A bill to decrease the United States dependence on imported oil by the year 2015.

Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is an amendment we will vote on this morning. I was disappointed yesterday to discover that there was opposition to the amendment. This is an amendment that passed without opposition in the last Congress. So surprisingly now I am discovering that some have changed their mind.

I will describe why, if this Congress has any gumption at all to decide that we ought to change course and move in a new direction and be bold and big when we think about our energy future, they will support this amendment.

President Bush said the following about our dependence on foreign oil in his State of the Union Address: America's energy security is threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. He said: We import 55 percent of the oil we consume. That is expected to grow to 68 percent by 2025. Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline. They are the main reason America imports so much oil--that, from President Bush--two-thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil we use each day for transportation.

Fuel cell vehicles offer the best hope of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The President said that because he was proposing a new direction for America's energy supply: Hydrogen and fuel cells.

Following his State of the Union Address in which he proposed that, he had a gathering at the Building Museum in Washington, DC. He invited all of the industry leaders throughout the country to come. He gave a great speech. I was there with my colleague Senator Domenici. We were invited to be a part of it. He talked again about striking out in this new direction and talked about developing hydrogen and fuel cells as part of our future. That made sense to me.

I have spoken often of the first old car I had when I was a young kid. I bought a Model T Ford and restored it as an old antique. The way you gas up this 1924 Model T Ford is you pull up to a pump, stick a hose in the tank, and pump it full of gas. And what do you do with a 2003 Ford? Exactly the same thing. Nothing has changed in almost a century. We are still running gasoline through those carburetors.

What the President says--and I agree with him--is let's decide to change that and reduce our dependence on foreign oil because that is where the growth in energy use is coming; that is, on America's roads and America's vehicles. Do we want to be at a point where we have over one-half of our oil coming from off our shores, much of it from very troubled parts of the world? Do we want to be at the point where we have 68 percent of it coming from other parts of the world, where if, God forbid, some morning we woke up and discovered terrorists had interrupted the supply of oil and this American economy would be flat on its back? Is that how what we want to be held hostage? I do not think so.

So the President says let's strike out in a new direction. He proposed $1.2 billion on a hydrogen program. It is exactly the right thing to do. I commend him for it. But $1.2 billion is timid; it is not enough. Nonetheless, it is moving in the right direction, and for this American President to put his administration on the line to move in that direction is not insignificant at all; it is very significant.

I have pushed and pushed, and now this Energy bill has almost tripled the amount the President recommended for a new hydrogen-based economy and fuel cell future.

I proposed $6.5 billion over 5 years, an Apollo-type program. President Kennedy said: Let's put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. He set a goal. And we did. I said: Let's have an Apollo program, decide we are going to move toward a hydrogen fuel cell future for our vehicles.

Do my colleagues know that a vehicle is twice as efficient using a fuel cell as it is using gasoline through a carburetor? It is double the efficiency getting power to the wheel. And what do you get out the back end of a vehicle that uses hydrogen in a fuel cell? Water vapor. You are not driving around town belching black smoke. You get water vapor. It is good for the environment, good for this country's energy security, and good for this country's economy. The fact is, this is moving in exactly the right direction. So I commend President Bush.

We also made progress in the Energy Committee, saying let's increase that which the President recommended, but it is still short of where we ought to be, No. 1. No. 2, it does not include targets and timetables. I do not suggest they be mandatory, but I do say this: Let's decide where we are headed, and when we give the Department of Energy and others $3 billion plus, let's say here is where we would like to go, here is our destination, here is our map. I say let's aspire to have 100,000 vehicles on the road in the year 2010 that are hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and 2\1/2\ million vehicles by 2020.

My colleague yesterday said, well, we think maybe it is a mandate. I said, no, it is not a mandate at all. Just ask the Department of Energy to develop a strategy that says here is what we would like to do. We cannot force that to happen, but at least a goal is established.

Japan has goals and strategies with respect to hydrogen and fuel cells. They are moving very quickly. Europe is moving very quickly. Japan wants 50,000 by 2010 and 5 million vehicles by 2020. General Motors has a goal of having 1 million vehicles by 2010--Ford, Nissan, DaimlerChrysler. The fact is, the industry is moving very quickly as well.

I just do not happen to think we ought to throw a bunch of money at Energy and say: Do what you can with it and report back. I guarantee, if $3 billion or $3.5 billion is put into a bureaucratic envelope and sent down to an agency and they are told to report to us when they have half a notion and tell us what they have done, we are not going to make much progress.

What I believe this Congress ought to do is say: Here is what we aspire to achieve. This is a big, bold plan, and we want to make progress. We would like by the year 2010 on the streets in this country 100,000 automobiles that are powered by hydrogen and use fuel cells. We would like 2\1/2\ million by the year 2020.

Why do I say we need some targets and timetables? Because this is not easy to do. This is not something that one company can do or one industry can do. This requires a combination of private sector investment and initiative, and it requires public policy that accommodates this conversion.

First of all, we have to deal in a whole range of areas. How do you produce hydrogen? Hydrogen is everywhere. It comes from everything. It can come from natural gas, from coal, you can take hydrogen from water. You can use a wind turbine and produce electricity from the air and use that electricity to separate oxygen and hydrogen in water, store the hydrogen, use it in a fuel cell, and double the efficiency of how you power an automobile and have water vapor coming out of the tail pipe of the automobile. How wonderful this country's future. But it will not happen unless the Congress and the President decide we are going to move to a different future.

The first antique car I bought and restored when I was a kid was 75 years old. I put gas in it the same way I put gas in a car today. It is never going to

change unless in public policy we accommodate the private sector's investment and the initiative that comes from both the private sector and public policy, to say here is where our country aspires to be. Here is where we want our country to move with respect to an energy bill.

There is a lot to this Energy Bill. Any energy bill worth anything, in my judgment, has to incentivize additional production. It has to provide for significant amounts of conservation because we are wasting a great deal of energy. It has to provide for new efficiencies with respect to all the appliances we use. Most importantly, in my judgment, the fourth title of an energy bill has to be limitless renewable sources of energy. Yes, that is ethanol, which we debated last week; it is biodiesel; but most importantly, it is trying to move toward a new energy future with respect to our vehicle fleet. That is hydrogen and fuel cells.

