A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Quinoline, 6 ethoxy 1,2 dihydro 2,2,4 trimethyl.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
April 5, 2006
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
April 5, 2006
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
April 5, 2006
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about S. 2541 on the floor
DF
MC
TL
AS
KC+19
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about S. 2541 on the floor
I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as we all know, this budget cuts a score of critical domestic programs: food for women and infants; community development block grants for cities, which cities use…
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, as we all know, this budget cuts a score of critical domestic programs: food for women and infants; community development block grants for cities, which cities use for vital purposes; and health and education programs for children. That is just a few. It cuts Medicaid by $15 billion over 5 years. It zeros out reimbursements to States and counties of the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. It is an unfunded mandate in that regard. Yet this budget contains $41.3 million for nuclear weapons initiatives including $8.5 million for a nuclear program that scientists say is impossible to achieve.
The seriousness of the issue and the clear intent of this administration to renew funding this year for this nuclear initiative that was zeroed out by the Congress last year compel me to come to the floor today.
President Bush's fiscal year 2006 budget calls for $8.5 million, including $4 million for the Department of Energy and $4.5 million for the Department of Defense, for the research and development of a nuclear bunker buster, a 100-kiloton weapon called the robust earth nuclear penetrator. The purpose of the research is to determine whether a missile casing on a 100-kiloton warhead can survive a thrust into the earth and take out a hardened and deeply buried military target without spewing millions of cubic feet of radioactive debris into the atmosphere. Scientists know that the laws of physics will not allow that to happen.
It includes $25 million to lower the Nevada test site time-to-test readiness from the current 24 to 36 months to 18 months. This sends a clear signal of an urgent move to begin underground nuclear testing as soon as possible. This is despite the fact that our country has had a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992. We have had it for more than 13 years.
It also contains $7.8 million for a so-called modern pit facility. This is a facility to build 450 new pits. These are the nuclear triggers for nuclear weapons, the shells in which the fissile material is contained and detonated. This is 450 new pits a year, some of which would be designed for new nuclear weapons.
Currently the United States has approximately 15,000 warheads. Under the Moscow Treaty, the United States is to decrease its strategic nuclear force to 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012. To maintain a 2,200-warhead force at replacement level--and this is important--we would only need to build 50 pits a year, not 450 which is called for in this budget. So why build a new facility unless there are plans underway to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?
Perhaps because the explosion and use of nuclear weapons took place at the end of World War II, we forget what it is like. I hope people will look at this and see what it is like. This is Hiroshima. This is at the end of World War II. This is a 15-kiloton nuclear weapon, not a 100-kiloton nuclear weapon. This is incomprehensible to me. This is what the Enola Gay dropped on Hiroshima. It cleared bare 4 square miles. It killed immediately 90,000 people. It caused hundreds of thousands of people to die of radiation sickness. Again, why fund this program?
Congress made a strong statement last year. We took out the appropriations for these new nuclear weapons. This defunding was made possible by the leadership of Representative David Hobson, the chairman of the House Appropriations Energy Committee, who was successful, with our support, in eliminating $27.5 million in funding for this 100- kiloton nuclear bunker buster and $9 million for the advanced weapons concepts initiative. This is a fallacious concept of creating low yield tactical nuclear weapons, under 5 kilotons, to use on a battlefield no less. Who would ever want to send their sons and daughters to any war where the battlefield had nuclear weapons? It also eliminated funding to lower the time-to-test readiness at the Nevada test site to 18 months and limited funding for the Modern Pit Facility to $7 million.
Congress spoke last year. We said: We will not approve appropriations for this program. And yet once again those appropriations have crept into this budget.
I will take a few minutes to make that evident to Members of the Senate. Last year was a consequential victory for those of us who believe very deeply--and I might say passionately--that the United States will not be safer because of this program and that the United States sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world by reopening the nuclear door and beginning the testing and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.
This year, our message is clear: Don't reopen this nuclear door. Those of us who are appropriators will once again try to remove this funding from the budget.
I am so disappointed to learn that the administration has requested funding again this year for a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster, to lower the time-to-test readiness at the Nevada test site to 18 months, and to fund a modern plutonium pit facility that could produce 450 new plutonium pits a year when only 50 are needed.
There should be no doubt that this is the Secretary of Defense's program. He is determined to get it funded. It is that Secretary who requested the Secretary of Energy to place $4 million in the energy budget and $4.5 million in the defense budget. This is very clever. In this way Secretary Rumsfeld hopes to get it done in the defense budget, if he can't through energy appropriations.
I ask that the Senate know that the development of a 100-kiloton robust nuclear earth penetrator is simply not possible without spewing millions of tons of radioactive material and killing large numbers of people.
Secondly, the development of new nuclear weapons will only undermine our antiproliferation efforts and will make our Nation less safe, not more safe.
And thirdly, as a nation, we are sending the wrong message, a message that will only encourage nuclear proliferation by others. In fact, it already has.
The bottom line: There is simply no such thing as a clean or usable 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster that could destroy a hardened and deeply buried military target without spewing radiation.
Consider this: A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon, detonated 25 to 50 feet underground, would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. Given the insurmountable physics problems associated with burrowing a warhead deep into the earth, you would need a weapon with more than 100 kilotons of yield to destroy an underground target at a depth of 1,000 feet. Yet the maximum feasible depth a bunker buster can penetrate is about 35 feet. At that depth, a 100-kiloton bunker buster would scatter 100 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the atmosphere.
There is no known missile casing that can survive a 1,000-foot thrust into the earth to avoid overwhelming and catastrophic consequences. That is not me saying this, that is science saying this.
Let me give you the words of the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, if you don't trust me. At the March 2, 2005, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher asked Ambassador Linton Brooks the following question:
I just want to know, is there any way a [robust nuclear
earth penetrator] of any size that we would drop will not
produce a huge amount of radioactive debris?
The answer, according to the Ambassador:
No, there is not.
When Congresswoman Tauscher asked him how deep he thought a bunker buster could go, using modern scientific concepts--in other words, here we get to the missile casing--he said:
. . . a couple of tens of meters maybe. I mean certainly--I
really must apologize for my lack of precision, if we in the
administration have suggested that it was possible to have a
bomb that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. I don't
believe that--I don't believe the laws of physics will ever
let that be true.
So here we have the administration saying what we who have opposed this program from the start have said. The laws of physics will never allow the development of a ``clean'' 100-kiloton robust nuclear earth penetrator.
Again, simply stated, there is no casing that will withstand a 1,000- foot thrust into the earth--the depth at which a spewing of radioactivity might be contained. Such an admission begs the question: Why are we even spending a dime on this research? Or as Secretary Rumsfeld said to me in a Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing with a shrug, ``Oh, this is just a study.''
Do I believe that answer? Absolutely not. This has never been about a study. It has been about the intent of the administration to develop new nuclear weapons, and I have followed this for a long time now.
This year, this budget funds $8.5 million. In fiscal year 2007, it increases to $17.5 million, including $14 million for the Department of Energy and $3.5 million for the Pentagon.
While the administration is silent this year on how much it plans to
spend on the program in future years, last year they let it all out. Last year's budget request called for spending $485 million on a 100- kiloton nuclear bunker buster over 5 years, which scientists say is impossible to devise. The laws of physics won't allow it, unless you are going to prepare one that is going to spew tons of radioactivity.
Let me, for a moment, mention the policies underlying this initiative. These policies began in 2002 with the document called the Nuclear Posture Review. That document places nuclear weapons as part of the strategic triad for the first time in our history, therefore, blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons--a very bad policy decision.
Then take National Security Directive 17, which came out later that year, which indicated for the first time in America's history that we would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons--a historic statement. We have never had a no-first-use policy, but we have never said that we would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons. And in National Security Directive 17 we do just that. We say we would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons--again, that is a historic statement--to respond to a chemical or biological attack against certain nations. The Nuclear Posture Review named seven nations against whom we would countenance a nuclear attack. One of those nations legally is a nuclear nation. This is ridiculous and foolish policy, and it jeopardizes the future of all Americans. But what it does also is it encourages other nations to develop their own nuclear weapons, thereby putting American lives and our national security at risk. That is why the North Koreans are moving ahead. They see what we are going to do. They see that we have said we would enter into a first use of nuclear weapons. North Korea is one of the seven nations named. That is what is happening in Iran now. Iran is one of the seven nations named. Other countries are now looking at advanced weapons concepts, based on the fact that we have moved in this direction.
The next nuclear nonproliferation review conference is in May, and it will allow parties to the treaty to measure progress in implementing their obligation and to discuss additional steps to meet the treaty's objectives.
In public statements--this is the hypocrisy--the administration recognizes the importance of the NPT. Last week, President Bush stated that the NPT ``represents a key legal barrier to nuclear weapons proliferation and makes a critical contribution to international security,'' and that ``the United States is firmly committed to its obligations under the treaty.''
If we are indeed serious about strengthening our nonproliferation efforts and increasing international nuclear security, we should lead in reducing nuclear arsenals; we should lead in preventing nuclear proliferation; and we should know that a production of a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster is sheer hypocrisy on our part.
Make no mistake, the rest of the world is watching us and paying close attention to what we do. I believe the United States can take several actions to make better use of our resources and demonstrate our commitment to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people. We have to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at this May 2005 review conference.
This includes supporting tougher inspections to monitor compliance, more effective controls on sensitive technologies, accelerated programs to safeguard and eliminate nuclear weapon usable materials, and agreement that no state may withdraw from the treaty and escape responsibility for prior violations of the treaty.
We should expand and accelerate Nunn-Lugar threat reduction programs. I hear Senator after Senator saying they support the Nunn-Lugar program. We should provide the necessary resources to improve security and take the rest of the Soviet era nuclear chemical and biological weapons arsenal and infrastructure out of circulation.
Third, we should strengthen the ability of the DOE's global threat reduction initiative to secure and remove nuclear weapons usable material from vulnerable sites around the world.
Last year, Senator Domenici and I sponsored an amendment to the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized the Secretary of Energy to lead an accelerated, comprehensive worldwide effort to secure, remove, and eliminate the threat by these materials.
Finally, we should improve--this has to do with the bunker buster-- our intelligence capabilities in relation to underground targets and expand conventional options to put them at risk. Every underground target has entry and exit, has air vents, presents a way to take them out with conventional weapons. That is what we should be doing instead of exploring, doing research and development of a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster, which science says cannot be done without the spewing of millions of tons radiation. History repeats itself.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of Senator Cantwell's amendment to strike the reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution to allow for the opening of the Arctic Refuge.
I am strongly opposed to opening the Alaskan wilderness to drilling for oil. Stated simply we cannot drill our way out of this problem.
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.
Reducing oil consumption is the answer and raising our corporate average fuel economy--or CAFE--standards is the superior route to energy security.
The bottom line is that, according to estimates from the United States Geological Survey, the Arctic Refuge would likely yield less than 10 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil--less than a million barrels of oil per day at peak production, or less than 4 percent of the country's projected daily needs and the oil would not flow for at least 10 years.
In contrast, simply raising average fuel economy standards for sport utility vehicles could save us more than a million barrels per day by 2020. The savings would come sooner than oil from ANWR, and unlike oil from ANWR, the savings would not run out. Raising the standards for all vehicles would reduce even further the amount of oil used in the United States.
The United States contains only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves and only 4 percent of the world population. And yet Americans consume 25 percent of the oil produced worldwide. Almost two-thirds of that oil goes to fuel the Nation's 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.
Drilling in ANWR would not save consumers money because drilling would not decrease the quantity consumed and would not affect the world price of oil.
So, unlike increasing CAFE standards, drilling in ANWR would not significantly increase our energy security, would not fight climate change, and would not save consumers money.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a crown jewel of the National Wildlife Refuge system. It is the only conservation unit in the U.S. encompassing a complete range of arctic ecosystems and serves as critical habitat for caribou, muskox, snow geese, polar bears and other species.
The coastal plain, which proponents of drilling paint as small and relatively insignificant, is the ecological heart of the refuge and the center of wildlife activity.
Developing the coastal plain would threaten the refuge's abundant wildlife. The approximately 130,000 caribou of the porcupine herd rely on the coastal plain as a calving area. One hundred thirty-five species of migratory birds use the coastal plain during the summer.
The coastal plain provides critical habitat for many of the refuge's species.
Drilling would also threaten the traditional livelihoods of the Gwich'in people dependent upon the porcupine caribou for subsistence.
Proponents of drilling would have us risk all of this damage 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.
In short, the refuge's coastal plain is too precious, and contains too little oil, for us to allow drilling to take place.
Increasing fuel efficiency is the better solution.
Future generations will thank us for our foresight in protecting the coastal plain and its wildlife. They will thank us for finding other avenues to increased energy security.
I urge my colleagues to support Senator Cantwell's amendment.
Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in supporting a real pay-as-you-go system in the fiscal year 2006 budget.
This amendment is about restoring fiscal common sense to the budget. It would require 60 votes for tax cuts and mandatory spending increases that increase the deficit.
The current budget proposes a flawed paygo rule that expires in 2008, even though this is supposed to be a 5-year budget. It also includes exemptions and holes that effectively amount to a ``pay-if-you'd-like'' approach, not a bonafide paygo system.
What we're proposing are sensible and responsible guidelines that will reduce the record red ink that we've accumulated in the past 5 years.
The Federal budget outlines not only revenue and spending, but more critically how the Federal Government ranks its programmatic priorities. This budget resolution reveals only a glimpse of the long- term fiscal outlook without telling Americans the hard truth about how tax cuts and spending run amok in Washington.
For example, the budget ignores large expenses such as the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond September 2006, and long-term relief from the alternative minimum tax, which could affect 41 million taxpayers in 2013, if Congress does not act. These are imminent expenses that we would be remiss to omit from the budget. Yet the President excludes the costs from his budget blueprint.
And I haven't even mentioned the upwards of $5 trillion in transitional costs over the next 20 years for the President's Social Security plan.
With regard specifically to paygo in the Budget Committee markup, one of my colleagues noted that a paygo rule that applies only to spending is akin to trying to keep a boat afloat by plugging one hole when, in fact, there are two holes in the boat. And this is precisely the case. That is precisely the fiction that this Budget Resolution promotes.
If made permanent, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will cost the Federal Government $11 trillion over the next 75 years. That's more than three times the shortfall of Social Security over that period. But the President's budget doesn't apply paygo rules to these tax cuts.
Studies show that 25 percent of these tax cuts went to the wealthiest Americans, those with the top 1 percent annual income. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 74 percent of our budget deficits since 2001 have been caused by decreased revenues. Only 26 percent is due to increased spending.
We ought to be honest with ourselves about this fact. In my view, a paygo system that ignores revenues is not a paygo system at all.
If the Senate is sincere about restoring fiscal discipline, then we ought to establish rules that say, ``If your legislation is going to cost money, you've got to pay for it, or get 60 votes.''
I believe that this amendment poses a crucial question to this body: Do we recognize that decreased revenues increase the deficit? I, for one, will not turn a blind eye to the real budget picture.
If we are to balance the budget--as we did during the Clinton administration--we should not do so solely through draconian cuts in critical programs. This budget cuts back on programs for working Americans and local governments that cannot run budget deficits as the Federal Government can.
I do not believe that fiscal responsibility necessarily requires us to shift the financial burden to our towns, cities and States as this budget does through cuts to Medicaid and the Community Development Block Grants, to name just two. As a former mayor, I know the value of these programs in California and throughout the United States.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should not take precedence over the needs of law enforcement, our children, the elderly, and veterans. If my colleagues agree, then I ask that they join me in supporting this amendment.
It is time to get our fiscal house in order, and to do so, we ought to reinstate a true paygo rule.
I ask unanimous consent we move to the Cantwell amendment regarding ANWR and use up that time and recognize the Senator from North Dakota when he returns. Mr. President, I have submitted to the desk…
I ask unanimous consent we move to the Cantwell amendment regarding ANWR and use up that time and recognize the Senator from North Dakota when he returns.
Mr. President, I have submitted to the desk the amendment to strike the language out of the budget that would recognize revenue from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We started this discussion last night with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about why America should not be focusing on drilling in a wildlife refuge, turn down the recognition of this revenue, and focus instead on an energy policy that will put America in better stead, get us off our dependency on foreign oil, reduce pollution, and focus on the technology that will truly make us energy independent.
Many have discussed or seen the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To remind my colleagues, we established this refuge because we believed in protecting the wildlife that existed there--the porcupine caribou herd, the polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, sheep, falcons, migratory birds as shown in this
picture. We wanted to fulfill our international fish and wildlife treaty obligations. Also, we wanted to provide an opportunity for continued subsistence for local residents and we wanted to ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.
These pictures from the refuge show a delicate coastline area in the northern parts of our country. The purpose of designating and protecting the wildlife refuge was because of its unique nature. One of the Episcopalian bishops from Alaska who was here yesterday spoke about the refuge as actual sacred ground and the fact that the preservation of it means so much to many Alaskans as it does to many people throughout America.
But we are here today on what I call a budget end run to recognize revenue in the budget as a way to try and open drilling in ANWR, to open drilling in this pristine wildlife area.
Now, why, if you want to support drilling in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, do you want to try to do it on the budget? My point is, it starts a precedent for opening other areas by simply putting money in the budget. Why not expedite timber sales by simply recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling on the coastal regions of the country by recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling in Yellowstone National Park by recognizing revenues in the budget? It is a bad precedent.
It is a bad precedent for America because if you look at the President's potential U.S. oil and gas plan for America, you can see that the administration has oil plans for all over the country: up in the Northwest in the State of Washington, which I represent; and neighboring States, Oregon and California; along the eastern seaboard; in Florida, significant areas; up in the Great Lakes region. These are all the potential areas that the administration has designated as opportunities for oil drilling.
Do we want to stick in the budget revenue recognizing oil production in these areas and simply subvert the normal process that would allow us to debate and consider whether we should have these oil sources recognized?
This particular Senator agrees with some of the editorials around the country when it says this sets a bad precedent. In fact, there are many newspapers, particularly from coastal regions such as mine that are concerned. Let's go to the St. Petersburg newspaper. It said: So why should Floridians be concerned about the caribou? Obviously, there are no caribou in Florida. But the caribou being driven out of their icy habitat by oil rigs, because of this, for Florida, ``means there, by the grace of Congress, go we.''
That is what the St. Petersburg newspaper is trying to say. If you decide to drill in Alaska and recognize in the budget this revenue, what will stop them from doing this in other parts of the country?
Another Florida newspaper said:
The costs and risks of drilling in the Alaskan refuge
outweigh the benefits. [And] opposition to the drilling off
Florida's coast would be compromised.
So this is not only this Senator saying this, these are people from across the country who are concerned about this process of sticking money in the budget as a way to achieve the goals of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Well, I can tell you, I think opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is the wrong direction for America. It is the wrong direction for America for many reasons. As I said, we have a pristine wildlife area we want to protect. If someone thinks it can coexist, if somehow drilling for oil in this region and the wildlife refuge can coexist, I would like them to think about this.
In the Prudhoe Bay area, we have averaged 500 oil spills a year. From 1972 to 1986, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation reported 23,000 spills of oil and hazardous materials on the Northern Slope. Annual emissions from air pollutants on the Northern Slope include at least 4,000 tons of hydrocarbons, more than 6,000 tons of methane gas, 6,000 to 27,000 tons of nitrogen oxide.
If that is not enough, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife studies have reported that the snowfields around Prudhoe Bay have high concentrations of heavy metals such as zinc, lead, and copper. For some of those chemicals, the nitrogen oxide level is as much as in Washington, DC. And we are talking about just an area in Alaska.
If you think drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge can coexist with the refuge, I would also like to suggest we take a look at the even newer Alaskan oilfields which have significant problems with environmental management.
In February 2000, one oil company was sentenced to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to implement new environmental management programs, and to serve 5 years probation for failure to report illegal dumping of hazardous materials in certain oil wells. They also paid an additional $6.5 million in civil penalties, while its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine.
A 2003 study of by National Academy of Sciences, which studied the cumulative effects of current drilling on the Northern Slope of Alaska, documented significant environmental and cultural effects that have accumulated after three decades of oil development on Alaska's Northern Slope.
So I think it is very foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist, not when we are talking about clean water, not when we are talking about preserving a wildlife habitat, not when we are talking about continuing to preserve what has been called a very unique area of our country.
But there is something I think the Senate needs to understand as we take this vote. This is a good proposal for Alaska, and I don't fault my colleagues for trying to propose this particular proposal. I would much rather, as I said last night, work with my colleagues on a natural gas proposal and provide the resources necessary to build a pipeline and access a significant source of natural gas supply that would help us in America getting off our dependence of oil in general and develop a much cleaner supply for Americans. But there is nothing in this language that guarantees the oil produced in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would even stay in the United States. The oil companies are free to export that oil. So for those who say somehow this is going to affect gas prices--and, believe me, we will not see this oil for 10 years, and it is only a 6-month supply, and it will have a minimal impact on markets--it certainly has no guarantee to have an impact on price or supply in the rest of the U.S. market because the oil drilled in the refuge can be exported.
I also question whether the estimates of money in the budget resolution are even valid, whether the numbers are even correct. That is because current law requires that there be a 90-10 split between revenues that go to Alaska and the Federal Government. This budget resolution supposedly recognizes a 50-50 split, which I do not understand how one gets to that conclusion, because it is not current law. In any case, that split means Alaska residents would get $717 per person per year. So I get why it is a great deal for Alaskans. But it is not a great deal for Americans.
Americans need to move ahead and produce a variety of sources of energy supply. I am going to talk about that in a few minutes, but I want to recognize some of my colleagues who also want to speak.
What we need to recognize is that drilling in the refuge only increases America's reliance on fossil fuel, and that, according to another newspaper editorial in our country, is being recognized by Americans all over. They know that would increase America's reliance on fossil fuels and do little to limit our dependence on imported oil.
That is what the other side would like to say the debate is about, improving our independence. What we should do instead is invest in new technologies and change our strategy. We do not need to open a wildlife refuge and continue to depend on something that we know has a very high chance of polluting the environment and harming the wildlife, but get on to investing in the technology that will diversify our energy supply and give us a secure future.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for 10 minutes.
I yield the Senator an additional 1 minute.
Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
Mr. President, then how much time remains on the ANWR debate for both sides?
Thank you.
Mr. President, if I could take a few moments to point out that this Senator certainly wants America to move forward with the development of new energy supply. In fact, I am saying the whole debate should be about supply and not recognizing revenue in the budget for an ill-conceived project in a wildlife refuge.
We can get as much supply or more by doing the Alaska natural gas pipeline. That natural gas supply would save 6 billion barrels over 10 years; use of off-the-shelf renewables and energy efficiency technologies, 4.9 billion barrels in the next 10 years; increasing use of ethanol in our gasoline, 5.1 billion barrels over 10 years; improving tire inflation and automobile maintenance--you don't have to come up with a new place to drill--5.4 billion barrels; increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards, 10 billion barrels. So we certainly are about supply; we are just for a cleaner supply.
Why are we for a cleaner supply? Because if you look at it, and you compare the various proposals I have outlined with drilling in the Arctic Refuge, you get increased pollution from refuge drilling, increased CO2 levels, you impact Federal lands, and I don't believe you are going to have any immediate impact on our country's energy resources. These other actions I have outlined actually decrease pollution levels. Those are the actions we should be taking, not refuge drilling.
