Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for 10 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, for the last several weeks, those of us who serve on the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services have been trying to find adequate resources amongst other resources to fund LIHEAP, the money necessary to help low-income families provide for their comfort this winter. I thought it would be an appropriate time to talk about that for a little bit because I think Americans need to understand they are not without power to do a few simple things over the course of the next several months of this winter to help themselves as it relates to the heating of their own homes.

Americans spend more than $160 billion--that is right, $160 billion-- a year on heat, cooling, lights, and living in their homes. That is an awful lot of money. If most Americans are like I am, I would like to know how I can bring that number down a little bit, how I might be able to tighten my belt a little or my family's budget a little bit during this time of extremely high-priced energy.

We hear about record natural gas prices and 30- and 40- and 50- percent increases in heating bills this winter for those who heat with natural gas. We know those who heat with home heating oil in the Northeast are going to pay substantially more. In the West and in the pipelines of the West on which my home is connected, where there is more gas, we are still going to be paying 25 or 30 percent more.

What might we do about it? Let me suggest a couple of things.

Do you know that if you lower your home heating thermostat by 2 degrees--by 2 degrees--for every degree you lower it, you save 1 percent on your heating bill. We were told by experts recently who were testifying before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, if every American did that this winter, by spring, we could potentially have a surplus in natural gas in the lower 48, and that in itself would drive prices down. Americans have power to help themselves if they simply would turn their thermostats down by 2 degrees.

I am not going to do a ``Jimmy Carter'' on you by saying put on a sweater, but if you did turn your home heating thermostat down by 2 degrees and if you did put on a sweater and if you are a couple living by yourself in a large home and you turn off the radiators in some of your bedrooms that you are not using and close the doors, there could literally be a dramatic savings across this country.

If you want to change your gas price experience at the pump, instead of driving 70 and 75 or 80 miles per hour on the freeway, why don't you go back to 60 or 65? And if you turned it down and slowed it down, oil consumption could drop in a day--a day--in this country by 1 million barrels of consumption. That is the power of the American consumer if the American consumer wants to do something about it instead of pointing fingers and blaming--and there is plenty of that going around, and we deserve to take some of it. The consumer is not without power.

Let me suggest this in my time remaining. Senator Bingaman and I would like to help in that effort. So we are going to provide conservation packages, packets of information to our colleagues' offices that they can send out in their letters to their constituents advising and assisting in this kind of conservation effort. We hope you do it. If every Senator and all Senate staffs turn off their computers when they go home at night--shut them down, hit the off switch, turn out the lights in your office. If that were done across America today, heating bills and energy bills would drop precipitously.

But we are in this mode of everything on, all the lights on, the thermostat turned up because we are still living in the memory of surplus and inexpensive energy. That memory is gone. The reality is that the world has changed significantly, and while we scramble to catch up and provide increased availability of supply in the market-- and that is what we are doing and that is what the national energy policy passed in August is attempting to do--while that is happening, you know what we can do: We can help ourselves.

So once again I say to America, turn your thermostat down a few degrees, put on a sweater, shut portions of your house down and take literally tens, if not hundreds, of dollars off your heating bill in the course of a winter. If we do it collectively across America, by spring, natural gas prices could be down dramatically, and we would not see the kind of job loss that is occurring today in the chemical industry as large manufacturing plants are shut down simply because they cannot afford the price of natural gas, and they are moving elsewhere in the world to produce their product.

We are building pipelines, we are drilling for more natural gas out West and in the overthrust belts than we ever have before, and there are trillions of cubic feet available out there if we can get to it. We are making every effort to, and this administration is doing just that. In the interim, in the reality of a cold winter, America, you can help yourself. America, you can drive a little slower, you can turn your thermostats down, and if we were all to do that collectively, it would have a dramatic impact on the marketplace and on consumption.

Does it have to be mandated by law? Need there be a law to tell you that you can save a little money by those actions? I would hope not. I would hope that the wisdom of the pocketbook would suggest that we be prudent as to a procedure to follow.

