Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison to introduce legislation that will allow publicly traded partnerships to sell their stock to mutual funds so they can raise sufficient capital for new investments in pipelines and infrastructure. Because of current restrictions, publicly traded partnerships are hindered in their ability to sell their equity to mutual funds even though their equity is sold on public exchanges. The overwhelming majority of these partnerships are energy-related companies that need the ability to raise capital from mutual funds to build pipelines and other facilities. This legislation would be a strong shot in the arm for the economy as it encourages companies to begin new projects that are currently on hold for lack of capital. It also provides us with the ability to expand our pipeline network to meet our current demands for natural gas. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison to introduce legislation that will allow publicly traded partnerships to sell their stock to mutual funds so they can raise sufficient capital for new investments in pipelines and infrastructure. Because of current restrictions, publicly traded partnerships are hindered in their ability to sell their equity to mutual funds even though their equity is sold on public exchanges. The overwhelming majority of these partnerships are energy-related companies that need the ability to raise capital from mutual funds to build pipelines and other facilities. This legislation would be a strong shot in the arm for the economy as it encourages companies to begin new projects that are currently on hold for lack of capital. It also provides us with the ability to expand our pipeline network to meet our current demands for natural gas. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am very pleased today to introduce the Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2003. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Dayton, and Leahy.

The goal of this legislation is to help provide safe and efficient transportation throughout Indian country. At the same time, this bill will help promote economic development, self-determination, and employment of Indians and Alaska Natives.

Roads that serve Indian Country are part of one single national transportation network and Congress has long recognized the importance of improving transportation in Indian Country. I believe the Federal Government has an obligation to provide safe and efficient transportation for all tribes. Indians pay the same Federal gasoline, tire, and other taxes, as all other Americans and are entitled to the same quality of transportation.

This bill is a 6-year reauthorization and improvement of the Indian Reservation Roads program, which funds transportation programs for all tribes. This year, Congress must reauthorize the IRR program, along with all other transportation programs in TEA-21. I am introducing the bill today as the first step in the reauthorization process.

The Indian Reservation Roads Program was established in 1928, and in 1946 the BIA and the FHWA executed the first memorandum of agreement for joint administration of the program. Since 1982, funding for tribal transportation programs has been provided from the federal Highway Trust Fund. Major changes to the program were again made in 1998 as part of TEA-21.

Today, the Indian Reservation Roads program serves more than 560 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages in 33 States. The IRR system comprises 25,700 miles of BIA and tribally owned roads and another 25,600 miles of State, county, and local government public roads. There are also 4,115 bridges on the IRR system, and one ferryboat operation, the Inchelium-Gifford Ferry in Washington State.

Of the 25,700 miles of BIA and tribal roads on the IRR system, only about one quarter are paved. Of the 25,600 miles of State, county, or local government IRR roads, about 40 percent are paved. In total, over two-thirds of all IRR roads remain unpaved. Many of these unpaved roads are not passable in bad weather. In addition, about 140 of the 753 bridges owned by the BIA are currently rated as deficient.

Some of the roads on tribal lands resemble roads in third-world countries. Some are little more than wheel tracks. Even though the IRR system has perhaps the most rudimentary infrastructure of any transportation network in the country, over 2 billion vehicle miles are annually traveled on the system.

According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent assessment of the nation's highways, bridges, and transit, only 34 percent of paved IRR roads are rated in good condition, 37 percent are rated only fair, and 29 percent are rated poor. Of course, these ratings apply only to the paved roads on the IRR system, not the 33,000 miles of dirt and gravel roads.

The poor road quality also has a serious impact on highway safety. According to FHWA, the highway fatality

rate on Indian Reservation Roads is four times above the national average. Automobile accidents are the number one cause of death among young American Indians.

Reflecting the current poor state of roads throughout Indian country, FHWA now estimates the backlog of improvement needs for IRR roads at a whopping $6.8 billion.

The current authorized funding level for IRR is $275 million from the highway trust fund. As required in TEA-21, the BIA distributes highway funding to federally recognized tribes each year using a relative need formula. This formula reflects the cost to improve eligible roads, road usage, and population of each tribe. Some modifications to the formula are currently being made as part of a negotiated rule making.

I hope all Senators recognize the broad scope of the IRR program and its impact on 33 of the 50 States. I'd like to read a list of the fiscal year 2002 distribution of IRR funding in the States that have tribal roads and ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am very pleased today to introduce the Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2003. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Dayton, and Leahy.

The goal of this legislation is to help provide safe and efficient transportation throughout Indian country. At the same time, this bill will help promote economic development, self-determination, and employment of Indians and Alaska Natives.

Roads that serve Indian Country are part of one single national transportation network and Congress has long recognized the importance of improving transportation in Indian Country. I believe the Federal Government has an obligation to provide safe and efficient transportation for all tribes. Indians pay the same Federal gasoline, tire, and other taxes, as all other Americans and are entitled to the same quality of transportation.

This bill is a 6-year reauthorization and improvement of the Indian Reservation Roads program, which funds transportation programs for all tribes. This year, Congress must reauthorize the IRR program, along with all other transportation programs in TEA-21. I am introducing the bill today as the first step in the reauthorization process.

The Indian Reservation Roads Program was established in 1928, and in 1946 the BIA and the FHWA executed the first memorandum of agreement for joint administration of the program. Since 1982, funding for tribal transportation programs has been provided from the federal Highway Trust Fund. Major changes to the program were again made in 1998 as part of TEA-21.