Now, a lot has been said about gasoline and gasoline prices. We ought to be investigating why gasoline prices are so high, not accepting that we are going to have to be more dependent on foreign oil. In fact, a recent attorneys general office statement stated that gasoline producers marked up prices 152 percent between January and March of 2003. In the first 3 months of 2003, average gasoline prices increased 57 cents in California alone.
A trade industry magazine talked about the peculiar incidence of exporting distillate. That is taking our supply and exporting it. What does that do? It decreases the supply in the United States, and it increases the spot market prices at refineries. There is nothing in the budget resolution that guarantees we are going to lower gasoline prices. And there is nothing in the language of the budget resolution that guarantees any supply recovered from the Arctic Refuge will even stay in the United States.
I wish my colleagues would embrace these facts and guarantee that if we are doing to go into a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, at least we should require that we keep whatever oil we produce in the United States for our domestic use. But I doubt they will guarantee that. So now we are talking about drilling in a wildlife area. In doing so, we will increase pollution and not get our country off our foreign oil dependence and certainly not lower gasoline prices any time in the near term.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, information was provided by the President's own economist and energy supply analysts who were asked recently about whether refuge drilling was going to have any impact on oil prices. Even the President's own economist at the Energy Information Administration found that opening ANWR will have negligible impact on prices.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the resolution by the National Congress of American Indians be printed in the Record.
We have heard a lot about tribes in Alaska. I want to point out to my colleagues that the National Congress of American Indians, an organization representing more than 500 tribes across the country, have previously opposed drilling in the wildlife refuge, and that certainly is what we are talking about--a debate of national significance.
I point out that many people in Puget Sound and across the country do believe this isn't going to do anything to meet our country's energy needs. This newspaper article says:
Drilling in the refuge would increase America's reliance on
fossil fuels and do little to limit our dependence on
imported oil.
Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, who has been so outspoken and important to this debate. I thank him for his leadership on this issue.
How much time remains?
As we close debate on the Cantwell amendment, which I hope my colleagues will support, I feel we have had a hearty discussion this morning about what America should do as it relates to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge but, more importantly, what we should also do about planning for America's future.
I point out that today a Gallup poll was released that shows where the American people are. We may be very divided in the Senate, but the American public is consistent in its concern about and interest in conservation. In fact, Americans by a 2-to-1 margin say the United States should emphasize greater consumer conservation over existing energy supplies, rather than production of oil, gas, coal, or other supplies.
Now, that is what the American public wants. That is certainly what people in the State of Washington want. That is certainly what the people in Puget Sound want. I say that because I think they are like many Americans in that they want to reduce CO2 emissions. They want to do something about global warming. They want to do something about diversifying our nation's energy supply. We have great companies in my state that are adding to the Washington economy, and they want to diversify into various energy technologies that will help us in the future.
So, no, the majority of Washingtonians do not want to see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They want to see it protected. In fact, it is the one thing I think they feel most strongly about; that is, they want to lead the way on a new energy economy and show that we can have higher CAFE standards, produce alternative fuels, make a dent in our gasoline use by blending it with ethanol, and get energy conservation plans moving.
But when it comes to gasoline prices, I think they are like every other American, they are darn concerned about the high gasoline prices in America and wonder why they are so high when four refineries are located in the State of Washington. And for a market that was manipulated on electricity prices, and with very little help from the other side of the aisle in getting those market manipulation contracts voided, the Puget Sound economy remains concerned about why the price of gasoline, which is a commodity that is refined so close to home, is the highest price in the country.
Now, there is nothing in the budget resolution language that says that oil produced in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will stay in the United States. That is right, no guarantee at all. The oil will be exported to other countries. So as the President's economist has said, it will have negligible impact on the price of gasoline. To open up a wildlife refuge for a minimal amount of oil, that even the President's economist says will have a negligible effect on price and supply, is an ill-advised plan.
My colleagues have already talked about the pollution and the environmental problems caused by drilling. But I want to point out, America does have a different future. I will work with my colleagues from Alaska on a proposal that is three times the job creation for us and for Alaska--the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
America was smart enough, in the 1970s, to get off our dependence on home heating oil because we decided as a country we could not continue to be held hostage by Middle East oil policy. We had a 35-percent reduction in home heating oil use. It is time to do the same with gasoline, but not by producing more oil, but by changing and focusing on developing alternatives.
We can focus on building a pipeline to capture Alaska's natural gas; it is the equivalent of 6 billion barrels of oil. We can focus on efficiency and renewables. We can focus on ethanol. We can focus on improvements in efficiency of transportation, of tires, and increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars, which some of the speakers on the other side, I should note, do not support a higher automobile fuel efficiency standard. That would be a great way, by reducing the need for 10 billion barrels of oil over the next 10 years, of saving and getting us off of our overdependence.
A young woman who came in to see us yesterday presented us with a tire gauge, and she showed us that if Americans had the right level of inflation in their car's tires it could save over 200,000 barrels of oil a day.
So we have a choice. We have a choice about whether we are going to continue down this road of a fossil-fuel economy to the degree that we are going to say it is even worth it, it is even worth it to go into a wildlife refuge to find oil, or we are going to move our country forward on a new energy plan.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and strike this language from the budget resolution.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I urge Members to support the Cantwell amendment. It is clear what our options are today. We can continue this proposal to try to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, even though Congress previously has said let's not do that and let's preserve the wildlife. We know that the amount of oil generated, according to the President's own economic advisers, will have a negligible impact on oil prices. Maybe that is because there is no guarantee that the revenue collected from this or the oil from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will be kept in America. This oil will be exported, part of international markets, and do nothing to help us get our overdependence on oil off this track and on to the right track.
I urge my colleagues to turn this argument down and to start on an energy future that is about renewables, about conservation, about new energy technologies.
Our legacy on this floor is not going to be a pipeline in Alaska but preserving a wildlife area and getting on with an energy future that America wants and needs.
I have an inquiry. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes she was going to use. I was under the impression that the Senator from Washington had 5 minutes. If she is willing to wait, I ask…
I have an inquiry.
The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes she was going to use. I was under the impression that the Senator from Washington had 5 minutes.
If she is willing to wait, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 10 minutes off the underlying resolution.
If I could, I understand there is a substantial amount of time on the underlying resolution. I was hoping to speak not just on ANWR but also on NIH and Amtrak. I thought it should come off the underlying resolution, not just Amtrak, and I have been sitting here for almost an hour. I thought, with the flow back and forth between supporters and opponents of the amendment, that it would be appropriate I be allowed to speak at this time.
Mr. President, I believe it was my request that is pending.
Let me make a couple of observations. First, whenever Senator Stevens wishes to speak, I will defer to him. Second, since we only have 4\1/2\ minutes of time, I would be willing to take just 4\1/2\ minutes to speak only on ANWR and come back on the other issues at another time.
I amend my request to ask that I be allowed to take this 4\1/2\ minutes if it is off the resolution so I can address this issue.
Parliamentary inquiry. Could I inquire, has Senator Stevens' time already been identified before this 1 o'clock vote?
Has not been----
Mr. President, I am glad I could assist the Chair in clarifying the time at this point. This is a very important issue. It is time, I agree, we should get it resolved. I think it should be resolved with a majority vote. We can argue over the rules as long as we like. But to me, this is a critical issue. It symbolizes what we are going to do about the future in the energy area.
I do not have some beautiful picture I am going to show today. If I were going to show one, I would show one of my four grandchildren. Are we going to have energy production in our country or not? Are we going to continue to put various areas off limits where we cannot have more production? There are some people, I guess, in this institution who think we can conserve ourselves into an energy policy.
We need to produce more oil, more natural gas, more coal with clean coal technology, hydropower, all of it, and have conservation and alternative fuels. And we should produce this oil in Alaska, or natural gas, or whatever it is up there.
When I came to the Senate, I spent some time talking to the experienced hands around here, and I asked about how you deal with different issues. One of the things I was taught by my predecessors here in this institution is you pay attention to the Senators from their State when it is an issue involving their State.
This is an issue that is supported by the two Senators from Alaska, supported by an overwhelming number of people in that State. It is supported by the Native Americans in that State. This is the right thing to do from their standpoint. I do not understand why Senators from Massachusetts and Washington and Maine are trying to dictate what should happen in this area in production that we need as a country. I am absolutely floored by all of this.
I think it is time we consider what is for the good of the overall country and get over all these dire threats of doom of what we might do if we have exploration in this very limited area. And, ladies and gentlemen, it is about jobs. It is about revenue. Why do you think most of the unions are supporting this? They were in my office today saying: We are for this, because they understand it would involve jobs. They understand it would involve more revenue coming into the Federal Treasury. They understand it is about energy independence.
When are we going to learn? The price of a barrel of oil is $54 a barrel. Gasoline is somewhere close to $2 a gallon, in some areas as much as, I think, $2.16 a gallon. Venezuela made it clear recently they would like to cut us off completely. We are dependent on a very volatile area of the world for our oil supply. Probably about 60 percent of our energy needs is supplied by foreign oil.
Even in this remote area of Alaska we are saying we cannot produce more oil and gas. Who is going to lose if we do not have energy sources? We are going to have it in my State. We are going to produce our own oil and natural gas and coal. We are going to have excess power. By the way, if they are willing to pay for it, we will be glad to wheel it up to Pennsylvania and Massachusetts and Connecticut. We will share.
But I will tell you, if we do not have oil and gas and coal to run our powerplants, the electricity is going off. It is time we get serious about this issue. We should vote down this amendment.
I commend Senator Judd Gregg and the Budget Committee for taking this action. I think we should do this if for no other reason than because of support for the Senators, particularly Senator Stevens, who has spent a career trying to do the right thing for Alaska. Who has done more for conservation and environmental issues in Alaska than Senator Ted Stevens? Nobody. He has made every possible plea for this. So I hope we will do it. It is the right thing to do. We should do it in his honor.
I thank my colleagues for giving me this opportunity to vent a little bit. I am amazed at the irresponsibility of this Congress and the previous Congress and the American people to a degree in the energy field. We want it, but we do not want to do anything to produce it. So I hope maybe this will be a sign today, when we vote to defeat this amendment, that we are finally getting serious about more energy production in this country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Amtrak amendment and would use the 1-minute time I believe was just allocated. Is that appropriate parliamentary procedure at this point?
Mr. President, I have a long history of being supportive of Amtrak. I was chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee when we passed the last reauthorization. I have the honor of serving there again this year. I am committed to trying to find a way to get a reauthorization and get a reliable stream of funds for Amtrak so its future can be certain and so this does not have to depend just on annual appropriations.
We are going to get that done. This puts the cart before the horse, before we get a reauthorization. We are going to designate more money for it.
To make matters worse, the $1.2 billion, while it is significant, will just continue the drip, drip, drip of funds for Amtrak but yet not enough for them to do what they need to do in track improvements and capital improvements.
I believe this is the wrong place to do this amendment.
Last but not least, it does it by raising unspecified taxes.
While I support the intent of the Senator from West Virginia and I support Amtrak and I am determined to get this job done, we shouldn't do it in this way at this point.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, we have had this debate before. Here we go again. I think it is an important debate and we need to think very carefully about it. I certainly agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Voinovich that Congress has been spending money recklessly over the past few years. We need to restore fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, this amendment does very little to address that problem.
I cannot help but remember that during the late nineties and the early part of this century, we had a balanced budget for 4 years. We actually had surpluses. How did that happen? There was some fiscal responsibility. We forced President Clinton to join us in a balanced budget amendment in 1997. But we also cut taxes in a way that encouraged growth in the economy. We grew bigger.
That is one thing you need to think about. The economy is showing growth. It was pretty fragile last year, but it continues to show positive signs in terms of production, and unemployment is at 5.4 percent. It should be headed the other way. More people are being hired. There are positives in the economy. I talked to the experts about how did that happen. Part of it happened because we did tax cuts where we let people keep more of their money instead of bringing it to this city and wasting it. We encouraged growth in the economy. We encouraged family tax relief, families with children, research and development, we cut taxes on dividends. We took some actions that made a huge difference. That is how we had balanced budgets and surpluses.
But then, for a variety of reasons, we started spending more and more again. A variety of things happened. First, we got used to having surpluses, so we started spending money, whether we should or should not. We made commitments on Medicare and Medicaid that we should have made, and then the economy started going down. Then, we had 9/11 and we have had all the extra spending for the defense of our country, our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we spent a lot of money on homeland security. We wasted a lot of it, in my opinion. But we are doing a better job and we are doing some things that had to be done. We are going to continue to have to spend money to try to make America safe against terrorists.
But the combination of overspending in the beginning of the century, a falling economy in 2000 and 2001, and 9/11, has led us to the deficits we now have. One of the interesting things to me about this is that the focus is on, by the way, you cannot let people keep more of their money unless you cut spending or raise taxes. The focus should be on how we control spending. Year after year, this administration, previous administrations, and we have spent more and more and more. I will be glad when we get to the point where you cannot raise spending for Amtrak or NIH or anything else that you don't offset in some way. We need fiscal responsibility, but this is not the way to get it, in my opinion.
On the floor this week, there have been amendments offered on the budget--mostly by Democrats, with the complicity of some Republicans occasionally--to add $50 billion more in spending--just so far. By the time the smoke clears this week, there will be amendments that would add probably $200 billion or who knows how much more than what the President budgeted, which is a significant budget; $843 billion is not chicken feed. Then you add entitlements on top of that. So we have a problem.
Here is the real kicker. If we pass this amendment, this is really a tax increase. If we don't have the ability to extend some of these tax cuts that we already passed, we committed to the people--if you ask the experts what would happen if we didn't extend these tax cuts in these critical areas of capital gains and dividends, they would say: We are not worried about that. We have factored that into our economic thinking. You are going to do that.
Well, could we get 60 votes for it? Are we going to do that? Can we be assured we are going to get that accomplished? This would lead to tax increases of $70 billion on working Americans and families with children. That is why I cannot support it. You might say, well, I can go down the list and say one after the other to my colleagues on both sides, Do you think we ought to do something about the AMT tax relief problem, the fact that 9 million Americans are being forced into higher tax brackets because of the AMT that we got into years ago?
Do my colleagues think we should not address that? Why, the Senator from Ohio would say, we are going to have to do that; why, absolutely we are going to do that, and we should do that.
Does this mean we should not have money for the tax extenders for such things as R&D tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit which helps business employ millions of Americans who might not be employed otherwise? Oh, no, everybody says, no, I am for that.
Does this mean my colleagues do not want dollars for small business expensing, which is really a tax increase on small businesses? They are the ones where the jobs are really being created. That is where the real entrepreneurial spirit is. But most people say: No, no, I want to encourage small business, so I would want to extend that.
What about capital gains and dividends? Well, I guess some people in the Senate might say: I do not want to do that; that is the middle income or upper income people. Tell that to the millions of Americans now who do receive dividends, and they are not wealthy Americans, either.
So if we do not extend these, the result is going to be we are going to have a tax increase on millions of these working Americans. It would have a devastating effect on the economic growth that we are encouraging. There would be fewer jobs and even more dependency on the Government.
I have watched it over the years in my own State. Year after year we were one of the poorest States in the Nation. We thought we could spend our way out of poverty. We were not in debt because we had a constitutional amendment that said we could not do it. So we kept trying to spread money out to people, saying that if we keep supporting everybody--one-quarter of the entire population in my State is on Medicaid. Finally, a few years ago, we said: Wait, we are not going to be able to spend our way out of being the poorest State in the Nation. We are going to have to take some aggressive action to have better quality education, better infrastructure. We are going to have to go out there and create jobs, solicit jobs. We are going to have to have tax reform. We are going to have to cut taxes.
What has happened? We are creating jobs. We are not the poorest State in the Nation anymore. We are glad to give that title to another State, maybe South Dakota, West Virginia, or Arkansas. They can fight over that title.
We do not want it. We finally got up off our knees and said: We are tired of being poor. We want to grow the economy. We want our people to have an opportunity to get a good education, have jobs, and create jobs.
That is why we have Nissan, Textron, International Harvester, and FedEx in my State. Northrop Grumman has two different new plants in my State to build unmanned aerial vehicles. That is why Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Eurocopter, and now the newest steel mill in America is in Mississippi, because we quit trying to spend our way out of poverty. We started trying to figure out ways to attract people and create jobs and allow people to make more money, have a decent paying job, and keep more of their own money. Yes, we cut taxes, and we started growing. Hallelujah. We also had tort reform to get these frivolous class action lawsuits under control.
So that is why I think this is totally wrongheaded, goes absolutely in the wrong direction. I hope my colleagues will not fall into this trap. The Finance Committee would have to come up with at least $30 billion probably in revenue raisers over the next 5 years to cover dealing with these tax provisions. We would not really be getting anything for it in return.
Chairman Grassley tells us that if we had to come up with this $30 billion, it would basically max us out because that is the bare minimum we need to prevent a tax increase on Americans without looking at what we need to have some growth in the economy and help working families in America.
This is a responsible budget that we have come up with. We should not put this provision in it. Let me understand this. We want to discourage tax cuts on working people being able to keep their money, and instead we want to force tax increases and spending cuts? I like the spending cuts idea. That is the only part I really heard that I like, but we need to think about what we are doing.
Finally, maybe we can begin to top out this spending orgy that we have been involved in and begin to come down. By the way, everybody on the floor, we are all screaming and hollering: Oh, my goodness, you do not mean agriculture, do you? Oh, wait, you are talking about some of our beloved education programs? No, we did not mean that. You do not have money for Amtrak, you do not have enough money for shipbuilding, you do not have enough money for highways?
Everybody ought to have to ante up a little bit. The problem is not tax cuts and tax relief for working Americans and families with children; the problem is we cannot control our insatiable appetite for spending.
By the way, I acknowledge that I am guilty. I have been a participant. I tried to get more of my fair share in Mississippi because for 135 years we did not get our fair share. Why did we not get it? Because we did not stand up and ask for it. We did not play on the national team.
This is not the way to go. Senator Gregg has provided leadership and courage. I have been speaking against things today and over the last 2 weeks. I support Amtrak. I am from an agriculture State. I want more highway money anyhow, anywhere, any way I can get it, but at some point we have to ask, how much is enough?
There is an amendment to add money for NIH. I have been a part of the Republican commitment over the past few years to double the spending for NIH, and we have done it. Now we are being told that is not enough, we need $2 billion. We need to sober up, and this resolution will help us do it. It is not going to be easy. We are going to have withdrawal pains, but we need to stop spending. We need to try to find some way to help reduce this deficit by encouraging growth in the economy.
I urge my colleagues, vote against this so-called pay-go provision, and let us go with this resolution the way it was written. I hope this time we can get a conference report, too, because if we do not, we are doomed around here. If we cannot do these little tiny cuts, some minimum reforms, wait until we really have to deal with the big choices. They are coming. They are coming down the road, and it is a Mack truck. Unfortunately, the roads are not in very good shape. I hope it does not fall into a pothole or a bridge before it gets here.
We need to pass a highway bill. As much as I would like for that highway bill to be $318 billion, $350 billion--we cannot come up with enough highway money to suit me--I am going to vote for some restraint. If it is over $184 billion and it is not paid for in an appropriate way, I will vote to sustain a veto. We have to all do this. We talk about it.
The Senator from North Dakota knows we need to do this. He wants to do it. We have to have some help. We have to have some ``followership'' and courage. Now is the time to do it. This amendment is not the way to do it.
I thank my colleagues.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 173 I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 173
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, at the outset I submit a statement for the record and ask that it be included in its entirety at the conclusion of my remarks.
In order to summarize, since we have a relatively limited period of time, this amendment provides for increasing funding for the Department of Education by $500 million, which would bring it up to level funding, and an addition of $1.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health, and the offset would be across the board from Function 920. This reduction would not cut any programs but simply reduce administrative expenses, travel, and consulting services by .237 percent, which is minuscule in the overall scheme of things, I admit, very minor compared to the importance of having additional funding in education and additional funding in the National Institutes of Health.
NIH has made remarkable advances on an enormous list of very major diseases and they are worth itemizing because each one of these strikes thousands of Americans. They include:
Autism, stroke, obesity, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal muscular atrophy, scleroderma, ALS, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, osteoporosis, cancers, including breast, cervical and ovarian, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate, pancreatic, colon, head and neck, brain, lung, pediatric renal disorders, multiple sclerosis, deafness and other communication disorders, glaucoma, macular degeneration, sickle cell anemia, heart disease, spinal cord injury, sudden infant death syndrome, arthritis, schizophrenia and other mental disorders, polycystic kidney disease, hepatitis, Cooley's anemia, primary immune deficiency disorders, and the list goes on and on.
As I read them off to itemize them, they are abstractions to people who suffer from these ailments. To families of people who suffer these ailments, they are catastrophic. Take someone who has autism, take someone who has Alzheimer's, this disrupts the family, these ailments are overwhelming. The National Institutes of Health has had increases in this budget on a commitment by this body to double NIH, and we have increased the funding very substantially. But last year and the year before and this year, the funding well has not proceeded as it should. When you talk about a budget of $28 billion for the National Institutes of Health, when you have an overall budget of approximately $2.67 trillion, $28 billion is totally insufficient.
If there is not an increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health, there will be 402 less grants awarded next year than last year. The increase of less than $200 million does not begin to approximate the replacement rate for chemical, biomedical research which is 3.5 percent. We have $1.7 billion which is being applied by NIH to bioterrorism. With all due respect, that ought to come out of homeland security, bioterrorism. It is coming out of the NIH budget because it is a medical issue. If there is not additional funding, these are some of the points of impact on the National Institutes of Health:
They will be unable to test safety of new behavioral treatments for autism; unable to initiate phase 3 to determine the relationship between infection and cardiovascular disease; unable to expand research on early identification preventing procurement impairment of newborns; delay by 1 year more research with industry to develop vaccines for hepatitis C infections; delay the evaluation of promising vaccines in a variety of contexts. It will delay programs for developing computer models for responding to infectious disease outbreaks such as avian flu, as well as bioterrorism attacks--here again these are abstractions, but to the people they hit, they are catastrophic--unable to expand the development of methamphetamine addiction; unable to initiate multicellular studies of aquaimmune hepatitis, and the list goes on and on.
The subject of adequacy of NIH research is one which I thought was of enormous importance before I was
elected to the Senate in 1980, and my initial assignment on Appropriations took me to the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. I have always been an advocate for increasing NIH funding. Then when I took over the chairmanship of the subcommittee in 1995, in a position to establish priorities, the Senate voted to double NIH funding, but then in the first year following defeated an effort to add $1 billion. Senator Harkin and I have formed a partnership on a bipartisan basis, and he has had the gavel when the Democrats took over for 17 months in 2001 and when we have had a transfer of the gavel, it has been seamless, he and I and this partnership of established priorities within our subcommittee even when this body did not grant increases to NIH. We have found the money by establishing priorities. But the fact is that opportunity is gone. It is gone because there have been decreases in the other facets of the budget.
The Department of Labor budget has been cut by 3\1/2\ percent this year. I don't know how we are going to fund the necessary programs for worker safety. The education budget, believe it or not, has been cut by almost 1 percent, by some $500 million. I will come to that in a moment on the aspect of this amendment which seeks to raise education funding by $500 million. But it is not possible anymore to juggle the books. We cannot juggle the books and find money and priorities to add an additional $1.5 billion to the National Institutes of Health.
