IS $915,000. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT JUST MILLIONAIRES. THEY MAKE
           LMDS 1 MILLION A YEAR ON AVERAGE. AND THEY GET 42% OF THE TAX
           CUT CUT. ALMOST ONE OF EVERY TWO DOLLARS WE'RE CUTTING IN
           TRAKSZ GOES TO PEOPLE WHOSE AVERAGE INCOME IS CLOSE TO $1
           MILLION A YEAR. HOW MANY AMERICANS WANT THAT?
           MR. PRESIDENT, IF I WERE CONFRONTED WITH THAT FACT, I WOULD

           RHETORIZE, AS THEY SAY. I WOULD GIVE WHAT THE GOVERNOR HIMSELF
           MIGHT CALL AS WASHINGTON RHETORIC AND SAY THAT'S FUZZY
           MATHEMATICS. IT IS NOT FUZZ SDIFMT HERE IT IS, GOVERNOR BUSH.
           THE TOP ONE PERCENT GET 42% OF THE TAX CUTS. THE PEOPLE WHOSE
           AVERAGE INCOME IS $915,000 MAKE $46,000 BACK, THEY GET THAT
           AMOUNT IN TAX CUTS. LET'S TAKE THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE. THE

           MIDDLE 20%, PEOPLE MAKING BETWEEN $25,000 AND $40,000 A YEAR.
           THEY GET ABOUT 8% OF THE TAX CUTS OR $453. AND OF COURSE
           LOW-INCOME PEOPLE PEOPLE, THE GOVERNOR SAID THEY'RE GOING TO DO
           BETTER. YEAH, $42 A YEAR BETTER. SO IT IS TRUE, AS THE GOVERNOR
           SAID. EVERYONE GETS A TAX BREAK. HE WANTS TO GIVE THE MONEY TO
           EVERYONE. THE TROUBLE IS HE WANTS TO GIVE MOST OF THE MONEY TO
           VERY FEW, THE WEALTHIEST FEW. HE WAS RIGHT -- HE IS RIGHT. THE

           WEALTHIEST PEOPLE HAVE MOST OF THE MONEY AND THEY PAY A LOT OF
           THE TAXES. THAT'S TRUE. BUT WE HAVE A POLICY CHOICE HERE, MR.
           PRESIDENT. DO WE WANT THOSE WEALTHIER -- THOSE -- THE
           WEALTHIEST OF PEOPLE TO GET MOST OF THE MONEY BACK?
           OR DO WE WANT TO DO TARGETED TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND
           SPEND MORE OF THE MONEY THAN THE GOVERNOR DOES ON EDUCATION, ON
           A PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN, ON HEALTH CARE?

           THIS IS NOT FUZZY WASHINGTON MATH. THESE ARE FACTS. AND I DON'T
           BLAME GOVERNOR BUSH FOR PRUNG AWAY FROM THEM. -- AND HIDING
           AWAY RHETORIC. NOW ONE FINAL POINT, VICE PRESIDENT GORE IN THE
           DEBATE SAID THAT HE WANTED TARGETED TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE
           CLASS, AND GEORGE BUSH SAID, YOU'D NEED AN ACCOUNTANT TO FIGURE

           THIS UTE-- --THIS OUT. WELL, TELL A FAMILY WHO'S MAKING $50,000
           A YEAR WHO HAS -- THEIR OLDEST CHILD WHO'S 17 AND THE HUSBAND
           AND WIFE ARE UP LATE AT NIGHT WORRYING OUT HOW THE HECK ARE WE
           GOING TO PAY FOR JOHNNY'S COLLEGE?
           HOW THE HECK ON AN INCOME OF $50,000 A YEAR ARE WE GOING TO
           COME UP WITH $10,000 A YEAR, AFTER PAYING OUR MORTGAGE AND
           BUYING THE FOOD AND PAYMENTS ON THE CAR, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT?

           WELL, YOU DON'T NEED AN ACCOUNTANT WITH WHAT VICE PRESIDENT
           GORE TALKS ABOUT. YOU SIMPLY NEED TO PUT ON YOUR TAX RETURN
           THAT YOUR CHILD WAS GOING TO COLLEGES, THAT YOU'RE PAYING
           $10,000 A YEAR, AND YOU DEDUCT THAT FROM YOUR TAXES. IT'S AS
           SIMPLE AS DEDUCTING YOUR MORTGAGE INTEREST. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS
           DEDUCTING YOUR HEALTH CARE COSTS. YOU DON'T NEED AN ACCOUNTANT.
           NOW, I WOULD ASK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE ALL BELIEVE IN TAX
           CUTS -- I DO. IS IT BETTER FOR AWFUL AMERICA TO GIVE THAT

