairman of the HELP 
Committee, who was a strong leader and made an excellent presentation.

  No matter what we do, no matter how high the percentage increases we 
have, even if they are double digits, there are amendments that will 
say let's do more. This amendment says let's do 38.7 percent more. I 
think it is irresponsible, and I will urge my colleagues at an 
appropriate time to support a motion to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a very important 
amendment. Not very long ago, the Members of this body voted to pass a 
bill called No Child Left Behind. The budget that is put forward to us 
today will leave thousands of children behind if we do not fulfill the 
commitment we have made.
  I have listened to the arguments on the other side. I have seen the 
charts and graphs. If there is one thing I have learned here in the 
Senate, it is that you can have a chart or graph to show whatever you 
want it to show. But what I do know is Senator Kennedy showed on the 
chart behind us, 3 million more children in this country, 3 million 
more children need more funding if they want to meet the obligations of 
No Child Left Behind; 50,000 fully qualified teachers need to be hired; 
we need to provide training for 200,000 teachers. The numbers are 
really clear.

[[Page S3964]]

  If you look at the Republican budget itself, their document shows 46 
programs that have been eliminated in their budget: Adult education, 
community technology, dropout prevention, elementary and secondary 
school counseling, foreign language, physical education, rural 
education, vocational education. These are programs listed in their 
budget that they cut.
  We can put up charts and graphs, but I can tell you one thing: The 
children in our schools, the parents who take their children there, the 
teachers who teach there, the community members who work in our schools 
all know when we pass a bill and say we are going to test our kids at 
the Federal level and we do not provide the resources to make sure 
those children can learn, we pass on an unfunded mandate that is 
irresponsible to our States that are struggling today.
  The amendment we are about to vote on fully funds title I. It 
continues the effort to hire 100,000 qualified teachers. It helps to 
put high-quality teachers in the classrooms and continues to make sure 
we fulfill our obligations.
  Tougher accountability without adequate reform is not reform, it is 
politics. We know our children need books, they need teachers, they 
need the programs, and they need the Federal Government to live up to 
its responsibility. That is what this amendment does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. There have been a lot of representations here, but we need 
to go back to the fact that on our side of the aisle we had to produce 
a budget--and we did, something that didn't happen last year from the 
other side of the aisle relative to bringing it to the floor.
  When the other side of the aisle was talking dollars, they were 
willing to give up on $4 billion relative to children in title I. That 
was their gap last year in their appropriating bill. For them to come 
forward this year and say suddenly that gap is an unacceptable event 
and inappropriate and inconsistent with everything that is right about 
taking care of our children in this country is truly a bit of an 
inconsistency, to be kind.
  The issue of balancing this against a tax cut I find difficult. Tax 
cut for the rich? Sixty percent of the people who get the dividends 
cut, should we actually put it in place, are going to be senior 
citizens. It is their money. It is their money.
  The issue is, how do you prioritize spending? The President of the 
United States has prioritized spending. He has put education right at 
the top of his priorities, at a much higher level than President 
Clinton put it--in fact, at a level so much higher than President 
Clinton put it that it represents a factor of two or three times what 
President Clinton did during his time in office.
  He has done it at the same time as he has limited overall spending of 
the Federal Government. The spending on education in this bill 
significantly exceeds the overall spending of the Federal Government in 
all accounts except possibly defense, because we are at war. That is a 
hard commitment, and it translates into real dollars, $1 billion of 
additional money every year since he has been President for title I, 
for IDEA, over $3 billion of new money--$3.9 billion--for title I. 
Those are hard dollars, real dollars, done in a responsible budgeting 
way.

  Mr. President, is my time up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. All time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I move to table the 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 amendment No. 284.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), are 
necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Kerry
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam 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. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, for the information of our colleagues, 
this is Wednesday night. I ask the Parliamentarian, how many hours are 
left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the majority side, there are 10 hours 17 
minutes remaining. On the minority side, there are 11 hours 42 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the information of our colleagues, this is 
Wednesday. We are working very aggressively to finish this bill. I have 
tried to see if we could not advance a lot of the major amendments, 
including the 350 amendment. I have been trying to get that up all day. 
I have not been successful, but I understand we will have that up 
tomorrow.
  Several people have been asking about this amendment. This is the 
amendment that would reduce the growth package from $725 billion to 
$350 billion. I suspect we will have votes on that tomorrow. It is my 
expectation tonight, for the information of my colleagues, as long as 
the majority leader is willing, we will stay in until midnight tonight. 
Several people said they did not want to have votes tonight, that they 
have other things to do.
  I have consulted with my friend and colleague from North Dakota who 
has been a pleasure to work with on this resolution, and we both know 
we have a lot of amendments with which we need to deal. I urge my 
colleagues to work with us and not surprise us with their amendments, 
show us their amendments, and we will see if we can agree to them or 
work out a time agreement on them and see if we can finish this 
resolution in a timely, orderly fashion, in a way we would be proud to 
function. Sometimes the Senate does not do that when we handle budgets.
  It would be my expectation that we would stay in at least until 
midnight tonight and consider several amendments. I believe we now have 
three amendments in order. Senator Kyl has an amendment dealing with 
the death tax; Senator Graham of Florida has an amendment dealing with 
prescription drugs; and Senators Collins and Rockefeller have an 
amendment dealing with assistance to States.

[[Page S3965]]

  We are willing to consider all those amendments and additional 
amendments tonight. I will yield the floor. It is our expectation there 
will not be any additional rollcall votes tonight, but that does not 
mean the Senate will not be considering amendments.
  I urge my colleagues, if they have amendments, please work with 
Senator Conrad and myself to have those amendments timely considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me rivet a point that the chairman 
of the budget committee is making. We have three additional amendments 
lined up, but we should do more amendments tonight. If we are serious 
about avoiding a vote-arama at the end, where we do not have a chance 
to describe amendments, we just have to vote on amendment after 
amendment, the way to do that is not to do our work now.
  I say to some colleagues who have said they have to make a change in 
amendments, it is not convenient for them to come tonight, if we are 
going to get this done, they have to put aside convenience and get over 
here and offer their amendments. There is a limited amount of time 
remaining to debate and discuss amendments, and people are going to 
lose their opportunity--let me make that very clear on our side--to 
have time to debate their amendment. They will get a vote because the 
rules allow that, but they are going to lose their chance to debate and 
discuss it. So this is the time, if they want to debate an amendment, 
to get over here and offer the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. If my colleague will yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask my colleague, and perhaps Senator Nickles and the 
majority leader as well, I fully agree with the notion we need to move 
along, address these amendments, try to get through this budget 
resolution, but I also understand, as do most of my colleagues, that 
the potential of military action is imminent--perhaps hours, perhaps a 
day, perhaps two days, I do not know, but my expectation would be when 
military action is commenced and our sons and daughters of America are 
ordered to military action and in the field, almost every Senator will 
want to address and discuss that issue. My hope and expectation would 
be at that moment, when we see what is the most serious decision faced 
by our country, that is, sending our young men and women to combat, 
that we would want to leave the budget and have an ample amount of time 
for every Member of the Senate to address that issue.
  I inquire of my colleague and others who are managing this bill 
whether that interval will be made available to Members of the Senate?
  Mr. CONRAD. I respond to my colleague by saying I hope that would be 
the case if we find ourselves at war, that there would be an ample 
opportunity for Senators to address that. My own belief is that would 
be appropriate for the Senate to do, to turn its attention to a state 
of war. My own belief is it would be inappropriate for us to continue 
on with business as usual when we have our sons and daughters in harm's 
way.
  I am very hopeful if it comes to that, during this period while we 
are debating the budget, that it would be set aside for a time so there 
would be a discussion in the Chamber and the Senators have a chance to 
express themselves.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I have a couple of objectives. First and 
foremost will be an appropriate response to military action if our 
women and men are engaged in combat. There will be an appropriate 
response in terms of support for our Commander in Chief, as well as the 
military personnel, which will be discussed on the floor. There will be 
an opportunity to do that. At this juncture, we do not know when that 
will occur, if it will occur. In all likelihood, it will occur at some 
juncture. I think the fact we are hearing from both sides of the aisle 
that it is important to do--yet the time is uncertain--means I need to 
go back to the first point the chairman and ranking member made, and 
that is we have a lot of work to do; that the clock is ticking. The 
clock is ticking in terms of the budget process itself, in terms of the 
number of hours on both sides of the aisle. It is critically important 
that Members of this body come to the floor to offer amendments, to 
come up with specific language, to debate it and discuss it. That is 
the reason we are going to be here for the next 6 hours to give that 
opportunity to Members. We will start in the morning at an early hour 
in order to fulfill our responsibilities in terms of the budget. That 
is the plan.

  We will finish the budget this week. It may be tomorrow or tomorrow 
night. It may be Friday morning, it may be Friday afternoon, it may be 
Friday night, but we will finish this budget this week.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the majority yield for one question?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I, of course, think the response by the 
majority leader is perfectly appropriate. We do want to finish this 
bill. We ought to make progress and try and get it done. My only 
inquiry was if there is military action and if, in fact, our soldiers 
are in the field in hostile action, I agree with my colleague, Senator 
Conrad, that I would not want us to be going through a vote-arama for 
6, 8, 10, 12 hours with business as usual. I would very much want us, 
and I think most Members of the Senate would want us, to move off what 
we are doing and recognize that this Senate will want to express itself 
on these issues, not to be critical but I think to be supportive, 
supportive of our troops and supportive of this country's interests. We 
want this to go well and we want to express ourselves on it.
  I am satisfied with the majority leader's response. I wanted to say I 
feel strongly, as do many others in this Chamber, about the desire to 
address our support for those troops who are ordered to action, if that 
is the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. As we talked about this morning, a resolution of support 
for President Bush, and the men and women, our troops, who will be in 
the field, is being developed in concert with the minority leader, 
myself, and others. We are working on that language, as the Senator 
well knows, as we speak.
  If and when military action occurs, that will be brought to the floor 
in short order, with an opportunity to express that very important 
support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my friend for a question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me ask a question on process. A lot of us would like 
to offer amendments. This thing gets plugged up and goes on hour after 
hour. If the Senator wants to be in until midnight, that is fine. I 
have an amendment I would like to offer, but should I offer it at 8, 9, 
10, 11, or 12? I would like some idea of where I am going to be in the 
queue, but just to say come and offer amendments is not very conducive 
to an orderly process. So if there is some kind of queue, will there be 
time limits put on these amendments so we have some idea of when we 
should come over to offer our amendments? Since we are not going to 
have any votes, it would be nice to have some idea of when we could 
come over and offer our amendments.

  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to respond. Most of the amendments have 
been offered on the minority side, and we are happy to consider 
amendments. I have been urging people to offer amendments dealing with 
the growth package. We need to find out if the growth package is going 
to be zero, if it is going to be 350, if it is going to be 725. So I 
would encourage those amendments. We had those amendments in committee. 
We ought to have them on the floor. If we are going to have them, let 
us have them.
  I have also encouraged other amendments. Members can work with our 
colleague, Senator Conrad, as far as trying to prioritize which 
amendments might be next on the minority side. I think that would be 
the likely outcome.
  Colleagues on this side have been consulting me as far as who would 
be next on our side, and so at that point I think we might be better 
served to

[[Page S3966]]

begin considering amendments. Right now we have three amendments in the 
queue. I believe Senator Kyl's amendment will not be debated too long 
tonight, maybe 30 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. At most.
  Mr. NICKLES. Thirty minutes for his. I believe Senator Graham of 
Florida is going to discuss the prescription drug amendment. That is a 
pretty big amendment, a couple hundred billion dollars, I believe, and 
so that may take a little longer discussion. Then I believe there is 
also a resolution to be offered by Senator Rockefeller and Senator 
Collins. That may take maybe an hour, maybe less than an hour. We will 
be available for consideration of additional amendments. We may set 
aside a lot of amendments tonight and stack those amendments that 
require a rollcall vote. Maybe most of these will not require a 
rollcall vote, but we are willing to stack some of these for votes for 
the convenience of all Members.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the chairman yield on that very point?
  Mr. NICKLES. Be happy to.
  Mr. SARBANES. When does the chairman intend to vote on the amendments 
that are going to be offered and considered this evening?
  Mr. NICKLES. I would expect that will be tomorrow afternoon. I will 
make that decision after consulting both the majority leader and the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. SARBANES. Presumably, then, if it is tomorrow afternoon, there 
would be added to the list other amendments that will be offered 
tomorrow morning, is that the procedure?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct. I say to my colleagues, for their 
information, I did consult with Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe, and I 
believe they are planning on offering the 350 amendment in the morning. 
That is a very significant amendment, just so people will know that 
will also be in the queue tomorrow morning.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, has anyone suggested a 
time limit on the debate on each of these amendments of no more than 
half an hour so more amendments can be debated? We know where we are 
headed. We are going to run out of time and some of the amendments will 
not even have 1 minute of debate if we are not careful.
  Is it possible we could have a unanimous consent request to limit the 
debate to no more than half an hour on each amendment?
  Mr. NICKLES. Responding to my colleague, it depends on the amendment. 
I don't know if we can agree to a half an hour agreement on an 
amendment that would increase spending on prescription drugs by $200 
billion. That does not fit for a 30-minute discussion. Possibly other 
amendments might. So we will have to do an amendment-by-amendment 
basis.
  The resolution says each amendment would have up to 2 hours. I am 
happy to shorten that when appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I wonder if, on the next three amendments, we might 
arrive at a time agreement for the convenience of our colleagues. The 
Senator from Arizona has been very generous. He has said we can have 30 
minutes equally divided, something like that. Would that be 
appropriate?
  Mr. NICKLES. We are not prepared to enter into that on that amendment 
yet, nor on the Graham amendment. Possibly on the Rockefeller-Collins 
and possibly after Senator Collins' amendment we might agree to some of 
these. But I don't think we are ready just yet.
  Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona for the purpose 
of introduction of an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 288

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 288.

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

   (Purpose: To provide financial security to family farm and small 
  business owners by ending the unfair practice of taxing someone at 
                                 death)

       On page 3, line 9, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, decrease the amount by $5,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $10,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $34,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $31,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $34,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $36,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $31,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $33,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $58,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $63,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $5,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, decrease the amount by $10,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, decrease the amount by $34,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $31,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $34,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $36,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $31,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $33,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, decrease the amount by $58,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, decrease the amount by $63,900,000,000.
       On page 41, line 22, decrease the amount by $85,000,000.
       On page 41, line 23, decrease the amount by $85,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, decrease the amount by $4,692,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,692,000,000.
       On page 42, line 6, decrease the amount by $9,406,000,000.
       On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $9,406,000,000.
       On page 42, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $33,617,000,000.
       On page 42, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $33,617,000,000.
       On page 42, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $30,324,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $30,324,000,000.
       On page 42, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $32,408,000,000.
       On page 42, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $32,408,000,000.
       On page 42, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $35,018,000,000.
       On page 42, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $35,018,000,000.
       On page 43, line 2, decreased the amount by 
     $28,750,000,000.
       On page 43, line 3, decreased the amount by 
     $28,750,000,000.
       On page 43, line 6, decreased the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 43, line 7, decreased the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 43, line 10, decreased the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 43, line 11, decreased the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 43, line 14, decreased the amount by $347,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decreased the amount by $347,000,000.