My interest in medical research occurred long before I developed a current problem, which has been publicized, with Hodgkin's, and I am glad to say that there is a cure for the particular problem I had. But in many forms of cancer there is no cure. President Nixon declared war on cancer in 1972. Here we are 33 years later, the wealthiest country in the world, the greatest talent in the world on research, and we spend $2.6 trillion. We spend it in many directions which are challenged by many people in our society, but we allocate $28 billion to NIH. And it is totally, totally, totally insufficient, and for families where they suffer from Alzheimer's or heart disease or the long list of maladies I recited, it is simply unacceptable. I know the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has enormous problems. I compliment him on taking on what is probably the toughest job in the Senate, to try to find a way to make allocations on the budget.
But among the priorities, I will say that the expression is frequently used, ``none is higher.'' Well, that means it could be tied with a lot of others. But I would say health is highest. If you don't have your health, you can't do anything else. I could give an extended dissertation on that particular proposition because it has struck home to me. Not to overly personalize the matter, but when you go through the regimen for Hodgkin's, they fill your body full of poisons to fight the poisons which are in your body. It is quite a war of the worlds as it battles through you. It underscores the importance of health. For the people who were suffering from the long list I recited, it is the beginning and end of every day.
We ought to win the war on cancer. In the particular institute of a very distinguished doctor, John Glick, who is my oncologist, they had plans for a 57 percent increase in their funding. That was reduced to 42 percent. And that was eliminated. That is symbolic of what is going on across America. That reduction in funding means a lot of pain, a lot of suffering, and a lot of deaths. We have the capacity to do something about it. This $1.5 billion is a modest step.
Now on to education. The President's budget came over with a .9- percent decrease in education funding. It is a little hard for me to understand, given the importance of education. The Governors meet, the industrialists meet, and they decry the inadequacy of education in America. While the Federal Government provides a relatively small percentage of funding, we do have the leadership position.
Just last week, the Senate passed, 99 to 0, the reauthorization of the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Program, which is a $2 billion program. But on the Education Department budget, this program is zeroed out. It was $2 billion, and we voted for it 99 to nothing. We looked good when we had the authorization vote, but when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is, we are AWOL, we are gone, we are not there.
There is an enormous number of educational programs which have been cut out totally. The GEAR UP program, which has been funded by my subcommittee over the last 6 years, which takes seventh graders and gives them mentoring and puts them on the right course through high school, an enormously important program not only for education but for crime control, where there is really the stark alternative of becoming a juvenile delinquent or becoming an educated America--it is gone.
The list is too long to read.
I ask unanimous consent the full text of these programs which are being cut be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, how much time remains of my 22.5 minutes?
Will the Senator from North Dakota yield for a question?
This is a procedural question, not a substantive question. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
On the scheduling of business, I have to chair an Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Health and Human Services at 10:30. We scheduled this amendment at 9:30. I wonder if I could prevail upon the Senator from North Dakota to permit Senator Enzi to respond to my arguments so that I can finish, conclude, and then ask unanimous consent, if that is agreeable, that you be recognized to continue your presentation?
I do.
I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I think we can do that. I have 8 minutes remaining. There is 22 minutes in opposition. My speculation is that neither of us will use all of our time. I do not want to make a commitment to the other side on that, then, in advance, but probably no later than 10:20, 10:25, we can return to the Senator from North Dakota for his presentation, taking time off the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we follow that procedure.
I thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Wyoming.
I yield.
Mr. President, I should be able to conclude and save some of that 7 minutes.
I disagree strongly with my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire. When he says we shouldn't redirect the funds, that is the purpose of this process. That is what the budget resolution is all about.
I say, in evaluating the funding for the National Institutes of Health and educational funding, as chairman of the subcommittee which has the appropriations responsibility, and having had a decade of experience there and 24 years experience on the subcommittee, that I am in a position to make an evaluation that may be preferable to the evaluation of the Budget Committee. But that is what this resolution is about. That is the purpose of Senators offering amendments.
When the Senator from New Hampshire talks about the funding which the President has increased in the past, I point out that a good bit of that has come from the Congress. And when you are looking at a budget for education in excess of $54 billion, if you figure the inflation cut, that is about $1.5 billion, and besides that, the level of funding is not even present. We have more than $500 million left from last year, an aggregate in education of $2 billion. Considering education is a major capital asset in this country, that is not an appropriate allocation of resources in the opinion of this Senator.
I think to add $500 million to the education budget is modest. When you talk about the Pell grants, that is a complicated matter, but it does not help the tremendous number of programs that have been cut.
If I might have a brief discussion with the distinguished Senator from Wyoming on a couple of points which were made, when he says there is no cut in NIH, I respectfully disagree. When you have biomedical research up 3.5 percent on $28 billion, what you have is a cut of $980 million, almost $1 billion. There was a modest increase, $145 million, so NIH is short in real dollars by $835 million. So I say it is not a matter of no increase, it is a matter of a cut.
The one question I have to ask my distinguished colleague is, on the Perkins vocational grants, he pointed out that it was a 99-to-0 vote. He voted for it as did I. And I agree totally with what the Senator from Wyoming has said, that it is ``absolutely essential'' to have career and vocational training, and if you don't there will be an ``increase in the dropout rate.'' But the budget which has been submitted by the education department of my subcommittee zeros out the Perkins grant.
How can we reconcile the importance of the Perkins educational grant and eliminate the funding?
Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming does the best he can with his argument, but the difficulty is that when the subcommittee's budget has been cut from $143.5 billion to $141.3 billion, we don't have room to make reallocations. We just do not have the room.
If you take a look at a 3-percent inflation rate, that would be about another $4 billion. So what we are left with is a $6 billion shortfall. This is just illustrative of the Perkins programs which is a very important program. I agree with the Senator from Wyoming, it is a very important program, but one of many very important programs which are being eliminated.
That is why I say to my colleagues I have come here modestly asking for $500 million for education, and very modestly in asking for $1.5 million for the National Institutes of Health so we can win the war on sickness.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor to this amendment. Senator Harkin has other commitments, but had he been here he would have offered superb arguments at decibel levels substantially higher than that which has taken place here today.
If the Senator from Wyoming is prepared to yield back his remaining time, I am prepared to do the same and that would conclude the presentation on this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
Mr. President, I have sought recognition to outline my reasoning for my vote today against the Cantwell amendment to remove the assumption of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, oil and gas exploration lease revenues from the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution.
I have looked at this issue very closely. I have read a great deal of information, met with many concerned groups, and listened to arguments on both sides. And I have come to my own conclusions.
First, I believe exploration will have a minimal impact on the environment. The plans include drilling on a footprint the size of the Philadelphia Airport. It can be done safely by limiting the acreage eligible for exploration, combined with today's technology to mitigate environmental impacts of exploration in the area. Such technological advances include: The extended reach of multi-directional drilling, which can decrease ``footprints'', reduce waste, and increase the amount of product recovered; high resolution imaging that produces more precise well locations and consequently reduces the number of wells needed to access reserves; and the use of ice roads and winter season drilling techniques to maximize the season and reduce the amount of time to bring the reserves to market, while recognizing the needs of wildlife.
While there could be a network of pipelines, I have visited ANWR and looked at it personally. I saw caribou near the existing pipeline near ANWR. The environment in Alaska can be protected consistent with our laws and values.
Second, ANWR exploration can be part of our overall effort at oil independence. We should be doing a lot more, and I have led the fight on conservation measures. While debating energy policy during the 107th and l08th Congresses, I supported significant increases in renewable energy, generated from wind, the sun, biomass, water and geothermal sources. I have also supported expanding tax credits for clean coal technologies, and I led efforts to mandate a reduction of U.S. oil consumption by one million barrels per day by 2013.
It is only through concerted efforts to reduce projected U.S. oil consumption and to utilize domestic energy resources that our Nation will be able to become energy independent. If we do not take the steps I have outlined, our dependence on OPEC will grow. While fighting for these energy policies, I have pressed for the U.S. to sue OPEC under antitrust laws. I have urged the current and former administrations to take OPEC to the U.S. Federal courts for conspiracy to limit oil production and raise prices. This cartel has manipulated the oil markets in violation of U.S. and international law, and it should be pursued.
We must take action to address the rising costs of home heating oil, diesel fuel, gas at the pump, and our long-range national security needs. I believe that ANWR oil and natural gas reserves can and should play a role in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that any such action only proceed in the most environmentally safe manner.
Mr. President, this is out of the amendment time, and there is 45 minutes on our side. We have many speakers. Can the Senator go for 7 minutes? If Senator Specter has not appeared by then, we can…
Mr. President, this is out of the amendment time, and there is 45 minutes on our side. We have many speakers. Can the Senator go for 7 minutes?
If Senator Specter has not appeared by then, we can provide more time.
Mr. President, we are now on the third day of the budget resolution.
I inquire of the desk, how much time do we have remaining?
Could the Chair inform me how much time is left on the resolution?
Mr. President, I want to alert my colleagues that the time is rapidly vanishing. We want to use this time we have efficiently and effectively. We don't want to have dead time here on the floor. We want Senators on both sides to have every opportunity to offer their amendments, so it is critically important that Senators take the opportunity that is available to them and come to discuss the amendments that are in front of us and discuss the amendments they may want to offer so this time is effectively used.
I know we are going to get into the situation where Senators are going to come to us and say: Can't we have some time? There is not going to be any time very shortly, and then we will go into vote-arama, in which there will be very limited time. I wanted to alert my colleagues.
I am happy to yield for a question.
That was my plan, take time off the resolution.
Mr. President, we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the budget situation since 2000. One can see what has happened. Back in 2000, we actually had a budget surplus. Then, despite the President's assurances that his fiscal policy would not lead to an expansion of deficits and debt, that is exactly what we have seen. In fact, we are now at record deficit levels, the biggest deficits we have ever had.
It is not just with respect to deficits that we have a problem. We are also seeing exploding debt. I remember so well, back in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office produced this chart of possible outcomes for the deficit. They said this was the range of possible outcomes. They adopted, in their forecast, a midrange. That was adopted by the President as well. They said, based on that scenario, that we would see $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next 10 years, so many of my Republican colleagues assured me: Don't worry, we will get even more money because of the tax cuts. I remember being told repeatedly: You are going to get more money because of the tax cuts.
We didn't get more money. Here is what actually happened. This was the range of possible outcomes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Now we can look back and see what actually happened. What actually happened was the deficits were far worse, they were below the bottom of their range of projected outcomes. All of that talk about how the tax cuts would generate more revenue just proved to be wrong.
The Comptroller General of the United States, the head of the General Accounting Office, warns us now that the fiscal outlook is worse than claimed. He says:
The simple truth is that our Nation's financial condition
is much worse than advertised.
The Comptroller General has it exactly right. Our fiscal condition, our financial condition is much worse than advertised. Why? Because when the President says to us he is going to reduce the deficit, he is going to cut it in half over the next 5 years, the only way he gets there is he just leaves out things.
What does he leave out? First of all, he leaves out of his budget any war costs past September 30 of this year. We have money for this year in a supplemental. Some of that will be spent next year as well. But that is $82 billion. The Congressional Budget Office says we ought to be budgeting $383 billion for residual war costs--Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terror--but it is not in the President's budget.
I certainly would.
I am happy to accommodate the Senator in that way. I understand, as I am hearing it, the Senator has another obligation, and he would like to finish his argument, and he would like to be able to respond.
Maybe we could work out some timing on this so we do not--maybe we could have a mini unanimous consent agreement so we can share this time in a way that does not force up the rest of our schedule here?
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from Massachusetts so he may be able to answer the questions that were put to him.
Mr. President, I would say, in answer to my colleague, my own belief is whatever one's views on opening the Alaska national wildlife refuge for exploration, whatever one's views are, my own belief is this is an inappropriate way to reach that policy conclusion.
The Senator is correct. Reconciliation is a process outside normal rules of the Senate. Reconciliation takes away from every Senator their most fundamental right, and that is the right to unlimited debate, the right to have an amendment, and the right as a member of the minority to resist the passage of legislation.
Reconciliation is a fast-track procedure that was put in place to try to address what was then record budget deficits. It was an attempt to provide a special protected procedure, not for the purpose of making policy changes that were incidental to the budget process but that were central to the budget process.
I do not think there is much question that this is a policy change being put in reconciliation that is incidental to the budget process. It is an attempt to change legislative policy that is far beyond an attempt to effect budget policy. For that reason, I personally believe, whatever one's views on ANWR, that this is an abuse of the process.
I do not have before me the anticipated flow of revenue. But, really, that is not so important as the fundamental underlying question: Is this an attempt to do something by way of a policy change that is merely incidental to the budget process? I think one would have to answer: Clearly it is. That makes it an abuse of the process.
Reconciliation, again, for my colleagues, was designed to be used for deficit reduction. This cannot be seen, seriously, as a deficit reduction plan.
Mr. President, I yield an additional 10 minutes off the resolution under the control of the Senator from Washington.
I alert my colleagues of the time situation. I gave 10 minutes off the resolution to Senator Cantwell to control to even up the two sides. Here is the problem: I only have 3 minutes left on the resolution before the 1 o'clock vote. I would be happy to give the Senator from California 1 of those 3 minutes.
Reserving the right to object, let me make certain I understand the request. The problem we have, I say to the Senator, all of the time has been allocated. Maybe there is some additional time you have on your side. We have locked in a 1 o'clock vote, and if you add the time for the veterans amendment and the ANWR amendment, there is 2 minutes remaining before 1 o'clock to come off the resolution.
If I might, I gave time off the resolution on our side, but I was very careful to check with the timekeeper that there was time that would not impinge on the 1 o'clock vote. That is the problem we have.
Off the resolution. And that uses all the time until 1 o'clock.
I do not object.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me say to my colleagues, that is the last agreement I will enter into because we are rapidly running out of time on the resolution. We have spent a great deal of time on this matter. Certainly in recognition of Senator Stevens' long service, and his intense interest on this issue, we will agree to that one moving back of the vote.
May we have order in the Chamber.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
Is it the understanding of the Chair that all time has been used or yielded back on both sides on the three pending amendments; that is, the Akaka veterans amendment, the Ensign veterans amendment, and the Specter amendment on NIH?
That is very helpful to us. I yield the floor. I think the chairman has a unanimous consent request.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. He has been the leader on pay-go and budget discipline that says no spending and no tax cuts. You can have them, but you have to pay for them. There is a novel idea around here. You have to pay for them.
Our colleague from Arizona indicated this concept--that if you cut taxes, you get more money. The only problem with that concept is it doesn't work in the real world. It is a wonderful idea. I wish it were true. But it isn't true.
Here is what happens with revenues as a percent of our national income. In 2000, we were getting 20.9 percent of gross domestic product in Federal revenue. We passed a series of tax cuts, and what happened to revenue? It plunged to the lowest since 1959.
That is what happened when we cut taxes. We got less revenue. The revenue side of the equation simply dropped out. That is why the deficits have exploded.
I can remember so well back in 2001 when the Congressional Budget Office told us the range of possible outcomes on the deficits was expressed by this chart, which I call the fan chart. This was what would happen on the low end of their forecast, and this is what would happen on the high end. They chose the midrange, as did the President, which told them we were going to get $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the period.
When I said to my Republican colleagues, let's not be so sure of that, let's not bet the farm on that, they assured me: Kent, you are being much too conservative. Don't you understand with the tax cuts we are putting in place we will get much more revenue? We are not going to be at the midpoint of the range, we will be above the midpoint of the range.
We can go back now and look at what actually happened. Here is what actually happened. We are not at the bottom of the range, we are below the bottom. Here is what happened in reality: we are way below the bottom.
All these tax cuts, what did they lead to? They led to less revenue, and coupled with the increases in spending for defense and homeland security as a result of September 11, the deficits exploded.
Here is what has happened: our Republican colleagues, who used to be fiscally conservative, have now become borrow-and-spend advocates. They have no intention of doing anything about these budget deficits except add to them. Here is what that policy has achieved: record budget deficits.
The question of pay-go, which is the budget discipline we had back in the 1980s and 1990s that helped us turn record deficits at that time into record surpluses, pay-go is a budget discipline that has worked, and the budget discipline that was in effect then is the budget discipline being offered by the Senator from Wisconsin now.
This is the Federal Reserve Chairman on the question of restoring real pay-go. Congressman Spratt on the House side asked:
Is it still your position that if we renew the paygo rule
it should apply to both; that if we have tax cuts including
the renewal of the expiring tax cuts in 2010, that these
should be fully offset?
Chairman Greenspan:
It is still my position. That we have some form of paygo
system, which is agreed upon by the Congress, in my judgment,
is the overriding consideration here, because, as you point
out, it's been quite effective in actually stemming budget
inefficiencies and expansion during a period that it was law.
Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan:
All I'm saying is that my general view is I would like to
see the tax burden as low as possible. And in that context, I
would like to see tax cuts continue. But, as I indicated
earlier, that has got to be, in my judgment, in the context
of a paygo resolution.
When further asked, the Chairman made clear a pay-go approach that applies to both spending and to taxes.
The pay-go ledger in the Senate GOP budget allows massive deficit increases. It allows a $33 billion increase from 2006 to 2010. It allows almost a $260 billion increase in deficits in the period 2011 to 2015.
Finally and in conclusion, the Republican budget before the Senate is advertised as cutting the deficit in half over the next 5 years. But the Republicans' own budget document shows something quite different from their assertions.
On page 5 of the Republican budget document they provide their forecast of how the debt will increase every year for the next 5 years. Here is what it shows: A $669 billion increase in the debt this year, a $636 billion next year, $624 billion the year after that, $622 billion in the fourth year, and $611 billion in the fifth year.
Those are the Republican estimates of the increase in debt if we pass their budget. That is a $3 trillion increase in the debt of the United States if this budget is passed. There is nothing in there that is going to protect us from massive increases of deficit and debt.
The opportunity to be fiscally disciplined is the opportunity offered in the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, we should follow the advice of the chairman of the Budget Committee on the matter before us. The chairman of the Budget Committee in a floor debate on June 5 of 2002 said this:
The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially
says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you
are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of
deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a
budget neutral event.
He went on to say:
. . . if we do not do this, if we do not put back in place
caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline
in this Congress and as a result we will dramatically
aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of
important issues but especially impacts Social Security.
That is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee in 2002, saying pay-go ought to apply to both spending and to taxes. He was right then. And it is the right position now. Pay-go should apply to both spending and taxes. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin does. It deserves our support.
I want to say a word about the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi, who said it is time to get serious, it is time to get tough on deficits. He is right. But he is badly mistaken if he thinks this budget does anything about deficits. The only thing this budget does about deficits is to make them worse.
This budget before us increases the deficit by $130 billion in excess of what would happen if we did nothing. If we just put this economy on autopilot, we would reduce the deficit by $130 billion compared to this budget.
I see my colleague is holding up a chart over there that shows the deficit going down. But what he ought to do is take a look at their own budget document on page 5 where it reveals how much the debt increases if this budget passes. This is not my estimate. This is their estimate. It says the debt is going to increase by over $600 billion each and every year of this budget resolution.
This is not a budget that does anything about reducing the increases in the debt, except to extend budgets that explode the debt.
They can put up all the fancy charts they want. This one shows the deficit being cut in half. The problem with it is it just leaves out things. The only reason they get to a reduction in the deficit under this plan is they just exclude things we all know are going to cost money.
I heard the Senator from Mississippi say we ought to do something about the alternative minimum tax. Indeed, we should. There is not a dime in this budget to do it--not a dime.
Under pay-go, you can have any tax cut you want. You can have any additional spending you want--if you pay for it or you get a supermajority vote. Paying for things, that is a new idea around here. Our Republican friends have adopted the policy of borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. They don't want to raise the revenue to cover their spending and they don't want to cut their spending to match the revenue they will support. Instead, they just want to put it on the charge card, run up the debt, shove it off on our kids and wait for the roof to cave in.
That is a mistake. Pay-go is restoring the budget disciplines that worked well in the past. We ought to adopt the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin.
I thank the Chair and yield my time to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for those few moments to speak to what I believe and many of us believe to be a phenomenally important issue for the Senate to be addressing. Let…
Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for those few moments to speak to what I believe and many of us believe to be a phenomenally important issue for the Senate to be addressing. Let me try to set the record straight.
I believe it is now the noon hour, in the middle of the day. The Sun is up. The lights are on in this Chamber of the Senate. We are in the middle of a workweek. And somebody says this is not the place or the time to debate this issue? It is not midnight. It is not in a smoke- filled room. The lights are not turned down. C-SPAN is on and the American public is watching and you darned well bet this is the right place and the right time to debate a critical issue for the American people. So don't suffer the illusion or play the rhetorical game that says, ``ain't never happened before.''
The chairman of the Budget Committee has just submitted a long list of times when the other side used the budget resolution to produce major public policy. So it is the right time, the right place, the middle of the workweek; and we are doing the job of the American people, to debate this very critical and important issue.
I am always amazed when someone takes the coastal plain of Alaska, where today it might be 60 below and the wind may be 40 miles an hour, and calls it an Eden. That is not my vision of Eden. I am not suggesting it is not a rare place--it is. It is unique to the world, and we recognize that, and all of the environmental safeguards are in place. If we are allowed to go there and find oil and bring it to the lower 48, there will not be any damage to the environment. That is a fact for anybody who has been there.
Let us adjust the vision of Eden just a little bit. I don't think we are allowed to interpret it every way every day.
My last thought is quite simply somebody said--I believe the Senator from Washington just said--it will not bring down the price of oil. It probably will not. What it might do is stop the price of oil from going up. I just paid $2.11 a gallon for regular gas in the District of Columbia. I drive a very efficient small car. It still costs me $25 to fuel it. I have the good fortune of having a pretty-good-paying job, but there are a lot of Americans who do not. Just keeping the price of oil down, not letting it go up, would be a major victory for energy policy in this country. And it would fill the refinery at Anacordis that is now operating at 50-percent capacity. It would provide the jobs in the State of Washington that the Senator from Alaska spoke to. That is the reality of what we are talking about today--getting our country back into the business of producing energy for every American, whether they have high-paying or low-paying jobs. We live on our energy and it is time we put our country back into full production. I strongly support the resolution.
Will the Chair notify me when I have consumed 10 minutes of time?
Madam President, we are on the floor today debating a very important portion of the budget resolution for the Senate. That is the moneys that will fund the Veterans' Administration and serve the millions of America's veterans who are in need of this service and new veterans coming in out of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.
All of us who serve on that committee and examine the needs of our veterans recognize the importance of new dollars and the importance of sustaining what we have been able to do effectively over the last 4 or 5 years, to tremendously increase the quality of health care coming from the Veterans' Administration and increase enrollment.
The question is, when you look at the Murray amendment versus the Ensign amendment, how much is enough? How much is enough to sustain the work and the quality of work that goes on and to accept the incoming veterans who are truly needy of and deserving of the services provided by the Veterans' Administration?
Let me show a couple of charts that are fundamentally important and that many fail to recognize. Because the Senator from Hawaii is absolutely right: In 4 years we have increased spending in the Veterans' Administration by 43 percent. During that time enrollment has gone up from 4.9 million to about 7.7 million from October 1, 2000. And the quality of health care has gone right along up. Now the veterans health care facilities are rated as some of the finest in the Nation, ranking with the quality delivered from some of the top private health care facilities.
Here are the numbers: Medical care, 2001, $21.07 billion; 2005, $29.64 billion, a phenomenal increase, not millions, not hundreds of millions, but billions of dollars that the American taxpayer has committed to the quality care of veterans.