Today, the Indian Reservation Roads program serves more than 560 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan native villages in 33 States. The IRR system comprises 25,700 miles of BIA and tribally owned roads and another 25,600 miles of State, county, and local government public roads. There are also 4,115 bridges on the IRR system, and one ferryboat operation, the Inchelium-Gifford Ferry in Washington State.

Of the 25,700 miles of BIA and tribal roads on the IRR system, only about one quarter are paved. Of the 25,600 miles of State, county, or local government IRR roads, about 40 percent are paved. In total, over two-thirds of all IRR roads remain unpaved. Many of these unpaved roads are not passable in bad weather. In addition, about 140 of the 753 bridges owned by the BIA are currently rated as deficient.

Some of the roads on tribal lands resemble roads in third-world countries. Some are little more than wheel tracks. Even though the IRR system has perhaps the most rudimentary infrastructure of any transportation network in the country, over 2 billion vehicle miles are annually traveled on the system.

According to the Federal Highway Administration's most recent assessment of the nation's highways, bridges, and transit, only 34 percent of paved IRR roads are rated in good condition, 37 percent are rated only fair, and 29 percent are rated poor. Of course, these ratings apply only to the paved roads on the IRR system, not the 33,000 miles of dirt and gravel roads.

The poor road quality also has a serious impact on highway safety. According to FHWA, the highway fatality

rate on Indian Reservation Roads is four times above the national average. Automobile accidents are the number one cause of death among young American Indians.

Reflecting the current poor state of roads throughout Indian country, FHWA now estimates the backlog of improvement needs for IRR roads at a whopping $6.8 billion.

The current authorized funding level for IRR is $275 million from the highway trust fund. As required in TEA-21, the BIA distributes highway funding to federally recognized tribes each year using a relative need formula. This formula reflects the cost to improve eligible roads, road usage, and population of each tribe. Some modifications to the formula are currently being made as part of a negotiated rule making.

I hope all Senators recognize the broad scope of the IRR program and its impact on 33 of the 50 States. I'd like to read a list of the fiscal year 2002 distribution of IRR funding in the States that have tribal roads and ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the brave men and women who are serving our country in both Iraq and Afghanistan, three individuals in particular. First, I will speak briefly about SP Joseph Hudson. He is a 1998 graduate of Alamogordo High School in my State. He is a member of the 507th Maintenance Company out of Fort Bliss, TX, who was captured this past Sunday. His image was seen on a videotape by his wife and high school sweetheart, Natalie, and young daughter Cameron, and his mother Anecita, also of Alamogordo, as well as everyone around the world watching the television coverage of this war. Like them, we wait anxiously for any word about his well-being, and pray for his safe return.

While our attention is focused on the fierce conflict in Iraq, it is important to remember that there are also young men and women putting their lives on the line every day in the conflict in Afghanistan as well. Many of us in New Mexico got a terrible reminder of that on Sunday, when two young people with strong ties to New Mexico were killed attempting to help two Afghan children.

Air Force 1LT Tamara Long Archuleta was the copilot of the helicopter that crashed while on a rescue mission, killing all six aboard. Tammy was from Adelino, near Belen, NM, and her life was a shining example of the power of discipline, drive, and determination. Tammy was valedictorian of her class and a world karate champion. She graduated from the University of New Mexico with honors, and while there became involved with Air Force ROTC. She had wanted to become a fighter pilot, but instead decided to do rescue work. Her grandfather was a Navy pilot and her uncle a pararescue man, and Tammy had been strongly influenced by her family's dedication to service.

Tammy had a 3-year-old son and was to marry a fellow Air Force pilot soon. Sadly, she was scheduled to return home in a mere 2 weeks. Words cannot express the grief many New Mexicans are feeling about the loss of this extraordinary young woman.

I would also add that New Mexico was twice touched by this tragedy, the loss of this helicopter. Another young man killed in the crash, SSG Jason Hicks, met his future wife, Cristy Nolan of Rio Rancho, NM, when he was in training at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. We honor his memory as well as Tamara's.

We hope this is the end of the casualties and problems we see for the young men and women of our State.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Dodd. It is an amendment that would increase the mandatory funding for childcare by approximately $900 million per year or $4.6 billion over 5 years. The amendment is paid for by lowering the amount of the unreconciled tax cuts that are contemplated in the pending budget. I emphasize, the unreconciled tax cuts. The issue is very simple. We need to at least maintain current childcare services. The Congressional Budget Office has done an estimate that determines we need to raise the level of spending to the amount called for in the amendment in order to maintain the current level of childcare services. This is particularly important in light of the fact that we have the proposal by the administration, which many of us support, to increase work-related requirements for welfare recipients. Clearly, if we are going to do that, the demand for childcare would increase.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, to re-introduce the Low Income Taxpayer Protection Act of 2003. This legislation, if enacted, will give taxpayers much needed assistance with the arduous annual task of preparing their Federal tax returns by providing them with real alternatives to paying for expensive tax preparation services. In doing so, many of these taxpayers will not need to take out expensive and oftentimes usurious refund anticipation loans that greatly reduce the tax refund that these taxpayers are entitled to receive. As we all know, the result of a complicated tax code is complex and confusing tax forms. Until Congress is able to provide simple and understandable forms for taxpayers, we have an obligation to make sure that taxpayers have the ability to prepare and file their tax returns without paying for expensive and sometimes abusive services.

Refund anticipation loans, RALs, are high interest loans offered to taxpayers that are secured by their anticipated tax refund. While some taxpayers may choose these loans willingly, many are often forced to take out a RAL to cover the upfront cost of the preparation services. Sadly, many taxpayers get caught with outstanding loans that they can't pay off because a mistake was made on their tax return resulting in a smaller than anticipated refund. Many of these loans, when annualized, have interest rates over 200 percent. As long as we require our Nation's taxpayers to determine their own tax liability, we will have a responsibility to make sure that these same taxpayers have an alternative to these expensive options. We must come up with better options for these taxpayers than paying usurious fees and expenses or not filing a return.