  Mr. KYL. In the spirit of the day, I was going to take 30 minutes. I 
will take exactly half that time, 15 minutes, and perhaps later we can 
agree to a time limitation. We certainly should not need a great deal 
of time on this amendment.
  This amendment is very simple. It simply moves forward 1 year the 
time for repeal of the estate tax or what is known as the death tax. As 
my colleagues know, we repealed the death tax permanently in the year 
effective January 1, 2010. This amendment moves that to January 1, 
2009.
  The reason for this is we can establish the proposition with this 
amendment that we do need to permanently repeal the estate tax. The 
budget that has been crafted by Senator Nickles and his committee has 
accounted for 3 years of permanent repeal. So that is already accounted 
for in this budget. This amendment would bring that forward 1 more 
year, so we would have a total of 4 years of repeal of the estate tax 
accounted for in our budget.
  We would still have to accomplish this, of course, by amendment or 
legislation. We cannot do it as part of the budget itself. This would 
create the opportunity for us to do that. That is the reason for my 
amendment.
  Now, there are a lot of reasons we decided to repeal the estate tax, 
and I

[[Page S3967]]

don't think we need to repeat all of those tonight. The majority of 
this body supports repeal of the estate tax. We have passed repeal of 
the estate tax. There were good reasons for doing so, primarily because 
it is an unfair tax.
  In addition to that, it hurts small business. If you have a business 
of, say, 25 employees and you have to sell your assets, your equipment, 
in order to pay your estate taxes, not only have you had to disband 
your business but you have also put 25 people out of work.
  At this time in our economy where we are concerned about joblessness, 
where we want to create more jobs, not see more jobs disappear, knowing 
the estate tax is going to be permanently repealed even sooner than we 
anticipated will help businesses stay alive to provide the jobs and the 
economic growth we need.
  We know by far and away the vast majority of the jobs in this country 
are created by small business.
  There were a number of sponsors of our original repeal. I anticipate 
we will have a number of sponsors of this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent Senator Sessions be added as an original 
cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Rather than restating all the arguments for repeal, since we 
have already voted to do that, I will bring my colleagues up to date on 
some current research about what the American people believe about the 
estate tax.
  A poll was conducted early this year between January 16 and 21. It 
was a poll of about three times as many people as are ordinarily 
interviewed. Over 2,500 registered voters were interviewed for this 
survey by a research company. Its findings ought to be of significant 
interest to my colleagues.
  The bottom line is with respect to the estate tax. The conclusion of 
the poll is that the American people simply oppose, on principle, the 
concept of anyone being taxed on the death of their parents or their 
spouse.
  I thought I would share just four specific results from this survey. 
When it comes to stimulating the economy, the poll confirmed that 
Americans overwhelmingly believe tax relief is more effective than 
increases in Government spending. This goes to the general proposition 
that is being debated between those who believe we should spend more to 
help our economy and those who believe we should provide tax relief.
  The question was, Which is better for the Federal Government to 
stimulate the economy, increase economic growth, and create new jobs? 
And they were given two choices. One was the tax cut option, and the 
other was the spending option. Fully 68 percent chose the tax cut 
option, whereas only 20 percent said increased Government spending was 
the best for economic growth and the creation of new jobs.
  Two of the subgroups are particularly fascinating. Among Democrats 
surveyed, the ratio in favor of tax cuts over increased spending is a 
healthy 2 to 1, 57 percent to 28 percent. I do not have it broken down 
by State, but among Democrats, if it is 2 to 1, I daresay among 
Republicans it is even more than that.
  Among those with incomes below $30,000, 65 percent back the tax cut 
approach to improving the economy, while only 19 percent prefer 
increased Government spending. This is a significant finding in the 
survey.
  If there is going to be a tax cut, the question is, Should everyone 
get something back or should we wait until we have a budget surplus? In 
other words, what of this argument that will be contributing to the 
deficit?
  When given a choice of three options, even with the debate about the 
ballooning deficit, just one in four Americans, 24 percent, believe 
there should be no tax cuts for anyone until we have a budget surplus. 
Let me restate that. Only 24 percent of Americans believe it is 
improper to cut taxes while we have a deficit.
  For those who believe the majority of Americans do not want to cut 
taxes until we are in a surplus situation, this survey demonstrates 
that is incorrect. Only 24 percent of Americans believe that.
  To the third point, tax fairness. This is where we get into the death 
tax repeal specifically, but it relates to other taxes, too. As a 
general proposition, one expects people tend to favor taxes on someone 
else and to oppose taxes that affect them directly. And that is, as a 
general proposition, true. But what this survey of over 2,500 Americans 
just a couple of months ago confirms is that there is a very strong 
consensus that there are a couple of taxes that are absolutely unfair 
and it does not make any difference what demographic category you are 
in. Whether you are rich or poor, the overwhelming majority believes 
there are two taxes that are absolutely unfair, and there is an 
overwhelming consensus they should be repealed.
  What are those two taxes? These are the two at the top of the list to 
the question, What tax do you think is completely unfair or completely 
fair? The two taxes people would repeal with the biggest majority are 
the Social Security benefit tax and the death tax.
  Remember the tax that was imposed in the early Clinton years to 
actually tax Social Security benefits? That is very unpopular. Five 
percent of the people think it is completely fair; 62 percent think it 
is completely unfair.
  With the death tax, 7 percent think it is completely fair and 62 
percent also think that tax is completely unfair. Sixty-two percent of 
all Americans think it is completely unfair to have a death tax, and 
only 7 percent think it is completely fair.
  All other taxes--marriage penalty tax, long distance phone tax, 
savings account tax, all the way down to stock dividends, payroll 
income tax, property tax, gas tax, sales tax, right down the list, and 
they get increasingly popular. The marriage penalty, 60 percent of 
Americans think that is completely unfair. We are doing away with that 
in the tax package we will present as part of the budget. Long distance 
phone tax, 38 percent of the people think that is unfair. Capital gains 
tax, 23 percent think it is unfair. Stock dividend, more think it is 
completely unfair than completely fair, 23 to 21, the payroll tax, and 
so on. You finally get down to an alcohol and beer tax. That is pretty 
unpopular. Only 8 percent think that is a bad deal; 57 percent think it 
is fine. It is pretty much the same number for the cigarette tax.

  The bottom line is in this very recent extraordinarily large survey 
what we find is the two taxes the American people would repeal first 
and foremost are the tax on Social Security benefits and the estate 
tax. Fully 62 percent of the American people believe that tax to be 
completely unfair.
  With regard to the death tax in particular, you would think that this 
would be a tax that rich people would really like to get rid of and 
poor people would like to keep. After all, by its very nature, if you 
have a business or family farm or have some wealth to pass on to your 
heirs, repealing this tax would benefit you more than someone who has 
absolutely nothing. What does the survey show?
  Fully 65 percent of those with incomes below $30,000 believe the 
death tax is completely unfair. By comparison, a very interesting 
statistic, only 59 percent of individuals with incomes above $60,000 
label the death tax unfair.
  Ironically, more people at the lower end of the economic spectrum 
view this tax as completely unfair than when you get to be higher in 
the economic spectrum. The fact is, another poll, a Gallup poll, 
demonstrated the same phenomenon. Even though most people understood 
that repeal of the death tax would not benefit them personally, an 
overwhelming majority still favored repeal of the death tax. Why? 
Because they understand it is unfair.
  One of the great things about this country and the American people is 
they have an innate sense of fairness. Even if something doesn't 
benefit them directly, they understand if it is wrong they are willing 
to support its repeal.
  There are some other interesting survey results in terms of arguments 
against the death tax. I thought some of these were fun, and then I 
will close this out. If you ask certain questions about the death tax, 
for example, if you remind people that the highest rate of taxation for 
the death tax is 50 percent, then 79 percent of the people agree that 
is unfair and the tax should be repealed.
  When you remind people that the inheritance tax represents double and 
triple taxation, again 79 percent believe it should be repealed.

[[Page S3968]]

  With some of the arguments that are actual statements of fact with 
respect to the inheritance or estate tax, when reminded of that, the 
American people are even more strongly in support of its repeal than if 
they are not reminded of that. Also, when you remind people that the 
tax is unfair because it singles out those who save and invest, for no 
reason other than the fact that they became successful and then died--
of course, the exact thing we try to teach people, save your money, 
invest it, try to pass it along to your kids. It is the American dream 
to make the next generation better off than your generation; if you 
live the American dream, you get punished. If you are broke, you don't 
get punished. Of course the American people, when reminded of that, are 
even stronger in favor of repeal.
  The bottom line is every subgroup and fully 58 percent of the 
electorate as a whole, including, as I said, a majority of every 
subgroup, would vote for a candidate who advocates repeal of the death 
tax. Only 32 percent would vote for the candidate who supported 
maintaining the death tax.
  The bottom line of all this research is it seems to me we would not 
be keeping faith with the American people unless we are willing to move 
forward the date that the death tax is repealed.
  In the interim period of time, we are reducing the rate and we are 
also increasing the amount of income that is exempted from the 
inheritance tax. Both are good. But it seems to me, given this fact, 
that it is not too much to ask my colleagues to accelerate by 1 year 
the date that the tax is actually repealed. There will be some who say 
we cannot afford an immediate repeal today. To that I say, if that is 
your view, fine. That is not what we are doing here. I would prefer to 
do that.
  I think we can compromise and agree that moving the repeal date 
forward 1 year is both something that is affordable and something that 
should be done.
  This amendment is very straightforward. That is the long and short of 
it. I think I pointed out the American people would support this. I 
hope since the Senate has already gone on record by repealing the 
estate tax in the year 2010, that we would not be bashful about moving 
that forward by 1 year, to 2009.
  I guess my question to the body when we finally bring this to a vote 
is, Did you mean it when you said we should repeal the estate tax? If 
so, let's move that repeal date forward by 1 year.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I ask the author of this amendment 
what the cost is?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will try to get the exact number here in 
just a moment. I am informed that the estimated cost is $46 billion.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is $46 billion?
  Mr. KYL. Correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague--
  Mr. KYL. Might I add one more thing, that, in our amendment, is 
accounted for within the budget because the money is taken from another 
account so it is not added on to the expense of the budget.
  Mr. CONRAD. That was going to be my next question, if I could, to the 
Senator. What is the way the Senator pays for this $46 billion?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I tell my colleague the function in the 
budget is No. 920. That is the source of the funding for this 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could the Senator tell us what constitutes 920?
  Mr. KYL. That is a general fund for Finance Committee action at some 
specified date in the future.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would say to my colleagues and the Senator from 
Arizona, it strikes me as ill-timed to come before the body and ask for 
another $46 billion when we are already deep in debt. We now know we 
are going to be facing deficits this year of $500 billion; the deficits 
as defined by law of over $300 billion every year for the next 10 
years. We are going to be taking virtually every penny of the Social 
Security surplus under the chairman's mark. Now the Senator offers $46 
billion, which he funds by reducing function 920. Function 920, of 
course, is a general governmental function, which is a popular place to 
reduce around here.
  I say to my colleagues, it seems to me that a wiser course than full 
repeal, which costs, combined with this amendment, $207 billion over 
the period of this budget, when we are already running deficits under 
the chairman's mark of $1.7 trillion, that a wiser course would be, 
instead of waiting until 2009 to have an elimination of the estate tax, 
to have people waiting all of that time between now and then and having 
an exemption of $1 million currently, instead of that, we could go to a 
$3 million exemption per person, $6 million per couple, have it take 
effect now, and only cost $33 billion for the whole thing, a fraction 
of the cost of complete repeal. We would continue to have a functioning 
estate tax but fundamentally reform it: Change it, don't end it. Change 
it to say an individual would have $3 million completely sheltered; a 
family would have $6 million completely sheltered. With planning, they 
could do substantially more than that and have that effective now, have 
that effective in the first part of the budget year that we are 
discussing. That would have a cost of $33 billion instead of the cost 
of permanent repeal of $207 billion, especially given the fact we are 
already in deep deficit.
  At some point I hope colleagues will begin to consider alternatives, 
to reform the estate tax, to change it, to make it more fair, and to 
fundamentally buttress the economic security of the country by not 
compounding these record deficits we already have.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to my colleague for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to my colleague, Senator Conrad, I am unfamiliar 
with this notion of a tax on death. My colleague from Arizona spoke at 
length about the death tax.
  I am wondering, would it not be true that should a Member of the 
Senate, perhaps a married Member of the Senate, die, God forbid, in the 
coming week or so, that the spouse of that Member of the Senate would 
inherit, would have all of their property immediately with the spousal 
exemption, so that death would incur no tax, there would be no tax?
  So if there is a death in which there is no tax--which is the case 
with respect to the spouses, a 100-percent exemption--and all the 
property goes to the spouse, with no tax consequence, then exactly what 
is the death tax the Senator from Arizona is referring to? Is it, in 
fact, the tax on inherited wealth that exists in our law?
  And if it is on inherited wealth, of course, that is a different 
discussion which we should have. But if it is the death tax--which is a 
term that was created by pollsters to evoke a certain response--is it 
not the case that there is not a tax on death, that many deaths in this 
country means the estate is probated, and all of the assets of that 
estate go immediately to the spouse, with no tax under any 
circumstances? Is that not the case?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is the case. In fact, there is no death tax in 
America. That is a good rhetorical line, but there is no tax at death 
in America. Only 2 percent of estates currently are taxed, and they are 
taxed because they have amounts of value in the estate of over $1 
million.
  Now, under current law, in 2009, only three-tenths of 1 percent of 
estates will be subject to tax. That would mean 99.7 percent of estates 
would not be taxed.
  I might say, under the proposal I am suggesting tonight, we could go 
to that level next year. Why wait to have estate tax reform? Why not go 
to a $3 million exemption per person, $6 million per couple, and not 
wait until 2009?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I want to complete my thought and complete my exchange 
with my colleague. Then I will be happy to yield.
  The thing that strikes me is we have gotten off on a debate here that 
really is detached from reality. It is detached from reality because 
the cost of full repeal in the next 10 years is $207 billion. How is 
that going to be financed? It is going to be financed by borrowing the 
money. It is going to be financed by taking it out of the Social 
Security trust fund surpluses. That is how it is going to be financed.
  Now, does that make any sense? I would say no. I would say to borrow

[[Page S3969]]

the money to give a big tax cut to the wealthiest Americans really does 
not make a whole lot of sense.
  Does that mean the current estate tax ought to be retained? No, it 
should not. It ought to be reformed, not repealed. It ought to be 
altered, as I suggest, so that a couple could exempt $6 million 
dollars. That costs a fraction of repeal and would give immediate 
relief.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, is it 
not the case that the majority last year passed a tax plan that had the 
following rather comical circumstance: It said we will sequentially 
increase the exemption on the estate tax to the point where in 2010 it 
is repealed, but in the year 2011 it actually comes back again?

  And if that is the case--I believe it is--I think historians will 
look back at this and say, well, who on Earth could have thought of 
that? Well, they thought of it, all right. That is what they put in the 
tax bill.
  Now, if that is the case, isn't it also the case that the amendment 
being offered today says let's make it even more farcical: Let's decide 
we will increase the exemption up until 2009, and we will have a 2-year 
repeal of the estate tax, to have it come back in 2011?
  We laughed a little last year about estate planning. There are going 
to be a lot of people on life support in 2009 because they have to wait 
until 2010 to die to get the total exemption, total repeal that was 
offered by the majority party.
  Now they are going to offer a 2-year window for death, apparently, 
and then the estate tax comes back in 2011. It is the most Byzantine, 
preposterous amount of nonsense. You would not put 10 people in a room 
with a six-pack of beer and come out with a worse result than they came 
out with last year on this estate tax issue.
  But to get back on the final point, it was passed as a repeal of the 
death tax when, in fact, there is no tax on death. There is a tax on 
inherited wealth.
  I ask my colleague, isn't the remaining question for this Senate, do 
we want to have some basic taxation on the largest estates--on the 
largest estates--of $1 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion, many of which 
have never been subjected to any kind of a tax because they were built 
with inside buildup and built with growth appreciation and have never 
been subjected to tax?
  Is the final argument, final debate, and final question, do we want 
to retain at least some basis of an estate tax for the very largest 
estates?
  Mr. CONRAD. It would seem to me really almost self-evident that the 
wiser course here would be immediate reform of the estate tax. Let's go 
to $3 million for an individual, $6 million for a couple. It would cost 
$33 billion over the next decade, but that is a fraction of the over 
$200 billion it would cost to fully repeal it.
  My colleague is quite correct, in estates of over $10 million, fully 
56 percent of the value of those estates has never been taxed. This is 
according to a study by Poterba and Weisbenner, that finds that is as a 
result of unrealized capital gains and as a result of buildup of 
property values never subjected to tax at all.
  So the question is, what is going to be the way we share the tax 
burden in this country? What is the most fair and equitable way to do 
that?
  I would suggest completely eliminating the estate tax for very 
wealthy individuals, which is of necessity going to force others--
middle-class people, lower-middle-class people--to pay more in order to 
foot the bill, is not fair. It is not equitable.
  It would really make more sense to fundamentally change the estate 
tax, to give a much larger exemption than we currently have. Currently, 
it is $1 million. Instead, we should raise that to $3 million for an 
individual, $6 million for a couple, and do it immediately. It costs a 
fraction of repealing it all. We would still have wealthy individuals 
in this country who would have an opportunity to contribute and not 
shift that tax burden onto middle-income taxpayers.

  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague.
  I heard your proposal that would increase the exemption. I did not 
hear you address rates. Would you leave the rates at the present 50-
percent rate for estates that would be taxed?
  Mr. CONRAD. What I just described, I say to the Senator, I don't know 
if you had a chance to hear.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to look at it.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is to have a reform of estate tax. Instead of the $1 
million exemption currently, to go to $3 million for an individual, $6 
million for a couple. In this calculation, it costs $33 billion. I 
don't----
  Mr. NICKLES. What is the tax rate?
  Mr. CONRAD. I was going to get to that.
  I think this is at the 50-percent rate. I would certainly be open to 
an adjustment of that rate as well in order to try to arrive at a 
conclusion that was equitable and that is not as costly as full repeal.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I have been sitting here listening to this debate. Under 
the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, it is 
my understanding that Warren Buffet, who is worth $38 billion, I was 
told----
  Mr. CONRAD. How much?
  Mr. REID. Worth $38 billion.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is real money.
  Mr. REID. If he passed away, under this amendment offered by my 
friend from Arizona, he would pay no estate taxes.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. He would pay no estate tax.
  Mr. REID. What would happen to his accumulated wealth?
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, it would go as directed under his will. I am not 
privy to what distributions he has determined to make.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield for another 
question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I wanted to confirm that the Senator from North Dakota has 
listened to Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Sr., and George Soros. I have 
heard those three people state that they think it is ridiculous, 
senseless to have them pay no estate tax. Have you heard these three 
very wealthy men say this?
  Mr. CONRAD. I have. In fact, I have heard all three of those 
gentlemen and other wealthy individuals--George Soros, of course, who 
is a multibillionaire; Mr. Buffett, a multibillionaire; Mr. Gates, Sr., 
I don't think he himself is a multibillionaire, although he is 
obviously a very wealthy individual--say they believe it is un-American 
not to have an estate tax; that an estate tax was put in place first of 
all to raise revenue during a war, interestingly enough. That is how we 
initially got the estate tax, was to help pay for a war.
  Here we are on the brink of another war, and instead of figuring out 
how to pay for it, we are trying to figure out how to have trillions of 
dollars of additional tax cuts going primarily to the wealthiest among 
us. It really is kind of baffling. We are asking young men and women to 
be prepared to sacrifice everything, and we are prepared to sacrifice 
nothing, apparently.
  There are many wealthy individuals who believe the estate tax ought 
to be modified. I would strongly support that. I don't think a million-
dollar exemption anymore is realistic or very relevant in light of the 
economy today. I believe it ought to be dramatically increased. I think 
we ought to go to $3 million for an individual, $6 million for a 
couple, and we ought to do it now. I would also be open to a reduction 
in rates. I think 50 percent is too high. But repealing it all is 
unaffordable, it is unfair, and it is fundamentally a long-term 
mistake. Why? Because I think it will lead to the concentration of 
wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
  If you look back to the establishment of the estate tax, one of the 
foremost advocates was a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt. 
Theodore Roosevelt said it is a profound social mistake to allow wealth 
to accumulate in the hands of a handful of people who, by inheritance, 
become enormously powerful; that our society is a society based on 
merit and a society based on what an individual achieves, not what they 
inherit; and that if we want to become like Europe and have inherited 
wealth assume a greater and greater

[[Page S3970]]

role in society, then eliminate the estate tax, because in very short 
order you will have enormous wealth and power accumulate in the hands 
of a few.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. In my previous question to the Senator from North Dakota, I 
talked about three very successful men, all of whom are senior 
citizens. I want to relate to the Senator from North Dakota that about 
2 months ago I had dinner in Las Vegas with a man I had never met 
before. His name is Pierre Omidyar. Pierre is the founder of eBay. As a 
young man, he had this idea and on his computer developed eBay which is 
now a fantastically significant part of our economy. It is his. He, in 
spite of the stock market dropping, is worth $3 or $4 billion. He is 34 
years old.
  The whole purpose of his dinner with me, just the two of us, was to 
explain to me how he hoped I would work as hard as I could to make sure 
the estate tax is not repealed. Here is a man who is happily married, 
has two little children, and is one of the wealthiest men in America. 
He is not an old man; he is a very young man. And he believes, as does 
the Senator from North Dakota, that acquired wealth in large amounts is 
not good for America.