Let's look at the other portion of the veterans budget called discretionary spending. We have not been absent from that either. During the Bush years, 2001-2005, $25.7 billion up to $37.1 billion, again, billions of dollars. What was happening during the Clinton years? In two of those years, 1998 and 1999, the Clinton administration said: Let's cut veterans. Congress said no. Bush said no. We said no. We plused up what our President offered us. This President's budget is an increase. But we don't like the level of increase or how he has arrived at the increase. So we are changing those numbers substantially.
But the bottom line still remains, how much is enough to sustain this quality, to assure the door remains open, to assure that our veterans are served effectively? Do we throw money at it or, in a tight budget environment, do we constrain ourselves a little bit? Do we shape the issues? And in so doing, do we sustain levels of increase?
Here is what has happened in the last 4 years. Those are the numbers--a 43-percent increase. Probably no other area of the Federal Government has gone up that much outside of defense,
and it hasn't, to my knowledge, gone up that much. But it does show a clear recognition on the part of Congress as to the importance of veterans to all of us.
If I may, for a few moments, I will break down the reality of what we are doing because we recognize, as certainly the Senators from Hawaii and Washington, that there are needs out there and that those needs must be met. We recognized in the President's budget that there were items we simply would not advance--copays, a nonstarter. I was willing to look at fees for sevens and eights in certain categories with higher incomes. But collectively Congress says, at least on this side of the Rotunda, no to that also. I accept that.
Here is what I recognize and here is what the Ensign amendment does. The President pluses up the budget by $751 million. The chairman's mark pluses it up again by $40 million. The Ensign-Craig-Vitter-Hutchison amendment pluses it up another $410 million, a net increase without reconciliation instructions. And that is very important. While that may be inside language for those of us who work the budget, it is very important to know that those are real dollars hitting the ground, not compromised, new money to the Veterans' Administration. Total it all up, between the President, the chairman's mark, and the Ensign amendment, and you have $1.201 billion, a 3.7-percent increase in a tight budget year.
I must say, this is one chairman of what I believe is an important committee who says that is responsible. That is the right thing to do. And we don't raise taxes to do it. We go inside Government spending and find the resources. And we have offset them appropriately in an account that last year increased 12 percent.
The irony is in the fact that in attempting to undo the President's proposal to charge additional fees on higher income vets, the Murray amendment charges another type of fee on veterans--and all Americans, for that matter--in the form of higher taxes. The Ensign-Craig amendment goes elsewhere inside current levels of spending. It does not do that. Yes, veterans do pay taxes. They are out there, hard-working Americans like nearly everyone else. And if you raise taxes, you raise it on them, too. I don't dispute the worthiness of the argument. I do dispute the resources involved and whether they are actually necessary in a very tight budget year when we are struggling to keep this economy alive, rewarding that economy that more money stays out there in it that stimulates job growth. And it has and it has proven that it is working because those numbers keep coming up in America as more Americans go back to work.
We ought not penalize that sector of our economy while we are truly trying to help a sector of our economy that is less fortunate and, most importantly, that has served this country well.
The men and women in uniform of our services, who stood in harm's way, we recognize their service but we also recognize there are limits within the budget. In those limits, we will have to say there are certain things we will do and certain things we cannot do. That is the choice, and it is a tough choice that we as Senators are asked to make when we shape budgets. But it is a necessary and a responsible choice. So we have said no to the enrollment fees, no to the copays.
We have also said no to something else very near and dear to the heart of the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Hawaii, and me, and that is State homes. Those beds, 20,000 across the Nation, with 285 in my State, are a cooperative relationship between the State and Federal Government in assuring that the truly needy of our veterans have a place to go--in their final years, in many instances. The administration had asked to drop that per diem. We said no to that and ensured the stability and the strength of those homes, at a time when States' budgets are tight--certainly in many instances tighter than ours. So I believe that was the right and responsible thing to do.
Last week, we heard extensively from all of the service organizations. What were their greatest frustrations? The fees, copays, and the homes. What have we done? We have taken all three of those major frustrations away because we listened to the service organizations. We heard them during that series of bicameral hearings, held both in the House and Senate.
Let me go back to my original statement. The question remains, whether you are looking at the amendment of the Senator from Washington or the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, how much is enough? Is a 1.201 plus-up, with no reconciliation instructions, enough? Does it sustain this quality of health care? Yes, it does. Or do we go further by asking the American people to pay higher taxes for more money that is questionably necessary? We could throw a lot more money at the Veterans' Administration, and we might get greater results. But we would be going beyond what I think is necessary and appropriate today, and I think most of my colleagues agree with me.
So we sustain the work we have done. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support the Ensign amendment, support the work of the committee, sustain the vibrancy of the veterans health care system, and to vote down the Murray amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I ask what time remains on both sides?
Mr. President, I have 7 minutes remaining?
Let me again thank all who participated in this debate. There are differences as to how we approach providing for our veterans. You see those differences embodied in part in the two amendments that are before us, either the Murray amendment or the Ensign amendment. I think it is important, though, that we do, for the record, correct or at least add information to some of the statements. My colleague from Illinois is concerned, as we all are, about PTSD. The Ensign-Craig amendment would provide an additional $100 million that can be devoted to, of course, mental illness. It is of great concern to us as our veterans come home from Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly whole in body but not whole in mind. That is recognized both by the President, by the Veterans' Administration, and by all of us, and we plus up that budget substantially to do so.
Another area that has not been mentioned that is critically necessary for rural veterans who find themselves in an emergency environment and need to gain access to emergency rooms of the hospital and the community and not a veterans facility--we have $43 million in the budget to ensure that veterans who seek emergency care in nonveteran facilities are treated exactly the same as they would be as if they were in veterans facilities.
Let's do the numbers. The Senator from Washington says the President's numbers only include $80 million. That $80 million is general revenue and the balance is in collections and that is real money and that is there all the time and that is in the budget and that is $751 million. You have to do all the math, all the time. That is what we are doing here to make sure the numbers are accurate.
So you take the $751 million in the President's request, general fund revenue and collections, and you take the chairman's mark of $40 million, and you take the Craig-Enzi amendment or Enzi-Craig amendment of $410 million and add it up and it is a 1.201 increase, health care, 3.7 percent increase over last year. It is not a tax increase.
I always find the rhetoric interesting. My colleague from Washington says there are $70 billion worth of tax cuts in this proposal. They are not tax cuts. If you don't enact it, it is a tax increase. Those cuts are already in place. This is the assurance of the continuum of those tax cuts. Take them out, it is a tax increase. It is a matter of semantics. It is also a matter of fact. What is being offered by the Senator from Washington, as she pluses up the veterans budget, is gained by tax increases.
Let me put it this way: Taxes that would be asked to be paid by working men and women, America's workforce, America's veterans. They are not paying them now. They would pay them then. My suggestion is that is a tax increase.
Let me close with a couple of more analyses. We are mighty proud of what our President and what we have done over the last 4 years for the veterans of America and for the quality of health care and service delivery of the Veterans' Administration. Here it is, a 43-percent increase. We have gone from $48.8 billion in 2001 to $69.8 billion in 2005, and we are now plusing that up into the $70-plus billion range, $71 billion. That is total spending.
Let's look at health care for a moment. There are substantial increases there. We increased health care when veterans were asking for it. They went from over 4 million vets into the services in 2001 to now almost 8 million vets, and we have an increase from $21 billion in 2001 to $29.6 billion. In doing so, America now says the veterans health care service is one of the finest health care delivery services in the country.
The test for Senators ought to be: Do we damage it? No, we do not. Do we assure those coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan with the true needs of the services provided have access? Yes, we do. No question about that.
The President assured it. He approached it a different way. We assure it by approaching it from within the Federal budget instead of raising taxes to accomplish that.
I believe the Enzi-Craig-Vitter-Hutchison amendment does exactly what most Senators would want to ask of us in relation to the care for our veterans. It is a responsible approach. It is clearly a defensible approach. We believe that we have approached it in the right manner to solve the problems and retain the consistency of quality, of improvement and access to the veterans health care system.
I believe all time has expired.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Cantwell amendment to strike the reconciliation instruction to the Energy Committee that allows for drilling in the Arctic National…
Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Cantwell amendment to strike the reconciliation instruction to the Energy Committee that allows for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I first thank Senator Cantwell for her tremendous leadership on environmental issues in general and especially her strong leadership on this very important environmental issue.
The other side can say what they want as many times as they want. The fact is, this provision is an abuse of the reconciliation process. Yes, it is. The Senator from New Hampshire may be right that it is technically not a violation of the rules of the Senate, but it is an abuse of the process. It is what you do when you get frustrated. You can't win under the normal rules, 60 votes, the way we have debated this issue year after year. You get frustrated and you say: Here is what we will do. We will use a revenue assumption in the budget so we only have to have 51 votes.
We should be debating this issue when we take up the Energy bill rather
than engaging in a backdoor maneuver on the budget resolution. I feel strongly, as a Senator who has always worked on a bipartisan basis year after year on the budget and the budget rules, that this one is over the line.
This fact is clearly evidenced by the speculative nature of the revenue assumptions from drilling in the Wildlife Refuge. A February 21, 2005 New York Times article about the refuge quotes a Bush adviser as saying that ``even if you gave the oil companies the refuge for free, they wouldn't want to drill there.'' He continued: ``No oil company really cares about [the Arctic refuge.]''
British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco have all pulled out of the pro-drilling Arctic Power lobbying group. BP abandoned a test well right next to the Arctic Refuge because of a lack of production. ChevronTexaco has moved its executives from Alaska to Houston. A Halliburton official said that ``enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of the industry'' and that ``evidence about ANWR is not promising.''
CBO concedes it did not address the oil industry's lack of interest in drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in its projections. So these projections don't add up. Authorizing drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge through the budget process is simply the latest in a series of abuses of Senate procedures, and I believe the American people know it.
This is a backdoor scheme for drilling because the drilling proponents don't have enough votes to deal with this issue in the Energy bill. The public doesn't want it; major oil companies don't appear to want it; and it does not belong in the budget resolution.
The proposed transfer of revenues from drilling in the Arctic Refuge to fund popular conservation programs is, on its face, also an accounting gimmick. The President's budget zeroed out the State recreation grant program of the land and water conservation fund and reduced Federal lands acquisition dollars to its lowest funding level in 10 years. To further erode our environmental protections by drilling in this pristine wildlife refuge to generate public revenues for these important conservation programs underscores the administration's insincerity in claiming to support conservation.
Even if you think we should drill in the Arctic Refuge, this is not the time or place for this debate. If we can contort the budget process to authorize drilling in a wildlife refuge, why couldn't we use the budget process to allow drilling off the coasts of Florida or California or the Carolinas or the Great Lakes? When you abuse the budget process in this way, it invites even greater mischief down the line and undermines the very purpose for which these procedures were established.
We should not abuse the budget and the budget reconciliation process, as one of our colleagues put it years ago, ``in order to be immune from unlimited debate.''
Allowing oil drilling in the Wildlife Refuge which many of us believe should be protected as pristine wilderness is too important an issue to be handled in this way. We should have this debate in the open during an energy debate, not a debate on the budget resolution.
Therefore, I will vote for the Cantwell amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, and a bipartisan group of other Senators. Our amendment is the same amendment we offered last year and that this body passed with bipartisan support. It would simply reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule that had been such an effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of both Congress and the White House.
Over the past 4 years, we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs, and that is balancing the Nation's fiscal books.
We are all familiar with the history. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. Little more than 4 years later, we are now staring at almost a mirror image of that very positive 10-year projection, except that instead of healthy surpluses under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits and a backbreaking debt.
This has to stop. We have to stop running deficits because they cause the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. We have to stop running deficits because every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits.
When the Government and this generation choose to spend on current consumption and then to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle our children and our grandchildren with the debts that they have to pay from tax dollars, their tax dollars, and their hard work.
We all know that is not right. That is why I am offering this bipartisan amendment to fully reinstate the pay-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline.
Mr. President, you remember when the pay-go rule was in effect, tough fiscal discipline governed the budget process. Under the current approach, it is pretty much the opposite, it is the other way around. What happens now is the annual budget resolution determines how much fiscal discipline we are willing to impose on ourselves. This just hasn't worked. When Congress decides it would be nice to create a new entitlement or enact new tax cuts and then adjust its budget rules to permit those policies, we are really inviting a disastrous result, and that is just what we have seen happen.
As an example, if somebody wants to lose weight, you set the total number of calories you are allowed to consume first, and then you try to make the meals fit under that cap--not the other way around. Imagine if you tried to lose weight by deciding what you want to eat first and then setting a calorie limit to accommodate your various cravings. If you want to eat cake, fine, you just dial up that calorie intake limit and you are all set. If you want a couple of extra beers, that is fine, too, under this kind of system; you just raise the calorie limit accordingly.
It may taste pretty good at the time, but you will probably end up gaining weight, just like this Nation is racking up debt because this ill-advised diet is exactly how the current mutated version of pay-go works, and we have seen the results--the debt we are leaving our children and our grandchildren has been putting on massive amounts of weight. This amendment would simply return us to the rule by which Congress played for the decade of the 1990s, and that was instrumental in balancing the Federal budget.
Let's remember, that was not an era where one side had control of all the Government or the other side did. For most of the nineties, most of this time, we had a Democrat President and Republican control of both Houses, and we all agreed and we all worked together on the principle that the pay-go rules were helping us move toward the goal--in fact, the achievement--of having a balanced budget by the year 2000, by the time President Bush took office.
Many of us here lived under that rule, and we know just how effective it was. If this budget does nothing else, it should reinstate the classic, the old pay-go rule. If we do that, maybe we can begin to turn these annual budgets around and stop racking up these deficits and adding to the already enormous Federal debt.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, time-tested fiscal discipline.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado who cosponsored this amendment.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado who made an important connection between the last vote on the Alaska refuge and this amendment.
On the Alaska amendment, one side became frustrated, so they decided to change the rules. We are going to decide that instead of having 60 votes for a normal procedure on an energy bill, we will go with 51 votes using the budget process, which I think is inappropriate. They won. Now we see a different attempt to deal with the rules.
We had rules on paying in the 1990s that worked, and worked very well. Both parties came together. We balanced the budget.
When the rules get in the way, apparently, they do not want to have any rules, any procedure, any discipline when it comes to either mandatory spending or tax cuts. They want to make sure they achieve their objective, regardless of rules.
That is a serious problem. It is a serious problem for this institution, it is a serious problem for this country, and as the Senator from Colorado said so eloquently, it is going to be a serious problem for our kids and grandchildren who will be bound by the kind of decision we make about the Arctic Refuge and having to acquire this huge debt which this Congress is refusing to address.
This Congress is, frankly, becoming openly hostile to the principle of fiscal discipline--openly hostile.
I thank the Senator from Colorado very much for his remarks.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota and thank him for his great leadership on these issues.
Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues engaging in a debate on this amendment. But I have to say, how did something that both of these Senators, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Iowa, supported vigorously in the 1990s suddenly become a Feingold regime? These are the pay-go rules of the 1990s. This is not some new scheme or new approach. These are exactly the rules we had before that both parties worked together on and used to balance the budget.
Both Senators suggest that this is going to prevent tax cuts. I ask them: How in the world, then, did we have the 1997 tax cut bill? If this regime, as they call it, prevents tax cuts, how did that happen? These rules were in place at that time.
These rules don't prevent tax cuts. These rules just say, either you pay for them or you get 60 votes. Last year there were a number of middle class tax cuts I supported. They received something like over 90 votes. We didn't prevent those tax cuts. They simply met a standard that was easily met of 60 votes.
The Senator from Iowa has mischaracterized this amendment grossly when he says it doesn't affect spending. It is my amendment that puts some rules back on mandatory spending. It is my amendment that covers mandatory spending. The reason why we had a $400-billion unfunded Medicare bill last year is because the current rules were in place rather than the amendment I have offered. This relates to spending as well as taxes.
The entire argument that somehow this isn't evenhanded, that it only applies to taxes and not to spending is absolutely false. That might be why we have four or five Republican cosponsors because they would never support something that favors spending over tax cuts.
It is very troubling when we have a debate and the debate is not about what is actually before us. What is before us is rules that have worked before, rules that relate to spending and taxes and merely require us to be responsible.
I now very happily yield 15 minutes to my cosponsor, Senator Voinovich.
Mr. President, I am going to yield to a couple of colleagues, but first I will say that the Senator from Mississippi indicates we need to sober up on the issue. I suggest that anybody who believes this is a responsible budget needs to sober up. In the 12 years I have been here, this is the most obviously outrageous and irresponsible budget I have ever seen. The notion that this is a tough budget that seriously addresses our deficit in the coming years is, frankly, absurd. The Senator from North Dakota has done a wonderful job of making that point.
I will turn to my Republican colleagues who support this amendment and think it makes sense. I yield first 2 minutes to the Senator from Ohio and then 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, who has been one of the true stalwarts on this issue and, frankly, the lead author, and has been with us all the way on the issue of pay-go.
I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Pennsylvania for making this arrangement so the flow of debate on this particular amendment can stay intact. I do rise…
Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Pennsylvania for making this arrangement so the flow of debate on this particular amendment can stay intact.
I do rise in opposition to the amendment of Senator Specter to increase discretionary spending by $2 billion. One of my favorite things--and I am sure everybody else's in this Chamber--is to give away money. You really don't get much opposition when you give away money. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where we do not have real money to give away--although, if we pass certain things, it turns into real money, and the deficit increases. We are making a very concentrated effort this year to hold down the deficit--not eliminate the deficit, but to hold it down. You have to do that a little bit at a time.
This concept is very similar to family budgeting. There are a lot of things a family would like to spend their money on, that they really feel they ought to spend their money on, but there is just not enough money to go around.
That is the case for virtually every amendment in this budget, there is a huge desire to be able to do some very specific things we know will make a difference. We have been doing that for a lot of years. That is part of the reason we are in the problem we are in right now.
This amendment increases discretionary funding for Function 500, which would include additional funding for education and job training-- my favorite area--and Function 550, which would include additional funding for health--my second favorite area. That comes under the jurisdiction of my committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. It is a huge bite of the apple.
I am asked every once in awhile: How did that committee wind up with that much jurisdiction? I said it started out as just the Labor Committee, and then it picked up all the things that had to do with labor negotiations, the benefits that were negotiated, which include health benefits, job training, and pensions--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
We have since then made it a four-part equal stool so we can have a comprehensive review of these things. We have been doing that, and we have been making some tremendous headway.
My colleague from Pennsylvania has indicated that the additional $1.5 billion in funding for Function 550, included in his amendment, would be allocated to the National Institutes of Health. While I strongly support the basic biomedical research and other important activities at this agency, I agree with Chairman Gregg that now is not the time to specifically determine the amount of funding for NIH. That can be difficult. That can be done as part of the appropriations process, and Senator Specter is certainly in charge of the major determinations after Chairman Cochran makes the allocation. This is not the time for specifically determining that, although we get the impression that very specific determinations are made as part of the budget process.
That is partly the fault of the President. The President sends us a billion-page paper that shows how he would spend the money if he were spending the money. He doesn't have the authority to spend the money. He doesn't spend $1 of the money. This body and the one at the other end of the building have to do all of the appropriations, and we have set up a process for doing it. This part of the process is not to go through the President's items in detail but to establish some caps on spending. How much are we willing to increase the deficit? That is what we are debating and deciding. Can we show restraint and fiscal responsibility so that over a period of time we reduce the amount that we are increasing the deficit? Can we reduce the rate of spending? We are not talking about huge cuts. We are talking about reducing the amount of increase, in most cases.
As you get into the specific details of the President's guidelines, you will find things that are very distressing because some of the places he chose to make increases might not be places we would. Some of the places he chose to make decreases might not be places we would. While the President might have a real desire to decrease a certain program, Congress might disagree--maybe because it is a pet program of ours. We have that authority, and we can override any of the baseline indicators the President has sent to us, and we do in a lot of instances.
I again want to remind people that this is setting the overall cap and, of course, giving some suggestions on how to do it.
As chairman of the HELP committee, I look forward to modernizing NIH through the reauthorization process later this year. I am excited to build on the great work of Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH. We will be considering management reforms, including the NIH Roadmap, which will improve overall efficiency. This is particularly important given that the President has recently fulfilled his commitment to doubling the funding for the NIH. That is a monumental thing. We have doubled funding of NIH over the last several years. I applaud the President for improving scientific research, and I look forward to working with him and others to ensure that NIH has appropriate funding to fulfill its mission.
I commend the NIH for their process of peer review to see what research has the most potential to result in solutions to illnesses. I also commend the process NIH uses to give priorities to some very isolated diseases so that those get research, too. They do a marvelous job of allocating what they get. We confer with them regularly to see how they are doing, how quickly they can expand, and how easy it would be for them to include extra money. Like any Government agency or business, the more money they have, the more results they can get. The difficulty, again, is taking a look at the overall picture to see what we can do.
As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and a member of the Budget Committee, I am committed to ensuring that there is appropriate funding for all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services while still keeping in mind the current budget deficit.
As we all know, the President's budget is a target, and the actual appropriations amount for NIH and other agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services will be more fully discussed after we have reauthorized the program.
Any time we reauthorize a program, there is a need to examine that program carefully and decide what legislative constraints exist that keep people from doing their job in the most efficient way possible. We need to look at the things NIH has discovered since the last reauthorization and decide what programs have been completed and can now be eliminated--this type of reauthorization leads to more efficiency and more cost effective solutions.
We want more cures. We have an agency that has the kind of direction and the capability to do more. As chairman of the authorizing committee that has jurisdiction over this agency, I look forward to working closely with Senator Specter and other appropriators to determine the agency's appropriate allocation of funding later this year. I strongly support the mission of NIH to pursue fundamental knowledge about nature and living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.
That is one of the reasons that a couple of weeks ago we passed the genetics nondiscrimination legislation--to make sure people have more access to blood tests without any negative effects as a result of things learned from blood tests and the Genome Project. I was pleased that passed the Senate unanimously, which also shows the concern for doing the right thing with health.
We are making amazing progress, and I look forward to modernizing the process we use to achieve that progress through the reauthorization process later this year.
This amendment also assumes a $500 million increase in the Education Department to fund that Department at the 2005 level. I understand that some of my colleagues are concerned about the administration's proposed cuts to higher education programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP, and vocational education. Again, I want to point out the President's basic structure for arriving at a cap number. We are going to be working on this cap number. We are not going to be approving or disapproving the way the President got to those numbers. And, quite frankly, for the 8 years I have been in the Senate, there have been suggested changes by both Presidents that would affect TRIO, GEAR UP, and vocational education. Every time, the Senate has made sure those things did not happen.
We are interested in vocational education. For example, last week we passed the Perkins reauthorization for career and technical education. That was a commitment 99 to 0 by this body that we want to have career and vocational education at the high school level, and it is absolutely essential that we have that.
One of the things we are concerned about is the number of dropouts in high school. We want to reduce that. The amount that the Federal Government contributes to solving that problem is very small. In fact, mostly what we do is increase paperwork and tests that require additional time out of the classroom. That is not the best way to strengthen education for our kids.
We are looking for ways to decrease the dropout rate. I am pretty sure, if we eliminate career and technical education, we are going to increase the dropout rate.
But we have a plan within the committee authorization to be able to do the things we need to do in education, working them into a logical, staged
mechanism so we can continue to provide and increase the number of things that are being done in education.