Recently the Brookings Institute and the Economic Policy Institute released a report that illustrated the abuses occurring with RALs. According to this report, roughly $1.75 billion of the earned income credit, EIC, funds are annually going to tax return preparers and RAL fees and costs. It was not the intent of Congress that this program would create such a middleman for these funds. Every dollar that goes to these businesses is a dollar that is not going to the intended beneficiaries. The EIC has become one of the most effective tools for fighting poverty and benefiting low and moderate income working families, and so it is essential that every dollar of this credit goes to the taxpayer.

To help low and moderate income taxpayers, my bill requires all those involved with RALs to register with the IRS. Treasury will then be required to determine what is a fair amount of interest and fees to be charged based on the benefit to the taxpayer and the risk to the lender. It will also expand the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program by directly giving them matching funds to operate. VITA clinics are one of the few places lower income taxpayers can go to get free assistance with their tax returns.

In New Mexico, the VITA program has had an enormous impact. For example, in conjunction with Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute, TVI, over 8,500 taxpayers were assisted with their returns last year resulting in over $9 million in refunds being brought back into the New Mexico economy. This year, this program is on pace to assist even more taxpayers. By utilizing a computer program system developed and advocated by Fred Gordon, an accounting instructor at TVI, even supervised high school students at Del Norte High School in Albuquerque have been preparing and filing tax returns. I commend the efforts of those directly involved with this program, as well as, the scores of volunteers who give their time to help prepare tax returns for their fellow New Mexicans. Through the efforts of groups such as the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), TVI and Wells Fargo Bank, the VITA program has made a big difference in New Mexico, but more needs to be done. Our legislation will provide programs like these with the ability to get some matching Federal grants to make it possible to pay for training materials, computers or other necessary equipment. A little money can go a long way and I intend to keep working with my colleagues here in the Senate until this becomes a reality. This is a truly worthwhile goal and one that will greatly help communities in New Mexico as well as the rest of the country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, to re-introduce the Low Income Taxpayer Protection Act of 2003. This legislation, if enacted, will give taxpayers much needed assistance with the arduous annual task of preparing their Federal tax returns by providing them with real alternatives to paying for expensive tax preparation services. In doing so, many of these taxpayers will not need to take out expensive and oftentimes usurious refund anticipation loans that greatly reduce the tax refund that these taxpayers are entitled to receive. As we all know, the result of a complicated tax code is complex and confusing tax forms. Until Congress is able to provide simple and understandable forms for taxpayers, we have an obligation to make sure that taxpayers have the ability to prepare and file their tax returns without paying for expensive and sometimes abusive services.

Refund anticipation loans, RALs, are high interest loans offered to taxpayers that are secured by their anticipated tax refund. While some taxpayers may choose these loans willingly, many are often forced to take out a RAL to cover the upfront cost of the preparation services. Sadly, many taxpayers get caught with outstanding loans that they can't pay off because a mistake was made on their tax return resulting in a smaller than anticipated refund. Many of these loans, when annualized, have interest rates over 200 percent. As long as we require our Nation's taxpayers to determine their own tax liability, we will have a responsibility to make sure that these same taxpayers have an alternative to these expensive options. We must come up with better options for these taxpayers than paying usurious fees and expenses or not filing a return.

Recently the Brookings Institute and the Economic Policy Institute released a report that illustrated the abuses occurring with RALs. According to this report, roughly $1.75 billion of the earned income credit, EIC, funds are annually going to tax return preparers and RAL fees and costs. It was not the intent of Congress that this program would create such a middleman for these funds. Every dollar that goes to these businesses is a dollar that is not going to the intended beneficiaries. The EIC has become one of the most effective tools for fighting poverty and benefiting low and moderate income working families, and so it is essential that every dollar of this credit goes to the taxpayer.

To help low and moderate income taxpayers, my bill requires all those involved with RALs to register with the IRS. Treasury will then be required to determine what is a fair amount of interest and fees to be charged based on the benefit to the taxpayer and the risk to the lender. It will also expand the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program by directly giving them matching funds to operate. VITA clinics are one of the few places lower income taxpayers can go to get free assistance with their tax returns.

In New Mexico, the VITA program has had an enormous impact. For example, in conjunction with Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute, TVI, over 8,500 taxpayers were assisted with their returns last year resulting in over $9 million in refunds being brought back into the New Mexico economy. This year, this program is on pace to assist even more taxpayers. By utilizing a computer program system developed and advocated by Fred Gordon, an accounting instructor at TVI, even supervised high school students at Del Norte High School in Albuquerque have been preparing and filing tax returns. I commend the efforts of those directly involved with this program, as well as, the scores of volunteers who give their time to help prepare tax returns for their fellow New Mexicans. Through the efforts of groups such as the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), TVI and Wells Fargo Bank, the VITA program has made a big difference in New Mexico, but more needs to be done. Our legislation will provide programs like these with the ability to get some matching Federal grants to make it possible to pay for training materials, computers or other necessary equipment. A little money can go a long way and I intend to keep working with my colleagues here in the Senate until this becomes a reality. This is a truly worthwhile goal and one that will greatly help communities in New Mexico as well as the rest of the country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Michigan yielding me 3 minutes to speak briefly on this issue.

