Peter Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Senator Shelby knows both of these projects are vitally important to the Chicago metropolitan region's transportation system. The Stevenson carries 135,000 vehicles per day, including 24,000 heavy trucks, and is 15 years beyond its design life. Wacker Drive, in downtown Chicago, built in 1926, is also well beyond its design life. It carries 60,000 vehicles per day. Both projects are high priorities of the Illinois Congressional Delegation.

Mr. FITZGERALD. We thank the chairman for his remarks. upper cumberland airport

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the Bryan amendment. In fact, I would like to tell the body that I am a cosponsor of this amendment, the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment. It is going to be second degreed with Senator Wyden's amendment. I continue to support the bill. I think it is a reasonable, moderate approach. I have great respect for my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and I am very impressed by his concern for his State and the Forest Service, for his knowledge of the area, and for the jobs that are in the timber industry in this country. But I think it is important to notice that this is a very moderate amendment. It does not end timber sales in this country. In fact, it simply cuts back an increase that the Appropriations Committee added to the Forest Service's Timber Sales Management Program--an increase that went $32 million beyond what the Forest Service chief requested, what the administration requested. This bill simply funds the Timber Sales Management Program at the very same amount that the Forest Service has requested. With all due respect, I have to say that many of the horror stories we heard on the floor last night and this morning about what effect this would have on timber sales and logging in this country are not true. It is also a very fiscally conservative approach. Of the $32 million that the Appropriations Committee gave to the Forest Service budget beyond what the Forest Service requested, we are going to apply $10 million to reduce our national debt--to pay down that important debt we are trying to eliminate over time. The rest of it we are applying for other important priorities such as restoring cuts in the fish and wildlife program that were used to, in fact, fund this increase. People might ask why do we need this amendment? In my judgment, increasing the timber sales management budget can't be justified either on economic grounds or on environmental grounds. First, if I could speak for a moment on the economic grounds, there have been a variety of studies over the recent years that have been very critical of the country's Timber Sales Management Program. All of the different reports have suggested that the program loses money. There have been different studies. Some have suggested--in fact, the Forest Service itself, I believe, estimated its loss in fiscal year 1997 at $889 million. But other estimates by other people using different accounting methods have suggested that the true net cash loss to the taxpayers could be as much as $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1997. You get different amounts depending on which type of accounting you would use to estimate the loss from the timber sales in this country. But whatever the true number is, there is widespread agreement that the program loses money and that it is a drain on the taxpayers. I have to ask why would we want to put more money into a program that by everybody's measure loses money for the taxpayers? It doesn't seem to make sense economically. Also, environmentally there are many arguments that appropriate management of our national forests and appropriate targeted cuts may actually have a beneficial effect over time. I have talked on several occasions to Senator Craig. I know he believes strongly that the management of our forests is environmentally sound. I would simply point out we are not curtailing all timber sales. We are preserving the status quo in timber sales in this country. This amendment does not go so far as to end timber sales. It funds them at roughly the same level they were funded last year. But we are not going to increase it. Obviously, from an environmental standpoint, the timber sales in this country are very controversial, particularly where you have an old- growth forest. Forests once cut come back. They grow back. But they never quite grow back in the same way in the same original pristine state that they once were. Over the August recess, I had the occasion to vacation in northern Wisconsin, in an area that was in the middle of a State forest in Wisconsin. That whole area, as I understood it from reading the history of the region, was completely clearcut in the late 1890s. In the intervening 100 years, the forest has grown back. But I read a study of the forest which showed that it didn't come back in the same way. There were different trees that came back. In fact, some of the more valuable trees were not favored in that regrowth process. Once a pure pristine forest is cut, it can never be regained in the beautiful form that it once was. Since those pristine areas in this country are fewer and fewer now as we enter the third millennium, don't we want to think about how much we want to expand the cutting of our national forests? Finally, one of the points I make is that timber sales from timber harvested in our national forests represent only a small portion of our Nation's timber supply. In fact, I am told--I have seen estimates--that as low as 3.3 percent of our timber comes from national forests. We are in no way dependent on those national forests in order to meet our timber needs in this country. In any case, this amendment does not cut that amount, whatever it is; it says we are not going to expand it. In sum, I think this is a very well balanced, moderate, measured amendment. I compliment Senator Bryan, my colleague, and also Senator Wyden for their work on this. I am proud to support this amendment. I support it with wholehearted enthusiasm. While I cannot claim to have the extent of beautiful national forests in my great State of Illinois that some of my colleagues from the West may have, we have the Shawnee National Forest in southern Illinois. It is one of the most beautiful parts of our State. It is something that is of concern to people right in my State-- and that we have jobs in that area down in southern Illinois. I very much enjoyed spending 5 days with my family in the Shawnee National Forest about a year or so ago. I am hoping we can go forward into the 21st century finding a way to make sure we have an ample supply of timber in this country but at the same time preserving some of the pristine natural areas in this country--that we don't go too far in either direction. This is a very well-balanced amendment. I am pleased to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise in strong support of my colleague from California on this legislation. Senator Gramm is one of my senior colleagues whom I respect as much as anybody in this body for his intelligence and hard work. On this issue, though, I respectfully disagree. The EPA called for a study last November. They appointed