Senator Bingaman and I are going to supply packets to the offices of our colleagues. We hope our colleagues will pass those on. We hope our colleagues might take the time to do a public service announcement over the course of the next month, talking to their folks at home about the opportunity and what is available. I think it is appropriate, and I think it is the right thing to do.

Senator Bingaman and I have coalesced with industry to see if they cannot collectively begin to produce a greater message of clarity about the opportunity in the marketplace to conserve and to save and, in so doing, to lower the overall cost of energy and its impact upon the American economy.

Want to give yourself a Christmas gift? Put on a sweater and turn the thermostat down 2 degrees.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2655 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join Senator Rockefeller and myself tonight in speaking clearly to our negotiators as they head for the Doha Round in Hong Kong in December.

Congress has made it clear time and time again that U.S. negotiators cannot bring back a trade agreement from the Doha that weakens U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty and safeguard laws that this Congress has put in place. These laws are widely recognized as critical tools to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and workers who sometimes are forced to fight for their rights to compete in fair environments.

As we open up the world's trade, let us make sure that we have in place the tools necessary to keep it fair and balanced, and not negotiated away by our negotiations.

It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution with that instruction in mind.

Mr. President, in light of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the

mounting $319 billion deficit, Americans have increasingly called on Congress to account for its spending. The reconciliation process is designed to answer these calls for fiscal responsibility by forcing lawmakers to look deeply and honestly into the federal budget and make necessary spending cuts and provide deserved tax relief.

The tax reconciliation bill, currently being considered by the Senate, does many worthwhile things to this end--such as extending essential tax provisions set to expire this year like increased exemption levels for the AMT--and providing incentives to encourage charitable giving. The good effects of these provisions, however, are undercut by a fundamental inconsistency in the larger bill--namely, the bill that claims to provide tax relief actually raises taxes. Demanding more taxpayer dollars, in an effort to control federal congressional spending, is not the answer.

Section 561 of the bill, the LIFO provision, not only imposes an additional $4.923 billion tax but does so selectively on the energy industry alone. The LIFO provision artificially raises taxable income solely for a subset of energy businesses, requiring them to report higher profits than those mandated under prevailing accounting rules for the sole purpose of imposing a discriminatory tax on these businesses. Section 561 calls this ``revaluation of LIFO inventories,'' but let us call this provision what it really is--a windfall profits tax.

Proponents of a windfall profits tax on the energy industry justify the tax on two grounds: that (1) energy industry companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits, and (2) the tax is effective.

As to the first, over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to Federal and State governments, including excise taxes, royalty payments and State and Federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy. And these figures do not include local property taxes, State sales and severance taxes, and on-shore royalty payments.

In addition, far from being excessive, oil industry profits have historically been below the national average. The most recent statistics available show that this continues to be the case. In the second quarter of 2005, the oil industry earned 7.7 cents for every dollar of sales, where the average profit for all of U.S. industry in the second quarter was 7.9 cents for every dollar of sales. The rate of return on oil sales for the third quarter of 2005 is slightly higher at 8.1 cents for every dollar of sale, still very near the average across all industries.

Even more illustrative, 13 U.S. industries earned higher profits in the second quarter than the oil and natural gas industry, including banking, 19.6 cents; software and services, 17 cents; consumer services, 10.9 cents; and real estate, 8.9 cents. The facts speak for themselves.

Proponents of the windfall profit tax also say that the tax is effective. In 1990, however, the Congressional Research Service, CRS, analyzed the effects of the windfall profits tax which was enacted in 1980 and repealed in 1988. CRS found that the tax reduced domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent and increased American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 to 16 percent.

Energy markets are cyclical and the industry must manage its business in the face of significant price fluctuations. The industry has to ride out periods of low prices in anticipation of recovering during the periods of high prices. When oil prices are low, as they were throughout the 1990s, energy industry profits are insufficient to induce investment. Oil supplies are tight today for this reason. When prices rise, however, the industry is induced to invest in new infrastructure and production in hopes of capturing the benefits of higher prices. Eventually, this leads to lower prices again.