  I don't think I have given this story to the Senator from North 
Dakota, have I?
  Mr. CONRAD. No.
  Mr. REID. But if we have these very successful people talking about 
why they believe it is bad--I have been present when Mr. Gates, Mr. 
Buffett, and Mr. Soros all talked about their belief that by a roll of 
the dice, a roulette wheel, they were born in America. They said they 
could have their entrepreneur genius--those are words I am using, not 
theirs--and if they were born anyplace but in the United States, it 
wouldn't amount to much. They believe as a result of their having been 
born in America, they owe that to America.
  The Senator has heard those statements, has he not?
  Mr. CONRAD. I have.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator agree that those three older men and the 
young man have a concept of what the Senator from North Dakota is 
saying: Change the estate tax, raise it if it is appropriate. I believe 
it is appropriate. Would the Senator agree that we have tried to do 
that? We have asked unanimous consent. We have offered amendments that 
have been defeated. I want the Senator from North Dakota to see if he 
agrees with me. I think people want the political issue more than they 
want to change the estate tax. Would the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. CONRAD. I hope that is not the case. We have an opportunity now 
to resolve the estate tax for a long time. If we would reform it 
without repealing it, we would do something that is important and 
valuable. At $1 million, the estate tax is biting at much too low a 
level. Most of us in this Chamber would certainly degree with that 
statement. The economy has changed. The world has changed. We have not 
made a significant enough adjustment in the estate tax. We have not 
modernized the estate tax in a way that makes any sense.
  One million, it has been raised to that, but that has not kept pace 
with what has happened in the real world. As a result, it is putting 
too much pressure on small farmers and small business people. We could 
do something right now. We could raise that exemption to $3 million for 
an individual and $6 million for a couple. With planning, it could be 
substantially more than that. That would shield the vast majority of 
small businesses, the vast majority of individuals. At the same time, 
we would not have the extraordinary cost associated with repeal.
  We have to have current events inform our decisions. The hard reality 
is, we are in record deficit. We have deficits as far as the eye can 
see. And the situation is going to get worse when the baby boomers 
retire. From where is the money going to come? If you repeal the estate 
tax, that burden is going to have to shift somewhere else. It is going 
to raise taxes on middle-income people. That is where most of the taxes 
are paid. I don't think that is the appropriate outcome.
  I do think we ought to reform it. We ought to raise this. I would 
even be open to what the chairman of the committee has referenced as 
the tax rate itself, which at 50 percent seems unreasonably high as 
well. Perhaps in the time remaining here we might get together and come 
up with something that would really be a contribution to the country 
and a valuable change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from 
Arizona had offered an amendment. We had discussed, prior to his 
offering the amendment, that Senator Graham, I, and Senator Stabenow 
would offer an amendment on prescription drugs. I would ask the manager 
about the circumstances. Do we need to set aside the amendment that is 
now pending in order to offer the amendment on prescription drugs for 
Senator Graham, myself, and Senator Stabenow?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct. We need to set it aside. I think 
a couple of us want to speak on the amendment that is pending before we 
set it aside.
  I think the debate has been on the one side for the last 25 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand. We were told that the presentation of that 
was going to be 5 minutes, and we were going to move to that amendment. 
That has not quite happened. I wonder when we might expect to move to 
this amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to go through 
the Chair for parliamentary procedure. I didn't make that point, but I 
think it is important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator is finished with his inquiry, I yield to 
the Senator from Alabama 10 minutes. Would that be sufficient?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That would be sufficient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Kyl, which he failed to file earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is the Senator proceeding on a modified 
amendment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. My understanding is that it has been agreed to 
previously.
  Mr. CONRAD. There has been no request to modify the amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I withdraw that request at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is a death tax. I had in my office 
2 days ago Professor Harold Apolinsky, from the University of Alabama. 
He is indeed a brilliant professor. He has dedicated his life to the 
elimination of the death tax. He says it is an immoral tax. He feels so 
strongly about it that he has given an incredible amount of his time 
and effort and resources into seeking its elimination.
  I recall just how much of an impact it can have. A lady I know told 
me the story of her grandfather. President Reagan had been in office in 
1981, and they passed an amendment that changed the death tax a little 
bit.
  Do you know what it was then when they changed it? The rate was 70 
percent on estates over $175,000. Four Members in this body voted to 
keep it at that rate. They reduced it to 55 percent. Big deal.
  They were home for Christmas and the family was gathered. He had 
cancer and he was dying, fading fast. She told the story that every 
morning he asked what day it was. He died at 10 a.m. on January 1, the 
day the law took effect--his last great act for his family to protect a 
little bit more of the farm that he had built up over all those years.
  I believe we are in agreement on the modification now; is that 
correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has the floor.


                     Amendment No. 288, As Modified

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I reoffer the modification on behalf of 
Senator Kyl. I think maybe we have an understanding now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, and we will not object, we 
are happy to have the amendment modified

[[Page S3971]]

so that Senator Kyl's actual intention is embodied in the amendment. We 
are happy to allow that modification to be made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $508,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $595,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,076,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $3,909,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $12,218,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $28,750,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $347,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $508,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $595,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $1,076,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $3,909,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $12,218,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $28,750,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, decrease the amount by $347,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $508,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $595,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $1,076,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $3,909,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $12,218,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $28,750,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $347,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $508,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $595,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,076,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $3,909,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $12,218,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $28,750,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $347,000,000.
       On page 41, line 22, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 41, line 23, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 42, line 2, increase the amount by $508,000,000.
       On page 42, line 3, increase the amount by $508,000,000.
       On page 42, line 6, increase the amount by $595,000,000.
       On page 42, line 7, increase the amount by $595,000,000.
       On page 42, line 10, increase the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 42, line 11, increase the amount by $783,000,000.
       On page 42, line 14, increase the amount by $1,076,000,000.
       On page 42, line 15, increase the amount by $1,076,000,000.
       On page 42, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,909,000,000.
       On page 42, line 19, decrease the amount by $3,909,000,000.
       On page 42, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $12,218,000,000.
       On page 42, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $12,218,000,000.
       On page 43, line 2, decrease the amount by $28,750,000,000.
       On page 43, line 3, decrease the amount by $28,750,000,000.
       On page 43, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 43, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,515,000,000.
       On page 43, line 10, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 43, line 11, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.
       On page 43, line 14, decrease the amount by $347,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $347,000,000.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a big deal in real life. We are 
talking about taking half of somebody's accumulated estate. That is a 
lot. It does happen when people die, and there are professionals out 
there who do this business, and they try to manipulate and avoid and 
delay, and sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not. I 
want to talk about it in a little bit different vein tonight.
  I want to talk about what I think is a major problem in America. I 
know Senator Conrad is concerned about it. It is a collapse of smaller 
businesses and a trend toward larger and larger consolidation of 
business.
  I know an individual in Alabama--I met him at a town hall meeting. He 
and his father spoke to me. They told me they are paying $5,000 a month 
for life insurance on their father's life. They own three motels. They 
would like to expand motels. That $5,000 a month would probably help 
them buy a fourth motel. But they have to pay it for no other reason 
than if something happens to their father, they would have to pay an 
estate tax, and it would come out of their small business and they 
would lose it.
  Remember, this little chain of three motels is competing against 
Ramada, Holiday Inn, Marriott, and they are getting savaged every 
generation by a 50-percent tax on what the value of that family's 
estate is. That tax is not paid by the broadly held corporations, the 
international corporations. They never pay this tax. Think about it. It 
is a tax that falls on small businesses and individuals. It does not 
fall on big businesses.
  I know an individual who owns several thousand acres of land. He is 
very fortunate and very generous with ball teams and schools and 
charitable organizations and is a wonderful person. Some might say he 
is wealthy. But the big paper companies own millions of acres of land. 
They don't ever pay a death tax. He is competing, really, with them.
  I know International Paper owns 2 million acres of land. They are 
never impacted by the death tax.
  Ask yourself, why is it that banks in towns all over America are 
closing? In Mobile, AL, we had four local banks. They are all gone 
today. One or two came back, but all of them were sold out to the big 
ones. Why? Because the people who owned them got up in years and they 
were facing a confiscatory tax on what they had accumulated. They 
didn't have the cash to pay it. Everything they owned was in the bank, 
the business they built up. They had to get out and get liquid and 
create a situation in which they could avoid some taxes, perhaps, and 
have the cash to pay the tax because if they had to sell off the 
business all at once to pay the tax, it would collapse.
  I am saying, with absolute confidence, this death tax is a driving 
force behind the collapse of small businesses. Think about funeral 
homes. I know the occupant of the chair, who is from Tennessee, knows 
that the people running those funeral homes are usually good business 
people. As the population grew and more people came to the end of their 
life, they have done well in their business, but they are then facing 
the death tax. Maybe they have stock or bought some property, and they 
may have a home that has appreciated in value. All of a sudden they are 
looking at a big hit.
  Now funeral homes are being brought up by chains--broadly held 
corporations now have these funeral homes. They will never pay the 
death tax. It will never impact them.
  How do you with a $3 million company compete with Holiday Inn? We 
want to encourage $50 million companies, $100 million companies, and 
$200 million companies to compete against billion-dollar companies. We 
are chopping them off.
  A vision I have is that you go out in the woods and there is a little 
pine tree trying to grow and compete with the taller trees. But just as 
it breaks in and gets sunlight, somebody comes in and chops the top off 
and takes half of it. It will never be able to compete.
  We are putting them at a disadvantage. It cannot be overcome. I 
believe

[[Page S3972]]

it is unhealthy. If we care about small business, about encouraging 
innovation and competition and growth in America, we need to think 
about this. So I think there are a lot of reasons we ought to consider 
the elimination of this tax. It is certainly an unfair tax. People have 
paid their taxes, and then at the time of their death, they are taxed 
again in a way that savages the ability of a business to remain 
competitive.

  I note that the taxes are only a percent or two of the income to this 
Government. It is not critical to our revenue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We voted to eliminate the death tax once before. It is 
time to complete the job. I support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know there are colleagues who want to 
offer the prescription drug amendment. I will make a few comments on 
elimination of the death tax.
  A couple of people said there is no tax on death. I disagree. I can 
say that from experience. My father died, and there was a significant 
death tax. His death was a taxable event. If he had not died, there 
would not have been a taxable event. To say there is no death tax--
maybe it is something the pollsters came up with--is something about 
which I totally disagree.
  Under current law, if you die, if your estate is above a certain 
amount, your survivors will have to pay a tax. I call that a death tax. 
It can be called an inheritance tax, an estate tax, whatever one wants 
to call it.
  We did pass an exemption in 1981 that exempted surviving spouses from 
the death tax. I was one of the principal sponsors of that legislation 
in 1981. I worked to put that in the big bill. That was one of the big 
tax bills. I was a freshman Senator and I really wanted to put that in 
the bill because I learned the hard way.
  My father passed away. My mother had five kids, and she inherited a 
business. The Government came in and said: We want about half of the 
business. We negotiated, struggled, and agonized. I say we, I was a 
child. My mother struggled for years over what the size of this company 
was, how much of it the Government was entitled to--were they entitled 
to half of it, a third of it. Eventually, something was settled but she 
had to pay the Government. I guess I did, too. Survivors who wanted to 
keep the business had to pay a lot of tax. Why? Because my father died. 
So if somebody says there is not a death tax, I disagree.
  They say: We exempt spouses. That does not make any difference. If 
you want to pass your business on to your son, the Government says: We 
want half.
  Somebody said it only applies to 1 percent or 2 percent of the 
estates. What tax rate is right? Fifty percent? I appreciate the fact 
that my colleague from North Dakota said the rate is too high. It is 
too high. Why would we tax estates, a death tax, in excess of the 
personal tax rate? The maximum personal tax rate hopefully will soon be 
35 percent. The maximum corporate rate is 35 percent. Why should a 
taxable event caused by death be as much as 50 percent?
  Frankly, if we do not extend the law, it could go back to 55 and 60 
percent. In present law, the maximum is 50 percent. But if the 2001 law 
expires--if we go back before we made the changes in 2001, then the 
maximum tax rate returns to 55 percent, and on a taxable estate between 
$10 million and $17 million, there is an additional 5 percent 
surcharge. It will go back to 60 percent.
  I hear some colleagues say: We should exempt not just $1 million, but 
maybe $2 million or $3 million, maybe twice that amount for spouses. 
But above that, we still would have a rate of 50 percent. That is way 
too high. Why is that? Why in the world if somebody passes away should 
the Government take half? If somebody builds a business and let's say 
they build up the business, and maybe they are employing thousands of 
people, should the Government come in and take half? Whoever inherited 
the business has to sell it and pay taxes. The Government wins and the 
employees lose--they lose their jobs.

  What about George Soros? He is a billionaire. Or Mr. Buffett? My 
guess is--I do not know--my guess is they have foundations, they have 
great tax accountants, and they were able to set up foundations that do 
not pay tax, period.
  They do not pay tax on their earnings. They are tax exempt, and they 
do not pay death taxes. They built up these enormous foundations. 
Great, I am proud of them.
  There are a whole lot of people who own family farms and businesses 
that they are trying to grow and expand, and they are not big enough to 
hire attorneys and have foundations, and they are liable for a death 
tax. That hangs as a heavy cloud over a lot of businesses that decide 
not to grow because they know if they grow, the Government is going to 
get half.
  We did work in 2001 to bring that down. We gradually brought it down 
to, I think, 45 percent. It goes to zero in the year 2010, and then 
presumably if we do not pass a bill to change it, by 2011, it will pop 
back up to 55, maybe even as much as 60 percent.
  Senator Kyl says let's expand that zero bracket. The resolution 
before us presumes--presumes--that Congress will extend the provisions 
in the 2001 tax bill, so it would extend the repeal of the death tax 
for the year not only 2010, but also 2011 and 2012. Senator Kyl's 
amendment says it should be for the year 2009. That will be 4 years 
with a zero tax on the taxable event of death.
  If somebody says they pay no tax, they do not understand Senator 
Kyl's amendment. They do not understand the law we passed. Senator 
Kyl's amendment and the present law says a taxable event is moved from 
death to the sale of the property. What does the sale of the property 
mean? It means capital gains. What is the tax rate on capital gains? It 
is 20 percent.
  Also in that provision we passed in 2001, it says we eliminate or 
stop the step-up in basis over a certain amount. What does that mean? 
It means if George Soros has a net worth of $38 billion and he passed 
away, if he has not paid capital gains on that net worth and there is 
no step-up in basis and the initial investment was much less than that, 
then he would be taxed at 20 percent on that incremental value.
  Maybe if he had initial investment of, let's say, $18 billion--I 
doubt it would be that much; maybe a lot less--he would pay 20 percent 
on the incremental difference between the carry-over basis and what it 
was at the time of sale. If somebody in his company did not sell the 
business, there would not be a tax.
  I like to think of this more in the vernacular of a small business. 
If a small business wants to pass it on to their kids and the kids do 
not sell the business, they do not pay a tax. But when and if they do 
sell, they pay a tax. There would be capital gains on a carried-over 
basis.
  It is interesting, the people who have scored some of these 
amendments, Joint Tax, sort of forgot to account the offsetting 
additional income that would be generated from the sale of operations, 
the capital gains that would be measured.