a blue- ribbon committee that did come up and look into the scientific evidence. On that blue-ribbon committee there were representatives, importantly, of the oil industry, which would have an economic interest to see that MTBE not be done away with. This committee, this blue- ribbon panel, had a representative from the American Petroleum Institute and also an oil company. They said of MTBE in our Nation's fuel supply, that while all gasoline can possibly leak through an underground storage tank into the ground water, they specifically pointed out that MTBE is more dangerous when leaking into the ground water than other gasoline components. That is on page 3 of the report. They recommend that MTBE be phased out gradually. Senator Gramm brings up a good point. We have to have an alternative. We may not have at the current moment the production capabilities to replace the MTBE all at once. But I do believe we have to act quickly because we are talking about our Nation's ground water, and ground water contamination is very serious. In California it has been estimated that a large percentage of their ground water has been contaminated. This is a possible carcinogen. We cannot dawdle on an issue such as this. We have to move quickly. Ethanol, as many of you know, can be used as an alternative to MTBE. We do have an alternative that is environmentally safe and sound. Yes, it does help our American farmers. Not only does it help corn growers in my State, which is a major corn-producing State, but ethanol can be derived from wheat, from rice straws, even from potatoes and, yes, potentially it could help farmers all across the country if they could produce the oxygenate for our reformulated fuel in this country. So I am in strong support of this legislation. I think it is good public policy for us to urge the EPA to act quickly. Our Nation's ground water supply is at stake. We do not want this situation to go on any longer. We cannot afford to wait. We must act quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of Senator Ashcroft's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. Before getting into the specifics of Senator Ashcroft's amendment, I want to lay the table a little bit by describing what I have heard in the agricultural community in my State and to talk for a moment about a farm rally that I attended last Saturday in Plainfield, IL. At that rally, which was held on the Schultz farm in Plainfield, IL, there were more than 500 farmers, not just from Illinois but from all over the country. There were farmers from as far away as Washington State and from Oklahoma and from the Southern and Eastern States as well. The one message I heard, talking to the farmers, not just those from Illinois but those from all across the country, was that there is a severe crisis in agriculture right now. Crop prices are at almost record low levels, if you consider the effects of inflation. The prices are low not just for corn and soybeans but also for hogs and wheat, and the list goes on. On top of that, we are seeing a trade situation now in which the countries in the European Union, to whom we used to export large amounts of our grain and livestock products, are, with increasing frequency, raising not just tariff barriers to the importation of American agricultural goods but also nontariff barriers, pseudoscientific trade barriers, objections to the safety of our food, objections for which very few in the scientific community have said there is any basis. Also we have seen a slump in the economy in Asia. The near depression in Asia in the last year has caused a severe drop-off in the amount they are importing from the United States and from our farmers in this country. On top of that, as was said earlier today, some parts of our country are experiencing drought, other parts floods. Farmers have complaints, as we all know, about the tax code and its consequences that are particularly felt by family farmers who can't deduct health insurance, for example, who have a very hard time meeting the obligations of the death tax, which taxes their family farms at 55 and, in some cases, 60 percent of their value when a farmer dies. I am very pleased that Senator Cochran and the Agriculture Appropriations Committee have come up with some short-term relief that I think most of us agree is needed. I think Senator Cochran's bill will be adequate to meet the challenges we now have in the short term. I am concerned that we not just address the short term, Mr. President. I think it is very important that we think about long-term solutions for the farm crisis in this country so that we don't have to come back every year and face ongoing crises year after year. Perhaps the best thing we can do for the long-term survival and success of our American farmers is to improve the trade climate. Several years ago, we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. The farmers in my State of Illinois frequently say: You gave us the freedom to farm, but you didn't give us the freedom to trade. What good is that freedom to farm, that freedom to plant all the acres we wish, if we don't have the freedom to sell our products abroad as we need? So I think it is very important that we work on a variety of fronts in the trade area. I favor fast track trade negotiating authority for our President. I think that normal trade relations with China would help our farmers. Accession of China into the WTO would be helpful. Agriculture needs a seat at the trade table next fall in the negotiations for the Seattle round of the multilateral trade negotiations. We need to have representatives from the USDA right there with Charlene Barshefsky when we are negotiating trade issues next fall. We also need strong enforcement of WTO trade disputes and, of course, open access for our GMO food products in Europe. One step toward improving the trade climate for our Nation's farmers is the pending amendment that Senator Ashcroft and I and a number of my colleagues have cosponsored. I am rising today to support that amendment to exempt food and medicine from unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions on food and agricultural products clearly hurt American agriculture more than anyone else. The target country simply buys its food from some other country, leaving less money in our farmers' pockets. When the U.S. Government decides to sanction food and agriculture, it simply tells our international competitors to produce more to meet the excess international demand. Once American agriculture loses these markets to our foreign competitors, our reputation then as a reliable supplier is tarnished, making it difficult for us to regain these markets for future sales. Our agricultural trade surplus totaled $272 billion just 3 years ago in 1996. But this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that our ag trade surplus will have dwindled to approximately $12 billion. Reversing this downward trend in the value of our exports through effective sanctions policy reform should be a top priority of this Congress. America's farmers demand it and they deserve it. We should be responsive. The current slump in commodity prices makes significant sanctions policy reform even more timely and necessary. In fact, recent estimates calculate the cost of U.S. sanctions at $15 to $19 billion annually. These potential sales could give a significant boost to our rural economy, if only they were allowed by the Federal Government. Free and open international markets are vital to my home State. Illinois' farm products sales generate $9 billion annually, and Illinois ranks third in this country in agricultural exports. In fiscal year 1997 alone, Illinois agricultural exports totaled $3.7 billion and created 57,000 jobs for the State of Illinois. Needless to say, agriculture makes up a significant portion of my State's economy, and a healthy export market for these products is important to all my constituents. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor Senator Ashcroft's amendment. The amendment simply exempts food and medicine from unilateral sanctions, unless the President submits a report to Congress requesting that agriculture be sanctioned and the Congress approves the request by joint resolution. With commodity prices where they are, and with the Seattle round of trade negotiations looming on the horizon, we must act quickly to unbridle the farm economy from the tight reins of current U.S. sanctions policy. Mr. President, I note that Senator Ashcroft has crafted this amendment so that there are escape hatches that, in severe cases, the President, working with Congress, can, if he absolutely believes it necessary, go forward and maintain sanctions in a particular case and perhaps, in some cases, we in Congress will deem that advisable. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. In short, families right now in America are spending more on taxes than they are on food, housing, and clothing combined. The actual tax levels have increased by 35 percent. The combined Federal, State, and local tax burden has increased by 35 percent on American families since the late 1950s. That tax burden is too high. We need to alleviate it. I compliment Chairman Roth for what he has done to structure a bill that would eliminate that odious marriage tax penalty on 22 million American married couples who are penalized for being married. It would also give serious major tax relief to people in the lowest tax bracket--that 15-percent tax bracket which would be lowered to 14 percent. That bracket would also be expanded in size so that more Americans could pay taxes at that lower level. I appreciate the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roth for this time. I am pleased to rise in support of the tax relief act that has been proposed by Senator Roth and the Senate Finance Committee. During this debate which has been going on some 15 hours and several days before that, we heard many opponents of tax relief argue that we ought to focus on paying down that external national debt, which now stands at about $3.6 trillion. Many on the other side have said our focus on paying down that national debt should encourage Members to support the President's plan, which actually has very limited tax relief in it. By the CBO's own estimates, it actually has a $95 billion tax increase, and people believe that somehow going with no tax cut in the President's plan will pay down more of the national debt. But, in fact, if you look at the real numbers and look where the national debt will be 10 years out, in the year 2009, you see that Senator Roth's plan and the Finance Committee plan pays down more of the national debt, the external national debt, than the President's plan which has a net tax increase of $95 billion. In fact, under the Senate plan that is now before us, the national debt will be paid down, the external national debt, will be paid down from $3.6 trillion to $l.5 trillion by the year 2009 versus only $1.8 trillion under the President's plan. In other words, even with the tax cuts, we pay more of the external national debt, and we are in a better position, therefore, in the future to take care of our ongoing obligations for Social Security and Medicare. But I want to encourage my colleagues to step back from this whole debate. We have heard all sorts of arguments about how much the surplus is projected to be--$3 trillion--and their plan will save that amount and this plan will cut taxes by this amount. But let us step back from that issue and just look at where overall levels of taxation are right now in our Nation's history. Going back to 1941--this is from the Congressional Research Service-- if you look at the levels of taxes in this country, Federal taxes as a percentage of our gross domestic product, you will see that our taxes right now are almost at an all-time high. Right now, Federal taxes as a percentage of our gross domestic product are 20.6 percent of our economy. When President Clinton first took office, taxes were 17.8 percent. If we were to give the entire $3 trillion surplus back in the form of tax cuts, the tax burden would still be 18.8 percent of the gross domestic product. You have to look back to 1944 and 1945, when we were in the midst of World War II, to find such high levels of taxation on the American people. These are the seven heaviest tax burdens in U.S. history. Right now, in the year 1999, our tax burden is up here. To get equivalent high tax burdens, you have to look to the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944, or Harry Truman in 1945 when we were attempting to throw Hitler out of Europe, and when we were spending 38 percent of our money on our Nation's defense. Today, we are only spending about 23 percent. By historic standards, our taxes are enormously high. In fact, they are unprecedented in our peacetime history, and we ought, therefore, to be thinking about tax relief. Another thing I would like to point out to you is that right now the average family in America is paying nearly 40 percent of its family income in combined Federal, State, and local taxes. That 40-percent burden means that in families in this country where you have two parents who are working, one of them is working for the government. I don't happen to think that is right. We need to do what we can to alleviate that tax burden on our American families. We talk all the time in Washington about government programs that can help our families, help our children, improve their education, but all too often we ignore the fact that the greatest single reform we could have for our kids or for their futures would not be another government program but, in fact, more parental involvement in their lives. But when you have a confiscatory level of taxation that is taking nearly 40 percent of the average family income where parents are working two, and sometimes two and a half or even three jobs just to pay the cut extracted by Uncle Sam----

Mr. FITZGERALD. Could I request 2 minutes taken from the bill?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Ashcroft, Enzi, Brownback, and Burns, to offer an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the next round of agricultural trade negotiations. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am very concerned about U.S. agriculture's position in the next round of negotiations. This resolution establishes clear direction to the Administration as it enters the Seattle negotiations this November. These process and procedural guidelines have been developed through a consensus process of the Seattle Round Agricultural Committee (SRAC). SRAC represents over 70 agricultural organizations--from the Farm Bureau to the National Oilseed Processors Association to Kraft Foods. This diverse group of agriculturalists have spent many hours developing these principles too ensure that our international agriculture markets remain strong, open and fair for our nation's farmers. The U.S. agricultural sector is one of the only segments of our economy that consistently produces a trade surplus. In fact, our agricultural surplus totaled $27.2 billion in 1996. However, we must not rest on our laurels; the United States Department of Agriculture projects that our agricultural trade surplus in 1999 will dwindle to approximately $12 billion. We must not let this trend continue. Free and open international markets are vital to my home state. Illinois' 76,000 farms cover more than 28 million acres--nearly 80 percent of Illinois. Our farm product sales generate nine billion dollars annually and Illinois ranks third in agricultural exports. In fiscal year 1997 alone, Illinois agricultural exports totaled $3.7 billion and created 57,000 jobs for our state. Needless to say, agriculture makes up a significant portion of my state's economy, and a healthy export market for these products is important to my constituents. As you know, farm commodity prices have recently been in a severe slump. This situation makes open debate on agricultural trade and the Seattle round even more timely and necessary. While the average tariff assessed by the United States on agricultural products is less than five percent, the average agricultural tariff assessed by other World Trade Organization members exceeds 40 percent. This situation is clearly unfair and certainly depresses U.S. agricultural commodity prices. Accordingly, this issue must be addressed in the next round. I look forward to working with my colleagues on policies to tear down international trade barriers and ensure that our agricultural trade surplus expands and remains strong. This resolution is the first step toward ensuring that agriculture is a top priority of the Administration during the next round of multilateral trade negotiations. With the Seattle round expected to initiate on November 30th of this year, the American farmer cannot wait for action on this resolution. While I would like to pass this sense of the Senate as a free standing resolution, action on this resolution simply cannot wait. The Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill, which contains funding for the United States Trade Representatives Office, provides the perfect vehicle for this trade resolution. I hope my colleagues will give it the consideration it deserves. I want to recognize and commend my colleagues, Senators Ashcroft, Enzi, Brownback, and Burns, for joining me as original co-sponsors of this resolution. This resolution should enjoy bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation important to our nation's farmers. Mr. President, I ask that a list of supporters of this resolution and a letter from Dean Kleeker, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation be printed in the Record. The material follows: Supporters of Seattle Round Agricultural Committee (SRAC) 1999 WTO Policy Statement Ag Processing Inc. Agricultural Retailers Association. American Crop Protection Association. American Farm Bureau Federation. American Feed Industry Association. American Soybean Association. American Sugar Alliance. Animal Health Institute. Archer Daniels Midland Company. Biotechnology Industry Organization. Bryant Christie Inc. Bunge Corporation. CF Industries, Inc. Cargill, Incorporated. Chocolate Manufacturers Association. Coalition for a Competitive Food and Agricultural System. ConAgra, Inc. Continental Grain Company. Corn Refiners Association. Distilled Spirits Council of the ISA. Farmland Industries, Inc. Florida Phosphate Council. Food Distributors International Association. Gold Kist, Inc. Grocery Manufacturers of America. Independent Community Bankers of America. International Dairy Foods Association. Kraft Foods. Louis Dreyfus Corporation. Monsanto Company. National Association of Animal Breeders. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. National Association of Wheat Growers. National Barley Growers Association. National Cattleman's Beef Association. National Chicken Council. National Confectioner's Association of the U.S. National Corn Grower's Association. National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. National Cotton Council of America. National Food Processors Association. National Grain and Feed Association. National Grain and Sorghum Producers Association. National Grain Trade Council. National Grange. National Milk Producers Federation. National Oilseed Processors Association. National Pork Producers Council. National Renderers Association. National Sunflower Association. North American Export Grain Association. North American Millers' Association. Northwest Horticulture Council. Pacific Northwest Grain and Feed. Pet Food Institute. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Ralston Purina Company. Sunkist Growers. Sweetener Users Association. The Fertilizer Institute. The IAMS Company. Transportation, Elevator, & Grain Merchants Association. USA Poultry and Egg Export Council. USA Rice Federation. U.S. Apple Association. U.S. Dairy Export Council. U.S. Meat Export Federation. U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. U.S. Rice Producers Association. U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc. United Egg Association. United Egg Producers. World Perspectives Inc.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair. To the Senator from Michigan, I thank him for allowing me to speak on Senator Kyl's underlying amendment. The recent release of the Cox report and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board's report has confirmed our worst fears that lax security at our national laboratories enabled the Chinese to steal some of our nation's most guarded nuclear secrets. This appears to be among the most severe breaches of American security in our Nation's history. This issue is of particular concern to my state, Illinois, as we are the home of three labs--Argonne National Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and the New Brunswick National Laboratory. But despite years of warnings, beginning with a detailed briefing by the Department of Energy on the issue, the administration did next to nothing to close the breach in security at our national labs, and did next to nothing to keep suspected scientists away from classified information. Instead, the administration soft-pedaled the issue, encouraged the transfer of technology to China, and even denied that any secrets were lost to China during this administration. The administration's response to report after report of security threats to our labs has been, ``See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.'' In fact, the administration sought to undermine the truth and accuracy of reports of these security breaches. And when the disastrous consequences of this policy of denial and inaction were exposed, the administration played a half-hearted game of catch-up that continues to this day. The report issued by the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board presents a scathing and highly critical account of DOE's handling of, and response to, the threat posed to weapons labs by Chinese espionage. The report characterizes DOE as having a ``dysfunctional management structure and culture,'' unable to respond to the unique challenge posed by China. Unfortunately, DOE is in the words of the report a `dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself'' In the coming years, the United States may pay a terrible price for this dereliction of duty. China is likely to make a great leap forward in its ability to threaten the United States with nuclear attack, thanks to stolen American nuclear weapon and missile technology. In fact, China now admits that it has neutron bomb technology. A well- known proliferator, China may sell or give this advanced technology to Iran or Pakistan, further increasing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. For our part we, as Senators, must undertake the task of repairing the system that allowed this information to fall into the hands of China. To this end a number of my colleagues and I have co-sponsored an amendment to the intelligence authorization bill initially offered by Senators Kyl, Domenici, and Chairman Murkowski. This amendment would create a semi-autonomous agency within DOE responsible for the nuclear weapons laboratories and their security. I ask for and encourage Senators to join me and the other cosponsors in supporting this measure. I welcome Secretary Richardson's change of mind on this issue. Although he was initially opposed to such an agency, the Secretary has joined the bipartisan group of Senators in supporting the concept of a semi-autonomous agency for nuclear stewardship. I hope that my colleagues will join us in passing this legislation and implementing this important step in sealing the breach in security at our Nation's weapons labs. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Fitzgerald pertaining to the introduction of S. 1396 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Grassley, and Harkin, to introduce a bill to preserve the integrity of our arsenals and the vital role they play in our national security and defense. There are three arsenals remaining in this country charged with the responsibility of maintaining a military production capability in case of war. The Rock Island Arsenal in my home State of Illinois is one of those three national arsenals. The U.S. Government acquired Rock Island, which lies in the Mississippi River between Illinois and Iowa, in 1804. The first U.S. Army establishment on the island was Fort Armstrong in 1816. Neither Illinois nor Iowa had established statehood at that time, but Fort Armstrong served as a refuge for pioneers living on the frontier. In 1862, Congress passed a law that established Rock Island Arsenal. Construction of the first manufacturing buildings began in 1866 and finished with the last stone shop in 1893. Today, Rock Island Arsenal is a leader in high-technology weapons production, engineering, and logistics and plays an integral role in our national defense, providing manufacturing, supply, and support services for our Nation's Armed Forces. I recently visited Rock Island Arsenal and was truly impressed with its facility and manufacturing capabilities and with its hard-working personnel. Manufacturing production at Rock Island centers around recoil mechanisms, gun mounts, artillery carriages, and the final assembly of Howitzers. Rock Island also serves as a ``job shop'' for the U.S. military, producing small quantities of urgently needed specialty items and performing work that is not profitable enough to be done in the private sector. Rock Island is the largest Government-owned manufacturing arsenal in the Western World with state-of-the-art machining, welding, forging, plating, foundry, and assembly facilities. Rock Island's specialty is artillery production, which it has done since the late 19th century, resulting in a long and distinguished history of efficient production and effective products. Rock Island has been very successful at producing towed artillery and has also been responsible for the production work on all U.S. Howitzers for the last 50 years. However, even with the state-of-the-art facilities, expertise, and proven track record of the arsenals, there are those who would like to see them closed and transfer all military production to private firms. Through those efforts, the arsenals have slowly but surely been marginalized through the years. Currently, Rock Island Arsenal is operated only at about 20 percent of its capacity. This approach does not save the Government money. It wastes it by making the Government pay twice for any product an arsenal can manufacture. Let me explain this point, because it is important to understand that our current policy does not save the taxpayers any money. Arsenals are currently kept open and on standby to gear up for production in the event of a national military emergency. Therefore, the Army must pay the overhead to keep them open whether or not the Army uses the arsenals to procure equipment and supplies. When a contract is awarded to a private firm, the Army is still paying for unused capacity at the arsenals, while at the same time paying the private contractor the cost of the contract. In effect, the taxpayers are paying twice for every product procured from a private contractor that could have been procured from an arsenal. The Army's procurement system hides these true costs from the public. The Army's bidding procedures do not allow procurement officers to evaluate arsenal bids fairly. Current bidding procedures require arsenals to include all of their full overhead costs, including the cost of unused capacity in the bid price for their products. This approach skews the true cost of the products produced by the arsenals. By requiring that arsenal bids include the cost of unused plant capacity--that is, those costs associated with the level of readiness the arsenals are already required to maintain--the Army has rendered arsenal bids inherently uncompetitive because the price of the product is artificially inflated beyond its true cost through the inclusion of overhead costs unrelated to the specific bid. This bookkeeping fiction makes the bid price for arsenal products uncompetitive, even if the actual price of an arsenal product can be acquired at the lowest cost to the Government. Thus, not only must the taxpayers pay twice for a product when it is not manufactured at an arsenal, but the taxpayer may not be buying the lowest priced product. The legislation I am interested in introducing today, Mr. President, with my colleagues from Illinois and Iowa, would require the Secretary of the Army to include in his annual budget request a line item to pay for the unutilized and underutilized plant capacity of the arsenals, thus recognizing the important role played by the arsenals in maintaining our defense preparedness. By requiring the Army to account for the overhead cost of unused arsenal capacity, the arsenals will no longer have to artificially inflate the cost of their bids to account for this overhead. Arsenals will be able to make competitive bids by virtue of not having to abide by the fiction of including as overhead for a bid the total cost of maintaining the arsenals. Instead, arsenals will be placed on a fairer footing with private firms by including in their bid price only the overhead cost associated with the particular product on which they are bidding. In the end, this approach will allow the Army to procure those products which arsenals are capable of manufacturing in the most cost- effective way. Products manufactured by our national arsenals are among the best in the world, and the arsenals deserve fair treatment and consideration in the marketplace. In short, adoption of this legislation will enhance our national defense, save taxpayer dollars, and ensure the economic viability of the communities that surround our national arsenals, such as that in Rock Island, IL. Mr. President, I ask for favorable consideration of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of our bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Grassley, and Harkin, to introduce a bill to preserve the integrity of our arsenals and the vital role they play in our national security and defense. There are three arsenals remaining in this country charged with the responsibility of maintaining a military production capability in case of war. The Rock Island Arsenal in my home State of Illinois is one of those three national arsenals. The U.S. Government acquired Rock Island, which lies in the Mississippi River between Illinois and Iowa, in 1804. The first U.S. Army establishment on the island was Fort Armstrong in 1816. Neither Illinois nor Iowa had established statehood at that time, but Fort Armstrong served as a refuge for pioneers living on the frontier. In 1862, Congress passed a law that established Rock Island Arsenal. Construction of the first manufacturing buildings began in 1866 and finished with the last stone shop in 1893. Today, Rock Island Arsenal is a leader in high-technology weapons production, engineering, and logistics and plays an integral role in our national defense, providing manufacturing, supply, and support services for our Nation's Armed Forces. I recently visited Rock Island Arsenal and was truly impressed with its facility and manufacturing capabilities and with its hard-working personnel. Manufacturing production at Rock Island centers around recoil mechanisms, gun mounts, artillery carriages, and the final assembly of Howitzers. Rock Island also serves as a ``job shop'' for the U.S. military, producing small quantities of urgently needed specialty items and performing work that is not profitable enough to be done in the private sector. Rock Island is the largest Government-owned manufacturing arsenal in the Western World with state-of-the-art machining, welding, forging, plating, foundry, and assembly facilities. Rock Island's specialty is artillery production, which it has done since the late 19th century, resulting in a long and distinguished history of efficient production and effective products. Rock Island has been very successful at producing towed artillery and has also been responsible for the production work on all U.S. Howitzers for the last 50 years. However, even with the state-of-the-art facilities, expertise, and proven track record of the arsenals, there are those who would like to see them closed and transfer all military production to private firms. Through those efforts, the arsenals have slowly but surely been marginalized through the years. Currently, Rock Island Arsenal is operated only at about 20 percent of its capacity. This approach does not save the Government money. It wastes it by making the Government pay twice for any product an arsenal can manufacture. Let me explain this point, because it is important to understand that our current policy does not save the taxpayers any money. Arsenals are currently kept open and on standby to gear up for production in the event of a national military emergency. Therefore, the Army must pay the overhead to keep them open whether or not the Army uses the arsenals to procure equipment and supplies. When a contract is awarded to a private firm, the Army is still paying for unused capacity at the arsenals, while at the same time paying the private contractor the cost of the contract. In effect, the taxpayers are paying twice for every product procured from a private contractor that could have been procured from an arsenal. The Army's procurement system hides these true costs from the public. The Army's bidding procedures do not allow procurement officers to evaluate arsenal bids fairly. Current bidding procedures require arsenals to include all of their full overhead costs, including the cost of unused capacity in the bid price for their products. This approach skews the true cost of the products produced by the arsenals. By requiring that arsenal bids include the cost of unused plant capacity--that is, those costs associated with the level of readiness the arsenals are already required to maintain--the Army has rendered arsenal bids inherently uncompetitive because the price of the product is artificially inflated beyond its true cost through the inclusion of overhead costs unrelated to the specific bid. This bookkeeping fiction makes the bid price for arsenal products uncompetitive, even if the actual price of an arsenal product can be acquired at the lowest cost to the Government. Thus, not only must the taxpayers pay twice for a product when it is not manufactured at an arsenal, but the taxpayer may not be buying the lowest priced product. The legislation I am interested in introducing today, Mr. President, with my colleagues from Illinois and Iowa, would require the Secretary of the Army to include in his annual budget request a line item to pay for the unutilized and underutilized plant capacity of the arsenals, thus recognizing the important role played by the arsenals in maintaining our defense preparedness. By requiring the Army to account for the overhead cost of unused arsenal capacity, the arsenals will no longer have to artificially inflate the cost of their bids to account for this overhead. Arsenals will be able to make competitive bids by virtue of not having to abide by the fiction of including as overhead for a bid the total cost of maintaining the arsenals. Instead, arsenals will be placed on a fairer footing with private firms by including in their bid price only the overhead cost associated with the particular product on which they are bidding. In the end, this approach will allow the Army to procure those products which arsenals are capable of manufacturing in the most cost- effective way. Products manufactured by our national arsenals are among the best in the world, and the arsenals deserve fair treatment and consideration in the marketplace. In short, adoption of this legislation will enhance our national defense, save taxpayer dollars, and ensure the economic viability of the communities that surround our national arsenals, such as that in Rock Island, IL. Mr. President, I ask for favorable consideration of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of our bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I will speak for a few moments today about an issue of great concern to me and many other Members. In the last few days in Washington, there has been literally a euphoria over the notion we in Washington are running large budgetary surpluses on an annual basis. The uncorking of champagne bottles all around town has taken place on the notion that, because we are running surpluses, we are somehow paying down the national debt. Yesterday, the New York Times had an article on page 14 entitled, ``Clinton Sees the Possibility of Zero U.S. Debt by 2015.'' As I will show, this article is dead wrong. The article stated that the entire national debt, which now stands at over $5.6 trillion, will be paid down by the year 2015. It went on to state that the debt clock in New York, which is a daily tally of the Federal national debt, would be down to zero by the year 2015. It turns out that is dead, flat wrong. In fact, the national debt is now rising. It is going to continue to rise every year of the President's 15-year projections. The total national debt by the year 2015, as listed on that debt clock in New York, will stand at more than $7 trillion. How can this be? We have heard from Washington that we are running large annual budget surpluses. The President, 2 days ago, said this year we will have a $98 billion surplus, and those surpluses are going to rise each year to the point that in the year 2004 we will have a $253 billion surplus. Looking at the fine print on the President's midyear report, we find our total gross Federal debt is still going up. It stood at $5.4 trillion at the end of the last fiscal year. This year, it will rise to $5.6 trillion. By the year 2004, the total gross Federal debt will have risen to over $6 trillion. How can our national debt still be going up if we are running surpluses in Washington? The answer to that question is, we really do not have surpluses in Washington. They have a definition of surpluses in Washington which is far different from the average perception of what the word surplus would mean to American families or businesses. One would think when you have surpluses, you would be paying down your debt, not increasing it. However, in Washington, the debt is still going up, even as they say they have surpluses. We know our President chooses his words very carefully. I read his press statements the other day. He was careful not to say we are paying down the total Federal debt. He talked instead about one of the components of the Federal debt. It turns out there are two parts to the Federal debt. There is debt owed to Government accounts and there is debt held to the public. Both of those debts have to be paid off. At some point, we have to come up with the cash to pay down those debts. What President Clinton chose to do in his statements the other day was ignore this part of the Federal debt and decide he would only focus on debt held by the public. It is true he is actually going to start trying to pay down the debt held by the public. Debt held by the public stood at $3.7 trillion at the end of last year. By the year 2004, the President will have paid it down about $700 billion to $2.9 trillion. It is true by the year 2015 he will have paid this portion of the national debt down to zero. How is he going to pay that portion of the debt down to zero? He is going to borrow more from the Government accounts. He is going to borrow more from Government accounts. It turns out he will increase the Government accounts section of the national debt. Not only will he increase it, he is going to quadruple debt held by these Government accounts. It will rise from $1.7 trillion at the end of last year to $3 trillion by the year 2004. Guess what. By the year 2015, when the New York Times said we would have no national debt, it turns out the debt in this column will be more than $7.5 trillion. I have to say, if the ordinary family were to pay down their mortgage by running up their credit card and then realize what they were doing, I think they probably wouldn't feel it was cause for celebration that they had just shifted the composition of their debt. Similarly, I don't think there is cause yet in Washington to uncork the champagne bottles and pat ourselves on the back that we are paying down a portion of the Federal debt while we are increasing the other portion and are increasing the overall debt. Right now, the average family in America is responsible for $55,000 of that total national debt. Each family's share of the national debt is going to be going up in each and every year of the President's 15- year projections. At the end of the 15 years, the total national debt will be even higher than it is now, and each family's share of that national debt will be even higher. This chart shows the direction our national debt is going: It is continuing to rise. We are digging the hole deeper. All this talk about surpluses in Washington should be taken with a grain of salt. The surpluses they are talking about are fictitious surpluses; they are accounting gimmicks. If any private business man or woman used the same kind of accounting they use in Washington, they could potentially wind up behind bars in a Federal penitentiary. We need to change the accounting system in Washington so the public and the media cannot be so easily misled. I am hopeful the press throughout this Nation will point out that the earlier reports were flatout wrong, that the debt clock in New York will not stand at zero by the year 2015, even under the President's projections. Under the President's own projections of our national debt, it will be higher in the year 2015 than it is now. I think it is a shame Washington is misleading the American public about our true financial condition. Is it not high time we end the hocus-pocus bookkeeping in Washington and speak the plain truth? I ask unanimous consent to print the New York Times article in the Record.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my hope for the speedy recovery of someone who gave so many Illinoisans, including me, joy throughout his great career. Ron Santo, former third baseman for the Chicago Cubs and the Chicago White Sox, suffered a heart attack Monday in Denver, and I wanted to take a moment to recognize him and express my hopes for a speedy recovery. Ron Santo played fourteen seasons for the Chicago Cubs from 1960 to 1973 and one for the Chicago White Sox in 1974, during which time he appeared in nine All-Star Games and won five Gold Glove Awards at the ``hot corner.'' He was also a member of the 1969 Chicago Cubs team which lost its chance at the playoffs because of the famous, or to Illinoisans, infamous, run of the ``Miracle'' Mets. When I was a boy, I was lucky enough to have Santo autograph a Cubs' game program for me, which I still have. His career statistics measure up well against those of anyone to ever play the game. He finished his illustrious career with 2254 hits, 342 of which were home runs, 1331 Runs Batted In, and a .277 career batting average. In 1964, Santo even led the league in triples with 13. He ranks in the top 10 among players for the Chicago Cubs in games played, at bats, runs scored, hits, doubles, runs batted in, and extra-base hits. Now that his playing days are over, Santo continues to make a contribution to the Cubs and to Chicago as a broadcaster, and one of the best and most energetic in the game at that. Mr. President, I would like to call on the Senate to join me in wishing Mr. Santo, his wife Vicki, and his four children the very best and expressing the sincere hope that he gets well soon.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. What about if there is a loan out there to one of the small oil and gas companies, and the president and owner of the company have personally guaranteed the loan? Would they be in a position now, with this new loan program, to apply for a new loan under this type of guarantee program, get that new loan issued, and replace their personal guarantees with the Government guarantees so the owners and major shareholders, who could be very wealthy individuals, would be taken off the hook by the taxpayers?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I have a question for the Senator from Oklahoma about his amendment. I am wondering if there is anything in his amendment that would correct one problem I see in the bill, which is that it occurs to me, if that a steel company, for example, has an existing loan with some private bank--once this program goes into effect and that loan is in bad shape, the bank can encourage that steel company to apply for a new loan under this program and get that Federal guarantee, and thereby you are transferring that risk, or at least 85 percent of it, from that bank that otherwise would take the hit to the taxpayers. Is there anything in the amendment that the Senator knows of, or anything in the original bill, that would prevent that kind of shenanigan?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President. I will speak for a moment on this issue which has been of great concern to me. As many of you know, I come from a banking background. Bankers manage trust funds. I come from a business background where businesses, as you know, manage their employees' pension funds. Congress has passed laws that make it illegal for any business man or woman in the private sector to reach into an employee's pension fund, take the money out, and spend it on some other program. A few years back Congress passed laws making it illegal for State and local governments to plunder the pension funds of their employees. But during all this time, where Congress has put these laws on the books and made it illegal in the private sector and at the State and local government level to plunder pension funds, we have gone on and on in Washington taking all the money that goes into the Social Security trust fund, taking every dime of it out, and spending it on some other program. As a result, as I speak now on the Senate floor, there is no money in the Social Security trust fund. All of it has been taken out and spent on other programs. They have put meaningless, nonmarketable, nonnegotiable securities in the Social Security trust fund, securities that have no economic value because they cannot be sold to raise cash. Right now our Government is building up, theoretically, surpluses in the Social Security trust fund, but they are taking all that money out and spending it. So when we actually need it to pay benefits, beginning in the year 2014, there will be no money there. No matter what the balance of those bogus IOUs is in the Social Security trust fund, in the year 2014--whether that balance is $1 trillion or $5 trillion--they are of no assistance in paying benefits to those who depend on Social Security. The country will either have to raise taxes or cut benefits to make up for the shortfall that is anticipated after the year 2014. This legislation is basic, decent common sense. We should not allow Congress to continue frittering away the Social Security trust fund. I urge all my colleagues to support it and end this outrageous practice of plundering the Social Security trust fund, to the detriment of our Nation's seniors and those who will be desiring to live on Social Security benefits in the next century.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, today I rise to submit a resolution condemning the arrest and detention of 13 Iranian Jews accused of espionage. In April of this year, 13 rabbis and religious leaders were arrested at their homes in the Iranian cities of Shiraz and Isfahan. According to the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, the names of the detainees are David Tefilin, Doni Tefilin, Javid Beth Jacob, Farhad Seleh, Nasser Levi Haim, Asher Zadmehror, Navid Balazadeh, Nejat Beroukkhim, Aarash Beroukhim, Farzad Kashi, Faramaz Kashi, Shahrokh Pak Nahad, and Ramin (last name unknown). They have remained imprisoned since the time of their arrest, without charge, under accusation of spying for the United States and Israel, although they have no apparent ties to any type of espionage. Both the United States and Israel have dismissed the charges as false, denying any connection to the detainees. In addition to the United States, Israel, and Germany have denounced these arrests and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as well as Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, have called for their release. Iran's treatment of its Jewish residents in recent years has been deplorable, forcing half of its Jews to flee the country. In the past five years alone, five Jews have been executed by Iranian authorities, without the fundamental right of a trial. In 1997, Iran hanged two people convicted of spying, an event that emphasizes the extreme importance of timely action on the matter of these 13 detainees. Espionage is punishable by death in Iran, so the lives of these 13 people need our support and protection. The Iranian government's actions are deplorable and fly in the face of justice. This resolution condemns the arrests and calls upon Iran to release these 13 people immediately and without harm.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 55th anniversary of the Allied invasion at Normandy. On June 6, 1944, courageous members of our Armed Forces defended the world from assaults against humanity. During that misty and chilly day, 156,000 Allied soldiers crossed the English channel in one of history's greatest military operations. Every soldier, every sailor, and every airman united to challenge the injustices that terrorized and enslaved Europe. With soldiers from other Allied nations, American soldiers stormed the beaches, bombed enemy encampments, fought in the front lines, and ensured Europe's liberation. When the paratroopers descended from the dark skies and the soldiers charged forward from the churning seas, the tide of the war changed. While we salute those who returned from this battle and World War II to enjoy the world they liberated, we also remember those who never came home. On D-Day alone, 2,500 of our GIs gave their lives for the hope of a better tomorrow. When the Allied forces defeated Nazi Germany 11 months later, it was reaffirmed that they did not die in vain. These dedicated Americans secured the future and freedoms that we now enjoy. All Americans are forever in debt to the members of our Armed Services, past and present, who put their lives on the line to guarantee our freedom.