I am not talking during this conversation about stationary engines, although that is another application for fuel cells, and we have fuel cells that are deployed and being used in this country. We also have fuel cells and vehicles using hydrogen. I have driven one. We have had a fuel cell vehicle drive from California to New York. It is not as if this technology does not exist. It does. Like all other new technologies, it is originally very expensive. As the research and development into the new models and prototypes are done, it is very expensive. But those costs come down, down, way down, as our country embraces the notion that we want a different future for our vehicle fleet; we want a hydrogen fuel cell future that relieves this country of being held hostage by sources of oil that come from out of our country.

If we just think for a moment about that, this American economy is the strongest economic engine in the entire world by far. There is nothing close to it. Yet some catastrophic event could happen that could shut off this supply of oil to this country because over half of it comes from outside of our shores. Something could happen to shut off the supply and this economy would grind to a halt. It would be flat on its back. And everybody knows it. When it happens, if it happens, and God forbid it happens, but if it happens everyone will say, We told you so. That is why this President wants to move to a different path, go to a different place, to embrace hydrogen and fuel cells, and has stated so in a State of the Union Address. He is dead right. We have to do that.

I don't understand why establishing an aspired-to target and timetables engenders opposition. A year and a half ago when I offered this amendment it was accepted by voice vote. I have no idea why all of a sudden some people say, this is radical. What a bunch of nonsense. Radical? Yesterday, I was told, what we are talking about are wild guesses: 100,000 vehicles by 2010, 2.5 million by 2020. Do you think General Motors has an aspiration of putting 1 million cars on the road by producing 1 million fuel cell cars by 2010? Do you think they go to the board of directors and say, We have a wild guess to talk to you about. These are not wild guesses. This is public policy, from our standpoint, of stating our goals.

I find it fascinating; although this is not a mandate at all, it is trying to establish some benchmarks. Instead of just giving money to bureaucrats or a Federal agency and saying report back when you get half a notion and let us know how you are doing--the report will show not much is going on. Instead of mandates, I put some targets in and say, aspire to achieve these. We ask the Department of Energy to give us a strategy on how they will achieve these.

Some who would not want to put this kind of a strategy or this sort of a target in law will come to the Senate and say, on national missile defense, we are going to spend $9 billion this year on national missile defense and we demand you deploy a system. It does not matter whether it is not ready or whether the technology does not exist, and it does not matter if you cannot hit a bullet with another speeding bullet; we demand you deploy that system by 2004. So the mandated targets are fine with respect to a national missile defense system for which you want to spend $9 billion.

All of a sudden, when the President says, do a hydrogen fuel cell initiative for America's energy security and you put in a rather weak, in my judgment, set of targets, just so you have targets rather than no targets and timetables, they say, gosh, what on Earth are you doing here? Why would you suggest that?

I suggest this, because I think if we are going to spend money, we ought to spend it effectively. If you are going to go on a journey, you might want to get a map. If you want to take a trip to go to a different kind of energy future, you might want to have a spot in mind about your different nation. Those who want to take the taxpayers' money and throw it at a problem and send it to an agency and say, do the best you can, I say, God bless you, but I will show you how not to make progress. Just do that, keep doing that, and you will never, ever, make progress.

If we want a different energy future, then we have to be driving the train. We have to decide this is what we aspire to achieve; these are the goals we set for our country. If you do not want to set goals, do not tell me you support an energy future different from today. Don't tell me you want to withdraw and disconnect from 55 percent dependence on foreign energy--55 percent going to 68 percent. This is a habit that is destructive to this country. It is destructive to our future, and it is destructive to our security. It is a habit we must end. This President has supported an approach to do that.

I have worked on hydrogen for some while, as have others in the Congress, Republicans and Democrats. But working on hydrogen and fuel cells to try to move to a different energy future, while a worthwhile enterprise, is not going to move us down the road unless this Congress decides to be bold and decides to have big dreams and big goals. The fact is, we try to incrementalize everything. We talk big and think little. If we want to do something, this amendment should be attached to this Energy Bill. As I said before, this amendment was accepted by voice vote 2 years ago. I don't have the foggiest understanding of why someone would oppose this. It is not a mandate. It is not a wild guess. It is not radical. In fact, in many ways it is the most conservative of approaches to say, let's not spend money unless we know what we are going to do with it, unless we have a strategy, unless we aspire to achieve certain goals good for this country and that fit with what the President intends to have happen with respect to a hydrogen and fuel cell future.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Feinstein be added as a cosponsor to my amendment No. 865 to Senate Bill S. 14.

Mr. President, I understand my time has expired.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes and the other side will be added 5 additional minutes to the closing side.

Mr. President, let me show a couple of photographs that might be helpful for people to understand what this issue is about. This is a DaimlerChrysler fuel cell bus introduced in Germany in 1997 that runs on fuel cells. I rode on a fuel cell bus in California. For anyone who thinks this technology does not exist, it does. We have fuel cells. We use hydrogen.

Let me give another example of what is happening in the private sector: The Ford Focus fuel cell vehicle, 2002.

This is a Nissan Xterra, fueled by compressed hydrogen that was tested on a California road beginning in 2001.

This General Motors Hy-Wire fuel cell concept car was unveiled in August of 2002.

Let me make a point about all of this. You can't convert a vehicle fleet in this country from a fleet that pulls up to the gas pump and you take the cap off and you stick a hose in and pump away--you can't convert a vehicle fleet from a gasoline-powered vehicle fleet to a hydrogen-powered fleet without substantial public policy initiatives that complement where the private sector wants to go. One cannot do it without the other.

That is why, even as all these companies are working very hard on these

issues, they need public sector and public policy support. This is a picture of a hydrogen fueling station at Power TechLabs. So if you had a car with a fuel cell that uses hydrogen, where would you go to fuel that car? Where would you go to power it? Where would you find a supply of hydrogen? So you have a whole series of questions.

As I mentioned earlier, you have to develop the question of how do you produce hydrogen in large quantities. It is not terribly difficult. You can produce it in many ways, but what would be the predominant method of production? How do you store it? Where do you store it? How do you transport it? All of those are important issues that the private sector and public policy will answer, in my judgment.