Reinvestment is critical. The Congressional Budget Office estimates capital losses from Hurricane Katrina and Rita in the energy-producing industries will range from $18 billion to $31 billion. Imposing a tax on profits, however, reduces essential investment in energy production. If taxing profits prevents the energy industry from benefiting during period of high prices, there will be little incentive to invest in domestic productions, thereby increasing the Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

The goal of Federal energy policy should not be to hurt--or help--the major oil companies. The goal should be to help American consumers. Taxing capital for investment does not grow jobs, does not grow the economy--only fails American consumers.

The tax reconciliation bill is problematic not only for its inclusion of the windfall profit tax but also for its omission of a critical provision--the extension of the 15 percent reduced tax rate for dividends and capital gains. While critics argue that the reduced tax rates of dividends and capital gains are tax cuts for the ``rich'' and that the costs are too high, the lower rates have been remarkably successful. Some of its successes include: significantly boosting capital investment, contributing to the economic efficiency of the corporate sector, and dramatically increasing dividend distributions-- benefiting all Americans owning dividend-paying stocks, a significant number of whom are far from wealthy.

Specifically, in the year following enactment of the dividend tax cut, 113 publicly traded corporations initiated dividend payments for the first time, compared to an average of 22 companies in prior years. Further, through July 29, 2005, the 500 U.S. companies making up the Standard & Poor's index alone have increased their dividend payments 626 times, resulting in a 21 percent increase in average quarterly dividends. If these successes are to continue--and reach their full potential--reduced tax rates for dividends and capital gains must be included in any comprehensive tax relief bill.

And continued tax relief is what this country needs to both generate more economic growth and encourage individuals and corporations to save and invest. I am prepared to vote for a tax relief package--I cannot think of a time in the past when I have not--however, it must be effective, and it must actually provide relief. The tax reconciliation bill before the Senate falls short of this. I sincerely hope the conference report on this bill comes back better and stronger-- eliminating industry-specific tax increases antithetical to the bill's purpose while providing for sound relief provisions like the reduction in dividend and capital gains tax rates--so that we can satisfactorily answer the American taxpayers' call for a policy of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to use 5 minutes of Senator McCain's allotted time under the UC.

Mr. President, for just a few moments, I rise to recognize the work that has been done on H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006.

For a good number of years, some of us who work on the physical sciences in the Senate--by that I mean on committees that recognize the kind of research dollars that are applied to new technologies beyond health care, but more in the physical sciences--have been increasingly concerned that we have dedicated almost exclusively all research money to health care, medical science, biological sciences, and not to the physical sciences.

We had once invested heavily in the space program, and for decades it advanced our country beyond all other countries in technology, in all of the high-tech that has led our economy today and is now leading the world economy. Much of that was a spinoff from the early days of the investment in the space program. When few saw the opportunities or the benefits, some in Congress did, and it was well funded.

While I am not standing on the floor in any way to criticize our investment in the biological sciences or health care--and clearly that has advanced technology today well beyond where we thought we could go, and in a much more rapid way to look at cancer and diabetes and other of our chronic illnesses in this country that are causing tremendous problems and death loss-- the one thing that has been obvious in tight budget years is that we have not been willing to commit the kind of investment dollars to the physical sciences this bill begins to speak to clearly today. For example, we are spending more money than ever before on nuclear energy, pushing the technology curve once again to become leaders in the world on a technology that we once led on but we let move away. Now for a variety of reasons,

most importantly because of a need for clean energy, we are recognizing once again we have to put the hard dollars back into the technology that takes us beyond the lightwater reactor to the high temperature gas reactor and even beyond that some day, out there 40 or 50 or 60 years to technologies such as fission. That is in part what this budget and this appropriations bill speaks to.

Certainly I come to the floor to thank the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Pete Domenici, for his vision, his farsightedness in recognizing and fighting for some of the new money that advances us at our national laboratories that are tremendous treasures to advance these types of technologies. Once weapons laboratories during the Cold War, they are transforming themselves into lead research facilities well beyond what they were a decade or two ago. Clearly, that is true, whether it is in my State of Idaho or in New Mexico or California or in the other States that have the privilege of housing these laboratories and the quality of work they do.