  The law we passed in 2001 says: Let's change the taxable event from 
death to when the property is sold. If someone receives property as a 
result of someone's death and they sell it, then they pay capital 
gains. If they do not sell it, then there is no capital gains. The 
taxable event would no longer be death; it would be when the property 
is sold. It makes eminent good sense.
  There are other ways of doing this, but the present law in taxing 
estates and taxing inherited property or taxing a business or a farm or 
a ranch just makes no sense whatsoever. The big boys are able to figure 
out ways to get around it through fancy accountants and foundations, 
and they do not pay the tax. A lot of middle-income people and smaller 
businesses pay a lot of tax. It really does inhibit their growth.
  I compliment my colleague from Arizona for his amendment. I am 
intrigued by the interest of my colleagues from North Dakota and Nevada 
in maybe trying to do something. I think we can do something, and we 
have the opportunity to do it. It will not be done in this bill. We did 
not put in a reconciliation instruction dealing with this provision, 
but it is something we can deal with and this Congress ought to deal 
with. There is some money on the table

[[Page S3973]]

to make that available. We should have a tax rate on a taxable estate 
or inherited property in the neighborhood of 20 percent. You might 
generate some money.
  Right now this tax is counterproductive in so many ways. I will give 
one example. Our business did not grow because we were thinking at that 
time that the Government would take so much, so why would anybody 
expand if the Government is going to come in and take it? And how could 
you pass property on from one generation to another generation to 
another generation if the Government wanted to come in and take half 
every time? It just does not work. It is very difficult for a privately 
held business, if they want to pass it on from the second and third 
generation, to do so if the Government is going to take half. That 
business may be more than $3 million. That business may be $20 million. 
It may be $100 million. Think of some great companies that might be 
privately held. If the owners pass away, should the Government take 
half? I do not think so. I would hope not.
  I am intrigued by the ideas that different colleagues have.
  I encourage an open dialogue. I think my colleague from Arizona is to 
be complimented for his work in this field. I am intrigued and 
encouraged by some of the debate I am hearing. I would love to see us 
come up with a bipartisan, permanent resolution on how to address the 
estate tax. The present law is not satisfactory. It needs to be 
amended. It needs to be addressed, and I would love to see this 
Congress this year pass something we could all be proud of that would 
be a significant and positive reform for businesses and individuals all 
across the country.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator, the manager of the bill for the 
majority, on the next amendment which will be offered, which will be 
prescription drugs, allow a time of 40 minutes on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I cannot agree to a 40 minute time limit----
  Mr. REID. I withdraw the request.
  Mr. NICKLES. On an amendment that deals with $200 billion. That would 
be so many billion dollars per minute. That might be a little 
expensive. I will be happy to work with my colleagues.
  If no other Senators wish to speak on the underlying amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so an amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Florida 
can be offered at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 294

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Stabenow, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Graham of Florida, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 294.

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

(Purpose: To provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit in Medicare 
                that is available to all beneficiaries)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $7,580,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $23,341,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $26,169,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $29,003,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $32,406,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $35,710,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $39,465,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $43,508,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $47,687,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $52.440,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $58,514,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, increase the amount by $7,589,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $23,341,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $26,169,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $29,003,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $32,406,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $35,710,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $39,465,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $43,508,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $47,687,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $52,440,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $53,514,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $6,750,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $12,607,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,089,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $11,134,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $13,388,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $18,051,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $23,189,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $28,020,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $33,135,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $39,338,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $6,750,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $12,607,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,089,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $11,134,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $13,388,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $18,051,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $23,189,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $28,020,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, increase the amount by $33,135,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $39,338,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $7,645,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $30,091,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $38,776,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $31,092,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $21,272,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $22,322,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $21,414,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $20,319,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $19,667,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $19,305,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $19,176,000,000.
       On page 6, line 5, decrease the amount by $7,645,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, decrease the amount by $37,737,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, decrease the amount by $76,513,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $107,604,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, decrease the amount by $128,877,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $151,199,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $172,612,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by 
     $192,931,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $212,599,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $231,903,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $251,080,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $7,645,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, decrease the amount by $37,737,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, decrease the amount by $76,513,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $107,604,000,000.
       On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $128,877,000,000.
       On page 6, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $151,199,000,000.
       On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $172,612,000,000.
       On page 6, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $192,931,000,000.
       On page 7, line 1, decrease the amount by $212,599,000,000.
       On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $231,903,000,000.
       On page 7, line 3, decrease the amount by $251,080,000,000.

[[Page S3974]]

       On page 29, line 6, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 7, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $10,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 14, increase the amount by $2,498,000,000.
       On page 29, line 15, increase the amount by $2,498,000,000.
       On page 29, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $17,195,000,000.
       On page 29, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $17,195,000,000.
       On page 29, line 22, increase the amount by 
     $20,630,000,000.
       On page 29, line 23, increase the amount by 
     $20,630,000,000.
       On page 30, line 2, increase the amount by $26,482,000,000.
       On page 30, line 3, increase the amount by $26,482,000,000.
       On page 30, line 6, increase the amount by $32,751,000,000.
       On page 30, line 7, increase the amount by $32,751,000,000.
       On page 30, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $38,644,000,000.
       On page 30, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $38,644,000,000.
       On page 30, line 14, increase the amount by 
     $44,787,000,000.
       On page 30, line 15, increase the amount by 
     $44,787,000,000.
       On page 30, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $52,013,000,000.
       On page 30, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $52,013,000,000.
       On page 40, line 2, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 40, line 3, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 40, line 6, decrease the amount by $750,000,000.
       On page 40, line 7, decrease the amount by $750,000,000.
       On page 40, line 10, decrease the amount by $2,607,000,000.
       On page 40, line 11, decrease the amount by $2,607,000,000.
       On page 40, line 14, decrease the amount by $4,587,000,000.
       On page 40, line 15, decrease the amount by $4,587,000,000.
       On page 40, line 18, decrease the amount by $6,061,000,000.
       On page 40, line 19, decrease the amount by $6,061,000,000.
       On page 40, line 22, decrease the amount by $7,242,000,000.
       On page 40, line 23, decrease the amount by $7,242,000,000.
       On page 41, line 2, decrease the amount by $8,431,000,000.
       On page 41, line 3, decrease the amount by $8,431,000,000.
       On page 41, line 6, decrease the amount by $9,562,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, decrease the amount by $9,562,000,000.
       On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $10,624,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $10,624,000,000.
       On page 41, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $11,652,000,000.
       On page 41, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $11,652,000,000.
       On page 41, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $12,675,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $12,675,000,000.
       On page 61, line 12, insert ``on an equal basis with 
     respect to benefit level regardless of whether such 
     beneficiaries remain in the traditional medicare fee-for-
     service program under parts A and B of such title or enroll 
     in a private plan under the medicare program'' after 
     ``prescription drugs''.
       On page 61, line 19, strike $400,000,000,000 and insert 
     $619,000,000,000.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will describe the general direction of 
this amendment. I will be followed by my colleague, Senator Graham of 
Florida, who will talk in greater specifics about the particular 
approach dealing with a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. 
Following that, my colleague from Michigan will also speak.
  This amendment would increase the amount of money available to put a 
prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program. I think we are long 
past the point where the question is whether we should put a 
prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program. The question is no 
longer whether. I think almost all Members of the Congress agree we 
ought to do that. The question is how. How do we do it? What kind of a 
prescription drug benefit do we put in the Medicare Program?
  Senior citizens are 12 percent of the population in our country, yet 
they consume one-third of all prescription drugs. That is important to 
understand. As people grow older, they have more health challenges. 
They are able to access these miracle drugs, the new miracle drugs that 
extend life in so many areas, but miracle drugs produce no miracles if 
one cannot afford them.
  At an age in life when people reach retirement and have diminished 
income, they discover that they cannot afford to buy the miracle drugs 
they need, the drugs their doctor prescribes, for someone who may have 
heart disease, diabetes, and several other maladies. We hear senior 
citizens say over and over again that they go to the grocery store with 
a pharmacy in the back, and they have to go to the pharmacy first to 
find out how much they are going to have left for food because they 
cannot afford all of their medicine and food.
  If we had created Medicare last year, there is no question that we 
would have included in that Medicare Program a prescription drug 
benefit. Instead, Congress created it in the 1960s. Most of us were not 
here then. So there was no prescription drug benefit put in the 
Medicare Program because most of the lifesaving drugs that are now 
available were not then in existence. They are now, and senior citizens 
are living longer and better lives. Part of it is because we have these 
prescription drugs that can extend life.
  So the question is, How do we now modify the Medicare Program to add 
a benefit for prescription drugs, to help so many senior citizens who 
simply cannot afford them?
  I had a hearing in Dickinson, ND, one evening on the issue of 
prescription drugs in Medicare. An oncologist told me about his cancer 
patient, a woman on Medicare who had a mastectomy because of breast 
cancer. He prescribed a prescription drug for her. He said: You need to 
take this prescription drug in order to reduce the chances of 
recurrence of this breast cancer. She said: What will it cost? He told 
her the cost of the drugs. She said: Doctor, I cannot possibly buy that 
prescription drug. I have no money. I will just take my chances.
  We do not have to do that. Our amendment is very simple. The 
underlying budget proposed $400 billion for a Medicare prescription 
drug plan. We propose that the portion of the tax cut in this budget 
amendment dealing with the tax cut for dividends be used instead of 
cutting taxes for dividends in the following manner: That $219 billion 
be provided in this amendment in order to increase above the $400 
billion, so we would have then $619 billion for a prescription drug 
plan in the Medicare Program. The additional $251 billion in savings 
generated by this amendment would be used to reduce the Federal budget 
deficit.

  We are doing two things: Making more money available so a decent 
prescription drug plan can be offered, and my colleague from Florida 
will more adequately describe exactly what kind of a program can be 
offered for that, and then in addition, reducing the Federal budget 
deficit.
  I will make a couple of additional points. Our amendment also 
establishes a very important principle for a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. Medicare beneficiaries who choose to remain in traditional 
fee-for-service Medicare should receive the same level of benefit for 
prescription drugs as do others. The President has proposed something 
that says we will provide a prescription drug benefit but we will do it 
only if someone leaves their fee-for-service type of care and goes to 
an HMO. That is not fair. That is not the right thing to do. Senior 
citizens ought to be able to go to the doctor of their choice and get 
the health care they need from the doctor they have always been seeing 
for their problems. Yet that will not be the case under the President's 
proposal.
  So we say let's increase the amount of money so we can have a 
reasonable and a good prescription drug benefit in the Medicare 
Program. Let's do that at the same time we reduce the Federal budget 
deficit with the other money that we save from this tax change, and 
let's also establish the principle, as we do in this amendment, that 
all Medicare beneficiaries ought to have the availability of this 
prescription drug benefit, even if they choose to stay in a fee-for-
service program. That is a very important issue.
  Let me make one final point. As is always the case when we debate the 
budget in the Senate, we are confronted with a series of choices, 
difficult choices sometimes but nonetheless choices. We can make a 
decision about that. We can decide that it is far more important, as 
some have done in the Senate, to exempt dividends from taxation than it 
is to have a good prescription drug benefit in the Medicare

[[Page S3975]]

Program. I do not happen to share that choice. I think that is a 
terrible choice. That is a horrible choice to make in terms of 
priorities. So with this amendment we make a different choice. We 
believe that this is one of those circumstances that demands and 
certainly deserves the attention of the Senate. I think every Senator 
is on record as saying we ought to do something about this issue of 
prescription drugs in Medicare, but we have had difficulty trying to 
find the right approach.
  We have all kinds of different plans. What we propose with this 
amendment is to have sufficient money, $619 billion, to put together a 
plan of which we can be proud, to put together a plan that works, one 
that really helps senior citizens and one that does not force them all 
into managed care or HMO organizations as a price for them to be able 
to access prescription drugs that they need to continue to lead a good 
life. That is all this amendment is about. It is a simple choice. It is 
a lot of money, but it is a simple choice. Let's choose the right 
thing. Let's choose to do what all of us have said we want to do, and 
that is to put a good prescription drug plan in the Medicare Program.
  My colleague, Senator Graham from Florida, is going to describe in 
more detail exactly what that program could look like and how that 
program would work for senior citizens. I am very pleased to have 
worked with him, as well as the Senator from Michigan, on this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with my 
colleagues from North Dakota and Michigan so that when we come to 
debate the specifics of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, we 
will be able to provide a real benefit, a real benefit with no 
gimmicks, no gaps, no hidden ``gotchas.''

  Last year, 52 Senators voted for a plan that provides all Medicare 
beneficiaries with an affordable, comprehensive, and universal drug 
benefit delivered through Medicare. The proposal offered last year 
received 52 votes and was very direct. It provided that seniors would 
pay a $25 per month voluntary premium. This program is not mandatory; 
seniors will decide for themselves whether they want to participate. 
There would be no deductible. Seniors would pay no more than a $10 
copayment for generic medications and $40 for medically necessary 
brand-name medications. After $4,000 was paid by the senior out of 
pocket, Medicare would pay the remaining expenses under a catastrophic 
position. Special consideration was provided for the lowest income non-
Medicaid elderly by picking up all, or a portion of, their monthly 
premiums and copayments.
  The plan we offered last year that received 52 votes, with the 
inflation and with the change in the demographics of the elderly 
population, would cost, over the next 10 years, $619 billion. The 
budget resolution which is before the Senate today would limit the 
expenditure for a prescription drug benefit to no more than $400 
billion. Removed from the $400 billion would be the cost of any other 
changes to the Medicare system.
  Our colleagues on the Budget Committee have adopted the $400 billion 
from the President's framework for adding a prescription drug benefit 
to Medicare. It is unclear precisely what we would be buying with $400 
billion, but let's talk about what we know of some of the principles of 
the President's prescription drug plan.
  He would provide, for those Medicare beneficiaries in the traditional 
fee-for-service program, that there would be coverage of prescription 
drugs for the lowest income--the question mark as to what that 
demarcation would be. They would receive up to $600 a year for their 
prescription drug benefits. I point out to the Presiding Officer and my 
colleagues, the average Medicare beneficiary last year paid $2,100 for 
their prescription drugs.
  Other than the lowest income, there would be no ongoing benefit and 
there would be a catastrophic benefit at a yet to be specified level. 
That is what 89 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries--those who have 
elected to stay in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare--would have 
available.
  Mr. President, 11 percent of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries 
are in some form of managed care. Under the President's plan, they 
would receive a prescription drug benefit, maybe one very similar to 
the one that 52 Senators voted for last year. We do not have the 
details to have a clear understanding of what that 11 percent would 
receive.
  The only way you can fit an affordable, comprehensive, universal 
prescription drug benefit is by not making it universal, not covering 
seniors who are in the traditional Medicare Program unless they either 
have very low incomes or very high drug costs. For instance, if the 
catastrophic level were to be set at $5,000, less than 3 percent of the 
Medicare beneficiaries would spend that much and therefore be eligible 
to participate in the catastrophic provisions of the President's plan.
  The President's proposal buys a drug benefit for $400 billion by 
providing a benefit--even that is undefined--only for those seniors who 
will enroll in some form of managed care. This has been referred to as 
a plan to herd seniors into managed care because their needs for a 
prescription drug benefit are so desperate. No one can argue a benefit 
like the one proposed by President Bush meets the goals of an 
affordable, universal, comprehensive drug benefit which is what 
America's seniors need.

  The most fundamental reform we can make in the Medicare Program is to 
offer to all Medicare beneficiaries, including the 89 percent who have 
elected to enroll in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, all 
beneficiaries--those as well as the 11 percent who have currently 
elected to participate in a managed care program--a universal, 
comprehensive, affordable prescription drug benefit. Why is this so 
important? In my opinion, it is so important because it is the 
fundamental reform which Medicare must make.
  Medicare is a program of the 1960s. It is appropriately described as 
a sickness program. If you are ill enough to require a physician's 
attention or, even more, require hospitalization, Medicare will pay a 
substantial proportion of your costs. What Medicare will not pay is the 
cost to keep you out of the doctor's office and out of the hospital. 
Why? Because almost every preventive care program has as one of its key 
elements the use of prescription drugs. These are the modern miracles 
of medicine. They are almost always required if we are to be able to 
manage a condition before it becomes critical.
  Thus, to have a Medicare Program which makes that fundamental reform 
from a sickness system to a system that promotes the highest level of 
health, it must have a prescription drug benefit. Certainly some 
seniors under the President's proposal will have no choice but to move 
from their current preference for traditional fee-for-service, where 
they have the maximum number of choices, into a managed care system, 
where their choices can be severely restricted.
  As my colleague from North Dakota has already said, this debate is 
about priorities. Is the statement the Senate wants to make that we 
give greater importance to an oversized tax cut than we do to a real, 
affordable, comprehensive, and universal drug benefit for all seniors? 
I think the answer is clear.
  In addition to providing adequate funding for a prescription drug 
benefit, this amendment will also provide $177 billion over the next 10 
years for deficit reduction, which would, in fact, become $251 billion 
for deficit reduction by including the interest cost which we will have 
to pay for $177 billion over the next 10 years. This is a needed remedy 
for the rapidly increasing deficits that we have experienced, almost as 
urgent as the needed benefit of prescription drugs for older Americans.
  We are suggesting these two elements, a $219 billion addition to the 
Medicare account in order to be able to fund an affordable, 
comprehensive, and universal prescription drug benefit, and $177 
billion for deficit reductions--we are suggesting it be paid by a 
reduction in the provision for tax reductions of $396 billion. That 
number was not just chosen by accident. That is the amount

