May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7343 

What would the consequences be of 

opening up the Arctic plain to development? 

I would like to quote to you from a 

passage written by Peter Matthiessen 

in his forward to the Natural Resources 

Defense Council report Tracking Arctic 

Oil: 

Today the oil companies have set their 

sights on the last undeveloped lands to the 

eastward, pressuring Congress for permission 

to exploit the 125 mile-long coastal plain of 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the very 

last protected stretch of our arctic coastline, 

where polar bears still hunt over the ice and 

come ashore, where a mighty herd of 180,000 

caribou, with its attendant wolves, migrates 

each year from Canada to give birth to its 

young. . . . The danger posed by destructive 

and inefficient drilling in the Arctic with irremediable loss to wilderness and wildlife, is 

not an Alaskan problem. It is a national 

problem, a world problem. 

Mr. President, the first step toward 

victory for those hungry oil companies 

occurred last week in the Senate, with 

the passage of a bill that would lift the 

ban on the export of Alaska North 

Slope Oil. 

The lifting of the ban goes against all 

the principles on which Congress based 

its controversial and expensive decision to construct the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline. 

Today, we face step two: a budget 

resolution that assumes 2.3 billion dollars in revenue from oil exploration 

and development leases along the pristine coastal plane of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Republicans in the budget committee 

say that they are ‘‘only leasing 8 percent of the 19 million acres of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge’’, and that ‘‘The development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only affect 13,000 

acres’’. 

Those 13,000 acres are on the last 

pristine arctic coastal plain—and are 

part of the original wildlife range established by President Eisenhower in 

1960. Those 13,000 acres are in an area 

that the House of Representatives has 

twice voted to designate as wilderness 

in order to give it permanent protection from any development. 

The fact is, Mr. President, that what 

we are talking about here is turning 

the only remaining protected stretch of 

our arctic coastline into an immense 

industrial desert. 

Mr. President, leadership is about 

finding long term solutions to problems—not temporary solutions. 

The proposal to open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge demonstrates 

lack of long term vision and a lack of 

leadership—I firmly believe this is not 

where the citizens of this Nation want 

to go. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question now occurs on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the Senator 

from Delaware. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

Roth amendment would reduce the instructions to the Energy Committee by 

$2.3 billion over 7 years and offset that 

reduction by increasing revenues $2.3 

billion over the same period of time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator assumes 

this would be ANWR. I add that to my 

explanation. 

Mr. President, I move to table the 

amendment and I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to table. 

The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 56, 

nays 44, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.] 

YEAS—56 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Ford 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—44 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Chafee 

Cohen 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Snowe 

Wellstone 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1150) was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

f 

ARCTIC OIL RESERVE 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

am glad to see that amendment offered 

by the Senator from Delaware to strike 

a major source of new Federal revenues 

from the budget resolution was rejected by my colleagues. This source of 

new revenue is $2.3 billion from competitive bonus bids from leasing the oil 

and gas resources of an area in the 

northeast part of my State. This is an 

issue that is important to my State 

and to our Nation. This vote to keep 

those funds in the budget resolution is 

a clear indication that my colleagues 

would like to see the revenues from the 

leasing of this area considered in context of the budget deficit reduction effort. 

Together with the other members of 

the Alaska delegation I opposed this 

amendment. The amendment was also 

opposed by the Inupiat Eskimo people 

who live on the North Slope; by the 

local government for this region, the 

North Slope Borough; by the Eskimoowned Arctic Slope Regional Corp.; by 

the State of Alaska; by our Governor 

Tony Knowles, and by an overwhelming majority of Alaskans. 

Mr. President, I want to review the 

history and the potentially huge benefits that opening the coastal plain to 

oil and gas leasing can provide to the 

Nation. 

In the 1980 Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act Congress withdrew more than 19 million acres in 

northeast Alaska, 8 million acres were 

designated wilderness and another 11 

million acres nonwilderness refuge 

lands. However, under section 1002 of 

that act Congress set aside about 1.5 

million acres to study for oil potential. 

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the oil and gas values and the fish 

and wildlife values of this area. 

In April 1987 the Department of the 

Interior released the legislative environmental impact statement and 

coastal plain report to the Congress. 

This led to the recommendation of 

the Secretary of the Interior to open 

the 1002 area to oil and gas leasing. Let 

me quote from the report: 

The 1002 area is the Nation’s best single opportunity to increase significantly domestic 

oil production. It is rated by geologists as 

the most outstanding petroleum exploration 

target in the onshore United States. Data 

from nearby wells in the Prudhoe Bay area 

and in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta, combined with promising seismic data gathered on the 1002 area, indicate 

extensions of producing trends and other 

geologic conditions exceptionally favorable 

for discovery of one or more supergiant fields 

(larger than 500 million barrels). 