War in Iraq is underway. It is appropriate that we in the Senate suspend our other work to observe the start of this very serious undertaking. I am very glad to support the resolution the majority leader and the Democratic leader have come together on in stating our solidarity with our servicemen and servicewomen.

We want the brave men and women who wear the American uniform and who have been sent to this region on behalf of our country to know they have the complete, unwavering support of the Senate.

I also state my sincere hope, and the sincere hope, I am sure, of all of us, that this conflict will be short lived and that our mission will be accomplished with the fewest possible casualties to our countrymen and to the noncombatants in Iraq.

Prior to the announcement by President Bush on Monday that he had determined to begin a military action this week, many of us expressed our disagreement with the policy and action of the President. In my case, and I am sure in all cases, those opinions were honestly arrived at and were strongly felt. But at this point, now with the war having begun, our focus needs to be on prevailing in this conflict. None of us doubts that we will in fact prevail. I join with all other Senators in the fervent hope that the war will be short, the lives lost on both sides will be few. I further hope that out of this we will arrive at a just and peaceful and prosperous future for the Iraqi people and for the region and for the entire world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the Senator from California yielding me some time to speak and briefly express the point of view that I expressed when we debated this bill last year.

As all of us know, this issue has been a perennial one. It comes back all the time in the Senate and has now for several decades. I rise to support the amendment of the Senator from California. The amendment would strike the provisions from the budget resolution that essentially pave the way for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development.

There are various reasons, both related to national security and related to the environment, that lead me to conclude that I do not support going ahead with oil and gas leasing and development of the Arctic Refuge. The most compelling reason for not opening the refuge is that it will do very little, if anything, to further our national energy security. Not a single drop of oil would come from the Arctic Refuge for at least 7 years and more likely 10 or 12 years.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment for the following reasons:

First, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not an answer to the problem of energy security. This chart is familiar to any who were here during the debate on the energy bill last year. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the mean economically recoverable oil on Federal lands on the Costal Plain of the Refuge at somewhere between 3.2 and 5.2 billion barrels and that is at prices of somewhere between $20 and $24 per barrel, in 1996 dollars. Clearly, prices are higher today.

The Arctic Refuge would supply no more than 2 percent of America's oil demand in any given year. This chart shows the U.S. oil consumption in million barrels per day. The top line is the total oil demand. Below, the green line, is domestic oil production. The small red line is the ANWR production. Relative to our total consumption it is a small item. It will be at least 7 years, more likely 10 to 12, before there is actual production on the Coastal Plain if we were to vote today to open this area for production. Peak production would not occur for 20 years or more after the initial production started.

Another chart shows the same point in a slightly different way, that drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not address in a significant way our reliance on imported oil. This chart contains information from the Energy Information Administration. The green line indicates the net imports with ANWR production and the blue line is net imports without production from ANWR. According to our own Energy Information Administration, which is part of this administration, they show that production would begin in about 2012 and production from ANWR of oil, any significant oil, would end by about 2025. Then we are right back where we started.

So our dependence on foreign imports to meet our oil demand will continue to grow. It will not grow as much during those years when ANWR is in production, but it will grow a substantial amount. The Energy Information Agency estimates that production from the Arctic Refuge would reduce the net share of foreign oil relied on by consumers from 62 percent to 60 percent by the year 2020. As this chart shows, by 2025 we are right back to no reduction as a result of ANWR production because ANWR production will have largely played out by that time.

Another reason I offer to my colleagues today in support of the amendment, is that a controversy over the Arctic Refuge diverts attention from the real opportunities we have for enhancing domestic energy production. There are other ways we can expand production.

Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Domenici, and I introduced the Energy Tax Incentives Act the other day. Unlike the opening of the Arctic Refuge, this legislation would provide near-term increases in domestic energy production. Not only does the legislation include tax provisions that would help us diversify our energy supply and increase our reliance on renewable sources of energy and enhance energy efficiency, it would also provide specific incentives for increased oil and gas production.

Some would ask, from where is this oil and gas production going to come? I have another chart that makes a point people do not focus on. This is a map of the North Slope of Alaska showing the ANWR area on the right, the 1002 area. It shows the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, the large tan-colored area on the map. The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska is an area that has begun to be leased by the Department of the Interior. Secretary Babbitt began that process when he was in office. Secretary Norton is proceeding with that. Frankly, I support going ahead with drilling in that area. There is a substantial likelihood of very large energy production from that area. There is a real prospect of increased oil and gas production from the North Slope.

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

North Slope of Alaska, gas that is already being produced and reinjected into the ground, bring that gas down to the Lower 48 States. We tried very hard in the last Congress to pass legislation to streamline the process for getting a pipeline constructed. I strongly support that. We need a pipeline to bring that natural gas to the Lower 48. Anyone who is dependent upon natural gas for home heating today knows the price is high. They are going to notice it even more over the next 2 or 3 months as they get the bills during this period of high natural gas prices. The best opportunity we have to relieve that pressure is building that pipeline to bring Arctic gas down to the Lower 48. That is what we should concentrate on: develop more oil from the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, bring the gas already produced on the North Slope down to the Lower 48. I hope we can do that.

I also make the point that we need to continue to emphasize developing alternative sources of energy. That is something we will get into in a large way when we debate a new energy bill this Congress, a new proposed energy bill, and we can make the point again.

The solution to our long-term energy problems is not to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. It is an environmentally sensitive area, one we have determined to keep off bounds, out of bounds, for drilling up until now. I believe that is a sound policy.

In conclusion, there are many reasons why the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not needed and should not be drilled for oil and gas. The environmental sensitivity of the area is clearly well recognized by all. Opening the Refuge is not good environmental policy. Equally important, it is far from necessary as part of our national energy policy.