Then, what kind of infrastructure can develop and how do you incentivize its development so those who are purchasing the new fuel cell vehicles powered by hydrogen have a place to come where they can fuel those vehicles?

We have plans for many areas of public policy, whether it is Social Security or Medicare--a whole series of issues. We have all these studies and plans of where we aspire to be and what we aspire to do. The goals in this amendment, while not mandates, are very simple. In my judgment they are reasonable goals and ones that ought not frighten anyone in this Chamber into believing they are mandates.

We know California's Clean Air Act requirements will ensure there will be many fuel cell vehicles on the road in California in the future. By this year, 2003, 2 percent of California's vehicles have to be zero emission vehicles, and around 10 percent must be zero emission by 2018. California will have nearly 40,000 to 50,000 fuel cell vehicles on the road by the end of the next decade.

One of the other considerations in public policy is Federal fleet purchase. We can be the first purchaser of these technologies and put thousands, tens of thousands of vehicles on the road through the Federal fleet purchase. Those are the kinds of activities I think can make a big difference.

Let me finish as I started. I am very disappointed. I hope perhaps a good night's sleep will have persuaded those who came yesterday, who were a little cranky about this amendment and wanted to see if they shouldn't maybe oppose this amendment--I am hoping maybe a good night's sleep would have provided some sort of epiphany to those who would have otherwise opposed it and they will decide that they should support what the Senate unanimously supported 2 years ago. This is not anything other than a step in exactly the right direction.

If you want to be big, you want to be bold, you want to agree with President Bush that we ought to move to a new energy future, if you want to do all that and believe hydrogen and fuel cells, as the President says, are the future--and I do--if you believe all that, then let's do this the right way: Set timetables and targets and goals. If you want to spend money, then let's make those who are going to receive the money give us the strategies that relate to where we want our country to move. Or do we just want to throw money in the air and sort of mill around and thumb our suspenders and smoke our cigars and say we did a great job; we spent $3 billion on hydrogen, and boy, we hope something comes of that. That is not the way you do business. The way you do business is you have a plan. You decide where you want to go for the future of this country and what you want to do and how you want to achieve it. That is what this amendment does. It just sets out those goals. I am hoping when we have this vote it will have a very sizable victory here in the Senate later this morning.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

This amendment is very simple. It establishes timelines and targets: 100,000 vehicles on the road by 2010, 2\1/2\ million by the year 2020. It is not a mandate, it is not enforceable, but at least it sets targets that we aspire to achieve. The opposition would say, well, let's just throw money at the Department of Energy and hope something good comes of it. That is not the way to address this issue, in my judgment.

I know my colleague complimented me but the greatest compliment, of course, would be voting for my amendment. What is disappointing is that this amendment passed the Senate by unanimous voice vote a year and a half ago. This amendment has already been embraced by the Senate. I am disappointed that it will not be passed by a voice vote today because if we are, in fact, going to move toward a hydrogen fuel cell future, we need to think big and bold. Then we ought to set some targets and have some aspirations and say to the Department of Energy, here is three-plus billion dollars and, by the way, this is what we would like to see achieved with that money. We would really like to see these goals achieved--not mandates, just strategic goals.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we are today continuing a very important debate on fashioning an energy policy for our Nation. We will be voting on many key amendments as we attempt to move this very important bill off the Senate floor, to conference with the House, and to the President's desk for signature.

It is crucial that we increase domestic production of oil and gas.

It is crucial that we invest more money in research and technologies for alternate fuels that are more environmentally friendly. It is crucial that we reduce our consumption, particularly of oil, as well as have a revitalization, in my opinion, in the appropriate ways, of our nuclear industry--they are all important aspects of this bill--as well as have the deregulation components of electricity and the expanding of the electric grid, in the appropriate ways, which is quite difficult because there are regions of the country that come at that issue from a variety of different standpoints, and it has been very difficult to negotiate those particular aspects of the bill.

But I compliment the chairman from New Mexico and our ranking member from New Mexico who have worked beautifully together trying to fashion a bill that is balanced and is actually possible to pass and not get logjammed in ideological battles; it is something that will help our country move toward more energy efficiency and security; increasing our national security and improving efficiency in our economy, hopefully putting people to work in developing these new technologies. So I commend them for their patience and persistence and their guidance.

I believe the amendment I offer today will go a long way to minimizing the consumption of oil in this country. We are a nation that has only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves. Yet we consume more oil than any country per capita or in any way you might

want to arrive at that conclusion. It is simply essential that we reduce our consumption of oil.

You might say to me, Mr. President: That is strange, Senator, since you are from a State that produces oil. We are a proud producer, as you know, of oil and gas. We believe we contribute to the wealth and security of this Nation. We believe and know that these oil and gas wells have brought jobs and wealth and opportunity and prosperity to our State. Yes, it has come at some environmental cost, particularly 40 and 50 years ago, where the science was not where it is today, the technology was not where it is today, the safety measures were not where they are today. We made mistakes, but we are quickly learning from our experience, as any smart individual or enterprise does. We are now engaged in new technologies that minimize the footprint. We are engaged in making tremendous improvements in environmental restoration projects.

So I hope people will not think it is strange that a Senator from Louisiana would be offering what I consider a very reasonable amendment to reduce oil consumption in this Nation because even our oil and gas producers themselves are willing, and know, in the long run it is in everyone's interests, including theirs, to diversify our source of supply, to minimize our consumption and our dependence on foreign oil by improving and increasing domestic production of oil and gas, which is a centerpiece of this bill which I am proud to support.

So, therefore, I offer this amendment which will save, if adopted-- and I am pleased to offer this amendment with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, as the lead cosponsor; Senator Lamar Alexander, from the great State of Tennessee; as well as Senator Collins from Maine--so we offer this as a bipartisan amendment to save the taxpayers and the businesses and the consumers in this Nation 1 million barrels of oil a day. That is the essence of this amendment.