While this conference did not come about easily, while there are many more dollars that could be spent productively to advance our country and our leadership in the world of science, this is a major step in the right direction under tight budget constraints.

I am proud to be a conservative. I believe in balanced budgets. I believe in bringing down deficits. I believe that all parts of the appropriating process have to share in that responsibility. Clearly, we have shared in it in the Energy and Water Development appropriations legislation. At the same time we have worked cooperatively with the House and, in a common cause, advanced a variety of the technologies that are embodied within this appropriations bill that is critically important.

I thank the chairman for the work he has done to advance a variety of the technologies I have spoken to, and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the attention of my colleagues to this regional issue regarding the Fish Passage Center and would like to make a few comments to clarify the intent of the language.

This language is not about treaty rights; this issue is about ensuring accurate data is used in recovering the species. Removal of funding to the FPC does not mean the current functions will disappear. It is my understanding that other institutions in the region now perform most of the data collection and dissemination that is performed by the FPC. Reduced redundancies mean increased efficiency and effectiveness in the regional fish and wildlife program. The end result is a more focused program and the region moves forward toward recovery of the species.

While BPA has contracted the FPC for the last 20 years, many questions have arisen regarding the reliability of the technical data. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Independent Scientific Advisory Board, ISAB, issued a report in 2003 in which it raised serious questions about the FPC's analyses. The ISAB said FPC's ``basic model and methods of presentation are now inadequate to make confident predictions for management, and other interpretations of the accumulated data are needed.'' Clearly, I am not alone in questioning FPC's reliability. Data cloaked in advocacy create confusion. False science leads people to false choices. We do not have to choose dams or salmon. They can, and should, continue to coexist.

I am confident the BPA and NPCC will work with the region, both States and tribes, to ensure a seamless transition of functions. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak on this matter.

mixed oxide fuel project

Mr. President, tomorrow and through the weekend, we will be celebrating Veterans Day. I thought it was appropriate that I come to the Chamber this morning for two purposes. First, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the Senate, I have had the distinct pleasure of working with the VA and working with veterans across this country over the last year to not only provide them the services they need to improve their lives but to recognize the changing scene of veterans health care and the new veterans that are being created out of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and the kind of care and service those brave young men and women will need as they return home, some of them certainly not as physically or mentally whole as we would like.

Because of their tremendous service to our country in the war on terrorism, I can say very proudly that this Congress and our committee and the Veterans' Administration have clearly stepped up to do what is right and appropriate in the recognition of the time-honored care we have provided for our veterans down through the decades and down through the conflicts in which America found itself, in the preservation of our freedom and the advancement of all peoples around the world.

Idaho played a unique role this year, and I am here today to talk about the Idaho National Guard 116th Brigade Combat Team that is now returning from service in Iraq. For the last 18 months, these brave men and women have made a tremendous sacrifice to be away from their families and friends to defend our Nation and work to build a stable and free Iraq. For that, I am extremely grateful to all of them.

It is important to remember that the soldiers of the National Guard are civilians first and soldiers second. They are our doctors and our business men and women, plumbers, farmers, teachers. Yet they have all answered their country's call to action during this time of need. The skills these civilian soldiers bring to the table have proven to be invaluable as our soldiers work side by side with the Iraqi people to restore the critical infrastructure, establish a thriving economy, and promote a free and prosperous system of government.

Earlier this year, I had the privilege, once again, to visit Iraq--it was my second time while we have been engaged there in the war on terrorism--fulfilling a promise I had made to the 116th as I and the delegation and the Governor saw them off now over a year ago. So I was extremely proud to be there and to see this phenomenally enthusiastic civilian soldier in his or her work area as they did what they do so very well in a very courageous and skillful manner.

These civilian skills not only were essential to provide the security for the Iraqi people, but they also provided the essential ongoing construction efforts. I was humbled to have that opportunity to meet with these fine young men and women on the battlefield in Iraq and to express the gratitude of the people of the State of Idaho and our Nation for these efforts.