There is a 19-percent chance that economically recoverable oil occurs in the 1002 area. 

The average of all estimates of conditional 

economically recoverable oil resources (the 

‘‘mean’’) is 3.2 billion barrels. Based on this 

estimate, 1002 area production by the year 

2005 could provide 4 percent of total U.S. demand; provide 8 percent of U.S. production 

(about 660,000 barrels/day); and reduce imports by nearly 9 percent. This production 

could provide net national economic benefits 

of $79.4 billion, including Federal revenues of 

$38.0 billion. 

The report continues: 

Discovery of 9.2 billion barrels of oil could 

yield production of more than 1.5 million 

barrels per day. Estimates of net national 

economic benefits based on 9.2 billion barrels 

of oil production, and other economic assumptions, are as high as $325 billion. 

On April 8, 1991, the Department of 

the Interior issued a formal update of 

the recoverable petroleum reserves 1987 

study and report. The major finding 

from the update was that the probability of economic success of finding 

commercial oil in the 1002 area was increased from 19 percent to 46 percent. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7344 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

Let me place this in context. The 

probability of finding oil in the lower 

48 States in an unexplored area is 

about 1 percent. As a result, 46 percent 

is unprecedented. 

Mr. President, let me quote from the 

1991 update: 

The 1991 update of recoverable petroleum 

resources in the 1987 Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, Alaska Coastal Plain Assessment, 

also known as the 1002 Report, makes a considerable contribution to the knowledge and 

understanding of the petroleum geology of 

the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Rufuge (ANWR). This study reaffirms most 

of the conclusions and estimates made in the 

1002 Report, and increases the level of confidence that ANWR is part of the North 

Slope oil province. This is demonstrated by 

the increase in the marginal probability of 

economic success from 19 percent in the 

original assessment to 46 percent in the current assessment. The increase in marginal 

probability means that ANWR has a higher 

potential for oil discovery. The overall Minimum Economic Field Size (MEFS) for the 

1002 area has been lowered from about 0.44 

billion barrels of oil (BBO) to about 0.40 BBO. 

The mean resource estimate has increased 

from 3.23 to 3.57 BBO.’’

Mr. President, since this 1991 update, 

a number of new wells have been 

drilled near the 1002 area. A large number discovered oil and gas. Some of 

these wells may be commercial oilfields. These discoveries reflect very favorably on the prospect that the coastal plain contains major reserves of oil 

and gas. 

As the reports quoted above make 

clear, the economic benefits of the 

coastal plains oil and gas reserves far 

exceed the $2.3 billion assumed in the 

pending budget resolution. The 1987 report notes that a discovery of 3.2 billion barrels of oil would produce net 

national economic benefits of $79.4 billion, including new Federal revenues of 

$38 billion. A discovery of 9.2 billion 

barrels would yield net national economic benefits of $325 billion and new 

Federal revenues of around $150 billion 

over the life of the oil fields. 

The Department of Energy and Wharton Econometrics have done independent studies which project that 

leasing the coastal plain could create 

250,000 to 732,000 new direct and indirect jobs in all 50 of our States. 

Mr. President, in addition to providing a major stimulus to the economy and creating new jobs, opening the 

1002 area will allow my State to continue to produce 25 percent or more of 

the Nation’s domestic oil for an additional 30 or 40 more years. This is very 

important because Prudhoe Bay is now 

in decline. Since 1990, oil production 

has fallen from 2 million barrels a day 

to 1.6 million barrels a day. Every barrel of oil produced in Alaska is a barrel 

the United States does not have to buy 

abroad. 

Senator Henry M. ‘‘Scoop’’ Jackson 

authored the Alaska Statehood Act 

and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Senator Jackson was 

a tough, no nonsense moderate Democrat. He was fair. He was accessible. He 

was informed. And he was balanced. 

Senator Jackson heard from all of the 

special interest groups, but he made 

his own decisions, based upon all of the 

facts and the interest of people and of 

the Nation. 

Jackson, along with the senior Senator from Alaska, authored the legislation to open Prudhoe Bay to oil production by authorizing the Trans Alaska Pipeline Act in 1973. In the face of 

major opposition from the national environmental organizations, this legislation was adopted. As a result, the Nation has enjoyed two decades of major 

economic benefits. 

Scoop also worked out the compromise that was reached which led to 

the study and report authorized in section 1002. The reason the 1.5 million 

acres was set aside was to consider the 

great oil potential in the area. Scoop 

included the provision of the national 

security concerns associated with our 

country being reliant on foreign oil. We 

are more reliant on foreign oil than 

ever before. We imported more than 50 

percent of our oil consumption for the 

first time in 1994. 