I urge my colleagues to join in opposition to the oil and gas leasing and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to support this amendment by the Senator from California.

Mr. President, let me speak for the 4 minutes I was allocated by the Senator from Washington to support the amendment Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy have put forward. I compliment them on the leadership they provide on education issues and this amendment in particular.

I heard my colleague from New Hampshire talk about how we cannot just increase funding ad infinitum, that what this amendment would do is throw out numbers that are irresponsible. That was one of his phrases.

As I understand the amendment, and the reason I am cosponsoring the amendment, this amendment proposes to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. All it is saying is we made an agreement on a bipartisan basis. The President participated in that agreement. We told the people of our States and our school districts that we were going to provide a certain level of support to help them implement the No Child Left Behind Act. The budget before the Senate does not do that.

The suggestion is made that the reason it has not done that is because there is surplus money that has come into the State and we prefunded things and they have not been able to spend the money in the pipeline. This is news to the school districts in my State and to the people involved with trying to educate the children in my State. In fact, when I go home, what I hear from people in my State is that we have these new requirements, we need assistance, we need resources. If you want us to train teachers' aides, which we want to do, if you want us to raise the level of qualifications of our teachers, which we want to do, please help. Please come through with the resources that were committed in the No Child Left Behind Act. That is exactly what this amendment tries to do.

The other comment I heard was we cannot fully fund every bill that is authorized in this Congress. That is not what the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Massachusetts are proposing. They are saying, let's just fully fund this bill. Let's take education and recognize that it needs to be a priority.

In this budget resolution, we have over $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. Now, is it too much to say that $8.9 billion of additional funds should go into education? I don't think that is an unreasonable request. I think, clearly, the priorities of the American people would be with us, and they would agree, let's fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act before we start cutting taxes.

We all know we have enormous other expenses that are coming at us as a result of the war that is imminent in Iraq. I certainly intend to support those expenditures, but to suggest that we do not have enough money left to pursue our education funding, to keep the promise we made to the American people at the time the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law, is very unfortunate.

I participated with the Secretary of Education when he came to my State and had something of a rally in Albuquerque to talk about No Child Left Behind and what a wonderful thing it was for the State. I supported that legislation. I supported it all the way through. I worked with my colleagues to try to be sure it made good sense and fit the circumstances of our State. But I did so always on the assumption that we would then come along and provide the Federal support to the States for local school districts to implement those improvements.

I think it is essential we do that. I think it is essential we adopt the Murray-Kennedy amendment. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment and keep faith with the young people of our country.

Everyone in this body gives speeches talking about how the future lies with the children of the country. We need to do right by them and adopt this amendment and make education a priority in this budget.

The pending budget simply sets the wrong priorities by providing over $1.3 trillion in tax benefits to the wealthiest while cutting education funding.

This budget abandons the promise to leave no child behind by cutting funding for the No Child Left Behind Act--legislation repeatedly embraced by the Administration and passed by a strong bipartisan vote just last Congress--by $700 million.

Under this budget, Title I--the program targeted on districts and schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students--would be approximately $5.8 billion short compared to the levels agreed to on a bipartisan basis in the No Child Left Behind Act. As a result, over 6 million poor children will be left behind.

In addition, over 500,000 children will lose access to after school services under these funding levels.

The budget before us also contemplates eliminating funding for key education programs--again enacted on a bipartisan basis last Congress.

For example, the budget contemplates eliminating funding for the dropout prevention program, at a time when the pressure is greater than ever to push at risk students out so they do not negatively impact school performance.

The budget also contemplates cutting existing programs that provide research-based strategies for schools to improve academic achievement and reduce dropout rates. For example, the smaller communities program provides funds to schools seeking to create personalized learning environments that research proves will increase student academic achievement, reduce dropout rates, and increase school safety. It is exactly the type of reform effort that we endorsed and indeed required in the No Child Left Behind Act. It is the type of program that we should expand, rather than eliminate.

If we truly intend to leave no child behind, education funding-- particularly funding for the programs targeted toward the most disadvantaged children--must be our top priority, not our last.

The funding provided in this amendment would achieve that goal by providing funding sufficient to serve another 2 million needy children under the Title I program. In addition, every one of the 10,000 schools currently identified as not meeting the standards provided in the No Child Left Behind Act will be able to implement research-based school reform models.

We also will be able to maintain the current level of after-school services while expanding after school programs to another 1.3 million latchkey children.

We would be able to make substantial contributions to the quality of instruction by providing enough funding to hire 50,000 fully qualified teachers and provide professional development to 200,000 teachers.

Finally, we will be able to continue key programs such as the dropout prevention program and smaller learning communities programs.

This amendment can make a real difference for our states and local districts.

As my colleagues know, State cuts to education caused by ``the most ominous fiscal crisis since World War II'' make Federal support ever more crucial for local communities. States face a cumulative $80 billion budget deficit, with a dozen States cutting k-12 spending last year and another 11 poised to do so this year.

States and communities across the Nation are being forced to cut services due to increased demands and reduced resources. For example, in Oregon school districts are carving weeks of instruction off the school year. One thousand teacher positions have been lost in Oregon so far this year. The schools in Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Colorado are cutting back to a four-day week to trim costs. In Alabama, the schools are being forced to raise the class sizes, cut back extracurricular activities, and lay off 2,000 teachers and support staff. In Kentucky, 1,000 teacher and support positions have been cut and their technology programs have been slashed. In Massachusetts, dozens of school nurses have been laid off.

