Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Missouri. What is the practical effect? Let's take an example. If someone is working, for example, for a steel company, which is an example that is fairly current considering the discussions, and they were being paid labor union wages at a very high rate--let's say they were making $40,000 a year, maybe more--and they lost their job allegedly because the steel was no longer competitive with the foreign steel that was coming in--there are a lot of factors that may have led to that, including the fact that wage rates were no longer competitive--and then they move out of that job and take another job--let's say they decide, well, I would like to teach; I have done steel for 20 years and I am tired of it; I want to do something else, maybe I want to go into teaching--and they get a teaching job at a private school, say a Catholic school that does not pay too much--it is more of a social service really--and they are getting paid $20,000 to do that, the $20,000 they are not making the Federal Government is going to come in and supplement and say, we are going to pay the difference or a portion of that difference. Well, that creates all sorts of unintended consequences and adverse selection issues. I can see a lot of people saying, I am going to close my company down, claim the trade caused them to close their company down and they are going to go out and get another job which pays a lot less, which is a job they always wanted to have; they are tired of doing this job, and they will let the Government pay the difference. The implications of this are absolutely staggering. One does not have to think too long to see what the implications are. And who is paying the cost? Where is this money coming from? The American wage earner, the people still working for a living, working hard, they have to pick up that difference. Essentially we are going to pay people not to be as productive as they were before, because in our society theoretically people are paid based on their productivity. The implications for our economy are significant; the implications for the Federal Treasury are significant; the implications for our taxpayers are significant. It is a public policy initiative of huge import, and maybe we want to do it, but I do not think we want to do it in the middle of the night the way this bill is proceeding. The trade adjustment language in this bill raises very significant problems, and to hook it to the trade promotion authority raises the question: Is it worth the price of getting trade promotion authority to put in place these types of expansive public policy initiatives which involve huge implications on the expenditure side of our Government? That is a question with which the Senate has to deal. Obviously, the Senate may be supportive of it, but it is a question with which we have to deal. I think it is a question we should vote on because it is way outside the budget and a point of order is appropriate to these two issues because they are outside the budget. We ought to at least have a supermajority addressing this issue rather than having it passed on a simple majority. I thank the Chair, and I especially thank the Senator from Missouri for his courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for another 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, last night an agreement was reached on this trade promotion authority, on the trade adjustment language, and the Andean trade agreement, three bills which have been bundled by the majority leader--there is a fourth one, the general tariffs agreement-- that we have been trying to work through as a body. Last night, I understand the parties negotiated a comprehensive settlement to these issues involving trade and trade adjustment. Trade promotion authority is very important legislation. We as a nation, and States such as New Hampshire specifically--and States such as the Presiding Officer's State especially--depend inordinately on our capacity to have free trade with other countries because our States, our culture has its competitive edge not in some material or commodity we produce, such as an agricultural good or oil; our economic advantage in New Hampshire is that we have people who are very bright and produce goods that are on the cutting edge. Unfortunately, in the international economy, when you are producing cutting-edge goods, there is a tendency of other nations that cannot keep up to block those goods from coming into their country. It always works to our advantage to open up a country's trade with us because the goods which we produce--which are on the cutting edge, which are the next generation, and always a step ahead of their competition--become available for sale in that country where we have opened barriers. In New Hampshire, for example, almost 30 percent of the jobs are tied directly to products which are produced and sold overseas. So trade promotion authority--which is basically a vehicle to allow the administration to negotiate trade agreements, almost all of which, I presume, will allow us to enter other markets--trade promotion authority is very important legislation. This Congress has passed it year in and year out--for many years. In fact, I voted for it innumerable times when I was in the House and even had a chance to vote for it in the Senate. Unfortunately, in the last few years, it has become tied up with other issues, but I do believe there has always been a strong bipartisan consensus to give the President trade promotion authority. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, we have now attached to trade promotion authority other issues because people realized around here that if there is a train leaving the station and you can put something on it, the odds are you are going to be able to pass it. These are items which might not pass under a freestanding situation. That is unfortunate because trade promotion is so important. It should not be thrown into this type of a bundle. It should be voted on separately. But the majority leader decided to bundle it. In that bundle he has put some things which I find to have serious problems, specifically the trade adjustment language and the expansion of the entitlements under the trade adjustment language. There are two major initiatives in this proposal which are going to significantly expand direct costs and burdens on the taxpayers of America and will open the door to policy activity in an arbitrary way, and we cannot see the unintended consequences yet, which I think are going to be significant and extraordinarily expensive. The trade adjustment bill, which is not involved in negotiating treaties, the purpose of which is to assist people whose jobs have been impacted as a result of trade activity--in other words, if you worked for a textile mill in New Hampshire maybe 20 years ago, and that textile mill was put out of business because of trade activity, because of low-cost cotton goods coming into the country--in fact, it happened even more recently than that. There are a couple companies in the western part of New Hampshire that have gone out of business in recent years as a result of trade activity. If you work for that type of company, under the trade adjustment authority, you would have certain benefits accrued to you in the areas of training and unemployment compensation so you can have an opportunity to get back into the workforce more quickly and be less impacted by that trade activity. What is being proposed in this bill, however, is a significant expansion to benefit those people--well-intentioned, obviously--who have been dislocated as a result of trade activities, specifically the expansion of health care coverage and a wage supplement should they not take a different job. Let's talk about both of these. Madam President, the health care benefit means if you lose your job and it is designated a job loss as a result of trade activity, you will be able to get health insurance. Seventy percent of the cost of that will be paid by the Federal Government. You will be out of work, but you will be able to get health insurance. You will have to buy it through a pooling agreement. You will not be able to go out on the market and buy it. You will have to buy it through a pooling agreement, and you will be reimbursed through what is called a refundable tax credit. It is a tax benefit, a payment which amounts to an entitlement payment and really is not tax related at all. You will get this money and be able to buy through this pooling agreement, theoretically at least, health insurance. It might not be the health insurance you want, but you can buy it and get 70-percent support for it. What is the problem with that? It sounds pretty good. Yes, it is pretty good, obviously. What does it do? It does a couple of things. First, if you are working today in America, you may not have health insurance. You are paying taxes, but you may not have health insurance. There may be a variety of reasons you do not have health insurance. This bill says a person who is unemployed has a right to have their health insurance underwritten to the extent of 70 percent of its cost, but a person who is employed and may not have health insurance does not get health insurance. That clearly creates a huge inequity in our system. It is a new concept: If you are unemployed, you have a right to health insurance. But if you are employed and you do not have health insurance, you are out of luck. The implications of this are that either you are going to start covering everybody because, obviously, you are already covering the unemployed or you are going to leave a large segment of America saying: Hey, I am working for a living; I am paying taxes for a living; I do not have health insurance, but I have to pay extra taxes so that somebody who is not working can have health insurance. I think that is going to be hard to swallow for people who are working and do not have health insurance. In addition, the structure and the way the health insurance is going to be purchased make very little sense. The pooling agreements do not exist. In fact, the State that is probably furthest ahead in pooling agreements is New Hampshire, and we do not even have it up and running yet. The concept that one cannot go out in the marketplace and buy it if they want, that one has to buy it through some sort of structured event which may mean they are going to get insurance they do not need, coverage they do not need, costs they do not need, probably get a lot better deal maybe if they go out and buy it through a different system, the limitation which basically is forcing them to buy it in one specific way versus allowing them to use the marketplace, completely makes no sense. If this is going to be done, which to begin with is to create a major new entitlement, then it ought to at least be done in a way that makes economic sense to the person who is getting the benefit and makes sense to the insurance market so that a healthier insurance market is made rather than a less healthy insurance market. In this proposal, it will not be positive for health insurance for energizing better coverage. There is a major new entitlement being created under this bill, which is being created in back rooms somewhere, which has never really gone through the light of day of the committee process and which has very little to do with trade--in fact, nothing to do with trade, for that matter--and is opening the door to a huge new issue of how we deliver health care coverage in this country. As a result, it is setting down a path which we may not be able to get off and which may basically lead to a massive expansion along the lines of what was proposed by President Clinton of the way we address health care in this country, which is essentially a nationalization system. I do not think that is too far fetched a step to take. This is more than just putting your toe in the water as to moving down that road. When we start insuring people who do not have jobs and give them health insurance when there are people who do have jobs who do not have health insurance, it is going to be incredibly expensive. Who pays in the end? Well, the money we use in the Federal Government does not come from the sky. It comes from the wage earner. It comes from people who have to pay taxes. This is a huge, brandnew entitlement being put together in the middle of the night--this one especially in the middle of the night--which has not been properly vetted and which has significant issues surrounding it. The second concept in this bill which raises very serious public policy questions is this idea the Federal Government is going to come in and say to somebody who has lost a job as a result of trade activity that if that person goes out and finds a job that does not pay them as much as they had in the job they lost as a result of trade activity, the Federal Government is going to come in and arbitrarily pay a portion of the difference between what that person earned under their job prior to the trade activity and the job after the trade activity.