Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would be very happy to have my remarks in morning business.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues of a couple things. First, this is a revenue bill.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I appreciate the Democrat floor leader's willingness to try to work on this. I am very grateful. It would break a major impasse and virtually guarantee that the bill will be adopted. What we would like to do is have a vote on permanently repealing the death tax. We realize the vote might come on cloture or it might come on a point of order. But we would like to have a vote nonetheless. I thank the Senator for his help.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska. I congratulate him. But I especially want to congratulate the junior Senator from Alaska for his leadership on this issue. I have been here a long time--some would say too long--but I have seen few people who have done a better job in trying to promote what I perceive to be the public interest than Senator Murkowski. Today, we are going to vote on cloture on ANWR. I think it is clear that we do not have the votes, and there are many reasons for that. But no one can fault the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, because no one has done more to put together a coalition, which now involves labor unions, involves people who are concerned about Israel and the Middle East, and involves people who are concerned about the national security implications of not producing energy here at home to turn the wheels of industry and agriculture, energy that can be produced efficiently, and that can be produced in an environmentally sound way. Because we are not producing energy at home, we are becoming dependent on foreign oil, and the national defense and security implications and the foreign policy implications are overwhelming. I could understand opposition to opening up ANWR if a realistic case could be made that it will not produce this energy or create 750,000 jobs in the process. By the way, that is why organized labor is for opening ANWR, in my opinion--that and their legitimate concerns as citizens about national security. If the price we had to pay to produce this energy was the rape and pillage of the land, and massive environmental destruction, and if we will create something that looked like Azerbaijan in the wake of the efforts of the Soviets to exploit oil and gas there, then I think we could have a legitimate debate on the floor of the Senate about this. Under those circumstances, I think the case we are trying to make here would be a lot harder. But the amazing thing is no one has proposed such a program. What is astounding to me is how extreme the environmental movement in America has gotten in relation to how modest the proposal that we are getting ready to defeat is. Let me remind people of these numbers. There are 319.7 million acres in Alaska. Some people claim it is the largest State in the Union. There could be a debate about that. When you look at the ANWR area where there is the potential for oil and gas production, there are 20 million acres of land in that area. That's just 20 million of 319.7 million. In 1980, Congress decided to reduce the area open for production from 20 million to 1.5 million acres. But the proposal of Senator Murkowski is so modest that it says let us reduce that even further, down to only 2,000 acres. So we have now come from 319.7 million acres to 20 million to 1.5 million to the point where we are talking about a relatively tiny footprint for oil and gas exploration of 2,000 acres. Now, what kind of technology will be employed? Well, we are talking about the most expensive technology on the planet being used to assure that even in the 2,000 acres, we have a very modest environmental impact. In addition to that, while we would allow the potential for production in 2,000 acres out of 319.7 million acres under the most restrictive covenant for oil and gas exploration in American history, still, under the Murkowski amendment as offered, you couldn't engage in exploration even on the 2,000 acres unless the President of the United States made a decision through a Presidential finding that the national security interests of the United States dictated that such action be taken. The provision before us bans export of the oil assuring that every bit of it will be used in the United States. It has other provisions related to Israel and its special circumstance in terms of oil needs. Finally, to compensate for 2,000 acres that will have minimal disruption if a national security waiver permits production to occur, the amendment before us reclassifies 1.5 million acres in Alaska as wilderness. I think if you really thought this was some kind of rational debate about the public interest, you would have to ask yourself: How in the world could anybody be opposed to this amendment? When you are talking about being responsible and moderate, how could you do more than this amendment does? Yet this innocuous proposal has attracted enormous opposition. The opposition basically boils down to the fact that we have gotten into a political situation where vested political interests are dictating the outcome of the debate. God bless them because some of them make up the interests of America, and they have every right to be extreme because that is what having rights is about. A news article from the New York Times which somebody read to me this morning reports that if we could stop global warming in exchange for drilling in ANWR, the environmental groups in this country would be against it. How can that be? It can be because this has become a debate about symbolism, not energy or the environment. This has become a debate about fundraising and the kind of extremism that creates political causes and that has political impact but that in no way reflects the public interest. How can it not be in the public interest to take 2,000 acres in a State that has 319.7 million acres, and on the most environmentally responsible basis, over the next 30 years, produce more oil than we