I also have enormous respect for what they did, but what is phenomenal is the feedback we received from the Iraqi Government officials regarding the work of the 116th. As I say, these are unique soldiers. The Iraqi people saw that and understood that these were really civilians who had tremendous talents in civilian life, and they incorporated that not only in the protection and the soldiering that went on over there but in the rebuilding of the infrastructure about which I talked. These soldiers faced a very difficult and dangerous task of maintaining the peace and stability in some very hostile environments. Yet they continued their mission, and they handled it with tremendous honor.

The members of the 116th have spent 12 months in Kirkuk and other areas within that region. Their mission was to provide for the security of the people of Iraq against insurgents and terrorist attacks, establishment of self-reliant government institutions, and the reconstruction of the basic and critical infrastructure. Their two overriding missions were overseeing the successful national elections in January and the national referendum vote on October 15. Both of these missions were tremendously successful. We know about that. This is exactly what our President had proposed and laid out before us.

While Americans and Members of Congress are tremendously anxious about the war currently going on in Iraq, the reality is we are on schedule and on course to do exactly what we set out to do to help the citizens of Iraq in standing up for government, providing a representative form of government, and stabilizing that area of the world. The 116th from Idaho, these tremendous civilian soldiers, participated in that, and I must tell you that in representing the largest deployment from the State of Idaho that has ever happened to our National Guard, we stand as Idahoans today tremendously proud of the work they did.

The good news is, they are coming home, and most of them will be home for Thanksgiving. We will be glad to see them back with their families and back in their communities and reassuming their civilian lives and doing that not only for the Idaho National Guard but for all guardsmen and reservists around the country. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, working with the Secretary of the VA, holding hearings in Idaho and other places around the country, we want to make sure that this transition back into civilian life is as seamless as possible.

These are men and women who have been at war. To simply step out of a war zone and step into their community is not going to be an easy task. Yet that is exactly what a civilian citizen soldier does. Whether it is the Idaho 116th or whether it is the tens of thousands of other guards men, women, and reservists around the country, we owe them a phenomenal debt of gratitude for the work they have done.

You see, we have a system within our military that it is not just the active soldier who serves so well, but it is that citizen soldier, our friends and neighbors in our communities across the country, such as the 116th of Idaho, who continue to serve and, in a time of war, serve with honor and dignity.

As we celebrate Veterans Day tomorrow and this weekend, recognizing those who have stood in harm's way and in many instances have given their lives so our lives could be freer, let's remember those currently serving in Iraq, be it the active soldier or be it the Guard or Reserve, for they are all one and their missions are all the same. The 116th of Idaho Brigade Combat Team has made Idaho extremely proud.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, may I inquire as to the order appropriate that we would discuss and bring up this amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside to consider amendment No. 2437.

I think less than 2 minutes could solve this issue and we could return to the Senator's amendment.

That is correct.

Mr. President, that is, of course, the order. I thank the chairman for correcting us in that because we are operating on the broader bill, the underlying bill, under a UC.

This amendment was brought forth with the hope that both sides could accept it. Our side has accepted it. I worked with the ranking member, Senator Levin, to resolve a couple of issues in it that I think can be accepted. In that case, I hope it will appear in the managers' amendment.

We would include in the amendment--and we are discussing those who are eligible to be buried in military cemeteries. We have a prohibition now against those with a Federal capital offense lying at rest in our military cemeteries. We found this summer that an individual who had been convicted of murder in two instances in Maryland, serving his life sentence in a Maryland prison, died and was buried in Arlington. We want to correct that by saying that Federal or State law, where the final decision--he is found guilty even under appeal--it has to be a final decision in that instance, and that under extraordinary circumstances, even though he might be convicted, a Governor or a President would commute the sentence. That would be the exception.

I would be willing to agree to those two items to be included in the amendment if that is acceptable to all parties, and we would so craft it that way.

It is the only one over which we have jurisdiction; that is correct.