Mr. President, the opposition to 

opening the coastal plain to oil and gas 

leasing comes from the leaders of some 

of the Nation’s large environmental organizations. My view is that the leaders of these organizations are misguided and poorly informed. I suspect 

that their opposition has more to do 

with ‘‘fundraising’’ objectives than it 

does with ‘‘wilderness’’ values. 

The leaders of the environmental 

community have invested a great deal 

of time, effort, and money in the 

Gwich’in Indian steering committee. 

The steering committee is composed of 

some of the 400 Athabascan Indians 

who live in two villages on the Venetie 

Indian Reservation. The steering committee opposes opening the coastal 

plain. They are concerned that leasing 

and development might, in some unknown way, adversely impact the porcupine caribou herd. This herd of 

160,000 animals annually migrates between Canada and the United States. 

In some years, the herd uses the southern portion of the coastal plain for forage and calving. Last year, North Slope 

Eskimos and Athabascan Indians took 

about 380 caribou from this herd of 

160,000 animals for subsistence uses. 

I respect the right of the Gwich’in 

steering committee to oppose resource 

development in the coastal plain. It is 

a decision, however, which is contrary 

to experience at Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere in the Arctic. Caribou are very 

adaptable. At Prudhoe Bay, the central 

Arctic caribou herd is flourishing with 

oil development. Since oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay the central Arctic 

caribou herd has increased from 3,000 

to 23,000 animals. 

Further, the Gwich’in steering committees opposition to oil and gas leasing is a new development. In 1980 the 

Gwich’in people of Arctic village and 

Venetie villages leased all of the lands 

in their 1.7 million acre reservation to 

the Rouget Oil Co. of Tulsa, OK. This 

20-page oil and gas lease did not contain any meaningful provisions to protect the porcupine caribou herd. This 

herd migrates annually through or 

near the Venetie Reservation. Yet, the 

Gwich’in leased all of their lands for 

$1.8 million on the basis that oil exploration and oil development would not 

adversely impact the herds well-being. 

I believe this leasing decision by the 

Gwich’in was correct. It is supported 

by studies of caribou and oil industry 

experience elsewhere, including Alaska’s North Slope. 

In 1984, the Gwich’in people hired a 

consultant to lease their reservation 

lands a second time after the Rouget 

Oil Co. oil and gas lease expired. And 

again, no concerns were expressed by 

the Gwich’in about any adverse impact 

on caribou. 

The North Slope Inupiat Eskimo people are now asking for the same opportunity the Gwich’in had in the 1980’s. 

They regret and I regret that the oil 

company that Gwich’in leased their 

lands to did not discover major reserves of oil and gas on their lands. The 

North Slope Eskimo people want the 

same right to do as the Gwich’in did in 

1980. They want the right to explore 

the 92,000 acres of land they own at 

Kaktovik along with the surrounding 

Federal lands. And if these lands contain oil and gas in commercial 

amounts, they want the right to develop their land. 

Mr. President, I am glad to see that 

the amendment from my colleagues 

from Delaware was defeated. We now 

can proceed with consideration of responsible oil and gas exploration and 

development of the best prospect for a 

major oil find in North America. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1151

(Purpose: To restore funding for agriculture 

and nutrition programs) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. CONRAD, and Mr. 

WELLSTONE, proposes an amendment numbered 1151. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 74, strike lines 12 through 24 and 

insert the following: ‘‘budget, the revenue 

and spending aggregates may be revised and 

other appropriate budgetary aggregates and 

levels may be revised to reflect the additional deficit reduction achieved as calculated under subsection (c) for legislation 

that reduces revenues, and for legislation 

that will provide $15,000,000,000 in outlays to 

the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry for the purpose of restoring 

outlay reductions required of that committee pursuant to section 6 of this resolution. 

‘‘(b) REVISED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.—Upon the reporting of legislation 

pursuant to subsection (a), and again upon 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7345 

the submission of a conference report on 

such legislation (if a conference report is 

submitted), the Chair of the Committee on 

the Budget of the Senate may submit to the 

Senate appropriately revised allocations 

under sections 302(a) and 602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; budgetary aggregates; and levels under this resolution, revised by an amount that does not exceed the 

additional deficit reduction specified under 

subsection (d).’’. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator EXON’s amendment to restore $15 

billion in agricultural spending is a 

step in the right direction for rural 

America. It is a step in the right direction for the American families who depend on USDA nutrition programs. It 

stands in stark contrast to the Republican budget that takes these funds 

from rural America, not to reduce the 

deficit, but to fund tax breaks for some 

of the wealthiest Americans. 