Before I explain the details of the amendment, let me just talk a moment about the importance of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. As I said, we need to develop alternative fuel sources. One of the reasons is because oil provides nearly 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Sixty percent of the oil we consume today is imported, and that number is set to rise. Unless this amendment and others like it are adopted, that trend will continue to go up, putting at risk our national security and putting at risk our international economic competitiveness.

Because oil is truly an international commodity, and the United States is the world's largest consumer of oil, it is particularly vulnerable to any event that would affect supply and demand. As I said earlier, our daily consumption of oil is almost four times the next two largest oil consumers, Japan and China. Let me repeat: Our daily consumption of oil is four times the next two largest oil consumers, Japan and China.

The price of oil in our country is at the mercy of world events, and not just in the Middle East, which we see played out on television every day, but in Venezuela, which might be off the front pages but, believe me, it is not off the front pages of the business journals in this country where they see their prices and their businesses jeopardized because of the turmoil in Venezuela and Nigeria.

We owe it to ourselves to try to minimize the volatility of oil prices. We do that in two ways: increasing domestic production, which obviously Louisiana would support; and also by reducing our consumption, which people in Louisiana--average families, businesses large and small--all would agree to.

I continue to advocate for responsible and robust domestic oil production, as I said, but we need to do more to reduce consumption. Oil is a critical component of nearly everything that affects our daily lives: from transportation, to food production, to heating. And rising oil prices actually act like a tax by foreign oil exporters on the average American. We have spent a great deal of time trying to reduce taxes on the floor of the Senate. We have done that sometimes in a bipartisan way. Sometimes the majority has pushed through tax relief. We can debate that issue at another time. But there is no disagreement that when we can reduce taxes in a responsible manner, we most certainly should do so.

This amendment, which asks the President to reduce the consumption of oil in this Nation by 1 million barrels a day--we are consuming about 19 million barrels a day, so this would require and basically meet his goals, as outlined in his State of the Union speech--gives him broad latitude as to how to do that. It would be like a tax reduction because currently middle-class families pay about 5 percent of aftertax income for energy needs. As the price of oil increases, family aftertax income continues to decline.

When businesses pay higher taxes, pay for higher oil prices and disruptions in oil supply, this increases inflation and reduces profits, production, investment, and employment. Let me repeat: It increases inflation, reduces profits, reduces production, reduces investment, and reduces employment. We need to be increasing production, investment, and employment. My amendment will help us to do just that.

Consumers are spending $50 billion more in annual energy bills than a year ago. If we could reduce our consumption by the amount that our amendment suggests, we would begin to save consumers money they could spend on other most needed and necessary things for themselves, their children, their grandchildren, or their businesses.

The amendment I offer today, as I said, would direct the President to develop and implement a plan to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by the year 2013.

I show you a chart I have in the Chamber because this amendment would actually put into law--I am hoping we can get a broad bipartisan vote on this amendment--it would actually put into law the words the President himself spoke in his State of the Union speech when he said U.S. oil consumption would be about 1.8 million barrels per day lower in 2020.

So what my amendment says is, instead of saying there would be a 1.8 million reduction by 2020, let's try to shoot for a 1-million-barrel- per-day reduction by 2013, which is just about the equivalent--a little different goal but you could argue an equivalent goal. The benefit and beauty of this amendment is that it does not tie the President's hands, but it gives him great flexibility in how to achieve the goal he has outlined.

There are any number of reasonable and simple measures the President could adopt that would help us to consume a less significant amount of oil and reduce taxes on the American people, increase our national security, improve our environment, and create jobs. It almost sounds too good to be true, but it is true.

We are not mandating a specific approach, which is the beauty of it, because the approach some have argued for I have actually disagreed with and want to give the President great flexibility but hold to this important goal.

There are any number of ways we could do that. The President could consider renewable fuels standards. A different approach could save 175,000 barrels of oil per day by 2013. Weatherizing of homes under credit enhancements or encouragement or new techniques that some local and State governments have found very helpful could save 80,000 barrels per day. Air traffic improvements, just simple improvements in the way and timing of our airplanes taking off and landing, which can be increased effectively by additional technologies, could save 50,000 barrels of oil per day. As to reducing truck idling, there are several new technologies being developed, employing scientists and engineers and putting Americans to work developing these new kinds of technologies which make the engines more efficient. They don't have to idle or, at the idling stage, don't use as much oil. That could save 50,000 barrels of oil a day. Just replacing tires, using our tires and keeping them filled with air as opposed to flat, new technology regarding the tires could save money.

The point of this list--and I could go on because I could speak about 30, 40, or 50 known actions that could be taken by the President in this realm without dictating exactly how the savings would occur--is to illustrate the plethora of choices where he could go to achieve these savings.

The amendment I offer today with Senators Alexander, Bingaman, Specter, and Collins is a clear and reasonable objective for oil savings. It will reduce our dependence on oil.

Let me show a couple of examples of the way the President could achieve these goals, some of which we have already passed on the Senate floor. Ethanol is now a part of this bill. There were some Members who disagreed with the ethanol fuels standard. I actually supported, along with Senator Daschle, Republicans and Democrats, that new standard. This will save oil consumption in the country. The President would have that option. In addition, I talked about the tire savings, replacement tires with the appropriate rules and regulations could save us 270,000 barrels of oil. And finally, the idling engines, this is a visual to show that with some new technologies to keep our airplanes flying and spending less time on the ground and more time in the air, which passengers would appreciate--believe me, as a frequent flier myself, if we could just keep our airplanes flying and keep them from idling; there are new technologies helping to do this--we could save oil.

In the past, we have focused the debate on just one way of saving oil which was directed at our transportation sector. My amendment does not direct these savings at the transportation sector, although I acknowledge that the transportation sector is the largest user of oil. This amendment provides flexibility. It sets a realistic goal that matches the President's, basically the equivalent of the President's own goals. And I think it would create, if adopted, a tremendous balance in the bill because again we have increased opportunities for production. We have given incentives for more domestic production. But that has to be coupled with Senator Bingaman's leadership on energy efficiency and savings to reduce our consumption of oil as we promote in the appropriate ways over the appropriate timeframe the use of other alternative sources of energy.