As a result, it is not a surprise that a bipartisan poll recently demonstrated that a majority of Americans support increased Federal support for education and more voters name education as their top budget priority for next year than any other issue. Education ranks more than 10 points higher than the next 2 highest budget priorities-- health care and terrorism/security.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and thank my colleagues again for their leadership.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will ensure the continuation of a program that has provided a flexible and cost-effective way to reduce the Federal Government's energy bills.

Since the 1970's Federal Government agencies have been required by law or Executive Order to steadily improve the energy efficiency of Federal buildings. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 set a goal of reducing energy use per square foot by 20 percent in FY 2000 compared to FY 1985. Preliminary data from the Department of Energy indicates that agencies exceeded this goal by 2.7 percent and spent $2.3 billion less for energy in FY 2000 than in FY 1985.

One of the reasons the Federal Government was successful was the availability of an innovative financing method for energy efficiency improvements. In the 1992 Energy Policy Act, Congress created Energy Savings Performance Contracting ESPC, which offered a way to invest in energy savings improvements at no capital cost to the government by leveraging private sector capital.

Under the ESPC authority, private sector companies enter into contracts with Federal agencies to install energy savings equipment and make operational or maintenance changes to improve building efficiency. The companies pay the up-front costs of the energy efficiency improvements and guarantee the agency a fixed amount of cost savings through the life of the contract. The energy service company recoups its investment over time from the energy cost savings. Since 1992, nearly $1.1 billion in private sector capital has been invested in Federal energy improvement projects under ESPCs resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in permanent savings to the US taxpayer.

Unfortunately the authority for this successful program expires at the end of September 2003. Congress must act quickly to continue ESPC authority.

Our legislation would extend the authority for the ESPC program permanently. The bill also makes several changes designed to improve and expand the program. It adds ``water cost savings'' as an allowable measure for Energy Savings Performance Contracting for civilian agencies, as they have been for Department of Defense facilities for several years.

The legislation also addresses the problem of improving energy efficiency in a building that has long since passed its useful life and is in constant need of maintenance and repair. To prevent this waste of funds, the legislation

would allow Energy Savings Performance Contracting to include the savings anticipated from operation and maintenance efficiencies of a replacement facility. The Department of Energy conducted a feasibility study for replacing a complex of 50 year old army barracks in my State--now used as DOE's Albuquerque operations office. The study demonstrated that the costs savings created by energy, operations and maintenance efficiencies of a new replacement building can pay for the new facility.

These provisions were agreed to last fall by the House and Senate conference committee on the Energy Policy Act of 2002. They are good policy for energy efficiency and for the Federal taxpayer.

In addition, our bill would authorize a pilot program to determine whether the ESPC concept can be applied to non-building projects. About 60 percent of the Federal Government's energy consumption occurs in government vehicles, cars, trucks, ships and air craft. Another 7 percent occurs in energy intensive operations such as irrigation, manufacturing and research activities. Increased efficiency for these activities could yield tremendous savings. This program was discussed favorably at the Energy Committee's March 11 hearing on energy efficiency.

I look forward to working with my cosponsor Senator Dorgan, and other interested Senators to enact this legislation as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

What is the order?

Madam President, I ask I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I appreciate the chance to speak for a few minutes on the critical economic situation we are facing in the United States and the direct effect that low crude oil inventories, combined with high energy prices, are having on the American economy. This is a particularly important time to focus on this issue because of the impending conflict with Iraq that we all are keenly aware of.

We have a situation today of constrained supply of crucial products and very high prices. We saw nearly 3 million barrels of oil per day come off the market during the Venezuela crisis which began in December. This--combined with an unusually cold winter in the eastern part of the United States and refiners drawing down their crude oil inventories--has left crude oil and crude product markets extremely tight.

From a supply standpoint, we are operating on very thin margins. Any accident that unexpectedly shuts a refinery or interrupts flow through a major pipeline is capable of producing real shocks in our supply of these products. It has happened before. In 1996, a pipeline emergency blocked deliveries to refineries in the Midwest during a similar period of tight supplies. In the year 2000, a dock collapsed along the Intracoastal Waterway near Lake Charles, LA, curtailing supplies to two major gulf coast refineries.

The sharp increase in energy prices that we have seen so far this year has caused a major problem for our economy. The Nation's manufacturing sector continues to struggle. Consumers across America are faced with real hardships because of these high prices. Nearly all of the inflationary pressures that our economy is experiencing are coming from increased energy costs, which jumped 4.8 percent in January. They jumped an even sharper 7.4 percent in February--the largest 1-month jump since 1990. Excluding increases in the food and energy items, the core inflation index actually dropped 0.5 percent in February, instead of rising as it did.

The simple truth of the matter is this. Rising energy prices are keeping Americans from spending their hard-earned dollars elsewhere. Given the current energy price environment, consumers are likely to pay more than $200 billion in higher energy costs this year. This $200 billion works out to be about 2 percent of our gross domestic product, which is no small item.

The obvious question we need to be asking is, Where does this money come from? Companies are not hiring. In fact, they are laying people off.

A looming crisis that should worry all of us exists in the Nation's chemical industry. We are in danger of losing our domestic chemical industry as high natural gas prices push it to operate offshore. That, of course, will result in the loss of thousands of more good, high- paying American jobs.

U.S. oil and natural gas stocks are dangerously low and the risk that energy price spikes will continue to significantly damage our economy is a very real prospect.

Gasoline and diesel prices are at near decade highs. In fact, in my home State of New Mexico and across the country, diesel prices are at an all-time high--$1.75 per gallon today.