[[Page S3976]]

the President has proposed for his dividend tax cut, making dividends 
no longer taxable.
  I believe the dividend tax cut should be reduced, first because it 
will do very little to stimulate our sluggish economy, and specifically 
because it will do very little to benefit America's seniors. I heard 
earlier today the argument made in support of the elimination of 
taxation of dividends, that it was a critical matter for America's 
seniors. Most American seniors will not benefit at all, and the average 
tax reduction for America's seniors, by eliminating the taxation on 
dividends, is estimated to be $118 per year.
  Contrast that minimal savings for seniors with the savings that 
seniors will secure through a comprehensive, universal, and affordable 
prescription drug benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment will 
not only affect our seniors and our ability to provide them with a 
reasonable prescription drug benefit, it will also provide Congress the 
direction required to assure responsible spending of the taxpayers' 
money. This is a goal, not just for seniors, it is a goal which all 
Americans deserve.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield one-
half hour to the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first commend my friend and colleague 
from Florida for his ongoing leadership on the issue of Medicare 
prescription drug coverage. I am very hopeful we will be able to put 
into place the bill he has described so eloquently that would greatly 
benefit all older Americans and the disabled. It is my pleasure to join 
with him and with my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, Mr. 
Dorgan, as well, who has also been an outspoken leader both on Medicare 
prescription drugs and also on issues relating to containing costs, 
opening the borders to Canada, and other issues that would lower 
prices.
  It is my pleasure to join with both of them in what I believe to be 
one of the most important, if not the most important, amendment we will 
be addressing to the budget resolution.
  As my colleagues have said, the budget resolution is about American 
priorities and values. We lay out for the year and then project for 10 
years what our most important priorities are, just as a family does in 
their own budget. We on this side of the aisle have argued that, of 
course, safety and security is critical. Education and the opportunity 
for young people and adults to have skills and be able to be successful 
in our society is critically important. Also, health care, the ability 
to have health care for your family, and the ability for every senior 
and every disabled person to know that, in fact, Medicare will be 
strong and will be there for them when they retire when they are 
eligible, and that it will reflect the way health care is provided 
today is also important.
  We all know today prescription drug coverage is the primary way to 
provide health care, both for prevention, to be able to stop disease, 
and be able to monitor and keep us from having to have an operation or 
be in the hospital. Outpatient prescription drugs are a critical part 
of the way health care is provided today.
  Medicare, which is a great American success story, simply needs to be 
updated in order to cover prescription drugs. That is what this 
amendment does. It says that as a value for our families and a priority 
for Americans, we choose to set aside dollars for a comprehensive, 
affordable prescription drug benefit for all seniors. We want to do 
that through Medicare, through strengthening, protecting, and 
preserving Medicare. It also says when we have to make choices, if we 
have to choose--as we always have to do in our own budget, in the 
Federal budget--between another tax cut for those earning millions of 
dollars a year, or putting dollars in the pockets of our seniors to 
help pay for their prescription drugs, their medicine, we choose 
prescription drug coverage for our seniors. We also choose paying down 
the debt to protect Social Security and Medicare for the future.
  This amendment does two very important things: It guarantees that we 
will have enough resources to do a comprehensive Medicare prescription 
drug benefit. It also says the debt that is being accumulated by this 
country is absolutely unacceptable, and we need to be putting money 
aside to pay down that debt in order to make sure we can keep interest 
rates low to spur the economy so our families can buy homes and cars 
and send their children to college and not experience double-digit 
interest rates. We need to keep that debt down. That also allows us to 
protect Social Security and Medicare funds for the future for the trust 
funds. That priority, and a prescription drug coverage priority, is 
absolutely essential.
  We also say something else that is very important. We need to make 
sure that traditional Medicare that has been there is there regardless 
of where you live. My great State is a huge State geographically, 9 
million people plus. We need to make sure the seniors in Detroit or 
Marquette or Ironwood or Three Rivers or Benton Harbor or my home in 
Lansing all have the same ability and the same dependability in terms 
of Medicare prescription drugs. They will know the premiums are the 
same, their cost, their ability to choose their own doctor, their 
ability to choose their own medicines, to go to their own local 
pharmacy--that should be available regardless of where you live.
  One of my great concerns is we have seen, unfortunately, more and 
more talk about reforming Medicare, which I believe is a code word for 
privatizing Medicare. All we are seeing leads us to believe that the 
administration wants to privatize Medicare and require seniors, if they 
are going to get real health care coverage that includes prescription 
drugs, to go into private insurance systems; to go into an HMO or 
another kind of system.
  The administration has indicated, if they stay in traditional 
Medicare where the overwhelming majority of seniors are, they are 
willing to offer a discount card that the GAO tells us would be about 
$3.31 savings on a prescription. That is not very much if you are 
someone who is paying $100 or $150 or $200 for a simple 30-day 
prescription.

  Then they have said: If you accumulate thousands of dollars--we don't 
know exactly what the number would be, but have catastrophic needs--you 
would be able to get some kind of help. We don't know at what point 
they would designate that, but if you want to get real help with 
prescription drugs, if you want to be covered for prescription drugs, 
then you would have to go to the private sector to be covered.
  That is absolutely unacceptable. Seniors of this country have already 
chosen between Medicare and going into the private sector. We have that 
now. We have traditional Medicare and we have something called 
Medicare+Choice that is a private sector HMO approach. It is your 
choice as a senior.
  In fact, my mother chose to go into an HMO herself in Michigan, and 
had a good experience, but the Medicare beneficiaries were dropped from 
that HMO because they decided not to cover them anymore. And that has 
happened to over 41,000 people just in Michigan.
  What we have seen is that when seniors are being given a choice 
between traditional Medicare and the HMO system, they have already 
chosen: They have chosen Medicare, traditional Medicare. But for the 
small percent who chose to go into the private sector, they found it 
was not dependable. For my own mother, who chose to do that, she found 
she could not count on it. It was not ultimately available to her. And 
now, in Michigan, only 2 percent of people who are on Medicare can even 
qualify, can even find a private insurer that will cover them, and they 
all are in the eastern part of our State. So if you live in Lansing or 
Flint or Saginaw or Grand Rapids or on up in Traverse City or on up in 
the upper peninsula, you don't even have that choice because there is 
nothing available.
  So what we have said in this amendment is that seniors need to know 
the prescription drug benefit that everybody is talking about should 
not just be available if you choose a private insurance policy, private 
insurance model through Medicare; you should have the right to have a 
choice of traditional Medicare and have the very same prescription drug 
coverage.
  That is what this amendment says. If we want to offer seniors choice, 
then

[[Page S3977]]

we need to make sure we offer them a real choice: the choice of 
Medicare as they know it, Medicare as they have been able to depend 
upon, as well as the other private sector models that have been 
proposed by the President and our colleagues.
  This amendment, I believe, is exactly what the seniors of America are 
asking us to do: simply update Medicare, strengthen the system they 
count on, and make sure they have affordable prescription drug 
coverage. I strongly support this amendment. I am proud to be 
cosponsoring this amendment with my colleagues. The dual goal of having 
Medicare prescription drug coverage and a major payment on the debt is 
very important.
  When we look at who the beneficiaries of Medicare are--our seniors--
the majority of them are women. So I speak as one of the women of the 
Senate to say that the women of this country are counting on Medicare 
as well as Social Security. This is very real for the older women of 
our country. They are counting on us to fulfill the real promise of 
Medicare.
  Mr. President, our seniors, as well as everyone who is involved with 
prescription drugs, are counting on us to do one other thing. I wish to 
speak to that for a moment. It relates to another amendment I will be 
offering later on in this debate that needs to be coupled with this 
amendment, and that is the question of lowering the price of 
prescription drugs.

  We need to update Medicare to cover prescriptions. But at the same 
time, we need to lower the price through more competition, so that we 
can afford that coverage and be able to make it available to as many 
people as possible.
  Along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Schumer, I am 
going to be offering an amendment the purpose of which is to reduce 
prescription drug prices for everyone, with the passage of legislation 
similar to S. 812, which passed overwhelmingly by the Senate last 
summer, a bill that contained provisions relating to generic drug 
reform, reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada--in other 
words, opening the border to Canada for our citizens--and State 
authority with respect to Medicaid drug rebate agreements. What that 
means is supporting our States that are being creative in finding ways 
to use their authority to lower the prices of prescription drugs for 
their citizens.
  This amendment would take the approximately $7.4 billion minimal of 
savings through the generic drug reform we passed last summer coupled 
with any savings--and as yet they have not been able to calculate the 
savings--that we know would be there from opening the border to Canada, 
and dropping prices in half. But we would take those dollars and put it 
into a fund that is already in the budget resolution--a $50 billion 
fund for the uninsured--and we would add those budget savings to that 
fund for programs that help individuals and small businesses obtain 
health insurance.
  We know the majority of those without insurance--in fact, we are told 
that 75 percent of the people who do not have health insurance are 
working, and they are working for small businesses. So this issue of 
lowering prices is very important for all businesses, but I would say 
particularly small businesses, that have seen their premiums--at least 
in Michigan, we know, according to Michigan Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 
that premiums for small businesses have doubled, at least, in the last 
5 years. And we know, when we look behind those prices, as well as the 
prices for the Big Three automakers, and for other major employers, 
that the major reason the price of health care is going up is because 
of the explosion in the price of prescription drugs. The average retail 
prescription drug increase for brand names is three times the rate of 
inflation--three times the rate of inflation. So we have seen an 
explosion.
  By the way, this relates back to Medicare coverage because a majority 
of those who are uninsured who are paying those prices are our senior 
citizens. In fact, the people who pay the highest prices in the world 
today are Americans, predominantly our seniors, who do not have 
insurance and walk into the local pharmacy and need to buy their 
medicine. So there is an important partnership here of both Medicare 
prescription drug coverage and lowering prices for everyone.
  Last year, on a bipartisan vote, I was very proud of this body, my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who joined together to, first of 
all, tighten up the rules and eliminate loopholes in relation to 
unadvertised brands, what we call generic drugs, that are supposed to 
be available when a patent runs out on a brand name. The formulas are 
supposed to be available so they can be manufactured at a much cheaper 
price, oftentimes 50 percent, sometimes as much as 70 percent less. We 
know by having more use of unadvertised brands, and they being more 
available on the market, we can drop insurance rates, we can drop 
prescription drug prices for our seniors and for everyone.
  We also know if we simply open the border to Canada--I find this 
whole issue so amazing because we trade with Canada on everything 
except prescription drugs. In fact, in my great State of Michigan, 
right now we are seeing truckloads of trash coming in from Canada that 
we are told we cannot stop from going into Michigan landfills because 
we have open trade laws. So we can't stop the trash, but we can't bring 
in prescription drugs that would help our seniors and help our families 
be able to lower their costs, by bringing in American-made, American-
subsidized prescriptions, that are sold in Canada at reduced prices.
  That was the second part of what we did last summer, to pass a bill 
that opened the border. And we know that by doing that, licensed 
pharmacists could develop business relationships. Whether it is a 
pharmacist at the hospital, a pharmacist at the local pharmacy, a 
pharmacist working with health clinics or at a university, they could 
bring these back and make prescription drugs available. We ought to be 
doing that. It is very perplexing and frustrating that that is not 
happening.
  In fact, to add insult to injury, the FDA has just informed us in the 
last week based on pressure from the pharmaceutical industry that not 
only are they not going to open the border, but they are going to begin 
enforcing the law against those who help our seniors. Whether it is an 
insurance company paying for reimbursement, whether it is others 
helping our seniors to go across the border to get their prescriptions 
at a lower price, working through a Canadian doctor and pharmacy, the 
FDA now says they will clamp down on that rather than working with us 
to open the borders in a safe way. This is the second part of how we 
lower prices.
  The third way we lower prices is by supporting States that have been 
working to use their group purchasing power to negotiate with the 
pharmaceutical companies that do business with them on Medicaid, to 
negotiate with them to provide rebates and discounts for the uninsured 
in their State. A number of States have done that, and they have all 
been challenged, unfortunately, by the pharmaceutical industry. We want 
to make it clear that States have the ability on behalf of their 
citizens to advocate and to negotiate lower prices. That is the second 
amendment we will be offering.
  Again, we will be offering an amendment that says we will reduce 
prescription drug prices. We will save dollars for the Federal 
Government, and then those dollars will be redirected into a fund and 
put aside to support small businesses to provide health care coverage 
for their employees.
  The budget resolution is about priorities. We all know that. It is 
about values. It is about who we are as Americans. When I talk with 
people in Michigan, there is not a higher priority now than health 
care: Families struggling with the cost of medicine; seniors not having 
access to prescription drug coverage; businesses trying to figure out 
how to pay the bill; employees being told their pay will be frozen so 
their employer can pay the health care costs; those who are losing 
their jobs finding themselves in a situation where they are losing 
their health care. We even know that our reservists and members of the 
National Guard currently serving us in the gulf may find themselves not 
having health insurance for themselves and their families.
  This is an issue that touches each and every one of us. Every year we 
talk about it. Every session we talk about it. It is complicated. It 
involves setting priorities on funding. Too much of the time, we set it 
aside to go on to something else. I hope we will not do that

[[Page S3978]]

this time, that we will make it clear, through this budget, that 
Medicare prescription drug coverage, that health care for small 
businesses and their employees, that lowering the prices of 
prescription drugs will be a top American priority. We can say, we will 
wait until next year, we will wait until the next budget resolution, 
but we can't say, we will wait until next year to get sick, to get 
cancer, or that a family will wait until next year until grandma or 
grandpa need a nursing home or their children get sick.
  Health care for American families is an urgent matter. It is an 
urgent matter for everyone. It needs to be an urgent matter for all of 
us here in the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment on Medicare 
prescription drug coverage, and I urge my colleagues as well to join 
with us in the amendment to reduce the price of prescription drugs and 
support our small businesses that are struggling to provide health care 
for their employees.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, acting as the leader, I yield myself 7 
minutes, with the understanding that following me, the Senator from 
Iowa will be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate and wanted 
to make a few observations. I understand the Senator from Iowa is 
prepared to perhaps be a little more erudite than I. But I have heard 
personal references, and I must come share a few personal references, 
not specifically on this amendment but on the subject of Medicare.
  The statement has been made that Medicare is a great success story. 
Medicare is a disaster. Everybody who deals with it understands that 
except the Congress. We have to understand that Medicare, in order to 
work properly, is going to have to be overhauled from top to bottom as 
quickly as possible. Taking the assumption that the present Medicare 
system is working well and all we need to do is add a little here and 
add a little there will further compound the disaster.
  Let me give two examples that I hope will help illustrate this. The 
first is a town meeting where a woman came to me and said: Can you do 
something to fix Medicare?
  I said: Well, tell me what the problem is.
  She said: I am a professional woman. I am a college graduate. I think 
I am fairly intelligent. I handle my mother's affairs. My mother is in 
her eighties. She is on Medicare. I have finally figured out how to 
deal with Medicare. I throw away everything unopened, and at the end of 
the month I call the Salt Lake clinic and say: How much do I owe you 
for my mother? Trying to wade through the paperwork is so daunting, I 
can't even begin to understand anything they send to me. The assumption 
that my 85-year-old mother would be able to handle any of it is absurd. 
I tried. I struggled. I got the manuals. Finally, I discovered the way 
to deal with Medicare is to throw away everything unopened and once a 
month call the Salt Lake clinic and say: How much do I owe you for my 
mother?
  This is a family and a circumstance where money is not a problem. 
Simply coping with the paperwork is overwhelming.
  Second example: I have a daughter of whom I am enormously proud. She 
graduated with her master's degree from George Washington University 
after her bachelor's at Boston University. She got a job in a nursing 
home. She is a speech therapist. She is also a very enthusiastic young 
lady. She called me after about 4 days on the job.
  Dad, she said--exploding over the telephone--you are a Senator. You 
have to fix Medicare.
  I said: Now calm down. Tell me what your problem is.
  She said: Medicare is a disaster. Medicare is terrible. Let me tell 
you my experiences.
  And she began describing some of the problems she had in giving 
proper care to the people in this nursing home and always being told, 
no, you can't do that until you check to see whether or not Medicare 
will cover it.
  She said: I thought that would be a fairly simple thing to find out. 
So I go down the hall and say: Will Medicare cover this procedure? It 
takes days to get an answer to that question.
  Then she said: Dad, do you know who the highest paid person in this 
facility is--with a salary higher than the administrator, higher salary 
than the doctors, higher salary than the nurses, higher salary than any 
of the health professionals? It is the woman who understands 
Medicare. She gets paid more than anybody here because that skill is in 
greater demand and shorter supply than professional medical skills.

  She called me back sometime later and said:

       I have had patients die while we waited to get an answer as 
     to whether or not Medicare would cover it. Their family said, 
     ``Don't touch my grandmother; don't do anything until we find 
     out whether Medicare would cover it.''

  It was so arcane and difficult to work through all of the paperwork 
and come up with the answer--well, maybe they would have died anyway; 
they were old and in a nursing home. People die in nursing homes. But 
this was a very traumatic experience for my daughter, who was convinced 
that the kind of therapy she was trained to provide, she was prepared 
to provide, which could have extended the life of that particular 
patient.
  So as we get carried away with the rhetoric around here about what we 
have to protect and not protect about Medicare, let us begin to 
understand the truth about Medicare. Medicare is the best Blue Cross/
Blue Shield fee-for-service indemnity plan of the 1960s--frozen in 
time. We don't practice medicine the way medicine was practiced in the 
1960s when Medicare was created. We don't even come close anymore.
  Yes, we need a prescription drug benefit because prescription drugs 
do things now that they had nothing to do with in the 1960s. But 
instead of pasting it on to the existing circumstance and creating a 
new set of forms and eligibilities and more demand for that highest 
paid person in the nursing home, let us as a Congress face the fact 
that we need to start from a clean sheet of paper, all over again, with 
all of the money we are putting into it--which is sizable--and say 
let's create a whole new system. This budget doesn't do that, but this 
amendment that is being offered will make things worse in that regard.
  I only hope that somewhere along the line we can begin to face the 
fact that Medicare is 40 years old, whereas the practice of medicine is 
changing so constantly that we could say it is only 40 months old. 
Let's start with a clean sheet of paper. Let's not try this Band-Aid 
approach. Let's not just put this here, and put that there, and tell 
our constituents we are giving them something when, in fact, we are 
perpetuating an existing problem and ultimately making it worse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume. For the benefit of the people who are waiting to speak, I 
don't think I will take long on this subject.
  I rise because I want to urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Dorgan amendment when the vote comes up tomorrow. I don't see anything 
wrong with the issue of Medicare being discussed because it is one of 
two or three of the most important issues this Congress will deal with. 
So it is very appropriate to have Medicare very much at the top of the 
agenda. It is very appropriate to have prescription drugs for seniors, 
as a part of strengthening and improving Medicare, be very high on the 
agenda. And it is very high on the agenda.
  It is just a question, as it relates to the Dorgan amendment, of 
whether or not crafting a Medicare prescription drug program ought to 
be an issue on the budget, or whether you ought to let the will of 
Congress work and do that through the Senate Finance Committee.
  We know Medicare is going to be a very important issue this year, not 
only because it has been very much an issue in the last election, but 
because the Senate majority leader has a long-time interest in Medicare 
and prescription drugs. He told me, as Chairman of

[[Page S3979]]

the Senate Finance Committee, that he would like to have the Senate 
Finance Committee put it very high on its agenda and have legislation 
prepared early for this summer's debate.
  The Senate Finance Committee is going to meet that deadline. I hope 
Senator Frist will be able to keep his own calendar and bring it up at 
that particular time. What we are talking about on this issue is 
whether or not the $400 billion for prescription drugs in the budget 
resolution is enough and whether or not an extension beyond that $400 
billion is needed at this particular time.
  I am here to say it is not needed at this particular time for two 
reasons. One, I think I can show that $400 billion is an ample amount 
of money to present to the Senate a good prescription drug program; and 
two, taking money away from tax relief for working men and women, which 
this amendment does, to spend on Medicare is the wrong thing to do for 
the long-term benefit of Medicare. Because as the trustees of the 
Medicare and Social Security Program pointed out in their annual 
report, you see Medicare in a little worse situation this year than 
last year because there is less payroll tax coming in because the 
economy is not doing quite as well as it should be. If we want to 
preserve the long-term viability of the Medicare trust fund, obviously, 
the best thing we can do is create jobs. That is what the growth 
package, the jobs package, that we are going to be working on this 
spring--tax reduction for working men and women--is all about--the 
creation of jobs, to have the economy grow, so more payroll taxes will 
be coming into the Medicare fund.
  Let me explain to my colleagues why we should vote this amendment 
down. I start with the premise that it is long past time for Congress 
to strengthen and improve the Medicare Program, and the No. 1 way in 
which we can improve and strengthen Medicare is the enactment of a 
prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors.
  We all know that adding prescription drug coverage to the Medicare 
Program is an expensive endeavor. Given the rapidly rising costs of 
Medicare and the present challenge we have just to meet our current 
obligations in the program, adding prescription drug coverage must be 
done carefully and responsibly. You don't do it by just pulling a 
figure out of the air, reducing the tax relief package, and putting it 
over here in the Medicare trust fund.
  As I have said, the Medicare trustees reported last year that the 
program already faces substantial challenges in the not-too-distant 
future. The Medicare trust fund will begin to run cash deficits in 2013 
that grow larger and larger until the fund is bankrupt in the year 
2026.
  While we are working on adding a drug benefit to Medicare, 
prescription drug spending has grown an average of almost 15 percent 
annually from 1995 to the year 2000. And the Congressional Budget 
Office predicts that Medicare beneficiaries will spend about $1.8 
trillion on prescription drugs over the 10-year budget window.
  Now, is the $400 billion in the budget resolution before us enough to 
spend on improving Medicare and adding a prescription drug benefit? 
Well, first of all, we have to recognize that Congress has come a long 
way in how much it has allocated to a Medicare drug benefit. For 
example, in fiscal year 2001, the budget resolution had $40 billion 
over 5 years for a drug benefit. This budget, as I have said, proposes 
$400 billion over 10 years and is yet $100 billion more than we had in 
the last budget resolution, which was for fiscal year 2002, and had 
$300 billion for prescription drugs over the 10 years.
  I say to people on the other side of the aisle that we had a lot of 
support in arguing for a $300 billion budget figure for prescription 
drugs in that fiscal year 2002 budget. Many of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle spoke in favor of that proposal on the Senate floor. 
These Senators believed then that $300 billion would provide a good 
drug benefit for seniors and be affordable for taxpayers. Now we are 
proposing $400 billion for Medicare and for a drug benefit. This amount 
is certainly adequate for developing a good Medicare drug benefit for 
our Nation's seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to support the $400 billion in funding for 
Medicare and vote against amendments such as the Dorgan amendment to 
dramatically increase the cost of that drug benefit.
  I ask those very same Senators on the other side of the aisle who may 
want to support their colleague that if they thought 2 years ago $300 
billion was a good figure and they helped us get that passed, then they 
would think that $400 billion is adequate as we start down this road, a 
road that is going to lead us to the successful passage of a drug 
benefit program for seniors.
  As for a comparable prescription drug benefit, one of the directions 
that the Dorgan amendment would give the Committee on Finance--a 
requirement that traditional Medicare and whatever enhancement of 
Medicare we develop for seniors which would give them the right to 
choose between more than one benefit plan would have comparable 
prescription drug benefits--I want my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to know I will work with other members of the Finance 
Committee to make sure Medicare beneficiaries in traditional Medicare 
have a good prescription drug benefit, as well as those who may choose 
to go to a new, enhanced plan.
  This amendment wants to tie the hands of the members of the Senate 
Finance Committee. The budget bill is not the place to craft a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. That is the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Finance Committee. The committee will have its opportunity to function 
under my chairmanship, at the direction of Senator Frist, our majority 
leader, who said he did not want to make the mistake of last year when 
then-majority leader Senator Daschle brought the issue right to the 
floor, bypassing the committee.
  We can in this body develop bipartisanship not on the floor of the 
Senate but in the committees of the Senate. That is no more true than 
in the Senate Finance Committee which has such a reputation for 
bipartisanship.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and let the Finance 
Committee do its work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields to the Senator?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much how much time is the Senator 
seeking?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There will be, I say to the Senator from North 
Dakota, three Senators speaking on behalf of the amendment. Forty-five 
minutes would be an outside number.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator from West Virginia like?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Eight, nine minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask, through the Chair, the Senator from 
Maine, it is my understanding she has permission from the manager of 
the bill to have the pending amendment set aside to offer this 
amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. I should think that is what should be done now. Does the 
Democratic manager agree with that?
  Mr. CONRAD. That will be the appropriate action to take at this 
point, if the Senator from Maine will make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia, on behalf 
of the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from 
Nebraska, and several cosponsors, is sending an amendment to the desk 
to ask for its consideration. I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 275

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 275 which is 
already at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for 
     himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. 
     Coleman, proposes an amendment numbered 275.


[[Page S3980]]


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

       (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning 
     State fiscal relief)
         At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING STATE FISCAL RELIEF.

         (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
         (1) States are experiencing the most severe fiscal crisis 
     since World War II.
         (2) States are instituting severe cuts to a variety of 
     vital programs such as health care, child care, education, 
     and other essential services.
         (3) According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and 
     the Uninsured, 49 States already have taken actions or plan 
     to cut medicaid before or during the current fiscal year 
     2003. Medicaid budget proposals in many States would 
     eliminate or curtail health benefits for eligible families 
     and substantially reduce or freeze provider reimbursement 
     rates.
         (4) In 2002, at least 13 States reported decreased State 
     investments in their child care assistance programs.
         (5) According to a forthcoming analysis of 22 States, at 
     least 1,700,000 people are now at risk of losing their health 
     care coverage under cuts that have already been implemented 
     or proposed.
         (6) Fiscal relief would help avoid adding even more 
     Americans to the ranks of the uninsured while preserving the 
     safety net when it is most needed during an economic 
     downturn.
         (7) Curtailing the States' need to cut spending and 
     increase taxes is essential for true economic growth.
         (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that the functional totals in this resolution assume that any 
     legislation enacted to provide economic growth for the United 
     States should include not less than $30,000,000,000 for State 
     fiscal relief over the next 18 months (of which at least half 
     should be provided through a temporary increase in the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP)).

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be added as cosponsors. Cosponsors already are 
myself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Smith, Mr. Schumer, 
Mr. Edwards, and Mrs. Clinton. I ask unanimous consent to add Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. DeWine, and the 
distinguished Presiding Officer, Mr. Coleman, as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will not talk long, although this 
is an extraordinarily important subject particularly affecting the 
stimulus package and affecting a lot of people in all of our States.
  The sense-of-the-Senate amendment which we put before the Senate 
now--and it is that, a sense of the Senate--we did the same thing this 
past July in the form of an amendment, and it received some 75 votes. 
It was very bipartisan. But this is a sense of the Senate. It is not an 
amendment per se.
  What we are wanting to do is to add no less than $30 billion over the 
next 12 months for the State stimulus relief package that should be 
included in any stimulus package. In fact, I would argue it makes no 
sense to do this without including the amendment which will then find 
its way to the Finance Committee where we will work with it.
  It is interesting, in fact, that there are many who say the primary 
problem for our economy at this particular point is not the impending 
war with Iraq, but is, in fact, the plight of our State governments and 
our Federal Government--the deficits and debt, in the case of the 
Federal Government, and the deficits, in the case of the States. We 
have to address the State budget shortfalls in order for any growth 
package to be at all meaningful. It is not as colorful and does not 
have as much pizzazz, but it affects incredible numbers of people.
  States obviously have to balance their budgets. Senator Nelson from 
Nebraska will be speaking shortly. He was a Governor, as was I. Nearly 
every State, if not every State, faces deficits. They are likely to 
grow in the upcoming year. The deficits are now $70 billion to $85 
billion projected for 2004. This is on top of the $50 billion in 
deficits that the States already have for 2003.
  This constitutes a real crisis for them. They cannot print money, and 
they cannot do what we can do in the Senate: simply go into deficit and 
go on. They have to take action to close the deficit. Herein is the 
problem that affects the stimulus package, States, and people.
  They have to cut programs or they have to increase revenues--neither 
important--but one of the difficulties and responsibilities of being a 
Governor is that you have to make those decisions--either raise 
revenues, cut programs, or you do both, which is why Governors often 
are not terribly popular at the end of 8 years.
  It is about $1 out of every $8 of expenditures in the budget that 
these deficits represent. So it is a very large amount of money. Some 
38 States, three out of four States, either cut spending in 2002, are 
projecting to cut spending in 2003, or do both. That is, raise revenues 
and cut spending.
  One cannot talk about stimulating the States' economies without 
talking about Medicaid. Medicaid and Medicare--Medicare which we have 
just been discussing--between those two programs, which are both 
located in the same Government agency, it is a substantially greater 
amount of money than resides in the Department of Defense. People have 
to understand this, it is an enormous amount of money in Medicaid and 
Medicare.
  Families USA, which is well respected, recently did a study on the 
economic impact of Medicaid. I am not talking yet about people. This is 
the economic impact of Medicaid. One of their key findings was that in 
the year 2001, which was the last year their research could cover, 
States spent almost $98 billion on Medicaid. But that was not the whole 
point. The point was that the Medicaid amount that they spent generated 
a threefold increase in the economic impact on the 50 States to the 
tune of $279 billion.
  I submit that is called fiscal stimulus of a large magnitude, because 
it gets into goods and services, increased business activities, and I 
do not think I have to go on. I am very happy to say that West Virginia 
was among the 10 States with the highest rate of return for every 
dollar spent on Medicaid. So for the State that this Senator 
represents, it was very meaningful.
  This amendment specifies that no less than one-half of the amount; 
that is, $30 billion, allotted for State fiscal relief must be devoted 
to a temporary increase in the Federal medical assistance percentage, 
or FMAP. That is what we voted on in July of last year. That is what 
passed 75 to 24--tremendously bipartisan.
  This is a similar structure to the legislation that Senator Collins, 
Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and I introduced recently involving $20 
billion. It was a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching 
rate, as well as increasing funding for the Social Security block 
grant.
  As I indicated, the legislation is very bipartisan. It puts money 
into Medicaid, but it also puts money into the Social Security block 
grant, which, quite frankly, is very good because in the Finance 
Committee we have been discussing welfare reform. We all know there is 
a shortage of childcare. Governors have the discretion to take that 
money and spend it on local projects or on childcare or however they 
might wish. Obviously, there are restrictions.
  This is strongly supported by providers and by--well, I will not go 
into that, but it is strongly supported. It did get 75 votes, and the 
National Governors Association wants this more than anything else the 
Congress can provide, with the exception of homeland security. This 
will then go on to the Finance Committee.
  The stimulus that Medicaid provides to the States--aside from the 
stimulus, there are now 1,700,000 people who will lose their Medicaid 
if we do nothing about this problem, if we do not increase FMAP, the 
Medicaid match matter. There is nothing they can do about it. They will 
simply have to cut more people. I say to my colleagues, they should 
know that States have already cut a million people off of Medicaid.
  Up until this point, if we do nothing they will then cut 
an additional 1.7 million people off Medicaid. When one does that, one 
understands that there are about 47 million people on Medicaid in this 
country and they are people

[[Page S3981]]

who are vulnerable. It is the second largest item in most States' 
budgets. It is always, therefore, a target for cuts. It cannot be 
otherwise, and Governors have to do that.

  What I need to say more than anything, and more poignantly hopefully, 
is that Medicaid is an extraordinary safety net which was set up years 
ago for our most vulnerable Americans, which includes not only our low-
income children and working families but also our disabled and our 
elderly.
  This strikes me as an extraordinarily reasonable amendment. Some may 
argue that the Federal Government is already spending too much on 
Medicaid and the States need to do a better job, and I would come back 
vociferously and say that the States are doing a superb job. In fact, 
they have done as well or better than the private sector on this matter 
indeed, as Medicare only spends 2 to 3 percent for overhead costs in 
the administration of the program, in spite of all the fraud and abuse 
charges that are thrown at it.
  Costs are rising in Medicaid because of prescription drugs and long-
term care costs. Those are the two fastest growing items in health 
care. They both reside in Medicaid at this point. Medicaid has 
prescription drugs. Medicare does not. And so people seek it out.
  In conclusion, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. No less than 
$30 billion of State fiscal relief should be included in anything which 
we call a fiscal stimulus or an economic growth package. This is the 
most important action we could take, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield whatever time she may consume to the distinguished Senator 
from Maine, Ms. Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia 
for his comments. It has been such a pleasure to work with him. He is 
an eloquent and compassionate advocate for health care for low-income 
families. I am delighted to be his partner in this regard.
  I also acknowledge the hard work of Mr. Nelson, the Senator from 
Nebraska, and Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. The four of us have 
worked very hard on this initiative for over a year. We are also 
delighted to have the Presiding Officer's critical support in this 
initiative.
  States from Maine to Nebraska, from West Virginia to Oregon, are 
facing the most serious budget shortfalls in 50 years. The bipartisan 
amendment that we are offering tonight takes the first step toward 
providing States with a measure of much needed fiscal relief.
  Regardless of the size of the tax cut, we believe it is imperative 
that the economic growth package include a significant amount for State 
fiscal relief. Therefore, our amendment expresses the sense of the 
Senate that at least $30 billion of the economic growth package be 
targeted to State fiscal relief over the next 18 months to help our 
States cope with an aggregate budget shortfall that is nearly four 
times that size.
  This bipartisan amendment has been drafted in a way that is both 
budget and deficit neutral, and I stress that for the information of my 
colleagues. It neither increases nor decreases the amount provided for 
reconciliation in the budget resolution. Therefore, our amendment does 
not add to the deficit. It does not change the spending caps that are 
included in this resolution.
  The attacks of September 11 on our Nation, coupled with the 
subsequent recession and resulting unemployment, have placed tremendous 
and unanticipated strains on Government services and resources. At the 
same time, the States, which are after all our partners in providing 
health care, education, and other essential services, are facing a 
dramatic and unexpected decline in Government revenues at precisely the 
time when the demand for Government services is the greatest because of 
the lagging economy.
  State budgets are under siege. The combination of increasing demands 
for services and resources, coupled with the dramatic drop in revenues, 
is causing a fiscal crisis for States from coast to coast.
  The State of Maine, for example, faces a budget shortfall over the 
next 2 years of approximately $1.2 billion. Let me put that in 
perspective. The entire budget for Maine is only $5.3 billion, which 
means it faces a shortfall of more than 20 percent. To put the plight 
of Maine into perspective, I point out if the Federal Government were 
facing a 20-percent shortfall, it would have to close a $440 billion 
budget gap, and it would have to do so under its Constitution without 
borrowing a single dime. That is the dilemma facing our States.
  The States have to balance their budgets. They cannot print more 
money. They cannot borrow more money. They have to balance their 
budgets. States have been using rainy day funds, delaying capital 
projects, cutting spending, increasing taxes. They are doing whatever 
they can to balance their budgets.
  According to a February report by the National Conference on State 
Legislatures, States have been forced to cut a number of critical 
programs, ranging from education to corrections. Mr. President, 29 
States have imposed across-the-board budget cuts, and at least 24 
States are considering tax increases to help close those budget gaps.
  Moreover, at a time when the number of people without health 
insurance is climbing, 49 States have either already taken action to 
cut their Medicaid Program, or are planning to do so. Medicaid provides 
medical care for 44 million low-income people nationwide, including 
218,000 individuals in my home State. States are cutting benefits, 
increasing copays, restricting eligibility, or removing poor families 
from the rolls because of soaring costs and plunging revenues. As a 
consequence, the National Governors Association estimates as many as 2 
million low-income individuals across this country will lose their 
health care coverage as a result of the loss of Medicaid coverage.
  Let me be clear, I am not saying Congress should bail out the States. 
I am not saying States should not have to make hard choices. I am not 
saying States should not cut their budgets, that they should not 
balance their budgets. The States do need to tighten their belts during 
these austere fiscal times, but the nature and the severity of the 
fiscal crisis facing our States has convinced me we simply must help. 
The consequences are too dire, otherwise, and too many very low-income 
individuals will suffer if we do not step in and help.
  That is why I joined in this effort to provide for a temporary 
increase in the February Medicaid matching rate as well as some 
flexible funds that go to every State. Specifically, our amendment, 
which has strong bipartisan support, provides $30 billion to the 
States, at least half of which would have to be provided through a 
temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate.
  Our amendment is strongly supported by a host of health care patient 
and consumer advocacy groups, including the American Hospital 
Association, the American Health Care Association, the Visiting Nurses 
Associations of America, the American Dental Association, Families USA, 
the Child Welfare League of America, the Alzheimer's Association, the 
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Children's Defense Fund, 
the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, and many 
other critically important organizations.