are importing from Saudi Arabia? To offset any negative impact we might have on these 2,000 acres, we put 1.5 million additional acres into the wildlife refuge. How in the world can such a proposal be controversial? Why don't we have 100 votes in favor of it? Is no one awake to the fact that we have problems in the Middle East, that we have a growing dependence on oil, that there are profound national security implications of producing as much oil as we will import from Saudi Arabia in the next 30 years on 2,000 acres of land in a State with 317 million acres? I know I am not going to sway anyone's vote, but I want people to understand this has become a debate not about America's interest, but about political symbols. Opposition to this amendment cannot be supported on the basis of rationality. It cannot be based on any realistic weighing of the national interest. It can only be based on blind loyalty to symbolism. When you get into these extreme positions where you are putting political symbolism in front of America's interest, I don't think you are serving the public purpose. I remind my colleagues that when Greeks went to ask advice from the Oracle, they found this inscription above the gate at Delphi: ``Moderation In All Things.'' I believe this is an issue where we need to step back and ask ourselves: to whom do we owe allegiance? What are we trying to promote? Whose interest are we trying to advance? I think when one special interest group becomes so demanding as to jeopardize national security and the public interest to try to make a point for them, when symbolism becomes more important than the security of America, then something is badly wrong. I just wanted to make that point. I am going to vote with Senator Murkowski. I see that he has come back to the Chamber. I just want to say this: I have watched him debate. I have been involved in many of them. But I have not seen anybody do a better job than Senator Murkowski has done on this issue. I have never seen a better political base built for an issue. If we were having a rational debate in this body about a proposal with a broad spectrum of political support--which it has from labor unions, to people concerned about peace in the Middle East, to national security, to working people, and to people who want to be able to use their cars and trucks, and who want to turn the wheels of industry and agriculture with American-produced energy--this vote would be 100 to nothing. It is simply a measure of how extreme this issue has become that Senator Murkowski is not going to prevail on this issue. Finally, let me say we are going to have two votes to bring to an end debate on this issue. I am going to vote in favor of the ending debate on the Murkowski amendment. We deserve an up-or-down vote on this amendment. I do not know if it will be this year or next year or sometime in the future, but I am confident that the public interest will ultimately be served. Someday we will produce this energy. Someday, when we have felt pain from not acting rationally, that rationality and the public interest will override the wishes of extreme special interests. The sooner we can do it the better. We ought to do it now. Even if we started preparing today, it would take years to get the oil and gas in ANWR. I think is an indication that time is wasting, and that we need to get on with this. We will also have a cloture vote this morning on the so-called steel legacy issue. I intend to vote against cloture. I am adamantly opposed to that amendment. It is a bad idea whose time has not come. I would like to remind my colleagues that the majority of the members of the Steel Manufacturers Association oppose the amendment because it rewards inefficient producers and those who granted benefits they could not pay for at the expense of efficient producers. Secondly, I think it is important to note that some of these steel companies are still in business and have roughly 200,000 retirees. If we are going to come in and start paying benefits for operating companies that are irresponsible in promising benefits that they cannot afford, then we are going to encourage other companies act in a similar manner. I think it is very important we recognize that by doing this, we are adding to the problem in the steel industry by keeping excess capacity in business when everybody knows capacity should be reduced, not maintained. I think spending $7 billion to bail out these steel companies is a misuse of taxpayer money. Finally, all over the world today, socialist countries are trying to get out of the business of bailing out inefficient, feather-bedded companies. All over the world, in every socialist country on Earth, people are trying to undo this stuff. Yet, here we are, in the United States of America, trying to get into the business of subsidizing companies that overpromise and underdeliver. It is a very bad idea. It richly deserves to be killed, and I am hopeful it will be. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I call for regular order. Amendment No. 3144 to Amendment No. 2999

Mr. GRAMM. The Kerry-McCain amendment is the pending business, as I understand the regular order. I think we have about 10 amendments that are in the stack of regular order, but I think it is at the top.

