[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6375-6415]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            2004--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Utah 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I use 
be charged against the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Medical Litigation Crisis

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the medical 
liability and litigation crisis in our country.
  This is a crisis that is preventing patients from accessing high-
quality health care--or, in some cases, any care at all--because 
doctors are being driven out of practice. It is a crisis that is 
needlessly increasing the cost of health care for every American.
  This is not the first time we have addressed this issue. As many of 
you will recall, we debated, and passed, medical litigation relief in 
the Commonsense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act back in 1995. 
Unfortunately, the language we passed was stripped from that bill in 
conference.
  I am sorely disappointed that--in the ensuing eight years--we have 
not addressed this problem. As a result, the situation has become 
worse, not better; the problem has expanded, not shrunk. We must act 
now if we are to fix the crisis in health care delivery this has caused 
in many parts of our country.
  I was pleased last summer when President Bush announced his desire to 
address this issue. I am even more pleased that the President has 
continued to emphasize the importance of the problem and the need for 
reform in speeches around the country, and in his State of the Union 
Address. We in the Senate welcome the President's support in this 
effort.
  Make no mistake. We have a health care crisis in this country, one 
that is

[[Page 6376]]

due in large part to litigation that is out of control. But not all 
Americans may be aware of just how serious are the ramifications of 
this crisis.
  This map, with data supplied by the American Medical Association, 
shows the states that currently are experiencing a medical liability 
crisis and those that are showing signs of developing a crisis. The 18 
red states are in crisis. The 27 yellow states are showing problem 
signs. Only five states are currently ``ok''. On a map with last year's 
data, only 12 states were in crisis. The problem is growing and it 
reaches from coast to coast.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a July 18, 
2002, Associated Press article, ``Soaring Malpractice Insurance 
Squeezes out Doctors, Clinics,'' that highlights some of the problems 
faced by patients and doctors.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Associated Press, July 18, 2002]

      Soaring Malpractice Insurance Squeezes Out Doctors, Clinics

                          (By Theresa Agovino)

       The shock from Jim Lawson's July 4 death in a Nevada auto 
     accident was felt well beyond his family and friends.
       The two-car crash on a busy street leading to Las Vegas 
     airport came just one day after the nearest trauma clinic, at 
     the University Medical Center, closed down. The 58 orthopedic 
     surgeons who rotate through the hospital had insisted on 
     relief from the soaring cost of medical malpractice 
     insurance.
       No one can be sure his death, confirmed at an emergency 
     room an hour away, could have been avoided. Trauma centers 
     generally offer more effective attention for accident 
     victims.
       But it prompted a quick July 13 reopening of the university 
     center. Some 10 to 15 of the doctors agreed to become 
     temporary employees of the county hospital, limiting their 
     liability to $50,000, while the governor tries to enact 
     legislation that would restrict medical malpractice awards.
       On a much broader level, it brought new attention to a 
     national problem that doctors say is obliging many of them to 
     flee certain states or give up certain specialties--or the 
     entire profession--because of skyrocketing insurance premiums 
     linked to soaring jury awards.
       The impact of the trauma center's closure in Las Vegas was 
     summed up by its director, Dr. John Fildes: ``The standard of 
     care in our community was set back 25 years.''
       The number of communities suffering similar problems is 
     mushrooming.
       This summer, two Pennsylvania hospitals, one Arizona 
     hospital and a clinic in Oregon closed their obstetrics 
     units.
       Several counties in upstate New York have no obstetricians 
     covering night shifts.
       Soon, two counties in Pennsylvania won't have a 
     neurosurgeon. Seven hospitals on the Mississippi coast share 
     3 neurosurgeons, one of whom, Terry Smith in Biloxi, is 
     likely to leave next month because he can't find insurance.
       Thirteen insurance companies have refused to cover Dr. 
     Smith, who currently pays $65,000 in annual premiums. One 
     company may agree to cover him, but it is likely to cost 
     $100,000, an amount he says he can't afford.
       Smith said he often puts in seven-day weeks now to meet the 
     community's needs.
       ``This is an area with lots of poor and minority people, so 
     you as a doctor feel you're doing something important,'' 
     Smith said. ``I feel guilty about leaving but I just don't 
     have a choice.
       ``The two guys I'm leaving behind are friends of mine and 
     they'll be working even harder,'' he said.
       Mississippi is one of 12 states where rising premiums, tied 
     to awards by state juries in malpractice cases, are creating 
     a crisis, according to the American Medical Association. The 
     others are New York, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Georgia, 
     Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon and West 
     Virginia.
       Because of risks associated with certain medical conditions 
     and forms of treatment, some specialties pay especially high 
     rates, and those rates are compounded by being charged in 
     states where laws place fewer limits on jury awards.
       For example, while premium increases this year average 
     about 15 percent nationwide for all practices, rates for 
     obstetricians and gynecologists in Pennsylvania are set to 
     balloon by anywhere from 40 percent to even 81 percent, 
     according to Medical Liability Monitor, a trade publication. 
     In West Virginia, they are catapulting anywhere from 29 
     percent to 36 percent.
       The average jury award for medical malpractice doubled to 
     $1 million in the six years ending in 2000, according to Jury 
     Verdict Research, a private database used by lawyers, 
     insurers and doctors. Lawyers who handle malpractice cases 
     are critical of the database, pointing out that it is not 
     comprehensive and contending that its findings are inflated.
       In any event, verdicts of more than $1 million are common 
     in states like Mississippi and Nevada. in the first six 
     months of this year, there were five jury awards in in 
     Mississippi and the average verdict was $5.6 million, 
     according to the state's medical association.
       ``I think juries are just frustrated with managed care and 
     health care in general, so they take it out on doctors,'' 
     said Dr. Michael Daubs, an orthopedic surgeon who said he may 
     leave Las Vegas if his rates keep rising.
       He says he has never been sued but his insurance jumped 
     $20,000 to $60,000 a year. He has applied for medical 
     licenses in three other states.
       Some insurance companies are leaving the medical liability 
     business. St. Paul Cos, the second largest provider of 
     medical malpractice insurance, announced last December it 
     would stop writing policies, leaving 42,000 doctors searching 
     for coverage. St. Paul said it lost close to $1 billion on 
     its medical malpractice line last year.
       Smaller insurers are also cutting back or leaving the 
     business. Pennsylvania's second-largest medical malpractice 
     insurer, Phico Insurance Co., failed earlier this year and 
     was liquidated by the state.
       Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would 
     limit the pain and suffering portion of malpractice awards to 
     $250,000. The bill, intended to override state laws, would 
     also curtail lawyers' fees and allow juries to hear about the 
     plaintiffs' other sources of income.
       ``We absolutely need tort reform,'' said Dr. Donald 
     Palmisano, president elect of the AMA. ``The situation has 
     spiraled out of control.
       The AMA lists six states as having their malpractice 
     situations under control: California, Colorado, New Mexico, 
     Wisconsin, Indiana and Louisiana. In Wisconsin, where there 
     is a limit on awards, St. Paul did not suffer a loss.
       Trial lawyers are opposed to the caps. They cite surveys 
     showing juries rule in favor of doctors in two thirds of all 
     malpractice lawsuits. They say doctors and hospitals should 
     focus on reducing mistakes, not jury awards.
       ``If you run over someone over by accident, no one is 
     putting a cap on what you will have to pay them. Why do we 
     want to elevate one group in society above another?'' said 
     Leo Boyle, president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of 
     America.
       Boyle blames insurance companies for keeping rates 
     artificially low in the 1990s to win business as they 
     expanded wildly, a practice made possible by blooming returns 
     in the stock market. ``Insurance companies were reckless in 
     their pricing and now patients are supposed to pay for it?'' 
     he said.
       Joseph Roethel, who follows the medical insurance industry 
     as assistant vice president at A.M. Best Co., an insurance 
     rating agency, parcels out the blame equally: Insurance 
     companies kept rates too low in the 1990s and jury awards 
     have gone too high.
       Now, he said, ``Insurance companies don't have the reserves 
     for these types of jury awards.''
       Some doctors are resorting to working without insurance, 
     using a credit line or their own money to cover malpractice 
     expenses. The practice isn't common but is done, especially 
     in Florida. Most hospitals won't allow that practice.
       Two hospitals in West Virginia have begun directly 
     employing more doctors and paying their insurance to 
     alleviate the doctor shortage. Many hospitals consider such 
     an option too expensive.
       At Bluefield Regional Medical Center in West Virginia, 
     doctors are more careful now in delivering medicine, 
     according to hospital president Eugene Palowski. But they are 
     also much less willing to care for high-risk patients with 
     multiple conditions, leaving them to find physicians in 
     surrounding states.
       Many patients are confused, or just plain angry.
       Marine Hawkins, 20, of Boyle, Miss., was shocked to hear 
     from her obstetrician that he was closing his practice--just 
     two weeks before her due date of July 21.
       The nearest doctor is 30 minutes away. She doesn't have a 
     car, and will have to rely on relatives to get there.
       ``This isn't what I needed now,'' she said.

  Mr. HATCH. The article points to the ``national problem that doctors 
say is obliging many of them to flee certain states or give up certain 
specialties--or the entire profession--because of skyrocketing 
insurance premiums linked to soaring jury awards.''
  The article notes, as I am sure my colleagues from Nevada are acutely 
aware, that the University Medical Center trauma clinic in Las Vegas--
the only Level one trauma center in Nevada--closed on July 3 last year.
  The 58 doctors who were associated with the trauma center had 
requested, but had not received, much-needed relief from soaring 
medical liability insurance costs.
  Let me give you just one example of the havoc this wreaked. On the 
4th of

[[Page 6377]]

July, the day after the center closed, Jim Lawson could not access the 
Level one trauma care that he needed. Mr. Lawson was the victim of a 
serious traffic accident, and on that day, the closest Level one trauma 
center was more than an hour away by air!
  Unfortunately, Mr. Lawson did not survive. The trauma center was 
hurriedly reopened on July 13, but with only 10-15 doctors working on a 
temporary basis, with limited liability. Commenting on the trauma 
center's closure, its director, Dr. John Fildes, stated, ``The standard 
of care in our community was set back 25 years.''
  Mr. Lawson's family spoke at a press conference here in the Senate 
last week. His death was a tragedy to his family and to his community. 
No one knows whether Mr. Lawson could have been saved had he been 
treated at the nearby trauma center. But would any of us want that to 
happen to one of our loved ones? To be forced to bypass the nearest 
trauma center, and travel an hour to receive emergency care?
  I certainly would not. And, the Senate should take the necessary 
steps to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. But this crisis 
is not limited to emergency services. Ensuring the availability of 
adequate obstetric care is also an increasing problem.
  According to the same Associated Press article, one Arizona hospital, 
a clinic in Oregon, and two Pennsylvania hospitals closed their 
obstetrics units recently. Several counties in upstate New York have no 
obstetricians covering night shifts.
  What does that say to the expectant mother whose child comes into the 
world at night . . . ``There's no room at the inn''?
  The crisis is particularly acute in the farming and ranching 
communities of rural America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
print in the Record a Washington Post article from February 3, 2003, 
titled ``Insurance Crisis Hits Hard on Prairie; Denied Coverage, 
Obstetrician for 3 Wyoming Counties Ends Practice.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From The Washington Post, Feb. 3, 2003]

 Insurance Crisis Hits Hard on Prairie; Denied Coverage, Obstetrician 
                  for 3 Wyoming Counties Ends Practice

                             (By T.R. Reid)

       When the Wheatland High Bulldogs hosted arch-rival Douglas 
     for a basketball game the other night, the gym was jammed 
     with fans roaring support for the home team. But one 
     prominent Wheatland citizen watched the game with mixed 
     loyalties. Willard Woods, the local obstetrician, had 
     delivered just about every player on both the Wheatland and 
     Douglas teams.
       As the only ``baby doctor'' serving a three-county swath of 
     the khaki-brown Wyoming prairie for the past quarter-century, 
     Woods has delivered about 2,500 infants, including almost all 
     the high school athletes in Wheatland, Douglas, Chugwater and 
     other rural communities. But this winter, Woods ended his 
     obstetrical practice.
       ``I love delivering babies,'' the intense physician, 56, 
     said. ``I really love delivering the babies of women I 
     delivered a couple decades ago. And I know this community 
     needs an obstetrician.
       ``But you can't practice without [malpractice] insurance. 
     And I can't get coverage for deliveries any more.''
       The national malpractice insurance crisis that President 
     Bush spoke of in his State of the Union address last week hit 
     home for Wheatland this winter when Woods' insurance company 
     joined a number of national malpractice carriers in declaring 
     bankruptcy.
       That left only two firms selling malpractice insurance in 
     Wyoming, and neither one was willing to take on a new 
     obstetrical coverage. Woods did get insurance for his 
     gynecological practice--a branch of medicine that spawns far 
     fewer lawsuits than delivering babies--but the annual premium 
     costs him $116,000, three times what he paid a year ago.
       In this wheat-growing region of eastern Wyoming, where 
     medical services are sparse and scattered--Platte County, 
     with a population of less than 9,000, has five doctors, equal 
     to the number of veterinarians--the impact has been acute.
       Women with normal pregnancies can still have their babies 
     delivered in the hospital; Woods's two partners, both general 
     practitioners, share the delivery duties.
       ``But if you have any kind of problem, like I did,'' said 
     Wheatland mother Kori Wilhelm, who has a genetic blood 
     mutation that makes pregnancy dangerous, ``you have to go to 
     Cheyenne now--and it's a three-hour round trip--to get the 
     specialized treatment we used to get right down the street at 
     Dr. Woods's clinic.''
       Woods' problem has turned into a financial problem for 
     Platte County Memorial Hospital, a 43-bed facility that is 
     Wheatland's biggest building. ``The economics of a rural 
     hospital are always tight,'' noted hospital director Mike 
     Matthews. ``If I don't have all my physicians providing 
     services here, I'm losing revenue. And if I have to cut 
     back--well, this hospital is the third-biggest employer in 
     the county.''
       The two family practitioners who share Woods's practice 
     have found their lives complicated by the insurance problems. 
     Their malpractice premiums have gone up sharply, though 
     neither one has ever been sued. Even worse has been the 
     impact on their daily schedules.
       ``We're now the only docs delivering babies in the whole 
     area,'' said Steve Peasley, a Douglas native who returned to 
     the prairie after finishing Georgetown Medical School. ``So 
     each one of us has to be on call every other day. That means 
     you can't leave town. You can't have a beer at the barbecue. 
     And after a full day of regular practice, you get a call from 
     the hospital at 3 a.m. saying somebody's in labor.''
       Wheatland's medical problem is replicated in communities 
     large and small across the country as more and more doctors 
     find malpractice insurance out of reach. Some doctors in New 
     Jersey plan to demonstrate today to protest the high cost of 
     insurance, while doctors have already staged protests in West 
     Virginia, Nevada and Florida. Bush's proposed solution to the 
     growing crisis is to put a limit on the amount of damages an 
     injured patient can win. That would reduce the number of 
     multimillion-dollar jury verdicts, cutting the risk for 
     doctors and their insurance companies. In Woods's view, the 
     president has it just right.
       ``We love that plan,'' he said. ``It will save medicine in 
     Wyoming.'' In the neighboring state of Colorado, he notes, 
     which has a limit on pain-and-suffering awards, malpractice 
     premiums tend to be a fraction of the Wyoming rates.
       Wyoming's state constitution prohibits any limit on damage 
     claims against a corporation--a ban that goes back to the 
     1880's, when the Union Pacific Railroad was the most 
     powerful, and most hated, institution in the state. But a 
     federal law capping damages would presumably override the 
     state constitution.
       Still, there are doubts here about the Bush plan. ``The cap 
     on damages sounds like a simple solution, but it isn't one,'' 
     said Dave Freudenthal, a lawyer and Wyoming's newly elected 
     Democratic governor. ``We just had hearings in the 
     legislature on this issue. The insurance companies said a cap 
     on damages would not reduce rates, and would not induce any 
     more companies to sell [malpractice insurance] in Wyoming.''
       The governor said he hopes to appoint a blue-ribbon panel 
     to study ``new approaches that would work in a rural, 
     sparsely populated state like this.'' Wyoming covers a land 
     area bigger than Maryland and Virginia combined but has fewer 
     residents, and fewer doctors, than the District.
       While the study is underway, Wheatland has to get by 
     without an obstetrician.
       ``I can't practice OB anymore, and nobody else will do it, 
     either,'' Woods said with a grimace. ``My daughter wants to 
     be a doctor, and she asked me what kind of medicine she can 
     do so she doesn't have to worry about insurance. And I said, 
     `Well, you sure don't want to deliver babies.'''

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the article describes the plight of the 
people of Platte County, WY, population 9000, where the only 
obstetrician has been forced to give up delivering babies because 
obstetrics liability insurance is unavailable.
  The article states:

       As the only ``baby doctor'' serving a three-county swath of 
     the . . . Wyoming prairie for the past quarter-century, (Dr.) 
     Woods has delivered about 2,500 infants, including almost all 
     the high school athletes in Wheatland, Douglas, Chugwater and 
     other rural communities. But this winter, Woods ended his 
     obstetrical practice. ``I love delivering babies,'' the 
     intense (56-year-old) physician said. ``I really love 
     delivering the babies of women I delivered a couple of 
     decades ago. And I know this community needs an obstetrician. 
     But you can't practice without (malpractice) insurance. And I 
     can't get coverage for deliveries any more.''

  This is not news to the rural West. There is an increasing shortage 
in my home state of Utah as well. Studies by both the Utah Medical 
Association and the Utah Chapter of the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists underscore the problem in my state. 
According to the Utah Medical Association:

       50.5 percent of Family Practitioners in Utah have already 
     given up obstetrical services or never practiced obstetrics. 
     Of the remaining 49.5 percent who still deliver babies, 32.7 
     percent say they plan to stop providing OB services within 
     the next decade. Most plan to stop within the next five 
     years.


[[Page 6378]]


  The Utah Medical Association study also relates:

       Professional liability concerns [were] given as the chief 
     contributing factor in the decision to discontinue 
     obstetrical services. Such concerns include the cost of 
     liability insurance premiums, the hassles and costs involved 
     in defending against obstetrical lawsuits and a general fear 
     of being sued in today's litigious environment.

  Mr. President, ensuring the availability of high-quality prenatal and 
delivery care for pregnant women and their babies, the most vulnerable 
members of our society, is imperative. But these are not the only 
members of society who have difficulty in accessing healthcare.
  According to the July 2002 Department of Health and Human Services 
report, ``Confronting the New Health Care Crisis: Improving Health Care 
Quality and Lowering Cost by Fixing our Medical Liability System,'' the 
indigent are finding it increasingly difficult to access care also.
  The HHS report states that ``[m]any doctors cannot volunteer their 
services for a patient who cannot pay, and the proportion of the 
physicians who provide charity care at all has declined, because 
doctors cannot afford the required liability coverage.''
  The July, 2002 report and the Department's report released this 
month, ``Addressing the New Health Care Crisis: Reforming the Medical 
Litigation System to Improve the Quality of Health Care,'' describe the 
economic consequences of rising insurance costs also.
  While many Americans have experienced problems accessing healthcare 
due to excessive litigation, all Americans are paying for it. This is a 
national problem and one that requires a national solution.
  In my letter of March 12 to Budget Committee Chairman Nickles and 
ranking Democrat Conrad, I emphasized the important implications of 
medical liability litigation on the Federal budget.
  In that letter, I wrote:

       The Federal Government pays directly for health care for 
     members of the armed forces, veterans, and patients served in 
     the Indian Health Service. The Federal Government provides 
     reimbursements for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 
     According to the Department of Health and Human Services 
     March 3, 2003, report . . . the Federal Government spends 
     $33.7 billion-$56.2 billion per year for malpractice coverage 
     and the costs of defensive medicine. That report states, 
     ``reasonable limits on non-economic damages would reduce the 
     amount of taxpayers' money the Federal Government spends by 
     $28.1 billion-$50.6 billion per year.''

  I continued to write:

       In my view, federal legislation that would decrease costly 
     frivolous medical liability lawsuits and limit awards for 
     non-economic damages is necessary, not only to ensure patient 
     access to health care, but to curb increasing Federal health 
     care costs. Because of the substantial and important 
     budgetary implications, particularly to the Medicare and 
     Medicaid programs, we request that the budget resolution 
     include language calling for medical liability legislation 
     reform.

  I am pleased to report that the budget resolution we are considering 
today recognizes the tremendous impact of medical liability costs. In 
fact, the budget resolution as reported includes $11.3 billion in 
savings over 10 years as a result of medical liability reform, based on 
CBO calculations. The Medicare program alone will save $7.9 billion, 
while Medicaid will save $2.9 billion. The remaining savings will occur 
in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and the Department of 
Defense.
  Medical liability litigation directly and dramatically increases 
health care costs for all Americans. But, skyrocketing medical 
litigation costs also increase health care costs indirectly by changing 
the way doctors practice medicine. In an effort to avoid frivolous 
suits, doctors often feel compelled to perform diagnostic tests that 
are costly and unnecessary.
  This defensive medicine is wasteful, but for doctors it has 
unfortunately become necessary. According to a recent Harris poll, fear 
of being sued has led 79 percent of doctors to order more tests than 
are medically needed, 74 percent to refer patients to specialists more 
often than necessary, 51 percent to recommend invasive procedures that 
they thought were unnecessary, and 41 percent to prescribe more 
medications, including antibiotics, that they did not think were 
necessary.
  Defensive medicine increases health care costs, but the real risk of 
the current medical liability system and the resulting practice of 
defensive medicine is that it also puts Americans at risk. Every test 
and every treatment poses a risk to the patient. Every unnecessary 
test, procedure, and treatment potentially puts a patient in harm's 
way. According to the Harris poll, 76 percent of the physicians are 
concerned that malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide 
quality care to patients.
  And so, that brings us to the big question: What can we do to address 
this crisis? The answer is plenty. There are excellent examples of what 
works. The March, 2003 Department of Health and Human Services report 
describes how reasonable reforms in some states have reduced health 
care costs and improved access to quality health care. According to the 
report, over the last two years, in states with limits of $250,000 to 
$350,000 on non-economic damages, premiums have increased at an average 
of 18 percent compared to 45 percent in States without such limits.
  California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, also 
known as MICRA, over 25 years ago in 1975. MICRA slowed the rate of 
increase in medical liability premiums dramatically without affecting 
negatively the quality of health care received by the State's 
residents. As a result, doctors are not leaving California. 
Furthermore, between 1976 and 2000, premiums increased by 167 percent 
in California. But, believe it or not, they increased three times as 
much, an incredible 505 percent, in the rest of the country. 
Consequently, Californians were saved billions of dollars in health 
care costs and Federal taxpayers were saved billions of dollars in the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  The March, 2003 report goes on to state:

       A leading study estimates that reasonable limits on non-
     economic damages such as California has had in effect for 25 
     years, can reduce health care costs by 5-9 percent without 
     ``substantial effects on mortality or medical 
     complications.'' With national health care expenditures 
     currently estimated to be $1.4 trillion, if this reform were 
     adopted nationally, it would save $70-126 billion in health 
     care costs per year.

  I would guess that no one in this body--with perhaps the exception of 
our colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Bill Frist, our majority leader--is 
more keenly aware of the defects in this system than I. Before coming 
to Congress, I litigated several medical liability cases as a defense 
lawyer. I have seen heart-wrenching cases in which mistakes were made. 
But, more often, I have seen heart-wrenching cases in which mistakes 
were not made and doctors were forced to expend valuable time and 
resources defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits.
  It has been estimated that 66 percent of all medical liability 
lawsuits brought are frivolous. They are brought by plaintiff's 
attorneys who seek to obtain the costs of defense, costs that approach 
$100,000 per case.
  Let me take a moment to address the unfortunate incident that 
occurred recently in North Carolina. As the country is so painfully 
aware, Jesica Santillan, a young girl who needed a heart and lung 
transplant, received organs of the wrong blood type. Her death was a 
tragedy and our hearts go out to everyone involved.
  Some are seizing on Jesica's most unfortunate death to argue that we 
should not proceed with medical liability reform legislation. I would 
argue just the opposite: Jesica's death shows the need for reform of 
the current system. Let me make clear that we do not know all of the 
facts surrounding Jesica's case. We are not the doctors, the family, 
the Duke personnel or their lawyers. But we do know that the current 
medical liability system did not prevent Jesica's death. In fact, many 
experts believe that the current system, by discouraging communication 
between doctors, nurses, and hospitals, increases the likelihood that 
medical errors will occur.
  The recent Institute of Medicine report, ``To Err is Human'' 
described the

[[Page 6379]]

impact of preventable medical errors in America's health care system. 
One of the report's main conclusions was that:

       The majority of medical errors do not result from 
     individual recklessness or the actions of a particular group 
     this is not a ``bad apple'' problem. More commonly, errors 
     are caused by faulty systems, processes, and conditions that 
     lead people to make mistakes or fail to prevent them.

  We do not know all of the facts of Jesica's case. But, we do know 
that more lawsuits cannot prevent medical errors from occurring. Her 
death should not be used by those who oppose medical litigation reform 
to prevent other patients from receiving access to the care they 
deserve. No, Jesica's death does not indicate that medical liability 
reform is unnecessary. If anything, cases such as this support the need 
for reform.
  We need reform to identify better and more efficiently when 
malpractice has occurred and which patients should be compensated. We 
need reform to identify better when malpractice has not occurred. The 
reform that I envision would address litigation abuses in order to 
provide swift and appropriate compensation for malpractice victims, 
redress for serious problems, and ensure that medical liability costs 
do not prevent patients from accessing the care they need.
  Jesica's death was a tragedy. But it would be a greater tragedy if we 
let her death prevent other little boys and girls from receiving access 
to the life-saving care they need. That is what is happening in many 
parts of America today. And that is what will continue to happen if we 
do not address this crisis in this Congress.
  And so, we need to move ahead with legislation to improve patient 
safety and reduce medical errors. I agree that we need to find an 
appropriate way to address egregious cases. No one believes more than I 
that victims of malpractice should be compensated swiftly and 
appropriately for their losses. But that is not what is happening in 
our current medical legal system. Patients are forced to meander 
through a complicated legal system and often are awarded damages only 
after years of legal bickering. Juries are awarding astounding and 
unreasonable sums for pain and suffering. A sizable portion of those 
awards goes to the attorney rather than the patient. The result: 
Doctors cannot get insurance and patients cannot get the care they 
need.
  As Chairmen of the HELP and Judiciary Committees, Senator Gregg and I 
held a joint hearing earlier this month in an attempt to identify the 
root causes of the crisis. We heard from a patient who experienced an 
adverse outcome due to a medical error. But, we also heard from a 
patient and a patient's wife who were victims of the current crisis, 
unable to find the medical care they or their loved ones desperately 
needed because medical liability insurance costs had driven doctors out 
of practice.
  We heard from a lawyer who believes that insurance reform is the 
answer. But, in addition, we heard from the Texas State Insurance 
Commissioner and also from the president of Physician Insurance 
Association of America, representing provider-owned or operated 
insurance companies that provide insurance for the majority of American 
doctors. These gentlemen face this crisis and its consequences every 
day. Their data and their studies as well as those from the Department 
of Health and Human Services show that increasingly frequent frivolous 
lawsuits and skyrocketing awards are responsible for rapidly rising 
premiums.
  Has the recent downturn in the economy and the stock market affected 
medical liability premiums? Possibly, but this does not appear to be a 
major cause of the current crisis. Insurance companies invest 
conservatively, primarily in bonds and State insurance commissioners 
monitor and regulate insurance business practices closely. Moreover, 
insurance companies are precluded from increasing premiums to make up 
for past losses.
  As a matter of fact, they have to cover these losses. The country's 
largest medical liability insurance company, St. Paul, no longer 
provides this insurance. Now doctors are forming their own nonprofit 
corporations to handle these matters and one can imagine that they are 
doing their best to reduce costs.
  It seems to me that the insurance reform discussed at the hearing not 
only misses the mark badly; it would do nothing to address the cause of 
the crisis and it would prevent State Insurance Commissioners from 
performing the job they were appointed to do. I have to say that I came 
away from our hearing convinced that out-of-control medical litigation 
is the major cause of the crisis and that we must do something to stop 
it.
  The current medical litigation system resembles a lottery more than 
it does a justice system. This system harms patients in many ways and 
raids every American's wallet. All Americans deserve the access to 
care, the cost savings and the legal protections that States like 
California provide their residents. This problem has reached crisis 
proportions and it is high time that we act. The task before us is to 
design a system that protects both the patient and the provider. It is 
important that we take steps to benefit both patients and health care 
providers, not the trial lawyers. Or else, we are in danger of losing 
access to necessary healthcare.
  Let's put some sense into the system by passing medical litigation 
improvement legislation this year that gives patients access to their 
doctors and enables doctors to provide high quality cost-effective 
medical care. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of the Senator from North Dakota, the manager of 
the amendment, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                        Support for The Military

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as America braces for war, my thoughts 
are with our troops. Our men and women in uniform have my steadfast 
support. Though there is disagreement about the best way to disarm 
Saddam, there is something we all agree upon, and that is that America 
must be united in support for our troops. We must defend our defenders 
and stand up for the brave men and women of our military.
  Each and every member of our military is part of an American family. 
They are about to make tremendous sacrifices and undertake great risks. 
They need to know that the United States of America is with them, and 
that we owe them a debt of gratitude. But the military does not need 
just our words; they need our help. We must support them not only with 
words but with deeds. That means to ensure our troops have the best 
training and the best equipment we can provide.
  We also need to stand up for American families, for the military 
families who are facing long separations and terrible worries about the 
safety of their loved ones. While they worry about their spouses 
overseas, they do not need to be facing financial worries at home. 
America needs to make sure these families do not face financial 
hardship.
  With our U.S. military overseas, their spouses should not be worried 
about counting pennies. Their spouses should not have to worry about 
going on food stamps. Their spouses should not have to, as the Guard 
and Reserve is being called up, worry about if they are going to have 
to go through their savings and their family's college accounts. So 
while we are talking about tax cuts for Joe Billionaire, let us make 
sure we do not forget GI Joe and GI Jane. We need to remember them not 
only with parades, but we need to remember them in the Federal 
checkbook and we need to remember them in the Federal Tax Code. We need 
to get behind those troops and use this budget and other actions we 
will be taking up to support our troops.
  Let's not forget why we are at this point. The fault lies squarely 
with Saddam Hussein. For the last 12 years, he has ignored U.N. 
resolutions and embargoes while rebuilding his illegal chemical and 
biological weapons. U.N. Resolution 1441 gave Saddam a final