           WEALTHIEST FAMILY FAMILY-- --IT IS BETTER FOR ALL OF AMERICA TO
           GIVE THAT WEALTHIEST FAMILY IN AMERICA $42,000 A YEAR SORE IT
           BETTER TO SAY TO MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES THAT WE OUGHT TO MAKE
           COLLEGE TUITION TAX-DEDUCTIBLE?
           A PROPOSAL THAT'S HAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THIS SENATE. THE
           SENATOR FROM MAINE, OLYMPIA SNOWE, AND MYSELF, THE SENATOR FROM
           INDIANA, SENATOR BAYH, AND THE SENATOR FROM OREGON, SENATOR
           SMITH, TWO DEMOCRATS AND TWO REPUBLICANS, HAVE CHAMPIONED THAT.

           I LEARNED HOW MUCH PEOPLE STRUGGLED WITH THAT WHEN I RAN FOR
           THE SENATE TWO YEARS AGO AND IT'S ONE OF MY PASSIONS TO GET IT
           DONE. BUT YOU DON'T NEED AN ACCOUNTANT. THOSE ARE NOT FUZZY
           WASHINGTON NUMBERS. YOU CAN DEDUCT -- MR. PRESIDENT --
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR HAS USED 15 MINUTES.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I BE GIVEN AN
           ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES FROM OUR TIME.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: I WOULD ASK THE MINORITY WHIP -- YOU THIS. THANK
           YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. IT'S NOT FUZZY MATH. IT'S PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
           THE BOTTOM LINE IS LAST NIGHT GOVERNOR BUSH COULDN'T ARGUE
           FACTS. HE COULDN'T ARGUE THE MERITS. SO HE RAN AWAY FROM THE
           ARGUMENT BY CLAIMING FUZZY NUMBERS. THE REASON I THINK THE
           DEBATE WAS A GREAT SUCCESS FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WARX AS
           PEOPLE EXAMINED JUST WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT, THE HUGE DEFICIT

           SPENDING THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE US ENGAGE IN AGAIN,
           THE FACT THAT A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE TAX CUT GOES TO
           THE WEALTHY, AND THE FACT THAT THE MIDDLE-INCOME TAX CUTS
           PROPOSED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT ARE VERY SIMPLE AND EASY TO USE
           AND DESPERATELY NEEDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I THINK THE VICE
           PRESIDENT WILL SCORE POINTS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK HE WILL
           WIN REELECTION -- OR WIN ELECTION ON THAT BASIS, AND AMERICA
           WILL FINALLY SPEND OUR SURPLUS ON THE THINGS WE NEED, RETURN

           TAXES TO THE MIDDLE CLASS, WHO NEEDS THEM MORE THAN ANYBODY
           ELSE, AND OUR COUNTRY WILL CONTINUE THE PROSPERITY THAT, PRAISE
           GOD, WE HAVE SEEN IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. MR. PRESIDENT, THESE
           ARE NO FUZZY WASHINGTON NUMBERS. THESE ARE FACTS. THEY'RE FACTS
           THAT SHOW THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT IS FAR MORE IN TOUCH WITH
           WHAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN WANTS AND NEEDS THAN IS GOVERNOR
           BUSH. I DON'T BELIEVE IN CLASS WARFARE. I DON'T BELIEVE IN -- I

           RESPECT PEOPLE WHO'VE MADE A LOT OF MONEY. THAT'S THE AMERICAN
           DREAM. AND I HOPE MY CHILDREN WILL. BUT WHEN YOU DO DEEP TAX
           CUTS, WHO SHOULD GET IF WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE ALY. ED AMOUNT?
           WHEN YOU HAVE A SURPLUS, WHY SHOULD IT BE SQUANDERED?
           MR. GOVERNOR BUSH, NOT FUZZY NUMBERS; HARD, COLD FACTS THAT
           HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUT. I YIELD BACK MY TIME AND THANK

           THE PRESIDENT. MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA.
           

           MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE STATEMENT
           OF THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK. NEW YORK IS A FINANCIAL CAPITAL
           OF THE WORLD AND THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, HAVING LONG
           REPRESENTED THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF
           REPRESENTATIVES, HAS CERTAINLY HIT THE GROUND RUNNING HERE IN
           THE SENATE. WE DEPEND ON THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK ON MANY
           OCCASIONS FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND ADVICE DUE TO THE FACT
           THAT YOU COME, I REPEAT, FROM THE FINANCIAL CAPITAL OF THE
           WORLD. AND YOUR VERY VIVID DESCRIPTION OF THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT

           IN FINANCIAL TERMS DID, THE TAX SITUATION IS FROM BOTH
           CANDIDATE, WAS WELCOMED AND I CONGRATULATE AND APPLAUD THE
           SENATOR FROM NEW YORK FOR HIS VERY LUCID STATEMENT.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: I THANK MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA, WHO IS
           A GREAT LEADER FOR ALL OF US, AND FOR ALWAYS GIVING WE YOUNGER
           MEMBERS TIME TO MAKE OUR ARGUMENTS ON THE FLOOR IN ADDITION TO
           ALL THE OTHER NICE THINGS HE DOES FOR US. THANK YOU.
           

           MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, IN THAT WE HAVE SOME TIME, I FELT IT
           WAS APPROPRIATE THAT WE COME BACK AND REVISIT WHAT THE SENATOR
           FROM ALASKA SAID TODAY, THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM ALASKA HAS COME
           TO THE FLOOR ON MANY OCCASIONS AND SAID, AS I'VE STATED
           EARLIER, THE SAME THING. HE DOES IT WITH GREAT PASSION AND I
           APPRECIATE HOW STRONGLY HE FEELS ABOUT IT. BUT I THINK THE TIME
           HAS COME THAT WE DON'T LET HIS STATEMENTS GO WITHOUT GIVING THE

           FACTS ON, IN EFFECT, THE OTHER SIDE. WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE
           FACTS?
           LET'S TALK ABOUT PRODUCTION OF OIL IN ALASKA. MR. PRESIDENT, IN
           1999, THIS ADMINISTRATION, THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION,
           OFFERED TRACTS ON NEARLY 4 MILLION ACRES OF LAND IN THE
           NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN. TO THE WEST OF PRUDHOE BAY FOR
           OIL AND GAS LEASING. OIL COMPANIES WITH WINNING BIDS WILL PAY
           -- AND THIS IS A STAGGERING FIGURE, MR. PRESIDENT -- BUT THIS

           IS TO SHOW THAT WE, THIS ADMINISTRATION, DOES HAVE AN ENERGY
           POLICY AS WE ALL KNOW -- ALL COMPANIES WITH WINNING BIDS WILL
           PAY $104 -- APPROXIMATELY $105 MILLION. ROUND OFF THE 635,000,
           WE COME UP WITH $105 MILLION. A TOTAL OF 425 TRACTS AND
           APPROXIMATELY 4 MILLION ACRES WERE OFFERED BY THE BUREAU OF
           LAND MANAGEMENT, AND TODAY THE FIRST SUCH SALE FOR THESSESS

           SINCE 1984 WENT INTO THIS. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE
           THAT THERE IS AN ENERGY POLICY, THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS AN
           ENERGY POLICY. IT HAS INDICATED THIS IS THE FIRST SALE FOR THE
           RESERVE SINCE 1984. SIX OIL COMPANIES SUBMITTED BIDS ON 133
           TRACTS. THE OIL INDUSTRY SHOULD EXPLORE AND DEVELOP THE ALASKAN
           PETROLEUM RESERVE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. WE AND OTHER COMPANIES
           REALIZE THAT AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PAYING $105 MILLION TO DO
           THAT. BUT THEY SHOULD DO THAT BEFORE THERE'S EVEN A SUGGESTION

           OF OFFERING THESE LANDS TO DEVELOP. ANWR DOES NOT NEED TO BE
           DEVELOPED. AND TO EVEN SUGGEST DOING IT BEFORE WE FULLY EXPLORE
           THE PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA INDICATES THAT WE ARE DOING IT
           FOR REASONS OTHER THAN PETROLEUM PRODUCTION. IN 1998, THE
           GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RELEASED A MEAN ESTIMATE OF 2.4 MILLION
           BARRELS OF ECONOMICALLY RECOVERYABLE OIL IN THE ARCTIC REFUGE
           ATEDZ 18 A BRXAIL WHICH IS THE MARKET PRICE IN 1996. SUCH A
           DISCOVERY WOULD NEVER MEET MORE THAN A SMALL PART OF OUR OIL

           NEEDS AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THE UNITED STATES CONSUMES ABOUT 19
           BARRELS OF OIL EVERY DAY. ABOUT SEVEN BILLION BARRELS ANNUALLY.
           SO USING THOSE NUMBERS FOR A COUPLE YEARS, YOU COULD DRILL AND
           YOU WOULD -- IT WOULD BE GONE AND YOU WOULD DAMAGE, TO SAY THE
           LIGHT, THIS BEAUTIFUL PART OF THE WORLD. THE UNITED STATES
           GEOLOGICAL SURVEY INDICATES THAT THE MEAN ESTIMATE OF
           ECONOMICALLY PROFFERABLE RESERVES ASSUMES AN OIL PRICE OF $18,