  The support our proposal has received underscores how important it is 
we act now to provide assistance to the States at a time when many are 
looking toward further cuts in their health care programs to help 
balance their budgets.
  We have focused particularly on Medicaid because of our concern about 
the impact on low-income families in America. But there is another 
reason it makes sense to target this assistance to the Medicaid 
Program; that is, Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State 
budgets.
  While State revenues are stagnant or declining in most States, 
Medicaid costs are increasing at a rate of more than 13 percent a year. 
My home State of Maine is one of many States that has been forced to 
consider cuts in its Medicaid Program to compensate for its budget 
shortfalls.
  Legislation enacted as a consequence of our amendment, I stress 
again, will not free States from making very painful and difficult 
choices in crafting their budgets for the year. But it will help 
prevent the most harmful cuts, those that would affect the families who 
can least afford them, those who

[[Page S3982]]

are already under strain as we see the number of uninsured continue to 
climb to 41 million Americans without insurance.
  To Maine, our amendment could mean as much as $190 million over the 
next 18 months for health care and social services that would help our 
most needy citizens. In other words, this is about helping those who 
are most vulnerable in our society. In addition, our proposal makes 
sound economic sense. Putting money into the hands of the States is a 
good way to stimulate economic growth.
  After all, if we cut taxes in Washington only to have taxes increased 
in State capitals across this country, we will wipe out the good that 
we do by cutting taxes. We know if we get money into the hands of the 
States, they will put it directly into the economy, and that is just 
the kind of stimulus our economy needs.
  Congress is most effective when it stands arm in arm, not toe to toe, 
with our partners, the States. Our States face a crisis of vast and 
still-expanding dimensions. We need to help. This amendment is a 
critical step forward in doing just that. I hope we will have another 
very strong bipartisan vote for our proposal so that we can ensure any 
fiscal relief is included in any economic growth package that we 
consider later this year.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask the Senator from Maine, in the summary before 
the vote tomorrow, opponents will no doubt ask what is our source of 
funding. That is a fair question to ask, and it has a very easy answer, 
in this case in a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Would the Senator from Maine be willing to clear up for our 
colleagues how we will pay for this?
  Ms. COLLINS. The Senator from West Virginia raises an excellent 
question. Again, I stress that what our direction to the Finance 
Committee would say, when you report an economic growth package, fiscal 
relief up to at least $30 billion should be part of that package.
  So our sense-of-the-Senate amendment does not increase the deficit. 
It does not increase the overall spending in this resolution. It does 
not increase the budget caps that are in this resolution. All it says 
is, when an economic growth package is reported by the Finance 
Committee, it should include the $30 billion in State fiscal relief.
  So this proposal is budget neutral and it is deficit neutral. It does 
not have the impact that might cause some people otherwise to oppose 
it.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator and ask if she would further 
yield?
  Ms. COLLINS. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It would be natural, in the nature of this body, for 
people to come and say--the Senator referred to this in her remarks--
you are talking about making available $30 billion to the States; we 
have enough problems of our own at the Federal Government level. I 
pointed out in my remarks the recession we are in right now is more a 
matter, not of war that we are in, but the State situation and the 
Federal Government situation.
  So people would say just let the States go ahead and pay for this. If 
they have to make cuts, they have to make cuts. It is their fault they 
are in this kind of situation.
  I was wondering how the Senator would reply to that.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would respond to that concern in two 
ways. First of all, the dramatic decline in revenues is not the fault 
of State governments. It is a product of the lagging economy we are in, 
and the lingering effects of the attacks on our Nation of September 11. 
The States have been prudent, have taken appropriate steps, but when 
you have 49 States, every single State but Wyoming, struggling to close 
budget gaps, it is clear it is not the result of profligate spending by 
one or two particular States but, rather, reflects our declining 
economy or our lagging economy.
  What we have here is a confluence of the impact of September 11 and a 
recession with declining revenues that have caused these budget gaps in 
49 States.
  A second point is, despite our best efforts, the States are still 
going to have to make some very painful and difficult choices. In the 
State of Maine, we are facing a budget gap of over $1 billion. Under 
our proposal, Maine would get a much welcomed $190 million. There is 
still a long ways to go.
  Our proposal will certainly help the States avoid some of the most 
harmful cuts, particularly in health care, which is our greatest 
concern, but it certainly does not mean States are let off the hook in 
any way.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the Senator will further yield, she leads 
directly to the question I wanted to ask her. That is, that there are 
many who have not worked in the bowels of State government, so to 
speak, who think Medicaid is sort of a gift from the Federal Government 
to the States. They do not understand that there is a very complex 
formula wherein all the States have to contribute, the formula is based 
upon their prosperity, and things of that sort.
  So the concept that this is somehow the Federal Government turning 
over money to the States and there is no cost to them doesn't make any 
sense, does it?
  Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is absolutely correct. Medicaid is a 
partnership between the Federal Government and our partners, the 
States, to provide health care to low-income families, the very poor 
individuals, to those who need it most. Medicaid is the fastest growing 
component in State budgets. So States certainly are contributing to 
this program. It has been a successful partnership. We are suggesting a 
temporary increase over the next 18 months. I hope we will grant that.
  I have several letters which I am going to have printed in the 
Record, which talk about protecting the States' ability to provide and 
deliver this health care, and points out, again, that these are health 
care services to the most vulnerable Americans we serve.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Association 
for Home Care and Hospice be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                           Homecare & Hospice,

                                                 January 22, 2003.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the National Association 
     for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC), the nation's largest 
     association representing home care and hospice providers, 
     caregivers and the patients they serve, I am writing to 
     commend you on the introduction of S. 138, the ``State Budget 
     Relief Act of 2003.''
       As you are well aware, the current economic downturn has 
     resulted in drastically lower state tax revenues. Moreover, 
     the number of uninsured continues to grow as more and more 
     people are forced from the labor market. This has resulted in 
     states being forced to cut their Medicaid budgets at the 
     exact time that there is a growing need for services.
       Your legislation, by temporarily increasing the Federal 
     Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) as a way to direct 
     additional federal funding to state Medicaid programs, will 
     protect states' health care delivery systems and ensure the 
     continuation of health services for the most vulnerable of 
     our population. Without this assistance, many communities 
     will find themselves with providers that are understaffed, 
     have crumbling infrastructures, lack current medical 
     technology, or have reduced or eliminated certain services.
       NAHC believes that home health and hospice services remain 
     one of the remedies to the widespread concern over growing 
     health care costs. In recent years, state Medicaid programs 
     have increased their utilization of home and community-based 
     long-term care services in lieu of institutional care through 
     the use of waivers. In fact, the Centers for Medicare and 
     Medicaid Services (CMS) recently reported that Medicaid 
     spending growth levels for home care services more than 
     doubled between 2000 and 2001--from 8,6 percent to 17.3 
     percent. Some of this trend reflects the growing desire to 
     implement the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision to provide 
     disabled individuals care in the least restrictive setting 
     possible and the Administration's goals as set forth in its 
     ``New Freedom Initiative.'' This desirable trend is at risk 
     of falling victim to the widespread cuts to the Medicaid 
     program that states are being forced to implement due to 
     budget shortfalls.
       Once again, thank you for your leadership on this issue. 
     Let me know if there is anything my staff or I can do to 
     ensure the passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Val J. Halamandaris,
                                                        President.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from Maine.

[[Page S3983]]

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this sense of 
the Senate amendment to provide funding for State fiscal relief.
  States are suffering their worst fiscal crisis in over half a 
century.
  Forty one million Americans live, work, and go to school without 
health insurance, and that number grows every single day.
  I have been a strong supporter of State fiscal relief since the 
economy began to slow several years ago. Since then, the situation has 
only gotten worse. This is the third consecutive year of nationwide 
budget problems for the States.
  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 49 States and the District 
of Columbia have taken Medicaid cost-containment action this fiscal 
year; additional cuts are expected next year as States struggle to fill 
budget shortfalls of billions of dollars.
  States are reducing or freezing provider payments, establishing or 
strengthening prescription drug cost controls, reducing benefits, 
increasing co-payments for Medicaid beneficiaries, and most 
significantly, States are increasing restrictions on eligibility for 
Medicaid.
  What does this mean? Let me be clear: it means that the number of 
uninsured Americans will continue to grow.
  According to the CDC, Medicaid and SCHIP provided coverage for 2 
million children and 1 million adults who lost their health coverage 
last year. In addition to those who did qualify for these programs, 
many more did not; they joined the ranks of the uninsured. In 2001, 1.4 
million people became uninsured, and this number is likely to be even 
higher for 2002 and 2003.
  While we need to strengthen our economy in the long run, it is 
imperative that we address the immediate economic problems, 
particularly the state fiscal crisis. State fiscal relief is one of the 
most effective policies the Congress could and should enact as part of 
the economic stimulus/growth package.
  There is no question that States will spend any additional Federal 
funds they receive quickly, putting money directly into the economy 
rather than curtailing economic activity. As many economists have 
noted, we need to increase demand in the economy--but State budget 
actions to balance their budgets right now are reducing demand 
significantly.
  This is precisely the wrong medicine at the wrong time for our 
economy.
  Last year, 75 Senators voted to provide State fiscal relief by 
boosting FMAP payments to States, but in the end, the legislation was 
not signed into law and State fiscal relief--needed now more than last 
year--has still not been delivered.
  The magnitude of the State fiscal crisis is growing steadily worse. 
Oregon alone is facing a budget deficit of at least $1 billion in the 
upcoming fiscal year. Already, one in four Medicaid recipients in 
Oregon is experiencing service cuts, and more reductions are on the 
way. Districts in my State have the shortest school year of any schools 
in the country. Some teachers in my State have even agreed to work for 
free in order to keep the schools open! And things are so bad for 
Oregon schools that recently the Doonesbury comic strip dedicated a 
whole week of comics to the sad state of Oregon school funding.
  This proposal would bring almost $331 million to Oregon over the next 
18 months, which would go a long way to maintain the fragile health 
care safety net for vulnerable Oregonians. Bipartisan support for our 
FMAP proposal has grown steadily. It is supported by groups 
representing the States, the elderly, the disabled, children, and 
Oregon's governor Kulongoski, among many, many others. It has support 
because it is a sound proposal. It provides temporary assistance to 
States in a very timely and efficient manner.
  Several weeks ago, I was in Oregon for a series of town hall meetings 
with my colleague Ron Wyden. At every stop, we spoke to people who were 
being affected by the first round of budget cuts. I can tell you, as we 
listened to these good people tell their stories, there wasn't a dry 
eye in the house.
  The pain is real. We have to do something and we have to do it now, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this fiscal relief amendment to the 
budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Does the Senator from West 
Virginia yield time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. How much time, might I ask the Senator, does he 
require?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I estimate 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator is welcome to that.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to join with 
my colleague from the State of Maine. We have been working for a long 
time to bring about help for the States in the area of Medicaid and in 
the area of welfare reform and social services.
  Our amendment makes it clear that the Senate recognizes the 
partnership between the Federal Government and the States, and is 
committed to helping the States see their way out of their dire budget 
situation.
  How bad is this budget shortfall? The States are currently 
experiencing the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. States have 
accumulated $26 billion in deficits this year on top of $50 billion in 
deficits from last year. Even greater gaps, reaching upwards of $70 to 
$85 billion in deficits, are projected for the next fiscal year. It is, 
in fact, a crisis.
  But the budget crisis is more than just numbers and dollars. This is 
about real people. And the people of our States have been hit hard by 
the tough economic times. Nearly every State is required to have a 
balanced budget, even during a recession. The rainy day funds have run 
dry and funding for programs as critical as Medicaid have been cut to 
the bone. The only option left for many States is to cut critical 
programs even further or raise taxes.
  Just last year, Nebraska reduced the number of low-income working 
families that were eligible for assistance with childcare. More than 
2,000 Nebraska families have lost childcare assistance as a result of 
this change. Those hardest hit are families that have managed to stay 
off welfare for more than 2 years. These families who have slowly but 
steadily made progress to self-sufficiency may soon find themselves 
struggling to pay their childcare bills and returning to the welfare 
rolls. Childcare assistance is integral to any effort to move families 
from welfare to work and to keeping low-income parents employed. State 
fiscal relief will protect the progress we have made in welfare reform 
over the past decade from being undone.
  Many of the other cuts are being considered in the areas of 
education, health care, social services, and corrections.
  My office recently received a call from Sharon Walters of Omaha, NE. 
The message she relayed is a good illustration of how these proposed 
cuts are affecting real people. She wanted to make sure I know the 
importance of my efforts to provide State fiscal relief. She represents 
Bethphage, an organization that provides community-based services for 
people with disabilities. She was worried because much of their funding 
comes from Medicaid. Because of so many proposed cuts to the Medicaid 
program, Bethphage and other programs like theirs, may soon be forced 
to limit the good work they do if State budgets do not see some relief 
soon.
  State fiscal relief is not only needed to protect education, health 
care, Medicaid and other social service programs, it is needed to 
stimulate our economy.
  In discussing various jobs and growth proposals with my colleagues 
this year, I have repeatedly asked them to ``Show me the Stimulus'' and 
demonstrate how proposed tax cuts or spending will get our economy back 
on track.
  Although economists differ on the stimulative effect of the varying 
tax cut proposals, I think there is little question that providing 
States with fiscal relief would be a boost to the economy. In fact, 
State fiscal relief may provide more ``bang for the buck'' than many of 
the other stimulus proposals being discussed. According to a recent 
study done by Mark Zandi at economy.com every dollar spent in State 
fiscal relief will create $1.24 in demand the following year.
  At a time when we are trying to get the economy back on track, it 
would be irresponsible for the Senate to turn its back on this 
nationwide crisis and do nothing.
  It doesn't make much sense to cut taxes in Washington while States 
are

[[Page S3984]]

forced to raise them in Lincoln, Des Moines, Topeka, Pierre, Saint 
Paul, or wherever and other State capitals throughout the United 
States. State fiscal relief is a commonsense approach to getting our 
economy back on track. As well, it is the right thing to do. Not only 
will State fiscal relief shield the people of our States from some of 
the tough economic times, to some extent, it will also stimulate our 
economy and return individuals and States alike to financial security.
  Again, I thank my colleagues--Senators Collins and Rockefeller--for 
their work on this important effort and urge my colleagues to join us 
in supporting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my colleagues and thank the Presiding 
Officer for this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland 20 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. At most.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I intend to speak to an amendment which 
will be offered tomorrow. I take this approach because I am joined in 
sponsoring this amendment by Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, and 
Senator Bob Graham of Florida. And they will, presumably, be able to 
address the amendment as well on that occasion.
  The amendment that we will offer will boost Federal funding for the 
Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds from the 
level that is recommended in the budget resolution, which is $2.2 
billion, to $5.2 billion; $3.2 billion of this for the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund and $2 billion for the Safe Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund.
  Regrettably, the President's budget for fiscal 2004 and the budget 
resolution severely shortchange the funds needed by State and local 
governments to upgrade their aging wastewater and drinking water 
infrastructure.
  The President's budget provides only $1.7 billion for both State 
Revolving Funds, equally split. The budget resolution recommends a 
somewhat higher figure, a little over $2 billion for both funds, but 
that is still far short of what is needed.
  Despite progress over the last three decades, EPA reports that more 
than 40 percent of our Nation's lakes, rivers, and streams are still 
too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging and failing 
sewage systems, urban storm water, and other sources continue to pose 
serious threats to our Nation's waters, endangering public health and 
both the fishing and recreational industries.
  Of course, as we all realize, population growth and development are 
placing additional stress on the Nation's water infrastructure and our 
ability to make sustainable gains in water quality.
  Across the Nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are 
aging. And, in some cases, systems currently in use were built more 
than a century ago and have outlived their useful life.
  For many communities, current treatment is not sufficient to meet 
water quality goals. Recent EPA modeling indicates that municipal 
wastewater treatment facilities in my own State will have to reduce 
nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent to restore the Chesapeake Bay 
and its tributaries to health.
  In April of 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network, a broad coalition 
of locally elected officials, drinking water and wastewater service 
providers, State environmental and health administrators, engineers, 
and environmentalists released a report, ``Clean and Safe Water for the 
21st Century.'' This report documented a $23 billion a year shortfall 
in funding needed to meet national environmental and public health 
priorities in the Clean Water Act and in the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
And all of the studies have substantiated this gap. For example, in May 
of 2002--less than a year ago--the Congressional Budget Office released 
a report showing very large gaps for clean water needs and drinking 
water needs over the next 20 years.
  The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water 
infrastructure is clearly documented. But States, localities, and 
private sources cannot meet the funding gap alone. Local communities 
already pay almost 90 percent of the total cost, or about $60 billion a 
year, to build, operate, and maintain their drinking water and 
wastewater systems.