Mr. GRAMM. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I called for the regular order, which brought up the Kerry-McCain amendment as the pending business. I have sent a second-degree amendment to the desk sponsored by myself and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. It is an amendment that makes the repeal of the death tax permanent. I say to my colleagues this is a revenue bill. This may very well be the only revenue bill we have for the remainder of this Congress. Perhaps there may be others, but as of today there is no guarantee that there will be. The House is voting today to make the tax cut permanent. Senator Kyl and I thought the Senate should have an opportunity to have a vote on that issue, and we decided if we were going to try to focus on one part of the tax cut, this would be the relevant part to focus on. We now have a revenue measure before us, and therefore we believe this is an opportunity for us to fix something that is very broken. I will not belabor the point because our colleagues are very familiar with it, but basically because of a quirk in the Budget Act, we made the tax cut temporary, and it expires in 10 years. We could have made it permanent had we had 60 votes, but we only had 58 votes. So we had to use a procedure called reconciliation. Under that procedure, the tax cut expires when the reconciliation expires, which is in 10 years. This produces the extraordinary anomaly that every year for the next 10 years, the death tax--that is the tax that is imposed on small businesses, family farms, and the wealth that people build up over their lifetime by working, sacrificing, and saving--will be reduced. Before we passed the tax cut, when these people died, their children often have to sell the business or the family farm to give the Government up to 55 cents out of every dollar they have accumulated in their lifetime. We decided to repeal the death tax in our tax cut, and we decided to phase it out over a 10-year period. Yet because of this anomaly in the budget law, if you die 9 years from now, your family does not have to sell your farm or business, and your children get to keep every penny of wealth you have accumulated on which you paid taxes once before. It will belong to them. But if you die in the 10th year after the passage of the tax cut, the death tax returns, and they will have to sell the business, sell the farm, or sell your assets, and give the Government up to 55 cents out of every dollar you have earned in your lifetime. Senator Kyl and I believe that is outrageous tax policy. We think it is very unfair, and this is a tax measure that is in the Senate on the very day the House is moving to rectify this problem by making the tax cut permanent. Therefore, I have sent this amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kyl and myself. I hope my colleagues will look very closely at it. I cannot imagine we would want to let stand a provision of law whereby we repeal the death tax with great fanfare, we trumpet the fact that we had done away with this evil and unfair tax, and yet 10 years from now it all comes back in its full force, its full vengeance, and its full negative impact on every business and every farm in America. The amendment which is now pending is Senator Kyl's amendment, which I have cosponsored, and I ask others who want to cosponsor it to do so. The amendment would make the repeal of the death tax permanent. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I ask them to look at this amendment. I think someone could always say, this is an energy bill. Well, this bill is many different things. It has literally hundreds of different provisions that are more or less related--and many are less related--to energy. I do not know anything that has more to do with energy than giving people an incentive to work and save, with the knowledge that when they build up a farm or a business the Government is not going to take it away from their children. That unleashes the most powerful energy source in the universe, and that is the energy that is in the soul of men and women who want to better themselves and their family. In my mind, this is the clearest energy provision in this bill if we adopt it, and I commend it to my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

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

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Democrat floor leader will be coming to the floor in a moment to ask unanimous consent that we bar further first-degree amendments; that is, further as compared to a list already assembled. I see he has arrived, and so I will be brief, but I believe we have put together a bill that is an energy bill largely in name only. It will have a series of tax incentives, many of which are expensive and targeted to things which can never be reliable, significant energy sources for America. We will impose additional regulation and inefficiency in the market. As you have in any bill, you end up with a balance between good and bad from each individual point of view. But the key ingredient that is missing in this so-called energy bill is a commitment to open the one resource that can be developed on an environmentally sound basis and that can give us energy to turn the wheels of industry and agriculture here at home: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I have been frustrated throughout this debate in that we haven't had an opportunity to vote on ANWR. It is my understanding that there is a movement afoot in the body to deny us an up-or-down vote on ANWR. I hope it doesn't inconvenience my colleagues, but I wish to reserve my right to offer additional amendments until we have had an opportunity to vote on ANWR. When we have had an opportunity to vote on ANWR, I think at that point I would be prepared to lock in a list of amendments. It is my understanding that we could reach that point maybe by next Wednesday, but I would have to object now to limiting my ability or anybody else's ability to offer additional amendments until we know what is going to happen in the part of the bill that will most directly impact on energy production here in the United States--and that is the opening of ANWR. I also believe it is important that we preserve our ability to offer additional amendments in case there is an effort to deny us at least a chance to vote yes or no on ANWR. I think I will be unhappy if we can't get 51 Members to vote for ANWR, but at least if we have an up-or-down vote, the Senate has basically had its say on the issue. I have been on the losing side on many issues in my career in the Senate, and I have learned to live with each one of them, but I would like to have an opportunity to have that vote. I was going to say this before the distinguished Democrat leader came to the floor. But until we have this chance to deal with ANWR, I wish to preserve my right and every other Member's right to offer amendments.

Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, I think once we have had a vote on ANWR, then my reservations about limits on the ability to offer other amendments will largely be eliminated. I might want to file some amendments, but I simply go back to the earlier vote on the Feinstein amendment. No one required that Senator Feinstein pull her amendment down. It was still the pending business of the Senate. I did not encourage her to do it. I had hoped we could work out a compromise. I still hope we can. I think there is a very big difference in voting on cloture on ANWR, where we are simply trying to bring debate to an end and having an opportunity to vote yes or no on ANWR. I think that is going to be a very critical factor with me, perhaps with others. But if next week we can move the process forward--and we can't offer the amendment soon enough to suit me--if we can have a debate on it, however long that takes, I am for it. But once we have had an up-or- down vote on ANWR, then I will be ready to lock down the amendments and move toward passage and toward this conference. But I do believe it is important, on an issue that has profound national security implications, for the Senate to take a position yes or no on ANWR. I think that is very important. I am just one Member. Other people can disagree. But that is what I think. And I think the people of my State believe the same. So that is what I am trying to promote. I thank the Senator for his kindness.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I thank our colleague for his kindness to me. I think the criticism about the delay in offering an ANWR amendment is valid. I wanted to offer ANWR as the first amendment on the bill. That was not the collective decision on our side of the aisle. I respect that. The rules of the Senate are very clear. One of the things that makes this the most important deliberative body in the world is the ability of Members at any point to offer an amendment. I wish to preserve that right. I believe once we have had an up-or-down vote on ANWR I can take the position at that point that I am willing to join others who are willing to lock in a list of amendments and no others as first-degree amendments. But until we have had a chance to vote on ANWR, I feel constrained to object. I was a little bit confused as to whether the Senator was saying there was a willingness on his side of the aisle to give us an up-or-down vote on ANWR. I think perhaps if we could have a commitment for that up-or-down vote perhaps we could work out an agreement on amendments before that vote occurs. But I would want to know that we have that commitment. In terms of the Feinstein amendment, 50 people voted against it today, and 48 voted for it. Senator Feinstein withdrew the amendment. I had hoped that we could work out a compromise. I intend to approach her to try to work out a compromise. But given the absence of an agreement to an up-or-down vote on ANWR in this unanimous consent request, I would feel constrained to object. And I do object.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have limited time and I am not going to get into a dispute about facts, or about what is and what isn't a loophole, or whether these instruments have ever been regulated because they have not. But the reason that debate should not be brought to an end here is about as simple as any argument could be for continuing to try to find a compromise. The entire financial sector of the American economy--every bank, every securities company, every insurance company in America--is opposed to this amendment. The Federal Reserve Board and Chairman Alan Greenspan are opposed to this amendment; not to what the Senator is trying to do, but to what the amendment does. The Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman has spoken out adamantly in opposition to this amendment. The Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission--the very agency that would be empowered with new authority under this amendment--has spoken out and written letters and argued that these areas represent very complicated financial transactions, and that we need to take a look at unintended consequences. What I hope will happen today is that we will deny cloture. There has been no filibuster on this amendment. We have continued to process other amendments. There have been two good-faith efforts to reach a compromise. Alan Greenspan has sent a letter to every Member of the Senate saying that he believes the ability to hedge risk through derivatives has been a major factor in preventing our downturn from becoming a recession. He said that this market is a major factor in the underlying strength of the economy, and he believes it could be jeopardized by this amendment. So I believe we should sit down and try to work out an amendment that Alan Greenspan believes is safe for the American economy. I don't know who we are putting under the heading of angels, in the words of the Senator from California, but when we are talking about jobs, growth, opportunity and responsibility in America, if Alan Greenspan doesn't fall under the heading of angel, I don't know who does. The point is, this amendment needs more work. Let me tell you what everybody involved in the debate agrees on: Number one, they agree that the CFTC should have access to data, that data should be maintained to allow the reconstruction of individual transactions for up to five years. That is what is required under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission jurisdiction under current law. Everybody agrees that the Commission ought to be able to intervene if there is evidence of fraud or price manipulation. Where the disagreement and differences occur--and these three points represent 95 percent of the things that the proponents of this amendment say they are for--are in other areas that are generally unintended. I understand that this is a very complicated issue. There is one member of this chamber who claims to know what a derivative is. I do not claim to know what a derivative is. I have tried, as former chairman of the Banking Committee, to understand these transactions. But when you have a $75 trillion market out there for very complicated financial instruments, you don't want to tamper with it unless you know what you are doing. You do not want unintended consequences when you are dealing with $75 trillion of economic underpinning that holds up the very structure of the American economy. That is what this amendment is putting at risk. I urge my colleagues to vote against forcing a vote on this amendment and give us an opportunity to try to write something that Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the SEC, and the Chairman of the CFTC--the people we have entrusted to make these decisions--are comfortable with and can support. I believe we can achieve 95 percent of the objectives of the Senator from California without endangering the very financial underpinnings of the American economy. But I believe they are endangered--as Alan Greenspan says, as the Secretary of the Treasury says, as banks, security companies and insurance companies across the land say--by the amendment as it is now written. I urge my colleagues to vote no. It would be my full intention if a ``no'' vote prevails to again sit down with the Senator from California and work out a compromise that will solve her problem without creating others.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Let no one say the final action before the recess is not bipartisan.