           AS I'VE INDICATED. NOW, WE KNOW THAT THE PRICE OF OIL IS ALMOST
           DOUBLE THAT TODAY. BUT EVEN AT $20 A BARREL, THE MEAN ESTIMATE
           INCREASES TO $ $P-.12 BILLION BARRELS. THIS IS FROM DR.
           CARZADEL, THE ACT DIRECTOR OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. MR.
           PRESIDENT, PRODUCTION OF OIL IN THE UNITED STATES PEAKED IN
           1970. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THIS CHART HERE. MR. PRESIDENT, THAT

           WAS WHEN THE UNITED STATES PRODUCED ABOUT 9.6 MILLION BARRELS
           OF OIFERLRY DAY. NOW PRODUCTION IN ALASKA HAS ALSO BEEN ON A
           CONTINUED DECLINE SINCE 1988, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS
           KHAFERMENT-- --FROM THIS CHART. IT'S NOT ON THIS CHART, I HAVE
           ANOTHER ONE, MR. PRESIDENT, BUT ANYWAY, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT
           THE PRODUCTION OF OIL IN ALASKA HAS BEEN GOING DOWNHILL SINCE
           1988 WHEN IT PEAKED AT 2 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL A DAY. MR.

           PRESIDENT, DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY DRILLING DECREASED
           NEARLY 17% DURING 1992, THE LAST YEAR OF THE BUSH
           ADMINISTRATION, AND WAS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1942. SO, I
           THINK THAT WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA,
           IF HE HAS A COMPLAINT ABOUT AN ENERGY POLICY, SHOULD GO BACK TO
           THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. THAT'S WHEN WE BOTTOMED OUT, SO TO
           SPEAK. LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT WHAT'S -- AND LET'S TALK ABOUT
           WHAT'S GONE ON SINCE 1992 WHEN THIS ADMINISTRATION BEGAN A

           CONCERTED EFFORT TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF OIL. UNDER THE
           LEADERSHIP OF THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION, THIS
           ADMINISTRATION HAS NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION OF FEDERAL LANDS
           ONSHORE AND OIL PRODUCTION OFFSHORE INCREASING. NATURAL GAS
           PRODUCTION ON FEDERAL NATURALLANDS HAS INCREASED NEARLY 60%
           DURING THIS ADMINISTRATION. LET ME REPEAT. NATURAL GAS
           PRODUCTION ON FEDERAL ONSHORE LANDS HAS INCREASED NEARLY 60%

           SINCE 1992. OIL PRODUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS IS DOWN, BUT THE
           GAS STATISTICS BELIE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
           SHUT DOWN THE PUBLIC LANDS TO OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS
           -- THIS SOURCE COMES FROM TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN BR BEFORE
           THE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE IN JULY OF THIS
           YEAR. THE GULF OF MEXICO HAS BECOME ONE OF THE HOTTEST PLACES
           IN THE WORLD FOR EXPLORATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS
           ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTED AND SENT US FOR DEEP WATER DEVELOPMENT

           GOING INTO EFFECT IN 1995. BETWEEN 1992 AND 1999, OIL
           PRODUCTION OFFSHORE INCREASED 62%. SO IT HARDLY SEEMS TO ME
           THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATION WITHOUT AN ENERGY POLICY, WHEN WE
           HAVE DETERMINED THAT NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION DURING THIS
           ADMINISTRATION ON FEDERAL ONSHORE LANDS HAS INCREASED ABOUT 60%
           AND WE'VE ALSO DETERMINED THAT BETWEEN -- THAT DURING THIS
           ADMINISTRATION, OIL PRODUCTION OFFSHORE HAS INCREASED 62%.
           NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION IN DEEP WATERS HAS INCREASED 80% IN JUST

           THE PAST TWO YEARS. THESE INCREASES ARE IN AREAS OF THE GULF OF
           MEXICO WHERE THE UNITED STATES ACTIVELY PRODUCES OIL AND GAS.
           THE DEEP WATER -- SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THE POINT I'M MAKING HERE
           IS THAT WE HAVE HEARD MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA, COME
           TO THIS FLOOR AND CONTINUALLY SAY WE DON'T HAVE AN ENERGY
           POLICY.
{END: 2000/10/04 TIME: 11-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}