I offer the amendment in good faith. There will be Members who will speak hopefully for the amendment. Hopefully we can pass it by a good margin to show we are indeed serious about a balanced energy policy which promotes in the right ways domestic production but also oil savings.

I will ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a Business Week article that had a great impact with me as I read it, ``Taming the Oil Beast.'' It is time, since the business community realizes we can and should get smart about oil, that we do so. I think this is a very good amendment about getting smart about oil because it sets a goal of reduction, but it gives the President and his departments flexibility as to how this would work.

I would like to submit that for the Record because it would serve as a basis for the offering of the amendment today.

I would also like to reference an article by the Concerned Scientists Association, over 2,000 scientists who have written a paper, very illustrative, encouraging action on this subject. I say that because some of our brightest minds, some of the best scientists in the country are thinking along these lines and fully support this amendment to save 1 million barrels of oil. Perhaps we can save more. I would actually be open to saving more. If someone wants to offer an additional amendment, I would consider voting for it. But I am certain this is something we can accomplish. The President himself outlined this as a goal. The President's own budget that he laid down cited as a goal the equivalent, basic goal of what I am offering.

We have voted any number of times in the Senate and have come very close to reaching this goal. So while some may argue that we should try to save more, I think this is an amendment that can pass, that can get us moving in the right direction. I submit both of these from a business perspective, from an environmental perspective for the Record, to substantiate the value of the amendment.

I see my colleague from Tennessee on the floor who has probably come to add his good words as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to print the document I referenced.

Reserving the right to object, I have a question. Does the Senator think it would be possible to do that before lunch? I think my colleague would probably only need 30 minutes for our debate, equally divided between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk. We will be voting shortly on the Landrieu-Domenici-Specter-Alexander-Bingaman-Collins- Schumer-Feingold oil savings amendment. It is a very reasonable approach to an extremely serious problem. That problem is, unless we make some adjustments--and the time to make those adjustments is now-- to our policy regarding the consumption of oil, we will be seriously increasing, as opposed to decreasing, our dependence on foreign oil and hurting the American economy and taxing American citizens and businesses unnecessarily.

The amendment has been developed by many of us--Democrats and Republicans--and it is based on lots of good work. Two issues I pointed out earlier this morning in the debate are in a lengthy article recently published by Business Week--not a liberal magazine by any stretch, a middle-of-the-road business organization that argues that we need to get smart about oil.

As a Senator from an oil-producing State, let me say I agree 100 percent. We like to produce oil. We are proud to produce oil. But we know it is in the interest of our State in the short, intermediate, and long run to have greater supply, a diversity of supply of fuels, and not be overreliant. Why? Because it puts our economy, our industrial base at risk.

I also mentioned earlier today the statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, over 60,000 scientists and citizens working together to come up with some proposals for reducing our dependence on oil, and they are clearly outlined in these articles and these papers.

What this amendment simply does--submitted on behalf of those I mentioned--is give the President all the flexibility he needs in his administration but to reach very specific goals. This amendment, when adopted, will save 1 million barrels of oil a day by the year 2013, which is equivalent to the President's own goals, but it will put this in law in the underlying Energy bill.

I propose this amendment to the Senate for its careful consideration and hope we will get a broad vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to add some remarks, as well as other cosponsors who may be in the Chamber.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

How much more time remains under the unanimous consent?

I would like to have 1 minute to close and then turn to one of the original cosponsors, the Senator from Tennessee, who may want to add. Let me again thank the chairman and ranking member for their able help because without their support, this amendment would not have been possible. We worked on many different approaches, several different drafts. Finally, we did come upon a way that sets a very clear goal.

I would agree with Senator Specter, it is somewhat modest, but it is a compromise. It is a clear goal. It is an attainable goal. It is a reachable goal. It gives the President and the administration the flexibility they need to do it in a way that is most helpful to this economy. It will create jobs, reduce taxes that people pay because of the price of oil and energy, and it gives the flexibility necessary to come up with a smart approach to this very serious problem.

I yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 38 years ago. I am speaking of the promise to build and complete a network of highways through the Appalachian region known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the measure to reauthorize the Federal- aid Highway Program, one of the most important, if not the most important, pieces of legislation which will be considered during this Congress. The Federal-aid Highway Program is at the very core of the Federal infrastructure investment exercise.

On September 30 of last year, our very capable Federal Highway Administrator, Ms. Mary Peters, testified before the Committee on Environment and Public Works on the condition and performance of our National Highway System. The Administration's Conditions and Performance Report has

again reminded us that a great deal more needs to be invested in our infrastructure if we are not to fall further and further behind in stemming the deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges and alleviating congestion on our nation's roads.

At the September 30 hearing, Administrator Peters testified that, even in the wake of the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. An investment in our highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion will be necessary simply to maintain the current inadequate conditions of our highway network, where more than one in four of our nation's bridges are classified as deficient.

Having served as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have sought to do my part by championing the highest level of Federal highway investment for all fifty States that is possible under our budget constraints. Earlier this year, I am pleased to report that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. And just last month, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective Chairman and Ranking Member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2004 that boosted funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor.

While serving in the other body, I had the great privilege of casting my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate highway System back in 1958. However, in 1964, it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian Region due to the extremely high cost associated with building Highways through Appalachia's rugged topography. As a result, the construction of the interstates would have had the detrimental effect of drawing passengers and freight, and the accompanying economic benefits, away from the Appalachian Region.

In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian Region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains. These roads are still, more often than not, two-lane roads that are squeezed into very limited rights-of- way. They are characterized by low travel speeds and long travel distances and are often built to inadequate design standards.

One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower- order roads has deteriorated.'' It appears that the pattern of road conditions is beginning to mirror the distribution of wealth in our country, whereby the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation is most pertinent when you consider the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System.

We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to many other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region are still waiting for the Federal Government to live up to its promise, made some 38 years ago, to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete and I regret to observe that my home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian Region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic.

The rationale behind the completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less sound today than it was in 1964. Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack timely road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor road access to major employment centers. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 recently completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21.