This year, the HELP Committee is scheduled to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. The budget resolution contains a $5 billion reserve fund for new higher education spending. I want to review all of these programs in the context of the higher education reauthorization. We need to make sure there is a good map for getting from here to there which reduces the dropout rate and the wasted senior year and eliminates the amount of remedial education kids have to do once they go to college. Twenty-eight percent of the kids have to take a remedial reading or math class when they get to college. That takes time and that takes money when it is done at the college level. Yet we have some wasted senior years. We want to move that back in the process. We think we have that capability in what we are already allowed to do. We looked carefully at the budget. It is not easy, but it is possible to do.
I thank the chairman of the committee for working with us so that we have some flexibility within our area so we can achieve what we need to do.
Finally, I would like to point out that if the Specter amendment is agreed to, it will be the first amendment to the 2006 budget resolution to be offset by using Function 920, which is currently an unfunded administrative account.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Specter amendment.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, again I say what we are looking at when we see the President's proposal is their suggestions for how we get to the budget cap number they talk about.
The House and the Senate agree and have made a decision--I am pretty sure the House voted on it--that is going to be an essential part of education. So as we have done in the past, we will take money from other areas and shift it into vocational training. The President's proposal was to take that money from vocational education and put it into the high school No Child Left Behind Program. Those numbers are even in the President's budget, but we have chosen that there are other ways we can do high school improvement other than taking away this vocational money and putting it into the high school No Child Left Behind Program.
What we are doing is flexing even within what the President said and taking the money they were going to take from the vocational education and put in some increased testing and accountability and moving them back into vocation.
I yield back our time.
Will the Senator yield? The Senator from Washington has already taken 10 minutes off the resolution on this amendment. But it still unbalances this time. I ask unanimous consent I have 10 minutes,…
Will the Senator yield?
The Senator from Washington has already taken 10 minutes off the resolution on this amendment.
But it still unbalances this time. I ask unanimous consent I have 10 minutes, equal to the Senator from Washington, off the resolution.
I have a pending request, also.
Mr. President, I don't know what all the fight is about. If the
comments are true, that they think no one will bid, why do they oppose this? I am interested in the Senator from Wisconsin and his great defense of wildlife refuges. This area we are talking about is not within a wildlife refuge. It is not wilderness. But in his State, he has three pipelines running through wildlife refuges. Wisconsin has stood aside for all that they want.
And as a matter of fact, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, said that only Alaskans benefit from oil development. This happens to be oil development on Federal land. It is not true that only Alaskans benefit from development of our State. We happen to have a unique State in that we share the income we get from royalties on oil and natural gas that came from Prudhoe Bay where the State owns the land.
Incidentally, I want to tell my friend, the former Presidential candidate, Mr. Kerry, I take umbrage at his comment that I am guilty of unethical conduct because I am supporting the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. That smacks very much of something that is a subject of personal privilege, and I shall consider that later. Maybe Senator Kerry would like to come explain why he has singled me out for unethical conduct. But beyond that, I must express my amazement that my colleague from Washington has offered this amendment.
In 1980, the former Senator from Washington and my good friend, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson wrote a letter discussing the importance of ANWR and this 1.5 million acres. He said ANWR was:
. . . crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy
independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are
in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our
potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the
exploration of the Arctic Wildlife Range . . . is an ostrich-
like approach that ill serves our nation in this time of
energy crisis.
That is the former Senator from Washington. Not only does ANWR serve our important national security interests, it serves the economic interests of the State of Washington. As a matter of fact, Washington gets a great deal more out of Alaska's oil development than anyone. The economic health of the Puget Sound is tied directly to Alaska, as is illustrated by a report commissioned by the Tacoma-Pierce County and Greater Seattle Chambers of Commerce. Of particular importance is the oil production from the North Slope. Washington's refining industry purchases almost its entire crude stock from Alaska.
The report states that:
Direct impact from the refining of Alaska crude oil within
the Puget Sound region includes 1,990 jobs and $144.5 million
in labor earnings. In 2003, oil refineries in the Puget Sound
imported $2.8 billion worth of crude oil from Alaska.
Alaska oil provided 90 percent of the region's oil refinery needs. Oil development is a major contributor to the health of Washington's economy. As oil wealth in the State of Alaska increases, so does demand for Puget Sound goods and services. That is why the chambers of commerce of Washington State support ANWR. They understand that with Prudhoe Bay declining--today it only produces about 950 thousand barrels a day; it used to produce 2.1 million barrels a day--additional oil resources must be developed to ensure the continued economic viability of the Puget Sound region. The Puget Sound region has the luxury of purchasing our oil. Otherwise it would be purchasing oil from distant foreign shores.
The development of Prudhoe Bay has contributed more than $1.6 billion to the Washington economy. And ANWR alone is estimated to create over 12,000 new jobs in Washington State alone, in addition to the revenues it will generate. None of these benefits will take place if the Senator's amendment is allowed to pass. Not only are decreasing oil output and declining revenues affecting the health of Washington, its major businesses are feeling the heat, particularly the aviation industry.
The rise in fuel prices is greatly impacting Washington's aviation industry. Our airline industry has lost over $25 billion in the last 3 years. Sustained high jet fuel costs of $1.50 per gallon, which is almost three times that of 1999, continues to hamper the health of this critical industry. Every dollar per barrel the cost of oil rises costs the airline industry an additional $2 million per month. High energy prices also prevent job creation in the transportation sector. The Air Transport Association estimates that for every dollar increase in the price of fuel, they could fund almost 5,300 airline jobs. That should be worrisome to a person who represents the area of the aerospace industry of this country and wants to deny us access to this oil.
Let me speak about access to this oil. Washington consumes 17.6 million gallons of petroleum per day, including 7.3 million gallons of gasoline and $2.5 million for jet fuel. It produces no oil at all. Were it not for oil from my State, the Puget Sound region would be destitute.
Now, some people argue we should not develop ANWR because it would devastate the traditional lifestyle of Alaska's Natives. I think they do a disservice to the Alaskan Native people. They talk about the Gwich'ins. Let me be sure that everybody understands that the Gwich'ins, which the Democrats parade around this town, are from the South Slope. They are not in the North Slope. They have no traditional role in the North Slope. The only thing they share with the North Slope is the fact that the porcupine caribou herd, which comes from Canada up to the North Slope, goes through their area on up to the North Slope, and that is where they calve. But not every year. Some years they don't go. Why? Because their relatives in Canada kill too many.
The Gwich'ins hunt caribou in Canada and they can serve it commercially. For them, it is a sports animal versus a subsistence animal on our side. They have benefitted from oil production. They have provided revenues for schools, clean water, sanitation, electrical power, health clinics, roads, and Natives.
I don't think most people understand that because of the situation in terms of the Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act, when one region gets money from natural resources, it must share with the other 11 regions. The 7(i) concept is the most unique concept in America. That is why all of the Natives in Alaska have an interest in ANWR.
If the Natives of the North Slope get money--and they will--from this development, they must share that with the other 11 regions. I have worked closely with them to enact the strictest environmental standards on the planet, dealing with the developments on the North Slope.
People don't realize that the petroleum industry has been able to coexist with wildlife in the Arctic, and it really has the support of the Natives who live in that area. Thirty-three percent of unemployed Alaskans are Natives. Twenty percent of Alaskan Natives have incomes below the poverty line. Development of ANWR holds the potential to improve their situation. That is why they are in this city now trying to tell Members that they want ANWR developed.
We have been accused of trying to use strange procedures. I don't think it is strange. We had the same provision in last year and they were able to take it out. They knew they had the votes last year and they were not screaming like they are now. This year, things have changed. There has been an election.
Yes.
Mr. President, I am winding down. We have sent this item to the President to ask why we don't follow the usual procedures. President Clinton vetoed it on the request of the people on that side. We passed this in the Senate twice.
The trouble is, for 24 years we have tried to carry out commitments made by Senators Tsongas and Jackson that this area would be explored. For 24 years, there have been devices used by the other side to prevent it. But they forget even Congressman Mo Udall stated that nothing stops a future Congress from allowing exploration for these uses if they are of sufficient national importance. The question is whether they are of sufficient national importance.
Those who voted for this amendment will tell you they are voting against ANWR, but they won't tell you what they are for. Where are they going to get the oil? A vote for this amendment is a vote for the status quo.
I will use a couple more minutes off of our allotted time.
My friend Ronald Reagan used to say that ``status quo is Latin for 'the mess we are in.' '' A vote for this amendment closes our domestic resources to production. It is a vote for continuing our current policy of importing more than 60 percent of our Nation's oil. It is a vote for outsourcing more than 1.3 million American jobs a year. A vote for this amendment is a vote for increasing home heating bills and transportation costs. It is a vote to diminish our national security by relying on rogue nations, nations with unstable regimes.
I don't think there is a Senator in this Congress who would offer a bill that exports 1.3 million American jobs every year, will cost $200 billion annually by 2025, and leaves our national security vulnerable to the whims of unfriendly foreign regimes. That is what this does.
A vote for this amendment is not just a vote against ANWR; it is a vote for closing our Nation's single greatest prospect for future oil development and backing out of the promise made to Alaskans in 1980-- and all Americans--when Senators Jackson and Tsongas created section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
A vote for this amendment is a vote against the people of Washington State, who rely almost completely on Alaska for their oil for their industrial base and energy consumption.
Above all, a vote for this amendment is against Alaska Natives who overwhelmingly support development in ANWR because they know they can balance stewardship and conservation with the development. Alaska Natives would use a portion of the revenues to finance schools, water systems, and health clinics while pursuing their way of life.
Again, every Alaska Native will share in the money that is received by the North Slope people. They all share because of the bill this Congress wrote, the Alaskan Native Land Claim Settlement Act.
I thank the Chair.
I ask for 2 minutes off the resolution.
For the information of Senator Kerry, British Petroleum is currently investing over $500 million annually in Alaska and is drilling now over 100 new wells.
I hope my colleagues consider this amendment. What I really want to ask, finally, is to vote no. I have been fighting now for 24 years to get Congress to keep its word. In a fight such as this, the Senator really learns and realizes who his true friends are. I know those who vote against this amendment are doing so because it is the right thing to do for the country. But I count you among those of us from the World War II generation who understood that oil is ammunition and understand what it means to keep a promise. And I shall not forget it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the Voinovich- Feingold amendment to restore integrity to our current pay-go process. These are not ordinary times and it is not a time for business as usual. The…
Mr. President, I rise in support of the Voinovich- Feingold amendment to restore integrity to our current pay-go process.
These are not ordinary times and it is not a time for business as usual. The United States is the largest debtor Nation in the world, and our trade deficit is the worst it has ever been. The U.S. dollar is weak, and too much of our debt is in the hands of other nations.
Just 2 weeks ago it was rumored that the Japanese central bank was pulling their money out of dollars which sent a shiver of panic in the markets. Alan Greenspan and David Walker have served as modern-day Paul Reveres alerting us to the need to do something now before it is too late.
I recommend to my colleagues the pamphlet issued by the GAO entitled ``21st Century Challenges, Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government.'' It is well worth reading.
This is the beginning of my second term in the Senate. One of the reasons Ohio sent me back here is because they know I am committed to doing something about balancing the budget and paying down debt, fundamental, sound Republican principles to which I have been committed throughout my career.
At this stage in my life, I am more worried than ever about the legacy that our country will leave our children and grandchildren. God has blessed my wife Janet and me with three living children and six grandchildren. My daughter Betsy is expecting her third child. What kind of world will they live in?
One thing I know is that it will be more competitive than ever before, and they will have to work harder and be smarter to maintain the standard of living to which Americans have become accustomed.
I am sure you are asking: What does this have to do with pay-go? It has everything to do with pay-go because pay-go is a tool which Congress can use to enforce fiscal responsibility. Without fiscal responsibility, without responsible stewardship of the public's money, the gathering storm clouds of deficit and debt will darken more.
That is why I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and support the amendment offered by Senator
Feingold and me to restore integrity to the current pay-go process. According to CBO estimates, the national debt increased by $600 billion between 2003 and 2004 and will increase by at least the same amount before October 2005. This is a $1.2 trillion increase in Federal debt in just 2 years.
Raising the debt limit has become an annual ritual. This chart shows where we are. It is interesting that some of the charts I have seen from some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, all they show is that over the next 5 years we are going to bring the deficit down. But they never talk about the fact that our national debt is escalating up like a rocket. We are in trouble. Where is it going to end?
I am in favor of controlling spending. My votes in the Senate reflect that. This is a very tight budget when it comes to spending, and I support that. In fact, I commend Senator Gregg for producing the most fiscally responsible and honest budget resolution I have seen in 7 years in the Senate. I would like to point out, with all due fairness to my colleague from Wisconsin, that the fact is, in that budget are provisions that were in the Truth in Budgeting Act that Senator Feingold and I introduced a week ago: Three-year discretionary spending caps; a new 60-vote point of order against legislation that would cost more than $5 billion in any 10-year period between 2015 and 2055; a 60- vote point of order against unfunded mandates--I particularly appreciate this provision because I worked very hard to get unfunded mandate relief passed when I was Governor of Ohio and active in the National Governors Association--a 60-vote point of order against legislating exceeding appropriations spending limits; a $23.4 billion cap on advance appropriations; limits on the use of emergency designations. All of these provisions were in the Voinovich-Feingold Truth in Budgeting Act. So we have those in the budget.
I only wish the budget resolution also forced us to make equally difficult choices about tax policy. None of us like to take tough votes on programs we believe in, but most of us are willing to cast the difficult vote if that is what it takes to get Federal spending under control.
I say to my colleagues, how can I or any of us stick to this tough budget that we have and at the same time say to people who are complaining: Senator, you are saying you want to do something about the deficit, but at the same time you voted to extend tax reductions. How do you justify these two positions?
I was interested to hear the chairman of the Finance Committee indicate that we are going to deal with AMT. I would like to remind my colleagues that that is not in the budget. AMT will be on the floor of the Senate before the end of this year. And the allegation that the Feingold-Voinovich amendment is going to prevent us doing anything about AMT is poppycock. What it will require is that a budget point of order would be made against it. We would debate it, and if there are 60 votes to waive the point of order, that would go into effect.
Another issue that I know is going to be on the floor of the Senate where we are going to have to borrow money is in dealing with Medicare reimbursement. We all know that today Medicare reimbursement, if we don't do anything, will be reduced by 5 percent. None of us want that to happen. Again, that will be brought to the floor of the Senate.
This amendment does not prevent that from happening. It says: Pay for it or, in the alternative, debate it on the floor and get 60 votes.
Last but not least, this budget sets out $50 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing things in Afghanistan. In my opinion, if you are realistic, it is not going to be enough money. We don't still know what the cost of this war is going to be to the American people.
One other aspect I have to point out is that this is against a backdrop in which most experts agree that by 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will consume 18 percent of our GDP, about the same amount of money we are spending today for all operations of Government combined. That is why folks should read David Walker's pamphlet. It lays it out for us.
What does pay-go do? Pay-go forces us to stop and think before proposing legislation or amendments that will increase the deficit. Pay-go demonstrates the Senate is serious about reducing the deficit. Pay-go will provide a chance to stop and more carefully consider all alternatives before increasing spending or cutting taxes. Pay-go ensures that programs that will impose additional debt on our children and grandchildren must gain an overwhelming level of support.
Some of my colleagues wanted to ensure increased spending now or cut taxes now and hope that somehow the economy will save us or Congress will simply fix the problem. This would be a major mistake. Depending on the economy to save us from the impact of fiscal irresponsibility is like hoping that a hurricane misses your house.
Over the past 10 years, we have gone from having deficits to having surpluses and back to having deficits.
This is what has happened on this chart. During this period of time, we were running surpluses. We came here and then in 2003 we started to come down. Here is where we are now. The predictions are that they could go that way or that way.
I think all of us who are conservative would have to say that we have to prepare for this hurricane that may hit us and not take the rosy picture that everything is going to be all right; just keep reducing taxes, everything is going to be fine. We are going to grow our way out of this problem. I remember that during the 1980s when we saw the deficit climb substantially, which required in 1991 and 1993 the fact that we had to raise taxes. Borrowing money to run the Government is the equivalent of a future tax increase for the American people.
I urge my colleagues to look at this from a fairness point of view, to eliminate from the budget resolution the $70 billion that we have put in there to extend some of the taxes that are now in place. Let's pay for them. Alan Greenspan, David Walker, and Pete Peterson have all said the reduction on capital gains, on dividends, has helped the economy. But they all say pay for it. If you cannot pay for it, let's debate it on the floor of the Senate, as we did last year when we debated whether we were going to continue the marriage penalty relief, the lower marginal rates, the refundable child tax credit. But why sneak it into the budget resolution where we are only going to need 51 votes to get the job done? I think it is not fair.
I appeal to the common sense of my colleagues in the Senate. Here is where we are. We are putting this money in our budget resolution, instructions to the Finance Committee, to say $70 billion, and you can extend these tax reductions. At the same time we are doing that, we are telling the American people that we are going to have a flat-funded budget.
My feeling is, let's just clean it out of there. Take these extensions that everyone thinks are wonderful for the country and let's debate them. See if we can get 60 votes. If they are so good, they will get 60 votes. If they are not, we will pay for them. I just don't understand how we can continue to go this way. I think we are living in a dream world. This deficit continues to grow. We are the highest debtor Nation in the world. Our trade deficit is one of the worst we have ever seen. Unless we start to understand the seriousness of the situation we have, we are in deep trouble.
Mr. President, I think we all care about our families. We have to think about our legacy. I am 68 years old and I am running out of time. I think this country is running out of time. It is up to our generation to leave a better legacy than what it appears we are going to be leaving. There has to be some Republican who says: George, I agree with you. Let's do it.
If they vote for this amendment, they are simply saying we are not going to put the money in the budget resolution to give the instructions to the Finance Committee to go ahead and extend taxes up to $70 billion. What it will say is, Hey, guys, we are not going to do that. If we want to extend these, let's bring them up and debate them and let's either pay for them or waive the budget resolution and do it that way.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I will correct the impression that my good friend, the Senator from Mississippi, shared with us. The fact is that this amendment would subject tax continuation to the same 60-vote point of order we have for spending. In other words, why should we not subject continuing tax reductions, two of which are not going to even be up until 2008, to a lesser vote than we do when we are talking about spending more money than what the budget provides?
Let us apply the same standard to tax extensions that we do to trying to spend more money on the Senate floor. It is not a tax increase. It absolutely is not. All it does is say that 51 votes can extend it. All we are saying is this: If we want to do that, then subject it to the same test that all of us are going to have to adhere to when someone tries to spend more money than what the budget provides. Fair is fair.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership. I regret we are here at this time on the budget talking about a major legislative issue, a major energy policy issue which is being…
Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership.
I regret we are here at this time on the budget talking about a major legislative issue, a major energy policy issue which is being approached through the backdoor. This is the equivalent of the ``nuclear option'' that is being talked about with respect to judges. This is a ``nuclear option'' on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
You cannot drill, you cannot have oil exploration and preserve a refuge, nor even a wilderness. The oil companies themselves have said that. They have made it crystal clear. ConocoPhillips pulled out the other day and said they do not want to drill in Alaska. BP does not want to drill in Alaska. And these companies have had the courage to admit publicly that wilderness and drilling simply do not coexist. But because the votes do not exist to do this through the proper channels of the Senate, there is a new process being put in place to do this on the budget.
It is symptomatic of what is happening in the Congress. The Ethics Committee in the House is importuning to change the rules for Congressman Tom DeLay. Now they are talking about changing the rules for how to get judges. They do not like the rules; change them.
This does not belong in the budget. It belongs in a debate on the energy policy of the United States. But even on the merits, every single argument that has been made about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge fails to withstand scrutiny. We have heard that drilling in the refuge can be done in an environmentally friendly manner. But even the administration's own reports, the National Academy of Sciences, and others, all show that is not true.
We have heard that drilling in the refuge will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have heard that drilling in the refuge is going to bring gas prices down at the pump. We have even heard that drilling in the refuge belongs in the national budget because of the revenues from the lease sales. We have heard it is the only available location to look for new oil, notwithstanding that the largest unexplored and as yet unexploited area of oil for the United States is in the offshore gulf, deepwater drilling. We have heard the oil industry is eager to do this even though oil industry executives tell you otherwise in private, and several major companies in public have pulled out of the effort.
We say here that less than 1 percent will be affected and only 2,000 acres is going to be the footprint. Yet there is nothing containing that 2,000 acres into one contiguous area.
The fact is, that 1.5 million acres will be opened and you could have 20 different sites or 40 different sites of individual drilling. The maps show the roads, the gravel pits, the gravel roads, and other needs of airport, and so forth, to service those particular areas.
I would think most of my colleagues would understand that by definition wilderness and an industrial zone do not coincide. By definition they cannot occupy the same space.
In 1960, the Eisenhower administration first recognized the extraordinary wilderness value of the area and it was established to provide a unique wildlife landscape. Building a massive oilfield, no matter how you describe this imprint--we do not have time, unfortunately, to go into great detail, but every description of how this would actually be done defies the notion that this is going to be contained to an area the size of Dulles Airport.
Oil companies want you to think whatever oil may be found in the refuge is in one compact area. But if you go look at the North Slope oilfields west of the Arctic Refuge, that development sprawls over an extraordinarily large area. It stretches across the Coastal Plain.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, potential oil under the Coastal Plain is not concentrated in one large reservoir but it is spread across the Coastal Plain in many small deposits. To produce oil from this vast area requires a network of pipelines. Roads will be built. And that will change the habitat of the entire Coastal Plain.
Now, I acknowledge there is new technology. I know we have made progress with respect to horizontal drilling. We all understand that. And it is more efficient. And, yes, it is less harmful than we have been in the past. But the advantages are extraordinarily exaggerated, particularly with respect to what will happen to the imprint in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Even new technology such as directional drilling does irrevocable damage. Permanent gravel roads, busy airports are still used for access to production wells that are scattered across more than a million acres of coastal plain. And the entire complex, according to the analyses made by independent groups, will produce more pollution than the city of Washington itself.
No matter how well done, oil development has significant and lasting impacts on the environment. The industry itself has said this. British Petroleum has said:
We can't develop fields and keep wilderness.
And if the facts and the frank admission of an oil company are not enough, colleagues ought to read the National Academy of Sciences study. They should read the Department of Interior study and others who have all come to the same conclusion.
In addition, let me point out that every onshore oilfield today on Alaska's North Slope has permanent gravel roads, every single one, even the original Alpine field promoted to this day as a roadless development. I read Secretary Horton's article in the New York Times on the weekend talking about roadless development. It isn't roadless. It has a road connecting its drill sites from the time it began pumping crude oil in the year 2000. In December of 2004, a new road into the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and others, connected the initial oilfield pump to 33 miles of Alpine roads, and BLM predicted 122 more miles are going to be needed for the next phase of Alpine expansion.
Even today this promotion of ``roadless'' is fictitious. It is not going to happen. The roadless concept has not been abandoned. This is what the Bureau of Land Management says:
The roadless concept has not been abandoned. Roadless
development never meant no roads, only that the construction
of permanent roads would be minimized.
How many times do the American people have to listen to clear skies that aren't clear, healthy forests that are not healthy, and now roadless rules that are not roadless? The fact is, this is going to be destructive. It changes wilderness forever.
What about dependence? We hear this is going to change America's dependence on oil in the world. Go talk to anybody on Wall Street who deals with oil. Go talk to any of the people who trade oil prices, crude barrels. The fact is that this is not going to have any impact. Ten years from now at the peak year, you may change the percentage of American dependency from 62 to 60 percent.