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I want to speak on a couple of subjects this morning. First is what is happening in Israel. Obviously, it is good news that at the Church of the Nativity, which is a shrine of significant importance to all of us who are Christian-- obviously, it being the birthplace of Christ--that there has been a settlement. This is a step in the right direction. It is something we can take relief in because, clearly, the church itself was in physical risk, as were the people inside and outside of the church. It would have been a terrible tragedy in this conflict between the parties in the Mideast if that shrine had been permanently damaged. So this is good news. At the same time, of course, we should not overstate it as an event. Clearly, there is much still happening in the Mideast. Israel, in exercising its rights, will probably proceed to take further action to try to find the people who are responsible for the terrible suicide bombing that occurred just a few days ago. There may be a military action in Gaza. At least that is what is being represented. I think we as a culture--our country--have to decide how we are going to deal with this situation. The President has made it very clear that as a result of the terrorist attacks on our Nation, we intend to track down terrorists wherever they are and we intend to bring them to justice. In addition, if there is a government that supports those terrorists, we intend to treat that government as an enemy and bring it to justice, as we did in Afghanistan. I believe this to be the absolutely appropriate authority. This is the Bush doctrine. This is the guideline that we must follow. We are in a fight, whether we like it or not, for our cultural survival, for our civilization and its survival. The purpose of our enemy is not to take real estate or take advantage of real estate or take advantage of economic gain, as has been the tradition of war over the centuries. The purpose of our enemy is to simply kill us because we are American. In fact, if you read the books of Osama bin Laden and of Mulla Muhammad Omar, you see this all the time. The quotes simply say they call on their followers to kill Americans because they are Americans, and for no other reason, and to destroy us. That is their goal. Well, if the Bush doctrine states clearly and appropriately that our purpose is to find terrorists and bring them to justice, and to treat terrorist governments as if they are our enemy and bring those governments down, then we cannot say to Israel that they should not follow that doctrine. Israel is equally under a terrorist attack--in fact, in many ways, more so because they are more threatened because of their physical situation. As the suicide bombers continue to kill innocent people and cause great personal injury and try to disrupt the Nation of Israel, which is a democracy and which is an ally, we as a nation must support Israel and say: You have the right, as we also believe we have the right, to pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice and pursue governments that support these terrorists and bring them to justice. It is very clear--I do not think there can be any question about it-- that the Palestinian Authority has been a source of support for terrorist activity. We need to support Israel at this time as we would expect our allies and have expected our allies to support us during our difficult time. It does mean there probably will be further confrontations, but it also means that at least we will be standing for a purpose which is clear and definable and which is true and correct, and that is we will not tolerate terrorism against our country or against our allies.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. George Rupp, a man who has served higher education and the city of New York well over his 9 years as President of Columbia University. As a proud alumnus of Columbia University, I wanted to share with Members of Congress some of the accomplishments of this fine leader, and to take this opportunity to salute Dr. Rupp. Columbia is one of the nation's most prestigious universities, and under Dr. Rupp's leadership it has only grown more so. In every area of the university's existence, from academic to administrative, fundraising and quality of life, Dr. Rupp has made a major impact. The legacy he has created sets a new standard in university administration. When he joined the administration in 1993, Dr. Rupp promised to put undergraduate education at the center of the institution. He committed his energies and the university's resources to doing precisely that, and Columbia College is in a much stronger position as a consequence of his efforts. High school students are applying to Columbia in record numbers and undergraduate admissions have more than doubled since 1993. Dr. Rupp introduced fellowships to attract professors to teach its celebrated core curriculum for undergraduates, anchored by contemporary civilization and humanities literature. Columbia's graduate programs in law, business, medicine, journalism, and the liberal arts have grown more competitive and are among the best in the world. Over the past nine years, four Columbia faculty members have been Nobel prize winners. Columbia has raised its profile in New York City and significantly improved relations with the surrounding communities of Morningside Heights, Harlem, and Washington Heights. Dr. Rupp has striven to make Columbia a good neighbor and involves community leadership in major construction projects. He also established a housing assistance program to encourage Columbia staff to purchase homes in these neighborhoods, which are part of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone. Under Dr. Rupp's leadership, the university has added an architecturally distinguished student center, expanded student housing and built world-class research facilities. Columbia has also taken over the management of the Biosphere 2 Center in Oracle, AZ to expand the science of its Earth Institute. In addition, he has established the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, a facility to direct advances in climate sciences to the benefit of societies around the world. Dr. Rupp, an ordained Presbyterian minister and a religious scholar, became Dean of Harvard Divinity School at age 37, and then president of Rice University and president of Columbia University. He is a man of many talents and interests. For all these and many more reasons, I stand now to applaud his leadership at Columbia University, his dedication to this great institution, and to wish him great luck in the future. Columbia today embodies substantial forward momentum and is poised to achieve further advances in the years ahead.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with those who have expressed very severe reservations and concerns about this bill. It is an extraordinarily expensive piece of legislation. This legislation is not only going to cost the taxpayers of America a great deal of money--much more than has ever been paid out before in the area of farm subsidies-- but it is a bill that takes us down the wrong path in the area of how we should address production of farm commodities in our country. Nobody questions that farmers are the hardest working people you meet. At all levels of life, as you come across people, the farmer is somebody who puts in incredible hours, who works from dawn to dusk in most instances--unless they are a corporate farm owner--the people out there actually doing the farming. They love their job, usually. That is why they do it. They are a contributor of immense proportions to our society, both from the standpoint of being hard workers and extraordinarily productive citizens, but also in setting a tone and a character for our Nation and the communities in which they live. Unfortunately, the system they are caught up in--not all, but those farmers who find themselves existing on the Federal payroll--is one that is fundamentally broken. Instead of a market system, it is a system of collectivization. It is truly ironic, in fact, when you think about it. The way the farm program works today for those people on the system is that the Federal Government essentially pays through the tax dollars of the American people for the net income of those farmers. Forty-six percent of the net income of farming as a result of this bill--46 percent--will be paid for by tax dollars. In seven States, the Federal Direct Payment Program actually exceeds the net farm income. Think about that for a moment. In the State of Wisconsin, for example, the Federal Direct Payment Program exceeds the net farm income by 174 percent. In Montana, it is 178 percent. In North Dakota, it is 156 percent. There are seven States where it actually exceeds net income. If you were to set out a classic definition of collectivization or socialization of an industry, it would be that the tax benefits of the industry exceed the income of the industry. This essentially means that people aren't working to be productive; they are working to receive tax benefits. As I said, it is ironic that our farmers who are caught up in these programs find themselves in this type of situation. If you look at it in a historical context, the country which most aggressively attempted collectivization where they had a program where the farm community was essentially an extension of the State support program was, of course, the Soviet Union where the system collapsed as a result of its inability to be competitive. We, however, ironically and through the genius of our American farmer, have managed to actually make it productive. We have a productive, collective system where we are actually producing goods. But we are not producing them efficiently, obviously. We are not producing them in a form that makes a whole lot of sense. We are, in fact, producing goods that we don't need. As has been mentioned numerous times by the Senator from Indiana and other Senators in this Chamber, we are creating a situation where by definition we produce goods at a price which has no relationship to the amount of goods being produced. So we have more goods than we need; thus, we drive down the price; thus, we end up paying more in subsidies to support those goods, a system which is cockeyed. It makes no sense. I heard one person come down here