The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System had been limited to uncertain and inconsistent general fund appropriations. By provding the States of the Appalachian Region with a consistent and predictable source of funds to move forward on its uncompleted ADHS segments, TEA-21 served to reinvigorate our efforts to honor the promise made to the people of the Appalachian Region.

As is made clear in the Cost to Complete Report, this initiative has been a great success. States are making greater progress toward the completion of the system than they have in any five-year segment in recent memory. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and we have successfully brought down the cost to complete the system by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds.

Back when we were debating TEA-21, some questions were asked as to how committed the States would be to completing the unfinished segments to the Appalachian Development Highway System. I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds.

According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation.

The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in federal infrastructure investment over six years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount.

Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to

invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Appalachian Region.

The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads.

It is time for this Congress, in concert with the Administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS almost 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system.

I am very pleased that this Administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress.

Completion of a new highway bill will be a mammoth task for this Congress. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian Region, but across our entire country.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will provide the necessary incentives to improve State efforts in the use of recycled materials in highway construction and maintenance. The use of recycled materials in highways is an established process in certain parts of the United States, with some States using recycled materials on a regular basis. These materials include fly ash, bottom ash, rubber products from old tires, and reprocessed concrete and asphalt pavements. Less commonly used recycled commodities include glass and plastic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has recently approved specifications for the use of biomass, including small diameter timber, providing an additional avenue for use of recycled material. The list of accomplishments is impressive, but its application is limited. Many States could do much more with the use of recycled materials in their highway systems.

Challenges faced by States in the use of recycled material in highways are attributed to several factors. Some State Departments of Transportation are unaware of the different types of recycled materials that are available in today's construction industry. Others do not have the technical expertise to take advantage of the broad range of recycled materials and techniques. Some may not have developed the necessary procurement infrastructure to include the use of recycled materials in highway construction.

To assist States in overcoming these obstacles and to provide necessary incentives for the expansion of this economically and environmentally viable practice, I am introducing the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a recycled roads incentive grant program to encourage the use of recyclable material in the construction of Federal-aid highways by States and Indian tribes. The program will provide two types of grants. The first type, which is funded up to $125,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use in employing a coordinator to promote the use of recyclable material in Federal-aid highway construction. The second type, which is funded up to $1,400,000 per year, will be for a State or Indian tribe to use to carry out projects and activities to promote the expanded use of recycled material in Federal-aid highway construction and maintenance. Total funding for both grants is $123,525,000 per year.

The case for expanded use of recycled materials in road construction is clear. Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Director of the University of New Hampshire Recycled Materials Resource Center, from an article entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' published in the professional journal Civil Engineering, states the case well: ``Why should we as a society continue to dispose of materials that may have inherent engineering value and suitable environmental properties and continue to rely on nonrenewable natural resources in constructing the U.S. infrastructure? Indeed, these materials may become increasingly deserving of consideration as we tackle deteriorating infrastructure problems in the United States. And the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural materials may provide additional environmental benefits through better performance and lower cost because there would be less need to mine, process, and transport traditional materials.

``Applications for recycled materials within the highway environment include both bound and unbound uses: asphalt pavements, portland cement concrete pavement, granular bases and subbases, stabilized bases, embankments, structural fills, flowable fills, soil cover and erosion control, and appurtenances. Materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement, RAP, are widely recycled using both in-place and off-site recycling methods. More than 45 States use RAP. The National Asphalt Paving Association reported in April 2000 that RAP has one of the highest recycling rates in the United States--close to 80 percent. About 73 million tons are recycled each year, saving the taxpayers about $300 million annually.''

The example of RAP is one of our best success stories in the use of recycled materials in roads. However, there is much more that can be done. As Dr. Eighmy explains, ``. . . the number of states that use recycled materials varies significantly, as do the approaches states take in conducting beneficial use determinations, particularly on less traditional materials. There is a general sense that states with higher industrial activities use more of the resulting by-products. . . . There also appears to be a relation between a state's

commitment to recycling and the maturity of the beneficial use program in that state.''

The Federal Highway Administration produced a policy on recycled materials in February of 2002, which strongly encourages the use of existing recyclable materials in highway construction and maintenance. As stated in the policy, ``Recycling presents environmental opportunities and challenges, which, when appropriately addressed, can maximize the benefits of reuse. The use of most recycled materials poses no threat or danger to the air, soil, or water. Furthermore, careful design, engineering and application of recycled materials can reduce or eliminate the need to search for and extract new, virgin materials from the land.

``The engineering feasibility of using recycled materials has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term performance testing and analysis. Significant advances in technology over the past decade have increased the types of recycled materials in use and the range of their applications. When appropriately used, recycled materials can effectively and safely reduce cost, stave time, offer equal or in some cases, significant improvement to performance qualities, and provide long-term environmental benefits.''

The Federal Highway Administration policy is supported by both science and a common sense approach to the needs of building and maintaining our national highway system. This bill provides the necessary incentives to expand these beneficial recycling practices, and increase the associated environmental and engineering impacts.

In addition, this legislation was developed in consultation with several stakeholders from the Federal and state governments, and non- governmental organizations. The State of New Mexico, and the non-profit organizations Environmental Defense and the Surface Transportation Policy Project have provided letters expressing their support for this legislation.

I ask all Senators to support the Recycled Roads Act of 2003. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate his bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I would also like to thank Jeff Steinborn from my office in Las Cruces, New Mexico for his diligent work in developing the initial concept for this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from September 2001 professional society journal Civil Engineering entitled ``The Road to Reuse'' by Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, the February 2002 Federal Highway Administration policy on recycled materials, and letters of support from the State of New Mexico, Environmental Defense, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity or IMPACT Bill that Senator Frist has introduced with myself and Senators Dodd, DeWine, Clinton, Warner, Murray, Lugar, Landrieu, and Sessions. This is a bill that is critical in this era of chronic disease, as it addresses the mounting public health concerns of obesity, overweight, eating disorders, and their related diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Approximately 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation today are overweight or obese. These individuals have a significantly greater risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke than their healthy weight peers. Another 5 to 10 percent of Americans are suffering from eating disorders that can also manifest themselves in a number of physical and psychological illnesses including heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney failure, depression, anxiety, and suicide. Unfortunately, these rates of overweight, obesity, and eating disorders are rising in both adult and child populations. Since obesity is a health problem that disproportionately impacts medically underserved populations, it is rapidly increasing the medical burden on these already overburdened populations.