Mr. President, that is correct. Full disclosure here: There is always concern when you restrict access for purposes of burial, but because we have already established that in Federal law and this appeared to be a loophole, which it was, and an individual, as I so stated, who was convicted of murder in two instances in Maryland was buried this summer in Arlington Cemetery, they understand that clearly, they appreciate that correction. And I am very specific in my discussions with the Senator from Michigan that we are talking about capital offenses--not all felonies, capital offenses of this kind.

I thank both of my colleagues for helping us work out this issue. I hope this could be included in the managers' amendment.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member for their accommodations.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 16, 2005, at 2 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on Earth Island Institute vs. Ruthenbeck.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC, 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878 or Kristina Rolph at 202-224-8276.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

It is my understanding that for the remainder of the day, we have completed work on budget reconciliation and we are about to move to the Agriculture appropriations conference. I understand Chairman Bennett is on his way to the floor, and as soon as he gets here I will yield, but I thought for the few moments that remain prior to that, I would discuss that very important appropriations conference we will soon be discussing.

The reason I want to do that is because I made an effort during the appropriations conference to deal with what I believe is a major issue threatening American agriculture today that the Congress has largely ignored at this moment, and the courts are now working their will and the trial bar is working its will at the moment to try to change the intent of law.

The agricultural industry is, I think, very concerned about litigation actions being taken to apply the Superfund law, referred to as CERCLA, and its counterpart, the Community Right to Know Act, better known as EPCRA, to emissions or discharges primarily from livestock and poultry waste produced during the normal course of farming operations.

Someone would say, You mean a dairy farm or a poultry operation ought to be plunged into Superfund? Well, that is exactly what is being attempted at this moment and, of course, we would say no. The reason we say no is because when those laws were created by Congress, agriculture was clearly exempt. It was intended to be and it was exempt at that time. If you were to put agriculture into the CERCLA/EPCRA issue, according to EPA's own description, then you have changed the whole dynamics.

According to the EPA's own description, the Superfund law is ``the Federal Government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the Superfund program, abandoned, accidentally spilled, or illegally dumped hazardous wastes that pose a current or future threat to human health or the environment are cleaned up.''

That is the responsibility of EPA under that issue. Are dairies and feedlots uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites? That is what we are talking about at this moment.

EPA goes on to say that ``the Superfund law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and allowed the Federal Government to respond to releases or potential releases of hazardous wastes that might harm people or the environment. The tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.''

The question is, if we allow the courts and the legal process to drive those in agriculture into EPCRA and into CERCLA--again the Superfund law and the Community Right to Know law--is Congress then ready to appropriate moneys for other concentrated herd releases that might result? Should dairies, poultry farms, farmer-owned cooperatives, and others be required to pay into Superfund as the nuclear laboratories and the petroleum industry do?

That was never the intent of Congress, and in trying to speak to that issue, Congress has to date been silent because environmental groups have moved in and are standing at the doors of some of my colleagues, wringing their hands and saying oh, no, no, communities have the right to know and it ought to be included in all of this, even though the law says not.

Now, that is not to say that these agricultural entities of the day are not responsible for clean air and clean water. They are under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. They work with EPA in those standards. They work with their State environmental councils and environmental departments to meet those kinds of standards.

What we are talking about is a legal issue attempting to shift, if you will, these responsibilities away from the intent of the law, as spoken to so very clearly by this Congress in the creation of those two entities, EPCRA and CERCLA.

Another provision of the Superfund law allows EPA to fine violators up to $27,500 per day. Does that sound like a sum tailored to fit a farmer? Environmental groups would have you think that, well, you know, this is only for the big boys, the big operators. But then they do not define big. They say, well, large concentrated herd areas. It is the small versus large issue. Once it is well established that large operators in American agriculture are required to comply under these acts and meet the standards of the acts, any of us who have ever watched the progress or the evolution or the migration of law through the courts over time know it is only a moment in time before the small operator is included.

I made an effort during Agriculture appropriations and Agriculture appropriations conferences to clarify this issue and to say once again very clearly to the American public the intent of the laws of Superfund and Community Right to Know, and those intents were very clear--not to include American agriculture. It isn't the big versus small issue at all. It is where do you rest the responsibility on the issue. It is not to say that American agriculture doesn't have a responsibility. Of course, they do. And they are fulfilling that responsibility under State law, under county zoning, under EPA, under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These are issues that I hope this Congress will soon address.

As to my amendment that I attempted, that the Republicans in the Senate did support in the conference, the conference collapsed itself so that it would not have to deal with this ``thorny issue'' of the moment; it walked away from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture that supported our effort and the Southern Association of State Departments of Agriculture because at the State level, State Departments of Agriculture get it, they understand it, and they know this has to be clarified. We cannot let the trial bar, if you will, and communities of interest try to rewrite public policy through the court process. That is exactly what is going on today. Several lawsuits have been filed in this effort.

I am certainly going to be back, as I know many of my colleagues will, in attempting to deal with this very important issue. I do respect what Chairman Bennett had to do to move the Agriculture appropriations conference forward. I had hoped we could get the CERCLA and EPCRA amendment into the conference, but it is not here. The conference is silent to it. The conference did good work. I am pleased to see that we could get as far as we could get in a variety of issues.

The chairman and the ranking member are now in the Chamber. They had

a tough road to meet budget reconciliation with what they were allocated. I know that was difficult, and I appreciate the work my staff was able to do with the chairman and the ranking member's staffs to get where we got with what we have today. I wish we had my amendment. I don't want those who say they stand for agriculture walking away from this issue and allowing the courts to rewrite public policy. If we are responsible practitioners of public policy--and that is what we are--then this is an issue we well ought to take on. Every State in the Nation has this problem today, and we ought not let the bar, the courts, and a few interested parties rewrite our laws.

I hope we can address this again at another time.

I do appreciate the work that was done. There were a lot of issues left on the table in this conference I hoped we could have addressed, that we could then get to, certainly those which dealt with healthy forests, categoric exclusions, and other issues, but that is debate for another day.

The chairman is in the Chamber. It is 6 o'clock. It is his time to bring forth the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I thought I would use some of the limited time we have to debate this important appropriations conference report.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come this morning to speak about a need for fiscal responsibility. Over 200 years ago, George Washington warned that ``Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it can be a dangerous servant or a fearful master.'' Even when government functions properly as a servant, Washington observed, it is dangerous.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about--and to urge a need for something to happen in this Senate and in this Congress--fiscal responsibility. While Congress has been talking about spending measure after spending measure over the past several weeks, Americans have been talking about Congress' loose spending of their tax dollars. What many lawmakers have referred to as the fiscal policy of the Government has come to mean nothing more than the Government's dangerous tendency toward fiscal recklessness.

Fiscal responsibility is premised on the simple concept that less is more. Less government spending means more freedom for individual Americans and increased levels of economic activity and rates of economic growth for the country. Several studies confirm this.

A Public Finance Review study indicated that: ``Higher

total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is

associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross

state product.''

A study by the Journal of Monetary Economics found that:

``There is substantial crowding out of private spending by

government spending. Permanent changes in government spending

lead to a negative wealth effect.''

And an International Monetary Fund study showed that:

``Average growth for the preceding 5-year period was higher

in countries with small governments both periods.''

The cumulative evidence in these studies suggests one important thing--government spending hampers the economic growth of our country. Even more than this, the growth of government spending is economically destructive.

Every dollar the government spends is one taken from an American, and is one less dollar in the productive, private sector economy.

Every dollar the government spends to fund agencies imposes large costs on the economy's productive sector, no matter how small the agency.

Every dollar the government spends on programs such as welfare and unemployment insurance encourages bad behavior by providing incentives for Americans to remain unemployed and choose leisure over work. Every dollar the government spends this way goes to making Americans passive supplicants rather than active citizens, particularly at a time when the number of those dependent on the government is growing and the number supporting it is shrinking.

We have been seeing those numbers talked about over the last good number of years--who is taxed and who is not, who is paying in to the Government versus who is not. We are now edging toward 50 percent of the American people not paying taxes, and yet we still hear this great debate in the Senate about, well, the tax cuts are only for the wealthy. The tax cuts are for people who pay taxes versus those who do not pay taxes. There is a very important reality check that has to occur out there.

When I am home visiting with folks at our town meetings and I say a family of four making $27,000 to $30,000 a year does not pay Federal taxes anymore, that is a fact. Yet somehow we get this rich versus poor debate in this Chamber. It is really those who pay taxes versus those who do not pay taxes and become the recipients of the largesse of Government.

Every dollar the Government spends to subsidize both health care and education distorts competitive processes in the marketplace and makes States increasingly more dependent, and their budgets become distorted because they are the ones that have had that historic Government responsibility. Every

dollar the Government spends to deliver services is one that should be in the private sector allowing the marketplace to choose its efficiency and its effectiveness.

There are some interesting figures. In 2005, Washington spent $2.470 trillion, raised $2.154 trillion, and ran a $317 billion budget deficit. This deficit is 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Some will say that is the lowest ever; it doesn't mean anything. $317 billion is a lot of money.

Spending increased by 8 percent in 2005 and is up 33 percent overall since 2001.

In 2005, inflation-adjusted federal spending neared $22,000 per household, the highest level since World War II.

Federal spending has increased by 33 percent since 2001, from $1.863 trillion to $2.470 trillion. Defense and 9/11-related costs have only accounted for a smaller-than-expected portion of this:

From 2001 to 2003, spending expanded by $296 billion, 45 percent of which went to defense and 9/11-related costs, and 55 percent of which went to new Federal spending unrelated to defense and 9/11. This is an 11 percent jump in Federal spending, the fastest growth in a decade.

From 2001 to 2005, discretionary spending surged 48 percent, from $649 billion to $969 billion.

Current spending on entitlement consumes nearly 60 percent of all program spending, a record 10.8 percent of gross domestic product, and is projected to nearly double over the next decade.

Long-term trends project the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to jump from 8.4 percent of GDP in 2005 to 18.9 percent of GDP by 2050. Federal program spending is projected to reach 27.6 percent of GDP by 2050.

By 2050, our children and our children's children will be footing the bill for our current fiscal irresponsibility.

Nearly 200 hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson said that ``although a republican government is slow to move, yet once in motion, its momentum becomes irresistible.'' There was a time not too long ago when Republicans stood up, made the case for smaller government, and made it happen. From 1998 to 2001, we did this by enjoying record budget surpluses.

The time for action is upon us once again.

The Federal Government's spending momentum, however, makes tax cuts, reductions in pork, and slashes in subsidies only first steps toward a real solution. The only long-term, fundamental, permanent reform that would effectively dispel the danger of current fiscal recklessness and restore fiscal responsibility is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution like the one I reintroduced earlier this year.

Jefferson once said, ``with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt than they may pay?'' I think he's right and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution to restore the past principles of fiscal responsibility envisioned by the Founding Fathers and to safeguard the future by providing a bill of economic rights for our children.

It is important we understand the impact that Federal spending has, and it is clearly time some of us come to the floor and challenge all of us to recognize what we are doing, where we are going, and the amount of money being spent. Now we recognize more than ever before, with the natural disasters hitting our country that are unprecedented in their impact on human lives, that we have a new responsibility to help those citizens who have lost everything gain a little back. Somehow we think we can go on doing that at our current level of spending, but it is time we get a little realistic about some belt tightening around here, even if it is at last year's rate of spending versus an increased level of spending for the next budget.

I think Americans want us to wake up, realize what we are doing, and the impact this kind of spending has both in the short term on our economy and in the long term on our economy both for us, our children, and our grandchildren.

I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that S. 405, a bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County, NV, for use as a heliport, has been added to the agenda of the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests scheduled for Wednesday, November 2 at 2 p.m. in Room SD-366.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878), Dick Bouts (202-224-7545), or Kristina Rolph (202-224-8276) of the Committee staff.