from the other side--the Senator from North Dakota--who said this bill is for entrepreneurship. It is a unique view of entrepreneurship because, basically, the entrepreneur here is trying to figure out how they can get more money out of the Federal Government and how they can put more crops in the ground, which we don't need, which produces a higher production level at a price which drives down the price so they can get more for the crop that we didn't need to begin with. It makes no sense. That is not entrepreneurship in a market economy. That is a new form of entrepreneurship in a collectivized economy. That is gaming the system. Gaming the system would be more appropriate than entrepreneurship as a term. I heard another Member say but this bill is going to produce so much in the way of paperwork in order to meet the new commodity rules that people are going to be standing in line for days at the Farm Service Agency. I feel sorry for them standing in line all day. As a practical matter, if you are going to opt into a system where you are essentially getting all your net income out of the Federal Government, you ought to be doing something instead of standing in line for that money. Clearly, this system has failed when our farmers are standing in line instead of working to produce goods, when they are using the system to produce crops which they don't need and which we don't need, and when they are getting a payment from the Federal Government which exceeds their income. The bill also is perverse in whom it supports. Most of the subsidy in this bill goes to a very small number of farmers who produce a small number of commodity crops. The State of California, which has the most farmers in America, by far, and which has the largest farming industry, by far, gets only 9 percent of the benefit under the bill. But other States which have commodity crops, with 3 percent of the farms, for example, get two-thirds of the commodity subsidies. Sixty percent of American farmers get no commodity subsidy at all. They are still in the market. Of course, that number is being reduced because this bill manages to pick up a bunch of commodities that have not been there before. We now have onions. We have apples. We have pulse crops. And, of course, we dramatically expanded our effort in the area of dairy and peanuts. Then there is sugar. Sugar: What a farcical exercise this is. What a joke on the American taxpayer this has become. Of course, it is a very expensive joke. First, we set the sugar price in this country arbitrarily at a rate which is 10, 15 cents higher than what the market bears internationally, so that the average consumer in this country, for any product that has sugar in it, has to pay a great deal more than they would if we were playing in an open market; in fact, the last number I saw was $1.6 billion more in subsidy. Where does that go? To the sugar producers. So that is the first time we hit the consumer. For years, the sugar industry used to come to the Senate with righteous statements, saying: But we take nothing out of the Federal Treasury; we just take it out of the consumer through the subsidized costs that we put on the consumer--the inflated price. Well, they were not happy with that. So in this bill they are going into the Treasury for $435 million. So first they hit the consumer with an inflated price, which they benefit from because they do not allow market-priced sugar, and it is to the tune of $1.6 billion; and now they have set up a commodity price which is going to flow through to them to the tune of $430 million. If it were not so obscene, it would be humorous, the level at which it takes from the consumer and the American taxpayer and redistributes that in a countermarket system. Robert Samuelson, who is one of the better economists in our country, made the point that over the last two and a half decades farm subsidies have consumed roughly 10 percent of what we have added to our national debt. That is a price that in some ways I might be willing to pay if it were done in a manner that had some relationship to market forces because I believe strongly that we need a farm economy that is strong. But when you totally overwhelm market forces with this type of subsidy system, you fundamentally undermine the capacity to have a farm program which, first, represents production, which we need, in the commodities which we want, and, second, is fair to the American taxpayers and the American consumer. So I believe this bill should be rejected. I regret that it probably will not be rejected. But I believe the increase in spending above the baseline here, which is approximately $173 billion, is way beyond anything we can afford as an economy or as taxpayers, but, more importantly, the policy in this bill totally perverts the market and, in my opinion, drives us in the wrong direction, away from a market- oriented farm policy toward a more collectivized farm policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, last Thursday I joined my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Hutchinson, Carper and Bayh, in introducing S. Res. 254, a resolution to designate the week of April 29th through May 2, 2002 as National Charter Schools Week. This year marks the 10th Anniversary of the opening of the nation's first charter school in Minnesota. In the last ten years, we have come a long way since that auspicious moment when one teacher collaborating with parents started a school specifically designed to meet the needs of the students in the community. Today, we have well over 2,000 charter schools serving approximately 579,000 students. Charter schools are immensely popular: two-thirds of them report having waiting lists, and there are currently enough students on waiting lists to fill another 1,000 charter schools. Charter schools are popular for a variety of reasons. They are generally free from the burdensome regulations and policies that govern traditional public schools. They are founded by principals, teachers and parents who share a common vision on education. Perhaps most importantly, charter schools are held accountable for student performance. Since each charter school represents the unique vision of its founders, these schools vary greatly. For example, in South Central Los Angeles, two former union teachers founded the Accelerated School, a charter school designed to serve students from the community. Students attending the school outperform students from neighboring schools. In fact, student performance at the Accelerated School exceeds district-wide average performance levels. Originally a K-8th grade school, the founders are now planning on adding a high school. In Petoskey, Michigan, the Concord Academy provides an arts-focused curriculum that infuses the arts into the overall curriculum. The school has a 100 percent graduation rate which exceeds the graduation rate for the suburbs. The Concord Academy also spends an average of $2,500 less per student than traditional public schools. Like many charter schools, they are getting greater results using less money. These are but a handful of the success stories in the charter school movement. I expect that we will see the popularity of charter schools continue to grow. Last year, the President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which gives parents in low-performing schools the option to transfer to another public school. The Act also provides school districts with the option of converting low-performing schools into charter schools. I believe these provisions will strengthen the charter school movement by creating more opportunities for charter school development. And, as parents exercise their right to school choice, the call for charters schools will grow. I commend all those involved in the charter school movement. They have led the charge in education reform and have started a revolution. A recent study found that charter schools have had a positive impact on school districts. Districts with a large number of charter schools reported becoming more customer service oriented, creating new education programs, many of which are similar to those offered by charter schools, and increasing contact with parents. I encourage my colleagues to visit a charter school this week to witness firsthand the ways in which these innovative schools are making a difference, both in the lives of the students they serve as well as in the community in which they reside.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Smith, in strongly endorsing the nomination of Jeff Howard. I hope my colleagues will vote for him for the First Circuit Court. Jeff Howard has been an extraordinary public servant in New Hampshire. He has served as attorney general, as U.S. attorney. He continues the long tradition of quality individuals who bring integrity, intelligence, and ability to the appeals court in Boston. We are very proud of the fact he will be serving down there upon an affirmative vote from this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe that a comprehensive energy plan is absolutely critical security and economic well-being of this nation. A national energy policy needs to balance our growing demand for energy with conservation and supply. I believe that this balance should include the use of sustainable, renewable energy sources along with continued responsible development of traditional fuels including limited, environmentally-sensitive exploration in a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. Energy exploration in ANWR has become a very contentious and highly polarized issue. I would like to take this opportunity and talk frankly about energy exploration in this area and dispel some of the many myths associated with this issue. An overwhelming majority of the Arctic Refuge is protected from energy development. In fact, 92 percent of the refuge is not eligible for development at all. However, more than 20 years ago, Congress set aside 8 percent of ANWR--1.5 million acres of the Refuge--for possible energy exploration. In 1980, under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Congress expanded ANWR to 19 million acres, and designated 8 million acres as wilderness area. Under this act, the designated wilderness area cannot be considered for development. However, the current debate regarding drilling in ANWR surrounds the 1.5 million acres--outlined in Section 1002 of the act--that was set aside by Congress for further study into the development of mineral resources. Under Section 1002, Congress called upon the Department of Interior to conduct a study on the biological resources and oil and gas potential of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. This study, commonly called the 1002 Report or the Final Legislative Environmental Impact Study, was released in 1987 and recommended full leasing of the coastal plain. The Section 1002 area has always been a potential site for mineral recovery, and is not, as has been expressed by some, part of a wilderness designation. It is true that Section 1002 makes up at most 8 percent of the total refuge or 1.5 million acres. However, this number is misleading. In reality, the entire 1.5 million acres would not be developed. Current estimates place the total acreage of development at far less than a million acres. In fact, HR. 4, the House-passed energy bill, and the current Senate amendment contain provisions to limit development to 2,000 acres or 0.01 percent of the refuge. Our opponents say that the ``2000 acres'' grossly underestimates the infrastructure required to support energy development, that it merely describes the exact imprint of the core facilities, and does not include the area encompassed by those facilities, nor any of the supporting infrastructure. However, the nature of the facilities covered by the House bill and the exact shape of the 2000 acres was not specified. I believe that the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski better clarifies the scope of development for these 2000 acres. The use of new technologies will further limit the foot print of development. Thanks to our nation's ingenuity and technological advances, the footprints of energy development infrastructure are drastically reduced. Production of oil is safer and cleaner than ever before. Smaller gravel pads, advances in horizontal drilling, the re- injection of drilling wastes, and ice roads, all decrease the ``footprint'' of development. Furthermore, several new technologies have increased the success rate of exploratory wells from about 10 percent to as much as 50 percent. Such technologies include: 3-D seismic imaging, 4-D time lapse imaging, ground-penetrating radar, and enhanced computer processing. The greater percentage of successful wells, the fewer number of pads and the lower the exploration costs. Our experiences at Prudhoe Bay are testament to our technological successes. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would only be 1,526 acres, 64 percent smaller than it is today. But no matter how minimal the intrusion, opponents argue that any development will permanently degrade the sense of pristine wilderness found in the refuge. While most of the refuge has little sign of human encroachment, the coastal plain is home to the Inupiat tribe and their village of Kaktovik. Additionally, the nearby Distant Early Warning line (DEWline) for missile detection, the remnants of former or uncompleted DEWline installations, a garbage dump, and a runway are scattered in or near the 1002 area. Typically, development of mineral resources is often extremely controversial in neighboring state and local communities. That is not true in this case. A majority of Alaskans, 75 percent, the entire Alaskan delegation, and the closest Native American tribe support energy development in ANWR. These constituencies all see ANWR as a tool for supporting a modern economy to meet such basic human needs as health care and education. More specifically, the Inupiat tribe supports development. This tribe lives on 92,000 acres of privately held land within ANWR, and inhabits the only village within the 1002 area. According to Tara Sweeney, an Inupiat, ``We believe that responsible development of this area is our fundamental human right to self-determination.'' She goes on to say, ``When oil was discovered in our region in the late 1960s we were fearful of development. . . . Over thirty years later we have changed our opinion. Development has not adversely impacted our ancient traditions or our food supply. The caribou population . . . has thrived.'' Opponents argue that the Gwich'in tribe is strongly opposed to drilling in ANWR. The Gwich'in Tribe depends upon the Porcupine Caribou for food and reveres its calving area and rituals. According to some, developing ANWR is effectively raping and pillaging the land of one of the last great traditional tribes. However, the often quoted Gwich'in Tribe in fact lives over 100 miles away, on the other side of the mountains. The Gwich'in are not and never have been--indigenous to the North Slope. On the other hand, the Inupiat, who live within the 1002 area, support development and feel strongly that it will improve their way of life. It is my firm belief that the people of Alaska, the people who live closest to the refuge, should be allowed to determine their future and the future of ANWR. These people see that development of ANWR will lead to both a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Opponents also raise concern about animals, such as the polar bears and the Porcupine Caribou, which reside in and around the 1002 area. Some believe that drilling would endanger both populations. For polar bears, the concerns have focused on how modern winter technology will affect winter dens and if pregnant polar bears denning on the coastal plain would be affected. Despite these concerns, the record is clear. Over the past 20 years, the population of polar bears has remained exceedingly healthy. In fact, over ninety percent of Alaska's 2,000 polar bears den in the offshore pack ice and would not be affected by onshore development along the Arctic coastal plain. Ill-founded concerns regarding the welfare of caribou have been raised during the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay. Yet, following the development of Prudhoe, the herd seemed to adapt, and even prosper. In 1969, when oil was first discovered in the region, the Central Arctic caribou herd was estimated at 3,000 animals. Today, the same herd has grown to almost 20,000 animals. The herd is healthy and continues to calve and nurse their young alongside the oil field operations. Opponents suggest the following: that the Porcupine Caribou cannot be compared to the Central Arctic herd; that the narrower coastal plain off the 1002 area results in a smaller calving area than Prudhoe; that the pictures of caribou on drilling pads and near pipelines are misleading; that the encroachment of development facilities will force the animals into the more dangerous foothills; and furthermore, that Porcupine Caribou is sacred to the Gwich'in tribe. While a few of these concerns may be valid, empirical evidence suggests that the Porcupine Caribou population is robust, nearly 130,000 stronger, compared to the present Central Arctic Herd, only 20,000. Therefore, I am confident that development of a few thousand acres of the coastal plain will not harm the far stronger 130,000 member Arctic Porcupine Caribou herd which inhabits the Arctic Refuge. This is not to say that impacts on animals--even in the slightest and most unexpected form--are not possible. Should such impacts become apparent, the federal government may establish special protections for impacted animals, such as wilderness designation, delayed exploration, or a special regulatory regime. On a larger scale, development of ANWR could reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Currently, the United States imports 57 percent of our oil supply. By 2020, experts project that this country could be importing up to 65 percent of our oil supply. This reliance on foreign oil jeopardizes our national security and makes our economy susceptible to the frequent and recurring crises that occur around the world. As we have experienced over the last few weeks, we can not afford to rely on rogue nations like Iraq for oil, a resource vital to the economy and security of our country. Dependence on foreign sources of oil holds Americans hostage, by exposing the United States to every crisis within every nation we depend on for oil. For instance, over the last few weeks, we have witnessed turmoil within Venezuela that resulted in reduction of Venezuelan oil being shipped to the United States. Prior to this crisis, Venezuela was the third largest supplier of oil to the U.S. If this crisis continues, Americans could suffer price increases at the gas pump, the grocery store, and in their heating bills this winter. However, if this country is allowed to move forward with development in the 1002 area, and we are again faced with oil embargoes, war, or further terrorist attacks, it will be possible to mitigate those hardships, by increasing our reliance on domestic production from Alaska's North Slope. The fields in ANWR are the best bet for significant oil finds in the United States. Assuming 9.4 billion barrels are economically recoverable at a world market price of $24 per barrel, development of ANWR's oil fields would be roughly 1.4 million barrels per day. By 2015, projected U.S. oil imports will be 15.25 million barrels per day and petroleum use is estimated at 24.26 million barrels per day. This would mean that peak production in the 1002 area could reduce U.S. imports by a significant 9 percent by 2015. As our technologies advance, more and more of the oil present in the 1002 area will become technically recoverable. Should the prices of oil significantly increase over time, more oil from ANWR will become economically recoverable. The amount of economically recoverable oil estimated in the 1002 area is comparable to the giant field at Prudhoe Bay, now estimated to have held 11-13 billion barrels. Opponents insist that drilling in ANWR will not alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. They assume that ANWR's oil will be sold to the highest bidder and therefore can just as easily be sold abroad as sold domestically. The amendment currently being debated in the Senate would limit the exportation of oil from ANWR to Israel alone. In addition, H.R. 4 contains a provision which prohibits the exportation of oil under a lease in the 1002 area, as a condition of the lease. Development of ANWR's resources could bring jobs to every state in the union. Further development of the North Slope is expected to create between 60,000 and 735,000 new jobs, depending on the amount of oil found, the price of oil, and the unemployment rate at the time of development. For this reason, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and several other labor unions have spoken out publicly in support of ANWR development. According to James P. Hoffa, Teamsters general president, ``Working families are about to be caught between a recession and a deepening energy crisis. By tapping into petroleum resources in Alaska, we can create jobs and stabilize our economy by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.'' Revenues from any recovered resource will be split between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska. According to the Alaska Statehood Act and the Mineral Leasing Act, Alaska should be treated like any other State where revenues are split 90/10, in favor of the State. However, Congress could, as they have in HR. 4, establish a different arrangement, where the revenue sharing formula is 50/50. Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion. The Inupiat tribe sees development as a good move for their economy too, since they are only allowed to develop their subsurface mineral resources, if the Federal Government develops the 1002 area. Opponents argue that a six month supply of oil hardly seems worth destroying America's Serengeti. However, the ``6-month'' argument is misleading. This figure assumes that all U.S. consumption will be met by ANWR, that we will not produce any oil domestically, and that we will not import any oil whatsoever. This is actually an impossible scenario. All of the oil in the 1002 area can not be removed within a 6-month time frame. Furthermore, it would be impossible to move that much oil via the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline during such a short time frame. A much more realistic scenario is to say that there is enough oil in the 1002 area to curtail all imports from Iraq over the lifetime of the 1002 oilfields. Drilling in ANWR will not alleviate an immediate energy crisis or solve any of our immediate needs. Depending on the time it takes to navigate through the permitting process, full scale production in the 1002 area is likely to take 7-12 years. However, development in the 1002 area will help to mitigate future problems stemming from a reliance on foreign oil and a shortage of domestic energy sources. We need a comprehensive energy policy which, while developing conventional resources, also includes energy conservation and research into renewable power generation. There are many very promising renewable energy sources currently being researched and developed. However, it will likely take at least a decade to bring renewable technologies into the market place. I feel it is important that as we pursue new and innovative technologies, we continue to develop our conventional fuels to guarantee a vibrant economy, jobs, and our national security.