The economic implications of the obesity epidemic are equally disturbing. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is now 117 billion dollars--exceeding the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. These costs will only continue to climb unless we make a concerted effort to stem this dangerous tide by initiating primary and secondary prevention programs.

It is this conclusion that led the United States Surgeon General to issue a Call to Action listing the treatment and prevention of obesity as a top national priority. It is this conclusion that has led Secretary Thompson to implement the Steps to a Healthier US initiative. And it is this reality that makes passing the IMPACT bill a critical step towards improving our nation's future health and well-being.

Obesity and eating disorders are complex diseases and as such require comprehensive multidisciplinary solutions. IMPACT aims to move us toward those solutions by addressing these diseases on a number of levels. First, it aims to prepare the health care community to deal with obesity from prevention to diagnosis to intervention by adding obesity, overweight, and eating disorders to the list of priority conditions to be addressed in the health professions Title VII training grants.

Second, IMPACT supports community-based solutions to increase physical activity and improve nutrition on a number of levels. It provides funding for demonstration projects in communities, schools, health care organizations, and other qualified entities that promote fitness or healthy nutrition. It authorizes the CDC to collect fitness and energy expenditure information from children. It directs AHRQ to review any new information relating to obesity trends among various sub-populations and include such information in its health disparities report. It allows states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money for community education on nutrition and increased physical activity. It instructs the Secretary to report on what research has been done in the area of obesity, what has been learned from this research, and what future research should be conducted. And finally, it asks the secretary to report on the effectiveness of the Youth Media Campaign in changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity.

IMPACT is supported by a wide variety of public and private organizations. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity or NANA, an organization including more than 250 national, state, and local organizations and the single largest coalition in the U.S. dedicated to promoting healthy eating and physical activity and reducing obesity states, ``NANA strongly supports your efforts to reduce obesity and improve eating and activity habits in the U.S. through the IMPACT bill.'' Other organizations that have stated their support include the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Council for States and Territorial Epidemiologists, the Society for Nutrition Education, and the American Dietetic Association.

This legislation is an excellent first step in the fight for improved health, but it is not the only step we must take. We need to assist our schools in providing healthy nutrition options and expanding physical activity programs. We need to grow the workforce so that people have access to the healthcare professionals they need to prevent, diagnose, and treat obesity and eating disorders. We need to look at Medicare and Medicaid and insure that they provide the services necessary to help people prevent and treat obesity and its complications so that we reduce the burden of these diseases in these vulnerable populations. And we need to promote research in the areas of obesity prevention and treatment so that we can offer people better and more effective interventions in the future. These are not small goals but they are critical to our nation's health. I will continue to work on additional legislation that will take the next steps toward addressing these and other related concerns.

For today, I would like to ask all of my colleagues to join me in taking this very important first step toward reducing obesity and eating disorders by supporting this important legislation. By passing this bill we can truly IMPACT the health of our nation.

Mr. President, will the Chair please state the unanimous consent now before us.

Mr. President, first, briefly, the Dorgan amendment to put 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020, with the requisite fueling infrastructure, is one that is going to help grow our economy, make our economy stronger. The amendment by Senator Landrieu and others to cut down on the use of oil by a million barrels a day also is going to help improve our economy by making us focus on things such as ethanol, for example, alternative fuels, renewable energy and, of course, along with the Dorgan amendment, fuel cell vehicles. It all has to do with making us more energy independent, and that has to do with growing our economy. The more we continue to send our hard-earned dollars out of the country for the energy we need, the less dollars we are going to have to rebuild our economy here at home.

Yesterday, I attended a hearing Senator Dorgan had that was devoted to the question of our economy. The question was: Will the Bush economic plan create jobs?

Well, I think throughout the hearing what became clear was that the Bush economic plan will not create jobs, unfortunately. The plan advocated by the majority rewards their friends and supporters with large tax cuts but will do very little to create jobs. Many respected economists warned of this months ago, but Republicans and the administration paid them no heed.

Unfortunately, it is not only experts who believe this prediction; history gives the same warning. These trickle-down economic policies have been tried before, and they have failed before. In 1981, Congress passed massive tax cuts for the rich, just like we did here. Then Director of OMB David Stockman called it a ``riverboat gamble.''

Well, it was a gamble. Within 2 years, following the 1981 supply side, trickle-down tax bill, we lost 1.4 million jobs. In 2001, the Bush administration tried it again. They passed the first round of massive tax cuts. And guess what. We lost 2 million jobs. As all major newspapers reported this weekend, the national unemployment rate is now at 6.1 percent, its highest level in 9 years.

Despite these two previous losing gambles, the President and the majority party in Congress decided to give it a third try last month. I think we ought to call the tax bill that was passed and sent to the President the ``Bill Bennett betting bill'' because it is going to have the same effect on our country that Bill Bennett's gambling addiction had on him. It cost him, as I understand it, lost millions. It is going to cost our economy lost billions.

But in the midst of it all, the wealthiest Americans will have massive tax breaks. In fact, on average, those Americans making over $1 million a year are going to receive a tax cut of $93,000 a year. They are going to have a great time. Unfortunately, who is going to pay the bill? Well, it will be paid by the rest of us, especially the younger generation--those now going through college, going out to make their way in life. They will be saddled with a huge, new debt.

As pointed out on the editorial pages of the Des Moines Register this weekend, these irresponsible policies will create pressure for higher State and local taxes, tuition hikes at State colleges and universities, rising health care costs to those lucky enough to have insurance, and further cuts to important initiatives.

The wealthiest in America got more than their share under this tax bill, but the folks in the middle class pay the bills. By contrast, the United States took a fiscally responsible approach in the 1990s. In 1993, Congress passed a budget to grow the economy, create jobs. In the 2 years following that passage, 6.4 million jobs were created. That plan put us on a path not only toward the lowest levels of unemployment in memory, but also to balanced budgets, the largest projected budget surpluses ever.