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I was struck in listening to our dear colleague from Vermont tell us about how many people are for this renewable energy and what a strong base of support there is for it. I guess the logical question is: If everybody is for it, why are we making them do it? If everybody is for it, why would any Governor opt his State out when he has to stand for re-election? The problem is, not everybody is for it and the costs may be--in some States and under some circumstances--prohibitive. So I urge people, take into account that things in your State may align in such a way that you would want the option, under those circumstances, to opt out. On that basis, I urge people to please vote for the Kyl amendment.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. That is my question. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. There are just a couple of points I want to make. First of all, a big deal has been made out of the fact that Texas, in its electricity deregulation legislation, had a renewable energy provision in it. In fact, the point has been made--erroneously--that this is just what you have in Texas and it was George W. Bush who signed that bill into law. I want to straighten that out because the Bingaman amendment is nothing like what we have in Texas. First of all, in Texas we have a provision that is related to renewable generation capacity, not to how much renewable power you sell, because when you have a windmill--and I may be the only Member of the Senate who owns a windmill, and I will talk about that later--but you have a windmill, sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Sometimes the sun doesn't shine. So the Texas provision is based on capacity, not generation. Secondly, the Texas provision is that, by 2009, we have the capacity to generate 2,000 megawatts from alternative sources. We currently generate about 73,000 megawatts, which is roughly 3 percent renewable energy, not the 10 percent provision in the Bingaman amendment. Finally, renewable energy in Texas is renewable energy. In the state of Washington, hydropower is not renewable energy according to this bill, even though it rains there constantly. Certainly, you can argue that hydropower is at least as renewable as chicken manure and pig manure and cow manure, all of which will be subsidized under this energy bill, in terms of electricity production. In Texas, we have a much broader definition of what a renewable is. So, one, our standard is based on capacity, not generation, because you have to have the flexibility with these alternative sources. Two, it is roughly 3 percent, not 10 percent. Three, it counts one of the most common renewable sources, which is hydropower. I think that is a very big difference. So to say that this is somehow what we did in Texas is simply not accurate. Now, I want to touch on a couple of other things. First of all, I think we are getting carried away here with these alternative sources. On my place in Texas, I have a windmill. It is a really pretty windmill and it is called High Lonesome Windmill; it is high and lonesome, and it is sitting on a hill. It pumps water into a storage tank, and there is an overflow valve that runs down to the pond that keeps water there for turkey, deer, hogs, and whatever happens by. I think it is fair to say that this windmill is beautiful. I also think it is fair to say that 100 windmills would be an eyesore. So when you are talking about generating 10 percent of the energy of the United States with things such as wind power, please consider that one windmill is not bad. But if you put a hundred or a thousand of them on my place, the place would be an eyesore. When we are talking about this, I think it is fair to keep that in mind. I join the Senator from Oklahoma in saying, look, you can have it one way, or you can have it another way, but you can't have it both ways. If this renewable energy is a good deal, how come it is not a good deal for everybody? It seems to me it is absolutely outrageous to say, Los Angeles, CA, doesn't have to abide by the law and sell renewable power through its municipal utility, but Dallas, TX, does. Bonneville Power doesn't have to abide by the law, but their competitor has to, and rural cooperatives don't have to abide by the law. Well, look, if renewable power and an inflexible federal mandate is a good thing, how come it is not good for everybody? There is no way that can be defended. That is plain old rotten, special interest vote-buying which basically says: We know this is a provision that will cost a lot of money. You have political interests that are for it, and in order to get it passed and impose it on the poor people who can't get out from under it by cutting a political deal, we are going to exempt Los Angeles, CA and other municipal and public power providers. Give me a break. That is about as outrageous as it can be. Finally, I believe there is a drafting error in this bill. In looking at this bill in a cursory way, I don't see any requirement that if I buy these credits, I buy them from Americans. Can I buy these credits from people in China? I don't see in the bill a provision that says I have to buy credits from Americans. Can I buy them from Mexicans, from the Canadians, from China, from Russia, or from Uzbekistan? My question is: How well is this whole process thought out? When you let people buy credits, you are not producing more energy, you are basically spreading the misery. I hope Senator Kyl's amendment passes. I am going to vote for it. But if it doesn't pass, maybe a fallback position ought to be that if any electric company is going to have to raise their power rates by more than 5 percent, maybe they ought be able to join Los Angeles, maybe they ought to be able to join Bonneville Power, maybe they ought to be able to join the cooperatives and be exempt. This is clearly going to cost a lot of money because if it weren't costing a lot of money, why does everybody want to get out from under it? I think the amendment of Senator Kyl is a good one. It sets a goal. But something is very wrong economically in telling people, no matter whether it is feasible or not, no matter whether it can be achieved or not, no matter how much it costs, that unless you are one of these privileged people who have an exemption, you have to generate 10 percent of your power by 2020 with these alternative sources; and, after that, over the next 10 years, then the Secretary of Energy can set the rate at wherever they want to set it. God forbid we should have some lunatic as the Secretary of Energy in 2021. They would have the power under this bill, unilaterally, to set this rate anywhere they want to set it, other than below 10 percent. Is that a wise delegation of power? Should we give anybody in America that much unilateral power? I do not think so. This provision is riddled with special interest loopholes. I think it is an unworkable mandate of the worst sense and violates the logic of economics. It is nothing like the Texas provision. I hope we can adopt the Kyl amendment. I am afraid that all these people who have gotten exemptions are going to vote for it now. If I represented Los Angeles, maybe I could say: Look, this could hurt, it could be expensive, but it will not affect you; I cut this deal. Or maybe if I got power from the TVA, I could say: Yes, I am worried about this, but do not worry, I covered us. I sometimes think I have some persuasive power, but I do not think I am good enough to defend this provision. I do not think I could defend a provision, and standing with great righteousness, by saying: Renewable power is what we need, but we do not need it in Los Angeles, we do not need it in TVA, we do not need it in municipals, we do not need it for rural America. If it is so good, why do we not need it for those things?

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Virginia was here before me.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this issue has been talked about at great length, and has been the focus of attention in Washington, DC, but I do not believe it has been or is the focus of attention on Main Street, America. We are coming to the end of the debate where it appears this bill will be passed by the Senate in the same form it was passed by the House, then sent to the President, and signed into law. I wish this morning to talk about the issue that is before us and to explain why I am very strongly opposed to the bill. I think it is a case study in the power of special interest. I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on the issue. I will begin with another observation. I congratulate Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. If there is anything we know about democracy, it is that majority rule does not exist in practice. In a democracy, intensity determines the outcome of debate on public policy. It is the willingness of often a small number of people who care passionately about something, who have overriding and burning interest, their willingness to stay with that issue and to fight for it day after day, week after week, month after month, and to ultimately wear down those who do not care equally. Anyone who does not understand that does not understand American democracy. We are here today because of the intense desire of a relatively small number of people to see this bill become law. I congratulate Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I believe they are both wrong, but they are not wronghearted. In my opinion, they are wrongheaded on this issue even though they both believe that what they are doing is in the interest of America. As Thomas Jefferson said long ago: Good men with the same facts often disagree. Why am I so strongly against this bill? First of all, I am not running again. I am about to close out my public life and exit the public stage, as Washington expressed it. I am profoundly opposed to this bill, first because it is clearly unconstitutional. Elected officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In the early days of the Republic, the oath was taken very seriously. Officials took it as a charge to themselves, given their individual capacity. I went to Korea when the first real election in history had occurred, and they swore in a new President. It really came home to me how different our system is. When he swore on behalf of the people of Korea, he swore an oath to the people. Under our system we do not swear any oath to the people. I took no oath to the people of Texas. The oath I took was to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That was the oath. In the early days, each individual who took that oath took it upon themselves to make a judgment, to determine what was and what was not constitutional. Since they had put their hand on the Bible, they took constitutionality issues very seriously. I am sure John Marshall, when he introduced judicial review in his famous Supreme Court rulings that had a profound, positive impact on America, never foresaw the day would come when Members of Congress might put their hands on the Bible and swore to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution and then say: It is not up to me to make a determination as to whether something is constitutional; that is up to the courts. Long ago, 24 years ago, when I took the oath, I did not say I swear to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution based on what the courts may some year in the future decide. I swore to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution given my ability to read and understand that document. On that basis alone, I oppose this bill. This bill is as blatantly unconstitutional as any bill which has ever been written, any bill which has ever been adopted by the Congress of the United States. I want to mention two areas where it is clearly unconstitutional. I am a free man and an American, and if I discovered that living in College Station, TX, was a new Thomas Jefferson--and I am waiting for another one to come back--and I wanted to sell my house and raise money to tell the country about it, do I not have that right? When the Founders wrote the first amendment, they were not concerned about commercial speech. They were concerned about free speech, and they wrote: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. Does anybody doubt that my right to sell my property and tell the Nation another Thomas Jefferson is in our midst is guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States? How dare anybody tell me I cannot sell my property or mortgage my future, or disinherit my children in order to tell the world there is another Thomas Jefferson. The Founding Fathers would be amazed that any such proposal could ever be considered seriously. They would be astounded it could happen. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will use the flaming letter of the Constitution to strike down this bill. The second problem with this bill has to do with equal justice under the law. If I am the New York Times, I am a for-profit company. My stock is on the New York Stock Exchange. I am driven by the same motives--many of our colleagues would say greedy motives--as every other for-profit institution in America. Does anybody doubt the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Dallas Morning News is a for- profit business? If they doubt it, they should have been on the Commerce Committee when the head of the Washington Post testified in favor of legislation to prevent any telephone company from getting into the communication business to compete with the Washington Post. The New York Times is a for-profit enterprise, and so is the New York Stock Exchange. They are both equally committed to making money. They are both driven by the bottom line. They are both good investments today. Yet under this bill the New York Times has freedom of speech. They can editorialize all they want in editorial space that would cost hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of dollars, for the New York Stock Exchange to purchase. They can routinely state their views on the editorial page and, quite frankly, through their news reporting, and they do it every single day on the front page and on the editorial page. They have a right to do it. But why should the New York Times have a larger say in the election of the President of the United States than the New York Stock Exchange? When did God decree freedom of speech existed only if one owns a newspaper or a television station or if they are a commentator? What about people who work for a living and who want to be heard? How can we write a law that treats the New York Stock Exchange differently from the New York Times? What this bill provides is unequal speech, privileged speech. So I am opposed to this bill because it is patently unconstitutional. Let me try to explain, as best I can in the time I have, how all of this came about, in my opinion, and what this is all about. First of all, you have heard the endless hollering about political influence. Political influence arises from the fact people want to influence the Government. In fact, the Founders understood that and they wrote it into the first amendment of the Constitution that the right to petition the Government would not be abridged. People want to influence the Government for two reasons, it seems to me. One, the Government spends $2 trillion a year. Most of it, it spends without competitive bidding. The Government grants privileges worth billions of dollars, grants special favors routinely, even sets the price of milk to benefit people who have assets of $800,000 by stealing from schoolchildren who are poor. That is the Government, and people want to influence it. The second reason people want to influence Government is because they love their country and they want to affect its future. I assume no one is interested in preventing that kind of influence. This bill does that. Let me set that aside because that is not what we are debating. Does anybody believe if we stop this massive flow of money into the process, that the Government is going to stop setting the price of milk? Does anybody believe if we stop this soft money corruption of the political process, that the Government is not going to give away $2 trillion this year? By limiting the ability of people to petition their Government, we do not eliminate political power; we simply redistribute it. We take it away from one group; we give it to another. The proponents of this bill would have Members believe that by banning soft money we are reducing political influence. We are not reducing political influence at all. We are redistributing political influence. Who are we taking it away from? We are taking it away from people who are willing and able to use their money to enhance their free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Who are we giving it to? We are giving it to the people who have unequal free speech under this bill. We are giving it to the media. We are giving it to the so-called public interest groups. What a misstatement of fact. These are the same people, the Common Causes and the Ralph Naders who won't tell you where they get their money. Under this bill, Ralph Nader can come to my State and denounce me as he has on many occasion. I wear it as a badge of honor. But he will never have to tell anybody under this bill where he gets his soft money. We have had ads run in favor of this bill by groups spending soft money. They are not talking about banning their ability to spend it. They are talking about banning everybody else's ability to spend it. What blatant hypocrisy. But there it is. What this bill does is not reduce political influence but redistribute it, take it away from working people who commit their own money to enhance their speech and give it to the media and the special interest groups that use the media to magnify their speech. Is it not amazing when you list those who support this bill, they all fall into the category of the people who gain political power from the passage of this bill? The New York Times never tires of editorializing in favor of this bill. But they are perhaps close with the Washington Post as the biggest beneficiaries of this bill, because their speech will still ring while the speech of others will be muted. So a one-eyed man is king in a world of the blind.

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. GRAMM. But they have done more than editorialize. They have engaged in a type of McCarthyism. Let me explain. Every day we read in the paper that the Senator from Kentucky or the Senator from Texas or the Senator from Rhode Island or the Senator from Wisconsin get so much money from Arthur Andersen or Enron or U.S. Steel. Yet, verifiably, none of us ever received money from Arthur Andersen or Enron or U.S. Steel or any other company. Those who say we did, know we did not, because it is illegal. Corporations cannot contribute to campaigns. Yet all one has to do is open the daily paper to find that almost on any issue now, as this has turned into a great symphony, almost on any issue that is being debated, if you care about something, everybody who agrees with you who has ever contributed to you is listed--but not as individuals. They are listed by what profession they are in or what company they work for. It is McCarthyism to say that all the accountants who contributed to me--and God knows if there is a living CPA who has not contributed to me, shame on you; shame on you--every CPA in America should have contributed to me. I understand debits and credits. I have spent a political lifetime talking about balancing the books. If you are a CPA and you have not contributed to me, you may be guilty of malpractice. This is the point. To say that the people in my State who work for Arthur Andersen were representing Arthur Andersen when they contributed to me is totally false and it is exactly the guilt-by-association process that the media has denounced over and over again. Yet in the most effective way, they promoted this bill. They have committed McCarthyism routinely. Routinely. I defy them to go to any accounting firm in America--and there isn't one where there are not a lot of people who have supported me--and find where there was a directive from the company to give me money. Everybody knows that is a felony. That is illegal. Yet long ago the Washington Post, the New York Times, and virtually every other newspaper in America stopped saying a Senator received contributions from employees of Arthur Andersen. They say he received funds from Arthur Andersen. It is not just editorializing every 5 days. It is changing the very meaning of words, and distorting the very English language to create this conception that somehow the whole system is corrupted by free speech, all the while knowing they will be the biggest beneficiaries of limiting other people's free speech. The Dallas Morning News, I am proud to say, the most important paper in my State--maybe I should say the Houston Chronicle--has always endorsed me. But in any election I probably have 80,000 or 100,000 individual donors and they contribute and give me the ability to tell my side of the story. So if the newspaper or the television station or somebody who has the ability to express an opinion has an opinion different than mine, I have an opportunity to tell my side of the story. Under this bill, that ability is limited, and that is profoundly wrong and unconstitutional. The problem, it seems to me, goes even further because in the end we are tilting the balance of power to a very small group of people. It was the involvement of people in contributing their money that destroyed the smoke-filled room, that ended the back-room deal, that literally brought politics into everybody's living room. This bill is a movement back to the smoke-filled room. This concentrates political power in fewer and fewer and fewer hands. This is fundamentally anti- democratic. It violates what the Founding Fathers understood as being important. The Founders knew the country was not peopled by angels because they were not angels. The Founders understood that people had their own special interests, that people could have corrupt views. So they provided the maximum number of people with influence so the evil of the few was offset. As I often say, I love the issues that are hotly debated. Because if politicians know they are going to catch hell no matter what they do, they will normally do the right thing. It is when nobody is paying attention on one side and everybody on the other side is organized that bad things happen. I have heard my colleagues say: I don't want these outside groups involved in my election. Pardon me? Since when was it their election? When I am running for public office, it is not my election. It doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the people of Texas. Often, when I ran, there have been mean groups that have come to the State and said bad things about me. This election does not belong to me. It does not belong to my opponent. It belongs to the people--and not just the people of Texas because I am a United States Senator. I cast votes that affect people who live everywhere. My service has affected people who live in every State in the Union, every town in every State in the Union. They have a right to be involved in my campaign. They don't have a right to vote, but they have a right to speak. Many of my colleagues have said: I don't want those groups involved. There is an inconvenience in free speech--if people aren't saying what you want them to say. But is it not dangerous to end their ability to speak? If this bill really stood--and I do not believe it will--I think you would have a concentration of power in the media and in these special interest groups that use the media--Common Cause, Nader--it would be harder and harder for people to get their view out if their view differs with the established power structure. More and more decisions about who wins elections would be made by editors and by special interest groups. There will be more smoke-filled rooms--I don't guess people smoke anymore, but whatever it is they do in these rooms, there will be more of it. You will have more athletes elected, you will have more celebrities elected. The problem is, this new Thomas Jefferson may not be a star. He may not even be attractive. He might not be extraordinarily articulate. The original Thomas Jefferson was a very poor speaker, from all we know. But his ideas were revolutionary. In fact, I think if you had to choose the most important man of the last thousand years--you would have to give it to two people: Thomas Jefferson for political freedom; and Adam Smith for economic freedom. The two of them together had the revolutionary idea of our time. I am afraid, under this bill, that we will not discover the next Thomas Jefferson. I am afraid, under this bill, that other things will be more important. As you narrow the vision of a great country, you narrow its future. The Bible says, ``Where there is no vision, people perish.'' I wonder what will occur when the American people are ready to be led in another direction, but the power structure does not want to go there. How are the people ever going to hear the other side of the story? These are very important issues. We have never debated an issue more important than this. Yet there is no interest in this issue because, as a result of all these years of distorting the English language, keeping up a drumbeat, gradually politicians have been worn down. Now people can say: I can violate the Constitution, I can endanger the future of America, or I can get a bad editorial in the New York Times. Of course they decide they do not want the bad editorial in the New York Times. So that is where we are. I am relatively confident this bill will be struck down by the Supreme Court. What a paradox it will be, what a happy day it will be for me and for the Senator from Kentucky, since this bill has no severability clause in it, if it is struck down, only the parts struck down die. What a great triumph for freedom it would be if all of the parts of the bill that limited free speech were struck down as unconstitutional, and only the part of the bill that enhances free speech by simply updating for inflation the limits on individual contributions remained. Could it happen? It has happened before. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to vote for this, in large part because they believe this tilts the playing field toward them. It may very well be that it will not. It may very well be that, in the end, we did not fulfill our oath, but our Constitution is a powerful document, and when we pass a law and the President signs it because of the pressures of the moment and the consensus in the media, then it has to stand the test of the Supreme Court. They are only across the street. But across the top of their building is written, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' This bill destroys equal justice under the law. And anyone who could sit under that roof with a good conscience is going to feel called upon to take the Constitution seriously and will strike down this law. In doing so, they will live up to the high expectations of the founders. Let me conclude by congratulating the Senator from Kentucky. It is fun to be in front of television cameras. It makes you feel important. It gives you sort of a notoriety. People recognize you. It doesn't last very long, but they do. And it is awfully easy to stand up and defend things that are popular. It is very difficult to defend ideas that are unpopular, to be attacked every day in the media because of the position you take. There are not many people who are tough enough to do that. There are probably only three or four--five people in the Senate, and I am being generous. A lot of people get into politics because they want to be loved. Then, when an issue comes along where your principles are on one side and love is on the other, it is hard. I have watched and I have read those editorials vilifying the Senator from Kentucky. I know it has been hard, and I just want to say that I don't know whether they will ever build a monument to the Senator from Kentucky, but he is already memorialized in my heart. I will never forget the fight he has made on this bill. I thank him. The Constitution does not work by itself. It requires a few good men. The Senator from Kentucky is one of those good men. I yield the floor.