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation which tries to address one of the oppressive problems we have in confronting the issues of terrorism in our country as we move forward; that is, checking our borders and making sure we have control over the people who are coming into our country and how they can come into our country. As a nation, we have traditionally had very open borders, which is something in which we take great pride. Unfortunately, people who wish to cause us harm, people who wish to kill Americans, people who wish to kill Americans by the thousands, and who have stated that their sole purpose in life is to kill Americans, have taken advantage of that openness. Certainly we saw on September 11 the situation that occurred. We have 100,000 miles of coastline, 2,000 miles of land border with Mexico, and 4,000 miles of land border with Canada. Last year, we had 127 million automobiles come across those borders, 11 million trucks, 2 million railcars, and 1 million commercial airplanes. More than 500 million people were admitted to the United States last year. You can see that our borders are aggressively used. There is great international commerce, which there should be, and we want to continue that. But one of the problems we have is that the agencies responsible for managing our borders have been disoriented, dysfunctional, spread about, and uncoordinated. We have seen some really horrendous instances of mismanagement. We have also seen instances that have occurred as a result of failure of communication. We have seen failures that have occurred as a result of turf fights between different agencies. We have seen agencies which have found their purpose to be unfocused in their execution of the protection of the borders. The most recent and startling and almost unbelievable example, of course, was the delivery of visas to a Florida flight school just this week for two people who committed the atrocities in New York. America is outraged. Clearly, the President was shocked. All of us were shocked that that would happen. That was a total example of an incredible breakdown in the systems which are managing our borders; that is, the INS. What I propose today is to try to get some coherence into this effort, to bring together the agencies which are responsible to protect our borders, to put them all under one management structure, and to create a new Cabinet-level Department, which would be called the ``Department of National Border Security.'' Under this Department, we would take the various agencies which have responsibility for managing our borders and protecting our Nation and put them into this Department so that they would be communicating with each other and have a streamlined management and command process-- something which they do not have today. Included in this Department would be, for example, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, large elements of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, including, of course, Border Patrol, and elements of the DEA which have responsibility for border security in the area of drugs, and the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program, which obviously controls food that comes into the country. The result of putting all these groups together in one management structure will be that there will be, hopefully, a coordinated approach to managing our borders. It doesn't guarantee it. But it is very clear that the system we have today, because of the lack of coordination, because of the overlapping authority, because of the turf issues, and because of the lack of centralized directional command is not working. I happen to be ranking on a committee which has specific jurisdiction over funding for the Justice Department and the State Department and which has a large percentage of responsibility for our border activities, especially the INS. I can tell you from my own experience as the ranking member, and formerly as chairman, of that Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary of the Appropriations Committee, that unless we get these parties together functioning under one umbrella of leadership, we are simply not going to get our borders under control. Is this the full answer to the problem--the reorganizing of these Departments? Absolutely not. There also has to be the intention on the part of the parties who are serving these Departments to accomplish the goal. There has to be leadership on the part of the administration to accomplish the goal of border security and making it more efficient. But as a practical matter, without this first step I personally do not think we are ever going to get the type of coordination that is required in order for leadership in this area to be effective. What we have today in this arena is that these various Departments are spread across the Government. On top of it, we have each reporting to a separate Department Secretary. On top of that, we have the Homeland Security Director, of course. Overseeing all of it, we have the President. As a result, even though everybody wants to go in the same direction, it is like six or seven horses pulling in opposite directions. By bringing them all under the same tent, we will have a centralized activity. We should not, for example, be housing the Customs Service in one building, the Border Patrol in another building, the DEA in another building, and have them not generally communicating with each other at a border crossing point; or have the resources of one agency be in surplus at one border crossing point while the resources of another agency are strapped at the same crossing point and not having them be able to work together to try to more effectively manage those resources so that we get the most efficient use out of the people, the parties, and the items involved. All of that problem which exists today with tremendous dysfunctionalism between these various agencies as they try to relate to each other, all of that problem is a function of the fact that they all report up separate stovepipes, and the only generally coordinating event that occurs comes from the President and the new Homeland Security Director. But that person, Governor Ridge, has no legislative authority and no budget authority. Therefore, as a practical matter, other than having the good will of the President behind him, he does not have a whole lot of authority. So when you have one Department over here--let's say, Treasury, with Customs--and one Department over here--let's say, INS, with the Border Patrol, and Justice heading that Department up--you tend to have people who are functioning independent of each other, who, although they may have the good intentions to communicate with each other, really do not and do not work effectively as a result of that. We do not get the best responsiveness. So it is just logic, it is just good governance, and, for that matter, good management--which I recognize maybe is anathema to government--that all the people who are responsible for one function of the Government, which is protecting our borders, be functioning under the same leadership structure and, therefore, reading off of the same page. That is what this new Department will create. This new Cabinet level Department will set up a structure where everybody who is responsible for the border will report to a single Cabinet leader and, as a result, will be functioning off the same page relative to the way the border is managed. Hopefully, then we will be getting the most efficient and effective use of those people who are making a genuinely good effort today but a lot of which is involving just the spinning of wheels because of the lack of coordination. Then we will get coordination into that good effort and, as a result, get better border protection. This is a thought which is not necessarily original to me. However, it is obvious to me. As the ranking member and former chairman of the committee which has jurisdiction over a chunk of this area of responsibility, it is something I believe we need to do. I believe there are other groups who have looked at the border who have agreed with this approach. The Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, which essentially was Governor Gilmore's commission, came to the same conclusion: that there had to be a better centralization. They did not do it in the terms of forming a new Department, but they came to the same substantive conclusion that there had to be a better coordination, collection, and organization of the information coming into the country and of the tracking of people coming into the country. The Hart-Rudman Commission, Roadmap to National Security, Imperative for Change, which reported on February 15, came to the exact conclusion that I am proposing in the bill: Steps must be taken to strengthen the three individual organizations themselves. They were talking here about Customs, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard. We recommend the creation of an independent Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. Government activities involving homeland security. This does not go completely to that point, but it goes a long way in the area of border activity in that it creates a Centralized Border Center. They also suggested that that group, which they called the Homeland Security Agency, should include the Coast Guard, the Customs, the Border Patrol, and it should have Cabinet level operational effect. Even the White House has acknowledged there is a lack of coordination in this area. It was interesting, in relation to that, Governor Ridge made the statement: If you asked me today who is responsible for the border, I would say to you, in response, what part of the border? The borders remain disturbingly vulnerable to terrorism. There is no direct line of accountability for agencies charged with protecting them. So I think Governor Ridge clearly sees the problem as I see it, which is that we do not have a coordinated central management point for all border crossing activity. It makes no sense to have Customs in Treasury, INS in Justice and DEA in Justice, and the Coast Guard over in Transportation with no coordinated central management point for all border crossing activity. When these agencies serve to protect the border as their primary responsibility, and with the threat of terrorism that we confront today, they should clearly be together managing the issue of protecting our border as a coordinated unit under a Cabinet level Secretary. That is what the legislation which I am introducing today does.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation which tries to address one of the oppressive problems we have in confronting the issues of terrorism in our country as we move forward; that is, checking our borders and making sure we have control over the people who are coming into our country and how they can come into our country. As a nation, we have traditionally had very open borders, which is something in which we take great pride. Unfortunately, people who wish to cause us harm, people who wish to kill Americans, people who wish to kill Americans by the thousands, and who have stated that their sole purpose in life is to kill Americans, have taken advantage of that openness. Certainly we saw on September 11 the situation that occurred. We have 100,000 miles of coastline, 2,000 miles of land border with Mexico, and 4,000 miles of land border with Canada. Last year, we had 127 million automobiles come across those borders, 11 million trucks, 2 million railcars, and 1 million commercial airplanes. More than 500 million people were admitted to the United States last year. You can see that our borders are aggressively used. There is great international commerce, which there should be, and we want to continue that. But one of the problems we have is that the agencies responsible for managing our borders have been disoriented, dysfunctional, spread about, and uncoordinated. We have seen some really horrendous instances of mismanagement. We have also seen instances that have occurred as a result of failure of communication. We have seen failures that have occurred as a result of turf fights between different agencies. We have seen agencies which have found their purpose to be unfocused in their execution of the protection of the borders. The most recent and startling and almost unbelievable example, of course, was the delivery of visas to a Florida flight school just this week for two people who committed the atrocities in New York. America is outraged. Clearly, the President was shocked. All of us were shocked that that would happen. That was a total example of an incredible breakdown in the systems which are managing our borders; that is, the INS. What I propose today is to try to get some coherence into this effort, to bring together the agencies which are responsible to protect our borders, to put them all under one management structure, and to create a new Cabinet-level Department, which would be called the ``Department of National Border Security.'' Under this Department, we would take the various agencies which have responsibility for managing our borders and protecting our Nation and put them into this Department so that they would be communicating with each other and have a streamlined management and command process-- something which they do not have today. Included in this Department would be, for example, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, large elements of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, including, of course, Border Patrol, and elements of the DEA which have responsibility for border security in the area of drugs, and the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program, which obviously controls food that comes into the country. The result of putting all these groups together in one management structure will be that there will be, hopefully, a coordinated approach to managing our borders. It doesn't guarantee it. But it is very clear that the system we have today, because of the lack of coordination, because of the overlapping authority, because of the turf issues, and because of the lack of centralized directional command is not working. I happen to be ranking on a committee which has specific jurisdiction over funding for the Justice Department and the State Department and which has a large percentage of responsibility for our border activities, especially the INS. I can tell you from my own experience as the ranking member, and formerly as chairman, of that Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary of the Appropriations Committee, that unless we get these parties together functioning under one umbrella of leadership, we are simply not going to get our borders under control. Is this the full answer to the problem--the reorganizing of these Departments? Absolutely not. There also has to be the intention on the part of the parties who are serving these Departments to accomplish the goal. There has to be leadership on the part of the administration to accomplish the goal of border security and making it more efficient. But as a practical matter, without this first step I personally do not think we are ever going to get the type of coordination that is required in order for leadership in this area to be effective. What we have today in this arena is that these various Departments are spread across the Government. On top of it, we have each reporting to a separate Department Secretary. On top of that, we have the Homeland Security Director, of course. Overseeing all of it, we have the President. As a result, even though everybody wants to go in the same direction, it is like six or seven horses pulling in opposite directions. By bringing them all under the same tent, we will have a centralized activity. We should not, for example, be housing the Customs Service in one building, the Border Patrol in another building, the DEA in another building, and have them not generally communicating with each other at a border crossing point; or have the resources of one agency be in surplus at one border crossing point while the resources of another agency are strapped at the same crossing point and not having them be able to work together to try to more effectively manage those resources so that we get the most efficient use out of the people, the parties, and the items involved. All of that problem which exists today with tremendous dysfunctionalism between these various agencies as they try to relate to each other, all of that problem is a function of the fact that they all report up separate stovepipes, and the only generally coordinating event that occurs comes from the President and the new Homeland Security Director. But that person, Governor Ridge, has no legislative authority and no budget authority. Therefore, as a practical matter, other than having the good will of the President behind him, he does not have a whole lot of authority. So when you have one Department over here--let's say, Treasury, with Customs--and one Department over here--let's say, INS, with the Border Patrol, and Justice heading that Department up--you tend to have people who are functioning independent of each other, who, although they may have the good intentions to communicate with each other, really do not and do not work effectively as a result of that. We do not get the best responsiveness. So it is just logic, it is just good governance, and, for that matter, good management--which I recognize maybe is anathema to government--that all the people who are responsible for one function of the Government, which is protecting our borders, be functioning under the same leadership structure and, therefore, reading off of the same page. That is what this new Department will create. This new Cabinet level Department will set up a structure where everybody who is responsible for the border will report to a single Cabinet leader and, as a result, will be functioning off the same page relative to the way the border is managed. Hopefully, then we will be getting the most efficient and effective use of those people who are making a genuinely good effort today but a lot of which is involving just the spinning of wheels because of the lack of coordination. Then we will get coordination into that good effort and, as a result, get better border protection. This is a thought which is not necessarily original to me. However, it is obvious to me. As the ranking member and former chairman of the committee which has jurisdiction over a chunk of this area of responsibility, it is something I believe we need to do. I believe there are other groups who have looked at the border who have agreed with this approach. The Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, which essentially was Governor Gilmore's commission, came to the same conclusion: that there had to be a better centralization. They did not do it in the terms of forming a new Department, but they came to the same substantive conclusion that there had to be a better coordination, collection, and organization of the information coming into the country and of the tracking of people coming into the country. The Hart-Rudman Commission, Roadmap to National Security, Imperative for Change, which reported on February 15, came to the exact conclusion that I am proposing in the bill: Steps must be taken to strengthen the three individual organizations themselves. They were talking here about Customs, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard. We recommend the creation of an independent Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. Government activities involving homeland security. This does not go completely to that point, but it goes a long way in the area of border activity in that it creates a Centralized Border Center. They also suggested that that group, which they called the Homeland Security Agency, should include the Coast Guard, the Customs, the Border Patrol, and it should have Cabinet level operational effect. Even the White House has acknowledged there is a lack of coordination in this area. It was interesting, in relation to that, Governor Ridge made the statement: If you asked me today who is responsible for the border, I would say to you, in response, what part of the border? The borders remain disturbingly vulnerable to terrorism. There is no direct line of accountability for agencies charged with protecting them. So I think Governor Ridge clearly sees the problem as I see it, which is that we do not have a coordinated central management point for all border crossing activity. It makes no sense to have Customs in Treasury, INS in Justice and DEA in Justice, and the Coast Guard over in Transportation with no coordinated central management point for all border crossing activity. When these agencies serve to protect the border as their primary responsibility, and with the threat of terrorism that we confront today, they should clearly be together managing the issue of protecting our border as a coordinated unit under a Cabinet level Secretary. That is what the legislation which I am introducing today does.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the spectacular collapse of the Enron Corporation has broken lives, shattered dreams and shaken confidence in our financial markets and in several professions. From what we know so far, it appears that the fall of Enron involves malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of very many people. There may ultimately be criminal prosecutions, civil fines, and partial restitution. It may take years to sort out all of the problems and for Congress to enact appropriate solutions. Although the Enron investigations and lawsuits are ongoing, we have learned several lessons in the area of employee retirement security that can be addressed swiftly and responsibly. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Tim Hutchinson and Trent Lott in introducing the Pension Security Act of 2002. This legislation creates important new protections and rights for working Americans that give them the tools to enhance their own retirement planning and security. The measure includes new safeguards and options to help workers preserve and enhance their retirement security, and insists on greater accountability from companies and senior corporate executives during ``blackout'' periods when rank-and-file workers are unable to make changes to their retirement accounts. Under the Pension Security Act, workers would have more freedom to diversify their investments, much greater access to high quality investment advice, advance notice before blackout periods, more information about their pensions, and other tools they can use to maximize the potential of their 401(k) plans and ensure a secure retirement future. The bill also clarifies that employers have a fiduciary responsibility for the security of workers' investments during ``blackout'' periods and bars senior corporate executives from selling their own stock at times when rank-and-file workers cannot make changes to their 401(k) accounts. The bill strikes an important balance between preserving employee free choice and opportunity in the voluntary retirement savings system and protecting individuals from the wrongful acts of others. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to join with us in enacting these important reforms.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to speak about an issue that I have spoken about a number of times on the floor in my term of office, and that is the issue of Social Security and how we reform it and how we make it solvent. I would make it a system that continues to support our senior citizens as they retire. And more importantly, it addresses--or equally importantly, it addresses the needs of the next generation, a very large generation, as it heads into retirement and does so in a solvent way, a way that doesn't bankrupt either our Nation or leave our senior citizens without adequate resources to live a good life once they retire. I was extraordinarily disappointed, extraordinarily disappointed, to read an article in the Washington Post which was picked up, I guess, in a variety of different ways by different news sources, so it was not unique to the Post's view. It was entitled ``Democrats View Social Security as Election Issue'' and it went on to talk about a letter that had been sent jointly by the minority leader of the House, Congressman Gephardt, and the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Daschle, which essentially raised the red shirt of Social Security, and basically laid out a political agenda versus a substantive issue for correcting the problems which we face in Social Security. It is extraordinarily ironic but unfortunately consistent with the policies of some Members of the other side of the aisle that they would use Social Security as a political club for the purposes of attacking Members of my side of the aisle. This is now unique. It is not new. In fact, when I served in the House of Representatives, I had the good fortune to serve under a very strong leader of the House, Congressman ``Tip'' O'Neill from Massachusetts, and I got to know him personally while we didn't necessarily agree on everything. But I got to know him very well, and he was from neighboring states. I once asked what was going to be the issues that we would hear about as Republicans running in the next election. I think this was in 1986, 1985. And he told me, we were going to hear about three issues from his folks. No. 1, we were going to hear about Social Security. No. 2, we were going to hear about Social Security. And No. 3, we were going to hear about Social Security. And, unfortunately, that's the way it proceeded. But that's not constructive to resolving the issue of Social Security. In this Congress, in the Senate especially, we have had a number of people who have attempted from both sides of the aisle to be positive and constructive forces on resolving issues of Social Security, but politicizing it certainly doesn't accomplish that. In fact, the recent commission which it appears this letter was built around as a purpose of attack, was headed by the former Senator from this body, Senator Moynihan, who was an extremely positive force for good governing in this country. I again didn't always agree with Senator Moynihan but I admired him as a Senator and as a thoughtful person on public policy. The commission which was headed by Senator Moynihan appears--and which put forward a series of proposals as to how we could address the Social Security issue--appears to be the focal point which is going to be used to try to leapfrog into an issue of politics on the question of Social Security. This is unfortunate because that commission attempted in a sincere and aggressive way to be a positive force for a discussion on the issue of how to make Social Security solvent. Let's return to the fundamental underlying problems involved in the Social Security debate, and how we address them. To begin with, there is the question of the Social Security trust fund. It is a concept which has been created over the years, under which citizens who pay into Social Security have a right to put a claim against. As a practical matter, there is no trust fund. We all know that. What senior citizens have in our country is a right to claim on younger citizens, working citizens of our country the right to a certain amount of their tax dollars to support them, the senior citizens in retirement. That is the basic agreement that has been reached under the terms of Social Security. What you pay into the Social Security system has absolutely no relationship to what you get out of the Social Security system in the long run. For example, if you were a senior citizen today who retired in the mid-1960s or late 1970s, or late 1960s or late 1970s or even into the 1980s, you essentially paid into the system only a fraction, a fraction of what you have received back from the system in the form of benefits. Ironically, if you happen to be a young person working today, say you're in your 20s, especially if you're an African American, what you are going to pay into the system for what you're going to get back from the system is going to be more, actually more in the terms of taxes than what you will receive in benefits. So it really doesn't depend on how much you paid into the system as to what you received in the system. It depends more on when you were born and when you started contributing to the system and when you retire. And that's why the system rather than being a fully funded system, essentially is a system which says to one generation, you shall support the older generation. To put it another way, rather than owning assets, what the Social Security system owes is the right to raise and take taxes from working Americans. And to use those taxes to pay for the benefits of people who are retired. That is what the Social Security system essentially owns. Throughout the 1990s and even today or most of the 1990s, beginning the early part of the 1990s, the Social Security system began taking in a lot more money than it was paying out. So you might say, well, where did that money go? Isn't that money sitting there as an asset which a senior citizen down the road can take advantage of? Actually, no, it is not. Where that money went was to operate the Federal Government. For years the Social Security excess payments were used to pay for the day- to-day operation of the government. And in exchange for that, the Social Security system received a note, a debt from the Federal Government. What did that mean? That debt essentially meant that when the Social Security system needed money, they could come to the General Treasury or the taxpayers of America, and say, pay us on this note. But when the notes weren't there during that period from about 1975 to about 1987 when the Social Security system was running a deficit--in other words, it was taking in less money in taxes than it was paying out--during that period when the Social Security system had no notes to theoretically repossess or reclaim or get back, the benefit payments continued to be made. And it was tied not to the fact that there was a note but it was tied to the fact that the American public believed that there was a standard of living and a standard of benefit which should be maintained for people who are retired. And so the younger generation paid additional taxes to support the older generation. And now, of course, we are, as I mentioned, in a period of surplus, so there is enough money there to pay the older generation the benefits it needs. But beginning--and this is where the problem starts--in the year 2008 when the baby-boom generation starts to retire and accelerate rather dramatically as the full baby-boom generation retires by the year 2015, we will see the actual cash flow into the Social Security system not meeting the demands of the system. In other words, we have a higher cost for benefits than we have payments coming in under the Social Security taxes. And so once again we will be in a situation as we were in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s where the American worker, younger Americans will be asked to pay additional taxes in order to support people who have retired in order to maintain their benefit level. This will be a significant issue for us as a country. And this is the issue that the Moynihan Commission tried to address, the fact that beginning in the year 2008, we will be back into a negative cash flow from a standpoint of Social Security taxes, and we have got to do something in order to maintain the benefits to senior citizens and give them and assure them the promise that we have made to them. And the Moynihan Commission pointed out that this is not going to be like the 1970 and 1980 period. This is going to be a much more severe stress on the system because ironically, the size of the retiring generation will be the largest in the history of our country. To try to put it in perspective, in 1940, there were 100 people paying into the system to support one retiree. In 1950, there were 16 people working and paying taxes into the system for every person who was retired and taking benefits out of it. By 1990, we were down to 3.5 people paying into the system. For every one person taking out. So we have gone to a pyramid to almost a rectangle. Well, by the year 2020, between 2015 and 2020, we're essentially going to be at a rectangle. There are only going to be two people paying into the system for every one person taking out because this huge population boom that came after the end of World War II, the post-war baby boom of which I am a member, President Clinton is a member. This generation is so large that it simply is overwhelming the system. The point that the Moynihan Commission was trying to make is we have got to start planning for this. As a government and as a culture or we are going to suffer an extremely severe situation. And so they put forward three or four fairly reasonable proposals dealing with a very narrow part of the resolution of the problem. Specifically, whether or not today when we are running a surplus in the system--in other words, when people are paying in more taxes than are necessary to support the benefits, should those taxes be used to support the general government, or should we allow people to keep some small percentage of the taxes they are paying in today and allow them to take that money and put it into some investment vehicle which would be controlled by the Social Security Administration. It would be much like the--what we as government employees have, a Federal thrift savings plan. It would be a market basket of some sort of securities, very risk averse securities, securities that don't have a lot of risk. You would have three or four or maybe five choices. Allow people to take a small percentage of their Social Security tax which they are paying in today which is not being used to support the Social Security benefit but is instead being used today to operate the general government and take that small percentage, 2 percent in most cases is what has been talked about out after 12.5 percent tax burden, take that small percentage and put it into an asset which you, the wage earner, the working American, would actually own. It would be yours. You wouldn't have to depend on the Federal Government, the largess of the Federal Government to exist; you wouldn't have to depend on the goodness of a bunch of folks here in the Senate to exist. It would physically be your money. And if you happen to die before you reached age 59 or 60, that would go to your children, or to your family or to whoever else you wanted it to go to. Under today's law, of course, if you happen to work all your life and you have the misfortune of getting hit by a truck when you are 59, you get absolutely nothing out of the Social Security system and