I find it most remarkable and disheartening that at the very time when it is obvious that economic policies should seek to stimulate demand, stimulate new jobs, the majority party opposes those things that would stimulate the economy the most, such as increasing the child credit for working families making under $26,000 a year.

Well, the Democratic priority may yet prevail, as it did in the Senate last week. I hope it does. But further stimulus, such as putting people directly to work, building new schools, roads, and bridges, communications systems, upgrading our water and our waste water systems, making sure we weatherize homes all over America, will also save us on imported fuel. These are the things we can do now that will put people to work now. But the majority party says no.

I also fear that their policies will lead to exploding Government debt. On the same day we passed this ``Bill Bennett betting bill''-- that is what I call the tax bill--the debt limit was increased by an amount equivalent to putting an additional $3,500 on the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America--$3,500 on the credit card of every man, woman, and child in America--to pay for this ``Bill Bennett betting bill.''

Most of us are aware that the real cost to the Treasury of this recent tax cut will be higher than advertised because the bill used gimmicks and tricks to stay within some nominal budget limit. The Speaker of the House was quoted as saying the real cost will be a trillion dollars, at a time when our exploding deficit is approaching $500 billion for this year alone. Well, with typical British clarity, the Financial Times wrote on May 23, the day the tax bill passed: On the management of fiscal policy, the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum.

The result, as this administration is well aware, is that it will put pressure on Social Security and Medicare. These programs are targeted by the administration for reforms, which means privatizing Medicare and Social Security. We are going to have a debate here, I assume, in the Senate in the coming weeks on how we are going to provide prescription drug benefits under Medicare. But as I see the Medicare bill progressing and developing, it is nothing more than a shell, a subterfuge to move toward the privatization of Medicare, which, of course, has been the Republican Party's dream for many years. Don't take my word for it. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Medicare ought to wither on the vine. The third ranking Republican in the Senate, my friend from Pennsylvania, said the Medicare benefit should be phased out.

So make no mistake, when we are debating the Medicare bill coming up, we have to get out of the weeds. What they are really talking about is taking the first step toward privatizing Medicare. The President's own press secretary was quoted in the story:

There is no question that Social Security and Medicare are

going to present future generations with a crushing debt

burden unless policymakers work seriously to reform those

programs.

You pass a tax cut for the richest in the country that the Speaker says is going to cost us a trillion dollars, and then you say we are going to have a lot of pressure on Social Security and Medicare because the money will not be there for them, so now we have to reform them, which is their way of saying privatize them. I hope we now understand the picture: A tax cut for the wealthiest, huge debts for the rest, immense pressure on Social Security and Medicare; therefore, you have to privatize them; turn them over to Wall Street. That is where we are heading.

Exploding deficits and the debt will act like a cap on our economy. It will increase interest rates when the economy does begin to recover. It will undermine confidence. We need to create jobs in the short term, but we need to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, to take care and protect the retirement security and health needs of seniors. We need to change course. The course set by this administration will only lead to further deficits, further debts piling up on our kids and grandkids, economic stagnation, importing more oil from abroad--which is why I am such a strong supporter of the Landrieu amendment and the Dorgan amendment.

I am afraid the administration may be opposed to these amendments, just as they are opposed to a sound rational means of getting our economy moving again. As I said, the Federal Government can be a great instrument, doing it in a fiscally responsible manner that actually provides the basis for further private sector growth in our country.

I was listening to former Congressman Jack Kemp, an old friend of mine of long standing, go on and on about how we need to make sure we have more money in the private sector for investments. I understand that, and that is a legitimate argument, but what about the need for societal investments? What about the need for investing in human capital? What about the need for investing in education? You can give all the tax breaks you want to the richest in this country and the corporations. Are they going to turn around and invest in higher teacher pay, better teacher training? Are they going to invest in rebuilding and modernizing schools all over America? There is no return on that capital, at least not in the short term and not in a way that would accrue to the bottom line of a company.

As we all know, that kind of an investment accrues to our national economy. Rebuilding our schools all over America--this is something that is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $180 billion. Think of the jobs it would create. When you give someone an extra dollar for consumption right now in our society, they may buy a new shirt, but that shirt may be made in Malaysia, Thailand, or India. They may buy a new TV set, but that TV set sure is not made in America, or a stereo not made in America. They may buy a new car. Maybe that car is not made in America. To be sure, some of that money does fall out in this country because we have people selling those items, storing them, and shipping them. But the bulk of it could go outside the country.

If, however, you make a societal investment in building a new school, all of the workers are in America. Almost all of the materials used from the lighting to the heating to the wallboard to the sheetrock-- everything, building materials--almost all, I would not say all--almost all are made in America. Not only do you put people to work, you build something of a lasting nature that provides for a strong foundation for the private sector in America.

Take the issue of weatherization. We could save huge amounts of oil and natural gas each year simply by weatherizing homes, and I do not mean just in the North where it gets cold, but I mean in the South where it gets hot in the summertime. Guess what, these are not jobs that take a lot of training. These are jobs we could fill with unemployed people right now. We can put them to work weatherizing homes all over America.

What do we get? We get immediate job creation. We use materials basically that are made in this country. And we get something out of it that is going to help us: more fuel-efficient homes of low-income people who will not be using their money to pay high heating bills or cooling bills to pay for imported oil.

Yet, for some strange reason, we cannot seem to do that here. But, boy, we can sure give billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest in our society.

I will have more to say about this in the weeks ahead. There is another pathway--that is my point--there is another pathway to economic growth and jobs in our country, to which this administration has turned a blind eye, by investing in the veins and arteries--the roads and bridges, the highways, the sewer and water systems, the schools, the education, the scientific research, the mathematical research, the physics research, the chemistry research, the medical research--that will set the stage for future economic growth and prosperity in our country.

That will not come about by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy or business tax breaks. It comes about by us in the Congress of the United States fulfilling our responsibility to pass tax bills and energy bills that are responsible, that are commonsense, and that will lay this kind of secure foundation for the future. That is why I support the Landrieu amendment so strongly, because it will start to do that, and so will the Dorgan amendment that has been set aside. These are commonsense approaches. These are the programs we should be doing for our economy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.