The United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Nothing we could do in Alaska will affect the long-term security of the United States. The only thing that will do that is to recognize we need to move to alternative, renewable, different forms of fuel. The effort of the Senate should not be to destroy a wilderness area. The effort of the Senate ought to be to accelerate that research and development in America. Because with 3 percent of the oil reserves of the world in our hands, including Alaska, you can't drill your way out of America's predicament, you have to invent your way out of it. And that is not what this bill seeks to do. It is a drilling solution. It is a drilling solution with extraordinarily negative consequences.
The fact is, the price of oil will not drop. The price of energy will not drop. The price of gasoline will not drop. And one of the reasons why is that China, with its 1.2 billion people, and India, with its 1.- plus billion people, are all increasing their cars on the roads, increasing their development. That is raising the demand curve to a point that nothing the United States does is going to accelerate our production of oil sufficiently to have an impact.
May I have an additional 2 minutes?
We should not take the energy policy of the United States and
dump it into a tiny debate on the budget for a backdoor effort to find 50 votes-plus in order to do what has traditionally been done according to the rules of the Senate. This is an abuse of power. It is also an abuse of common sense. It will result in a policy that is against the will of the vast majority of the American people. Once again, special interest effort is defeating the desires of the American people to preserve wilderness and preserve something we have preserved to this date for future generations.
Will the Senator yield for a question?
I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I would like to take 1 minute to say something about what we heard, because the Senator from Virginia tried to minimize the impact of what would happen out there. Let me read what happened from the Clean Air Act Violations in 2004:
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation imposed
an $80,000 civil penalty on ConocoPhillips for Clean Air Act
violations in the Alpine oil field. In addition, over 2.3
million gallons of drilling muds--toxic, manmade fluids
pumped into wells--disappeared into the Colville River in
1998. The following year, 24,654 gallons of hazardous
drilling fluids spilled at the Colville River pipeline
crossing.
Oil industry activities for the Alpine fields caused 170 spills, totaling 36,000 gallons of hazardous substances by 2004, and that is according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
So this is not without harm. I stand by what I said about this being a violation of the rules, going outside the rules. I ask the Senator from North Dakota this, as he is a budget expert, respected by everybody in the Senate on the subject of the budget. The reconciliation process was put into place not to permit legislation for something that has been voted on as a matter of energy policy for years but for deficit reduction. This is not deficit reduction. I ask the Senator from North Dakota if that is not correct, that under the budget reconciliation rules, reconciliation is for the purpose of deficit reduction?
I thank the distinguished Senator. If I could also ask him one further question, according to the expectations of drilling, the time it will take and when revenues would flow to the United States, there will be no revenue that will flow from this legislation that will reduce the deficit; is that correct?
I thank the Senator. This is not a deficit reduction plan. That is the fundamental choice here.
For those colleagues who are wavering about this, who wonder about it, this is a precedent. Some people around here may take these precedents casually and the moment may seem very opportune. What goes around comes around. Someday these folks over here may be in the minority and they will want the rules played by properly. That is really what is at stake, not just the issue of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge but how the Senate is living up to its own standards and its own rules.
I thank the Chair.
I rise in opposition to the Feingold amendment. I do that with a realization that there is a great need for deficit reduction. Who can find fault with the objectives of Senator Feingold's amendment?…
I rise in opposition to the Feingold amendment. I do that with a realization that there is a great need for deficit reduction. Who can find fault with the objectives of Senator Feingold's amendment? Those objectives are good.
I am going to demonstrate that his proposal is not realistic. It also ignores the reality of the tax relief of the current law. It unwisely ignores a bipartisan will to maintain current tax relief for millions of taxpayers. Without maintaining existing tax policy, if we would just let that expire, we would have the biggest tax increase in the history of the country without Congress acting. It seems to me if we are going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the country, Congress ought to make the decision to do it.
I will talk about how the Senate Finance Committee approaches tax policy. We have used pay-go on taxes, but we do it outside of the budget. Two kinds of tax relief bills have come out of the Finance Committee in the last 4 years. One set of bills contained widely applicable tax relief. Those bills, if you take them together, and they were done under reconciliation, were bipartisan. I emphasize that because everyone around the country thinks everything around here is partisan. But these tax cuts were bipartisan and they were net tax cuts for virtually every American taxpayer. Those bills enacted in 2001 and 2003 did not contain offsets.
The secondary category of bills our committee works on would cover all other bills coming as part of our committee business. Those bills dealt with specific categories of tax relief. I will give some examples: A charitable giving tax bill, the bill to deal with exports in manufacturing, a bill to deal with the Armed Forces tax relief for our folks in Iraq putting their lives on the line--there are many other examples of tax relief fully offset by our committee.
In a few rare cases, such as the energy tax relief, for example, bills were partially offset. Now, this pattern is applicable during my chairmanship of this committee, and it is fair for me to say there was a similar pattern occurring when my Democratic colleague and counterpart, Senator Baucus, was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
By and large, then, the Senate Finance Committee, when dealing with tax policy, has produced revenue-neutral bills. The exceptions occurred when there was bipartisan support for widely applicable tax relief. And I emphasize the word ``bipartisan.''
By the way, had we not responded with that bipartisan tax relief, there would have been no widespread economic stimulus that resulted. In other words, the economic depression that set in with the NASDAQ losing half of its value in the year 2000, and then with the September 11 attack on New York City and the resulting downturn in the economy, we would not have had in place an economic stimulus to bring back economic growth to where we are now.
Chairman Greenspan said tax relief was responsible for the economic turnaround.
Also, we had the most recent Nobel economic prize winner tell us that our tax relief in 2001 and 2003 was not as big as it should have been to get the maximum economic stimulus. But we have had an economic turnaround justifying, without question, those tax relief packages.
So let me be clear. With tax policy outside the budget, the Finance Committee has, in effect, operated on a pay-go basis. The exceptions were built into the budget, and those exceptions had bipartisan support.
I would like to challenge any of the critics of this budget to show the same record on the spending side. No, it seems like others want to spend. And all of these amendments that are being offered are adding up to positive proof that the same people who are against tax relief do not want to reduce the deficit. What they want to do is spend more money.
If I could ever find from the other side how high taxes had to be, how high they had to be to satisfy their appetite to spend money, I might go that high, if I knew I never had to go any higher. But I cannot ever get any consensus about that. So the only conclusion you come to: taxes can never be high enough.
The other point is, I might be willing to vote for some increase in taxes if every dollar increase in taxes resulted in a lower deficit, went to the bottom line to lower the deficit. But, no, every time we raise $1 of taxes around here, it is a license to spend $1.10, $1.20, and sometimes more. So we need out of the other side the same concerns about spending.
The Feingold amendment is not realistic about current tax relief. Senator Feingold's amendment would undo the tax policy resources in the budget. Let me explain why. The budget's tax cut number covers expiring tax relief. It extends all widely applicable tax relief. It includes it all. The number covers dividends and capital gains. It also covers, through the year 2010, provisions the critics say they support: tuition deduction, low-income savers credit, small business expensing. The number also covers for 1-year provisions critics say they support: business extenders such as R&D, sales tax deductions, the alternative minimum tax hold harmless.
The number includes offsets that will get us $20 to $30 billion. So we are talking about $70 billion net. I repeat, that is $70 billion net. It covers a gross tax cut of $90 to $100 billion. That number covers all of the items that folks, particularly on the other side of the aisle, say they are for.
Now, critics cannot say they are for these items and not provide room in this budget for those tax cuts. You cannot have it both ways. So a vote for the Feingold amendment is a vote against expiring tax relief that a lot of these folks say we ought to pass.
Realistically, there is probably around $30 billion in offsets. Realistically, there is about $100 billion in costs. That is a realistic position. For instance, we have heard a lot about the alternative minimum tax. ``When are you going to do something about it?'' is a question from the other side. The cost of a 1-year hold harmless on the alternative minimum tax is $30 billion. That is $30 billion for AMT for 1 year alone. So don't tell people back home you are for AMT relief if you vote for the Feingold amendment.
Let's go through some of these other expiring tax relief provisions. Deduction for State and local sales tax: It is covered in the number in the budget. It is important for States such as Nevada, Washington, Florida, and South Dakota.
Mr. President, could I have more time?
Thank you.
Mr. President, we have a savers credit, an incentive for low-income savers. It is covered in the budget number. Deduction for college tuition: It is covered in the budget number. Extension of research and development tax credit--it is important to lots of States--it is covered in the budget number. Extension of wind and alternative energy tax credit: It is covered in the budget. I know that is important to a lot of people, a lot of people who are critics of this budget.
So you cannot have it both ways. If you exclude room in the budget for tax relief, you cannot say you support that same tax relief. The two positions are not in sync. The budget resolution provides room for tax relief. So a vote for the Feingold amendment is a vote against expiring tax relief. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are for a budget that has a realistic plan to maintain current tax relief--and this budget has that realistic plan--or you are for the Feingold amendment, which means you are not serious--not serious--about maintaining current tax relief levels.
Now, the Feingold amendment is also a stealth tax increase. The premise of the Feingold amendment is that tax relief should be treated less favorably--less favorably--than spending. How can that be, you might ask? Well, here is the answer. Entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare and discretionary spending can grow under the Feingold notion of pay-go. Contrariwise, much of the current law of tax relief expires, and in some cases tax relief, such as the AMT hold harmless, runs out after year's end. That is 9 million tax filers, mostly middle-income families, who are hit by the Feingold regime.
There is no comparable hit on the spending side. See the bias for tax increases automatically, and no bias against spending increases. Entitlement spending would continue to grow without limit under the Feingold amendment. So the Feingold amendment backstops runaway entitlement spending. Taxpayers are left out. Taxpayers are out in the cold under the Feingold regime. A vote for the Feingold amendment is a vote against status quo tax relief and a vote for status quo spending. That does not sound like evenhanded fiscal discipline to me.
So I urge a vote against the Feingold amendment because it is defective on these several points. And most importantly for me, as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, it ignores the Finance Committee's prudence under both Democratic chairmanship and Republican chairmanship. It ignores the reality of current tax relief which is expiring. It contains a stealth tax increase on at least 9 million taxpayers who are going to be caught up in the alternative minimum tax. It creates a double standard by treating a dollar of out-of-control spending more favorably than a dollar of current tax relief.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from…
Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Idaho.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
I ask the Chair to let me know when I have used 9 minutes.
Mr. President, it is important that we do attempt to set the record straight. It is interesting to listen to the back and forth that goes on across the aisle. If Alaska were not my home, if I were not born and raised there, if I had not had an opportunity to know and understand all parts of my incredibly beautiful and diverse State, I would think that they were talking about another place, another world that I was not familiar with. So I feel compelled as an Alaskan to stand before you and talk about the reality of ANWR, the reality of the world that exists up North.
The Senator from Massachusetts made a statement. I apologize if it is not exactly as he stated it, but the inference was that wilderness can't exist with industry, and that is why we should not move forward with opening ANWR to exploration.
The area we are talking about exploring is not in a protected wilderness area. It is in an area that has been designated ``reserved,'' if you will, because of its vast potential oil and gas reserves. It has been recognized by the Congress, by the executive branch, for its potential. It is not in wilderness status. It is not in wilderness status like the 8 million acres directly below the 1002 coastal area. It is not in wilderness status like some 58 million acres of wilderness that are currently in the State of Alaska. The 1002 area is not wilderness.
Therefore, don't mix it in up. Don't make that suggestion.
Others have said we are talking about exploring and drilling in a wildlife refuge. As my colleague from Alaska mentioned to the Senator from Wisconsin, in his State of Wisconsin there are pipelines going through three separate wildlife refuges. There are currently nearly 400 producing wells in the national wildlife refuges nationwide.
The National Audubon Society has received $25 million in royalties from oil development in its sanctuary in Louisiana. It has been receiving this money for decades.
There is nothing unusual nor improper about allowing careful development in a refuge.
We are using 21st century technology. I haven't seen this wildlife refuge which the National Audubon Society has in Louisiana, but I am certain they are making sure, if they are developing it, that they are doing it in concert, in balance with the environment. That is exactly what we will be doing if we are given permission to go forward in ANWR. How can I tell you we will do that? Because we have been doing it up North for 30 years. We have been refining the technology, the Arctic engineering and technology that goes with extraction of a resource in a pretty harsh environment. Yet, as harsh as it is in the wintertime, it is a very fragile environment during those summer months. Alaskans appreciate our climate and our geography. We figured that we have to do it right or we could cause harm to the environment.
When we talk about the roadless areas we have available for exploration, we mean it. We do mean that we are going to put down an ice road that will disappear when the summer comes. In fact, we are so rigid on it, we don't even lay the ice road for the following year in the same area just so there is no impact to that tundra, no impact to that area.
I take great offense to the preliminary implication that some of my colleagues have made that, somehow or other, the North Slope is some industrial wasteland. They made the comment that the air and the skies were like the pollution in Washington, DC. Let me tell you, as an Alaskan, I am outright offended at that kind of a comment.
You come up North, you look at the air, and you breathe the air, if it is not too cold. The fact is, we have put environmental safeguards and standards on our industry unlike any other place in the world. I have seen what we have done in the lower 48. Quite honestly, I can understand why some of my colleagues are concerned about industry in Alaska, because they have seen it in their States. They have seen what they can do. But we have said no. We have learned from your mistakes. We are going to make sure that when you have a vehicle, you put a diaper under that vehicle. It sounds crazy, but we are not going to accept any kinds of spills. We are not going to accept any kind of environmental degradation. We have controls over it. We are going to make sure we do it right.
When they talk about the spills--I mentioned yesterday on the floor that we have spills. We require in the State of Alaska that everything you drop on the ground is reported. Do you know what is mostly reported? It is the seawater, the saltwater that is used to inject. Whether it is a spill of saltwater, whether it is a spill of chemicals, or a gallon of oil, hydraulic oils, you have to report it. You report it, and you clean it up.
When I took these colleagues North with me 2 weeks ago, they were amazed at the environmental culture within the industry. It is not necessarily because the industry has said we should do it; it is because we in Alaska care, and we are going to make sure you are going to do it right. If you are not going to do it right in our State, you are not welcome to do business. It is more expensive to do business in Alaska because we are a long way away, which sometimes makes it difficult. Part of it is we demand that you do it better.
Where does that put us? We are a nation reliant on oil. We are 58 percent reliant on foreign sources of oil. Oil just hit 56 bucks a barrel, and we are 58 percent reliant on foreign sources.
We have an opportunity to make a difference in this country.
I have had some of the opposition suggest there is not really that much there. Let us take the median. Let us just assume for purposes of discussion here today that we are able to get a million barrels of oil a day. At the height of the Prudhoe fields, we were at 2 million barrels a day through our pipeline. We were providing 20 percent of America's domestic needs.
What is a million barrels? Aside from the fact that you get a million barrels 365 days a year, what is it? It is enough fuel to run the State of Maryland for 100 years. It can fuel every car in every home in Washington State for 68 years. It is enough fuel to replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years--25 years. It is enough fuel to double all of the oil taken out of Texas for the past 75 years. It is enough oil to save America from writing a $54 million check to OPEC every day at the current prices. Fifty-four million dollars is what we are writing to OPEC today. Actually, I think that number goes up because the price of oil has now bumped up to $56 a barrel.
The fact is, it is not just about increased domestic production. We need to have balanced our energy policy. We know we can't drill our way out of it. We know we can't conserve our way out of it. We know we have to work on balance, promote conservation, efficiency, developing alternatives, but it has to also include more domestic production to reduce our dependency on OPEC and other unstable regimes.
We have to do more.
I used the phrase yesterday: We have to think globally and act locally. Let us not export our issues overseas. Let us not be reliant on Russia, Columbia, Africa, or Venezuela. We need to recognize, though, if we park every single car in America today and say that is it, we are going to take a step, we are not going to be so reliant on oil, the fact is we would still need oil, whether it is for Band-Aids, CDs, or heart replacement valves. We use oil every day in our world. We need to do what we can at the domestic level to meet our energy needs to the fullest extent possible. ANWR offers us that opportunity.
Please give us in Alaska the chance to show you how we will continue to do it right for years to come.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Cantwell amendment. We have an opportunity today to open a very tiny portion of Alaska's coastal plain to exploration and opportunity. This is an opportunity for us to focus on energy security, economic security, and environmental security. The price of oil just bumped up to 56 bucks a barrel this morning. What we are talking about in terms of the security for domestic reserves is on average a million barrels of oil per day.
The other side has said it doesn't mean much. Let me tell you what it means. It is enough fuel to run the State of Maryland for 100 years. It is enough fuel for every car and every home in Washington State for 68 years. It is enough fuel to replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for 25 years. It is enough fuel to double all of the oil taken out of east Texas in the past 75 years. This needs to be part of an overall energy plan.
I urge the Senate to oppose this amendment.
Show 11 more
Will the Senator yield for a question? I believe the Senator from Wyoming was going to speak in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania. He was going to talk about that. Did the…
Will the Senator yield for a question?
I believe the Senator from Wyoming was going to speak in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania. He was going to talk about that. Did the Senator from North Dakota wish to go forward off the resolution? Is that the Senator's plan?
Mr. President, what is the time situation?
Mr. President, let me speak, and then the Senator from Pennsylvania can wrap up.
Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania bringing this amendment forward. I know of his deep commitment to NIH and education, and as chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over both of these accounts on the discretionary side, it is challenging, to say the least. He has the second largest appropriating account in the Senate after defense, but he probably has the job with the most demands on it well beyond defense, and he has attempted to balance those demands very effectively. However, in this instance, I believe we should stay with the basic numbers we have put forward in this budget.
It is critical if we are going to have fiscal discipline around here to have a top-line discretionary number which we have agreed to--843-- and that we not within the budget process try to redirect funds within that number in a way that either negatively impacts other accounts or positively impacts accounts. That would be a unilateral activity of the Senator from Pennsylvania when he starts marking up the bill.
The 920 account, if it is used here, will have the practical effect of an across-the-board cut on all other accounts in the Government that are discretionary so that it creates a pressure that will be difficult to handle if it is put forward in this way.
On the specific issue of funding, we all recognize NIH is a premier institution and has done an extraordinary job, but we have to recognize this Congress has been extraordinarily generous over the last few years with NIH. Beginning at the beginning of the Bush administration, there was a decision to double the funding of NIH, and that is exactly what happened. It has grown at rates of 13 and 14 percent annually compounded. It has gone from $13 billion to a $27 billion account and $28 billion account in the last 5 years, a huge expansion in the commitment to research in the area of health care.
There are some concerns with whether we should not take a brief breathing period and make sure dollars are being used efficiently. The President has proposed an increase for NIH but not as much as maybe NIH believed it would like, but certainly in the context of the dramatic increase in funding over the last few years it is appropriate.
In the education accounts, this President has committed huge increases in education. The numbers are staggering, quite honestly. It is the commitment the administration has made relative to the prior administration. In the area, for example, of the overall discretionary budget, the Department of Education has gone up 33 percent since the Clinton years. In the area of No Child Left Behind, it has gone up 46 percent, title I has gone up 52 percent, IDEA has gone up 75 percent. The way the President structured the budget was to say let's take a look at the miscellaneous educational programs that are targeted that have a small impact and see whether those priorities, in comparison with the big programs in which the Federal Government has a major role, such as No Child Left Behind, special education, Pell grants, and title I, the President decides to put more money into those programs rather than to the specific targeted programs.
Obviously, it will be up to the Senator from Pennsylvania, working with his committee and working with Senator Enzi, chairman of the Education Committee, to make decisions as to how that should shake out. But in this
budget the President has proposed significant increases in the core educational programs. In special education he is up $450 million; in title I, he is up $1 billion; and in No Child Left Behind, up $1 billion; in Pell, which is not reflected appropriately, in my opinion, in this budget, or has not been discussed appropriately, he is up half a billion. We have specifically raised the cap--hopefully, it will end up there, but we have no control over how the allocations occur--to give Senator Specter's subcommittee an additional half billion specifically for Pell. So the grants can go from $4,150 and give it authority to allow the Pell grants to be restructured so you can get a $5,100 Pell grant under the new structure which is being proposed under this bill should Senator Enzi's committee decide that is how they want to proceed.
In addition, we have set aside $5.5 billion in the budget in a reserve fund specifically to fund a new Higher Education Act, the purpose of which is to dramatically expand the Pell grants and take them up to $5,100 for those who go to school 4 years and dramatically expand borrowing for students through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program.
Education is strong in this budget and I hope we will stay within the terms of this budget rather than expanding beyond that.
I recognize the problems the Senator from Pennsylvania has are difficult, probably the most difficult of any of the Appropriations subcommittees, and I understand why he brought this amendment forward.
I presume I have used all my time.
Mr. President, I yield myself time off of the resolution.
The representation by the Senator from Massachusetts that somehow this is outside the rules to proceed within the rules is a very unique view of the rules. We are using the rules of the Senate. That is what they are. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions.
The fact is, all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position.
Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so. The reason the Budget Act was written in this way was to allow certain unique issues to be passed with a majority vote. That is all that is being asked for here.
No, I will not yield.
The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win. Fifty-one votes to say there should not be drilling, that there should not be exploration, that this small postage stamp of land in this vast area of land should not be looked at for the purposes of giving us some independence in the area of energy, addressing our energy needs as a nation--if you have 51 votes to say that, you win.
If, on the other hand, the Senators from Alaska, who feel that in good conscience they had a commitment from the Senate for many years that they would be allowed to pursue this initiative and that they can do it in an environmentally sound way, have 51 votes for their position, they win. That is the way the rules of the Senate are set up.
So it is totally inappropriate for a Senator to come to this floor and represent that this is some sort of unethical act, as was implied by the Senator from Massachusetts. We are using the rules of the Senate as they are set up to be used, and that happens to be the rule of the Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, how much time do we have on the resolution on our side before we get to the 1 o'clock vote?
And we have coming up 45 minutes on the two veterans amendments.
Mr. President, as a way to resolve this, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens be given 10 minutes off the resolution and that the vote occur at 1:10.
Will the Senator yield for a quick point?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the times the reconciliation process has been used for actions very similar to this, many of which were in periods when the Democrats controlled this Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote which is about to occur on the amendment by Senator Byrd, there be 1 minute on both sides.
I also ask that be applied to the next vote, which will be on ANWR.
Mr. President, it is now our plan to move to what is known in the vernacular as the pay-go amendment, which Senator Feingold is going to offer. We are going to spend an hour and a half on it.
I ask unanimous consent this amendment be in order for an hour and a half with the time equally divided.
Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to let me know when I have spoken for 5 minutes. I would appreciate that. This amendment should be opposed primarily because there is a big difference…
Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to let me know when I have spoken for 5 minutes. I would appreciate that.
This amendment should be opposed primarily because there is a big difference between requiring offsets for spending increases and requiring offsets for tax cuts. They have dramatically different effects on economic growth. The goal here should be a strong private sector economy.
Let's go back to basic principles. Money does not belong to the Government, so we should not be concerned about how much a particular policy ``costs'' the Government. Money belongs to the people and when allowed to work in the private sector economy it can become a powerful engine for economic growth and job creation and a better standard of living and productivity for all Americans. And one more thing: it could really help the Federal Government because the more wealth that is produced, the more that is taxed, and the more revenues go to the Federal Government as taxes. So a growing, vibrant economy not only helps us all as individuals and families, it helps the Federal Government, too, because there is more economic growth and revenue and wealth to tax.
The key here is to keep economic growth going strong. We are also concerned about the size of the deficit, and that is why we have the so-called pay-go rule for spending. If we are going to raise spending in one area, what the budget says, and correctly so, in another area is we need to reduce it someplace else because we need to net it out at an even amount. We don't want to go above the spending level in the budget that the President and the Budget Committee have set. That makes sense.
But with respect to tax cuts, what is the purpose of a tax cut? The purpose of a tax cut is to ensure that we can continue to sustain economic growth, to create jobs, basically to provide more capital to be invested into businesses which can hire more people, can produce more goods, which can create more revenue. And again, what happens with that growing economy--revenue increases to the Treasury.
The purpose of the tax cut is to keep all of that going.
Suppose you had a pay-go rule that said you have to ``pay'' for tax cuts by giving the Federal Government an equivalent amount of money that you are reducing as a result of the tax cuts; in other words, that somehow the money belongs to the Federal Government, and if you are going to let people keep more of their own money somehow that has to be made up to the Federal Government.
That makes no sense at all. That is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul by
taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another pocket-- basically saying if we reduce taxes in the private sector in order to stimulate economic growth, somehow we have to go back in that private sector and pull an equivalent amount of money out to give it to the Federal Government to make up the difference. It makes no sense at all.
All you have do in that case is reduce the amount of money in the private sector, producing revenue by reducing the amount that goes to the Federal Government in revenues. This has been demonstrated. As a matter of fact, since the tax cut of 2003, if you judge the year from 2003 to 2004 in the same period, we saw an increase in revenues to the Treasury from taxes of 10.5 percent compared to the same time in 2003. The aftertax revenues to the Government were more than before we cut the tax rates.
How could that be? In economic theory--we know this to be true--take the case of capital gains taxes. Since both dividends and capital gains tax reductions are presumed to be included in this budget cut, we know that when the tax rates on capital gains were high, people didn't sell their assets. They didn't turn them over because they would have to pay a big tax. As soon as we reduced the tax rate on capital gains, it had an unlocking effect in the economy, and then people were willing to sell their assets because they did not have to pay nearly as much taxes on the gains.
Conversely, it is also true that the higher the rate, the less economic activity.
There was a direct relationship between reducing the taxes and increased revenue to the Treasury. The Nobel Prize economist, Dr. Edward Prescot, who teaches at Arizona State University, got his Nobel Prize for pointing out the same being true with respect to individual income tax rates. It is not true that the higher the income tax rate, the more revenue you bring in.
Suppose you had a 100-percent tax rate on your income. How many people would work? You are working the entire amount of time for the Federal Government. The highest possible income tax rate produces the least possible income tax revenue.
Instead, what you need is a rate at which people would feel they can continue to work and make enough money for themselves so it is worthwhile to continue to work. But at a certain point, you are taxing that next dollar earned at a point at which people will no longer work.
That is what has happened to the European economy. Their higher tax rates over there have resulted in less work, less productivity, less income to their treasury as a result of their taxes.
Pay-go works perfectly fine for the increases in spending that need to be offset, but it doesn't work at all--in fact, it is counterproductive--with respect to reductions in taxes, which is what we are trying to preserve by the budget by the reconciliation construction.
I reserve the remainder of the time on this side.
Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, I yield the chairman of the Finance Committee another 5 minutes, if that is sufficient.
Mr. President, how much time do both sides have?
Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments, and then I think the other side will want to close the debate. I will reserve just a couple of minutes, if anyone else would like to speak on our side.
I think there is an important point that needs to be made. When we talk about pay-go, outside the Senate people might wonder what in the heck that means. On the spending side, when we increase spending, that means we also have to find a way to offset that. We have to find a revenue source or we have to cut spending somewhere else. So the net is the same. Just like in your household budget, you are going to spend money in one area, and you have to reduce the spending in another area so you can get back to even. That makes a lot of sense. But paying on the tax cut side is totally different.
Who pays to make up the lost revenue to the Federal Government? Taxpayers. So it is real easy for Senators to say, well, the taxpayers have to pay more money. But that is not right. It is their money. It is not ours. The Federal Government doesn't own any of that money.
When we make a deliberate decision to reduce taxes, our point is to let people keep more of their own money. It is not to have some new rule come in here and say, but however much you let people keep, you have to take from them some other way because the Government needs all of that money.
We are talking about the budget deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, which is the entity that does the scoring around here, under the assumptions of this budget, the green line is the deficit. You see it going from 2005, 3.2 percent of our gross domestic product, down to 2.8, 2.2, and 1.8. In less than 5 years, we cut the budget deficit in half. Those are under the assumptions that include the tax cuts that we passed in 2001 and 2003. We are going to reduce the deficit with the tax cuts in place.
What our colleagues on the other side are saying is, No, we have to let those tax cuts expire, creating the biggest tax increase in the history of this country because otherwise it won't be fair to the Federal Government. My concern is that we be fair to the taxpayers of this country. This budget assumes the tax cuts we want to continue, and that is the right way for us to budget. That is what the budget assumes, that is why we should adopt the budget, and that is why we should reject the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.
I reserve the remainder of the time.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of Alaska's indigenous peoples, the Alaska natives. I will oppose the Cantwell amendment. My position is based on my experiences in Alaska when I visited the…
Mr. President, I rise today in support of Alaska's indigenous peoples, the Alaska natives. I will oppose the Cantwell amendment. My position is based on my experiences in Alaska when I visited the village of Kaktovik in 1995 and spoke to the Inupiat peoples who greatly desire this opportunity for economic self- determination. My position is not new--I have remained firm in the position for the last 10 years. In developing this position I have met with individuals and organizations who have advocated on both sides of this issue.
For me, this vote is not a vote just about preservation of the environment versus development. It is a vote about the self- determination of an indigenous people and their homeland. The Inupiat, who live within the boundaries of the coastal plain, are a people with strong cultural values, and are deeply in touch with their environment and everything that lives there. It is the Inupiat who have been the caretakers of the Arctic region for thousands of years.
To some of my colleagues, the debate about ANWR is about energy. To others, it is about the environment. To me, ANWR is really about whether or not the indigenous people who are directly impacted have a voice about the use of their lands. The Inupiat know every mile, every curve in the landscape of the coastal plain, and every animal that must survive there, for their own survival depends on this. They have the greatest incentive of anyone to preserve their environment, including the plants and animals that live on the coastal plain, in order to maintain their way of life.
They too depend on the caribou and they have participated in the protection of the caribou while monitoring and working with the oil industry at Prudhoe Bay. Their experience has demonstrated that a careful balance is possible, and that preservation and development are not mutually exclusive. My colleagues, I do not live on the coastal plain. For that reason, I trust the wisdom and knowledge of those who have lived and cared for the land there for many, many generations.
I will vote to provide the Inupiat with the opportunity to provide for themselves and their future generations. They have spoken and have been steadfast in their position for many, many years. I am confident that they will protect their homeland and utilize its resources with the native values that have served them well since time began. Their position is supported by the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 110,000 Alaska natives, and the native village of Kaktovic.
This has not been an easy decision for me given the fact that this is one of the few times that I am not voting with the majority of my colleagues in my party. As much as I would like to vote with my colleagues, I must remain true to myself and my values. For me, this is an issue about economic self-determination. This is an issue about allowing those who have lived on the coastal plain and cared for the coastal plain for many, many generations, to do what they believe is right with their lands.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes of time to make this statement about my amendment.
Madam President, the budget resolution fails veterans. It is that simple. I am pleased to stand with my colleagues who joined me in offering this veterans health care amendment to add $2.85 billion for VA health care.
Let me say that I agree with the President on the overall amount needed for VA health care. But we differ in where to get the funding. And I must say, I enjoy working with my friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Craig, and we both feel this committee needs more funding than it has. We are offering different amendments to try to reach that funding.
The President asks veterans to shoulder the burden with a higher copay for medications and a new user fee for middle-income veterans. I disagree. I am pleased that the Budget Committee summary rejected the President's proposals. As my colleagues pointed out last night, unfortunately, funds have not yet been included to compensate.
How did we arrive at this amount of $2.8 billion? The answer is that it comes directly from the administration's own estimates. VA needs $1.4 billion just to cover inflation. The level in the budget resolution before us does not even come close to covering that amount.
And VA requires funding to absorb new patient workload. The budget resolution before us doesn't contain funding for this.
We also need to reverse the President's decision to cutoff enrollment to middle-income veterans. To date, 200,000 veterans have been turned away--10 percent of whom live in Nevada, Louisiana, and Texas.
Our amendment provides the money to make the system truly accessible. It is just wrong to differentiate between veterans entitled to care. It is dangerous to say that some veterans deserve more than other veterans. This sends the message that serving during peacetime is not as important as going to war, or being drafted to serve is not as noble as volunteering to serve. Everyone who has served in our Armed Forces has contributed to our national security and to protecting the principles on which our Nation is founded. Needless to say, the budget resolution before us does not maintain open access for all veterans.
The other side of the aisle has offered an amendment, as well. In doing so, we at least are hearing for the first time an acknowledgment that the President's budget and the budget resolution before us do not go far enough. Unfortunately, neither do the amendments that are being offered.
The amendment on the other side adds $410 million for VA care. This is simply not enough to avoid the drug copay increase and the user fee for middle-income veterans. And it is not enough to avoid the President's cuts to nursing home beds. And the Ensign amendment will not help the 21,000 veterans who were turned away for care in Nevada, Louisiana, and Texas. All told, the Ensign amendment is nearly $2.5 billion short of what is needed.
The amendment on the other side can be considered a gesture. And since the Ensign amendment takes the money from global health accounts, it is a gesture that will likely hurt worldwide AIDS programs and other humanitarian assistance.
The President saw the value in this global health account and chose to increase spending for it. The Ensign amendment cuts funding for this account. Instead my amendment closes corporate tax loopholes rather than cutting funding for needed programs.
I would also like to say a word about the record when it comes to veterans funding. The Bush administration and my colleagues in the majority have stated that veterans funding has increased 47 percent during this President's tenure.
While funding has increased, it has been based on the efforts by Congress in supporting amendments such as the one I am offering. The simple fact is that the administration has requested less than half of the new funding made available to veterans during its tenure. Congress, by approving amendments to increase VA funding, has added another 39 percent of funding. Even with a 47 percent increase since FY 2001, this is an average annual increase of less than 10 percent to accommodate high medical care inflation and high annual growth in patients. It is a fact that per patient resources have increased by about 13 percent while the number of patients has increased by 25 percent since FY 2001. That means that the growth in the number of patients is almost twice the amount of growth in resources. These facts underscore the need to support my amendment.
We have an opportunity to fund the veterans health care system--to protect veterans from waiting times for appointments, from harsh new fees, and from cuts in long-term care. Let us go more than half-way to meet veterans' needs. Let us do the right thing. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in voting to provide the funds necessary to care for our veterans.
Mr. President, I don't need any time to discuss the matter. I need a unanimous consent request. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me to do that. This has to do with a time allotment on our side…
Mr. President, I don't need any time to discuss the matter. I need a unanimous consent request. I wonder if the Senator will yield to me to do that.
This has to do with a time allotment on our side for the debate. We have 45 minutes on our side on debate with reference to the exploration in Alaska.
I ask unanimous consent that 45 minutes be distributed as follows to Senators on our side to speak on the Cantwell amendment up to 5 minutes each: Senator Allen, Senator Talent, Senator Thune, Senator Murkowski, Senator Inouye, who would have up to 10 minutes--he is the only exception--and Senator Stevens and Senator Domenici. That would be 45 minutes. Some might use less and give it to other Senators.
I wanted the Republican Senators to know they are all in line at some point during the debate, with 45 minutes of our time for them.
I thank the chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. President, how much time is on the other side?
Thank you, Mr. President.
(Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the Chair.)
Madam President, let me say to Senator Stevens that it has been a pleasure working with him on this issue.
Some people have asked: Why don't we listen to the people of Alaska? It is their livelihood. They live there. I had the pleasure of going up there and talking with them. I can tell the Senate without any doubt that the overwhelming majority--maybe 70 to 75 percent--of Alaskans wants this to be developed. I think that means, at a minimum, they have seen some development, they have seen the benefits of it, and they have assured themselves that it can be done in such a way that it will not harm the environment which they so much cherish and in which they live. They don't want it to be destroyed.
Now, I want to talk about some comparables. Many ask--not that there is a direct relationship--why don't we do more in renewables? I want to talk about what 1 million barrels of oil a day means compared to a renewable source of energy such as wind production. For those that say we ought to do more in renewables like wind, to make sure we do things in an environmentally sound way, here is the evidence. One million barrels of oil a day is the equivalent to 24,000 megawatts of powerplant production per day. That equals 24 powerplants, which in turn equals 92,500 windmills. The anticipated production from ANWR would be the equivalent of 5,781 square miles of windmills, the combined size of the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut. And 70 percent of the surface of the State of Massachusetts would be covered with windmills in order to equal 1 million barrels a day in electric generating capacity.
I want to talk about a couple of things. First, how important this production is and that we proceed with it. The United States of America is in a state of crisis. Some people wonder whether this is serious. Indeed, it is. We do not know what to do and how to get out of our need for oil and oil products for American's daily lives, for our economic well-being, and for our transportation needs. I don't have an answer to that. We will all work hard to try to change that, but it will take many decades to change.
Some say we ought to conserve more and they say we should conserve instead of producing this oil. I can only say we need to do everything. We are in such a crisis we have to conserve and we have to produce where we can, because right now the United States of America is absolutely vulnerable to the fact that we import oil from a dangerous and fragile world.
What happens if oil is denied America by unfriendly foreign countries? Would you believe that this big superpower called America will be brought to her knees? We talk about our future security. We will not be a world power if somebody decides to deny us oil. I regret to say we are there now--not 10 years from now, today. And it will only get worse.
Alaska, of course, is a State in our great Union. This is not a foreign country. It is part of the United States. And we have by far the most promising site for onshore oil in the United States in this 1.5 million acres in the State of Alaska. You can call it what you want, but it says in the law that this 1002 area is open for exploration if Congress wants to so vote. That is what we are talking about here. We are not here to destroy anything. We are here to vote on the proposition that Congress originally set this 1.5 million acres aside for--to go and look for oil. The laws says Congress will make the decision. We are making the decision here today. Do we want to do that or not?
Let's talk about the United States and what a predicament we are in. The American reserves of oil, the entire reserves in all of our States, is 21.9 billion barrels. That is terrible. We are the 11th in the world for oil reserves. According to the estimate arrived at by the United States Geological Survey, the area at issue contains 10 billion barrels of oil. The USGS did a similar estimate for Prudhoe Bay but they underestimated it by 30 percent. But let's just use their numbers, which I call low: 10 billion barrels. With the oil estimated from ANWR, America's total reserves would be over 30 billion barrels of oil. That means this particular part of America contains one-third of the total reserves of oil of the United States of America.
Imagine saying we don't need it. Opponents want us to do something else instead.
Senator Everett Dirksen used to say about dollars, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon it adds up. I can say to Senators and those listening, as far as America's energy future, a million barrels here and a million barrels there really adds up. And pretty soon it is terribly important to America's future. That is the first point.
No one knows how to get off this dependence. We have to find ways to minimize the damage while we conserve, change our ways and go to hydrogen cars, but none of that will happen for a long time.
In the meantime, we send all our money overseas, to foreign countries. The distinguished junior Senator from Alaska was talking about how many dollars a day we send out. On a yearly basis this 1 million barrels adds $18.6 billion to the merchandise trade deficit; that is, the trade deficit between us and the world. What we pay for foreign oil is almost 26 percent of the trade deficit. But it is not important, say some, that we increase our reserves by 10 billion barrels, which is adding one-third to our reserves for the future.
My second point has to do with the fact that some say this is not the right way to do it, that we should not be using a budget resolution. I said last night it happens to be that this Senator knows a little bit about budget resolutions. I know a little bit about reconciliation.
I ask for 1 minute off the resolution.
And I want to make sure our Senator, the senior Senator, speaks in wrap-up.
I close by saying there is no doubt in my mind that America must do something. This is an opportunity to do something very significant. We are not going to damage anything.
This is a picture of a production well. All of that is done off of ice roads. When we are finished, we take it away and you see the little speck is what remains, the end product of an exploratory well. You can go there and prove up the reserves and leave that speck in a 1.5- million-acre piece of America.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Byrd and my other colleagues to offer this amendment, to repair a major flaw in the budget resolution. I was shocked when the President sent his budget…
Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Byrd and my other colleagues to offer this amendment, to repair a major flaw in the budget resolution.
I was shocked when the President sent his budget here earlier this year, without a dime for intercity passenger rail. Not a dime. Not one red cent.
How could they possibly refuse to fund our passenger rail system, that carries 25 million passengers a year? What are they thinking? Where will those 25 million travelers go? Back onto our overcrowded highways? Should they take a place in the security lines in our airports?
We know what they are thinking, Mr. President. We have been told, in many public statements by the administration, that they intend to blackmail us in the Congress into accepting a plan to breakup Amtrak, in exchange for the funds the system needs to keep running.
Instead of fixing that problem, this resolution repeats the blackmail threat: breakup the system, or no funds.
No passenger rail system in the world operates without support. Almost no passenger rails system in the world operates on the low level of support inflicted on Amtrak over the years.
We have starved the system of one of its most basic needs: capital. From the day we created it over 30 years ago, Amtrak has been put in the impossible position of trying to increase its ridership, to increase its own revenues, while we have refused to provide it with the resources needed to do the job.
Railroading is a classic capital-intensive industry. The huge costs for the right of way itself, which Amtrak owns all along the Northeast corridor, the costs of maintaining the locomotives and passenger cars-- those are the costs that virtually every other advanced industrial economy in the world undertakes today.
They don't do it out of nostalgia for the golden age of rail. They don't do it because they lack other kinds of transportation. They do it because modern economies need a full mix of transportation options, a balanced system. They do it because it takes pressure off highways and airports, because passenger rail is clean and safe.
Here on the Senate floor, we are told: Don't worry, we aren't serious. We didn't mean it when we refused to put a dime in this budget for passenger rail.
But the adminstration put it differently in its budget. They actually propose zeroing out Amtrak with the goal of causing a bankruptcy, which, and I quote, ``would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and reorganization of the railroad through bankrupcty proceedures.''
That is their idea of reform. That is their idea of how to make transportation policy: Let a bankruptcy judge figure it out.
They are creating a crisis, and using the threat of bankruptcy to force changes on the system.
What is their plan? What do they propose?
First, they want to push more costs off onto the States. That is a theme we are seeing throughout the budget. It looks like saving money, but it simply shifts costs. Ask our mayors, ask our Governors what they think of the Federal Government shifting costs onto them. That is not a plan that will work.
They also want to break Amtrak up into capital and operating units. They tried something like that in Great Britain, and they regret it. Then they want to let other companies come in and bid to run operations on the most profitable lines. That is a formula for breaking up the system, encouraging cherry-picking, tearing up contracts with the unions, and leaving passengers stranded.
That is not reforming a national passenger rail system; that is breaking up the system we have.
This is no way to accomplish reform.
Right now Amtrak has a growing ridership, for good reasons. With security concerns and hassles, with the cost-cutting and crowding, air travel is less attractive. Our highways are already congested.
Amtrak has earned that new ridership, with its new fleet of high- speed Acela trains, with a commitment to maintaining and upgrading equipment. A lot of that work goes on in my State of Delaware, at our shops at Wilmington and at Bear.
But by starving the system of the capital it needs, we have put it into crisis. Without more investment, it cannot attract riders. Without more passengers, it cannot earn more money. The way out of the impasse is to make the investment in the passenger rail system our Nation needs.
Amtrak has a 5-year capital plan that could attract more passengers, and earn them more operating revenues, but they have not received the funding they need to make that plan work.
Starved of the capital they need to succeed, then blamed for not making money, now Amtrak is facing blackmail and bankruptcy under this budget.
Senator Byrd, who is our leader on this amendment, knows the history of Amtrak's funding problems. His amendment is not extravagant; in fact, it is less than we should be giving Amtrak as it struggles to improve. I am sure Senator Byrd feels the same way. But the $1.4 billion this amendment would provide would remove the threat of bankruptcy and keep the system running.
It is the only responsible anwer to an irresponsible budget.
While I am speaking Mr. President, there is one other aspect of passenger rail I want to mention: security. In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, over 3 years ago, I came to the floor with an amendent to the $15 billion airline bailout and security spending bill. That amendment would have begun the process of raising security on our rails, just as we recognized the need to increase security on our airlines.
In deference to the emergency in the airline industry, I withdrew that amendment. In the years since, I have tried, with the help of Senators McCain, Hollings, Carper, Schumer, Clinton, and others, to move legislation to upgrade rail security.
Over 3 years later, in the face of explicit warnings and evidence that terrorists are targetting passenger rail here in our country, a year after the tragic bombings in Madrid, we have done virtually nothing about Amtrak's security needs.
It should be a scandal that this Congress and this administration have not even authorized, much less spent a dime for, a plan to secure our rail system.
More people pass through Penn Station in New York City than through La Guardia and JFK airports combined.
Union Station, just two blocks from here, is the busiest site in Washington, DC, with 25 million people passing through.
Amtrak is expected to patrol those sites with its own meager forces. In Penn Station, only six to eight security guards patrol on weekdays. And they have the weekends off.
Whatever you think of passenger rail, it is unconscionable to propose no money--zero, nothing--to increase the security of the 25 million Americans who ride Amtrak every year.
This amendment by itself will not take care of those security needs, but it will address the basic needs of passenger rail in our country. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Akaka amendment #149 to add desperately needed funds to this budget for veterans health care. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this…
Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Akaka amendment #149 to add desperately needed funds to this budget for veterans health care. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment.
The spending level in this budget for veterans health care defies logic. We are 2 years into a war. Yet this budget fails to provide adequate resources for those who have served this country so valiantly. American servicemembers are wounded in Iraq each day. Thanks to new advances in battlefield medicine, more wounded soldiers than ever before live to return home. But in a greater percentage of cases, they come home with horrific wounds, both visible and invisible. The Department of Defense should be commended for keeping wounded soldiers in its medical system for longer periods of time and for shouldering a greater share of the costs. However, the long-term costs of health care and rehabilitation still fall heaviest on the Veterans Administration. This budget responds to those needs by underfunding the VA by almost $16 billion over the next 5 years. This is simply not acceptable!
Over the past year, unprecedented numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops have been mobilized. When these Guard members and Reservists come off active duty, they are entitled to 2 years of access to the VA health care system. In my home State of Vermont, over 1400 National Guard members have been called to active duty. While I am incredibly proud of the White River Junction VA Hospital, which has done award-winning work in their field, even they cannot be expected to handle this new influx of veterans without additional funding. We owe it to both the veterans and the VA employees to provide them with the funding and services they require. The Akaka amendment would provide an additional $2.85 billion to the VA for just this mission.
A significant number of Iraq veterans have complex and long-term care issues. Improved body armor has saved many lives, but among the wounded, we now see a higher percentage of lost limbs and head injuries. These traumatic injuries have a significant emotional component to their care. It has been estimated that as many as one- third of all returning service members have some type of mental health needs. VA hospitals are working hard to ensure these needs are met immediately, before they develop into more serious manifestations such as post traumatic stress disorder. It has become increasingly clear that we need a better understanding of the emotional and mental health aspects of both the war and traumatic injury. I believe that we must increase VA research on mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder, research that is critical to both
the Department of Defense and veterans health care. The National Center on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is doing excellent work along these lines, but a great deal remains to be done. We must pass the Akaka amendment if we hope to do better on this score.
The Budget Committee thankfully removed two provisions from the President's budget that have caused a great deal of concern among veterans. The President proposed to charge some veterans a $250 fee just to enroll in the VA health care system. The President also put forward an increase in the co-pay for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. I am pleased that the Budget Committee saw the error in both of these provisions, and cut them out of its budget.
Mr. President, it is critical that we pass the Akaka amendment. This should not be a partisan vote. Support for our troops is not a partisan matter. Taking care of their health care needs should not be a partisan issue either. If we cannot come together on this fundamental issue of fairness, what can we agree on? For the sake of our veterans, and in honor of their service, I urge all my colleagues to support the Akaka amendment. We owe our veterans this, and more.
Mr. President, I stand today to speak in support of Senator Byrd's amendment to restore funding for Amtrak. The amendment would increase funding for Amtrak by $200 million over last year's level of $1.2 billion.
Starving Amtrak into bankruptcy may appear to be the quick and easy solution to the bleak picture that some have imposed upon this fundamental element of America's transportation system. Nonetheless I remain convinced that the simplest and most effective answer lies with the amendment before us. I join my esteemed colleague Senator Byrd to insist that we fully fund rail travel in this country and guarantee Amtrak the opportunity to secure its future in the 21st century.
In just over three decades, Amtrak has grown to encompass a passenger rail network that connects 46 States, including my home State of Vermont. Through the years Amtrak has stood resilient in the face of financial peril and today it carries 24 million passengers annually and employs 22,000 Americans.
Amtrak serves a diverse ridership that depends on the continued existence of safe and reliable transportation. Amtrak shuttles commuters to their jobs, brings college students home for the holidays, and increases mobility for the elderly and the disabled. In urban areas, passenger rail relieves traffic on overcrowded highways. In rural States like Vermont, passenger rail ensures access to metropolitan centers and provides public transportation to regions where it might otherwise be too costly or unavailable.
As fuel prices remain unstable and our Nation's highways and airports suffer ever-increasing congestion and delays, Amtrak offers an invaluable alternative upon which Americans have come to rely.
I think one of my Vermont constituents expressed this sentiment best in a letter I recently received. Colby Crehan of Burlington, Vermont wrote of her Amtrak trip across the United States: ``I was able to travel safely and comfortably on a train while seeing the beautiful landscape that covers so much of this country. Amtrak introduced me to the rest of America in a way that a car or plane trip could never do. These trips confirmed my feeling that train travel is the safest, most convenient and relaxing way to travel perhaps you can share my story.''
Our choice today is clear. We can forfeit our prior investments and the investments of State and local governments back home, or we can uphold our responsibility to ensure that passenger rail remains an integral part of our Nation's transportation system. The future of passenger rail in this country belongs in the hands of Congress, not in the bankruptcy courts. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue on which I hope we can find common ground. Today, we have thousands of brave men and women risking their lives for us halfway around the world. At home, we…
Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue on which I hope we can find common ground. Today, we have thousands of brave men and women risking their lives for us halfway around the world. At home, we have millions more who were equally courageous in defending our freedom during generations past. When it comes to honoring these soldiers and these veterans, there is never any shortage of words and praise from leaders of both parties, and there should not be.
I commend the previous speaker, the outstanding Senator from Idaho, who is also chairman of the Veterans Committee, for his deep concern and regard for our veterans. But I have to contest some of the statements that were made because, unfortunately, based on our analysis, this budget has a very real and unacceptable shortage of funding for the benefits and health care that our heroes have earned.
Make no mistake, these are not just complaints coming from Washington; these are complaints we are hearing from veterans all across the country--in Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, and Idaho.
Senator Ensign's amendment increases the veterans health care budget by $410 million. That is a modest improvement and to be commended, compared to the original budget offered by the President. Yet, these dollars, I should point out, come directly out of important international programs that fund child health care, global AIDS assistance, disaster, famine assistance, and more. We can have a further discussion as to whether it is wise for us to rob Peter to pay Paul. But even if we go ahead and take this money from these vital programs and place it into veterans, it is still $2.5 billion short of sufficiently funding veterans health care services.
That is why I am joining my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, ranking member Akaka and Senator Murray, to support an amendment to increase funding for veterans health care by $2.85 billion.
Today, the state of care for America's veterans is not worthy of their service to this country. There are roughly 480,000 compensation and pension claims still unprocessed. This budget provides for 113 new employees to help deal with this backlog.
There are thousands of veterans who cannot afford to get the health care they need, and I am glad to see the Ensign amendment eliminates the copayments. But the budget in front of us still tells veterans who make as little as $30,000 a year they are too wealthy to enroll in the VA health care system.
There are VA hospitals on the brink of closing down around the country. But this budget cuts $351 million in funding for veterans nursing homes and eliminates more than $100 million in State grants that are desperately needed by VA facilities. When the troops who are fighting bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan return home as veterans, what kind of care will they find? Already we know that soldiers are coming home with post traumatic stress disorder, with traumatic brain injury that could lead to epilepsy, and with conditions that may result in over
100,000 soldiers requiring mental health treatment when they come home. If we cannot care for the veterans who are already here, how will we take care of the veterans who will be returning in a few years?
I urge my colleagues to join me in sending veterans the right message. Our amendment will provide funds for VA staff so veterans who are waiting to file disability claims are not waiting months to have their case heard. It will provide adequate funding so that veterans of all incomes can access the VA system, as was promised.
When it comes to America's veterans, it is not only our patriotic duty to care, it is also our moral duty. When our troops return from battle, we should welcome them with the promise of opportunity, not the threat of poverty.
Senator Ensign's amendment is a modest improvement over the President's original budget. But as Senator Akaka has already stated, it still leaves the veterans short. It is time to reassess our priorities. A budget is more than a series of numbers on a page; it is the embodiment of our values. The President and everyone in this Chamber never hesitate to praise the service of our veterans and acknowledge the debt we owe them for their service, and I commend my colleagues and the President for that. But this budget does not reflect that praise or repay that debt. Neither does the budget resolution on the floor today.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment to restore funding to Amtrak--a critical mode of transportation in Illinois.
I want to emphasize that there are serious inefficiencies with Amtrak operations. I do not support the restoration of Amtrak funding because I believe in a return to the status quo. I do believe, however, that the elimination of all funding, as the President has proposed, and as this budget resolution reflects, will lead Amtrak not to reform but to ruin.
A strong national rail system is not just a convenience for travelers. It also serves other important national objectives, such as ensuring multiple travel options in the event of regional or national emergency, reducing our heavy dependence on foreign oil, and improving air quality. In recent years, Amtrak has increased the number of trains it operates and has achieved a record level of ridership, with more than 25 million passengers using Amtrak last year.
In Illinois alone, more than 3 million people use one or many of the 50 daily Illinois trains, including business leaders traveling to and from smaller cities and towns; tourists who visit Illinois attractions, and students who attend world-class Illinois colleges and universities.
Responding to calls for reform, Amtrak's leadership has streamlined its operating costs, engaged in ongoing discussions to evaluate current policies and increase efficiency, and created a strategic plan for future improvements. The proposed cuts in Federal funds would cripple Amtrak beyond repair.
We cannot--and should not--allow that to occur. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment and restore Federal funding for Amtrak to this year's budget.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Bingaman to strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and…
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Bingaman to strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and replace them with a reserve fund for the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and make recommendations to Congress within 1 year.
The Medicaid program provides essential medical services to low- income and uninsured children and their families, pregnant women, senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, and others. Last year, nearly 55 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid, including more than 300,000 in Maine where one in five people now receive health care services through MaineCare, my State's Medicaid program.
Individuals who rely upon Medicaid-funded health services have no other option. Without Medicaid, they would join the ever growing ranks of the uninsured in this country, which now numbers an all-time high of more than 45 million Americans who lacked health coverage at some point last year. These two groups represent a total of 100 million Americans who would have no health insurance, were it not for Medicaid coverage which reaches just over half of them. And to the extent that the Federal Government reduces its support for Medicaid funding, the numbers of uninsured Americans will rise even more rapidly.
Medicaid is a critical part of our Nation's health care system. It provides health coverage for people in the doctor's office, rather than the emergency rooms, where care is more expensive. It also plays a crucial role in preventing health care costs for the uninsured from being shifted to the private sector, which in turn increases hospitals' costs.
The economic downturn which state economies experienced several years ago, and from which many States are only now emerging, has continued to leave many families jobless and without health insurance, forcing them to turn to Medicaid. This has put an enormous strain on the states already strapped with budget scarcities. Many States reduced Medicaid benefits last year and even more restricted Medicaid eligibility in an effort to satisfy their budgetary obligations.
As the Senate considers the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006, I believe that we must take a balanced approach that is fiscally responsible yet reflects our long-standing commitments to provide health care for many of the low-income and uninsured through the Medicaid program. Decisions on Medicaid funding involve issues of fairness and balance, and it is our responsibility to balance these concerns on both the spending and revenue sides of the ledger.
I believe in fiscal responsibility, and I believe that reducing the deficit is critical for our Nation's fiscal health. We should not pass down a legacy of debt to our children. At the same time, we should do no less than to meet our obligations to our uninsured children and their families, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities.
My home State of Maine is a relatively poor state which relies heavily on Medicaid matching funds. Maine's Federal match is roughly 65 percent, compared to the national average of about 57 percent. This means that for every dollar in State funds spent on Medicaid, the State receives nearly $2 in Federal matching funds. Of the $7.7 billion spent on health care in Maine in 2004, $2 billion--26 percent--came from the MaineCare program. Of the $2 billion in Medicaid spending, nearly two- thirds, or $1.4 billion, came from Federal Medicaid dollars.
Maine has suffered disproportionately from a loss of manufacturing jobs--and the health insurance coverage that goes with them. Medicaid has helped cover those uninsured, allowing our overall rate of uninsurance in Maine to stay even or improve for those with income below 200 percent of the poverty level.
Medicaid is also an essential program for providing health services to children and other vulnerable populations Children are nearly half-- 44 percent--of Maine's Medicaid clients yet they require less than one quarter of the funding, clearly a very cost-effective use of our health care dollars. Children need access to health care to do well in school, and to do well in life, and Medicaid plays a key role in narrowing the ``achievement gap.'' Children who are
in pain, or sick, are not able to pay attention and learn, and those with untreated illnesses can develop long-term disabilities, such as hearing impairments, that require expensive special education and make it harder for them to do well in school.
It is crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal funding for Medicaid, a program which has worked extremely well since it began providing care for some of our most vulnerable populations 40 years ago. That's why I believe we must proceed cautiously before making significant changes that could damage the program.
As we debate the budget resolution and consider the instructions for spending cuts that the Finance Committee would be required to produce-- with Medicaid squarely in its sights--we must recognize that the Federal Government cannot simply abandon its responsibility to help states provide health care to our most vulnerable citizens. Finding workable solutions on the financial sustainability of Medicaid will take time, expertise, and bipartisan consensus and are more appropriately the province of a bipartisan medicaid commission than a budget debate.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strip ANWR from the budget resolution. I am pleased that ANWR is in the budget this year. As a matter of fact, I returned from ANWR just last…
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strip ANWR from the budget resolution. I am pleased that ANWR is in the budget this year. As a matter of fact, I returned from ANWR just last week. After visiting it, I am even more confident in my support for drilling there.
I went with a group of Senators, Secretary Norton, and Secretary Bodman
to ANWR to see firsthand what all the talk was about. We met with environmentalists and villagers on the border of ANWR and talked to them about the United States' desperate need for more domestic energy sources. There were a few residents who expressed opposition, but they were in the minority. The majority of the people living near ANWR--more than 75 percent--support drilling in ANWR.
I know that there are some in the Senate who are desperate to stop us from opening ANWR. The facts about ANWR, however, are not on their side. Some of these facts I think need to be repeated, especially for those Senators who are new to the debate.
ANWR itself is roughly the size of South Carolina. It's absolutely enormous. It's 19.6 million acres or 30,000 square miles. But, when we talk about drilling in ANWR, we're talking about clean drilling in an area of less than 2,000 acres--that's 0.001 percent of the total acreage of ANWR. It's smaller than many airports.
To say that drilling in this limited portion of ANWR threatens the entire environment of the refuge is farfetched and just plain wrong. During my trip, I visited the sites at Alpine and Prudhoe Bay. There is now no doubt in my mind that we can develop ANWR in a safe and effective manner.
Drilling will only be a small footprint in ANWR that can be carried out in an environmentally sound manner. State of the art techniques will lessen the environmental impact. The old stereotypes of dirty oil drilling just don't apply anymore. In fact, if we do start drilling in ANWR, the drilling operations would be conducted under the most comprehensive environmental regulations in the world.
We all want to do what we can to protect the environment.
But it's just not credible to say that looking for oil in this small, limited part of ANWR is a dangerous threat to the entire region. I also think that many environmentalists fail to see that if we do not begin oil production in ANWR, foreign oil companies will take up the slack and drill in places such as the Middle East where environmental regulations are much less restrictive than ours. Opening ANWR could actually be more environmentally sound than the alternative.
We consume over 20 million barrels of oil a day and our consumption is expected to increase to 28 million barrels a day over the next 20 years. Yet, we haven't built an oil refinery in the last 25 years. We must increase our energy supplies to keep up with the demand of our growing economy.
ANWR is the most promising domestic source of oil that we have. If the Senate passes ANWR, it will make a huge difference for our domestic consumption. There are 10 to 30 billion barrels of oil recoverable in ANWR. Just to put this in perspective, that's enough to fuel all of Kentucky's oil needs for at least 79 years.
ANWR would boost Alaska's oil production. And with the new Alaska pipeline, we could get it quickly to the rest of the United States. It would provide the United States with nearly 1 million barrels a day or 4.5 percent of today's consumption for the next 30 years.
Drilling in ANWR would also take a tremendous strike toward ensuring our national security. We currently import more than 55 percent of the oil we use. The price of oil has remained at over $50 a barrel. OPEC estimates that within 2 years the price of oil could jump to $80 a barrel. These high prices mean we are just throwing money needlessly at other countries.
If we open ANWR for drilling, that would mean we would not be sending over $800 billion to areas like the Middle East for our oil. Instead, we could be investing that money on American soil. Being dependent on oil imports from other regions of the world, puts America's energy and economic security at risk.
ANWR offers the realistic opportunity to produce enough oil to replace the volume we currently import from Saudi Arabia or Iraq for the next 25 years.
If the choice comes down to avoiding our domestic oil resources because of dated and irrational environmental concerns versus drilling in ANWR to lessen the chance that we will have to rely on undemocratic regimes in the Middle East for our oil, then there's no choice at all.
And ANWR would provide more than just oil to meet our energy needs. The region also has a vast amount of natural gas. We don't have enough natural gas supply in this country to meet our demand. Natural gas prices keep going up and up. In the area where drilling would take place, there is up to 10.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Right now, they are circular pumping the natural gas back into the reserves in Alaska.
Instead of pumping ANWR's natural gas back into the earth, we should use this for our energy needs. Opening ANWR up for drilling won't change our dependence on foreign sources of energy overnight. No single source can totally end our dependence on foreign energy.
But opening ANWR and boosting production will definitely be a huge step toward America becoming self sufficient for our own energy needs and strengthening our national security.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and to support the energy independence which ANWR offers.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. How high do gas prices have to get? How over a barrel does OPEC have to get us before we realize what the American people realized a long time ago…
Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
How high do gas prices have to get? How over a barrel does OPEC have to get us before we realize what the American people realized a long time ago that we have an energy crisis in America today? We have gas prices that continue to soar. We have supply problems because we rely on the geopolitics of the Middle East.
Earlier this month, I was glad to join Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, and four of my colleagues, including the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, on a trip up to the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge. It is a big place.
Alaska is 386,000 square miles. My home State of South Dakota is 77,000 square miles. We think we have a lot of wide open space in South Dakota. But you could put seven of my States of South Dakota into the State of Alaska.
If you look at Alaska in its totality and look at what we are talking about in terms of the exploration and possible production in ANWR, it is 19.6 million acres on the wilderness area, ANWR area. Eight million acres of that is wilderness. The area we are talking about for development and exploration is 1.53 million acres.
Furthermore, the area that would be used under the legislation limits it to 2,000 acres.
That is the equivalent in South Dakota terms of about three sections of farmland in an area that is 19.6 million acres in a State that is 586,000 square miles, where we could put seven of the State of South Dakota.
We had the opportunity when I was up there to look at technology. It is remarkable what has transformed over the last 30 or 40 years. You probably can't see it on the map, but Prudhoe Bay technology is 1970s vintage technology compared to 1980s vintage technology. We went to a site called the Alpine site, which is the millennium technology. The changes that have taken place are dramatic, and the way it has evolved minimizes the impact and the footprint that is left. In fact, at the Alpine site, there were 97 acres, which included the runway where they land the planes to provide their supplies and the lake they get their water from. They are generating 120,000 barrels of oil a day on 97 acres. Why? Because the technology allows them to go underground, to drill horizontally, and to drill directionally. It minimizes the impact above the ground.
We saw where they use ice roads for exploration to get back and forth. In the winter, the roads disappear. Below the frozen tundra is the single largest and most promising onshore oil reserve in America-- somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil. The average of that would be 10 billion barrels.
How much is that? A million barrels a day that we could add to our production in this country. That is 5 percent of what we use--20 million barrels a day in the United States. We get 10 million barrels a day today from outside the United States.
This would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Put another way, it could power the State of South Dakota for 499 years.
We are talking about a significant resource that we need because America is facing an energy crisis.
Gas is over $2 a gallon. A barrel of oil is near record highs. Make no mistake about it, America's energy crisis is an economic crisis that impacts every American. This country needs energy legislation which fosters more oil production and increases the alternatives, such as renewable fuels and ethanol that we produce in my home State of South Dakota.
I hope we can get a comprehensive energy bill that increases the use of ethanol in this country. Right now, we do about 3.5 billion gallons a year in ethanol, but we use 120 billion gallons a year of gasoline in this country. It has to come from somewhere.
Right now, we are paying all the money to the folks in the Middle East who have gotten us over a barrel. We need to change that. We need to reduce our dependence on politically unstable foreign sources of oil.
Specifically, the United States imports about 3 million barrels of oil a day from the Persian Gulf. The estimated daily domestic supply from ANWR would reduce that number by half.
Passing this legislation will reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil, strengthening our economic security, strengthening our energy security, and strengthening our national security.
When I was in the House, we passed an energy policy, but it got stuck in the Senate.
We have an opportunity to finally finish the job that the American people sent us here to do and to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Listen to the people of Alaska. Mr. President, 57 out of 60 members of the Alaska State Legislature support this. You just heard the Senator from Hawaii talk about most of the tribes in Alaska support this. The congressional delegation, the Governor, the people's representatives here in Washington and in Alaska believe this is important to the future of that State.
It is important for the economy of this country and to the people who are having to pay the price at the pump because we fail and refuse to do something that is so important--to tap the vast reserves that exist right here in America rather than relying on the Middle East for our energy supply.
I hope my colleagues here today will join with me and with those in the past who have supported this and vote for this so that we can begin the process of lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her wonderful leadership on this issue. I sit here and I am listening to this debate which we have been involved in so many times. Now I know why Christie…
Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her wonderful leadership on this issue.
I sit here and I am listening to this debate which we have been involved in so many times. Now I know why Christie Todd Whitman wrote her book ``It Is My Party, Too.''
When you look at who set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it was a Republican President. Here the biggest forces for opening drilling are coming from the Republican Party, fervor about how this is going to solve our energy problems when everyone admits if we get oil out of their at all it is not going to be for another 10 years, and the economically recoverable oil is 6 months, maybe. So the zealotry that we hear shows the changes in the Republican Party. That is a fact of life.
Now, let's see what President Eisenhower's Secretary of Interior, Fred Seaton, said about this area. He said this was ``one of the most magnificent wildlife areas in North America . . . a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere.'' Senator George Allen called it the dark side of the Moon. So who is right--President Eisenhower or Senator Allen? Let's take a look at some of the photographs because we need to see this dark side of the Moon.
The first thing we see is the porcupine caribou herd, the mother and the little calf. Quite beautiful. It does not look much like the dark side of the Moon to me. The U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resource Division found the porcupine caribou herd may be particularly sensitive to oil development.
Let's look at the effects on the caribou and other animals, including bears. This is my favorite, a polar bear photograph taken by a wonderful photographer who spent 18 months in the wildlife refuge. It does not look much like the dark side of the Moon to me. And polar bears are particularly sensitive to oil development because they den in the winter--exactly the time the oil companies want to drill.
Millions of migratory birds--over 130 species--journey to our States, so our States will be impacted. To me, this is a God-given environment. With all the talk about faith-based politics, if you do believe, as I do, that these are gifts, then we have to be careful in what we are doing here today.
My friend from Alaska says we are going to do this very sensitively. They were very sensitive at the Exxon Valdez. They were very sensitive in Santa Barbara when we had the unbelievable oil spill that led to, actually, the very first Earth Day because it was so devastating to see what happens. We know that the economic activity that comes from oil drilling is going to have an impact. So anyone who tells you anything else simply is thinking in a wishful fashion. We are alive today, we see what happens with the spills. Let's be careful what we are doing. If this is something that will make us energy independent, that is one thing. But the fact is, it won't.
Let's look at some of the scenes because there was talk about how barren this area is. We will look at some of the landscapes because it is important to look at this and decide for ourselves if it is worth risking this for 6 months' worth of oil.
This is along Marsh Creek in the coastal plain, in the very area they say is completely barren. One of my colleagues said it only looks that way for a few weeks. Well, it certainly looks that way at a point in time. When I sent my environmental legislative assistant up to that area, she was overcome. I went to Alaska. It is true there are other magnificent areas of Alaska, but this is one of those beautiful areas.
Here is the issue. The oil companies are backing out. They do not want to be involved in this controversial area. Many have already backed out. BP, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco have pulled out because they know what they are walking into here, and they don't want to drill. It may be that even if we get the vote, no one will drill there. We are not sure of that. Why is this happening? I say it is happening because if they could open this area, they can open any area. Don't take my word for it; you can take the Bush administration's word for it. That is what they have said in essence. They admit it.
Here is the point. This area was set aside by a Republican President who found it to be most pristine. We understand there are certain times in this Senate when we do something as radical as this, which is to open up a wildlife refuge, we may want to have a few more votes. That is kind of the rules of the Senate. They are doing a backdoor, so they may get 51 votes here, and with 51 votes they open this--for what, maybe 6 months' worth of oil. If we close the SUV loopholes, if we said over time they should get the same mileage as cars, we would have seven ANWR fields over 40 or 50 years.
We do not need to do this. If you believe this is God-given land, let's protect it. At the end of the day, that is our job. I hope we get the votes. If we do not get them today, this will be a big issue out in the country. I hope the oil companies will continue to walk away from this because clearly it is very controversial to go into this pristine area.
I yield the floor.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2541 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2541
To suspend temporarily the duty on Quinoline, 6 ethoxy 1,2 dihydro
2,2,4 trimethyl.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 5, 2006
Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Finance
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To suspend temporarily the duty on Quinoline, 6 ethoxy 1,2 dihydro
2,2,4 trimethyl.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. QUINOLINE, 6 ETHOXY 1,2 DIHYDRO 2,2,4 TRIMETHYL.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in
numerical sequence the following new heading:
`` 9902.29.28 Quinoline, 6 Free No change No change On or before 12/ ''.
ethoxy 1,2 31/2009
dihydro 2,2,4
trimethyl (CAS
No. 91-53-2)
(provided for in
subheading
2933.49.10)......
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
<all>