your wife gets very little on top of that. This would allow you to actually own that asset. It would allow all Americans to actually realize wealth because every American would have a savings account with real assets in it that could be used for their retirement. But what does the rear of the other side of the aisle do? When a very responsible former Senator of this body puts out talking points, simply talking points as part of a commission resolution for how we might address one small part of what is going to be the most severe fiscal and cultural issue we face as a country, particularly as we head into the next decade? They start waving the red shirt. They start accusing everybody of trying to steal from senior citizens or trying to manipulate the system to wipe out the benefits of senior citizens. They start scaring people. How totally irresponsible can you be? And then they say this is going to be their policy as a party. They say the Democrats have used Social Security as the election issue. Well, we probably should debate Social Security as an election issue. We ought to debate it responsibly. We ought to talk about ideas like those that Senator Moynihan has proposed, like Senator Bob Kerrey proposed from the other side of the aisle, like Senator Breaux has proposed from the other side of the aisle, like former Senator Robb proposed on the other side of the aisle. Those are the exact same ideas that Senator Moynihan proposed and yet when Senator Moynihan's commission proposes them, they suddenly become an issue of partisan nature that should be driven as a political issue and we will once again see those envelopes come out that are made to look like Social Security checks which say urgent, open quickly, and when you open them, there will be a form from the Democratic National Committee telling us, you are about to lose you Social Security because the evil President and his commission headed up by Senator Pat Moynihan--they may not mention that--has suggested that a percentage of the money that is being paid today, not by you the recipient but by workers which is not only for you, the recipient to get your benefits but is also important for those workers to get theirs when they retire, and that a percentage might be used as a savings account owned by individuals in America, owned by the people who are paying excess taxes and Social Security today. We will get those letters. And you will get the phone calls at dinner time saying your Social Security is going to be lost if you're a senior citizen. And once again, we will have an approach to Social Security which does absolutely nothing to address this critical public policy question but does a great deal to poison the well so that it can't be addressed constructively. This is such a crucial issue of public policy. It is absolutely inexcusable that it is being promoted and addressed in such a smear manner--cavalier manner. Listen to this language. The dangers of Social Security privatization has been tragically illustrated in recent months by the fate of the Enron employees who lost their savings when Enron collapsed. How outrageously demagogic can you be to make that type of a statement as an attack on the Moynihan proposal? The Moynihan proposal didn't suggest investing in a single company. Just the opposite in fact. It suggested that a basket be used, a basket which would be under the supervision most likely of the Social Security Administration. But because Enron has become the classic poster boy and appropriately so for fraudulent activity in the marketplace, there is an attempt here to merge the issue of Social Security and making it solvent for the next generation with Enron. Pure despicable, political demagoguery which makes one wonder if there is anybody in the leadership of the Democratic Party, at the National Committee or in the Congress who actually wants to solve the problem. I suspect there are very few. It appears most of the Senators on that side who did want to solve the problem have decided to leave the Senate, unfortunately, and nobody has stepped forward other than Senator Breaux, to pick up the flag. But what is very clear is that a number have stepped forward to pick up the flag of Tip O'Neill and the National Democratic Party, as they try to polarize the American public on this issue. At the expense of a resolution of the issue, and one wonders what we're going to say to senior citizens who retire in the years 2015 and 2017, when we will be in a crisis. One wonders what we are going to say to our children who are working today and are coming into the working place and will have to have their taxes increased radically in order to meet the obligations of Social Security. One wonders what you're going to say to the person, especially the African-American who's in their 20s today, who has a likelihood that they will get less back from Social Security than what they paid into it. What are you going to say to the person coming into the work place who will have essentially no assets when they retire? Senator Moynihan and his commission has suggested you say to them, let them start to build a nest egg that is in addition to the Social Security benefit, a guaranteed Social Security benefit. But even as moderate a proposal as that, which was not even put out in the form of legislative language, is attacked in the most flagrantly partisan manner by the leadership of the House and the Senate. It is going to be hard to make substantive progress on the issue of Social Security if this is going to be the reaction of Senator Daschle and Congressman Gephardt.

Mr. GREGG. I seek recognition under morning business.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Certainly.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the stimulus bill and address one of the issues I hope we will be able to address as we move forward on this bill. I recognize the parties are trying to reach an agreement on a package which is acceptable to both sides and which is bipartisan. In that effort, the majority leader has put forward a bill. Unfortunately, a large section of this bill, 25 to 30 percent, is new language which has not been agreed to by both sides, and there are serious reservations on our side about it. There are initiatives within the bill which are agreed to, however, such as extending the unemployment compensation. In addition, there are other ideas that were agreed to, we believe, that could be added to this bill. That has been highlighted by many of the speakers. I note one idea that I think we should consider because it is bipartisan--and there does seem to be some general agreement for it, and it is a win-win issue for us from the standpoint of public policy-- and that is the need to reduce the capital gains rate. We are talking about economic stimulus. We are talking about creating jobs. We are talking about increasing productivity so our economy starts to move a little more aggressively. Probably nothing can be more of a positive factor for that than to make capital more readily available for people to invest and, as a result of investing, create jobs. The result of an expansion of capital activity is the creation of jobs. One of the most effective ways to create more capital in the marketplace and make more resources available is to make the cost of capital less, and that is what a cut in the capital gains tax accomplishes. A cut in the capital gains tax was proposed when we addressed the tax bill last year. At that time when I made that proposal, it failed on a very close vote, 47 to 51, with two people not voting. Interestingly enough, it was a bipartisan vote in favor of cutting the capital gains rate. Why was that? Because the amendment I proposed at that time had a sunset to it. It was a 2-year proposal which reduced the rate from 20 percent to 15 percent, but only for 2 years so it would not have a negative long-term impact on the budget. In fact, by sunsetting it after the 2-year period, we will actually have a positive cashflow situation. Why is that? If we generate the capital gains activity from assets which are locked up, which are not being used--for example, if somebody has owned stock for 10 years, 5 years, or even 2 years but they are not going to sell that stock because they think the capital gains tax on it will be too high, if we can do something which causes that person to sell that stock, then we create a taxable event. We have proved throughout history in our country that every time we cut the capital gains rate, it generates a lot of economic activity. A lot of people sell assets, which are capital assets, in order to take advantage of that lower rate, assets which they would not have otherwise sold. What happens as a result is that we create more taxable events. And what happens as a result of that is the Treasury gets more money. So in any reasonable scoring of the capital gains issue, a capital gains tax cut actually generates more money to the Federal Government in the way of revenues than if we do not do anything in the early years. In the outyears, we lose money. If we sunset a capital gains tax cut after 2 years, the practical effect is that we get the good side. We get the new revenues, added revenue activity without the outyear activity of reduced revenues. As a practical matter, a capital gains tax cut which has a 2-year sunset attached to it, as did my amendment when I offered it last year, is basically a window of opportunity for people to free up assets which are presently locked down, take the money from those assets, pay taxes, and, as a result, add more money to the Treasury and then take that money and reinvest it in something which will arguably be a more efficient use of those dollars. By doing that, it creates more capital in the marketplace which in turn creates more economic activity which in turn creates more jobs. The practical effect of a capital gains tax cut which has a sunset attached to it is that it is a win-win event for us from the standpoint of public policy in that, one, it generates more revenues during a time when we are heading toward a deficit and those revenues will assist us in alleviating that deficit and, two, it generates more economic activity, more efficient use of capital and, as a result, it generates more jobs. As we move down the road of debating this issue of economic stimulus and we are looking for bipartisan concepts which makes sense, I suggest we take a hard look at the capital gains tax cut which I proposed during the prior process. During that process, as I said, the amendment was offered. It failed on a narrow vote. I think some people voted against it because they were committed to this package or that package, not because they did not think capital gains reduction, especially when it was sunsetted, was a bad idea. I note that the people who voted for it--it was a significant bipartisan vote in the context of tax matters. As a practical matter, as we move down this path to a stimulus package, I hope we revisit this issue of cutting the capital gains tax rate for 2 years from 20 to 15 percent and, as a result, generate more revenues for the Treasury, create more economic activity, create more efficient use of capital, and in the end the biggest plus will be that we will be creating more jobs. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the minority leader's concerns with Police Corps. I have been told that OMB and the Department of Justice have rectified this situation. Both organizations have agreed that any funds available for Police Corps in fiscal year 2002 and unexpended balances from prior fiscal years will be made available for new programs if currently eligible participants have not used the funding provided for their State.