[[Page 6380]]

opportunity to come clean and destroy his prohibited weapons and to 
fully report to the U.N. He continues to ignore that. He is dangerous 
and duplicitous. He needs to be disarmed.
  Americans have differing views on how best to do this. Saddam is a 
danger to the world; therefore, the world should share the burden of 
defanging him. The risks and consequences of acting alone are much 
greater than they would be from multilateral action. The risks to our 
troops are greater, and the challenge in postconflict Iraq will be 
greater if other nations do not share the burden.
  That is why, during the debate, I voted against unilateral action but 
voted for Senator Levin's amendment to demand that Iraq disarm and to 
authorize the use of multinational force if Iraq refused to comply, and 
to do this through the United Nations. Once we gave unilateral 
authority to the President, I believe it let the international 
community off the hook. Why would members of the U.N. Security Council 
make any tough decisions? They did not have to. They knew we would go 
it alone. Why would they stand up and make tough decisions and take 
tough actions? They did not have to. They knew we would go it alone. I 
believe by authorizing unilateral action, the Senate actually weakened 
the negotiating position of our President and the Secretary of State at 
the U.N. Why would other countries send their troops in harm's way if 
America was ready to do it without them? Unfortunately, this is what 
has happened.
  The U.N. refused to act, and the United States is now poised to act 
alone with a modest coalition of the willing. We cannot let this be the 
end of diplomacy. The President must continue to work with other 
nations to expand that coalition of the willing so that the dangers of 
war are shared along with the cost. He needs to go back to the U.N. to 
share the responsibility and the economic cost of rebuilding Iraq. I 
know we will face a significant humanitarian crisis, and we already are 
facing significant humanitarian need in the United States of America. 
While we are going to talk about rebuilding Baghdad, we cannot end up 
paying the whole bill ourselves. Because while we rebuild Baghdad, I 
have to worry about rebuilding Baltimore, and Salisbury, and other 
communities.
  I face a budget, as an appropriator, that is skimpy, spartan, and 
takes it out on public housing residents and shrinks opportunity at the 
very time we want to be able to go it alone.
  The President has made his choice. We are going to support the 
decision of the United States of America. We are going to support our 
troops. Let's support our troops in the budget. When we take a look at 
the budget, let's take a patriotic pause, and make sure we can afford 
not only to be a world power and stand up for America but make sure we 
have a budget where we stand up for what America stands for: 
Empowerment, hope, and opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from 
Maryland for her statement and for the values expressed in that 
statement.
  I think we have reached a critical moment. We have 250,000 troops 
poised on the border with Iraq. There are a number of additional troops 
from the U.K. Other nations may be involved, as well. There is no 
provision for the cost of this conflict in the budget.
  It does strike me as the better part of wisdom to say we ought to 
limit any additional measures that add to the deficit by either 
spending or tax cuts, with the two exceptions I have noted before. On 
the spending side, certainly we would exempt national defense and 
homeland security. On the tax side, we would be wise to exempt the 
funds for a stimulus package in 2003 and 2004. Beyond that, we would 
require a supermajority vote that adds to deficits when we are on the 
brink of conflict, the cost of which has not been quantified.
  That is what my amendment is about. I hope as we move closer to the 
time toward a vote on that amendment, our colleagues will give 
thoughtful consideration to what I have offered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment of 
the Senator from North Dakota. Though cloaked in the arcane language of 
a Budget Act point of order, the goal of the amendment is clear and 
important. The amendment says that this Congress should not pass new 
spending or new tax cuts until we have adequately budgeted for the war.
  The Conrad amendment contains exceptions for spending on national 
security, homeland security, or stimulative tax cuts with no budgetary 
effect after 2005. But beyond those essential measures, Congress could 
not pass any of our new policy initiatives--not Democratic or 
Republican initiatives--not new entitlement programs or new tax cuts--
until we are sure we have the resources to fund the war we will almost 
certainly begin this week.
  It is amazing that we even have to have this debate. It will be even 
more unbelievable if this amendment fails. The budget is our spending 
blueprint for the next fiscal year. It lays out our spending and tax 
priorities. Yet nowhere in the budget are there funds allocated for 
military action in Iraq, for recovery after the war, for the foreign 
aid promised to our allies, for increased protection domestically from 
retaliatory terrorist attacks. Not a dime.
  Is that because the supporters of this budget don't want to pay for 
the costs of fighting the war in Iraq? Of course not. I am confident 
that every member of Congress fully supports our troops as they deploy 
overseas. The President will send us a bill for the war and the 
resulting increases in homeland security, and Congress will pay it--
promptly and fully.
  So why is it not in the budget? One simple reason. The authors of 
this budget want an enormous tax cut: $1.4 billion in tax cuts--most of 
which will benefit upper income tax payers--over the next 10 years. 
Half of those cuts are even given our special, fast track treatment 
through the reconciliation process. The authors also want to show a 
balanced budget within the next decade. And they do that by cutting 
domestic spending, including defense. The largest cuts come in the last 
5 years of the budget.
  But if we figure in the costs of the war, the after-war Iraq 
restoration, and increased homeland security, there's no way our budget 
will balance in 10, or even 20, years. There is no way we can afford 
the war we are all already committed to fund and an enormous tax cut. 
No way.
  It is irresponsible to commit to unnecessary, enormous tax giveaways 
at a time our scarce resources might be needed to fight a war. In the 
name of responsible budgeting--in the name of sane budgeting--shouldn't 
we at least delay the tax cuts until we have a better idea of what the 
war will cost?
  The American people are willing to sacrifice for war--especially 
those who are leaving their families and homes to fight in a foreign 
land. Shouldn't we be willing to sacrifice as well? Shouldn't we give 
up these ridiculous budget games and do our jobs. In my mind, that 
means making sure our troops have adequate funds to successfully win 
the war in Iraq, that our country is safe from terrorist attacks, and 
that our debt doesn't grow so large that it strangles growth and 
opportunity for future generations.
  The Conrad amendment will help us write a budget that is 
responsible--to our troops overseas, to our families at home, and to 
the future generations who count on us to leave their country better 
off than we inherited it. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I have worked with the two managers of the bill and the two 
leaders, and it appears that we will be able to have two back-to-back 
votes around 5 p.m. today. The staff is in the process of preparing a 
written announcement. There very likely will be two votes on two 
separate amendments at or about 5 o'clock today.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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.

[[Page 6381]]


  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 following a 
point of order against the Conrad amendment No. 264, Senator Conrad be 
recognized in order to make a motion to waive relative to his amendment 
and that the amendment and the motion then be temporarily set aside; 
provided further that Senator Conrad be recognized in order to offer an 
amendment, the text of which is at the desk, and that the time until 5 
o'clock be equally divided in relation to the amendment; further, I ask 
that at 5 o'clock the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
motion to waive with respect to amendment No. 264, and regardless of 
the outcome, the Senate then immediately proceed to a vote in relation 
to the second Conrad amendment. Also, no second-degree amendments be in 
order prior to the above amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment, No. 264, 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, proposes to 
create a new point of order prohibiting the consideration of certain 
spending and tax measures until the President sends information 
regarding the costs of the war. The language is not germane to the 
measure now before the Senate; therefore, I raise an objection under 
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the two managers of the bill allow 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the second vote?
  Mr. NICKLES. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified to 
that effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 266

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 266.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 redirect $1.214 trillion in revenues that would have been 
   lost by implementing the President's entire tax cut agenda into a 
  reserve fund to strengthen the Social Security trust funds over the 
                               long-term)

       On page 3 line 9, decrease the amount by $50,472,000,000
       On page 3 line 10, increase the amount by $118,203,000,000.
       On page 3 line 11, increase the amount by $103,103,000,000.
       On page 3 line 12, increase the amount by $67,667,000,000.
       On page 3 line 13, increase the amount by $48,733,000,000.
       On page 3 line 14, increase the amount by $45,877,000,000.
       On page 3 line 15, increase the amount by $46,217,000,000.
       On page 3 line 16, increase the amount by $51,107,000,000.
       On page 3 line 17, increase the amount by $185,171,000,000.
       On page 3 line 18, increase the amount by $279,411,000,000.
       On page 3 line 19, increase the amount by $296,254,000,000.
       On page 3 line 23, decrease the amount by $50,472,000,000.
       On page 4 line 1, increase the amount by $118,203,000,000.
       On page 4 line 2, increase the amount by $103,103,000,000.
       On page 4 line 3, increase the amount by $67,667,000,000.
       On page 4 line 4, increase the amount by $48,733,000,000.
       On page 4 line 5, increase the amount by $45,877,000,000.
       On page 4 line 6, increase the amount by $46,217,000,000.
       On page 4 line 7, increase the amount by $51,107,000,000.
       On page 4 line 8, increase the amount by $185,171,000,000.
       On page 4 line 9, increase the amount by $279,411,000,000.
       On page 4 line 10, increase the amount by $296,254,000,000.
       On page 4 line 14, increase the amount by $373,000,000.
       On page 4 line 15, decrease the amount by $681,000,000.
       On page 4 line 16, decrease the amount by $5,789,000,000.
       On page 4 line 17, decrease the amount by $10,895,000,000.
       On page 4 line 18, decrease the amount by $14,956,000,000.
       On page 4 line 19, decrease the amount by $18,291,000,000.
       On page 4 line 20, decrease the amount by $21,806,000,000.
       On page 4 line 21, decrease the amount by $25,743,000,000.
       On page 4 line 22, decrease the amount by $33,540,000,000.
       On page 4 line 23, decrease the amount by $59,747,000,000.
       On page 4 line 24, decrease the amount by $77,943,000,000.
       On page 5 line 4, decrease the amount by $373,000,000.
       On page 5 line 5, decrease the amount by $681,000,000.
       On page 5 line 6, decrease the amount by $5,789,000,000.
       On page 5 line 7, decrease the amount by $10,895,000,000.
       On page 5 line 8, decrease the amount by $14,956,000,000.
       On page 5 line 9, decrease the amount by $18,291,000,000.
       On page 5 line 10, decrease the amount by $21,806,000,000.
       On page 5 line 11, decrease the amount by $25,743,000,000.
       On page 5 line 12, decrease the amount by $33,540,000,000.
       On page 5 line 13, decrease the amount by $59,747,000,000.
       On page 5 line 14, decrease the amount by $77,943,000,000.
       On page 5 line 17, decrease the amount by $50,845,000,000.
       On page 5 line 18, increase the amount by $118,884,000,000.
       On page 5 line 19, increase the amount by $108,892,000,000.
       On page 5 line 20, increase the amount by $78,562,000,000.
       On page 5 line 21, increase the amount by $63,689,000,000.
       On page 5 line 22, increase the amount by $64,168,000,000.
       On page 5 line 23, increase the amount by $68,023,000,000.
       On page 5 line 24, increase the amount by $76,850,000,000.
       On page 5 line 25, increase the amount by $218,711,000,000.
       On page 6 line 1, increase the amount by $339,158,000,000.
       On page 6 line 2, increase the amount by $374,197,000,000.
       On page 6 line 5, increase the amount by $50,845,000,000.
       On page 6 line 6, decrease the amount by $60,038,000,000.
       On page 6 line 7, decrease the amount by $176,931,000,000.
       On page 6 line 8, decrease the amount by $255,492,000,000.
       On page 6 line 9, decrease the amount by $319,181,000,000.
       On page 6 line 10, decrease the amount by $383,350,000,000.
       On page 6 line 11, decrease the amount by $451,373,000,000.
       On page 6 line 12, decrease the amount by $528,223,000,000.
       On page 6 line 13, decrease the amount by $746,934,000,000.
       On page 6 line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $1,086,092,000,000.
       On page 6 line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $1,460,289,000,000.
       On page 6 line 18, increase the amount by $50,845,000,000.
       On page 6 line 19, decrease the amount by $68,038,000,000.
       On page 6 line 20, decrease the amount by $176,931,000,000.
       On page 6 line 21, decrease the amount by $225,492,000,000.
       On page 6 line 22, decrease the amount by $319,181,000,000.
       On page 6 line 23, decrease the amount by $383,350,000,000.
       On page 6 line 24, decrease the amount by $451,373,000,000.
       On page 6 line 25, decrease the amount by $528,223,000,000.
       On page 7 line 1, decrease the amount by $746,934,000,000.
       On page 7 line 2, decrease the amount by 
     $1,086,092,000,000.

[[Page 6382]]

       On page 7 line 3, decrease the amount by 
     $1,460,289,000,000.
       On page 32 line 6, increase the amount by $26,000,000.
       On page 32 line 7, increase the amount by $26,000,000.
       On page 32 line 10, decrease the amount by $11,458,000,000.
       On page 32 line 11, decrease the amount by $11,458,000,000.
       On page 32 line 14, decrease the amount by $10,901,000,000.
       On page 32 line 15, decrease the amount by $10,901,000,000.
       On page 40 line 2, increase the amount by $373,000,000.
       On page 40 line 3, increase the amount by $373,000,000.
       On page 40 line 6, decrease the amount by $681,000,000.
       On page 40 line 7, decrease the amount by $681,000,000.
       On page 40 line 10, decrease the amount by $5,789,000,000.
       On page 40 line 11, decrease the amount by $5,789,000,000.
       On page 40 line 14, decrease the amount by $10,895,000,000.
       On page 40 line 15, decrease the amount by $10,895,000,000.
       On page 40 line 18, decrease the amount by $14,956,000,000.
       On page 40 line 19, decrease the amount by $14,956,000,000.
       On page 40 line 22, decrease the amount by $18,291,000,000.
       On page 40 line 23, decrease the amount by $18,291,000,000.
       On page 41 line 2, decrease the amount by $21,806,000,000.
       On page 41 line 3, decrease the amount by $21,806,000,000.
       On page 41 line 6, decrease the amount by $25,743,000,000.
       On page 41 line 7, decrease the amount by $25,743,000,000.
       On page 41 line 10, decrease the amount by $33,566,000,000.
       On page 41 line 11, decrease the amount by $33,566,000,000.
       On page 41 line 14, decrease the amount by $48,289,000,000.
       On page 41 line 15, decrease the amount by $48,289,000,000.
       On page 41 line 18, decrease the amount by $67,042,000,000.
       On page 41 line 19, decrease the amount by $67,042,000,000.
       Strike all from line 20 on page 45 through line 2 on page 
     46.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC. ___. RESERVE FUND TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY.

       If legislation is reported by the Senate Committee on 
     Finance, or an amendment thereto is offered or a conference 
     report thereon is submitted that would strengthen Social 
     Security and extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust 
     Funds, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations, and 
     other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution by up 
     to $1,214,000,000,000 in budget authority and outlays for the 
     total of fiscal years 2003 through 2013.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Texas has been 
waiting patiently. I will recognize the Senator from Texas for 20 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee on which I had the honor of serving for his work on 
this budget resolution and for his leadership on the Budget Committee. 
My compliments as well to the ranking member, Senator Conrad, for the 
civil but spirited way in which the committee debated the markup of 
this budget resolution.
  I believe the budget resolution we have before us represents the 
priorities of the Federal Government and, more importantly, of the 
American people. I rise today to discuss some fundamental questions 
which I believe are important to this debate, and to address arguments 
that have been made in support of spending more of the taxpayers' money 
in the name of fiscal restraint, as odd as that may sound, and at the 
same time to talk about cutting deficits.
  As many of my colleagues on the committee and here on the floor, I 
support this budget resolution, including the President's jobs and 
growth package. I believe it can make a real difference, not only to my 
State of Texas but to the Nation. I believe, if we hold to our 
principles and our priorities, we can assure that the needs of the 
Nation are met and help our economy grow.
  If we are successful, we can help prevent future generations from 
being saddled with the bill for excessive spending that some in this 
body seem determined to create. Over what remains of the 50 hours 
allotted under the Congressional Budget Act under this debate, many 
amendments will be offered and have already been offered that reduce 
the amount of the President's growth package. If that were not enough, 
many of those who want to cut tax relief want to turn around and spend 
what would have been tax relief on bigger government. Rather than allow 
American taxpayers to choose how they want to spend their hard-earned 
money, those who would seek to cut tax relief and increase spending 
want to choose for the American people how that money should be spent 
and grow Government ever larger.
  The fundamental question in this debate is simple: Should we support 
higher taxes, more Federal spending, and bigger government or should we 
facilitate economic opportunity and jobs? For me, that is what this 
debate is all about. Who should spend that money: politicians and 
bureaucrats or taxpayers? Families or the Government? Small business 
owners on investment and job creation or the Federal Government? Senior 
citizens on enhancing their retirement security or the Federal 
Government?
  This debate is really about who we should trust to get done the job 
of growing our economy and creating greater economic opportunity for 
all Americans. Should we help people keep more of their money so they 
can spend it, invest it, or save it as they wish or should we simply 
add more taxes to an already beleaguered American taxpayer, giving up 
on economic growth and increasing the deficit?
  I urge my colleagues, don't be fooled. This debate is not about 
shrinking deficits. It is about growing spending.
  The first chart to which I would like to direct my colleagues is one 
that demonstrates a rather dramatic fact; that is, over the last couple 
of years we have seen spending soar, while Government revenues have 
shrunk. In fact, revenues have fallen by nearly 9 percent over the last 
2 years. At the same time, though, Congress has seemed not to have even 
noticed because spending has increased by 12 percent over that same 
period.
  We all agree on the need to control deficits. Our friends on the 
other side of the aisle contend that allowing more people to keep what 
they themselves earned would, in fact, balloon the deficit. I disagree. 
It is not spending by taxpayers that balloons deficits; it is spending 
by Congress, as this chart dramatically represents.
  If you listen to this debate closely, you will notice that opponents 
of the President's growth package and this budget resolution do not 
propose that we pay down the debt instead of tax relief. They, in fact, 
propose spending hundreds of billions of dollars instead of tax relief 
and this growth package. They want to spend every penny of what would 
be relief to taxpayers and an investment in economic growth on 
something else altogether.
  Those on the other side of the aisle, and on the other side of this 
issue, seem to be concerned about deficits when there is a proposal to 
provide relief to the beleaguered American taxpayer. They spend hours 
on the Senate floor and in committee rooms warning that taxpayers 
keeping more of what they earned is a risky proposition.
  We have heard all that before and it still does not wash. Notice 
carefully that they are not shy about spending more of the taxpayers' 
money, even if that spending causes the very same deficits they 
complain about here on the floor. In fact, despite the deficit, despite 
a sluggish economy, despite the costs of waging war and rebuilding our 
military, many of our colleagues want to increase discretionary 
spending but not just on the Department of Defense and on homeland 
security. That funding is already provided for in this budget 
resolution. The money that should flow back to the taxpayers will, if 
our colleagues who oppose this resolution are successful, flow instead 
to more and more Government spending.
  The next chart I show to my colleagues is a list of Budget Committee 
amendments to what was ultimately voted out as the budget resolution. 
Each of these amendments failed. But

[[Page 6383]]

as you can see, this chart, I believe, is an indicator of what those 
who oppose this budget resolution propose instead.
  For example, here is one amendment for an additional $2.2 billion. 
You can see the figure of $200 billion more for Medicare, an additional 
$1.8 billion for function 700 for veterans, another for increased 
spending on natural resources--all of which are provided for, to some 
extent, in the budget resolution that was voted out of committee. But 
you can see from the chart the total of these amendments would have 
added, if they were not defeated, approximately $440 billion in new 
spending.
  That is why I say those who complain so loudly about budget deficits 
but at the same time propose huge increases of hundreds of billions of 
dollars in new Federal spending really do not have their story 
straight. Because, of course, if we do not cut spending, and if we do 
not see the economy grow, that means less hope and less opportunity for 
American workers. And that means more taxes for the beleaguered 
American taxpayer.
  My question is simply this: Why shouldn't the Government be required 
to do what American families have to do during lean times? Why 
shouldn't the Government have to tighten its belt in lean times?
  Indeed, the growth of Government continues, but the economic recovery 
will not under these tax-and-spend proposals. Shared sacrifice, which 
is what is called for during lean times, is not shared, at least by the 
American taxpayers, if they continue to see nondiscretionary increases 
in spending with no end in sight.
  I support the President's growth package as recommended in this 
resolution because I believe individuals and families in my State and 
across America, the people who pay the taxes and earn the money, can 
better save, spend, and invest their money as they see fit--far better 
than can the Federal Government. I believe Texans know better what they 
need than the spenders in the Halls of Congress.
  According to the latest Scripps Howard Texas poll, the people of my 
State are worried about not having enough money for their retirement, 
about skyrocketing energy prices, and about college tuition for our 
children. They are worried about the issues that affect their lives 
directly.
  The President's jobs-and-growth plan addresses these concerns by 
providing a short-term economic stimulus that will encourage investment 
and job growth, as well as strengthening our long-term economic growth. 
The President's plan will create more wealth, provide higher wages and 
more jobs, thereby leaving more money for families, while increasing 
their standard of living.
  As for the argument that this proposal would cause greater deficits, 
I disagree. If we were to hold the line on new spending, if we were 
responsible with the taxpayers' money--the money they send to 
Washington every year--and if we make the most out of the revenues we 
have by following the limits set out in this budget resolution, then we 
will prevent growing deficits and extinguish this deficit entirely in 
the foreseeable future.
  It is only by spending beyond our means that we create deficits. Last 
year's failure to pass a budget resolution is a clear example of the 
failure to act, the failure to set important guidelines for the Federal 
budget. The failure of last year's Senate leadership to accomplish what 
we are now doing on the Senate floor meant the Senate had few 
guidelines to follow, few limits on spending, and no responsibility, at 
least within the constraints of a budget resolution, to control 
boundless spending by the Government.
  Let's recall a little bit of history that revisionist historians both 
in this body and outside seem to forget.
  The chart I have in the chamber shows, of course, what we all 
remember; that is, at the time President Bush came into office, we saw 
a tremendous trend downward in terms of the growth of our gross 
domestic product. And, of course, we have seen a tremendous decline in 
the stock market. It has really only been by virtue of the tax cuts 
that were passed in 2001--which would be made permanent--that we see 
increased money in consumers' pockets, money they have been able to use 
to buy a car, to buy a house, in conjunction with lower interest rates. 
That is what has kept the meager recovery we have seen as good as it 
has been.
  Of course, the economic recovery was staggered by the events of 9/11 
and, of course, the continuing war against terrorism and, obviously, 
the uncertainty associated with the geopolitical situation in the 
Middle East.
  As a result, our economy has been sluggish and investor confidence 
remains low. GDP has grown at an anemic rate, while the labor market 
has remained soft, with an unemployment rate in February of 5.8 
percent.
  To address the economic challenges that confront our Nation and 
confront America's families, the President proposed, and I support, and 
this budget resolution reflects, a jobs-and-growth package. This 
package will spur near-term and long-term economic growth. It will 
provide an opportunity for more robust business investment and, yes, it 
will encourage new job growth.
  His proposal, which this budget resolution includes, would first 
accelerate to January 2003 portions of the tax bill that was passed by 
this body in 2001 that are currently scheduled to be phased in, 
including a reduction in marginal income tax rates, additional relief 
from the marriage penalty, a larger tax credit for children, and 
increasing the size of the 10-percent income tax bracket. The net 
effect of these proposals is allowing taxpayers to keep more of what 
they earn, so they can spend it as they see fit.
  Who benefits? Well, obviously, the individual taxpayer. But just as 
importantly, small business owners, including sole proprietors and 
partnerships, most of whom report and pay taxes on their personal 
income tax returns.
  This plan will increase the incentives for small business owners to 
invest in technology, machinery, and other equipment to help them 
expand and create jobs, and reduce the cost of capital needed to help 
small businesses grow. And, of course, as a result, people who are 
looking for work, who want to work but cannot find a job, will benefit, 
too.
  As the President has stated:

       [M]ore than two-thirds of taxpayers who pay the highest 
     marginal tax rates are small business owners who include 
     their profits when they file their individual tax returns 
     with the IRS.
       All together, the tax relief I propose will give 23 million 
     small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 this year. 
     And I'm asking Congress to make those reductions permanent, 
     so that America's entrepreneurs can plan for the future, add 
     more employees, and invest in our economy.

  Those were the words of the President of the United States when he 
made this proposal. Again, it translates into a single word, and that 
word is ``jobs.''
  Under this proposal, this budget resolution, a married couple with 
two children and an income of $40,000 will see their income tax reduced 
by $1,133, a 96-percent decline; an older couple with an income of 
$40,000 will see their taxes reduced by 41 percent; a married couple 
with one child and an income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline by 
33 percent; a married couple with two children and an income of $60,000 
will see their taxes decline by 24 percent; and a married couple with 
two children who earn $75,000 between them will see their taxes reduced 
by 19 percent.
  I also want to address briefly that portion of the budget resolution 
that eliminates the double taxation of corporate income such that 
dividend income will no longer be taxed at the individual level.
  As the chairman of the Budget Committee has pointed out earlier, 
American taxpayers pay some of the highest taxes in the world--second 
only to Japan, I believe, on corporate dividends. Under current law, 
dividends can be taxed once at the corporate level and up to the 
highest tax bracket for individual taxpayers, once those dividends are 
paid by a corporation to its shareholders. That is more than any nation 
in Western Europe.
  Under the President's proposal--which is only fair--those dividends 
will be taxed once and not twice. There are numerous economic benefits 
to the

[[Page 6384]]

economy, and I really believe this is one of the most important aspects 
of this growth package. The first effect will be to lower the cost of 
capital. This will make new investments in technology and equipment 
more attractive to firms while providing investors with larger after-
tax returns. For individual taxpayers and families, this means more 
money to spend, save, or further invest. For companies, as individuals 
invest more, increasing the amount of capital available in the capital 
markets, worker productivity will increase, real wages will rise, and 
more jobs will be created.
  This proposal will also--not incidentally--remove the current bias 
toward debt financing.
  As Alan Greenspan said in testimony before the House Financial 
Services Committee in February:

       In my judgment, the elimination of double taxation will be 
     helpful to everybody. . . . There is no question that this 
     particular program will be, net, a benefit to virtually 
     everyone in the economy over the long run, and that's one of 
     the reasons I strongly support it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 20 minutes have expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask the chairman for 2 or 3 more minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. CORNYN. My thanks to Senator Nickles.
  Finally, I want to point out that 45 percent of those who earn 
$50,000 a year or less--many of whom are seniors--will benefit from 
this ability to enhance and secure their retirement years. It will also 
boost the stock market and the value of hundreds of thousands of 
retirement plans, as corporations that don't currently pay dividends 
choose to do so because of the elimination of the bias against payment 
of corporate dividends in our Tax Code, and grow the stock market value 
in all likelihood, and, as I say, help secure the retirement of 
American workers.
  Finally, this budget resolution increases to $75,000 the amount small 
businesses may expense from taxable income in the year that investment 
occurs. This incentive to further investment by small businesses--which 
create the vast majority of jobs in our country--will help lower the 
tax-adjusted cost of capital for small business, the ``job factory of 
America,'' as the President has called it. This increases the ability 
of small businesses to make new purchases, invest in new equipment, 
hire new workers, or retain current ones. That is more jobs and more 
growth.
  In conclusion, while the Congressional Budget Office has scored this 
proposal by the President, this growth package, in a static way, both 
sides of the aisle recognize--indeed, one of the Democratic 
alternatives to the President's proposal embraces the concept--a 
stimulus effect and growth effect by tax cuts.
  PriceWaterhouseCoopers, for example, has reported that the 
President's growth package would increase the number of jobs by an 
average of 1.2 million a year during the first 5 years and an average 
of 900,000 per year over 10 years, and that the proposal would add $738 
billion in new income to the economy during the first 5 years and about 
$1.5 trillion over 10 years, and other private sector estimates are 
even higher.
  The President's Council of Economic Advisers estimates that the jobs 
and growth plan will create 1.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004.
  Mr. President, if we are serious about growing jobs, about putting 
this economy back on track, and if we are serious about the need to 
restrain massive Government spending, then we must get serious about 
setting these priorities in our budget blueprint. Let's not just talk 
about preventing deficits while at the same time calling for more 
spending. Let's not decry a plan that benefits the economy by 
benefiting taxpayers and call for that money instead to be spent by 
Government. Let's, instead, set limits and stick by them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Daschle, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Corzine 
appear as cosponsors of my amendment which is currently pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am going to take a few minutes to 
respond to my able colleague, the Senator from Texas, who is a member 
of the Budget Committee. He has suggested that on our side we are just 
out here spending money as much as they have proposed in tax cuts; so 
it is either take the Democrats' spending or the Republicans' tax cuts, 
and here come the deficits, and don't worry about the future of Social 
Security and Medicare. I could not disagree more strongly.
  Facts are stubborn. The facts show that the assertion by the Senator 
from Texas simply is without merit. Democrats are not proposing 
additional spending at the size of the tax cuts proposed on the other 
side--nothing close to it.
  The Senator presented a chart that showed a series of amendments 
offered in the Budget Committee by our side, totaling $440 billion--
additional money for prescription drugs, for education, and for 
homeland security. Yes, we offered amendments to reprioritize, but we 
paid for each of those by reducing the tax cut, and every time we went 
further to reduce the budget deficits.
  Remember, their tax cuts are $1.4 trillion; with the interest cost, 
$1.7 trillion. So even if our amendments to change the priorities--more 
in line with the American people--had been adopted, we would still have 
been more than a trillion dollars better off in terms of the deficits 
and debt of this country. That is a fact.
  The other side is proposing to borrow the money to give these tax 
cuts and to finance the spending initiatives that are in their plans. 
They are going to be borrowing money as far as the eye can see--and 
right on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation.
  Many of us on our side, and I also acknowledge a number on their 
side, believe that is a mistake. Senator McCain talked this morning 
about the fact that he thought adding spending or tax cuts at this 
point is ill-advised. I must say, I agree with the Senator from 
Arizona.
  More than that, our colleague is suggesting that somehow their plan 
reduces deficits. No, it does not. It explodes deficits. We are going 
to have a debate out here. Let's be truthful with each other and 
truthful with the American people. Their plan does not reduce deficits; 
their plan explodes deficits.
  Two years ago, we had projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion. If we now 
adopt the President's spending and tax cut plans, instead we will have 
$2.1 trillion of deficits. Those are not my numbers. Those are the 
numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  Where did the money go, because that is money over a 10-year period? 
Thirty-eight percent is going to tax cuts under the President's plan, 
those already passed and those proposed. That is where the money is 
going. Twenty-seven percent has gone to spending. Where is that 
spending? Almost exclusively in increases for defense and homeland 
security which the President asked for, quite rightly, and which we 
supported, again, quite rightly. Twenty-six percent is technical 
changes which simply means overestimations of revenue apart from the 
tax cuts. The models are not giving the correct answers in terms of 
actual revenue generated for various levels of economic activity. About 
9 percent is the economic downturn.
  When our colleagues suggest they have a plan that is going to 
eliminate deficits, that the President's plan somehow does, it does 
not. We are required by law to exclude Social Security from the 
calculation of deficits. When we do that, the deficit in 2004 under the 
President's plan is going to be $512 billion, and those deficits never 
get below $400 billion every year for the next 10 years. What are they 
talking about they have a plan that is going to eliminate deficits? 
There is no elimination of deficits; there is no end to deficits under 
this plan that the President has put before us.