  But as Administrator Whitman recently pointed out:

       The magnitude of the challenge America faces is clearly 
     beyond the ability of any one entity to address.

  States are currently facing the worst fiscal crisis in 50 years and 
cannot afford to make new investments in clean water and drinking water 
infrastructure.
  Clearly, water pollution is an interstate problem that requires, in 
part, a Federal response. In our own case, in Maryland, water flows 
into the Chesapeake Bay from six States. Other States need to make 
investments as well in order to clean up the watershed. It is vital 
that the Federal Government maintain a strong partnership with States 
and local governments in order to address this major environmental 
challenge.
  The increases provided for in this amendment are the first step 
necessary to deal with this pressing problem. It represents an 
investment in the health of Americans and a clean environment, and is, 
I believe, an investment that will pay substantial dividends.
  Wastewater treatment plants not only prevent billions of tons of 
pollutants from reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and coasts, they 
also help prevent waterborne diseases and make waters safe for swimming 
and fishing. In fact, the Water Infrastructure Network says that clean 
water supports $50 billion a year in the water-based recreation 
industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal tourism, $45 billion 
annually in commercial fishing and shellfishing, and hundreds of 
billions of dollars a year in basic manufacturing that relies on clean 
water.
  According to the Water Infrastructure Network, clean rivers, lakes, 
and coastlines attract investment in local communities and increase 
land values on or near the water, and that, in turn, creates jobs, adds 
to the tax base, and improves revenues for local, State, and Federal 
governments. Some 54,000 community drinking-water systems provide 
drinking water to more than 250 million Americans. By keeping water 
supplies free of contaminants that cause disease, these water systems 
reduce sickness and related health care costs. They reduce absenteeism 
in the workforce. And they, obviously, add to our quality of life.
  Investment in the infrastructure we are talking about here--sewer and 
water improvements--would also create substantial numbers of jobs 
through construction. It would provide an impetus to our economy at a 
time when it needs an impetus.
  There is strong support for increased investment in infrastructure. 
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have taken a lead on this issue 
over the years.
  The case for the amendment is compelling. Maintaining clean, safe 
water remains one of our leading national challenges. This budget 
resolution should not and need not come at the expense of human health 
or a clean environment. I strongly urge my colleagues, when the 
amendment is presented, to support it and to begin to address this 
large funding gap that looms into the future with respect to this very 
important aspect of our domestic agenda. This is both good 
environmental policy and good economic policy. Support for this 
amendment will offer an opportunity to continue to make progress on 
clean water and safe drinking water. I commend the amendment to my 
colleagues when it is brought before them at the appropriate time.
  Mr. President, I have a number of letters from organizations in 
support of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print them in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             National Association of Counties,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Subject: Support for the Jeffords/Sarbanes/Mikulski/Graham 
         SFR amendment.

       Dear Senator: The National Association of Counties (NACO) 
     supports the Jeffords/Sarbanes/Mikulski/Graham amendment to 
     boost funding for the Clean Water and Safe

[[Page S3985]]

     Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF) from the Fiscal 
     2003 enacted level of $2.19 billion to $5.2 billion.
       Despite progress over the past 30 years, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency reports that more than 40 percent of our 
     nation's lakes, rivers, and streams are still too impaired to 
     be utilized for their intended use. And, discharges from 
     aging and failing sewage systems, urban storm water and other 
     sources continue to pose serious threats to our nation's 
     waters. Population growth and development only place more 
     stress on the nation's water infrastructure and its ability 
     to maintain current standards.
       On September 30, 2002, the EPA released a Clean Water and 
     Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. This report 
     discovered a $535 billion gap between current spending and 
     projected water and wastewater infrastructure needs over the 
     next 20 years if additional investments are not made.
       It is vital that the Federal government work with the state 
     and local governments to prevent this massive projected 
     funding gap and share the burden of maintaining and improving 
     the nation's water infrastructure. An increase in funding for 
     the Clean Water SRF to $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 is the 
     first step necessary to meet these funding requirements.
       Additionally, each billion dollars invested in water 
     infrastructure creates an estimated 40,000 jobs. So this 
     amendment is both pro-environmental policy and pro-economic 
     policy. Thank you for offering this timely and important 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Naake,
                                               Executive Director.


     
                                  ____
                                    National League of Cities,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the National League of 
     Cities and the 18,000 cities and towns across the nation we 
     represent, we would like to express our support for your 
     efforts, along with those of Senators Mikulski, Graham and 
     Jeffords, to increase funding for the Clean Water and 
     Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
       As you know, our cities and towns are facing a $23 billion 
     funding gap annually to repair and replace aging 
     infrastructure for these critical, but unseen, services, 
     despite annual local expenditures of more than $60 billion 
     for wastewater and drinking water. We also agree that 
     investments in our water and wastewater infrastructure can 
     serve as a job creation component of an economic stimulus 
     initiative.
       We applaud and appreciate your efforts and offer any 
     assistance we can to help you attain your objective.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Borut,
                                               Executive Director.


     
                                  ____
                                                    Association of


                                  Metropolitan Water Agencies,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the nation's largest 
     public water suppliers, thank you for your efforts to 
     increase funding for the drinking water and clean water state 
     revolving funds (SRFs) to $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2004. 
     If this increase is appropriated, the benefits will be safer 
     water supplies, cleaner rivers and streams, and a stronger 
     economy.
       The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies represents 
     the nation's largest publicly owned drinking water providers. 
     ANWA's members serve safe drinking water to more than 110 
     million Americans.
       Sources including the Water Infrastructure Network, EPA, 
     GAO and the CBO confirm that water systems face multi-
     billion-dollar gaps in funding, as water facilities, 
     particularly underground distribution systems, reach the end 
     of their useful lives. According to WIN, the gap between what 
     utilities currently invest and what they will need to invest 
     over the next 20 years is $23 billion per year. Water systems 
     themselves pay the majority of infrastructure costs, but 
     federal help is needed, especially for metropolitan systems.
       Twenty-one States provided no assistance to systems serving 
     100,000 or more people between 1996-2002. Thirteen more 
     States provided assistance to only one or two of these 
     systems. Only a substantial boost in funding will provide the 
     opportunity to better help our nation's largest public water 
     systems.
       Thank you for supporting drinking water and wastewater 
     infrastructure funding.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Diane VanDe Hei,
                                               Executive Director.


     
                                  ____
                                 Water Environment Federation,

                                                   March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD),
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: It is our understanding that you and 
     other Senators plan to offer an amendment during 
     consideration of the FY 2004 Budget Resolution that would 
     substantially increase funds available for the Clean Water 
     and Safe Drinking Water state revolving funds (SRFs). The 
     Water Environment Federation, an organization whose members 
     are directly involved in the implementation of clean water 
     programs, strongly supports this amendment.
       The need for increased investment in water infrastructure 
     is well documented. In September 2002, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency released a Clean Water and Safe Drinking 
     Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis which found that there will 
     be a $535 billion gap between current spending and projected 
     needs for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 
     20 years if additional investments are not made. In May 2002, 
     the Congressional Budget Office released a report that 
     estimated a spending gap for drinking water between $132 
     billion and $388 billion over 20 years and the spending gap 
     for drinking water needs at between $70 billion and $362 
     billion over 20 years.
       WEF, founded in 1928, is a not-for-profit technical and 
     educational organization with members from varied disciplines 
     who work toward the WEF vision of preservation and 
     enhancement of the global water environment. The WEF network 
     includes more than 100,000 water quality professionals from 
     79 Member Associations in 32 countries.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Tim Williams,

                                                Managing Director,
     Government and Public Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                               Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Jim Jeffords,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the nearly 300 publicly owned 
     wastewater treatment agency members who provide treatment to 
     a majority of Americans, the Association of Metropolitan 
     Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) offers its support for your 
     amendment to the Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution. Your 
     amendment would boost funding for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Fund (CWSRF) from its current funding level of 
     $1.35 billion to $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2004, an 
     increase which AMSA believes would mark an important first 
     step toward developing a long-term, sustainable solution for 
     the wastewater infrastructure funding gap.
       As your March 14 Dear Colleague letter aptly states, ``It 
     is vital that the Federal government maintain a strong 
     partnership with states and local governments in averting 
     this massive projected funding gap and share in the burden of 
     maintaining and improving the nation's water 
     infrastructure,'' Your amendment demonstrates that water 
     quality remains a high priority for the 108th Congress and 
     helps bring the significant goal of overcoming the clean 
     water funding gap within reach.
       AMSA's overarching goal is to ensure America's clean water 
     progress. Once again, we thank you for your support of the 
     nation's publicly owned treatment works and for your help in 
     meeting this critical national objective. AMSA looks forward 
     to working with you on a long-term, sustainable funding 
     solution for the nation's core wastewater infrastructure. If 
     you have any questions, please contact me at 202/833-2672.
            Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kirk,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                     California Water Agencies

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Jim Jeffords,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: The Association of California Water Agencies 
     (ACWA) strongly supports your proposed amendment to the 
     fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution to increase funding for 
     the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds 
     (SRFs).
       Throughout the United States, these programs provide 
     indispensable resources to rural areas and municipalities 
     alike for projects that enable compliance with drinking water 
     standards, protection of waterways, sanitation, environmental 
     preservation and more. The SRFs are the backbone of our water 
     infrastruce, and with increasingly severe demands on water 
     supplies, the Funds

[[Page S3986]]

     will become more important in the years ahead.
       Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     acknowledged a multi-billion dollar need for reinvestment in 
     our water infrastructure, and this ``funding gap'' is the 
     ongoing subject of bipartisan legislation.
       ACWA represents 440 public water agencies in California 
     collectively responsible for more than 90 percent of the 
     water delivered for residential and agricultural use.
       Thank you for your efforts to increase funding for water 
     infrastructure in the 2004 budget, and we look forward to 
     working with you to advance this worthwhile goal.
           Sincerely,
                                                David L. Reynolds,
     Director of Federal Relations.
                                  ____

                                               American Society of


                                              Civil Engineers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing on behalf of the 
     130,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers 
     (ASCE) to support passage of your amendment to increase 
     funding for the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act 
     State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) programs for fiscal year 
     2004.
       Two years ago ASCE released its 2001 Report Card for 
     America's Infrastructure. At that time, we found that the 
     nation's aging wastewater and drinking-water systems received 
     an overall grade of D. These systems are quintessential 
     examples of aged systems that need to be updated. For 
     example, some sewer systems are 100 years old. Many older 
     drinking-water systems are structurally obsolete.
       The annual funding shortfall of $11 billion for drinking-
     water and $12 billion for wastewater only accounts for 
     improvements to the current system and do not even take into 
     consideration the demands of a growing population.
       The amendment that you propose would help make an important 
     down payment on the necessary investment in our long-
     neglected water systems.
       If ASCE can be of any assistance in this important 
     endeavor, please do not hesitate to contact Brian Pallasch at 
     202-326-5140 or Michael Charles at 202-326-5126.
           Sincerely yours,
                                          Thomas L. Jackson, P.E.,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           Construction Management


                                       Association of America,

                                       McLean, VA, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Jeffords, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Graham: I 
     am writing on behalf of the more than 2,000 members of the 
     Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) to 
     express our strong support for the proposed amendment you 
     plan to offer today during consideration of the FY 2004 
     Budget Resolution, which would increase funding for the Clean 
     Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF) 
     from the Fiscal 2003 enacted level of $2.2 billion to $5.2 
     billion.
       CMAA is an industry association of firms and professionals 
     who provide program and construction management services to 
     owners in the planning, design and construction of capital 
     projects of all types. CMAA's mission is to ``promote 
     professionalism and excellence in the management of the 
     construction process.''
       As you are well aware, America's water infrastructure 
     systems are aging, deteriorating and demanding attention. 
     Reports show that municipal sewer systems overflow some 
     40,000 times annually. In addition, approximately 42 million 
     Americans are served by old sewer systems that don't even 
     separate storm water from waste. The need for improvement is 
     clear, and growing.
       According to a 2001 report published by The Water 
     Infrastructure Network (WIN), of which CMAA is a member, 
     wastewater systems faced a daunting capital investment 
     shortfall of approximately $12 billion each year over the 
     next two decades. A similar report by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) concluded in 2002 that ``costs to 
     construct, operate, and maintain the nation's water 
     infrastructure can be expected to rise significantly in the 
     future.'' The CBO conservatively estimated that the needs 
     would be $13 billion annually for wasterwater systems over 
     the next 20 years.
       An increase in funding for the Clean Water SRF to $3.2 
     billion and for the Safe Drinking Water SRF to $2 billion in 
     fiscal year 2004, as proposed in your amendment, would help 
     address this massive water infrastructure funding gap.
       Once again, CMAA offers its strongest support for this 
     important amendment and commends you for your leadership in 
     helping to address our nation's water infrastructure funding 
     gap. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not 
     hesitate to contact Elizabeth Aronson, our Director of 
     Government Affairs, at 703/216-3248.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Bruce D'Agostino,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 18, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: As you consider the Fiscal Year 2004 
     Budget Resolution, the Associated General Contractors of 
     America (AGC) urges you to support the Jeffords-Sarbanes-
     Mikulski-Graham amendment to boost funding for the Clean and 
     Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The amendment 
     would increase funding from the Fiscal Year 2003 enacted 
     level of $2.19 billion to $5.2 billion.
       AGC is proud of the role the construction industry has 
     played in improving water quality. However, the needs facing 
     our nation's wastewater and drinking water systems are 
     tremendous. The EPA reports that more than 40 percent of our 
     nation's lakes, rivers, and streams are still too impaired 
     for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging and failing 
     sewage systems, urban storm water and other sources continue 
     to pose serious threats to our nation's waters, endangering 
     not only public health, but also fishing and recreation 
     industries. Population growth and development have placed 
     additional stress on the nation's water infrastructure and 
     its ability to sustain the water quality gains realized since 
     the inception of the Clean Water Act. Today, maintaining 
     clean, safe water remains one of our greatest national and 
     global challenges.
       In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a 
     report that estimated the spending gap for clean water needs 
     between $132 billion and $388 billion over 20 years and the 
     spending gap for drinking water needs at between $70 billion 
     and $362 billion over 20 years. In September 2002, the EPA 
     released the Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure 
     Gap Analysis which found that there will be a $535 billion 
     gap between current spending and projected needs for water 
     and wastewater infrastructure (combined) over the next 20 
     years if additional investments are not made. When the 
     analysis was released Administrator Whitman pointed out, ``. 
     . .the magnitude of the challenge America faces is clearly 
     beyond the ability of any one entity to address.''
       The funding included in this amendment will improve our 
     water systems, the environment, and also create tens of 
     thousands of jobs. Please support the Jeffords-Sarbanes-
     Mikulski-Graham amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                              Stephen E. Sandherr,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
  Mr. SARBANES. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I missed the opening part of his comments. Can the 
Senator tell me how much money is involved and over what period of 
time?
  Mr. SARBANES. The amendment has another $3 billion for these 
purposes, both for the Clean Water and the Safe Drinking Water State 
Revolving Funds. These are the moneys that go into the State Revolving 
Funds. Then, of course, they have to be matched by the States and often 
the localities. So the amount of money is leveraged significantly 
beyond what the Federal contribution would be.
  Mr. NICKLES. So there would be a total of $3 billion over the 10-year 
period of time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Another $3 billion, that is right.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend. Am I correct it would be offset, 
reducing the tax reductions that are in the proposal?
  Mr. SARBANES. The bill has room in it for $726 billion worth of tax 
cuts. Obviously, this raises the question of priorities. Is it more 
important to give these particular tax cuts, which, of course, I 
believe strongly are heavily weighted towards the wealthy, as opposed 
to making some investment in programs of this sort? We have to connect 
the two. I am willing to look at doing reasonable tax cuts, but I think 
what is in the resolution, as the chairman knows from my statements in 
committee, is far too excessive. If it were up to me, I would reduce 
that amount. I would use a limited portion of it to fund some of these 
priority programs. I would use the remainder of it to hold down the 
deficit so we are not projecting such large deficits out into the 
future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for offering his 
amendment. We will consider the amendment tomorrow. We have already had 
three or four amendments that are in the queue tomorrow. I understand 
there

[[Page S3987]]

will be others. We have asked other Senators to come forward tonight to 
offer their amendments. The Senator from Maryland is doing that and 
explained it. I appreciate his explanation of the amendment. I am sure 
we will try to get that in the queue. I know Senator Crapo has an 
interest on this issue as well.
  It is 8:45, and we have requested colleagues if they had amendments 
to bring those to the floor. I am concerned about having a vote-arama 
or having so many people saying: Wait a minute, I didn't have a chance 
to offer my amendment.
  We have been saying all along that we would be in session very late 
tonight to receive amendments. We will be in session very late tomorrow 
tonight to dispose of amendments. I would like to see if we can't work 
out some amendments, accept some amendments, voice vote some 
amendments, and work toward completing this bill and avoid the crash at 
the end, the vote-arama where we have votes on amendments without 
having the slightest idea what is in them. We have done that in the 
past. That is not a good way to legislate. I would like to avoid that 
if possible.
  I thank my colleague from Maryland for coming late tonight and 
offering the amendment. I wish more Senators would have. I look forward 
to working with him tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. on 
Thursday, the Senate proceed to a series of votes in relation to the 
following amendments: Kyl amendment No. 288; Dorgan amendment No. 294; 
Rockefeller-Collins amendment No. 275. I further ask unanimous consent 
that no second-degree amendments be in order to any of the preceding 
amendments prior to the vote, and that there be 2 minutes for debate 
equally divided prior to each vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator will modify his 
unanimous consent request that there be 10 minutes between the second 
and third votes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to limit the time 
on the last two amendments to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________