High diesel prices have a direct impact on the trucking industry. There was an article in the Albuquerque Journal this weekend that talked about the impact of high energy prices on consumers and on the trucking industry. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

In my home State, again, 12 percent of the State's population is estimated to be involved in the trucking industry. High diesel prices are shutting down small trucking companies every day. These are real economic effects. We are all well aware of the problems in the airline industry as well and the threatened bankruptcy of some of our major airlines; in part traceable to the high price of energy.

In our discussion of the current situation and use of the SPR, we have used several phrases. One--``Likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy. . . .''--that description matches very closely the statutory provisions we wrote into the law when we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

As I read that statute and look around at what is happening, it is clear to me that the time has come to act on that statutory authority. I have repeatedly asked the administration to clearly state what its policy is with regard to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and they have refused to do so as

yet. It has become apparent from what has been said by the administration that it is not likely to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to correct this rapidly deteriorating situation. Rather, the administration seems to be relying on OPEC to increase production and to send that production to our shores.

At their meeting last week, OPEC Ministers asserted that they would provide additional supplies in the event that there is a war with Iraq, but they also made it clear that those new supplies would be costly.

The administration appreciates the promise of the Saudis to raise production in the event of a shortage, and I appreciate that as well. Some Saudi oil, evidently, is already on its way to United States ports. But the fact is, given the present situation, this is not enough. This is long-haul oil. We need oil in our system now to keep the system functioning and prevent refineries from running on empty.

We have a timing problem. If war begins--and we all are well aware it may begin at any time--Iraqi oil production and perhaps some Kuwaiti production will cease. This will cause a shortfall of somewhere between 2 percent and 6 percent of the world oil supply. We seem to be assuming that the Saudis can make up that difference, and it is possible that they can. Some analysts estimate however that they are already operating at full capacity.

But let's suppose they can make it up. They still have to get that oil here. It takes 40 days for an oil tanker to get here from the Persian Gulf, and we need to release oil from the SPR now in order to keep liquidity in the system, to keep our refineries running, and to prevent further harm to our economy. If it takes 40 days for Persian Gulf oil to reach our shores, and those tankers set sail perhaps 10 days ago, there are still 30 days left before we will see any of that oil.

The delivery process has started, but the extra oil is still far away at sea. We need liquidity in the system now, and I am saying the smart thing to do is to take out a little insurance policy to cover that period, from today until that oil can arrive.

I am urging the President to allow private companies to exchange up to 750,000 barrels of oil per day from the SPR, until this long-haul crude from the Middle East reaches our ports. Companies taking part in this swap that I am proposing would pay the Government a fee plus a future price differential for leasing the oil, and would replace the oil with an equivalent grade of crude within 6 to 12 months.

This modest release would complement and not compete with the oil that is headed this way. It would provide supply in a crucial time. I believe this swap drawdown could begin immediately and could continue until additional oil that OPEC producers have promised actually arrives.

This 750,000 barrels-per-day swap is well-short of the 4.3 million barrels-per-day of drawdown capacity we have within the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I understand President Bush does not want to release all of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as our Nation is on the brink of war. But what I am proposing leaves nearly 85 percent of that total SPR drawdown capacity untouched. We will be minimizing the damage to our economy by putting these extra barrels out there into the system now, and we will be helping to prevent a gasoline supply shortage and further price spikes.

The U.S. refining sector already is functioning at minimum operating levels. Without new crude supplies, refiners may be forced to reduce those production levels, leading to higher gasoline, higher jet fuel, and higher diesel prices, and causing even more damage to our economy.

Our economic security is at stake. We cannot afford not to do this. The American people also cannot afford for us not to do this. I urge the administration to seriously consider this proposal. In my view, it is time for us to act.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Albuquerque Journal, Mar. 15, 2003]

N.M. Gets Shock at Pump

(By Diane Velasco)

``It's just ridiculous,'' said Bill Andes of Albuquerque as

he pumped $1.69-a-gallon gasoline into his company car at a

Chevron station in the Northeast Heights.

Andes' reaction on Thursday evening was typical of many

motorists as gasoline prices spiraled to record levels in

Albuquerque, Las Cruces and statewide this week.

Andes doesn't pay personally for gasoline in his company

car, but his wife's Suburban has a 60-gallon tank.

``$1.69 times 60--you do the math,'' he said.

Andes was paying the average statewide price of $1.69 a

gallon for regular unleaded gasoline, five cents higher than

a week earlier and a record. The previous record, set May 31,

2001, was $1.68 a gallon.

Albuquerque's average price per gallon was lower than the

statewide average. In Albuquerque, the price climbed 6 cents

to $1.66 a gallon for regular unleaded fuel, according to AAA

New Mexico's Weekend Gas Watch, which was released Friday.

The price tied a record set two years ago.

Santa Fe's average price rose 4 cents to $1.73 a gallon,

higher than the national average of $1.72 but still below the

city's record $1.75 set two years ago.

In Las Cruces, the average price climbed 3 cents last week

to $1.63 a gallon, tying that city's record.

Rising prices have caused Albuquerque resident Lorenzo

Gutierrez to think about parking his 1999 Dodge Ram pickup,

which he said gets just 11 miles a gallon, and buying a

motorcycle for daily use.

Nicole Monge used to spend $20 a week to fill her Toyota

Tacoma pickup. Now she spends $26.

``The prices won't restrict my travel plans, but they will

restrict my spending money,'' she said.

It could be worse.

Some places around the country are seeing prices above $2

per gallon.

Rising prices at the pumps are caused by the record-high

price of crude oil, said Bob Gallagher, president of the New

Mexico Oil and Gas Association.

At the New York Mercantile Exchange on Friday, April crude

oil futures closed at $35.38 a barrel.

Crude now represents 50 percent of the cost of a gallon of

gasoline, up from its usual 25 percent, he said.

The crude oil price has risen by $7 to $10 per barrel

because of uncertainty about what will happen if the United

States goes to war with Iraq.

``At this point, you have to start to become concerned that

(price increases) will impact the daily activities of

individuals as well as small and large businesses,''

Gallagher said.

``If daily activities are impacted, that will have a

negative impact on the economy because there will be less

money available to spend,'' he said. ``I am hopeful we are

all but topped out for the price of gasoline.''

High gasoline prices will hinder Yvonne Shije's 45-mile

trips from Zia Pueblo to Albuquerque. She will try to do all

of her shopping at once to eliminate extra trips, she said.

The world political situation is also making her a more

discerning consumer.

``I don't want to be purchasing gas from particular

stations (whose companies) buy oil from Iraq,'' she said.

``Why would you want to put money into their pockets when you

could buy American?''

Diesel prices are also at an all-time high--more than $1.75

a gallon nationwide--said Vic Sheppard, managing director of

the New Mexico Trucking Association.

``We see a lot of people just closing their doors in New

Mexico,'' he said. ``We hear daily of people just saying, `I

can't make it any more.' ''

About 86 percent of the state's trucking firms have six or

fewer trucks and are thus more vulnerable to price swings in

fuel, Sheppard said.

While Sheppard does not know how many jobs have been lost

in the industry since prices began spiraling, he estimates 12

percent of the state's population is involved in trucking,

including warehousing and distribution.

Henry Pacheco, owner of Pacheco Trucking Co., is currently

charging his customers a 5 percent surcharge to cover rising

fuel costs. He said he plans to increase that to 7 percent

next week.

``It's put a slowdown on us--I'm not getting as much

freight as I used to because I added the surcharge to my

rates,'' he said.

Although he is getting more calls, potential customers are

reluctant to pay the surcharge, Pacheco said.

His 20-year-old Pacheco Trucking Co. has 10 trucks and

employs as many as 14 drivers.

Mr. President, when future generations reflect on the fallout from the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001, I fear they will see our own commitment to international law as a casualty of that event. I do.

For some time now, there has been a contest within the U.S. foreign policy establishment between those who believe our greater security lies with the strengthening of international institutions and agreements, on the one hand, and, on the other, those who believe our security is enhanced if we demonstrate the will and capacity to prevail; that is, to dominate the new world and shape it to our liking.

The election of President Bush and the attack of 9/11 have moved U.S. policy to endorse this second vision--that of U.S. dominance of a world that meets our standards of acceptable conduct.

The result of this shift in U.S. foreign policy is now evident in the statements and actions of the President regarding Iraq. Unless I misread those statements by the President and his foreign policy team, sometime within the next few days, the United States, and possibly British, troops will begin an invasion of Iraq. The mission, according to the President, will be to disarm Saddam Hussein, to capture and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, to liberate the people of Iraq from his despotic rule, to install a new and democratic government, and to hold up Iraq as a model for freedom and democracy that can be emulated by other Middle Eastern countries.

These are noble objectives. My concern is not with the objectives but with the apparent decision the President has made to proceed with an invasion now while many Americans and many of our traditional allies believe that alternatives to war still exist.

In his State of the Union Address, the President spoke about a circumstance where ``war is forced upon us.'' After the President spoke, I came to the Senate floor to make what I considered an obvious point; that is, that war had not been forced upon us. It is still my view today that war with Iraq has not been forced upon us. Our allies who are urging that the U.N. weapons inspectors be given more time to do their work agree with that view.

In the report to the Security Council last Friday, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradai, the heads of the U.N. inspection teams, reported progress toward the goal of ensuring that Iraq has been disarmed. They pointed out that more cooperation by Iraq is needed, but they acknowledged that cooperation has increased.

President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have correctly pointed out that Iraq's increased level of cooperation does not constitute full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441, in that Iraq has not fully, completely, and immediately disarmed.

The question is whether this failure to fully comply with the U.N. resolution justifies an armed invasion of Iraq at this time. Many Security Council members believe it does not, and, in my view, it does not.

Our Government's position appears to be that we will enforce the U.N. Security Council resolution even though the Security Council itself does not support that action at this time. In other words, we will act in coordination with the views of the world community of nations as long as those views agree with our own. When those views differ from our own, we will use our great military capability to impose our will by force.

I, for one, can support a policy of imposing our will by force, notwithstanding the views of our allies, if there is an imminent threat to our own security and if all options, other than war, have been exhausted. But neither of those circumstances prevails today.

A decision to wage war at this time, absent the support of our traditional allies, contradicts the foreign policy on which this Nation has been grounded for many decades. It undermines the international institution that previous U.S. administrations worked to establish as an instrument for world peace. It clearly signals that even absent an imminent threat to our security, we consider ourselves the ultimate arbiter of acceptable behavior by other governments and that we will act to ``change regimes'' when we determine the actions of other governments to be unacceptable.

Madam President, this is an unwise and dangerous precedent for us to establish. Stripped of its niceties, it is essentially a foreign policy premised on the belief that ``might makes right.'' At this point in world history, we have the might and, therefore, accommodating the views of others seems a low priority. But the day will surely come when others also have the might, and then we may wish we had shown restraint so that we can argue that others should as well.

There is a famous scene from ``A Man For All Seasons,'' the magnificent play Robert Bolt wrote, about the conflict between Sir Thomas More, a man of conscience and the law, and his sovereign, Henry