[[Page 6385]]

  This is from his own budget document. You do not have to take my word 
for it, take his word for it. This is right out of his budget document, 
page 43, ``Analytical Perspectives.'' This is what happens, according 
to the President, looking long term, and what it shows is we are in the 
``sweet'' spot now. We are in the good times because this is when the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds are producing hundreds of 
billions of dollars of surpluses. This year alone, the Social Security 
surplus will be $160 billion. They are taking it all, every penny. And 
under the President's plan, they are going to do that the entire next 
decade. Every penny of Social Security surplus will go to pay for tax 
cuts and other spending.
  Some of us think that is a disaster for this country. Why? Because 
very soon the baby boomers are going to start to retire, and then what 
are we going to do? We should be taking that money and paying down debt 
or prepaying the liability but not using it to pay other bills, not 
using it to pay for tax cuts.
  If there was a private sector firm in America that tried to take the 
expenses, they would be headed for a Federal institution, but it would 
not be the Congress of the United States, and it would not be the White 
House. They would be headed for a Federal facility all right. It would 
be a Federal prison because that is fraud.
  Let's just get down and get honest about the fiscal circumstances of 
the country. The President's budget says we never get out of deficit 
under his plan, and, in fact, if we adopt his spending plan, if we 
adopt his tax plan, the deficits explode right at the time we see an 
explosion of expense to the Federal Government because of the 
retirement of the baby boom generation, the cost of the President's tax 
cuts explode, and we have a sea of red ink and deficits and debt that 
are utterly unsustainable.
  The head of the Congressional Budget Office told us last year that if 
we proceed down this path, we will have massive debt, massive tax 
increases, tax increases of as much as 50 percent, massive cuts in 
benefits in Social Security and Medicare. Let me predict today, if the 
President's plan is adopted or anything close to it, very soon our 
colleagues on the other side will be coming to us with massive cuts in 
Medicare and Social Security, and if anyone doubts it, just look at the 
House budget offered this year. They have already started it. They have 
over $470 billion of cuts to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, 
and over $200 billion of cuts to domestic discretionary spending, law 
enforcement, and all the rest.
  The jig is going to be up because this does not add up, and this plan 
drives this country deep into deficits and debt, and that is a fact. 
That is according to the President's own calculations, his own budget 
documents. This is not a question that is even a close call as to 
whether the plan before us increases deficits or reduces them. It 
dramatically increases them, and it is going to get much worse when the 
baby boomers start to retire.
  I was glad to see our colleague put up a chart that showed total 
outlays and total revenues. It is the relationship between outlays and 
revenues that determines deficits. Our friends on the other side, or at 
least some of them, seem to think the only thing that creates a deficit 
is spending. No, no, no. It is the relationship between revenue and 
spending that determines whether you have a deficit or a surplus. It is 
when spending exceeds revenue that one runs a deficit. That is a very 
simple concept, but somehow it has been lost. That is what creates a 
deficit.
  This chart shows the long-term pattern of spending and revenue over 
the last 20 years. This goes back to 1981. The blue line is the revenue 
line. The red line is the spending line. You can see we had a big gap 
back in 1981, 1982. These were the Reagan years. In fact, I will put up 
what the history of deficits has been under these various 
administrations.
  Here it is: When President Reagan came into office, deficits were 
running about $80 billion. He then pursued the economic policy that is 
being repeated today, and deficits exploded to over $200 billion a 
year. They improved marginally before the first President Bush took 
office, and then they got much worse. In fact, we had the past record 
deficit under the previous President Bush, $290 billion. President 
Clinton came in, and we passed a plan in 1993 that every single 
Republican opposed--everyone in the House, everyone in the Senate. They 
said it would crater the economy. We can go back and look now. It is 
very easy to determine who had it right and who had it wrong.
  Our Republican friends said in 1993: If you pass this plan, it will 
crater the economy. It will increase deficits. It will increase debt. 
It will increase unemployment. Let's check the record.
  We passed the plan in 1993. Every single year of that 5-year plan the 
deficits were decreased. During this period, we kicked off the longest 
economic expansion in our Nation's history, the lowest unemployment in 
30 years, the lowest inflation in 30 years, and the highest level of 
business investment in our Nation's history.
  In 1997, we then passed a bipartisan plan in which we joined together 
and finished the job and pulled this Nation completely out of deficit 
and actually stopped the raid on the Social Security trust fund.
  We stopped taking Social Security trust funds and using them for 
other purposes, and that was the combined effect of the 1993 plan and 
the 1997 plan. Actually, the 1993 plan did about 80 percent of the 
heavy lifting. Then President Bush came into office proposing massive 
tax cuts and saying we could have it all. He said we could pass the tax 
cuts and we did not need to worry about deficits, that he had enough 
margin to be assured that, even if the economy weakened, deficits would 
not return.
  Well, he was proved to be wrong, not just because of the tax cuts. 
Let's be fair. Let's be direct. It is a combination that led us back 
into the swamp of deficits. In the short term, the biggest effects were 
the economic slowdown and the attack on this country which required us 
to increase defense spending and homeland security spending. But over 
the longer term, over the 10 years of the Bush plan, the biggest 
reason, as I have indicated, was the size of the tax cuts. It is the 
biggest single reason for our fiscal deterioration, not in the short 
term, not in 2003, not in 2002. The biggest reasons in the short term 
were the economic slowdown and the attack on the country, without 
question, but over the 10 years of his plan, the biggest culprit is the 
tax cuts, driving us deep into deficit.
  These numbers do not even tell the full story because, in truth, the 
full story is much more serious than these numbers reveal. The truth 
is, this does not show the effect of taking Social Security trust fund 
money every year for the next 10 years, in total more than $2.7 
trillion of Social Security money taken.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to see a former colleague, Senator 
Mack, join us on the floor. He was an outstanding colleague, who we 
enjoyed serving with very much, truly a gentleman and somebody who we 
miss in this Chamber. Nobody did more to add an air of civility to this 
Chamber than our colleague Senator Mack, and we are delighted to see 
him back.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I think he was wanting to speak on the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. No doubt he would if he still were a Member of the 
Chamber.
  Let me now turn my attention to the presentation of the amendment 
that is the next one for consideration because it goes to the central 
question that we have been talking about. What are we going to do about 
these deficits?
  Let me say to my Republican colleagues, it is important to focus on 
spending, but we cannot just focus on spending. We have to focus on the 
revenue side as well. And my colleagues cannot say they care about 
deficits when they are adopting a budget that is going to cost $1.7 
trillion in tax cuts and the associated interest costs that are going 
to drive us deeper into deficit

[[Page 6386]]

and make believe they care about deficits. That dog will not hunt.
  Now, we are going to give our colleagues another opportunity to face 
up to these long-term obligations that we face as a country because the 
amendment I am offering now takes $1.2 trillion in the tax cuts and 
redirects them to a reserve fund to strengthen Social Security. Instead 
of raiding $2.7 trillion, we are going to reduce it. We are going to 
reduce the tax cut by $1.2 trillion, and we are going to apply it, not 
for spending but to strengthen Social Security.
  This is a vote for history. This is a vote for the ages. This is a 
vote that people are going to look back on, years ahead, and say, who 
stood up to protect Social Security and who wanted to take the money 
raised with payroll tax dollars and use it for a tax cut that goes 
primarily to the wealthiest among us? That is the question before us.
  I hope every Member of this Chamber will say we ought to reduce the 
tax cut and use that money to strengthen Social Security. That still 
leaves almost $200 billion available in tax cuts--actually, something 
less than that. With that amount of money, we could provide a short-
term stimulus along the lines offered by Senator Daschle, a plan that 
provides important tax relief for working families and small 
businesses, or we could choose to accelerate the marriage penalty 
relief and the increase in the child tax credit that were scheduled to 
be phased in over a period of years when they were enacted in 2001, or 
we could accelerate the across-the-board tax rate cuts now scheduled to 
occur in 2004 and 2006. We concluded that was the best way to stimulate 
the economy. Or we could provide protection for individuals from the 
alternative minimum tax.
  My amendment would not prevent us from providing a significant 
increase in the amount of investment small businesses could immediately 
deduct rather than depreciating over a number of years.
  The bottom line is that the amount provided for stimulus in our 
amendment would allow for considerable flexibility in responding both 
to the needs of our economy and of our taxpayers. My amendment does not 
dictate how these resources ought to be used to strengthen the Social 
Security Program over the long term. Rather, our amendment simply 
reserves budget resources so that when Congress does act to strengthen 
Social Security, resources will be available to do it.
  Nearly every Social Security reform plan that has been proposed 
requires additional resources. In fact, the plans recommended by the 
President's own commission to strengthen Social Security requires over 
a trillion dollars of resources from the general fund.
  There are a variety of ways that these resources could be used to 
strengthen the Social Security Program. Some of our colleagues might 
prefer to use these resources to pre-fund the Social Security benefit 
through individual accounts or collective investments. Others might 
support using these resources to transfer revenues to the Social 
Security trust funds or to pay down debt and free up future resources 
to meet benefit commitments. Until Congress and the President act to 
strengthen this important program, the resources in this reserve fund 
would be dedicated to deficit reduction.
  Why is this amendment important? Today, we are at an important fiscal 
crossroads. I think we all know where we are headed. We are in record 
deficit, and according to the President's own documents, these are the 
good times. This is the budget sweet spot. We are ready for a leap off 
the cliff if the proposal before us by the President is adopted.
  I hope my colleagues will take a close look at this amendment. We 
know that Social Security goes cash negative, the trust funds, in 2018. 
We know that Medicare goes cash negative in 2013 and becomes insolvent 
by 2026. We know these challenges are real. They are not projections. 
The baby boom generation has been born. They are alive today. They are 
eligible for Social Security and Medicare.
  If we put up the chart that shows the future of Social Security, we 
see that the trust fund now is running substantial surpluses, but they 
turn to massive deficits after 2018. This is going to happen, and we 
can either prepare for it or fail to do so. The choice is ours, and the 
most fundamental choice is going to be made very soon. It is going to 
be made when we determine the outlines of this budget resolution.
  It is not just Social Security; it is Medicare as well. The Medicare 
trust fund is running surpluses now but will turn to massive cash 
deficits starting in 2013.
  The question before us is, How do we respond? The CBO Director, Dan 
Crippen, said to us:

       Put more starkly, Mr. Chairman, the extremes of what will 
     be required to address our retirement are these: We will have 
     to increase borrowing by very large, likely unsustainable 
     amounts; raise taxes to 30 percent of GDP, obviously 
     unprecedented in our history; or eliminate most of the rest 
     of Government as we know it. That is the dilemma that faces 
     us in the long run, Mr. Chairman, and these next 10 years 
     will only be the beginning.

  Unfortunately, he has it right. What the President has proposed is 
truly stunning in terms of the long-term costs of the tax cuts he has 
proposed.
  This chart shows the Social Security shortfall, according to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some $4 trillion in the 75-year 
period; medicare shortfall, $5 trillion. The tax cuts the President 
proposed and which have already been enacted are $12 trillion.
  We can take a bad situation and make it much worse or we can begin 
the process of being serious about our fiscal challenges. That means 
yes, being tough on spending. It also means being tough on the size of 
future tax cuts.
  I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent my colleague, Senator Corzine, be listed as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I note the last comment about discipline with respect to 
spending. It is the case that the amendment the Senator offered not 
only has a pause with respect to tax cuts but also on the spending 
side, is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is the amendment I offered earlier that we will be 
voting on at 5 o'clock. We are now on my second amendment, an amendment 
that takes $1.2 trillion of the proposed tax cut and uses it to 
strengthen Social Security. It is absolutely correct that the other 
amendment I have offered would create a requirement to a supermajority 
vote to have new spending initiatives, as well as new tax cuts, other 
than spending for national defense and homeland security and other than 
for tax cuts that would provide for an immediate lift to the economy.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, I was not aware you 
had gone to the second amendment.
  The first amendment, which I intend to support, has a pause with 
respect both to spending and a tax cut in the name of fiscal sanity to 
try to resolve massive deficits in the outyears.
  The Senator makes the same point, in many ways, with respect to the 
Social Security amendment as we get into the period of time when the 
war babies, the largest baby class in American history, begin to 
retire. The explosion of costs in Social Security to meet those demands 
will cause us to have serious shortfalls unless we plan for it now. It 
is precisely the reason we have a so-called ``surplus'' in Social 
Security each year. It is not truly surplus. It is to be put away in a 
trust fund and used for that period of time when we need it when we 
have maximum strength on the Social Security.
  If I may make an additional comment. The charts make the compelling 
case that this fiscal policy is completely out of whack. It reminds me 
of the joke about the guy caught stealing who said to the policeman, 
Are you going to believe me or your own eyes?
  The presentation is so clear that we are headed towards a cliff. We 
better stop this one way or the other and find a way to have a pause, 
find a way to restore some stability and solvency to the Social 
Security system.

[[Page 6387]]

  I intend to support both amendments.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from New Jersey?
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from North Dakota would reflect on a 
question. I think the numbers are we have 37 million seniors 65 and 
older, and we are on our way to something approaching 75 million in the 
next 15 years. Do I understand that this amendment you are proposing is 
designed to make sure we begin to prepare for that inevitability, the 
charges against Social Security, which reduce the poverty rate of 
seniors in America from when it was conceived from about 50 percent of 
all seniors to right at 10 percent? Is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly correct. We are going to a 
circumstance in which we will have 77 million senior citizens, more 
than double what we currently have. This is unprecedented in our 
history and perhaps it is one reason we have a hard time coping. It is 
not something we have ever seen before. Perhaps that is one reason we 
have a hard time understanding the dimensions of this change.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from North Dakota would clarify another 
element of how budget practices work. Presumably payroll taxes, which 
each individual who is working pays into the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds, are designed so that people invest in receiving 
guaranteed benefits--in the case of Social Security--relative to what 
they expect will be there.
  Is it true, or am I analyzing this properly, that we are now 
potentially, given the kind of framework of the budget outlay before us 
today, using payroll taxes that people were expecting to be used to 
build up the Social Security trust fund and Medicare trust fund, to be 
made available to cut taxes, maybe even dividend taxes for those who 
may be doing well already in society? We are using payroll taxes to 
indirectly fund the tax cuts being proposed or allowed in the budget 
resolution?
  Mr. CONRAD. Certainly that is the conclusion I come to. We are taking 
this year alone $160 billion of Social Security trust fund surpluses 
and using it for other purposes. We are not paying down debt with it. 
We are not prepaying the liability with it. We are not investing it. We 
are taking it to use to fund operating expenses, including other tax 
cuts.
  Looking ahead under the President's plan over the next 10 years, we 
will take every penny of the Social Security trust fund surplus. We 
will not pay down debt with it, we will not prepay the liability, we 
will not invest it. We will use it to help finance these tax cuts. So 
we are taking payroll taxes, in part, and using them to fund an income 
tax cut that will go predominantly to the wealthiest among us.
  Some say to make that comment is class warfare. I don't think it is 
class warfare. I think it is a fact. You are taking payroll taxes from 
people and using it to fund income tax cuts for higher income people. 
What is most troubling is we are borrowing it all. That is leading us 
into a very deep deficit-and-debt ditch.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Speaking in the context of what true fiscal responsibility is about, 
one needs to make sure the fundamental programs that are accepted by 
the American people, such as Social Security and Medicare benefits, are 
properly funded. It certainly strikes me that using the very taxes that 
are supposed to be supportive of those programs to fund tax cuts that 
are going to create deficits for as far as the eye can see is a very 
hard swallow when three out of four Americans pay more in payroll taxes 
than they actually pay in income taxes.
  Mr. CONRAD. My colleague from New Jersey is one of the most 
sophisticated investors, one of the most sophisticated financial 
managers in America, with a track record that is clear for all to see. 
He headed one of the most prominent, most successful financial 
management houses in the world, and enjoyed an extraordinary reputation 
there. When the Senator speaks on the question of the effects of fiscal 
policy on our economy and the future strength of our economy, I think 
people would be wise to listen.
  Is the Senator seeking time?
  Mr. CORZINE. I would like to make a few comments with regard to the 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support this amendment 
because I believe it is so important we understand that fiscal 
responsibility is really what is at stake. This amendment, more than 
almost anything that I see, actually addresses the issue of making sure 
we start to reserve for this great need, Social Security, that the able 
Senator from North Dakota has pointed out we will have to address in 
subsequent years. It does it by paying down debt now. It really 
addresses this issue of not using our payroll taxes to fund tax cuts 
for those who are already doing well in society.
  We are making a very large mistake, as the analysis of the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee showed, with respect to using those 
resources in a way that is going to leave us with budget deficits over 
the next 10, 12, 13 years. I think that is hard to understand, 
particularly in the context of Social Security, which has been such a 
successful program in America, one that has reduced the poverty rates 
for seniors from well over 50 percent to down about 10 percent as we go 
forward.
  This is one that is very difficult to understand, particularly in the 
context of trying to allow room for a dividend exclusion tax for which 
I have difficulty finding support based on the idea that it is going to 
be stimulus for job growth or, on any objective analytical basis, be 
promotive of the well-being of our economy.
  One of the places we just turned--everybody has their favorite 
economist. We just happen to have 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists who 
spoke out on the tax cut plan proposed by President Bush, saying:

       It is not the answer to our problems. Regardless of how one 
     views the specifics of the plan, there is wide agreement on 
     permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of 
     jobs and growth in the near term.

  I cannot find people who say this proposal is going to do anything to 
turn around the current state of the economy. And what we are doing is 
financing it with one of those taxes that is the most heavy burden on 
those who have the least ability to pay.
  It strikes me, again--I mentioned three out of four working Americans 
pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, than they 
certainly receive with respect to any kind of dividend taxation.
  This is a very hard swallow--not particularly for the seniors today; 
we have the resources to fulfill our promises with respect to 
guaranteed benefits for seniors today. But if we do not address this 
problem with regard to Social Security over the long run, future 
generations are not going to have the same guaranteed benefits that 
have been promised, as they are being committed to as they pay into the 
Social Security trust fund today. It is a breach of faith. One of the 
things we need to do is make sure we address it today.
  Frankly, the President's tax cut over the period of time that we are 
looking at the solvency of Social Security, on its lowest, it is about 
$12 trillion. That is over 57 years. That will help people evaluate the 
solvency of Social Security. Right now, it will be able to meet the 
guaranteed benefits out to about 2042, about halfway. Twelve trillion 
dollars, we are eroding the revenues of the Federal Government. Again, 
we are eroding it by using payroll taxes to fund tax cuts for the very 
best off in our society. And the obligation of fixing this Social 
Security problem is only $3.5 trillion. It sounds like not so much 
money, but when you compare it to what we are putting into this tax cut 
that the President is laying on the table and has allowed for in this 
budget resolution, it is about three times the size.
  That is what this amendment is about. It is asking us to make those 
steps where we can begin to extend

[[Page 6388]]

that solvency and protect Social Security. By the way, we are paying 
down the debt at the same time. At least we are limiting the growth of 
the debt relative to where it would be, which has all the other 
positive ingredients. The Federal Government is not in the capital 
markets of the country competing with the private sector to take 
capital that they will be borrowing to pay for these tax cuts and other 
expenditures we make for the overall levels of government involvement 
in the economy. It is called crowding out. It has been a problem at 
other times in our history. We are creating a format where this will 
absolutely be the case in the future, and that is why this amendment is 
such an important one to support by protecting Social Security and 
putting in place a framework for fiscal responsibility for the long 
term. I support the amendment and hope my colleagues will as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to speak in opposition to both 
amendments. To remind our colleagues, we expect a vote on both of the 
amendments offered by our friend and colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad, at 5 o'clock. Both of these amendment also are very 
important.
  Let me just address the first Conrad amendment, the first one we will 
vote on. In my opinion, it is fatally flawed for a couple of reasons. 
One, it creates a new 60-vote point of order against the spending and 
tax legislation until the President sends Congress a report on the cost 
of the war and reconstruction of Iraq. I think it is a serious mistake 
for Congress to ever limit itself depending on what another branch of 
Government does, whether it is the executive or the judicial branch. I 
think that is a serious mistake. Certainly if you think of balance of 
powers, does that really make sense? I don't think so. So I urge my 
colleagues to support a budget point of order against it.
  I guess that will be a motion to waive the point of order. But I hope 
my colleagues will think for a moment what we are doing. We are saying 
we are not going to act until the executive branch does something. 
There are a lot of different ways of getting the executive branch's 
attention other than saying we are not going to deal with the budget or 
issues before Congress. I think it is very constraining and 
shortsighted.
  It is shortsighted from the standpoint it makes an exemption or an 
exception. It says we can't do it to consider legislation that deals 
with spending--except for defense. I agree with that; homeland 
security, and I agree with that. Then it says: Except for a growth 
package. Then it kind of defines out the Democrat leader's growth 
package.
  I heard our colleagues on the Democrat side say it has a pause in 
spending. It doesn't have a pause in spending. I look at the Senate 
Democrats' stimulus plan. It has $85 billion in new spending in 2003 
and $26 billion in new spending in 2004. It has a tax cut in 2003 but a 
tax increase in 2004, and a tax increase in 2005.
  In other words, we are going to have a resolution that says you have 
to have 60 votes to do anything other than our package. You can't do 
your package, can't do somebody else's package, but it is OK to do the 
Democrats' package. I find that to be fatally flawed.
  Then I find it repeated in the second amendment. The second amendment 
is the largest tax increase we have had offered before the Senate in a 
long time. This amendment is mind-boggling.
  First let me state, in the President's initial budget he requested 
about $1.5 trillion in revenue reductions over the 10-year period of 
time. Keep in mind, we are talking about over a base of $26 trillion or 
$27 trillion. We reduced that to $1.3 trillion in the budget resolution 
we have before us.
  Senator Conrad's second amendment would reduce that 1.3--I keep 
hearing 1.4, but actually it is 1.314 trillion in our resolution. He 
would reduce that to $121 billion. I believe that would allow for $87 
billion in the first year.
  Maybe it is a coincidence, but the Democrats' Economic Recovery Act, 
introduced by Senator Daschle, has spending of $85.6 billion in the 
first year.
  So both amendments basically say, we want to have no tax cuts or we 
want to have no tax cuts whatsoever except that we want to be able to 
do our stimulus plan, and even though the amendment may not define it, 
the stimulus plan as introduced in S. 414, Senator Daschle's plan, on 
which Joint Tax and CBO score its spending at $85.6 billion in the 
first year and $26.2 billion the second year--that is additional, 
incremental spending.
  The budget resolution we have before us, just to put it in 
perspective, has about $10 billion in new nondefense spending. So this 
would be an increase of about 8.5 times the amount of incremental, new 
spending we have in our bill.
  That is a big spending increase. That is a humongous spending 
increase, not to mention its impact on future taxes.
  The budget resolution we have before us assumes that present law, the 
2001 tax bill--which is scheduled to sunset in the year 2010--would be 
extended. It assumes that it would be extended to the years 2011, 2012, 
and 2013. That is about a $600 billion package.
  Senator Conrad's second amendment assumes that is not the case. In 
other words, that would not be the case. In other words, there would be 
a tax increase. It means the people who are paying at the 10-percent 
income tax level would go to the 15-percent level.
  It means for the people who would be paying at the 25-percent level, 
their rate will go back up to 28 percent. It means that people who 
would be paying at the 35-percent level will be paying 39.6 percent.
  It means that couples who have children, who would have a $1,000 tax 
credit per child, will go back to $500. It means that couples who saw 
their marriage penalty greatly reduced will see it greatly reenacted.
  It means that married couples who have net effective tax rates or 
taxable income of $56,000 today, who pay a 15-percent rate on all 
income up to that level, will find a great percentage of that income 
taxed at 28 percent.
  It is a humongous tax increase. So I urge our colleagues to vote no.
  I will again make a couple comments.
  I heard, in statements of support, that: Well, this would stop those 
tax cuts for the wealthy. Well, wait a minute. What is wealthy about a 
couple making $56,000? What is wealthy about a $1,000 tax credit per 
child? What is wealthy about trying to get rid of the marriage penalty 
for married couples who make $56,000? What is so wealthy about that?
  Why should individuals be paying at rates in excess of what General 
Motors pays? People who are sole proprietors, people who own their own 
business, why should they pay income tax rates in excess of the largest 
corporations in America?
  Why don't we just try to pass--I guess this amendment is just that--
you try to pass a big tax increase and see if that really helps the 
economy. I don't believe it will. I think it would hurt the economy. I 
think it would cost thousands and thousands of jobs.
  I heard our colleague from New Jersey say he had a couple of 
economists that do not support the elimination of double taxation. I 
have a whole list of economists who say getting rid of double taxation 
on dividends would be very positive and have a very stimulative impact 
on the market. And that would help anybody, not just people who 
currently own taxable stock or dividends that might be taxable. It 
would help anybody who happens to have investments in their retirement 
accounts that are tracking the market, which would include probably 
every teacher, every public employee, every union member, all of whom 
have savings plans, retirement plans which are dependent on a vibrant 
stock market. The President has a plan that would grow that. Our 
colleagues do not.
  Then let me make a couple other comments on Social Security. I keep 
hearing all this comment about: Well, this budget raids Social 
Security. I have heard the figure, $2.6 trillion or $2.7 trillion. If 
you use that analogy, the budget that was reported out of the Budget 
Committee last year, but not considered on the floor of the Senate, 
would have so-called raided Social Security of $2.1 trillion.

[[Page 6389]]

  I want to add some facts on just Social Security and Medicare. The 
reason I add the two together--maybe this is my old business hat--but I 
look at payroll taxes and individuals who are self-employed. I used to 
be self-employed. They pay 15.3 percent of payroll taxes, up to--the 
taxable amount this year is what? I think it is $87,000. Now, it just 
so happens that 12.4 percent of that is Social Security and 2.9 percent 
of that is Medicare. So if you add the two together, it is a combined 
total of 15.3 percent of payroll.
  I actually looked for the last 20 years. I wanted to see how much 
money is going in from the payroll taxes and how much money is going 
out in benefits. I did that.
  As this chart shows, the income coming in is shown on the blue lines, 
and the benefits going out are shown on the red lines. And I notice 
from the years 2003 to 2013, the amount of money coming in is less than 
the money going out.
  I am not crediting interest on these so-called trust funds. I will 
touch on that for a second.
  If an individual is self-employed or they are working for a company 
where the company matches, they pay 7.45 percent of the 15.3 percent. 
Their employer matches this amount to create the combined total. That 
is what is coming in to fund Social Security and Medicare. So the total 
taxes coming in, in the year 2003, for these functions would be $731 
billion. And the amount of money going out in Social Security and 
Medicare is $746 billion. There is more money going out than coming in.
  I wanted to look back at the last 20 years or the last 10 years prior 
to that to see what happened in actual dollars coming in and going out.
  On this chart, the amount of money coming in is the lighter color, 
and the amount of money going out is the darker color. In almost every 
year--not every year, but in almost every year--more money is going out 
than coming in. In a few years there is a surplus.
  But then I wanted to know: Wait a minute, if there is a surplus, 
where did that surplus come from? And I kind of notice there is a 
general fund surplus or general fund transfer from the general fund 
into Medicare. In other words, for most of these years, but not every 
year, you will notice there is more money paid out in Social Security 
and Medicare.
  So I guess you could say: Oh, they had some surpluses in Social 
Security, but we are raiding it. Well, if you are raiding it, you are 
moving it out to pay Medicare.
  Frankly, an employee, an individual, an employer, they don't really 
make that fine distinction between Social Security taxes and Medicare 
taxes. They pay the payroll tax. And it just so happens, they pay the 
payroll tax and the Government is paying out more than what is coming 
in.
  Even in those few years where there was a surplus--more money came in 
than went out combined--for those few years, if you look at the amount 
of money in the general fund, transferred in to Part B--and we 
subsidize Part B, the doctors' portion of Medicare; we subsidize that 
to the tune of 3 to 1, 75 percent Federal Government; not payroll 
taxes, general revenue funds going in to subsidize Part B, the doctors' 
payments--those amounts exceed any positive amount, as shown over here 
on the chart. So the point is, more money is coming out than if you add 
Social Security and Medicare together. Maybe there is some synergy 
there.
  If you look at the amount that some of our colleagues--and I agree 
with Senator Conrad on many aspects of Medicare and Social Security and 
long-term challenges that we have. We have an unfunded liability in 
Medicare that is about $15.3 trillion. It is about two or three times 
that of Social Security. Demographically, we have a big challenge. We 
need to be addressing it in a bipartisan way. We do not make changes 
around here in Medicare without bipartisan support. So we need to be 
working together to help save the system and improve the system.
  In our budget, we provide for up to $400 billion to strengthen, 
improve, and save Medicare. That is a lot of money. That is a big 
expansion of an entitlement, not just for prescription drugs but also 
to save the system that we know needs to be addressed. We need to do it 
in a bipartisan way. I hope we will.
  But I want to make a couple of analyses. I keep hearing about raiding 
Social Security, and I think: Wait a minute. Do they not know we are 
paying all this money extra for Medicare?
  Do they not know Medicare has an enormous unfunded liability? Do they 
not know we are paying a lot of general fund money to subsidize 
Medicare? Those things also should be computed and added. If Social 
Security is being raided, it is being raided to pay Medicare.
  A lot of this trust fund symbolism is because Congress, over the 
years--well, we have strengthened the Medicare trust fund and HI fund 
because we moved home health away from HI into Part B, which is 
subsidized by the general fund. This made the HI fund look more 
solvent. In reality, it was financial maneuvering. The real security 
for Medicare and Social Security is a healthy economy. If we don't have 
that, we don't have jobs, we don't have payroll taxes coming in, and we 
won't be able to pay benefits.
  Both systems are basically on a pay-go system. If they were funded 
systems, we would be put in jail because we have not funded the 
liabilities in the systems. I used to be a fiduciary and trustee of a 
pension plan. There are liabilities to an employer if you don't fund 
the plans. We don't do that for public employees. We never have in 
Social Security or in other Federal employee plans. So I just mention 
that.
  Finally, I want to touch on this comment about ``raiding the trust 
fund.'' I want to make sure people understand this. Social Security--if 
we enact no bill, or our budget stays as it is, we will end up having a 
$4.1 trillion trust fund. If we don't do a budget, we will have $4.1 
trillion in the trust fund, period. So, again, the important aspect of 
being able to pay Social Security and Medicare, frankly, is a growing 
economy. The President has a plan to grow the economy.
  If we adopt either of these two amendments pending before us, what we 
will say is the only growth package we can enact is the one that is 
offered by our colleagues on the Democrat side. Looking at their 
package--look at the composition of it; it is not a tax package, it is 
basically a spending package. In 2003, it says, we will spend $85.6 
billion, and we will have a tax reduction in 2003 of $16.2 billion, but 
we will have a tax increase in 2004--next year, 6 months from now--of 
$17.8 billion, and a tax increase in 2005 of $16 billion. We will take 
away the bonus depreciation provision that was in the 2002 tax bill 
that had strong bipartisan support, that many people are talking about 
maybe we should extend or improve or enhance. So we really would 
encourage investment.
  This provision would take it away. If you want to do something to 
dampen the economy, it would be to adopt these amendments. I cannot 
think of anything more negative on the economy than if we adopted these 
provisions. They are consistent in saying, yes, we want to cut your tax 
bill, but we want to have our proposal, which is not a tax bill, it is 
really a spending bill.
  In about 45 minutes, I urge my colleagues to vote no on both of the 
underlying amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I don't know, honestly, what amendment our 
chairman is looking at, but it is not mine. I don't have spending in 
the amendment. I have not provided for the Democratic leader's plan--I 
have not. In the amendment the chairman is discussing, I have $150 
billion of tax cuts, including $25 billion of refundables, which the 
chairman has in his own package. I have matched his own package on 
refundables. I have no spending.
  The only thing that, perhaps, he is looking at is in the early years, 
because I more front-end-loaded the plan. We have additional interest 
costs initially. But over the life of the plan, it is substantially 
less interest cost. This isn't a plan with spending in it; it is a plan 
that has tax cuts in it.

[[Page 6390]]


  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am reading your first amendment, and correct me if I 
am wrong. S. Con. Res. 23--it is a point of order amendment; 264 is the 
amendment number. On pages 1 and 2, it says:

       It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference 
     report that would increase the deficit in any fiscal year, 
     other than one economic growth and jobs creation measure 
     providing significant economic stimulus in 2003 and 2004, 
     which does not increase the deficit over the time period of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2013. . . .

  But it does allow--correct me if I am wrong--a significant increase 
in spending in 2003 and 2004, comparable to that as introduced by 
Senator Daschle.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is talking about my first amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. That amendment provides for a stimulus package. The 
Senator is correct. In 2003 and 2004, that provides for both tax cuts 
and spending. In the second amendment I am offering, to reduce the size 
of the tax cut and still leave $150 billion in tax cuts, there is no 
provision of spending. So I guess this is an example of why it is 
better if we handle each of these amendments individually rather than 
to stack them, because we get confused about what amendment we are 
addressing. I guess that is why we are designed here to offer an 
amendment at a time.
  Let me just say, on the second amendment, it is--I say this directly 
to the chairman--not designed to accommodate the Democratic leader's 
stimulus plan. It doesn't have the spending that is in his stimulus 
plan. It simply has $150 billion in tax cuts, $25 billion of which is 
refundables. I have done that to try to give our colleagues different 
opportunities to address what I consider the greatest threat we face, 
which is sinking into this abyss of deficits and debt. I believe, with 
everything that is in me, that we ought to do something on both the 
spending side and the tax-cutting side, and that is what the first 
amendment represents. It is an attempt to say to our colleagues that we 
are on the brink of war and we don't know what it will cost, we are in 
record deficit now, and that what we should do is make it more 
difficult to spend money and to have tax cuts, with two exceptions: We 
don't make it more difficult to spend money on defense or homeland 
security, and we don't make it more difficult to have tax cuts to the 
extent that they are for 2003 and 2004, to accommodate a stimulus 
package to give lift to the economy.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I am happy to.
  Mr. DODD. I believe this is the chart regarding the second amendment 
that really makes the point very clearly. He showed this to me the 
other day, and it struck me as graphically describing exactly what the 
Senator from North Dakota is saying. Here are the years 2003 to 2008, 
and 2013. These are surplus numbers. Correct me if I am wrong, but 
these are surplus numbers we are looking at, in terms of the Social 
Security surplus. The light blue at the top is the Medicare surplus. 
That begins to run down and out around here, just the time that these 
tax cuts go into effect.
  The point I have understood him to make is that this seems to be 
designed specifically to starve our ability to see to it that both 
Social Security and Medicare have the resources they need. The 
President calls for more than $1 trillion in resources to support his 
tax cuts. Right at about the time these tax cuts will really hit home, 
we then lose the revenue ability to respond to the needs of Social 
Security and Medicare; is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Connecticut does a very good job of 
describing the enormous challenge we face. The hard reality is that we 
have record budget deficits now, and this is before the baby boom 
generation retires. When the baby boom generation retires, the trust 
funds will turn cash negative.
  I want to clear up one thing if I can. The Senator from Oklahoma, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, says if you take Medicare and Social 
Security and lump them together, we are spending more than we are 
taking in. But what he has done here is mix apples and oranges, if I 
can say so.
  First of all, the Social Security trust fund is separate and apart. 
It is not lumped with Medicare. If you look at the Social Security 
trust fund, this is what you will see. Right now it is running 
substantial surpluses. This year the Social Security trust fund will 
run a $160 billion surplus. We should be using that money to pay down 
debt or prepay the liability or invest it, but instead we are taking it 
and using it for tax cuts.
  We know what is going to happen. In 2018, that trust fund is going to 
turn cash negative, and when it does, it is like falling off a cliff. 
At the very time it turns cash negative, the costs of the President's 
tax cuts explode, meaning only one thing: massive deficits, massive 
debt.
  If we look at the Medicare trust fund, and what the Senator from 
Oklahoma has done, as we know, there is a part A to Medicare. It is 
largely for hospitals. That has a trust fund. That trust fund is now 
running surpluses. It is much smaller than the Social Security trust 
fund, but nonetheless there are surpluses in the tens of millions of 
dollars. But that, too, is going to go cash negative in 2013 right at 
the end of this budget period. When it goes cash negative, it goes cash 
negative in a dramatic way and, again, right at the time the cost of 
the President's tax cuts explode, leaving us unable to respond to the 
crisis that is going to occur. If I can conclude by saying what the 
Senator from Oklahoma has done is he has combined the part A of 
Medicare, which has a trust fund, the Social Security trust fund, and 
part B of Medicare, which largely goes to fund the cost of doctors.
  The part B of Medicare is funded in a completely different way. The 
Senator from Oklahoma is correct, three-quarters of that money comes 
not from payroll taxes but comes from general fund transfers. That is 
what we did long ago. We have had various formulas, but we decided long 
ago that part B was going to be funded in part by payroll taxes and in 
part by general fund transfers.
  Lumping these all together obscures the fact we do have trust funds 
and that those trust funds are running cash surpluses. They are going 
to go into massive cash deficit, and to run budget deficits on top of 
that right before the baby boomers retire, and it is going to force 
excruciating decisions in the future, either massive cuts in benefits 
or massive tax increases or some combination.
  That is the problem I see with the budget plan put to us by the 
President and put to us by our colleague from Oklahoma.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, can I receive 5 minutes or so?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I see my colleague from Colorado is 
here as well and wants some time to speak. I will be brief so he can be 
heard.
  These two amendments are different in thrust. I will address the 
first amendment. I know others have spoken about it.
  I heard over and over, and I agree--in fact, I listened to the Vice 
President the other day on one of our national news programs say how 
the world really has been divided into two parts over the last 18 
months: What was going on prior to 9/11 and what has happened since 9/
11. I agree with him. I think we have to look at the world in two 
parts. We will never be the same again. Others have said that over and 
over. I do not know anyone who fundamentally disagrees with that point.
  I am concerned about this budget process coming right on the eve, if 
you will, of significant, major conflict, and the fact we are debating 
the budget needs and priorities of our Nation and excluding from this 
debate the cost of this conflict and the cost of the reconstruction 
that will come afterwards. For the life of me, it is almost as if we 
are engaging in an Alice-in-Wonderland

[[Page 6391]]

world here. On the one hand, the entire world is anxious about what may 
happen within hours of this debate, and on the other hand, we are 
debating a budget process that locks us in for a decade, and there is 
no discussion about what is going to become a major issue for us: the 
cost of this conflict and the cost of the reconstruction period 
afterwards.
  This morning I tried to go through the news media to see if I could 
find an article about this debate. I found very little about this 
debate. Obviously, the attention is on what will happen in Iraq. Yet 
what we are debating today, and will be debating tomorrow and the next 
day, in the midst of this conflict, I will argue is as significant in 
many ways as the impending conflict in the Middle East. But what 
concerns me is that we are literally locking ourselves into budget 
priorities that are excluding a tremendous cost, a cost, by the way, as 
one who supported the resolution last fall, I accept. It is one that we 
have to bear, but I do not know how the budget can be debated without 
talking about the major costs of war that we all know will be coming.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota says that we 
ought to at least require that the President provide Congress with a 
report on the costs of the imminent war with Iraq before the Senate 
acts on any new tax cuts or spending initiatives. I am not expecting a 
detailed accounting here. Obviously, you cannot do that, but you are 
not going to convince this Senator that there have not been people at 
the executive branch level who have anticipated best- and worst-case 
scenarios of this conflict.
  We have heard estimates anywhere from $60 billion to $95 billion, 
just on the military part. In fact, I gather we have already spent some 
$25 billion just in getting our forces and equipment to the Middle 
East. We are already incurring a cost, and yet there is no mention of 
those costs in this budget.
  Certainly, the idea that we have not incurred the cost yet because 
the conflict has not started, therefore, we cannot mention these 
numbers yet, I think flies in the face of reality. Clearly, we have 
costs already.
  I tried to historically see if I could find another example of when 
we were on a brink of a conflict when we actually had a tax cut of the 
magnitude we are talking about here. I cannot find any historical 
precedent for what we are about to do. In fact, Harry Truman, who is 
revered today as a courageous American President, prior to Korea said: 
We will do this, but, by the way, I am going to have tax increases to 
pay for it. If we are going into a conflict in the Pacific rim, I 
cannot very well ask us to go and not bear the financial cost of doing 
so.
  The only time I recall we went into a conflict and did not face the 
music financially was during the Vietnam conflict. We saw the ultimate 
results of trying to wage a fight there and not pay for it 
simultaneously.
  As someone who is supportive of the fact that we have to go to war--
reluctantly I regret that is the case but understand it must be so--I 
for one would like to see us adopt the amendment of the Senator from 
North Dakota because I think the American public would expect nothing 
less of us here. This is absolutely critical. We are prepared to put 
young men and women's lives at risk, who are about to bear the burden--
and let's be honest--almost solely so, certainly solely financially--
and yet we are engaged in a budget debate and discussion that does not 
even bring up a red nickel in the cost of this conflict and the cost of 
reconstruction.
  The amendment of the Senator from North Dakota says let's determine 
what these costs are. Let's factor that all in and then decide whether 
or not we want to support a $1.3 trillion or a $1.4 trillion tax cut 
over the next 10 years.
  I do not for the life of me understand why we would not pause a few 
moments here, a few days even, necessarily to see how this issue is 
going and come back to this issue and resolve it. I am hopeful our 
colleagues will support this amendment. I think it is patriotic. Can 
you imagine if this does not go as well as we might like and these 
costs explode and here we are locked into a situation in which we 
cannot afford to pay the costs? How ridiculous we will look as a Senate 
that we did not wait a few days to determine whether or not we needed 
extra resources to pay for these costs.
  My time has expired. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
and support the second amendment as well. With respect to the first 
amendment, I cannot believe we are going to go on record and adopt a 
budget that does not take into consideration one of the greatest 
challenges we face as an American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I ask that the Senator from Oklahoma yield me some time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one and a half minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
yielding me 10 minutes.
  Before I start my prepared remarks, I wish to thank the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, for a great job. This is the 
first year he has taken on the responsibilities of the Budget 
Committee. It is a tough environment today. With this tough economic 
environment and being on the brink of war, he has brought a budget bill 
that holds down spending, cuts taxes, and actually has a plan in which 
we can eliminate deficit spending over a 10-year period. In today's 
environment, I think that is phenomenal work.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, it has been a pleasure for me to 
work with him because he has made a commitment to work with members on 
the Budget Committee to try to put together a reasonable proposal. It 
is important we get a budget passed in this Congress, this session. 
Last year we experienced the problem of what happens when we do not 
pass a budget from the Senate, and we see the free-for-all that happens 
in spending.
  I think we are in a spending spree. There have been some speakers 
earlier today who tried to blame the current economic problems we are 
having on this President. I have to remind the Members of this body 
that the economy was starting to show a downturn the first few months 
that the President was in office. He did not have any effect on that 
economic downturn that was coming. In fact, what this President did was 
he proposed a tax cut. It ended up being a temporary tax cut because it 
was opposed by the other side, but it was a 10-year tax cut. It was put 
in place and the argument was made, well, here we are, we are just 
doing something that is going to benefit the wealthy.
  If we look at the figures of who pays the individual income taxes in 
this country, the top 50 percent of the income producers of this 
country pay nearly all of the taxes. There is only about 4 percent of 
the taxes that are paid by the lower 50 percent of the income producers 
in this country. The other 50 percent pays 96 percent of the taxes. So 
how can there be a tax cut policy without addressing the needs of those 
producers who we have in this country?
  The naysayers criticize the temporary tax cut, but about October of 
last year we began to hear some of them admit, yes, the tax cut, even 
though it was temporary in the spring of 2001, it did help the economy. 
It helped buoy up the economy. Even an editorial last October in the 
Washington Post, which is no friend of those of us who want to continue 
to cut taxes, had to admit that it was the temporary tax cut that 
helped buoy up the economy.
  We are looking at an economy today that is struggling. I had a town 
meeting this last weekend in my home State of Colorado, the largest 
county in the State of Colorado in Denver, and we talked about the 
economy. I talked with them about just having gone through a spending 
spree--a spending spree, I might add, that started before this 
President stepped in to office. I

[[Page 6392]]

said, if we look over the past 4 years or so of spending, it has been 
the largest amount of spending that we have incurred in any 4 years, 
excluding World War II. If spending is what it is going to take to 
stimulate this economy, why have we not seen the economy improve today? 
At that point nobody wanted to increase spending at that town meeting.
  I asked, well, why don't we just do nothing? I mean, some Members of 
the Senate are saying let's do nothing, leave the current laws as they 
are and let it ride. I asked, do you think a do-nothing proposal is 
what we need to help today's economy? Nobody agreed to that.
  So what is left? What is left is we need to cut taxes because if we 
look as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the amount of taxes 
that are being paid today by Americans is among the highest it has ever 
been in history. It is not the highest. We peaked down a little bit. 
Several years ago it was the highest, but we are still among the 
highest as far as a percentage of gross domestic product. That is very 
significant because the gross domestic product has been growing in the 
last decade or so at phenomenal rates. So it is a huge burden.
  I commend the President for coming forward with a tax cut that would 
actually increase jobs in this economy. I am looking at some figures 
that have been supplied to me about the job growth in this country, and 
there have been a number of studies that have been put out. Some of 
them say that 60 percent of what the President is providing in tax cuts 
will actually spill over to create more job growth and that is going to 
be reflected in growth in revenue to the Federal Treasury, and as a 
result of that, the fiscal notes that we have in the Congress are not 
as severe as some may believe because we are not taking into account 
the real world of what happens when we actually do a tax cut, how that 
stimulates the economy.
  Now we looked at some individual States where they have done some 
analysis. This is not the one that says it is 60 percent; it is not the 
lowest one, which is 40 percent. I might add, the 40-percent economic 
analysis on number of jobs was made by President Clinton's former 
assistants in OMB, Office of Management and Budget. The figures are 
around 57 percent that they came up with, and so we see a growth in 
jobs in all the States.
  Take my State of Colorado, in 2004 we see 16,200 new jobs created 
because of the economic stimulus plan that is put forward by the 
President. We go down and look at, for example, Oklahoma, where the 
chairman of the Budget Committee is from, 11,600 jobs. We can look at 
Texas, the State of the Presiding Officer, we are looking somewhere at 
74,000 new jobs created in the State of Texas. Look at North Dakota, 
for example, a much smaller State but still there is a proven growth 
impact of 2,300 jobs. As a result of the President's proposal, 
economists have analyzed that they anticipate this job growth to occur.
  The point can be made, well, we are having to spend money if we use 
the static analysis that we use in the Congress, but there is a return 
on that. That same study has indicated that for every dollar of 
investment, there is a $3.22 return.
  I remember when I started my business I had to incur a debt to get 
things going, to create jobs, to be able to buy equipment and get 
moving. I considered that was a worthy investment. I think we are going 
to have to make an investment in today's future. I think we need to 
make that investment in terms of a tax cut, and I think we need to do 
something along what the President is suggesting we ought to be doing, 
that for each $1 in tax cuts we are going to get a $3.22 return over a 
10-year period.
  That brings me to the two amendments that are before us now. The 
first amendment we will vote on, where we are cutting out all the whole 
proposal basically other than what is going to be proposed by the other 
side of the aisle, which has a lot of severe restrictions on it. There 
are a couple of problems I have with that amendment. I think we pretty 
easily defined defense, but in homeland security, sure, we want to 
protect the homeland security in general terms. That means securing our 
borders and providing assistance to those people who will deal with 
emergencies in case of some kind of a terrorist attack, and that is 
police and firemen in this country. There are individuals who are 
trying to expand that definition of homeland security.
  The point I make is that homeland security has not been well defined, 
and in some instances we may open up a hole for more spending than what 
we intend to do.
  The other thing I point out that we have, I will take them at their 
word, $150 billion is what they want to use to stimulate the economy. 
It does not do much. If we took that $150 billion and put it out over 
11 years, it is only .5 of an impact on the total amount of taxes 
collected over that period of time. That does not do much. We need to 
do more.
  Mr. President, $150 billion is a drop in the bucket. We need to look, 
at a minimum, at what the President is looking at. Maybe we ought to do 
more. Time of war I don't think is the time to be pulling back on the 
economy. It is the time to try and stimulate the economy. When we 
stimulate the economy, we create job growth, we allow individuals and 
businesses to retain more of the money in their own pockets. They spend 
money on equipment, and that means we will begin to see this economy 
grow.
  I will vote no on the two amendments. I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I thank Senator Nickles for granting me the time, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 10\1/2\ minutes for the majority 
and 5\1/2\ minutes for the minority.
  Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time 
be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. And the vote is scheduled for 5 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to talk about 
the two amendments I have offered that are now pending. The first 
amendment I offered says we should not add to new spending initiatives 
or tax cuts until we have a full idea of the cost of this war.
  As my colleagues know, there is no provision in this budget, either 
in the one sent to us by the President or the one that has come out of 
the Budget Committee, for war costs. We know the number is not zero. 
That is the number that is in the budget.
  So the first amendment I offered is to make it more difficult to add 
to deficits by spending or tax cuts, with two exceptions. On the 
spending side we would have an exception for national defense or 
homeland security. On the tax-cutting side, we would have an exception 
for a stimulus package with costs in 2003 or 2004. So that is the first 
amendment I have offered.
  The second amendment I have offered would reduce the tax cut by $1.2 
trillion, still leaving a $150 billion tax cut but using the $1.2 
trillion to strengthen Social Security, given the fact that the baby 
boom generation is about to retire, given the fact under the budget 
resolution before us, virtually every penny of Social Security surplus 
during the entire next decade is being used to pay for other things. It 
is being used to pay for tax cuts. It is being used to pay for other 
expenses of Government.
  Those are the two amendments I have pending. I hope very much my 
colleagues will give serious consideration to them.
  Again, the first amendment says simply this:


[[Page 6393]]

       The Senate may not consider legislation that would increase 
     the deficit until the President submits to Congress a 
     detailed report on the overall estimated costs of the war.

  That is enforced with a 60-vote point of order, so it could be 
overcome if there were a supermajority vote here in the Senate. There 
are two exceptions: On the spending side, legislation relating to 
national or homeland security and, on the tax-cutting side, an economic 
recovery and job creation package which does not increase the deficit 
over the time period 2005 to 2013. That would permit a stimulus package 
in 2003 and 2004. Again, the second amendment reduces the tax cut, 
which approaches $1.4 trillion, by $1.2 trillion, and reserves that 
money to strengthen Social Security.
  I again welcome support from my colleagues on both of these 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have already made a budget point of 
order on the first amendment. Senator Conrad moved to waive it. I urge 
my colleagues to vote no on the motion to waive.
  The amendment creates a new 60-vote point of order against spending 
and tax legislation until the President does something, until the 
executive branch does something. I think that is a serious mistake. We 
are going to handicap what congressional action can be waiting on what 
the executive branch must do. There are other ways of getting the 
administration's attention than saying we are not going to legislate. 
So I think that's a serious mistake.
  Also, it is very interesting but fatally flawed from its definition. 
It says we won't do anything except for--well, maybe the Democrat 
stimulus plan. In other words, we are not going to consider anything 
but maybe our bill, because it says we have an exemption in 2003 and 
2004, and also not increase the deficit in 2005 to 2013.
  If I look at the Democratic leader's package, it has significant 
deficit increases in the first year of about $100 billion in 2003; 
$85.6 billion in spending, $16 billion in tax reduction for a total of 
a $101 billion increase in deficit in 2003. Then in 2004 it has $26 
billion in new spending but a tax increase of $17.5 billion, and a tax 
increase in 2005 of $16 billion.
  It assumes the bonus depreciation that we passed in 2002 would be 
curtailed; In other words, a tax increase on business. Even though we 
have already given it to you, we are going to take that away from you. 
That is really going to help the economy?
  I think this resolution is fatally flawed, and I hope our colleagues 
would vote no on it.
  On the second amendment, it is an amendment that basically says we 
should have at least $1.2 trillion more tax increases than proposed by 
the President or the budget resolution that is pending before us; a 
$1.2 trillion tax increase. It is not every day we vote for something 
that large. It also says no reconciliation bill. It says let's do a 
$150 billion--actually $121 in tax reduction, $29 billion in spending 
in the first year or so. Again, it is kind of patterned where maybe 
this would fit for the Democrats' proposal but not anything like the 
President's proposal. Let's have our stimulus or growth package or just 
gut the bill.
  What is the net increase? It assumes the 2001 tax cuts that are 
scheduled to sunset in 2010, that will not happen. Those tax increases 
we are going to hit. So people who are paying 10 percent, look out, 
your tax rate will go to 15 percent.
  In our proposal we assumed we would extend those tax cuts, but we did 
not do it in reconciliation, so Congress would have another 6 years or 
7 years to make that decision. Senator Conrad's amendment assumes we 
are going to have those tax increases hit. We are going to allow all 
the changes we made in 2001 to sunset; therefore, you are going to see 
death tax rates go back up to 55 percent; you are going to see rates 
climb back to higher levels. It means for couples who were receiving 
$1,000 per child, that is going to be reduced to $500. It means couples 
who have a combined income of $56,000 and are paying in the 15 percent 
tax bracket are going to find about $12,000 of that income is going to 
be taxed at 28 percent instead of 15 percent.
  It is a big tax increase compared to the resolution we have before 
us. I urge my colleagues to vote no on both amendments.
  These are important amendments. I thank my friend and colleague from 
North Dakota because I told people, if people want to cut the growth 
package, let's vote and find out where the votes are. This is an 
amendment to say the growth package should be maybe $150 billion, but 
even at that we are going to reduce the total amount of tax reduction 
assumed in our bill to zero on the growth package, other than the $150 
billion, and assume there will be very large tax increases actually 
hitting the American people in the years 2010, 2011, and 2012.
  I hope we would not enact such a plan. I think it would be a 
disastrous move for the economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me be clear. My first amendment does 
not contain the Daschle growth package. It does not. It simply is not 
reading my amendment. My amendment says very clearly the following: 
That we would prevent additional increases to the deficit by spending, 
or by taxes. And we would enforce it with a 60-vote point of order with 
two exceptions: On spending for national security, homeland security, 
national defense; on taxes, you can have a stimulus package in 2003 and 
2004. It could be the Daschle package. It could be the Nickles package. 
But you could not have a stimulus package that adds to the deficit in 
2005 and beyond.
  That in no way restricts you to the Daschle package. It would allow 
it, but it would not prevent any other stimulus package from being 
enacted for 2003 and 2004.
  On my second amendment, which reduces the tax cut by $1.2 trillion, 
still leaving a tax cut of $150 billion, the money is used to 
strengthen Social Security. It is held in a reserve fund. That allows 
us to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt. If we want to have a 
growth package here, we better get serious about the deficit and the 
debt because most economists are telling us the President's so-called 
growth package doesn't grow the economy at all. It actually hurts long-
term economic growth. Why? Because the President's tax cuts are not 
offset by spending reductions. The President's tax cuts are offset by 
borrowing.
  That increased borrowing, that increased deficit, that increased debt 
reduces the pool of societal savings, reduces the pool of money 
available for investment and reduces economic growth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my colleague and want to inform 
our colleagues we will be voting in 2 minutes on two important 
amendments, and I encourage our colleagues to vote no.
  I have a list of economists who state the President's package would 
help the economy and help grow it. It is several pages. I don't know if 
I want to clutter the Record further. I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed at least a couple of pages. I do not want to burden the 
taxpayers.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Here is what prominent economist and industry leaders are 
     saying about the President's economic growth proposal:
       ``President Bush's fiscal stimulus package is desirable not 
     only to deal with the current sluggishness in the economy, 
     but also with the longer term problems arising from 
     disincentives to save, invest and work in America.'' (Richard 
     Vedder, Distinguished Professor of Economics, Ohio 
     University)
       ``The President's economic growth package is a very 
     positive step forward for investors, workers, and taxpayers. 
     For the sake of the

[[Page 6394]]

     economy, we hope that Congress will speedily enact the 
     President's tax relief proposals and NTU will be working 
     toward that goal.'' (John Berthoud, President, National 
     Taxpayers Union)
       ``The package is a great New Year's surprise. We'll be 
     raising our economic and equity outlooks and lowering our 
     unemployment rate expectations.'' (David Malpass, Bear 
     Stearns & Co. Inc.)
       ``A brilliant, double-barrelled tax cut that will increase 
     the income of every American worker and create millions of 
     new and better jobs.'' (Martin Anderson, Keith and Jan 
     Hurlbut Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University)
       ``President Bush's proposed growth plan is not just a bunch 
     of random tax cuts, it is a plan that really pushes the 
     `growth buttons' by improving incentives to work, save and 
     invest, and is a step toward real tax reform. This package, 
     along with recent improvements in the tax treatment of 
     business investment, will give a real lift to jobs and GDP.'' 
     (Stephen J. Entin, President and Executive Director, 
     Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation (IRET))
       ``By accelerating tax rate reductions and eliminating the 
     double-taxation of dividends, President Bush's tax package 
     would significantly increase the economy's performance. But 
     the proposal also represents much-need tax reform and is a 
     significant step toward a simple and fair system like the 
     flat tax.'' (Dan Mitchell, The Heritage Foundation)
       ``President Bush's proposal on dividends ameliorates the 
     double-taxation of corporate profits, ending the incentives 
     in our tax code #1 to over-leverage business, with the 
     consequence of too much debt and vulnerability to the 
     business cycle, and #2 to over-rely on accounting numbers 
     rather than the pay-out of cash. His proposal on expensing of 
     capital expenditures will help invigorate our economic 
     recovery.'' (Clifford F. Thies, Professor of Economics and 
     Finance at Shenandoah University, and member of the Board of 
     Directors of the American Association of Small Property 
     Owners (AASPO))
       ``The double taxation of dividends has never made sense and 
     this is a perfect time to remove this crazy form of taxation. 
     It not only harms economic growth in the obvious ways, but 
     also in subtle ways. Given the wave of recent corporate 
     scandals, this is the perfect time to introduce a policy 
     change that will simultaneously increase investor confidence 
     while creating greater accountability for managers.'' (Brian 
     J. Hall, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School)
       ``Taxpayers at all income levels should cheer President 
     Bush's call for greater tax relief. These pro-growth and pro-
     family tax cuts are well-timed to provide stimulus for the 
     U.S. economy.'' (Russell Lamb, North Carolina State 
     University)
       ``The President's proposal eliminates unfairness in the tax 
     code, distributes the gains widely to Americans who pay 
     income taxes, and creates incentives for growth. What more 
     can we ask?'' (Don Booth, Professor of Economics, Chapman 
     University)
       ``The President's Economic Growth Package is a solid and 
     aggressive plan to further boost economic growth and job 
     creation in 2003 and beyond. The cuts in marginal tax rates 
     will allow all individuals to better spend, save, and invest, 
     and they are especially beneficial to the ongoing viability 
     of the small businesses that pay taxes at the individual 
     level such as Subchapter S Corporations.'' (Paul Merski, 
     Chief Economist & Director of Federal Tax Policy, Independent 
     Community Bankers of America)
       ``I think this is a bold economic package that both 
     provides much-needed near-term economic stimulus and boosts 
     after-tax incentives for growth and investment. The current 
     double-taxation of dividends is unjustifiable on economic 
     efficiency grounds and its elimination should provide a 
     welcome lift to the equity market by increasing after-tax 
     returns on stocks and further improve corporate governance by 
     encouraging firms to increase dividend payouts. The 
     acceleration of the margin tax rate cuts from 2006 into 2003 
     should eliminate incentives to defer income and economic 
     activity, which in turn should further boost economic growth 
     in 2003. This is the most significant proposal to roll back 
     tax disincentives to growth and stimulate the economy since 
     the Reagan tax cuts.'' (John Ryding, Chief Market Economist, 
     Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.)
       ``This is the type of bold action needed to jump start the 
     stagnant U.S. economy. When these measures go into effect, 
     the U.S. industrial sector will resume its role of innovating 
     and creating jobs to provide an engine for growth in the 
     global economy.'' (Thomas J. Duesterberg, President and Chief 
     Executive Officer of the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a 
     public policy and business research organization in 
     Arlington, VA)
       ``The President's plan is directly targeting consumer 
     spending and investment incentives. The reduction of marriage 
     penalty, the increase in child tax credit, the extension of 
     unemployment benefit and speeding up tax relief will help 
     revive consumer spending, increase confidence and boost 
     aggregate demand in the short-run. The end of double taxation 
     of dividends and increasing incentives for small businesses 
     should help sustain momentum in favor of job creation and 
     long-term growth.'' (Magda Kandil, International Monetary 
     Fund)
       ``Once again, President Bush is demonstrating his strong 
     leadership ability. This stimulus package is just the type of 
     measure his economy needs to get back on track. Just upon 
     hearing about it the markets have reacted wildly in response. 
     Imagine how it'll be when it's enacted.'' (Horace Cooper, 
     Centre for New Black Leadership)
       ``Business investment is key to fostering healthy levels of 
     economic growth. President Bush's plan offers much needed 
     capital and incentives to the sector of the economy 
     shouldering the bulk of job creation, economic growth and 
     innovation--small businesses and entrepreneurs. We are also 
     encouraged by the President's proposal to eliminate the 
     double taxation of dividends. With the strength of the 
     economy becoming increasingly dependent on the health of the 
     equity markets, this measure will help restore both certainty 
     and investor confidence. The overall package is good for 
     small business, which means it's good for America.'' (Karen 
     Kerrigan, Chair, Small Business Survival Committee)
       ``The President's plan alleviates one of the most 
     economically destructive distortions in the tax law and also 
     provides welcome relief to small businesses.'' (David R. 
     Burton, The Argus Group)
       ``President Bush's `Taking Action to Strengthen America's 
     Economy' plan is a sound and well thought out policy package. 
     The plan offers not only short-term stimulus for the American 
     economy but it also lays the foundation for long-term, non-
     inflationary, economic growth for the decades ahead. By 
     extending unemployment benefits, the plan reaches out to 
     those workers who, through no fault of their own, find 
     themselves out of work. In addition, the creation of the new 
     Personal Reemployment Accounts will help to ensure that 
     America has the most dynamic labor markets the world has ever 
     seen. One of the most impressive things about the plan is 
     that it is not limited to only short-term stimulus. President 
     Bush obviously understands the importance of long-term 
     economic growth for America's future. By eliminating the 
     double taxation of dividend income President Bush's plan will 
     allow Americans to save more effectively for their 
     retirements and to save money for their children's future. In 
     addition, by encouraging small business to invest and invent 
     the plan will help to ensure the rapid advancement of 
     American productivity. These productivity increases will help 
     to insure that America's children of today will enjoy a 
     higher standard of living than their parents and their 
     grandparents. The positive effects of the President's plan 
     will be felt for decades into the future.'' (Michael W. 
     Brandl, Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin, McCombs 
     School of Business, Department of Finance)
       ``A far-reaching reform of the U.S. tax system to reduce 
     the large distortions implied by the existing structure of 
     taxes on capital income is long overdue. Studies published in 
     leading economics journals show that the welfare of U.S. 
     households improves by an amount equivalent to an increase of 
     between 1.5 to 3 percent per quarter forever because of the 
     tremendous efficiency gains that the economy stands to make 
     from lower taxes on dividends and other forms of capital 
     income. These findings are not driven by glossy budgetary 
     arithmetics. In fact, they follow from economic models that 
     impose tough assumptions keeping current levels of government 
     expenditures and transfer payments covered and making the 
     long-run rate of economic growth independent of the tax 
     cuts.'' (Enrique Mendoza, University of Maryland)

  Mr. NICKLES. I also have a list of economists who say the President's 
package would greatly increase the stock market: James Glassman from 
Chase, 10 percent to 15 percent; Charles Schwab, 10 to 15 percent; and 
on and on. Some of us would love to see the stock market increase. The 
amendment of the Senator would basically gut the growth package. There 
would be zero growth package--maybe $150 billion in the first 2 years, 
but that is not long-term growth. And his first amendment does say a 
point of order would lie unless there was significant economic stimulus 
in 2003 and 2004, and also you can't have any increases. It happens to 
fit the Daschle plan. It doesn't fit any plan I have seen on this side, 
so it is kind of a carve-out. We will have a budget point of order or 
super point of order against any bill I have seen, but certainly not 
the minority leader's plan.
  I urge our colleagues to vote no on the motion to waive. And then I 
will move to table the second amendment at the appropriate time.
  Also, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
second amendment be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield the floor.

[[Page 6395]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 264. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. 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) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     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
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Edwards
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 266

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate prior to the 
vote in relation to amendment No. 266.
  Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, this amendment reduces the tax cut by $1.2 trillion, 
leaving a tax cut of $150 billion, and with the reduction in the tax 
cut, it is put in the reserve fund to strengthen Social Security. That 
means it will be used to reduce the deficit until it is needed to help 
supplement the Social Security system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I am going to move to table the 
amendment, so I urge our colleagues to vote aye in favor of the motion 
to table.
  This amendment says we should have zero stimulus except for $150 
billion up front; zero extension of the current law. In other words, we 
have a lot of taxpayers right now who are paying 10 percent. Their rate 
would go to 15 percent. We have a lot of taxpayers who are paying 25 
percent. Their rate would go to 28 percent. We have some taxpayers 
paying 35 percent. Their rate would go to 39.6 percent. We would have 
increases in the death tax, the marriage penalty, and a decrease in the 
child tax credit from $1,000 to $500.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this $1.2 trillion tax increase 
compared to the budget resolution before us.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Edwards
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. I take a second to update Members as to the schedule for 
this evening and the remainder of the week. There are approximately 35 
hours remaining for the consideration of the budget resolution. The two 
managers were here late into the evening yesterday and have been here 
all day today. Both are ready for business. Thus, we will continue to 
around 11 o'clock tonight. Members who will be offering amendments 
should notify the chairman or ranking member so there can be some sense 
of order to the process, both tonight and over the next several days, 
as well.
  We will finish the budget resolution this week. To that effort, the 
Senate will need to remain in session late into the evening tonight, 
tomorrow night, and likely the next night. With that, we will consume 
the statutory limit of time. Members should be aware of these lengthy 
sessions this week and adjust their schedules accordingly.
  With respect to tonight, there will be one other amendment laid down 
shortly. That amendment will relate to ANWR. A number of Senators will 
want to speak on that issue tonight. I do not anticipate any further 
rollcall votes tonight.
  Again, I will alert Members that we will remain in session late.
  Mr. REID. If the leader will yield, speaking for this side of the 
aisle, the ANWR amendment will be laid down. Senator Conrad, the 
manager on our side, and our leader, have indicated it would be to 
everyone's interest on our side to debate ANWR tonight. So if Members 
have a speech to give on ANWR on our side, it should be done tonight 
because there will shortly be a unanimous consent agreement that we 
will attempt to have approved that has the approval of both leaders 
that will take us to other amendments tomorrow morning, pay-go and the 
tax cut to be offered on our side. The two leaders have indicated these 
would be stacked for votes sometime tomorrow afternoon.
  On our side, I repeat, we have all night tonight to debate as much as 
people want on ANWR. Tomorrow morning and afternoon on our side will be 
a very limited time to speak on ANWR.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, we will also encourage our Members to 
speak on ANWR tonight. I do know there is at least one Member who wants 
to speak on ANWR tomorrow--at least two people.
  The other statements were correct. Pay-go will be laid down tomorrow, 
another amendment will be laid down in the morning, and we will likely 
have stacked votes some time tomorrow afternoon, the time to be 
determined based on people's schedules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 6396]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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, on behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield as 
much time as the Senator from California desires to speak at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 272

  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration. I ask the following cosponsors be included on this 
amendment: Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
Wyden, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Edwards, and Mr. Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, and 
     Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reid, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 272.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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 prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National 
      Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill)

       On page 45, beginning on line 13, strike subsection (a) 
     (the reconciliation instruction to the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources).

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is a great honor for me to offer this 
amendment. I hope very much that Members on both sides will support it. 
The amendment is very simple. It strikes the reconciliation 
instructions given to the Energy Committee that will lead to oil 
drilling in a pristine place in America, a God-given gift, the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  We are striking, in essence, the instructions, and that will in 
essence say, no, we will not have drilling in this pristine area.
  There are so many Members on both sides of the aisle that want to 
speak on this tonight, I will give a little instruction as to the 
beauty of the refuge, and then I will yield to my colleagues as they 
come over, and get back to the stream of my four-part argument.
  In light of the world situation, we need to see something beautiful. 
This is something quite beautiful. I will show some beautiful 
photographs from the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This is Wild 
Sweet Pea and Marsh Creek in the coastal plain. It speaks volumes to 
what God has given us.
  This picture on the plain shows the caribou and beautiful mountains 
with the water in front. The last time we debated this issue, I showed 
this photograph and one of my colleagues from Alaska said this is not 
where it is going to happen. We quickly called to Alaska and had their 
wildlife people confirm that is a fact.
  Let me show more of the wildlife. This is a magnificent bird, the 
chart bird. This unbelievable photograph shows a polar bear reflected 
in the water. Cast your eyes on this. This is pretty extraordinary. One 
cannot paint anything quite as magnificent as what God has created. The 
musk oxen is seen running through this area. The next photograph shows 
the porcupine caribou swimming. These are pretty extraordinary 
photographs.
  This gives Members an idea of what we are trying to save and why we 
ask colleagues from both sides of the aisle to please support us in 
striking this instruction from the budget.
  I first make an argument about process. After I do that, I am going 
to yield to my colleague from Connecticut for up to 10 minutes.
  This debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, though it is 
coming in the evening at 6 p.m., is a very important debate. It is a 
very important environmental issue. If you look at some of the polling 
data from every one of our States, people believe very strongly that 
this place should be preserved, as it was when it was given to us.
  The fact we are discussing it as an amendment to the budget bill is, 
it seems to me, inappropriate. It deserves to have much more debate. It 
deserves to have much more consideration. It deserves to have much more 
public input. It deserves to have much more time. But this is the hand 
we are dealt. We are dealt a hand where, without even mentioning the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge except in one line, it really is kind 
of snuck into this budget resolution.
  But be that as it may, the result is the same. We then move forward 
under reconciliation and we could not stop it except if we were able to 
get the majority vote. We could not really filibuster it.
  I want to have printed in the Record a letter on this point from 
Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, and there are four others on this. I 
will read their names: Susan Collins, John McCain, Mike DeWine, Peter 
Fitzgerald. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, January, 30, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Senate Majority Leader, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: With the start of the 108th Congress, 
     we believe the Senate has an opportunity and obligation to 
     set the nation's fiscal priorities by ensuring that a sound 
     and responsible budget blueprint is adopted. As this 
     important work begins, we respectfully ask for your 
     leadership in promoting an FY 2004 budget that does not 
     include an assumption for the leasing of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge or reconciliation instructions directing the 
     raising of such revenue.
       Because the opening of the Arctic Refuge to drilling raises 
     a host of policy concerns, including serious environmental 
     ramifications, we do not believe this issue should be 
     injected in the budget process. 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 an omnibus energy bill. Ultimately, on April 18, 2002, by 
     a vote of 54-46, the Senate defeated a procedural motion to 
     invoke cloture on an amendment that would have opened the 
     Arctic Refuge to drilling. With its strict rules limiting 
     debate, the budget is not conducive to adequate consideration 
     of an issue of this magnitude.
       We believe that the Arctic Refuge should be preserved and 
     that budgetary effects of oil leases in the Refuge are 
     incidental when considering the profound negative impact of 
     drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
       Accordingly, given the strict rules governing debate of the 
     budget and the significance of our national policy on the 
     Arctic Refuge, we respectfully ask that you resist efforts to 
     include provisions in the FY 2004 budget resolution related 
     to opening up the Arctic Refuge for drilling.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
           Sincerely,
     Olympia Snowe.
     Lincoln Chafee.
     Susan Collins.
     Mike DeWine.
     John McCain.
     Peter Fitzgerald.

  Mrs. BOXER. They make this point I think quite eloquently. They say:

       Because the opening of the Arctic refuge to drilling raises 
     a host of policy concerns including serious environmental 
     ramifications, we do not believe the issue should be injected 
     into the budget process.

  I have to applaud my Republican friends who wrote this letter. Such 
an important issue about such a place involving such beauty should not 
be the subject of a little amendment here dealing with reconciliation. 
We need to have much more serious debate.
  I will close this part of my statement in this way. In 1960, when 
President Eisenhower set aside 8.9 million acres to form the original 
Arctic Range, his Secretary of the Interior noted that the area was:

       one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas 
     in North America, a wilderness experience not duplicated 
     elsewhere.

  As you can see, nothing has changed about that description. It 
remains a special place, richer in wildlife than perhaps any other part 
of the country.

[[Page 6397]]

  I say to my Republican friends, it was a Republican President who 
said let's preserve this place forever. It seems sad that the 
Republican President now is saying let's simply turn our back on this 
legacy. I hope Republicans and Democrats will join together. I think we 
have a good chance to do it and stand up tonight during debate and 
tomorrow when we have this vote, and make the case that this is a 
special place that deserves protection.
  There is not enough oil in it to make a whit of difference, which I 
will get into later. Let's do the right thing here.
  I am very pleased Senator Lieberman is here. He has taken a 
tremendous leadership role on this issue. It is my delight to yield him 
10 minutes, or if he needs more time, I am happy to yield that as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
California, Senator Boxer, for introducing this amendment and taking 
the lead role on it. It is characteristic of the way in which, ever 
since she came to the Senate, she has been a great champion for 
environmental protection, for natural resource conservation, and for 
the protection of the American people from the assaults on their health 
that are so often represented by environmental pollution.
  I rise to support the amendment and to say, once again, the issue is 
joined here about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Will we allow 
oil companies to drill for oil on this extraordinary piece of America, 
one of God's great gifts to this country? The pictures speak much more 
than 1,000 words about the beauty and magnificence, the tranquility, 
the sense that you are looking at a piece of Earth the way it looked 
around the time of creation, if I may take some liberties with the 
description.
  Is it worth desecrating--and I use that word advisedly--this 
magnificent part of America for oil, 6 months' worth of oil, to ruin 
the natural beauty of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge forever for 6 
months' worth of oil which will reduce our dependency on foreign oil by 
the year 2020, if, God forbid, drilling is allowed, from 62 percent to 
60 percent?
  This question before us invokes the extent to which we value and wish 
to protect in the spirit not only of Eisenhower but in the spirit of 
the seminal figure in American government for the conservation ethic, 
which is another great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt. Do we 
value this land and are we prepared to protect it or are we going to 
desecrate it, diminish it, change it forever for a small amount of oil? 
Is that really what our energy policy should be about? Does it really 
offer us any hope of more energy independence which we strive for? The 
answer of course is, no, it is not worth it.
  This is a battle that has gone on now in Congress for more than a 
quarter of a century. It is one of the reasons why I sought to come to 
the Senate of the United States in my campaign in 1988, because the 
incumbent Senator I declared against had voted in favor of drilling for 
oil in the Arctic Refuge. It is a battle I have been proud to continue 
to wage with colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the 14-plus 
years I have been here. I feel sometimes as if we are guards at the 
borders protecting the beauty that those pictures illuminate.
  Here the issue is joined again and joined, if I may say so, in a way 
that is a backdoor method. It is kind of an abuse of process, if I can 
use a term from my old law practice and attorney general days. It is an 
abuse of practice because it attempts to allow for the drilling for oil 
in the Arctic Refuge by including the permission and authorization in a 
budget bill. It does it, of course, for one reason, which is to 
overcome and avoid the Senate's proud tradition of unlimited debate.
  Senator Byrd is in the Chamber. I have heard him speak so eloquently 
about this, and about the extent to which the Senate honors this 
tradition. Of course, this goes back to the very way in which our 
Founders and Framers conceived of the Senate, the famous saucer and cup 
metaphor. I have heard the Senator say, and have been moved by it, the 
rule of unlimited debate--filibuster, if you will--is there to protect 
the Nation, its values--in this case its resources, unmatched natural 
beauty and resources--from falling to the passions of the moment that 
destroy something timeless, our values, or in this case, again, the 
natural beauty of a part of America. For what?
  That is exactly why we ought not as a matter of process allow this 
end run to occur. I would like to think that even those who favor 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge would consider voting for this amendment 
Senator Boxer has introduced just on the principle of it, the process 
principle of it. If we allow this controversy to be settled in a 
backdoor method with far less than 60 votes, which would be required on 
cloture, we are opening the door for this to happen on more and more 
issues that are of concern to our colleagues.
  That is the fundamental question that is raised as a matter of 
process, the substance I have spoken to, a 62- to 60-percent reduction 
in dependence on foreign oil. This is of course the wrong policy. But 
we need to invest our resources in alternative, renewable, clean 
sources of energy. We have so many. We need to depend on sources of 
energy that are within our possession, not dispersed in unsettled areas 
of the world that compromise our international security and 
international independence. We need to require vehicles to be more fuel 
efficient. That would save much more energy and make us a much stronger 
country than the drilling for oil in this most beautiful place.
  The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge has been called the American 
Serengeti. It is inhabited by 135 species of birds and 45 species of 
land mammals. The plain crosses all five different eco-regions of the 
Arctic. It is breathtakingly beautiful.
  Some will argue in this debate, as they have off the floor, that you 
can somehow put oil wells and pipelines into this area, and it is just 
going to be kind of a small blemish on the landscape of the refuge--a 
little brown mark on a red apple. But, believe me, this apple will soon 
be rotten to the core. If we allow these pipelines to go on there and 
this drilling to occur, there will be a series of blemishes--dozens of 
holes that will be connected together by roads, pipelines, and other 
infrastructure. Spidering out of these blemishes would be an elaborate 
additional infrastructure of roads and pipelines and airstrips and 
processing plants.
  The effect of all this has been documented over and over again, most 
recently in an independent study authorized and requested by the 
National Academy of Sciences, which documented the impact of the 
drilling that has gone on in other areas in this part of America, and 
documented it in a very discouraging and upsetting way.
  This is going to be a close vote. We have had many close calls in 
this long-term, very worthy effort to protect the Arctic Refuge.
  I was with a group of people the other day, advocates who are 
concerned about the refuge. We were commenting that this battle has 
been going on for more than a quarter century here in the Senate. I 
mentioned I had been fighting it for my 15 years in the Senate. There 
was a lady, a very distinguished woman from the Gwich'in Native 
American people who inhabit this area, and she said: We have been 
living here and working to protect and preserve this sacred ground for 
more than 10,000 years.
  That is what is on the line here: whether not just the Gwich'in 
people but all the American people are going to be able to enjoy the 
tranquility, the perspective, for another 10,000 years, and another 
10,000 years beyond that, that comes from the natural magnificence that 
is dramatized in the pictures Senator Boxer has shown us.
  This is not a time to ignore the basic conservationist--I would add, 
conservative--values of our country that teach us we ought not to look 
at every available natural resource area in our country as something 
more to exploit. Our values are stronger than that and longer term than 
that. We owe the Earth that God has given us more respect than that. 
Nature, after all, reminds us of our humanity. And that is

[[Page 6398]]

what conservation and this battle on this amendment are all about.
  So I thank my colleagues of both parties for standing with us. I 
thank Senator Boxer again for being such a leader, a battler, a 
champion for what is right. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager of the bill, 
Senator Conrad, I yield 15 minutes off the resolution to the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might add, if we could make clear 
that when Senator Byrd concludes, Senator Kerry be recognized for 10 to 
15 minutes to speak on the amendment that is pending.
  Mr. REID. That would be yielded off of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, for her thoughtfulness and her characteristic 
courtesy.


                           Amendment No. 264

  Mr. President, I speak with reference to the Conrad amendment No. 
264, which was voted on earlier today. I had hoped to speak prior to 
the vote on that amendment, but I was unable to do so.
  Mr. President, the amendment that was before the Senate at that time 
was one of simple common sense. The President, last night, spoke to the 
Nation of imminent military action. The American people know that war 
is looming. The Senate knows that war is looming. And yet the budget 
resolution before the Senate ignores that war. It ignores the obvious 
costs that are staring all of us square in the face. This Senate ought 
to be up front with the Nation and anticipate the costs of war in this 
budget.
  Last night, I went to the White House with a number of my colleagues 
from this body and from the other body. The message I carried was a 
simple one. I will support the funds as ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee to ensure the safety of the men and women in 
our Armed Forces. They did not ask for this mission. They did not ask 
to go overseas. But they are there. They are ready to carry out their 
orders. They are ready to defend America. I will not flinch when it 
comes to their safety and support.
  But I do not support the policy that sent them there or that sends 
them there even though they will not have the support and endorsement 
of the United Nations.
  What I will not support is a blank check for this administration to 
allow military action in Iraq to slowly creep into other operations, 
into other lands. We have seen how the goal of disarmament in Iraq has 
changed to fighting terrorism in Iraq, to ousting the leadership of 
Iraq, to bringing peace to the Middle East through war in Iraq, to 
forcing Saddam Hussein and his sons from Iraq. Is it any wonder that I 
and others worry what goal may be next? Where is this preemptive 
strategy taking us? Where are we taking the world?
  I have stood in this Chamber time and again to warn of the dangers of 
this policy of preemptive strike without imminent threat. I have urged 
the President to step back and reconsider his decisions. But the 
administration has its eyes shut, its ears covered, its mind closed. 
The decision, apparently, has been made.
  This is a war that does not have to be. This is a war that could be 
avoided. But the President has placed this Nation on the road to war, 
and there is little hope, if any, of turning back.
  In the coming days, we will hear again from the President. I hope 
that, as he gives the command to commence military action, he and his 
administration will be looking at several moves ahead.
  Reconstruction and peacekeeping will be huge tasks. The American 
people must be prepared for the strains of these missions. We should 
not feed them rosy scenarios that a war will be painless or that an 
occupation would be of minimal length. Nor should we keep them in the 
dark. It is imperative that, in times of crisis, the American people 
can maintain trust in their Government.
  We must repair our alliances. Already our move to war has had fallout 
for our closest ally, Britain, with the resignation of Britain's 
Foreign Secretary. There is an ever-increasing chance of serious 
repercussions in the Middle East. We will need the combined political 
strength of all of our friends and allies, and the process of repairing 
our ties must begin immediately.
  Winston Churchill once said about war:

       The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that 
     once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of 
     policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable 
     events.

  It is those unforeseeable and uncontrollable events that may be 
precipitated by a war with Iraq that keep me awake at night. I wish I 
could share the President's confidence that the toppling of Saddam 
Hussein and his regime will set into motion a peaceful revolution in 
the Middle East. Perhaps it will. We may be lucky. But I have watched 
too many decades of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East to believe 
that yet another war can serve as a reliable road map to peace.
  It is true that no one can predict the final cost of this war. But it 
certainly is not zero. That is what the President has asked us to 
budget, zero, and that is what the resolution would budget. Absolutely 
nothing. It is as if the looming war where simply a figment of one's 
imagination.
  If only that were the case.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question before Senator 
Kerry takes us back to this very important environmental amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to thank my colleague once again for 
continuing to speak out from his heart on an issue that is on 
everyone's mind. I remember so well standing with my friend on this 
issue and coming to the floor in October and laying out a number of 
questions. How much would this war cost, I was asking in October. How 
long do we plan to stay in Iraq? Who would bear the combat risk with 
us? Who was going to pick up the bill? Are there any other countries, 
and what would they pay? And what is the impact of this war on 
terrorism here at home? Are we prepared?
  It seems to me amazing--the question I have for my friend is--that 
here we are debating the budget for this year and everyone knows 
exactly what is going to happen because the President has been very 
open about it. We are going in there. I say to my friend, does he have 
one more answer today than he had those 5 months ago, in October? Does 
he have one more answer to those economic questions or those very 
important questions that were raised at that time than he had 5 months 
ago?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have had no answer. I received no answer, 
no estimates whatsoever. And the administration, through some of its 
department heads, has said: That is impossible. It is impossible. And 
why should we do that? That would be--if I may use my own words--a 
wasteful exercise. The administration has sent forth no estimate.
  Of course, we all understand that there can be no hard and fast 
estimate at this point. Many of us have been Members of this body and/
or the other one through previous wars. We know how difficult it is to 
come up with solid estimates. But we also know when an administration 
is leveling with us. After all, we are the elected representatives of 
the American people. They send us here. They are entitled to know the 
answers to these questions. The American people are entitled to know 
what is the best estimate at this particular time and, under the 
conditions the administration foresees at this point, what are the best 
estimates of the actual cost of the war in treasure and blood, what is 
the best estimate with respect to the occupation of Iraq, the morning 
after, reconstruction in Iraq. But we get nothing. We get nothing from 
the administration.

[[Page 6399]]

  The administration treats the elected representatives of the American 
people with seeming contempt. When the representatives of the people 
ask those questions, the answer, may I say to the Senator, is what it 
was then: We don't have the estimates.
  The administration is no nearer now than it was then in giving it to 
us. I think it is our duty to continue to ask.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I certainly will continue to ask.
  I believe under the previous order Senator Kerry gets the floor; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Was a request made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it was made without objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have been waiting for time. I would hope we would not 
enter a unanimous consent request without some consultation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An order has already been entered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. For parliamentary purposes, I don't want to have the 
Senator from Alaska believe something was abused here. I would like to 
see what he would like. There was no effort to try to slide something 
by. There was nobody else on the floor, and the Senator just asked if 
we could have a little bit of time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am perfectly happy. I will seek 
recognition when the lady has finished.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the request was for 10 to 15 
minutes. That is all. Then I will yield the floor. The Senator can 
proceed as he desires.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute outside of that time. I want to say a few words to the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, to whom I have 
listened over the course of the last months, who has asked 
extraordinarily important questions of the Senate. While we differ on 
the vote, we don't differ in our goals or on what we believe have been 
the failures of diplomacy over the course of the last months. He is 
absolutely correct about the failure to be forthcoming. One can desire 
a goal and hope that an administration is in fact going to implement 
the goal effectively. Many of us feel bitterly disappointed by the way 
in which diplomacy, relations with Congress, the transparency, the 
degree of effectiveness of our involvement with allies--there are a 
host of failures that raise extraordinary questions.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia whose years here are 
unparalleled and whose credibility as a consequence is unmatched by 
anybody here.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
kind remarks. He is overly charitable, and I deeply appreciate them.


                           Amendment No. 272

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from California. I thank her for bringing this amendment, which 
is one of the most important issues we will vote on in the Senate this 
year. It is not just a vote to protect a refuge; it is a refuge; it is 
a pristine wilderness.
  The words ``pristine wilderness'' together mean something. They carry 
more than just the notion of a policy put in place by President 
Eisenhower in 1960, I believe, reinforced later in the Alaska Lands Act 
signed by President Carter. This is a national treasure. The words 
``pristine wilderness'' both are destroyed, the entire concept is 
destroyed, by what this amendment seeks to do, may I add, not in the 
normal process of legislation as we approach it here but slipped into 
the budget for the specific purpose of trying to bypass the normal 
rules of the Senate.
  Now, certainly, any tool is available to anybody, but I think 
Americans ought to judge whether or not they want a pristine wilderness 
destroyed in its pristineness and in its wilderness for the sake of a 
minor, tiny percentage of oil that has no impact on world oil prices, 
has no impact--or negligible, to be accurate, about a 2 percent impact 
ultimately, 10 years from now, if it delivers its potential--on the 
total amount of dependency on American oil from abroad.
  In 1975, when President Carter first began to wrestle with the issue 
of America's dependency on oil, we were about 35 percent dependent on 
foreign oil. At that time, we sought to reduce that dependency and to 
create alternatives, renewables, and to move to a different kind of 
energy base.
  Today, after all the talk of seriousness of purpose, guess what. The 
United States of America is no longer 35 percent dependent; we are 
approaching 60 percent dependency on foreign oil. God only gave us 3 
percent of the world's oil. Saudi Arabia has 46 percent. The Middle 
East, in total, has about 65 percent. So do the equation. Any kid in 
America can do this equation.
  If the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil, and the 
Middle East has 65 percent of the world's oil, and your demand for oil 
is going from 35 percent to 60 percent, a 2 percent difference for the 
destruction of the wilderness does not solve America's problem.
  The bottom line is, there is only one way to solve America's problem. 
You cannot drill your way out of America's problem. You have to invent 
your way out of America's problem. Inventing your way out of America's 
problem means beginning to push the curve on the creation of an 
entirely differently based economy--a hydrogen-based economy or some 
other. We could do that if we were to harness the energy of our 
colleges, universities, and venture capitalists and create the tens of 
thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of high-value-added jobs that 
would come from pushing in that direction.
  So my objection is to the proposal by those who want to drill in the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge, which is shortsighted and destructive of a 
wilderness. This photograph represents what the wilderness looks like 
today. If you start drilling, this other photo is what it could look 
like. It will be no longer a wilderness.
  Most recently, the GAO issued a report that said there is an enormous 
negative downside to the environment in those areas in which we have 
already agreed to drill. In those areas in which we have already agreed 
to drill, there is an extraordinary amount of drilling left to be done. 
We have enormous leases that are available and open that can be 
pursued. We don't need to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. In fact, 
the most important oil companies of the country are not particularly 
seeking to drill there. They don't have any intention of drilling 
there, except to the degree that it is opened up and someone else goes 
there; then they may believe, competitively, that they have to.
  Lord John Brown, the president of British Petroleum--which has been 
working hard to push solar and alternatives and renewables--said 
publicly: We don't really need the Alaska refuge. We don't think it is 
the principal place to drill.
  The real drilling for America's future is offshore drilling in the 
Gulf of Mexico. I know some will argue that it is an energy security 
magic bullet. But I have described why it is not a magic bullet, No. 1. 
No. 2, this is not sound energy policy.
  The United States of America is still spending, I think, about $6 
billion in order to provide oil and gas fossil fuel incentives. The 
total incentive of the United States for alternatives and renewables is 
$24 million. Billions of dollars to go after fossil fuel, which we know 
is a dependency that leads us nowhere--in fact, it leads us to 
increased global warming problems, to increased dependency on foreign 
oil--$24 million going into alternatives and renewables.
  Europe has a much better sense of the future than, apparently, this 
administration in the United States right now. Great Britain has 
determined that they are going to provide almost all of their 
electricity in Great Britain--even though they are oil rich in

[[Page 6400]]

the North Sea--from windmills, wind power, over the next 10 to 15 
years. If you go to Holland or Denmark, you will see in the bays off 
those countries windmills that are providing enormous power.
  In Minnesota, in our own country, I have met farmers who are actually 
earning more providing wind power to their local farm neighbors. From 
windmills, wind power, they are earning more, providing some 2,000 
farms with power, than they are from farming. Think of what you could 
do if you began to move to biomass ethanol or corn-based ethanol for 
Iowa and for other States that grow and farm, which are already in huge 
dependency on the U.S. Government for billions of dollars--to do 
nothing or to not grow.
  We are completely on the wrong track. This effort to try to drill in 
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is a misguided effort to try to keep America 
locked into a place that takes us nowhere. I believe we need to open up 
a different future for this country, and the Energy Information 
Administration concluded last year that drilling in the refuge would 
only reduce oil imports by a tiny 2 percent, which provides no security 
to the United States at all. It is not good environmental policy, it is 
a terrible excuse for an energy policy, and it seems to me that 
domestic and renewable sources are urgently needed.
  Why? Well, no foreign government can embargo them. No Saddam Hussein 
can seize control of them and reduce the flow. No cartel can play games 
with them. No American soldier will ever have to go and protect them 
with his or her life because they are here, they are home grown, and 
they don't put us into that predicament.
  So I will be voting in support of Senator Boxer's amendment in favor 
of protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to do the same. We have had this debate before. A majority 
of the Senate had decided previously that this does not contribute to 
the energy policy of our Nation, and I hope we will stand by that 
decision.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming and that I be recognized 
after that time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I have 
an understanding as to how much time will be used on your side before 
it returns to our side of the aisle?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my intention to use such time as 
may be available to me in making statements to answer comments made by 
the Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts. I have 
no estimate of how long I am going to take.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding--and I may be mistaken--all I am trying to establish is 
how long you will speak on your side before it returns to this side of 
the aisle. Can the Senator give us an estimation of the time that you 
will use?
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't think I am limited in time. I will yield myself 
time off the bill, by authority of the manager on our side. I don't 
know how much time. I will not agree to a time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am just confused. Senator Thomas is 
going to speak for how many minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. Ten minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it on this measure? Senator Durbin has been here, and 
he would like 10 minutes, too. If you can work him in following Senator 
Thomas, then the Senator from Alaska can talk the night away if he 
wants.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that I will speak 
now, and then I will yield to him later. I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska----
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for a second?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Just to clarify, I believe the Senator from California 
yielded to both the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from 
Massachusetts, in addition to making an opening speech. So there were 
at least three speakers.
  The Senator from Wyoming wanted 10 minutes, and the Senator from 
Alaska wishes to speak as well. So we would like to have the idea that 
we would alternate back and forth, but I believe there were three 
consecutive speakers on your side.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to my friend, if he does not mind 
yielding to me for an answer, we were very brief on this side. I spoke 
about 7 minutes. Several speakers spoke for 10 minutes. All I am trying 
to do is get Senator Durbin into the debate. Senator Stevens may well 
want to go on for an hour or so. We just do not know. We are just 
trying to work Senator Durbin in at some point.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a request pending, and I ask it 
either be agreed to or I be permitted to start speaking. I believe I 
still have the floor; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have withdrawn my request. If the Senator wishes to 
ask me a question, I will be glad to answer the question. I would be 
pleased to make a request that the Senator from Wyoming be accommodated 
in his request to speak for 10 minutes. I do not wish at this time to 
be limited to the amount of time I can speak. I am speaking about my 
State. I am speaking about the future of my State, and I do not see why 
I should be yielding back and forth 5 minutes at a time in terms of 
speaking on this issue. It is a very important issue to me. I do not 
know how long I am going to speak, but I am not going to speak all 
night, obviously. I am not prone to long speeches, but I do not wish to 
say how long I am going to speak at this time.
  I renew the request that the Senator from Wyoming have 10 minutes; 
after that, I be recognized to make my statement about an issue so 
vital to my State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate the 
opportunity to talk a few moments about energy for this country, about 
an energy policy that we have not yet developed and have the 
responsibility to develop. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about 
the requirement for an energy policy.
  We worked on this issue last year, my colleagues will recall, and did 
not get this done. It is more necessary now than before that we have an 
energy policy for the future of this country's economy. It is a little 
naive to talk about all the little problems when we do not talk about 
where we need to be. And if we paid attention at all to what has been 
done in energy over the last several years and what the demands are 
going to be for energy, we would start being a little more realistic 
about where we want to go.
  I have listened for several years to the environmentalists and the 
political aspect of energy, and I think that is what it is. We need to 
talk about the realism of providing energy for American families and 
for the jobs that are required.
  Energy is such an important element in our lives. I live in a State 
that is a producer of energy. I live in a State where we have lots of 
public lands. I live in a State where we have been able to have access 
to public lands and production from public lands without ruining the 
environment.
  Most of us recognize that America is now 60 percent or more dependent 
on foreign sources of oil. Much of that comes from areas of the world 
that are now in great upheaval and are hostile to the interests of the 
United States. Oil represents about one-third of our trade deficit. We 
spend hundreds of millions of dollars per day overseas to support 
unstable regimes around the world. ANWR is one of America's best 
chances for a major discovery, as much as 16 billion barrels of oil. 
Each barrel produced at home is one less we need to buy abroad.
  Just a few months ago, we saw the labor strike in Venezuela shut down 
oil production there. It halted nearly 15

[[Page 6401]]

percent of our imports. A threatened strike in Nigeria also constrained 
oil supplies, and we saw the result of that in prices this time. One of 
these days, we will see the result in a shortage of energy.
  Domestic oil inventories are at an all-time low level, the lowest in 
27 years, destroyed by the strike in Venezuela and a colder than 
average winter. There is very little excess capacity in the world for 
oil production. The International Energy Agency recently said that the 
global oil supply is running on empty. They said that on March 13. 
Development of ANWR will, of course, ease the strain on global markets 
but ensure a continued stable supply.
  In addition, of course, higher oil prices are a tax increase on the 
U.S. economy, and every American citizen feels that loss. Economists 
estimate a loss of 0.5 percent in GDP for every $10 increase in oil 
costs. Every American family spends more of their money on energy, and 
it leaves less money for other important priorities, such as education, 
health care, investments in new homes, and in the economy.
  Energy costs hit lower income Americans the hardest. A family earning 
less than $15,000 a year spends 14 percent of its household budget on 
energy compared to only 2.3 percent for a family earning $50,000 a 
year, and we are very concerned about that. We talk about it all the 
time. Here is an opportunity to do something about it. Diesel prices 
and truckers--there are lots of issues, and we all know what they are.
  I think, too, we ought to talk--and I am sure the Senator from Alaska 
will--about the development of oil and gas in ANWR. It will be 
conducted with the best advanced technology available in America today: 
Ice roads, directional drilling, 3-D seismic exploration, many we have 
used in Wyoming. We know it can be done. New technologies allow a field 
the size of Prudhoe Bay, with 20 percent of U.S. oil supply for the 
last 25 years, to be developed in an area less than the size of Dulles 
Airport.
  This proposed development at ANWR would be limited to less than 2,000 
acres in an area of 19 million acres, close to the coast, not up in the 
mountains as the picture always shows. The picture is not valid. It is 
not true. It is not there.
  Exploration will be limited to the winter months, November to May, to 
protect breeding and wildlife migration patterns.
  I have been through this a number of times. I have been to Alaska. I 
have been to this area. I am satisfied it is going to be a great boon 
to our need for energy. I am satisfied it can be done in a way that is 
environmentally satisfactory, and I think it can be a great boon for 
our economy. I certainly hope we can take an opportunity to provide a 
better chance for our future economy by opening this field.
  I thank my colleague for the time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my blood pressure goes up when this 
amendment comes up because I was in the Eisenhower administration, and 
I was one of those who participated in drawing the order which led to 
the creation of the Arctic National Wildlife Range. That order stated 
specifically that the area involved was withdrawn from all forms of 
appropriations under the public land laws, including the mining but not 
the mineral leasing laws. So starting in that period in the fifties, 
the area of Alaska way up in the corner, 9 million acres, was set aside 
at the request of the Fairbanks Women's Garden Club.
  My then-boss, Secretary Fred Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, 
decided to take that action, and it was subsequently confirmed by 
President Eisenhower 2 years later.
  That land along the Arctic has never been closed--never been closed--
to oil and gas leasing and exploration. In 1980, President Carter 
signed a law after the election which set aside over 100 million acres 
of Alaska land.
  I start off with this map to show our State is the largest State in 
the Union. One-fifth the size of all the land under the American flag 
is in Alaska. When one looks at this map, all the colored areas have 
been set aside by an act of Congress. They are no longer available for 
development in Alaska. These lands were set aside after prolonged 
battle over the Alaska lands.
  One of the few conditions, stipulations we requested was that this 
area of the Arctic Plain be open for oil and gas exploration. At that 
time, I parted from my then-colleague, Senator Gravel of Alaska, and 
allowed this bill to become law in 1980, which President Carter signed 
based upon the commitment that was made to me by two Senators.
  This is the photograph that was taken at the time we entered that 
agreement, Senator Jackson of Washington, Senator Tsongas of 
Massachusetts, and myself, in 1980. I was the minority whip, Senator 
Jackson was chairman of the Interior Committee, and Senator Tsongas was 
a member of that committee. I was in the minority.
  These gentlemen wished to withdraw over 100 million acres of Alaska. 
We asked for some stipulations pertaining to access and other such 
matters that were in the bill President Carter signed. The one area we 
asked be maintained to be available for oil and gas was the Arctic 
Plain. I say this in all humility, but those who come to this floor and 
say that is wilderness are not telling the truth. It is not a 
wilderness area. It has never been a wilderness area. It was 
specifically left out of the designation of wilderness and it is not 
wilderness.
  Those photographs we have seen of caribou, the caribou are the 
porcupine herd. They come up from Canada. They come up and they calve 
in this area in the summertime. Oil and gas exploration does not take 
place in the summertime. The tundra is soft. We wait until it is frozen 
and we build ice roads across. The caribou are not there when the oil 
and gas exploration takes place, and the assertion that it is 
wilderness is absolutely not true. Those who offer these photographs 
and claim this is wilderness ought to come in here and say that.
  By the way, I do not know where that crossing is which the Senator 
from California is displaying in her chart, but I presume that it is in 
June sometime when the caribou come up and leave within, at the 
maximum, 6 weeks. As a matter of fact, in recent years, they have not 
come up at all. They have gone up to calve on the Canadian side of the 
Arctic.
  In any event, of the enormous amount of caribou that reside in 
Alaska, and they do reside there year round, this herd does not reside 
there year round. It migrates up for a few days in the summertime. The 
central Alaska herd which is up around Prudhoe Bay--I heard all of 
these arguments about caribou and I saw the beautiful pictures at the 
time the oil pipeline amendment was on the floor to authorize the 
construction, the right of way of the Alaska oil pipeline. We heard 
claims that the action in building that pipeline would destroy the 
caribou, that they would suffer all sorts of harm. As a matter of fact, 
that is a myth. The caribou herd in the vicinity of the oil pipeline is 
almost six times larger than it was at the time the pipeline was built. 
Oil and gas activity does not harm the caribou at all. There is no 
proof whatsoever it ever harmed the caribou.
  That is not the only caribou herd. There is a western caribou herd. 
There are more resident caribou, not migrating caribou, in Alaska than 
people. I represent more caribou than I do people. I am trying to 
represent those caribou, too, because they are maligned by this 
assertion that oil and gas activity has harmed them when their numbers 
have grown so greatly since that took place.
  Some claim this oil and gas activity we seek to have take place in 
the 1002 area, as we call it, is opposed by the native people. We are 
going to hear that from people on the other side of the aisle. That is 
not true, either. There is one group of Alaska Indians whose basic home 
is in Canada, the Gwich'ins, who reside on the South Slope of the 
Brooks Range. At the most, they number a thousand of our people and 
some of them are in Canada. They oppose it. All the people of the North 
Slope and the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents over

[[Page 6402]]

100,000 Alaska native people, support going forward with the oil and 
gas activity in this 1002 area.
  The real problem about it is, I have trouble trying to get people to 
understand the size of Alaska. I want to show Alaska's map superimposed 
on the South 48, as we call it. As we can see, Alaska is almost as wide 
and almost as deep as the United States. Up in the corner is the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge which was created in 1980, which engulfed the 
Arctic Range. The Arctic Range came down like this, and this is the 
1002 area in green. It is not part of the wildlife refuge.
  When the oil and gas activity is over, we stipulated it would revert 
to the Refuge. My colleagues cannot see it, but right up there is a 
little dot. This green area is a million and a half acres. That little 
dot is 2,000 acres. We have agreed that not more than 2,000 acres will 
be used out of the million and a half acres set aside for oil and gas 
development in prosecuting the exploration and development of oil and 
gas in the North Slope.
  I think we have to take a look at what is going on in terms of the 
estimates that have been made. I understand there have been assertions 
of fact that I disagree with entirely. The largest untapped oil field 
in the North American continent is the area of the Arctic Plain, or the 
1002 area. There is estimated recoverable oil there of 10.3 billion 
barrels.
  For historic basis, let's go back to the time that Prudhoe Bay was 
discovered and we were trying to build this enormous pipeline from 
Valdez to Prudhoe Bay. The estimate then was there would be a billion 
barrels of oil in that reserve at Prudhoe Bay. Last year, out of 
Prudhoe Bay, we produced the fourteenth billionth barrel of oil. The 
estimates were conservative fourteen times over. They said there would 
be about a billion barrels of oil, and we have produced already 14 
billion barrels and we know we have more to go.
  Some people assert this is a small amount of oil. It is more than is 
produced in Texas. Our reserves are greater than Texas's. The estimated 
daily production is about 1.4 million barrels a day from the 1002 area, 
from the area we are talking about. Texas produces 1,065,000 barrels. 
We can see across the level of production as far as the--we produce 
972,000 barrels from Prudhoe Bay now and that is another story. That is 
one of the stories I did not want to be limited on because I want to 
tell the Senate this story.
  At the time we had the Persian Gulf war, at the request of the 
Federal Government, the throughput of the Alaska oil pipeline was 
increased from 1.9 million barrels a day to 2.1 million barrels. We 
went up 200,000 barrels a day to offset the loss of access to oil at 
that time and the increased demand for oil because of the war.
  Today, that throughput is 972,000 barrels. That pipeline is less than 
half full. Why? Since the 1970s, it has been producing from the Prudhoe 
Bay area, and we need additional daily production. Where is it to come 
from? Where did we believe it would come from? We believed it would 
come from the 1002 area, from the area that is in dispute as to whether 
or not we should drill it. If that area is not drilled and we do not 
get additional reserves, the time will come when it will be 
uneconomical to use the oil pipeline. That is really what these people 
want. They want to go back and reverse history because they do not like 
the oil pipeline becoming filled again.
  This is the greatest reserve we have in the United States. This is 
another depiction of the situation at the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. This is the refuge. The area in light brown is wilderness. The 
area in green is not wilderness. It is reserved for oil and gas 
exploration, and the balance of the area is wildlife refuge. The 
Coastal Plain is the 1002 area, a million and a half acres. Its 
description and its boundaries were drawn by Senator Jackson and 
Senator Tsongas in order to make sure the area would be available to 
oil and gas exploration. As a matter of fact, when he signed the bill, 
President Carter referred to that. I quote from the signing ceremony 
from the administration of Jimmy Carter in 1980:

       This act reaffirms our commitment to the environment. It 
     strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty 
     and value and allowing development of Alaska's vital oil and 
     gas and mineral and timber resources.

  The only area covered by that bill that had any oil and gas potential 
was the 1002 area. We have the right to explore and develop this 1.5 
million acres, and President Carter withdrew over 100 million acres.
  Now this amendment seeks, once again, to renege on that commitment my 
two friends from the Senate in 1980 made and put into law. It was not 
just a verbal commitment but a proposed development of the Arctic 
Coastal Plain of up to 1.5 million acres.
  We have included in this resolution a reference to income that will 
come from the bidding to develop oil in that area. It is $2.1 billion. 
That is the beginning. We estimate the income to the Federal Government 
from the development of that area on an annual basis will be roughly $1 
billion a year. That is from the royalties that come from developing 
Federal land.
  What has to be recognized is this is an area of barren tundra. Ask 
anyone who has been there in the wintertime. This is not some picture 
of caribou and lakes and a dreamy sort of place to be. As a matter of 
fact, one of the reasons the caribou do not come up is, the bugs are so 
bad, they go into Canada. When they are really bad in that part of 
Alaska, they go to Canada. They go up there and get in the water to 
avoid the bugs.
  If they want to show a picture of the 1002 area, that is it, as far 
as you can see--nothing but frozen tundra. You do not see any caribou; 
you do not see any bears; you do not see pictures of beautiful flowers. 
There are tourists in the summertime, the 6 weeks the caribou are 
there, and they leave with the caribou. My Eskimo people stay there and 
live there. They want this land drilled so they can have some income to 
support their lifestyle.
  Before the oil and gas came up there, I used to go up there in the 
1950s, and it was a terrible place, to see how those people lived. Now, 
because of the revenue they get from the development of oil on the 
North Slope, they have nice homes, they have nice buildings, they have 
one building with a nice elevator, they have a beautiful small college, 
they have one of the most beautiful set of schools to be found anywhere 
in America. They support it with their money, coming from the taxes 
they derive from drilling and activities on their land.
  One time I took a postmaster general up there to visit the area. We 
got into a bus right off the airplane and went over to the post office. 
He went into the post office. I thought he would faint because the 
digital thermometer said minus 99. It was a wind chill factor 
thermometer, minus 99. My people were living up there. We went to the 
post office; we went to lunch that day.
  This is a picture of some of these children in Kaktovik. This is the 
one village in the center of the area that people say is a wilderness 
area. Right in the center is this village of Kaktovik. You do not have 
development in wilderness--that is my memory. These are beautiful 
people. And they know what they want. They want that area drilled so 
they can continue to get the income, send their children to school, 
have telephones, and have the kind of facilities we have everywhere 
else in the country. Without it, they have no basic income. Their 
income is in resources.
  By the way, to shock the Senate, half the coal in the United States 
is also in Alaska. We do not produce it because a Senator came on the 
floor one day and offered an amendment to prohibit the mining for coal 
unless the natural contour was restored after taking the coal out--a 
virtual impossibility: Take tons of coal out of the tundra, and you are 
supposed to restore the natural tundra. That has blocked coal 
development in Alaska for 45 years. That is another typical type of 
amendment that comes from people with minds that oppose this.
  Look at that picture. I hope the camera can compare that with where 
the children are in wintertime. This is

[[Page 6403]]

propaganda of the worst sort, from the richest people in the United 
States, who finance these extreme environmental organizations and come 
here and tell us how to live in Alaska. They spend more money in 
lobbying than the oil industry. They spend less money than the oil 
industry in protecting the environment. I have an aside on that, too, 
which I will get to tomorrow.
  Another aspect of this is pipeline prices. One of the problems about 
the supply of oil in the United States is the ability to maintain some 
stability in prices. This is a busy chart, but it shows the 
relationship of the throughput of Alaska pipeline to the price of oil 
in the United States. The green line is the throughput of the oil 
pipeline. The red line is the price of oil. As the throughput started, 
as we started to build the pipeline, the price kept going up. But when 
we reached the peak of production, the price was the lowest in the 
United States that it has been in 30 years. When we keep going, as the 
pipeline throughput declined--and this is the current situation--the 
price of gasoline in the whole United States went up. Our ability to 
produce 25 percent of the domestically produced oil in the United 
States stabilizes the price of oil and stabilizes the price of gasoline 
in the United States.
  The price of gasoline today is up considerably. The price of aviation 
gas is almost double. The spiking price on gas, top demand gas, went up 
about 900 percent this last week. We are running short of both oil and 
gas domestically produced. The way to keep prices down is to maintain 
the ability to approve a substantial portion of what we consume. At the 
time of the oil embargo of the 1970s, we imported 34 percent of our 
oil. Today, we import 56 percent of our oil. That is what is causing 
that price to go up.
  This is a chart that shows the potential of production from ANWR to 
the amount of imported crude oil by the barrels we are bringing in. We 
are bringing in 1.5 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia; Canada 
sends 1.4; Mexico, 1.2; Venezuela, 1.2; Iraq, half a million, but the 
stability for prices comes from our ability to produce oil.
  What is happening today is, the pipeline is less than half full. We 
need to get greater reserves and start producing at the rate of at 
least 1,000 barrels a day, fill up the pipeline, and we will maintain 
some stability in the price of oil.
  Now to the problem of people who I call extremists who say there is 
only a 6-month supply of oil in ANWR. That assumes ANWR has only 3 
billion barrels, and the estimate is at least three times that. It also 
assumes the only oil the United States uses in that 6-month period is 
that from ANWR. You could apply the same suggestion to Texas. If all 
the current production of Texas was used and that was the only oil we 
used, it would be a 9-month supply. This one deposit in Alaska, under 
their computation, is 6 months. That is the worst statistic 
economically I have ever seen used on the floor of the Senate. It is so 
misleading as to be dishonest. It is a dishonest statistic.
  I really believe we have to find some way to get Senators to 
understand what this is basically all about.
  When Prudhoe Bay was developed, the technology then required using a 
substantial amount of land. Of the 19 million acres in the area known 
as ANWR, the Coastal Plain is 1.5 million acres, as I have said. The 
limitation under the proposal before the Senate is 2,000 acres. This 
would depict the size of Dulles Airport--13,000 acres. We are looking 
at an area that is so small it would fit into Dulles Airport more than 
six times. We are not using a lot of land. We will not use a lot of 
land. We agreed to this limitation. Not more than 2,000 of the million 
and a half acres will be used for oil and gas development.
  The other thing they say is there will be permanent damage to our 
arctic tundra. This is an area that was developed. That was an oil well 
at one time. The whole area has been restored.
  One of the interesting sidelights is what the University of Alaska 
did when there was development of the Arctic. They developed a whole 
new set of grasses that are planted in the area which produced some of 
the best forage for caribou that was ever known. That is why that one 
herd increased almost six times.
  This, at one time, what I just showed you, was a well right here 
similar to this well. As a matter of fact, it has been totally restored 
by virtue of the activities of our universities, as they have led the 
country in rehabilitation of land used for oil and gas development. We 
have a commitment in every contract for drilling in Alaska to restore 
the area to its original state or better. There will be no real 
problem.
  In terms of restoration, to date the oil industry has spent over $200 
million in restoring the area that is used for oil development. We also 
have more than $30 million committed to go further, to restore and 
study the vegetation, make certain everything is going to survive.
  We have a problem with regard to gravel. Gravel itself has been 
removed from drill beds and replaced. This is the most scientifically 
designed oil and gas development in the world, on Alaska's North Slope. 
What the opponents would rather have us do is go to Russia, I guess. 
One of them even suggested that in a debate last year, we should look 
to Russia. I know Russia is going to produce substantial oil in the 
future. But there is no question that assertions made that we will be 
permanently damaging this property is wrong.
  As a matter of fact, the permit issued by the Federal Government to 
use this land states categorically that if and when the permittee 
desires to abandon the activity authorized by the district engineer, 
the permittee must restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the 
engineer. The State of Alaska says:

       All operating areas shall be maintained and on completion 
     of the operation shall be left in a condition satisfactory to 
     the director.

  We have absolute control over anyone's ability to abandon an area. 
They must restore it under Federal and State law.
  Where are we, when it comes right down to this? The real problem is--
what are we talking about? We are talking about jobs for our people, 
and not just jobs for Alaskans, by the way. But I believe the experts, 
in terms of job creation, are America's unions. America's unions are 
behind us in terms of our desire to open this area for oil and gas 
exploration: The Teamsters, the Seafarers International Union, the 
Building Construction Trades, the Iron Workers, Laborers, Operating 
Engineers, Masons, Sheetmetal Workers, Maritime Workers, Carpenters, 
Plumbers and Pipefitters.
  There is no question in my mind that those people who are interested 
in the security of the United States, in terms of energy, should look 
to the Arctic.
  I heard the Senator from Massachusetts talk about windmills. I invite 
him to go to Alaska. We have some windmills in Alaska. They are working 
fairly well to supply power to very small areas.
  He mentioned the United Kingdom and their fuel supply. Forty percent 
of the United Kingdom's fuel supply comes from natural gas; 32.2 
percent comes from petroleum oil; only 1.1 percent comes from renewable 
energy. Are we to rely on the 1.1 percent for the future of America?
  He had a chart here that shows how much land it would take to have 
the equivalent of this energy reproduced with wind power. It is 
something one must look at. I will refer to it as soon as it gets here.
  One of my predecessors as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Hatfield, stood here on the floor one day and explained to the 
Senate why he was voting for the development of this area. He said he 
hoped never to see the day when one American would have to go overseas 
to try to protect an area's oil production when that could be produced 
in the United States, that oil could be produced here in the United 
States. This is a sound proposition for America, I believe.
  The equivalent of Rhode Island and Connecticut both would have to be 
totally in wind power to equal the daily product that will be produced 
from this area, roughly 1.4 million barrels of oil

[[Page 6404]]

a day. People who want to talk about wind power ought to talk about how 
much land it will take. We are going to take 2,000 acres to drill for 
oil, on an area that is 1.5 million acres on the Arctic. It would take 
3.7 million acres to have wind power sufficient to have the same amount 
of energy produced on a daily basis.
  I should allow other people to speak, as the Senator from California 
has indicated. I intend to speak a little bit more tomorrow when we 
come back to the amendment.
  I know of nothing in my service in the Senate that represents the 
issue this is for me because at the time that 1980 bill passed, I went 
against the other members of my delegation, Congressional delegation, 
to support getting a bill done. We had been arguing 7 years over how 
much of Alaska's land should be withdrawn. We finally came to a 
conclusion and that conclusion is represented by the basic map I have 
here. All of those areas there, all of them, were withdrawn by 
President Carter.
  The only thing we got out of the whole bill in land guarantees was 
the guarantee that 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Plain would remain 
open to oil and gas. It was left open by President Eisenhower. I 
understand the Senator from California mentioned President Eisenhower. 
It remained open. It was specifically mentioned in the order that was 
issued on the Arctic Wildlife Range that it was open to oil and gas. As 
these withdrawals were made--just think of this.
  Think of this: That bill created 13 new national parks and added land 
to 3 other national parks; it created 9 wildlife refuges and added 
additional land to another 9 wildlife refuges. And all that Alaskans 
received, when all of those lands were set aside, was a commitment that 
these 1.5 million acres would remain open for oil and gas exploration 
and would not be part of the refuge until that period of oil and gas 
exploration was completed.
  Now, I do not know what other people think, but I have always acted 
on the basis that Members of the Senate would be bound by the law, that 
we would follow the law and understand what led to the passage of the 
law, that we would honor the commitments that were made by our 
predecessors, and if they were wrong, we would find some way to handle 
a matter of correcting their wrong without damaging the people who had 
relied upon the commitment that was made by the United States in a 
public law.
  The people of my State on the North Slope relied upon that commitment 
that oil and gas exploration would be permitted. We started in 1981 to 
fulfill that commitment. This is 22 years later, and we are still here 
arguing against the same people who tried to block the Alaska oil 
pipeline, and may well block this.
  It is a very close vote for everyone. So was the Alaska oil pipeline. 
That pipeline, as I said in the beginning, was authorized after an 
action here in the Senate based on a tie vote, which Vice President 
Agnew broke when he voted for the building of the Alaska oil pipeline.
  I hope Senators tomorrow, when we vote, will think about the history 
of this area, the commitments that have been made to the people of this 
area by the Senate and by the Congress of the United States, and will 
vote no on the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from 
California and the Senator from Connecticut.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I will 
not be speaking long at all. I just want to put a few things in the 
Record and wrap up my comments for tonight. It will probably take me 10 
minutes--maybe a little longer--and that will be it for me. I know 
Senator Murkowski and Senator Alexander would like to speak. I see 
Senator Cantwell is in the Chamber.
  Let me put a few things in the Record.
  The first thing I want to have printed in the Record is a letter from 
the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, which represents 187 Alaskan tribes. 
They oppose drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I ask 
unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Alaska Inter-Tribal Council,

                                 Anchorage, AK, December 11, 2002.
       Dear Senator: We urge you to reject H.R. 4 and any other 
     proposals to authorize oil exploration and development of the 
     birthplace and nursery of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, the 
     coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, during 
     the conference committee on the National Energy bill. The 
     very heart of the Gwich'in culture is at stake and their way 
     of life must not be negotiated or traded in any shortsighted 
     schemes to open the last 5% of America's Arctic coast to 
     development when 95% is already open to oil and gas 
     exploration and development.
       The Gwich'in continue to live a subsistence-based way of 
     life. The Gwich'in remain firm in resistance of oil and gas 
     development of the birthplace and nursery of the Porcupine 
     Caribou Herd, the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge--Vadzaii Googii Vi Dehk'it Gwanlii The Sacred 
     Place Where Life Begins. The Gwich'in rely upon the Caribou 
     to meet their essential physical, cultural, spiritual, 
     economic and social needs. The Gwich'in ancestral way of life 
     is a birthright, to bestow upon their unborn future 
     generations. Oil development of this sacred place will have 
     devastating impacts on the very health and well being of the 
     Gwich'in.
       The U.S. Geological Survey concluded that there is only six 
     months of oil in the Arctic Refuge. The future of the 
     Gwich'in must not be jeopardized for such a short-term fix of 
     oil. We believe that there are solutions that would be more 
     appropriate. Our energy policy should emphasize decreasing 
     the demand rather than increasing the supply, of fossil 
     fuels. There are reliable and sensible means of achieving 
     these ends--such as energy conservation, alternative energies 
     and improved energy efficiency--which can reduce our 
     dependence on oil without sacrificing Gwich'in culture and 
     the last intact arctic ecosystem.
       This issue is about the basic inherent fundamental human 
     rights of the Gwich'in to continue to live their ancestral 
     way of life. These rights are affirmed by civilized Nations 
     in the international convenants on human rights. Article 1 of 
     both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
     and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and 
     Cultural Rights read in part:
       ``In no case may a people he deprived of their own means of 
     subsistence.''
       We support the Gwich'in to seek permanent protection of 
     this sacred Arctic Refuge, which is vital to their 
     livelihood. Regardless of how much oil may be in the refuge, 
     it is morally wrong to expect the Gwich'in to sacrifice their 
     way of life to meet this country's energy needs. What will be 
     lost and what is at stake is too high a price to pay.
       The American public has consistently defended the rights of 
     the Gwich'in, and the integrity of the Arctic Refuge. We urge 
     you to defend their plea and reject efforts to destroy this 
     essential Sacred Place Where Life Begins.
           Sincerely,

                                                Mike Williams,

                                                         Chairman,
                                      Alaska Inter-Tribal Council.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would also like to have printed in the 
Record an editorial that was published just yesterday in the Los 
Angeles Times. I think it said it very well. I would like to read part 
of it, and then I will have it printed in the Record. The first thing 
they do is call attention to the Fish and Wildlife Service. They have a 
Web site. And the Web site says:

       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. . . .

  And they say:

       The refuge will no longer be complete, pristine or 
     undisturbed if President Bush and [Secretary Gale] Norton 
     have their way.

  And they point out that Secretary Norton showed a slide and said:

       This image of flat, white nothingness is what you would see 
     the majority of the year.

  The LA Times makes the point that it is really an interesting 
situation. As a matter of fact, the headline is: ``A Curious 
Commemoration.'' It says:

       The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proudly celebrating 
     the 100th anniversary of the national wildlife refuge system, 
     which it manages.

  Then it just points out how ironic it is that Secretary Norton calls 
it an ``image of flat, white nothingness.''
  I want to put that in Record. I think it is a good editorial. I ask 
unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 6405]]



                        A Curious Commemoration

       The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proudly celebrating 
     the 100th anniversary of the national wildlife refuge system, 
     which it manages. Theodore Roosevelt created the first 
     refuge, Pelicans Island in Florida, 100 years ago this month 
     to save brown pelicans from hunters who gunned them down for 
     their feathers. The system's 575 refuges today cover 95 
     million acres and shelter everything from tropical fish to 
     polar bears.
       The service is marking the occasion by ``showcasing and 
     strengthening the entire agency's programs.'' It's curious 
     then that the service's ultimate boss, Secretary of the 
     Interior Gale A. Norton, should have asked Congress last week 
     to subject one of the nation's most celebrated refuges to oil 
     and gas exploration and production. Even more curious, Norton 
     painted the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on Alaska's North 
     Slope as a barren, uninviting place where it would scarcely 
     matter if some tundra was torn up.
       Showing House members a slide, Norton said, ``This image of 
     flat, white nothingness is what you would see the majority of 
     the year.'' Never mind that the refuge often teems with 
     birds, fish and wildlife, including the Porcupine caribou 
     herd, polar bears and wolves. Environmentalists call the 
     refuge America's Serengeti because of the richness of its 
     wildlife.
       The decision may hang by a single vote. Democratic Sens. 
     Blanche Lambert Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both of Arkansas, 
     Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) 
     are being heavily lobbied to abandon the fragile majority 
     opposed to drilling.
       Norton's Appeal Wednesday was that Alaska's Arctic coastal 
     plain (she mostly avoided referring to it as a refuge) could 
     produce more oil than any state. That may sound impressive, 
     but the nation could save more oil and sooner, by raising 
     fuel-economy standards by a few miles per gallon.
       Norton said oil companies would be required to use new 
     technology and to drill with little or no damage to the 
     tundra. She did not add that if oil was found, the wells 
     would be linked by collection pipelines that must be 
     maintained in summer and winter. This industrial support 
     infrastructure is what most mars the landscape and creates a 
     hostile environment for wildlife.
       The Fish and Wildlife Service makes a compelling case on 
     its own Web site for keeping the refuge as it is: ``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. . .'' The refuge will no longer 
     be complete, pristine or undisturbed if President Bush and 
     Norton have their way.

  tMrs. BOXER. Mr. President, then there is the question of how much 
oil is there. Senator Stevens basically said, anyone who says it is 6 
months' worth of oil is not--I don't want to put words in his mouth--
telling the truth was the essence of his remarks.
  I want to make a point. In the USGS report in 1998, they said there 
was a 50 percent chance that the amount of economically recoverable oil 
is 3.25 billion barrels. So I think what we are seeing here is a very 
different point of view. And CRS estimated that the Alaska wildlife 
production would range from 200,000 to 1 million barrels daily, and 
maybe at some point reach 1.9 million barrels a day.
  The point is, when Senator Stevens says people who are saying there 
is 6 months' worth of oil are being disingenuous, that is just not the 
case.
  I also want to put in the Record a paper entitled ``Caribou in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.'' It talks about the caribou and what 
is happening and kind of backs up what was stated here, that the Native 
peoples are saying the oil activity is driving the caribou herds away. 
And they explain what has happened to the caribou.
  The Senator from Alaska, I certainly respect his point of view, but 
these are Alaska groups that have this very important discussion about 
what has happened to the Porcupine caribou herd. I ask unanimous 
consent that that paper be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Caribou in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

       There are two separate caribou herds found in the Arctic 
     Refuge. The Porcupine Caribou herd--named after the Porcupine 
     River found within its range--which numbers about 128,000 and 
     makes long migrations each year between winter habitat in 
     Canada and Alaska south of the Brooks Range, and summer 
     habitat (calving and post-calving) on the Arctic Refuge 
     coastal plain. The second herd is the Central Arctic Herd, 
     which uses the central portion of the North Slope including 
     the area around Prudhoe Bay and the western part of the 
     Refuge, and numbers about 27,000 animals. Almost 30 years of 
     data have shown that the concentrated calving and post-
     calving area of the Porcupine herd is located within the 
     Refuge's coastal plain nearly every year. Both herds 
     frequently use the northwest portion of the Refuge during the 
     post-calving period for insect relief habitat.
       One of the greatest myths concerning caribou is that oil 
     development has caused an increase in the Central Arctic 
     herd's numbers. Before development, the herd contained about 
     5,000 animals. Today it numbers around 27,000. This increase 
     is largely attributable to several years with mild weather 
     and has nothing to do with development. In truth, the Central 
     Arctic herd's calving activity has shifted away from 
     developed areas to alternative calving grounds with poorer 
     quality habitat.
       The Porcupine herd has no alternative calving areas to 
     shift to because of the densities of the herd and the 
     narrowness of the coastal plain within the Arctic Refuge; 
     there are 5 time more caribou in about one-fifth the area 
     compared to Prudhoe Bay. On the few occasions when weather 
     has prevented the Porcupine herd from reaching the coastal 
     plain before calving, calf survival was significantly 
     diminished. The caribou need the coastal plain during the 
     calving and post-calving periods because the core calving 
     area of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain provides the highest 
     quality forage, lowest density of predators, and optimal 
     insect relief. Should they be forced to shift their calving 
     activities away from the region because of oil development, 
     calves would be vulnerable to higher predation and lower 
     quality forage possibly leading to a decline in their 
     numbers. Numerous scientific articles written by leading 
     caribou researchers clearly document that industrial 
     development has resulted in changing caribou movements and 
     distribution within the oil fields displacing caribou from 
     the highest quality habitat.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in closing my remarks, I have shown the 
beauty of the wildlife refuge. Now I want to talk about the yield from 
the wildlife refuge when you compare it to what you could gain in 
energy with some very simple things we could do.
  For example, better tires: We are talking about a 4.3 percent 
reduction in dependence on foreign oil if we could just get that out of 
tires. And this chart shows, in the billions of barrels, what could be 
saved in the same period of time.
  Also, if you close the SUV loophole, look at how many billions of 
barrels you save by 2030. These are all by the year 2030. If we just 
said that cars would average 35 miles per gallon, look at the fuel 
economy we would save if that occurred by the year 2013. So by the year 
2030, look at this: We could do so much more for our country without 
giving up one bit of our quality of life, just getting the SUVs to have 
the same fuel economy as our autos. Every 6 years, you would actually 
have another ANWR field.
  So for people to say we have to drill, we have to drill, we have to 
drill, I just would tell them, these are just a few ideas that some of 
us have on how we can avoid drilling in a place that looks like this 
chart shows, a place that President Eisenhower chose to save.
  So I really think, if you look at the several arguments I have laid 
out--first, the fact is, this is not the way to go about debating the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge: a little bit of a sentence in the big budget. 
That is not right. It deserves a lot more discussion.
  This is a God-given, this God-given land. This is precious, and it 
deserves more debate than we are going to be able to give it tonight 
and a little bit in the morning. So it makes no sense. It is a 
magnificent area.
  Second, we can get the equivalent way more--way more--than what you 
could get in the Arctic, by doing some very simple conservation. Just 
to take this SUV loophole: saying that they get the same mileage as 
cars, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 16 percent. This 
reduces it by 2 percent. Let's do it by 16 percent.
  If we increase the CAFE, the corporate average fuel economy, to 35 
miles per gallon by the year 2013, by the year 2030--listen to this; 
this will really get you excited if you are listening to this debate--
we could cut back on the importation of foreign oil by 43 percent.
  So when anyone tells you, we have to drill in a place that looks 
like--you know what I want to show you, those beautiful pink flowers; 
here it is--that looks like this, yes, not every month of the year--
Washington does not look so great right now, but in a couple of months 
it is going to look good.

[[Page 6406]]

  I don't think we want to bring the oil cranes on to the Capitol 
Grounds, although it kind of looks something like that right now.
  I will close by showing some of the wildlife to my friend from 
Washington. These are so magnificent.
  I ask unanimous consent that she be given 10 minutes upon completion 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. To be followed by the Senator from Tennessee, if he 
wishes, 10 minutes after that.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I close the debate the way I started it and leave it to 
my good friend to wrap things up. This is what we are talking about. No 
one could make this up: The polar bear; the muskoxen. Look at this; 
this is called the chart bird, so we have it on a chart. Quite 
extraordinary, isn't it? I say to my friends, think about what you are 
about to do here. Don't have this on your conscience when you could 
just raise fuel economy and have 10 ANWRs, 20 ANWRs, because when you 
save this, you save it over and over again.
  I hope my amendment will pass. I am very proud that Senators Chafee 
and Snowe are on the amendment and other Republicans because this is 
not about politics, this is about saving a God-given gift. That is the 
way I see it.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California 
for her articulate presentation of this issue, not only protecting a 
very important part of our wildlife refuge system but also for talking 
about the issue from an energy consumption perspective. Where is the 
best place for the United States to be investing its time and energy 
and to get the highest return, particularly at a time when our foreign 
dependence on oil is very important for us to make those decisions to 
move forward?
  I commend the Senator from California for her time and energy and for 
her amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, a very important 
amendment that, on the one hand, you could say got a lot of attention 
in a debate last year. This body heard many hours of presentation from 
a variety of Members and made a decision on that issue. Tomorrow I will 
support Senator Boxer's amendment, but I question seriously why we have 
to go to this extent of having Senator Boxer's amendment at all. Why is 
this issue coming up on a budget resolution when a more appropriate 
time and place would be for us to take it up as part of our energy 
discussion, even though we did that last year and decided that it 
wasn't a priority for us in the Senate?
  I support what we are trying to do in protecting the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge because by protecting that wildlife, we are protecting 
as well a great part of what has been the last great wilderness in the 
United States. Proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge talk about 
reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies. I also support us 
focusing on reducing that foreign energy. But the best way to meet that 
goal is to develop a domestic natural gas resource, particularly 
looking at Alaska, and also to promote renewable energy technologies 
and reduce oil consumption through conservation measures.
  Alaska is a very important source of domestic energy. Make no mistake 
about that. The North Slope has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. 
We should develop that natural gas on Federal lands, including the 
National Petroleum Reserve which was set aside for development. I am 
eager to work with my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski 
and others, to build that gas pipeline to bring natural gas to the 
marketplace. Building a gas pipeline and developing the NPRA in an 
environmentally sound manner will create jobs in Alaska and will 
benefit the Native communities. It will strengthen our overall energy 
policy.
  We also, though, need to develop renewable energy sources, including 
domestically produced biofuels, and to focus on energy efficiency 
technologies, some of which I am sure we will be discussing later in an 
energy bill. These technologies can reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil sources.
  For example, Senator Boxer showed a chart on what could be done by 
using low-friction tires. That was an interesting chart because we have 
seen that in focusing on these new cars to help them comply with fuel 
standards, these new tires could cut gasoline consumption of all U.S. 
vehicles by 3 percent. That is a savings to our Nation of about 5 
billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. As Senator Boxer pointed 
out, the reason that number is so important is, it is the same amount, 
5 billion barrels over the next 50 years, that the U.S. Geological 
Survey says can be economically recovered from drilling in ANWR.
  Why take what is a national treasure in the last great wilderness for 
these 5 billion barrels when we can do the same thing by moving to a 
more efficient energy economy?
  I believe through a balanced approach, we can demonstrate our 
commitment both to wildlife conservation and strengthening energy 
security.
  However, this budget resolution is not a balanced approach. Drilling 
in the Arctic really is a reversal in America of about 100 years of 
commitment to conservation. I say that because, most importantly, the 
resolution would violate our duty as stewards of the Arctic Refuge, in 
the National Wildlife Refuge System as a major system, and would take 
away what has been one of our most valuable national treasures.
  During this debate, we must consider the number of people who have 
been involved and how we have been involved over the last 100 years to 
work to protect the sensitive wildlife habitat in this country and 
specifically the Arctic Refuge. Senator Boxer showed many pictures 
demonstrating what that wildlife refuge looks like and how pristine it 
is today and the wildlife that exists there. Everyone in this body 
wants to see us continue the Wildlife Refuge System.
  Last week, we marked our 100th anniversary of establishing the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. That was done by President Theodore 
Roosevelt at Pelican Island--the 100-year anniversary. Through that 
work, countless Americans have helped build a system of over 500 
refuges in every State in the country. Tens of thousands of volunteers, 
several hundred ``friends organizations,'' scores of partnership 
organizations have worked closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service to maintain the integrity of the system.
  In Washington State, local volunteers have built and helped protect 
various lands: Willapa Bay, the Nisqually River, the Hanford Reach of 
the Columbia River, and many other locations. Americans have worked to 
build the system because they love wildlife and because there is the 
trust that we in Congress will be good stewards of these lands.
  Unfortunately, that stewardship is being called into question with 
this budget resolution as an assault on the system as a whole. This 
budget undermines the work of millions of Americans, including hunters, 
anglers, wildlife enthusiasts, and many others.
  It is very important that the hard work and focus of maintaining our 
wildlife, not just in the Arctic but all throughout America, be 
celebrated this week as we have reached this 100th anniversary, and 
that we support the Boxer amendment tomorrow, to say there is a wiser 
way for us to preserve and to move forward our energy conservation and 
security, and that there is a wiser way for us to get off our foreign 
dependence on oil, and that wiser way will mean making the right 
investment in natural gas, in technology, in conservation, and in 
preserving the Arctic Refuge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
statement count against the opposition's time on the amendment, which 
is our side's time.

[[Page 6407]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I support the Budget Committee's 
recommendation that there be an instruction to the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, on which I serve, to permit leasing and drilling 
for the oil in Alaska.
  I listened carefully to what the senior Senator from Alaska told us 
about history tonight. He reminded us that most recently, in 1980, our 
country made a decision. Congress debated it here, and President 
Carter, during his administration, made this decision. He approved of 
and made both parts of the decision as President. One was to set aside 
100 million acres of land in Alaska, an astonishing amount for 
wilderness area--of which I approved--and then to set aside 1.5 million 
acres for drilling. That was the decision our country made.
  Almost all of our decisions about energy and the environment 
intersect. They almost always are balanced. In 1980, we decided 100 
million acres in Alaska for conservation and 1.5 million acres for 
drilling. And then we are talking, in this proposal, about 2,000 of 
those 1.5 million acres that we would drill.
  I would not stand here and say there is no environmental burden when 
we drill for oil. Of course, there is. But I would like to assert that 
we almost always seek to find a reasonable balance. What is on the 
other side of the balance? Why do we need the oil? We are being 
reminded of that in a great many ways today. We are a nation about to 
go to war. We are a nation where gasoline prices and gas prices are 
going up in remarkable numbers. That means for us fewer jobs. That 
means for us cold homes. We know we are a nation that depends upon a 
reliable supply of energy. We also know that this Alaskan Refuge we are 
debating tonight has--as the Senator from Alaska reminded us--more 
reserves than the State of Texas. So it is not incidental, unless 
somebody wants to call the oil of Texas incidental. I would not.
  It is also more than a million barrels of oil a day through the 
pipeline. By one estimate--the one by the Senator from Alaska--it is 
1.4 million a day. So it seems the 1980 balance that this Senate, this 
Congress, and President Carter made was the right balance, which ought 
to be honored. A hundred million acres in Alaska for conservation, 1.5 
million for drilling, and we will drill on 2,000 of those 1.5 million.
  I, too, agree that I am ready to see us become serious in our country 
about finding a new energy base for our economy. I was pleased with the 
President's proposal for a hydrogen car. In the Energy Subcommittee, 
which I chair, we will spend a lot of time on that. But the hydrogen 
car and a hydrogen-based economy are 20 years away. In the meantime, we 
need jobs and we need to be able to drive to work. We cannot afford to 
have energy prices and home heating oil and natural gas prices going up 
to a level our citizens cannot afford. So we have to strike a 
reasonable balance. I believe the Budget Committee did that, and I 
support that.
  Second, I want to point out something else the Budget Committee did 
that hasn't been mentioned in the debate, as far as I am able to tell. 
The Budget Committee has within it the creation of a new reserve fund 
for the State grant program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  If this budget resolution is passed by the Senate, I, along with 
Senator Sununu of New Hampshire, and Senator Stevens and Senator 
Murkowski of Alaska--and I hope many other Senators--will introduce 
legislation to take the first $250 million of each year's revenues from 
drilling in this Alaska venture and put it into the State side of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Let me repeat that. If we produce, by 
authorizing this drilling for oil in the 2,000 acres, the $1 billion a 
year that is expected, which should happen in about the year 2005 or 
2006, the legislation I propose, along with other Senators, would take 
the first $250 million and put it into the State side--not the Federal 
side--of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  This money is used by States and cities and communities to create 
neighborhood parks, greenways, and land trusts. In other words, we 
would be balancing what we are doing. We might be creating some 
environmental burden, taking some environmental risk, but we would be 
balancing that by a huge environmental benefit on the other side by 
helping build numbers of State parks and greenways and land trusts, 
closer to where people live, near their homes.
  The legislation I propose would more than double the Federal dollars, 
creating critically needed neighborhood parks, trails, and greenways. 
More important, it would substantially and reliably fund that State 
grant program, as Congress intended and the President pledged we would 
do.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the most popular 
programs in America with State and local officials. It stems from the 
recommendations of the Rockefeller Commission, appointed by President 
Johnson in 1963. When Ronald Reagan was President, he sought to have a 
followup to the Rockefeller Commission. I was its chairman. We called 
it the President's Commission on America's Outdoors. It had four 
Members of Congress as participants. The vice chairman was Gilbert 
Grovner, president of the National Geographic Society, and it included 
such distinguished members as Patrick Noonan, who is today president of 
the Conservation Fund.
  We made a number of recommendations in 1985 and 1986 to Congress, to 
the President, and to the Nation. One of the most important of those 
recommendations was that we use money from nonrenewable energy sources 
to create permanent assets for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
This was a conservation commission, and we recognized that we would be 
drilling for gas and oil, but we wanted to use some of that money to 
build neighborhood parks.
  Twenty years after President Reagan's Commission on America's 
Outdoors, I still believe in that principle. I believe we should use 
revenue from oil and gas drilling, and other activities that deplete 
our natural resources, to fund conservation efforts, and I believe 
smart development always includes strong environmental stewardship.
  The State grant part of the National Park Service Land and Water 
Conservation Fund provides matching grants that can be used for 
planning, acquisition, and site development in all 50 States. Many 
States have actually increased their revenues so that they can match 
these popular programs. But the State grant program of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund has been underfunded by 70 percent, or more, 
and it has been very unreliable. It has gone up, and it has gone down.
  Our cities are in desperate need of more funding for neighborhood 
parks and recreation areas. It is a nice idea to drive all the way out 
to Yellowstone if you live in New York City, or in Nashville, but most 
people cannot drive that far. Eighty percent of the people do their 
outdoor recreation in the neighborhood where they live. The most 
important park to them is the park that is somewhere in their 
neighborhood, and this $250 million a year would help create thousands 
and thousands of new neighborhood parks, walking trails, and greenways. 
It would create a source of reliable funding. The funding, as I said, 
has been volatile and inconsistent. This legislation would make the 
reserve fund from the ANWR revenues mandatory.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--the land we are discussing that 
is near there--is owned by all the people, and all should benefit.
  By allocating a portion of these revenues, a generous portion, in a 
mandatory way for the benefit of communities everywhere in America, we 
would be making sure that we balanced our conservation ethic with our 
need for energy and oil.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
comparison of land and water conservation funds.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 6408]]



 COMPARISON OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND--$160 MILLION\1\ (FY 04
  PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUDGET) AND AUTHORIZED LEVEL OF $450 MILLION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              FY 2004       Estimate @
                  State                       Admin.       $410 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................      $2,584,985      $6,795,505
Alaska..................................       1,381,136       3,630,049
Arizona.................................       2,912,142       7,655,896
Arkansas................................       1,926,581       5,064,133
California..............................      13,510,052      35,524,587
Colorado................................       2,630,623       6,915,630
Connecticut.............................       2,465,933       6,482,745
Delaware................................       1,481,806       3,894,824
Florida.................................       6,768,113      17,795,546
Georgia.................................       3,666,264       9,638,538
Hawaii..................................       1,612,710       4,239,025
Idaho...................................       1,533,066       4,029,463
Ilinois.................................       5,437,145      14,295,560
Indiana.................................       3,135,341       8,242,683
Iowa....................................       1,979,392       5,202,963
Kansas..................................       1,975,615       5,193,127
Kentucky................................       2,295,321       6,033,633
Louisiana...............................       2,671,004       7,021,793
Maine...................................       1,529,729       4,020,692
Maryland................................       3,119,929       8,202,469
Massachusetts...........................       3,544,075       9,317,863
Michigan................................       4,581,752      12,046,252
Minnesota...............................       2,739,571       7,201,988
Mississippi.............................       1,899,539       4,992,921
Missouri................................       2,937,097       7,721,351
Montana.................................       1,416,617       3,723,276
Nebraska................................       1,689,124       4,439,842
Nevada..................................       1,851,381       4,866,585
New Hampshire...........................       1,577,981       4,147,650
New Jersey..............................       4,348,865      11,434,222
New Mexico..............................       1,733,898       4,557,587
New York................................       7,982,453      20,988,950
North Carolina..........................       3,612,306       9,496,646
North Dakota............................       1,388,885       3,650,430
Ohio....................................       5,063,914      13,314,119
Oklahoma................................       2,223,613       5,845,233
Oregon..................................       2,275,889       5,982,773
Pennsylvania............................       5,464,786      14,368,336
Rhode Island............................       1,598,430       4,201,527
South Carolina..........................       2,443,725       6,424,064
South Dakota............................       1,400,563       3,681,106
Tennessee...............................       2,946,607       7,746,330
Texas...................................       8,160,283      21,456,000
Utah....................................       1,926,824       5,064,961
Vermont.................................       1,358,927       3,571,631
Virginia................................       3,519,932       9,254,038
Washington..............................       3,190,738       8,388,500
West Virginia...........................       1,686,882       4,433,903
Wisconsin...............................       2,866,580       7,535,933
Wyoming.................................       1,335,704       3,510,584
District of Columbia....................         240,257         631,446
Puerto Rico.............................       2,163,575       5,687,775
Virgin Islands..........................          49,719         130,672
Guam....................................          62,621         164,580
American Samoa..........................          50,000          68,539
Northern Marianas.......................          50,000          73,526
                                         -------------------------------
    Totals..............................     156,000,000     410,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\$4 million of Proposed FY 04 Funds are directed toward administration
  of the program.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it compares on one side the 
administration's proposals for this budget we are debating. For the 
year 2004, there is $160 million in President Bush's budget. By my 
calculation, with full funding of the State side of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, we would go to $450 million. That would mean, for 
example, in California, instead of having $13 million for neighborhood 
parks, there would be $35 million, or in Tennessee, instead of $3 
million for neighborhood parks, there would be $7.7 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment, the 
Chair informs the Senator he has used the 10 minutes which he was 
yielded under the previous order. Would the Senator like to ask consent 
for more time?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. In Missouri, instead of $3 million, there would be 
$7.7 million. In Washington State, there is $3 million for neighborhood 
parks under the President's proposal; this would raise it to $8.3 
million.
  I call to this body's attention two parts of the budget resolution. 
The first part has to do with drilling in ANWR. The second part is a 
new reserve fund that would permit taking the first $250 million of 
money that comes from the oil drilling and put it in the State grant 
program for the Land and Water Conservation Fund which would more than 
double the amount of Federal dollars available for neighborhood parks.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that my statement count against the opposition's time to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is actually quite fortuitous I am 
standing before you tonight. I have not spoken on the floor but once 
since I have been here in my new role as the junior Senator from 
Alaska. But I stand before you tonight to do the one thing I have been 
asked by the residents, the people of Alaska to do, and that is to work 
for jobs, for a sustainable economy for my State and for my 
constituents. So to stand tonight to talk about ANWR and what ANWR 
means not only to my State but to all of America is, as I say, 
significant because ANWR is about jobs, it is about the economy, it is 
about economic security, domestic energy production. It is also about 
Native rights in my home State, and it is about common sense.
  I have been listening very closely to the comments that have been 
made tonight, some by my fellow colleague from Alaska, quite 
passionately arguing the facts. We have seen some beautiful pictures, 
and we have seen some numbers thrown around. I think it is so important 
that we put into perspective what ANWR really is, what it means. To do 
that, we have to go back a bit in history. We have to look to the 
history of ANWR.
  We have known about ANWR's oil potential since the early 1900s. It 
was in 1913, 1914 that the U.S. Geological Survey found strong 
indications of oil. So we have known that oil reserves, strong oil 
reserves, are on the North Slope.
  This area now known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was 
originally created in 1960 by Executive order under the Eisenhower 
administration. This Executive order has been pointed to a couple times 
tonight. It seems that it has been construed that it was recognized by 
this order that somehow ANWR, the Coastal Plain, should be reserved as 
some wilderness or should be put off limits. It is important to go back 
to the language of that Executive order so we understand clearly what 
President Eisenhower recognized in 1960.
  The order states:

       For the purposes of preserving the wildlife, the 
     wilderness, and the recreational values described in 
     northeastern Alaska containing approximately 8.9 million 
     acres, is hereby subject to valid existing withdrawals, 
     withdrawn from all forms of appropriations under the public 
     land laws, including mining, but not the mineral leasing 
     laws.

  This is where people are failing to read the rest of that order: 
``but not the mineral leasing laws.''
  In 1960, through Executive order, was the first time it was 
recognized that the potential for mineral and oil was significant on 
the Coastal Plain.
  I have a chart that details exactly what is in the refuge. The 
Coastal Plain, which is 1.5 million acres, was created in 1980 under 
ANILCA. The wilderness area in yellow was also set out in ANILCA. When 
the initial refuge was set up, it was this portion, additional refuge 
land, which is not wilderness, which was created under section 303 of 
ANILCA. It added this section.
  When we talk about ANWR, the refuge, and the wilderness and the 1002 
area, it is important to keep in mind that we are talking about 
different animals, if you will. The Coastal Plain, the 1002 area, is 
separate and distinct from the wilderness area that has been created 
and separate from that refuge.
  In 1959, Alaska had become a State with certain rights guaranteed to 
it under the Statehood Act. Within that act was a recognition by 
President Eisenhower--again through the Executive order--that the North 
Slope had vast oil and gas potential and that it should remain 
available at all times for domestic use.
  There was a recognition in 1960 that something was different about 
the Coastal Plain--a Federal recognition that the oil and gas potential 
along the plain is too important to lock it up.
  Go forward 13 years when Congress authorized through the Trans-Alaska 
Oil Pipeline Authorization Act the construction of the Trans-Alaska 
pipeline. This pipeline was to carry up to 2.1 million barrels of oil 
from the North Slope to the tidewater in Valdez for export to the lower 
48. This was the next recognition, if you will, of the potential for 
reserves in the North Slope.
  Our pipeline spans 800 miles from the north of the State all the way 
down to the southern terminus in Valdez. It goes through some of the 
most rugged and beautiful country one is ever going to see, and this 
pipeline carries the oil safely and efficiently without harm to the 
environment or the wildlife. It survived the biggest earthquakes the 
designers could have foreseen. We had a 7.1 earthquake in November. It 
was a construction marvel that pipeline worked the way the designers 
had envisioned it would.

[[Page 6409]]

  Our pipeline is an amazing wonder of American ingenuity and spirit. 
This pipeline has been around for three decades now, and it has been 
doing a good job. As Senator Stevens pointed out earlier this evening, 
our pipeline is half full. We need additional oil deposits to maintain 
operations.
  I have said this is an 800-mile pipeline, but again I think it helps 
to put things in perspective if one is not from the State of Alaska. 
This pipeline covers a span of country equal to the distance between 
Duluth, MN, and New Orleans, LA. To date, it has carried over 14 
billion barrels of Alaska oil to the lower 48--day in, day out.
  This pipeline was constructed in 1973. We have been transporting oil 
in it ever since. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National 
Interest Land Conservation Act, which is commonly known as ANILCA. This 
bill was a culmination of 5 years' worth of legislative negotiations 
spanning three separate Congresses. There was an agreement reached, 
which Senator Stevens mentioned earlier, between Senator Scoop Jackson 
of Washington and Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, two Democrats 
and two protectors of the environment. The bill included language which 
was agreed to by Alaska to ensure access to the Coastal Plain for oil 
and gas exploration.
  This is where we get the phrase or why we keep referring to this 
parcel as the 1002, because it came from section 1002 of ANILCA. It 
specifically set forth the requirements for exploration and development 
of oil and gas reserves in this small portion of ANWR, consistent with 
the protections for wildlife.
  With ANILCA, we doubled the size of President Eisenhower's Arctic 
National Wildlife Range. This was the range initially. We doubled the 
size by adding the refuge and changed the name to the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge.
  Through ANILCA, we put half of the land in refuge, 8 million in 
wilderness and 1.5 million reserved as an energy bank for the United 
States. Again, I point out, it is important to mention that the 1002 
area is technically not part of the refuge. It lies within the outer 
boundaries of the refuge, but it is technically not part of it. It is 
essentially an area in legal limbo waiting for Congress to fulfill the 
statutory requirements that were set out in section 1002 of ANILCA, and 
to fulfill the promises that were made to Alaska on statehood.
  It is not really in the refuge, but it is definitely not a part of 
the wilderness, and it is not part of the wilderness by definition or 
in just the everyday sense of the word.
  If one looks up ``wilderness'' in Webster's, it is defined as an 
unsettled and uncultivated region. The Coastal Plain does not meet this 
definition of wilderness, because for years we have had military 
installations that have been involved in monitoring Soviet and cross 
polar activity. We have a community. We have the village of Kaktovik 
which sits right within the 1002 area. These people call the area home. 
They have their homes there. They have a school there. They have 
community centers there. They have hospitals. They have a community. 
This is not a wilderness.
  Some of the pictures we have seen lead one to believe there is 
nothing up there, but when you take your camera, you can look in 
whatever direction you want to prove your point. So I think we need to 
keep in mind, let's envision what we have up there. We have made offers 
to people. If they have not seen ANWR, come up and see what we are 
talking about. See what the Coastal Plain is. See what drilling looks 
like in Alaska.
  At the outset, I mentioned this also had to do with Native rights 
issues. Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, some Alaska 
Natives were given the right to select lands on the North Slope. A 
group of Alaska Natives from the North Slope region selected 92,000 
acres within the boundaries of the 1002 area specifically for its oil 
and gas potential. Those Natives who have selected those lands are 
denied any opportunity to develop. Through the 1971 act of Congress, 
they were given the right to select those lands. They selected them, 
but there is nothing further they can do with them. They are being 
denied the right to do with the land what they feel should be done. If 
they need jobs and opportunities, we are denying them that opportunity.
  This refusal to allow the Natives to use their land is another 
example of the hand of Government falling upon Natives and Indians in 
America, because Government knows how to do it best. So that is kind of 
our preliminary history lesson about ANWR.
  Let's get to some of the facts, though, that have been mentioned this 
evening. We are importing nearly 11 million barrels of oil every day 
from other countries. Most of them are from countries that are not so 
very friendly or not so very stable. Alaska is producing 1 million 
barrels of oil per day, when the pipeline can carry twice that amount. 
We are wasting this national asset. We have a pipeline that is half 
full.
  Prior to the last gulf war, Alaska produced nearly 2.1 million 
barrels of oil per day, all of it destined for West Coast ports in the 
lower 48. Now, rather than move to open a small portion of the Coastal 
Plain to responsible oil and natural gas development, our opponents are 
suggesting we can basically conserve our way out of the reduced 
dependency in an economically responsible manner.
  I will be the first to tell my colleagues we must work on our 
conservation efforts, but we must be realistic about what it is we can 
and cannot do. I have heard those who state that ANWR is a false choice 
when compared with higher CAFE standards, that that is the way we need 
to go. But desiring tougher standards at the expense of more domestic 
production is the real false choice. It is a false choice because we 
have to do both. We have to pursue conservation, but we have to pursue 
increased domestic production if we are going to get our energy 
situation back on track.
  To suggest we do not do any more, that we cut it off, that there is 
no need for any more oil, that we are going to go to this wonderful 
hydrogen-based society and we are all going to be able to power our 
vehicles on something other than gasoline, it is not today, it is not 
tomorrow, it is probably not 10 years. Having said that, should we not 
work toward it? Sure, that is fine, but let's keep in mind that we use 
gasoline for more than powering our vehicles. We use gasoline in a 
whole host of ways.
  I was talking to a group of students this morning. They said, 
gasoline is used for cars, and if we change the way our vehicles are 
fueled, surely we will not need to rely on gasoline.
  But it is used for home fuel oil, jet fuel, petrochemicals, asphalt, 
kerosene, lubricants, maritime fuel, other products. If we look at this 
chart, of the gasoline that we consume, one barrel of oil makes 44.2 
gallons of economic essentials. So 44 percent of a barrel of oil is 
going into the gasoline component. The remainder, 56 percent, is going 
into all of these other things.
  So the kids wanted to know, what are all of these other things? They 
are plastics, CDs, crayons, contact lenses, panty hose, photographs, 
roofing material, dentures, shaving cream, perfumes, umbrellas, golf 
balls, aspirin, bandages, deodorant, tents, footballs.
  To suggest we need to cut back on oil because we do not want to have 
a society that is dependent on oil for our vehicles is one thing. We 
can look to alternatives for how we might power our vehicles. But we 
have to recognize we are oil-dependent: 56 percent, 58 percent of the 
oil we consume in the United States is imported oil. That is not a good 
place to be, particularly when we can do better domestically. We want 
to be able to do that.
  Alaska has been a proud supplier of 20 percent of this country's oil 
production for the past 25 years. We produce this oil in the harshest 
environment imaginable. We do it better and we do it safer and we do it 
in a more environmentally sound and scientific manner than anywhere on 
Earth. Every spill on the North Slope is reported. Every drop. If a can 
of soda pop is dropped, it is reported. We are conscious. We know what 
is going on. We are being careful and cautious.

[[Page 6410]]

  The National Academy of Sciences 2 weeks ago released a report on the 
cumulative impact of North Slope oil development. What did they find 
about oil spills on the North Slope? No major oil spills had occurred. 
There was no cumulative effect. The discussion about how to drill and 
where to drill is moot because we are in a situation where we have 
essentially a professional environmental community that says no 
development at all anywhere. They are using ANWR as their rallying cry.
  What they are doing by stopping development in ANWR and by saying you 
cannot go there, they are shutting down not only oil development but 
human progress. There is a community in Kaktovik, a community on the 
North Slope in Barrow, existing because of oil. Their school, their 
hospital, their community exists because they have jobs and a resource 
base. That is human progress that most would see as positive.
  There was an interesting article in the Washington Post a few days 
back. Phillip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, 
summed up what today's modern professional environmental movement is 
about, talking about drilling in ANWR and talking about the technology 
and whether cumulative impact had been good or bad. He noted, even if 
new technology has lessened the environment damage, it is not the 
drilling itself but the other activities, such as road building, 
housing for workers, the infrastructure needed to support them, that 
cause damage.
  If you think that through, if it is the school, if it is the house, 
if it is the road that causes the damage, it is not necessarily the 
drilling. They are doing the drilling fine. The road is that way or the 
house is blocking the wind and causing snow to drift and that will 
accumulate and then melt and puddle in the spring; that is a negative 
change. We are going to have all kinds of problems. By Mr. Clapp's 
standard, the elementary school in Fayetteville, AR, causes a negative 
impact.
  We have to be realistic. We deal with this not-in-my-backyard 
syndrome and it seems this NIMBY is now morphing into BANANA, build 
almost nothing anywhere near anyone. If you carry it further to a 
little more ludicrous level, you have the term NOPE: not On planet 
Earth.
  We in Alaska are starting to feel cut off from the rest of the world, 
that the rest of the world or the rest of the country would just as 
soon lock us up and say nothing, nada, zip, you cannot do anything. You 
are not responsible enough to carry on development because we are 
concerned about the environment.
  Again, I challenge Members to come up, see the oil development, how 
we bring oil out of the ground safely every single day and deliver it 
to the rest of the lower 48. We do a good job. Give us credit.
  We had a bit of an example about the technology used on the North 
Slope now. The comment was made earlier when we first began producing 
in Prudhoe Bay, the size of the oil fields, the pads, the footprint was 
bigger, but the technology in the past 30 years has brought us to a 
remarkable place where we can drill, and for all intents and purposes 
you do not know we are there. We have a picture that shows when the 
drill is complete there is a stump put in the ground. That is what you 
look at at the end. You do not have a huge infrastructure.
  I had a meeting this afternoon with an independent oil company 
working in Alaska, explaining to us some incredible new technology that 
allows for construction of modules on the tundra, elevated so the 
tundra is not affected by any warmth or heat coming off the building. 
These modules are supported on beams not made from ice but inserted in 
an ice sleeve so when drilling is complete, when the project is 
complete, they melt the ice, pick everything up, and they are out of 
there. The technology we have today is so remarkable, so incredible, we 
can go in, we can do the job, and we can do it in a manner that does 
not disturb the environment.
  The point was made earlier about the size we are talking about. The 
maps of Alaska do not do justice to the size or the expanse. The 
development of the Coastal Plain would use an area of land smaller than 
the Little Rock airport. It was mentioned that in the area of drilling 
we are looking to do in the 1002 area, six of them would fit within 
Dulles Airport. Conceptualize this: An area 290 times smaller than Ted 
Turner's private ranch in New Mexico. I have not been there, but I can 
visualize it. Or an area the size of George Washington's Mount Vernon 
when he first inherited the property in 1761.
  This is what we are talking about, a tiny sliver on the Arctic 
Coastal Plain. Yes, we did see lovely pictures taken during the summer 
when the tundra is abloom. Those flowers do exist, although I don't 
know, I have seen the purple flowers. But most of the time it looks 
like the moon. It is white, it is deserted. Most days you cannot tell 
the sky from the land. This is the world that we are talking about. It 
is frozen 9 months out of the year. It is windswept. It is bitter cold. 
It is not hospitable country. Yet small groups of Alaskan Eskimos have 
chosen to call this home and want to be able to stay there, have decent 
jobs there. This is what we are talking about when we talk about ANWR.
  I was going on about the size of ANWR. It was pointed out to me that 
the amount of land we need is the same size as the world famous 
Pinehurst Golf Resort in North Carolina, home to eight world-class golf 
courses. In fact, a new golf course opens every day in the U.S., which 
means that the amount of land that we need to produce billions of 
barrels of oil for the American consumer is gobbled up in just 8 days 
by golf courses nationwide.
  It seems kind of silly to be comparing ANWR and the incredible 
contribution you are going to be getting from ANWR and its resources to 
a golf course, but I think it helps to put it in perspective. First, 
think about the size we are talking about and think about our land use. 
This is not an area you would want to go and have a round of golf.
  Also tonight there has been discussion about the wildlife up in the 
1002 area. Since Alaska oil production began nearly three decades ago, 
the caribou herds have increased an average of 450 percent; duck, 
geese, and other migratory birds are flourishing. As has been 
mentioned, there are more caribou in Alaska than there are people. The 
caribou are doing fine. They hope it is not going to be another bad bug 
year, but the caribou are thriving.
  When we get right down to what ANWR is about to the Alaskan people, 
it is about economic opportunity; it is about real jobs for them. But I 
don't stand here and try to suggest that only my State is going to 
benefit, that the only reason we should open ANWR is so people in the 
State of Alaska can have jobs. This is jobs for the Nation. This is 
jobs for America.
  By opening the Coastal Plain as intended by President Eisenhower, we 
would create hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide, employ thousands 
of union and nonunion members in many States, and produce $2.1 billion 
in the first few years alone for the Federal Treasury.
  Going back to the jobs I mentioned, it is not just Alaska. There was 
a study done. It was just completed in Alaska by probably the most 
reputable analyst in the State, the McDowell Group. They did an 
assessment of ANWR-developed-related employment throughout the United 
States. They base their numbers on $36-a-barrel oil. But given that 
price range throughout the 50 States, it is estimated that a total of 
575,000 jobs would be created across the country.
  We are talking today, tomorrow, and the following day about the 
President's economic stimulus plan, the economic growth plan. I am here 
to tell you, if we want economic growth, if we want economic stimulus, 
we need jobs. And 575,000 jobs across the country is nothing to shake a 
stick at.
  It is not just jobs on the west coast. Just pick a number here. 
Pennsylvania: 27,000 jobs; Tennessee--the good Senator was here 
speaking earlier: 11,000 jobs are estimated to be available in 
Tennessee.
  The sponsor of this amendment, from California--California will see 
63,000

[[Page 6411]]

jobs. The Senator from Washington was here earlier: 10,000 jobs in 
Washington.
  You can go down the list. There is no State that somehow or other 
does not stand to gain if we are able to open ANWR.
  You say, how are we really getting 10,000 jobs in Washington or 
63,000 jobs in California? We are going to need the pipes, the valves, 
the drill bits, the trucks--everything else that goes along with 
drilling and opening a new field and connecting these pipes. So these 
are real.
  It is not an accident that this is included in this budget 
resolution. It is part of the President's priority and agenda because 
this is about jobs.
  To many of the unions across the country, they have truly identified 
this as a jobs issue and are working very hard on this issue. To many 
of the families who are struggling, this is a family issue.
  We talk about the caribou and we are concerned about the caribou and 
we care for the wildlife. But the fact is, you have to have money to 
buy your kids shoes and put food on the table, and only the jobs can 
provide that.
  The other thing about the jobs that will come, they will be real jobs 
with real wages for people in my State. To hear the opponents of ANWR 
talk, you would think that they want Alaska to be locked up and to be 
just this big, beautiful tourist attraction so they can come and visit. 
That is nice. We want to have visitors to our State. We want people to 
come up and see Prudhoe Bay. We want them to come and see the good job 
that we do.
  But this thought process implies that they want California or 
Massachusetts or New York or other States to produce tangible items for 
our economy. Alaskan residents, my constituents, the jobs they will get 
are carrying bags for these people when they come to visit as a 
tourist. Those are not the kinds of jobs that I want for my 
constituents. That is not the kinds of jobs that Alaskans want. We want 
real jobs. We want the ability to create real jobs.
  It is demeaning and it is unfair to say that Massachusetts can keep 
its 20,000 petroleum-based jobs; that New Jersey can keep its 27,000 
petroleum-industry jobs; and New York can keep its 36,000 petroleum-
industry jobs, while Alaska supposedly looks to other alternatives. Why 
is it OK for everybody else to do it, and yet in Alaska for some reason 
we are not responsible, we can't handle it, we don't do it right, we 
need to lock it up and preserve it because it is the last Serengeti?
  By opening ANWR, we are trying to save the 11,000 petroleum-industry 
jobs that we have in Alaska. We want to provide other States with 
similar opportunities.
  When it comes to resource development in Alaska, we are not looking 
to spoil the environment. We want the environmental safeguards. We want 
to make sure we do it right. We want to make sure that we, those of us 
who choose to live there, are going to continue to want to stay there 
because it is the quality of life that attracts us. We don't want to 
circumvent any environmental requirements or processes. We want to use 
the most safe and most clean and most expensive technology available to 
get this oil out of the ground.
  I have lived my whole life in Alaska. I was born there. I am third 
generation. In fact I am the first person to represent Alaska in the 
Congress who was actually born in the State. I was actually born during 
territorial days. I have no desire to see the environment of my State 
ruined.
  My husband came to Alaska because he was attracted by the beauty of 
the State, by the fishing, by the wildlife. My husband and I are 
raising two sons who live for hunting and fishing and camping. This is 
why we are in Alaska. I would be the last person to suggest that we 
should do anything to ruin our environment.
  But I have seen what we can do. I know we can do it right. And we can 
balance the development with the environment. They are not 
contradictory terms.
  It is difficult to stand here as a new Senator and go over these 
arguments, but I cannot imagine what it must be like to stand in the 
senior Senator's shoes, and having had this argument and this 
discussion and this debate about opening ANWR for the past 20, 25 
years, and to hear the same concerns and the same argument and the same 
discussion, and still our oil is locked up. It is a long time to be 
talking about this. It is a long time.
  If we had been successful--actually, they were successful in 1995, 
when ANWR passed the Congress, but President Clinton vetoed that ANWR 
legislation in 1995. If he had not vetoed that, the oil from ANWR would 
soon be on its way down the existing Alaska oil pipeline in time for 
who knows what lies ahead.
  I have mentioned we have a lot to look forward to in the years ahead, 
and it is not necessarily an oil-based economy. We have mentioned that 
the President's initiative, the hydrogen initiative to power our cars, 
is out there. We are looking forward to that. But we have also talked 
about the need to continue with our oil reserves for all those other 
resources and products that we have out there.
  I have not touched on the desire, the concern, the request from 
Alaskans. Alaskans are looking at ANWR and saying: Well, wait a minute. 
Why is it so difficult? If we are willing to accept the development in 
our State, why can't we move forward with this?
  We listen very well and very closely to the arguments and concerns in 
other locales. In the Midwest, right now, they are saying: No, don't 
drill in the Great Lakes. We don't want to do that. And I would say: If 
you don't want drilling in the Great Lakes, and you are the people who 
live there, and you say, no, we don't want it in our area, then, no, 
there is no need to go there.
  But in Alaska, we have said: We accept it. We want it. We are here to 
help. Yet we are being turned down. We are being refused. We are being 
blocked by outside interests that seem to think they know better than 
Alaskans about what we need to do.
  In Alaska, we do not have this NIMBY syndrome. We are saying: Put it 
in our backyard. We will accept it. We will be responsible stewards for 
this environment and for this resource. Let us help you.
  We respect and defer to the opinions of those in other parts of the 
country who do not want drilling near them. All that we ask is that 
same deference be afforded to us.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to increase our use 
of renewable fuel sources. We have had some good discussions with 
several Senators about biodiesel, ethanol. But the Senators from those 
States also need to recognize that in order to grow the crops necessary 
to make these renewable fuels, they are going to need fertilizers.
  Fertilizers come from natural gas. I have been talking, for most of 
the evening, about oil. But we need to also keep in mind that ANWR has 
vast deposits of natural gas, as much as 10 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas that could be used to mitigate the unusually high natural 
gas prices we are seeing.
  Yesterday we received a letter from the American Farm Bureau 
Federation. In it the Farm Bureau requests support of environmentally 
sound energy development in ANWR and supports its inclusion in the 
Senate budget resolution. They recognize it is critical, it is 
important, for the farmers of America. If they are going to get the 
fertilizer they need, they are going to need that natural gas from 
somewhere. They are projecting ahead; they are anticipating that 
demand, and asking that we assist with the supply. And ANWR can assist 
with the supply.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the 
American Farm Bureau be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record,  as follows:

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2003.
     Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     requests that you support environmentally sound energy 
     development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and 
     support its inclusion in the Senate Budget Resolution.

[[Page 6412]]

       America's farmers and ranchers utilize numerous energy 
     sources in the most efficient ways possible to grow the 
     products that help feed and clothe the world. Current world 
     circumstances have clearly pointed out this nation's over-
     reliance of foreign sources to meet our energy needs. 
     American agriculture will spend from $1-2 billion more this 
     year than last and that is just to complete the planting 
     season and to get a crop in the ground. The instability of 
     current energy prices negatively affects each and every 
     aspect of agricultural production. From the fuel we use 
     directly to the natural gas that is turned into fertilizer 
     for crops to the diesel used in the locomotives and barges to 
     transport agricultural commodities to processors and 
     consumers; we are all reliant on affordable energy.
       A balanced national energy agenda, complete with new 
     technology advancements, renewable energy allowances and a 
     significant increase in the domestic production of oil and 
     gas supplies will help meet the energy needs of America's 
     growing economy and population while providing a more 
     reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible energy 
     supply.
       AFBF supports the environmentally sound energy development 
     in ANWR and urges you to oppose any attempt to remove this 
     language from the budget resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was commenting a moment ago about the 
desire or the willingness of Alaskans to take on ANWR development, that 
we are receptive to it. Earlier, on the floor this evening, the good 
Senator from California mentioned, and I believe had printed in the 
Record, a statement of opposition to drilling from a tribal entity. I 
have not seen that. I am not certain from where it came.
  But I would like to also have in the Record that the Alaska 
Federation of Natives, which is the federation of all the Natives in 
the State of Alaska, has passed a resolution in support of the opening 
of ANWR and urging the Congress ``to adopt legislation to open the 
Coastal Plain area of ANWR to an environmentally responsible program of 
oil and gas leasing and development.'' I ask unanimous consent that 
this resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., Board of Directors, Resolution 95-
                                   05

       Whereas, the members of the Alaska Congressional 
     Delegation, as representatives of the people and in their 
     capacity as newly elected Chairmen of the Senate and House 
     Committees having jurisdiction over matters related to Alaska 
     Native people and the management of the energy and natural 
     resources on public lands, have requested the Alaska 
     Federation of Natives' Board of Directors to adopt a 
     resolution in support of the opening of the Coastal Plain; 
     and
       Whereas, the Governor of the State of Alaska has requested 
     the Alaska Federation of Natives' Board of Directors to adopt 
     a resolution in support of the opening of the Coastal Plain 
     of ANWR, with a proviso for the protection of the Porcupine 
     Caribou Herd and the subsistence needs for the Native people 
     of Alaska; and
       Whereas, the Alaska State Legislature has adopted a 
     resolution calling upon the U.S. Congress to adopt 
     legislation that would open the Coastal Plain of the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge to responsible oil and gas leasing 
     and development, with protection for the Porcupine Caribou 
     Herd and the subsistence needs for the Native people of 
     Alaska; and
       Whereas, North Slope oil production has declined from more 
     than two million B/D in 1990, to less than 1.6 million B/D 
     today; and
       Whereas, revenues from oil production have been providing 
     about 85 percent of the State's revenues to fund programs to 
     meet the educational, social welfare, and other needs of 
     Alaska's people; and
       Whereas, the small 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain study 
     area of ANWR, adjacent of Prudhoe Bay and other producing 
     fields is the nation's best prospect for major new oil and 
     gas discoveries; and
       Whereas, opening the Coastal Plain area to an 
     environmentally responsible and carefully regulated program 
     of environmental oil and gas leasing would provide important 
     revenue benefits to the U.S. and to the State of Alaska; and
       Whereas, opening the Coastal Plain will create new jobs for 
     Alaska Native people, new contracting opportunities for 
     Native-owned companies, and stimulate the State's local and 
     regional economies: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the members of the Board of Directors of the 
     Alaska Federation of Natives calls upon the Congress of the 
     United States to adopt legislation to open the Coastal Plain 
     area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to an 
     environmentally responsible program of oil and gas leasing 
     and development.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is, obviously, an issue that 
generates a lot of passion. We have seen that on the floor this 
evening. It has generated a lot of facts and figures. I would caution 
people to look critically at the facts. Make sure they add up.
  We have heard discussion from a couple of different individuals 
tonight about the amount of oil that is out there. And is it a 6-month 
supply? And, if so, we surely should not open up ANWR.
  As was pointed out by my fellow Senator from Alaska, that is assuming 
there is no other source produced domestically or used domestically. It 
is an overt effort to skew the facts to one side's advantage.
  In a debate such as this, it is critical that we know that our facts 
are sound, that our science is sound. So I ask people not to be swayed 
by the emotion. Caribou are beautiful animals, but I can tell you, we 
are caring for the caribou, our caribou are doing fine, our caribou are 
multiplying at a wondrous rate, and they are doing it around the areas 
of development.
  So it is important to try to show the rest of the country what ANWR 
is. But keep in mind, these little, tiny brief snapshots of a flowered 
field, with beautiful mountains in the background, are not where the 
1002 area is that we are intending to drill. We are intending to drill 
an area that is the size of the Pinehurst Golf Resort in North 
Carolina, in an area that looks like the Moon.
  I appreciate the hour. I appreciate the attention to this issue 
because in my State there is nothing more important that is happening. 
I would certainly encourage my colleagues tomorrow to listen intently 
to the debate.
  I hope we move forward on oil and gas exploration along Alaska's 
Coastal Plain and oppose the Boxer amendment.
  I don't see anyone else in the Chamber. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a 
cosponsor of this amendment, because the provision in the Budget 
Resolution on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known more 
commonly as ``ANWR,'' has no place in this resolution.
  There are so many great things about our country. And one of them is 
the progress made to protect our natural resources, including wildlife 
refuges such as ANWR. ANWR--which constitutes just five percent of the 
area of Alaska's North Slope--is the last remaining stretch of the 
North Slope that is closed by law to oil and gas development. Even if 
the oil in this small patch there were plentiful, which it is not, the 
provision in this resolution still would not be the path we want to 
choose.
  The oil in the refuge could supply only a tiny percentage of our 
needs, and is not worth the likelihood of permanent damage to wildlife 
in this vital habitat. A recent report from the National Academy of 
Sciences highlighted the current damage to Alaska's North Slope from 
energy production. For example, animals have been affected in different 
ways, including direct mortality and displacement, reduced reproductive 
rates of birds due to enhanced predator populations, diversion of 
bowhead whale migrations, and altered distributions and productivity of 
caribou. Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences report concluded 
that while new technologies have reduced some effects from energy 
production, expansion in new areas is certain to exacerbate existing 
effects and generate new ones. I see no need to risk an American 
treasure in an environmentally-damaging hunt for this very limited, 
unsustainable fossil fuel source.
  The long-term solution to our fuel needs is to tap a variety of 
renewable

[[Page 6413]]

 energy sources, such as ethanol and biodiesel, wind, and biomass, as 
well as energy efficient technologies such as hydrogen-powered fuel 
cells.
  My continual support for ethanol is only strengthened by the topic on 
the table right now. Ethanol offers a much more environmentally 
friendly and economically sustainable energy option than the short-
sighted approach embodied by the ANWR drilling plans. Fuel that is 80 
percent ethanol--developed over the next decade or two--will 
dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil and foreign fuels.
  Another source of renewable energy is soy diesel. For example, over 
30 buses in Cedar Rapids, IA, now run on soy diesel.
  The transition to cleaner, domestically-produced fuels offers near 
and long term benefits, and we must start investing now in these 
renewable fuels. Pinning our energy hopes on reaping a relatively small 
amount of oil from an ecologically fragile area is not a long term 
strategy. It is, in fact, very short-sighted, and will not meaningfully 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  The Department of Energy has estimated that without drilling in the 
Arctic refuge, we'll import 62 percent of our oil in the year 2020. If 
we do drill, the department says we'll still be importing 60 percent of 
our oil in 2020, when ANWR production will reach its peak, according to 
the Energy Information Agency. Furthermore, according to the U.S. 
Geological Survey, the Arctic Refuge contains less economically 
recoverable oil than the U.S. consumes in 6 months. Oil company 
executives confirm it would take at least 10 years of exploration and 
development before this oil would reach markets. That's scarcely a 
compelling case for despoiling this environmental treasure.
  And with 10 year build-up, this is not a short term, immediate 
stimulant for our economy. The revenue won't be seen for years, and it 
will be a small amount at that! Instead, we should focus on developing 
new domestic energy sources in this country by supporting the 
development of renewable fuels.
  Further, we shouldn't be authorizing this kind of policy in a budget. 
Inserting controversial policy changes into a budget measure via 
reconciliation instructions shortchanges the normal legislative process 
by limiting debate. This ANWR debacle short circuits the normal 
legislative process used for consideration of controversial policy 
issues of this magnitude in the Senate.
  I am committed to protecting and preserving our wilderness areas, 
parks, forests and wildlife. I cherish these resources, and I will 
continue to do what I can to see that they are protected. I am likewise 
committed to energy security for our Nation. The only way truly to 
achieve that goal is with renewable sources of energy available right 
here in our country.
  Because of the concerns I have stated here, I am opposed to the 
Budget Resolution's reconciliation instructions to the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee to write a bill that would open up ANWR so 
that the Federal Government can receive revenue from drilling in that 
fragile area. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
for this important amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support amendment No. 
272, 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. And 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.
  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.
  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 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 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.
  But 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.
  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.

[[Page 6414]]

  That will not be achieved if reconciliation instruction on the Arctic 
Refuge is included in the resolution before us. I urge support for the 
amendment of the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the inclusion of provisions in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution 
that would provide for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  The United States critically needs to reduce its dependence on 
foreign oil. Some believe we can drill our way to energy independence. 
That is simply not the case.
  If we were today to start drilling in ANWR, our largest remaining 
domestic oil reserve, we would do almost nothing to decrease our 
reliance on foreign oil. It is a cold, hard fact: the United States 
uses about 25 percent of the world's oil, but only possesses 3 percent 
of the world's known oil reserves.
  The Department of Energy has projected that if current trends 
continue, we will need an additional 5 million barrels of oil per day 
by 2020. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, ANWR could supply 
only a small fraction of that amount.
  The alternative is to increase energy efficiency and develop 
alternative technologies. Simply increasing fuel economy standards for 
automobiles would do far more to reduce our imports of foreign oil than 
would drilling in the Arctic. Not only that, but it would also save 
Americans billions of dollars.
  Protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the right thing to 
do for the environment. Along with increased fuel efficiency and 
renewable energy production, protecting the Arctic is also the right 
thing to do for the economy and for America's energy security. Most 
important, it is the right thing to do for future generations.
  I call on my colleagues to join me in support of removing provisions 
from the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution that would open ANWR to oil 
drilling.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Boxer's 
amendment to strike the budget resolution provision opening the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
  To begin, I do not believe that the ANWR provision should be attached 
to a budget resolution. ANWR is a prominent national issue, arousing 
the passions of people of both sides. Regardless of one's view on the 
issue, the question of whether to open the refuge to drilling warrants 
an independent debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  We must also remember that a majority of Americans--55 percent 
according to the latest poll--oppose drilling in the refuge. We should 
not use backdoor techniques to sneak a drilling provision through on a 
technicality.
  The budget bill is simply not the appropriate forum for the Arctic 
Refuge debate.
  As a member of the Energy Committee, I believe the ANWR debate is 
better addressed in the context of an energy bill.
  Now to discuss the provision itself. Proponents of drilling claim 
that drilling in ANWR will free us from our dependence on oil from the 
Middle East. This is simply not the case.
  The bottom line is that, according to estimates from the United 
States Geological Survey, the Arctic Refuge would yield only about 6 
months' worth of oil.
  Facts are, we would have to get the oil over a longer period but 
would still receive less than a million barrels of oil per day even at 
peak production.
  Furthermore, the oil would not flow for at least 10 years and would 
do nothing for our current national security situation.
  Even the Energy Information Administration, the most optimistic 
forecaster of ANWR's oil potential, estimates that drilling in ANWR 
would reduce our oil imports by only 2 percent by 2020. And for a 
reduction of 2 percent, we would damage a national treasure.
  Proponents of drilling would also have us believe that we can drill 
in ANWR without significant environmental cost. However, as the recent 
report by the National Academies shows us, even with the newest 
technologies, oil exploration and development harm the North Slope's 
Wildlife, ecosystems, and wilderness qualities.
  The report tells us that the effects of previous development on the 
North Slope will remain for centuries, and we know that the oil is a 
short term supply.
  To quote the report, we face an essential trade-off in assessing 
``whether the benefits derived from oil and gas activities justify 
acceptance of the inevitable accumulated undesirable effects'' that 
accompany development on the North Slope. My answer to this question is 
a resounding no, the small benefits are simply not worth the costs.
  Development's effects on wildlife warrant more discussion. According 
to the National Academies' report, oil exploration and development has 
negatively affected--and will continue to affect--caribou and bowhead 
whales.
  In some developed areas, feeding on garbage has caused population 
explosions of predators and the local populations of nesting birds can 
no longer support themselves without immigration from undeveloped 
areas.
  As more and more of the North Slope falls prey to oil development, 
one has to wonder from where the additional birds will come.
  Therefore, while I agree that we are too dependent on foreign oil, 
and need to reduce that dependence, drilling for oil in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge is simply not the answer. Drilling would not 
give us energy security and would carry huge environmental costs.
  Reducing oil consumption and increasing Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy, or CAFE standards, is the better route to energy security.
  In contrast to a small, temporary supply available far in the future 
and including serious environmental consequences, simply raising 
average fuel economy standards for sport utility vehicles could save us 
more than a million barrels per day by 2020.
  The savings from increasing efficiency would begin sooner than oil 
from ANWR and, unlike oil from ANWR, the savings would not run out. 
Raising CAFE standards for all vehicles would save even more oil.
  I would like to focus on energy security for a moment. If we truly 
want to increase our energy independence, it is vital that we 
understand why we are now so dependent on foreign oil.
  The United States contains only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves 
and only 4 percent of the world population. And yet we consume 25 
percent of the oil produced worldwide.
  Almost two-thirds of that oil goes to fuel the transportation sector.
  Given our current level of consumption in relation to our domestic 
reserves, it is clear that modest increases in domestic production--as 
from ANWR--will not solve our energy problems.
  Reducing consumption is the key to increasing America's energy 
security.
  Our system of fuel economy standards needs updating. When CAFE 
standards were created in 1975, the U.S. consumed about 16 million 
barrels of oil per day and imported a little more than a third of that 
oil. Today, America consumes about 19 million barrels each day but we 
now import more than half of that oil.
  When fuel economy standards were first implemented, a lower standard 
was created for light trucks because they were not considered passenger 
vehicles. At the time, light duty trucks made up a small percentage of 
vehicles on the road and were primarily used for agriculture and 
commerce, not as passenger vehicles.
  Today, however, SUVs are predominantly passenger vehicles and yet 
they are still held to a lower fuel economy standard than other cars.
  The fuel economy standard for other passenger automobiles has 
remained constant at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990, while the 
standard for SUVs and light trucks has been just 20.7 miles per gallon 
since 1991. This lower standard is called the ``SUV loophole.''
  When there were few SUVs and light trucks on our roads, the SUV 
loophole did not affect our national oil consumption. However, with 
SUVs and light duty trucks now making up almost half of all new 
vehicles sold, overall fuel economy has reached its lowest

[[Page 6415]]

level in two decades. We have been moving backwards.
  Senator Snowe and I have introduced a bill which would require SUVs 
and light duty trucks, which are used as passenger vehicles, to meet 
the same fuel economy standards as other passenger vehicles by 2011.
  According to the National Academy of Sciences, automakers can meet 
the higher standard with existing technologies.
  The Feinstein-Snowe bill would save 1 million barrels of oil a day, 
more than we can expect to recover from ANWR, and, again, these 
benefits would not run out.
  Our legislation would increase SUV fuel economy, reduce oil 
consumption, and increase energy security. But just closing the SUV 
loophole is not enough.
  The Feinstein-Snowe legislation would also increase the average fuel 
economy of the Federal Government's fleet of vehicles. With Federal 
vehicles comprising about one percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S. 
each year, the Federal Government should set an example and reduce the 
Federal fleet's fuel consumption.
  Increasing fuel economy includes additional benefits. First, 
increased efficiency will protect consumers from higher gasoline costs. 
Our bill would save American motorists billions of dollars per year at 
the pump.
  Second, the Feinstein-Snowe bill would fight global warming by 
preventing about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the 
atmosphere each year.
  Still, we should also go beyond the Feinstein-Snowe legislation and 
increase average fuel economy standards for all cars.
  Raising average fuel economy standards to 39 miles per gallon, an 
achievable goal, would save 51 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 
years, 5 to 10 times more than what is technically recoverable from 
ANWR.
  So if this were really a debate on our dependence on foreign oil, we 
would already have passed legislation to improve fuel economy 
standards.
  Drilling in ANWR, on the other hand, would not significantly increase 
our energy security and would not fight climate change. Because the 
price of oil is set on the world market and the quantity of oil in ANWR 
would not affect the world price, drilling in ANWR also would not save 
consumers any money.
  To sum up, drilling in ANWR is simply not worth the price. The Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge is a crown jewel of the National Wildlife 
Refuge system.
  ANWR is the only conservation unit in the U.S. encompassing a 
complete range of arctic ecosystems, and the coastal plain provides 
essential habitat for many species.
  The coastal plain, which proponents of drilling paint as small and 
insignificant, is the ecological heart of the refuge, the center of 
wildlife activity, and the calving area of the porcupine caribou herd.
  Proponents of drilling would have us risk all of this for a small 
amount of oil that would not even begin to flow for 10 years and would 
barely reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  The National Academies' report shows us that we should not consider 
the drilling provision in isolation. We must consider both the role of 
the coastal plain in the overall refuge and the cumulative effects of 
development in surrounding areas.
  ANWR is a crucial part of the larger landscape and is now the only 
sliver of the North Slope coastal plain that the administration is not 
opening to leasing.
  In short, the refuge's coastal plain is too precious, and contains 
too little oil, for us to allow drilling to take place.
  Although the National Academies' report is silent regarding ANWR 
policy, the chairman of the committee, Dr. Gordon Orians, has said that 
he hopes the report will inform the debate. The committee's findings 
should inform our decision. The price of drilling is simply too high.
  Future generations will thank us for our foresight in protecting the 
ANWR coastal plain and its wildlife. They will thank us for finding 
other avenues to increased energy security.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of a patriotic pause 
amendment to the budget resolution.
  America stands on the brink of war. Yet this budget resolution 
ignores the war and ignores the costs of war. We need to take a 
patriotic pause and not proceed with huge permanent tax breaks when we 
don't yet know the cost of this war--or the costs that come after the 
war, in the rebuilding of Iraq.
  This budget resolution calls for a $1.4 trillion tax cut. These are 
permanent tax breaks that would add to the structural deficit even 
without war. The patriotic pause amendment states that before we 
consider tax cuts, we need to ensure the Federal budget addresses our 
very real national security needs. That means the cost of deploying our 
troops; the cost of fighting the war; the cost of keeping troops in the 
region afterward and the cost of rebuilding Iraq.
  The budget must also provide for the continuing war on terrorism. It 
must cover the costs of other conflicts and potential conflicts, such 
as standing sentry on North Korea. The budget must ensure that we can 
help our troops and their families face the hardships of deployment. 
And it must meet the costs of homeland security--and hometown security.
  I supported a multilateral approach to confronting Iraq--to enable 
the world to share the costs and the burden. I believe that because 
Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world the world should share the 
burden of defanging him. America must redouble our diplomatic efforts 
to broaden the coalition of the willing. That means returning to the 
U.N. to share the costs of the war and the costs of rebuilding Iraq.
  In the meantime, the administration must consider the costs of this 
war. The former White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsay, 
estimated that the war in Iraq could cost $100 to $200 billion. The 
fact that some of these costs may be hard to predict does not excuse 
assuming they won't cost anything at all. One thing we know for sure is 
that the cost is not zero. We must ensure that our national security 
needs are covered before considering tax cuts. We need to think about 
national security--and economic security.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a patriotic pause in 
the budget process.

                          ____________________