The Exon amendment instead directs 

the $15 billion where it is most needed, 

to farmers who struggle each year to 

stay on the farm, to keep producing 

America’s food and fiber supply, and to 

families who strike a rough patch when 

there is job loss or other bad luck, people trying to put food on the table and 

keep their families together. 

The Republican budget, on the other 

hand, raids rural America to aid the 

comfortable. The Republican budget 

proposal would cut $45.9 billion out of 

the Agriculture Department over the 

next 7 years. That is likely to translate 

to around $12 billion in direct cuts to 

farm programs. It is a 20-percent cut in 

farm spending. It will contribute to the 

further deterioration of the economic 

and social fabric of rural America. No 

other sector of American life is being 

asked to absorb such a hit. We cannot 

have a prosperous Urban America 

riding on the back of an impoverished 

Farm America. Yet that’s what Republican budget cuts will produce. 

Farmers in South Dakota would see a 

devastating decline in their income of 

over $57 million. Other rural States 

will suffer similar pain. This budget is 

shortsighted for rural America and 

self-interested for the best off. It is not 

a balanced, fair proposal. It is not a 

budget that sustains the American tradition of building a strong farm sector, 

a tradition that has enjoyed bipartisan 

support until this Republican majority. 

Make no mistake, the agricultural 

community recognizes the enormity of 

the Federal budget and is committed to 

reducing it. Farmers are some of our 

most fiscally conservative citizens. But 

America’s producers—rightly—feel 

they should not be asked to bear a disproportionate share of spending reductions. 

They are right. America’s producers 

have already contributed their share. 

Long before the budget cutters turned 

to other programs to see where we 

could cut, farm producers over the last 

decade have already seen commodity 

program spending decline more than 60 

percent. Other parts of the Federal 

budget have expanded, while agriculture has consistently been cut back. 

Now we are cutting into live growth, 

not deadwood. If other Federal sending 

had been reduced at anything near the 

same rate as agricultural spending has 

been, we would have a budget surplus. 

In this context, to make farmers take 

another deep cut just to give the richest Americans a tax break adds insult 

to injury. 

Ideas have consequences and so do 

choices. If we choose to sacrifice a 

healthy farm sector to the momentary 

impulse to finance a tax cut, we will 

pay more down the road. We cannot 

disinvest and disinvest and disinvest in 

rural America, channeling support to 

virtually every other sector, without 

finally paying the price. The fact is, 

these cuts could easily cost us more 

than they save. Barely 10 years ago, in 

the mid-1980’s, we learned the price of 

misguided and mistaken policies that 

starved rural America. We paid billions 

to repair the damage done by shortsighted farm policies, unforeseen 

weather patterns and changing economic conditions. There were more 

farm and rural business foreclosures 

and bankruptcies than at any time 

since the Great Depression. 

Right now, producers in South Dakota and across the Midwest are suffering from unseasonably wet weather 

and destructive flooding. They cannot 

get their crops in the ground. So they 

will be struggling to make it through 

this difficult year even with the current level of farm spending. With the 

cuts in the Republican budget proposal, 

net income will plummet, and land 

prices will fall again. Another bad year 

could push many producers over the 

edge into insolvency. 

We can and should do more to 

streamline agricultural programs, both 

to make them farmer friendly and to 

curb costs. But there is a difference in 

curbing costs and what this budget proposal does. This budget imposes a 

straightjacket on Congress as we are 

trying to write a better, more responsive and more flexible farm bill. This 

budget will prevent reasonable reform, 

not promote it. It is exactly the wrong 

way to go. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment, using a $170 billion bonus 

surplus, gives $15 billion to the Agriculture Committee. The rest can still 

be used for tax cuts. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Are we ready to 

vote? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are 

ready to vote. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

pending amendment is not germane to 

the provisions of the budget resolution. 

Pursuant to section 305 of the Budget 

Act, I raise the point of order against 

the pending amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, pursuant 

to section 904 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive 

section 305(b) of that act for consideration of the pending amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas 

and nays are ordered on the amendment. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays on the motion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO WAIVE THE BUDGET ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on the motion to waive the 

Budget Act. 

The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 31, 

nays 69, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.] 

YEAS—31 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Bingaman 

Breaux 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kohl 

Leahy 

Moseley-Braun 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pryor 

Robb 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NAYS—69 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Brown 

Bryan 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerry 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 31, the nays are 69. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the 

affirmative, the motion is rejected, and 

the Chair sustains the point of order. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the motion was rejected. 

Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1152

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate 

regarding reimbursement to the States for 

the costs of implementing the National 

Voter Registration Act of 1993 under budget function 800) 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

send an amendment to the desk and 

ask for its immediate consideration. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. COVERDELL] 

proposes an amendment numbered 1152. 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that reading of 

the amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 

COSTS OF THE NATIONAL VOTER 

REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993. 

It is the sense of the Senate that within 

the assumptions under budget function 800 

funds will be spent for reimbursement to the 

States for the costs of implementing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

Coverdell amendment is a sense-of-theSenate resolution stating that the 

funds within this resolution should be 

spent for reimbursement to States for 

motor-voter mandates. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the 

lead Republican sponsor of the National Voter Registration Act, I was 

very interested in a recent New York 

Times article reporting on the progress 

of voter registration since the bill’s 

implementation in January of this 

year. Over 2 million new voters have 

been registered in the first quarter of 

1995 and the National Motor-Voter Coalition estimates that approximately 20 

million new voters will be registered 

by the 1996 Presidential election. 

It is very gratifying to hear that this 

important program is being implemented successfully and that the results are exceeding our expectations. I 

realize there are concerns about this 

law being a burden to the States and 

its financial impact on them. However, 

I would remind my colleagues that 

many innovative States, including Oregon, led the way for the Federal Government by adopting State motorvoter laws and supported a national 

law. Additionally, according to the 

Congressional Budget Office study on 

the implementation costs of motorvoter, the aggregate costs for States 

would be 20 to 25 million annually for 5 

years. Mr. President, this does not 

meet the requirements of the Federal 

unfunded mandate legislation passed 

earlier this year by the Senate—which 

I supported. 

It is our obligation as policy-makers 

to protect the voting process and, at 

the same time, to make it accessible. 

The motor-voter law effectively 

achieves both of these important responsibilities and, therefore, I voted 

against the Coverdell amendment to 

the budget resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia. On 

this question, the yeas and nays have 

been ordered, and the clerk will call 

the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 51, 

nays 49, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.] 

YEAS—51 

Abraham 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—49 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Chafee 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

So the amendment (No. 1152) was 

agreed to. 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1153

(Purpose: To maintain public funding for 

Presidential campaigns) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. KERRY, proposes an amendment numbered 1153. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 64, strike lines 17 through 19 and 

insert the following: ‘‘$2,000,000 in fiscal year 

1996, $37,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

1996 through 2000, and $72,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996’’. 

On page 66, line 6, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 66, line 13, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 66, line 14, decrease the amount by 

$28,000,000. 

On page 66, line 20, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 66, line 21, decrease the amount by 

$215,000,000. 

On page 67, line 2, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 67, line 3, decrease the amount by 

$4,000,000. 

On page 67, line 9, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this removes instructions to the Rules Committee that repeals spending limits and 

public financing for Presidential campaigns, returning to pre-Watergate 

rules for those campaigns. Offset approximately $250 million over 7 years, 

of reduced overhead and administrative 

costs spread across Government by the 

Appropriations Committee. 

f 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN FUND 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, and I 

would like to thank the junior Senator 

from Massachusetts for offering his 

amendment that would derail this misguided effort to eliminate the Presidential election campaign fund. 

It came as a surprise—and a disappointment—to many of us that when 

the Republican Party announced last 

fall their new Contract With America 

and declared their commitment to reforming the Congress and ending business as usual in Washington, that they 

did not even bother to mention campaign finance reform in their contract. 

Well, we are now out from under the 

first 100 days of the contract, and there 

is still no indication that the Senate 

will be turning to campaign finance reform anytime soon. 

But not only are we going to be prevented from taking a step forward, the 

budget resolution before us today 

would push us back—20 years back—to 

the days before Congress recognized 

how fundamentally flawed our system 

of Presidential campaigns was. 

Mr. President, what in the world is 

the logic behind this? As far as I know, 

even the most vocal opponents of the 

Presidential campaign system are not 

willing to suggest that we have had a 

single unfair Presidential election in 

the past 20 years. Nor has any general 

election candidate for President, to my 

knowledge, ever said in the past 20 

years that their loss was attributable 

to the lack of financial resources. 

That is because the Presidential campaign finance system is based on simple principles. One principle is that 

money should not determine the outcome of elections. Another is that 

elected officials should not be spending 

inordinate amounts of time on the 

phone soliciting campaign funds. 

That is what the Presidential system 

is about. If there is a problem of inadequate funding of the Presidential 

campaign fund, then that should be addressed. We did it 2 years ago and we 

can do it again. 

But instead, this resolution is trying 

to fix a wristwatch with a sledgehammer, preferring to discard the one 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS