Native American Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have two Senators who wish to speak on the pending amendment. The junior Senator from Texas wishes to speak for 5 minutes. I understand the Senator from California wishes to speak for 15 minutes immediately following the Senator from Texas.

May I ask the Senator a question?

You mentioned various organizations that support this. I wonder if it might be fair to say that, regarding future jobs for America, we might have some interest in knowing what our resources are. Those concerned about jobs for the future, might they also be interested?

I thank the Senator for his remarks this morning.

The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, is here. He asked if he might have time. How much time do we have?

I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I want to reserve the remainder of our time. However, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her excellent remarks. The real issue is knowledge: What should the American people know about their future in terms of our own resources?

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

My understanding is we would like to change the time to 11:15, assure the time at 11:15.

Between now and 11:15?

I have no objection.

Madam President, I trust, with the time being so much more on their side, a Senator from that side will soon come to the floor and talk.

I think that is fair, and I thank the Senator for suggesting it.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains now for debate?

If there are any Senators who wish to speak who favor this amendment, we will give them some of our time if they want to get down here and take a few minutes. It is a very interesting and exciting issue.

I will take a few minutes now. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Will the Chair inform me when I have used 5 minutes.

Mr. President, a lot has been said about this. A lot is not true. In a very few minutes, I will go through exactly what is true by reading specifically what the bill says and the interpretations that we have.

I do not believe there is any right-thinking American, knowing the dangerous nature of our reliance upon both oil and natural gas, who would not want to know tomorrow morning, if they could, how much in resources we have if we ever needed them. We only want to know about certain ones. We do not want to know about those who might want to drill out in the ocean. We just want to know about some of them. I think every American would say: Tell us how much we own, and then later on we will discuss whether it is worthwhile trying to use them.

The provisions in this bill do not lift the moratorium. It simply authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study. This language prohibits the use of drilling to obtain data, and it also directs the Secretary to use existing data. It is a prudent move to take an inventory of our domestic resources and where they are located. Technology has changed significantly over the years, and resource data that were developed in the 1970s are totally outdated. We did not have the advantage of 3-D seismic analysis, and MMS has never included 3-D data in its assessment of the Atlantic OCS resources.

Nearly 60 percent of our oil is imported today. Supply disruptions left the world oil markets in short supply. Not too many years ago, it also left lines in America where in New York they started waiting in lines at 4 in the morning. They got so mad at each other, they even shot each other because one was jumping ahead of the other in line. Just think of what would happen if that were the case and if then somebody stood up on the floor of the Senate and said, well, if 10 years ago that amendment would have passed and they would have taken an inventory, we could at least be taking a look to see whether we could use our own oil that is in the ocean that we already know how to get out without destroying anything.

Experts agree that the country faces a crisis. Over time, technological advances have allowed us to identify additional oil and gas in areas where they once were thought to be in limited supply. In 1995, the Federal Government estimated that the Gulf of Mexico contained 95 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas. Five years later, in 2000, which is not too long ago, that number was increased to 193 trillion of undiscovered gas, an increase of 100 percent.

Restrictions on preleasing activities do not preclude environmental, geological, physiological, economic engineering, or other scientific analysis studies and evaluations. Congress passed its own drilling moratoria. It included language in the conference report that specifically provided for new studies. The statute says what I just stated, that restrictions on preleasing activities do not preclude environmental, geological, physiological, economic, and engineering activities.

I am convinced that with the energy supply, a short supply in our country, the shortages in the 2000 and 2001 and the higher prices again this year, we are going to need to take prudent steps.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

It is no surprise that informed people know what America's concern is, such as the American Chemistry Council, American Iron and Steel Institute, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, National Association of Manufacturers, the Fertilizer Institute, the American Gas Association, the Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has also spoken out, not on this issue but on natural gas prices and the shortage. He said: I am quite surprised how little attention the natural gas problem has been getting because it is a very serious problem.

That is a true statement, and because of a committee that was asked to do work to plan a policy, we are doing something that Alan Greenspan said. He said he was surprised we are not doing more. We want to do more. This more is a simplistic more. It is a let-us-know-what-we-have more. That is all there is to it. Knowledge is better than no knowledge when it comes to problems. Knowledge of what you own is better than not knowing what you own, and that is the issue.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, normally, we look at them when we get them--both sides--and we make decisions and talk with the proponents and we winnow down the list. The answer is, not yet.

Mr. President, there always has been on the first degree to which they are offered.

Mr. President, I briefly want to thank the leaders, particularly the majority leader, for helping to get the last Senators to sign up. This means we will get an Energy bill that contains plenty of what people want. It has ethanol and, before we are finished, it will have all of the what people want with reference to the continuation of wind and related energies.

This just means people will have every opportunity to look at amendments, and they have listed everything under the sun. There will be a chance to work on them. We thank everyone for cooperating. It looks to me that, with the majority leader and minority leader helping us, after we return from the recess, we can complete this bill in a week, based upon us finally having this list. I thank everybody.

Mr. President, I know we will be back on this bill. I note that the Indian tribes and organizations listed are not in full. We have additional ones since this was prepared, and they will be added in due course.

I compliment the distinguished Senator, Mr. Campbell. I am pleased to be his cosponsor, and I say for those who are going to now look at this bill, I hope our Indian leaders also are aware that there will be those who look at it from the standpoint of how can they make it more difficult for the Indian people to be able to develop their resources. That is what some of the time and effort will be spent on during the intervention between this bill and its final vote. How can organizations that do not want the Indian people to produce their raw materials into energy and resources, thus jobs and opportunity for the Indian people, get their hands on this bill and try to offer amendments to try to harm this bill? I am certain some will do that.

We will be vigilant, we will be aware, and we are asking the Indian leaders who support this to inform their Senators that this is the bill they want as part of America's policy on energy. We are asking every Indian leader to advise those Senators who have been with them in the past to support this bill. This bill is their bill. It is for their future. It is for jobs and money and resources for them. We need them telling their Senators that this is the bill they want. If they do that, come July we will have a real Fourth of July celebration for the Indian people, for in a sense they will be free, free to develop their resources, where heretofore their hands have been tied.

There will be those during the intervening time who will look for ways to put more ties and strings back into the Campbell bill. We want to tell our Indian leaders to tell their friends in the Senate they do not want that; they do not want changes to this bill that will make it harder for them to develop their resources in partnership, singularly or otherwise, with other Americans.

This amendment is the product of many hours of negotiation and cooperation among the interested tribes, the Indian Affairs Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

I am also pleased that this amendment enjoys the support of numerous tribes including the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Cherokee Nation, the Southern Utes, the Chickasaw Nation, the Native American Energy Group, the National Congress of American Indians, Dine Power--a Navajo Corporation, the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, which represents nearly 50 energy producing tribes and The National Tribal Environmental Council, which represent 180 tribe,

I am pleased that Indian tribes across the country will play an important role in our national energy plan. By passing this legislation, we will streamline the tribal leasing process that outside parties have more incentive to partner with tribes in developing energy resources and provide investment in critical energy infrastructure on Indian land.

Indian lands contain some of the richest energy reserves in the Nation. Although Indian land accounts for only 5 percent of the land area of the U.S. it contains: 30 percent of identified coal deposits; 5 percent of our nation's oil; and 10 percent of our natural gas, which is in very tight supply.

Despite the fact that reserves are present, the Department of the Interior estimates that only 20 to 25 percent of these assets have been developed.

Energy projects are capital intensive and most tribes do not have the financial capability to develop the resources.

Tribes face an additional burden in attracting partners and that is a result

of the paternalistic lease approval system that requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve all tribal leases. This delays action and creates investment uncertainty.

In an attempt to resolve this out-of-date process, the Indian Affairs Committee and the Senate Energy Committee have taken key elements of both Senator Campbell's legislation S. 522 and Senator Bingaman proposal, S. 424.

The title adopts Senator Bingaman's proposal to create the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs within the Department of Energy. This office will provide grants and loan guarantees to tribes to facilitate the development of their energy resources and infrastructure.

Section 303, of this title will change the existing lease agreements between the Secretary of the Interior and tribes to allow tribes to enter into a lease or agreement without the approval of the Secretary so long as those leases or business agreements conform to regulations promulgated by the Secretary.

The section establishes a process by which a tribe may submit a plan governing leases and rights-of-way to the Secretary for approval. It also requires the tribe to demonstrate to the Secretary that the plan includes provisions regarding lease and contract terms, environmental regulation, and public notification and comment.

I think that is very important to note that this entire proposal is voluntary. Let me repeat that. This proposal is completely voluntary. Tribes will not be forced to adopt this proposal if they feel it would not benefit the tribe as a whole.

We have numerous letters from tribes who support the proposal and I am confident they will benefit. However, any tribe that opposes this proposal probably will not participate and can continue to operate under the status quo.

This amendment also protects the environment. I think the statement of President Joe Shirley of the Navajo Nation before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee accurately captures the environmental responsibilities all tribes must comply with. President Shirley stated,

Tribes may already promulgate regulations that are more,

but not less, stringent than Federal regulations governing

the same subject matters (environment). The following is a

list of some of the federal statutes that already control

regulations for land use, both State and tribal: National

Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,

Endangered Species Act, Federal Land Management and Policy

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act and the Indian Mineral Leasing

Act.

Clearly, the tribes must fully comply with our environmental statutes.

Following markup of S. 14, the Indian Affairs and Energy Committees have worked to address concerns regarding the trust responsibilities between tribes and the Secretary of the Interior. These agreed-upon changes make up the amendment Senator Campbell has offered.

This amendment deserves the strong support of the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for Senator Campbell to speak.

Mr. President, I will not object at all. I want to understand, I thought I already had 15 minutes from yesterday. I am just clarifying that point.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for being brief and to the point. I am also glad he went first because I could not disagree more with what he said. It gives me a really good jumping- off place for my comments this morning.

I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Graham's amendment to strike section 105 from the Senate Energy Bill, and I thank him and Senators Feinstein, Wyden, and Cantwell for their heroic efforts in the committee itself to remove this section so we would not have to have this fight on the Senate floor.

The Senator from Texas called this amendment a know-nothing amendment. I call it an amendment that stands up for American values. What could be more of an American value than protecting and honoring the environmental legacy given to us by God, a legacy we must protect. It is our duty to protect. Section 105, which I wish to strike, would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and gas reserves beneath the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, including the moratorium areas. Let me repeat that. This is such a radical proposal that it would allow harmful analysis to go on, and I will explain why, beneath the waters of an area or areas in our country where they are so precious, they are so beautiful, they are so respected by the people we represent, that they have been subjected to moratoria by this Congress for 20 years now.

By the way, that tracks how long I have been in Congress actually, just about. I have supported that all the time, and this provision undermines the premise behind these moratoria, which is to protect these magnificent areas from activities such as the ones authorized in this bill.

It may sound very simple to say, oh, we are going to analyze what resources lie off our coasts and in our ocean, but when we realize the kind of work that will go on--seismic surveys, sediment samplings, other destructive exploration technologies that harm ocean habitat and marine life--it is worth getting upset about.

To this point, this bill is really an abomination. I do not know how else to put it. I am known to be very direct. It brings back nuclear energy, and I compliment the Presiding Officer today for his work to try and strip the subsidies to the nuclear power industry from this bill. We do not even know what to do with the nuclear waste we have. It is dangerous. It lasts for thousands of years. We do not even know what to do with it, and now this Senate has decided to turn away from the Wyden-Sununu amendment and say to nuclear power companies, before we know what to do with this waste, we are going to back you up, we are going to give you a loan guarantee so if you want to build a nuclear powerplant, you can go get a $3 billion loan guarantee from the Federal Government. So if there is a crisis, if there is a problem, if the plant does not work, you are going to be bailed out by the taxpayers.

Well, on behalf of the taxpayers of California, we are a State that has turned away from a couple of our nuclear powerplants because we have had problems--and now we are encouraging it. That is what this bill does. This bill has a safe harbor provision for ethanol.

Maybe ethanol will be fine, but we are not sure. A blue ribbon panel in EPA said they are not sure. If there are problems, if people get sick, if children are harmed, there is a safe harbor for the companies making ethanol. What a corporate give-away is this bill. And now we are turning our back on 20 years of bipartisanship and 20 years of leadership from Republican and Democratic Presidents and saying, go into those precious areas in the ocean, drill your heart away and we are going to tell you, as the Senator from Texas said, oh, that is a good thing for the country.

Wrong. It is a bad thing for our country. It is a bad thing for our children. It is a bad thing for their children because we would be undermining the protections for these valued, sensitive coastal areas and ignoring again this bipartisan moratoria we have had for years on the Outer Continental Shelf.

By the way, we beat this back 2 years ago. I cannot wait to tell the people of California what is happening. I am saddened by it, but I cannot wait to tell them because they need to hear it. This is another environmental rollback that is deadly serious. It was tried 2 years ago and it did not succeed, but I am not sanguine this time because we have had changes in this particular body.

Two years ago, Senator John Kerry and I offered an amendment, which was included in the manager's amendment, to strip this deadly language out and to preserve the moratorium, and it passed.

Now, I will tell my colleagues why my people in California are so adamantly opposed to drilling off our coast. A very long time ago, 34 years ago, there was an incident that was so horrific that Californians who were around then will never forget it, and their children are told stories. In 1969, disaster struck when a major oil spill occurred from a platform 6 miles offshore from Santa Barbara, CA. Over 4 million gallons of oil poured into the ocean, contaminating the waters, killing thousands of animals and ruining over 200 square miles of Santa Barbara's coastline. Prior to that event, Santa Barbara's beaches were considered a recreational paradise with some of the most beautiful coastline in our country. After the spill, these same beaches smothered with a slick coating of oil, resulting in a loss of millions of dollars in tourism and recreation and broken hearts all over my State. Local governmental officials, community leaders, grassroots organizations, conservation groups, and citizens rallied for justice after the destruction of their coast. They decided then that absolutely no more drilling should be permitted off the coast.

Due to the Santa Barbara spill in California, there is strong and enduring support for the protection of our oceans and our coastlines, and any candidate for any office coming into my State saying we ought to go back to the days of drilling off that coast is not going to get the support of Democrats, is not going to get the support of Republicans, is not going to get the support of independents, and everybody else in between. They can sugar-coat it any way they want. We know the truth. We saw it in Santa Barbara. We made a decision that any potential benefits that might be derived from future oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures. I will show a picture of my coastline because it is worth looking at.

My friends on both sides of the aisle who support this underlying amendment, if they think they are helping the economy, they are not. The economy of mine and other coastal States relies on a beautiful and clean environment. The economic benefits of our California beaches are very clear. Two-thirds of California residents visit one of the State beaches at least once a year. In 2001, there were at least 132 million visits to California beaches by people from outside the State. These are your constituents. Maybe it is even you. Maybe you even came with your family to our beaches. These visits generated $61 billion in total spending in my State. That is an economic boom.

There are some in this Senate who think the only economic boom to their States is drilling on precious areas. That is a good debate. But the people of California have made this decision. They have decided they do not want it. They understand the commercial fishing industry relies on a beautiful unspoiled coast and ocean. It is a $554 million industry with 17,000 jobs, and they say no to this bill; the shipping industry, 8.6 billion and 179,000 jobs. We are talking tourism, we are talking fishing, we are talking shipping, and we are saying no to this bill.

This Graham amendment will help us preserve that economy. These are hard economic times in our State. The last thing we need is to go back. Tourism, beautiful beaches, a clean ocean, that is what my State is about. We saw what happened in Santa Barbara. We made that decision. We have permanently banned new oil and gas development in State waters. How can we go out adjacent to State waters to the Outer Continental Shelf and run the risk of destroying this value of our State? It is about California's economy. It is also about a beautiful environment.

I will show a couple of other pictures of this breathtaking environment. This is our southern California coast. The picture we show now is Malibu Beach.

We are talking about $61 billion in total spending each year because of our magnificent coast and our ocean. When it is added up, the underlying bill is destructive to our environment, which Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in my State agree must be preserved. It undermines our economy.

By allowing predrilling activities to occur, our coast is threatened, commercial fishing jobs are at risk, fishing jobs are at risk, tourism is at risk, California's economy is at risk, and the beauty of California's coastline is at risk. That goes for every State along my coast, be it Washington, Oregon, or California.

As I look back to the bipartisanship we have had with the President in the past, Republicans and Democrats, this is the first time we have seen this move.

What is the history of Federal moratoria? For two decades Federal waters off the coast of California have been protected from additional offshore oil and gas development through a series of temporary bans. President George H.W. Bush signed an executive memorandum in 1990 which placed the 10-year moratorium on new oil and gas leasing. He did not try to go in there with seismic testing and destructive methods. He did not get up and say, we better drill there and find out what is there. He understood it. President Clinton understood it. He extended this moratorium to 2012.

Section 105 of this Energy bill completely ignores this moratoria by promoting destructive exploratory drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. In a letter to me, the California Coastal Commission states the provision ``would seriously undermine the longstanding bipartisan legislative moratoria . . . that has been included in every appropriations bill for more than 20 years.'' We must defeat efforts to undermine the protection of our coast and the rights of coastal States and local governments to make decisions to protect their coasts. Section 105 of the Energy bill is intended for one purpose, I say to my colleagues, and one purpose only. You can dress up a pig and you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. In this case, it is to promote oil and gas development on our precious coast.

Republicans in my State don't want that. Democrats in my State don't want that. Independents in my State don't want that. By allowing the Secretary of the Interior to use invasive, exploratory technologies, including the seismic surveys--sections 105 permits activities that have detrimental impacts on the marine environment, including air pollution from machinery and disturbance to the sea flora. While these seismic surveys sound innocent, let me explain what we are talking about.

Huge boats with large acoustic equipment go out into the ocean, a high-pressure air gun sends out constant high-decibel explosive pulses through the water and deep into the sea floor. We know these sounds have been reported to cause significant damage to fish and their ability to locate prey and avoid predators. As a result, the survival of fish populations is threatened by this technology. That is why the commercial fishing business in my State opposes this bill. These explosive pulses are also within the auditory

range of many other marine species, including whales. In fact, when this technology was used in the Bahamas and off the coast of Mexico, it caused whales to become disoriented and as a result to be fatally stranded on beaches.

Seismic surveys are accompanied by extraction of numerous samples from the sea floor. These samples are collected by dropping large hollow metal tubes from ships to vertically puncture the sea floor. Reports from Environmental Defense show the collection of these samples damages the ocean floor and harms the habitat of numerous species.

The Graham amendment is supported by the California Coastal Commission, in addition to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Sierra Club, Coast Alliance, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the League of Conservation Voters.

This is a serious issue for the most populous State in the Union and for the entire west coast. I urge my colleagues who say they care about what people believe, care about the values of the American people, to seriously look at the danger and the damage this is going to cause. We stripped it out of the appropriations bill a couple years ago, and it is back now. I hope my colleagues will strip it out again. If you do not, there are going to be a lot of outraged citizens in this country when they find out what could happen from the underlying bill. I again urge colleagues to support this Graham amendment.

Since my colleague from Washington is in the Chamber, Senator Cantwell, let me say to her--I mentioned this in her absence--how much I appreciated the heroic effort she made in the committee to strip this out of the bill. I hope we will be successful today.

I thank my colleague. I yield the remainder of my time to the managers of the bill, and I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I will try to explain the amendment. Indian lands comprise approximately 5 percent of the land area in the United States but contain an estimated 10 percent of all energy reserves in the United States, including 30 percent of the known coal deposits located in the western portion of the U.S.; 5 percent of the known onshore oil deposits of the U.S.; and 10 percent of the known onshore natural gas deposits in the United States.

Coal, oil, natural gas, and other energy minerals produced from Indian land represent more than 10 percent of the total nationwide onshore production of energy minerals.

Even though in 1 year alone over 9.3 million barrels of oil, 299 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 21 million tons of coal were produced from Indian land, representing $700 million in Indian energy revenue, the Department of the Interior estimates that only 25 percent of the oil and less than 20 percent of all natural gas reserves on Indian land have been fully developed.

I have put up a pie chart to show the relationship of realized revenue and potential or unrealized revenue.

Despite what we may read once in a while in the Washington Post or New York Times about the so-called ``rich Indians'' and Indian gambling, it is also indisputable that Indians are the most economically deprived group in the United States, with unemployment levels far above the national average--in some cases well over 70 percent--and per capita incomes well below the national average.

The Labor Department just released the latest unemployment figures for the United States, which were about 6.1 percent, and they say that is the highest in 10 years. If you think 6.1 percent is bad, try 70 percent. For every tribe that is doing pretty well, there are 10 that are just barely making it through their daily lives.

Indian country suffers from the highest substandard housing, poor health, alcohol and drug abuse, diabetes and amputations, and a general malaise and hopelessness, even a high suicide rate among teenagers. Given the vast potential wealth residing in energy resources which could change this deprivation, it has long been a puzzle why these resources have not been more fully developed.

The answer lies partly in the fact that the energy research development is, by its very nature, capital intensive. Most tribes simply do not have the financial wherewithal to fund extensive energy projects on their own and so they must lease out their energy resources in return for royalty payments.

History also plays a big part in the evolution of this problem. Toward the end of the 19th century, Indian tribes were forcibly relocated to isolated areas and reservations where it was believed they would not hinder the westward expansion of the U.S. Government.

The natural resources on those lands were taken into trust by the Federal Government, to be administered for the benefit of Indian tribes. The ostensible reason for the trust was the belief that Indians were incapable of administering their own resources and would be susceptible to land and resource predators.

A legal and bureaucratic apparatus was formed to administer this trust, and over a century later this apparatus remains in place.

In her capacity as trustee of Indian resources, the Secretary of the Interior must review each and every lease of Indian trust resources to ensure the terms of the lease benefit the tribe and that the trust asset is not wasted.

However, this review and approval process is often so lengthy that potential lessees or investors that otherwise would like to partner with Indian tribes to develop their energy resources are reluctant to become entangled in the bureaucratic redtape that inevitably accompanies the leasing of tribal resources.

Hence, the framework that was originally designed to protect tribes has also become a disincentive to the development of tribal resources.

This is a case now, of course, of what fit the 19th century does not fit the modern day, and the Indians have the ability and right to make their own decision.

To help remedy these problems, earlier this year I, along with Senator Domenici, introduced the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003 to provide assistance and encouragement to Indian tribes to develop their energy resources. This not only would help the tribal economy but it would help make us less dependent on foreign energy.

The assistance included the establishment of an Indian Energy Office; grants, loans, and technical assistance; capacity building; and regulatory changes to the rules governing the leasing of Indian lands for energy purposes.

At the same time, the other Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, introduced his own Indian Energy bill, S. 424, that mirrored my bill. After several hearings and much debate, I merged the best of these two bills into a composite bill that came to be title III of the bill before us.

There are two major differences between the Bingaman bill, which was offered as a second-degree amendment yesterday, and our bill. That second-degree amendment was defeated, by the

way, as my colleagues know. If I had not withdrawn my amendment we would not need to proceed any further than we did yesterday.

One of the most important features of title III of S. 14 is section 2604 which deals with leases, business arrangements, and rights-of-way involving energy development and transmission.

Section 2604 establishes a voluntary process for those tribes that choose it to help develop their energy resources. No tribe is required to participate. They do not have to if they do not wish to, but if they do participate, under the process, an Indian tribe must first demonstrate to the Secretary of the Interior that it has the technical and financial capacity to develop and manage its own resources. Once it meets this burden, the tribe can negotiate energy resource development leases, agreements, and rights-of-way with third parties without first obtaining the Secretary's approval. That will not, however, circumvent the NEPA process. It will simply transfer the responsibility of NEPA compliance to the Secretary of the Interior.

By the way, this second chart points out very clearly under existing law that Indian tribes do not have to come under the jurisdiction of NEPA. If they use their own money on their own land, they are treated as State land, private land, or non-Federal land. They do not have to comply with NEPA. Only if they go to outside investors to get investment money do they have to comply with NEPA.

This bill will provide streamlining to the leasing process that is now burdened with this disparity in Federal regulation. Under current law, in order to be valid, all leases, business agreements, and the rights-of-way involving tribal trust or restricted lands must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 2604 provides tribes with the option of submitting to the Secretary a proposed government-to-government agreement, a ``tribal energy resource agreement,'' called TERA, that will set forth mandatory provisions for future leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way involving energy development on tribal lands.

If approved by the Secretary, the TERA will govern the future development of that tribe's energy resources. The TERA, by virtue of this section, will require tribal leases and agreements to have certain business terms, require compliance with all applicable environmental laws, notice to the public, and consultation with the States as to the potential off-reservation impact.

That was one of Senator Bingaman's concerns yesterday, consultation with off-reservation groups. That is covered in this amendment.

Remember, current law does not require tribes to comply with NEPA if they use their own land. However, neither the TERA nor any provision of title III would operate to subject the tribe's decision to enter into a particular energy lease or agreement to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Secretary, in deciding whether to approve the TERA, would be required to examine the potential direct impacts of her decision under NEPA. The tribe would have to develop an environmental review process. It would have to follow it thereafter. The tribe itself would not be subject to NEPA but, as I said, that responsibility would be transferred to the Secretary.

There have been disincentives for poor tribes because they simply cannot afford to develop energy on their own land and thereby not comply with NEPA. It does not diminish the NEPA process at all. Under current law, if an Indian tribe chooses to develop its own energy resources using its own funds and, as I mentioned, there is no lease or Secretary approval, NEPA is not necessary.

It is not mineral development per se that triggers NEPA; it is the Federal action, the approval of the Secretary is what triggers NEPA.

I wish to mention there was also a concern that section 2604 would somehow diminish tribal sovereignty. I know that was Senator Inouye's concern. It dealt really with trust responsibility. But the amendment I am offering today does not weaken the Government's obligations to Indian tribes to absolve it of its duties.

I point out on page 14, line 18 to page 15, line 3. If my colleagues cannot clearly read this, I will read it for them:

(6)(A) Nothing in this section shall absolve the United

States of any responsibility to Indians or Indian tribes,

including those which derive from the trust relationship or

from any treaties, Executive Orders, or agreements between

the United States and any Indian tribe.

(B) The Secretary shall continue to have a trust obligation

to ensure that the rights of an Indian tribe are protected in

the event of a violation of federal law or the terms of any

lease, business agreement, or right-of-way under this section

by any other party to any such lease, business agreement, or

right-of-way.

(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the United States

shall not be liable to any party (including any Indian tribe)

for any of the terms of, or any losses resulting from the

terms of, a lease, business agreement, or a right-of-way

executed pursuant to and in accordance with a tribal energy

resources agreement approved by the subsection (e)(2).

Subparagraph (C) is basically new. If the Secretary has no input at all in developing the agreement, then we are concerned that the Federal Government should have a liability component if they did not have anything to do with helping decide the issue.

In any event, I remind my colleagues that Native Americans are the only group in the United States who believe that the Earth is their mother, and they certainly do not need to be told how to take care of the Earth because it is in their religion. It is in their nature and has been for thousands of years. It is in their culture. It is a cultural thing with which youngsters grow up. For that matter, they do not need the Senate to tell them how to take care of the Earth either. An Indian mandate to take care of the Earth comes from a higher order than the Senate, and it is sometimes found insulting to be told that they need the Government to oversee what their own religion and culture teach them from childhood.

That is why so many tribes do support the Campbell-Domenici amendment, and I will list them, as I did the other day. A few more have come in: The National Congress of American Indians, which represents over 300 tribes; the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, which represents 50 energy-producing tribes. We have a number of individual letters from the Cherokee Nation, which is the largest Indian tribe in the United States; from the Chickasaw Nation, another very progressive and highly respected tribe in Oklahoma; from the Mohegan Tribe; from the Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, which is in New Mexico; the Jicarilla Apache Tribe; the Oneida Indian Nation; the Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, which receives a very large share of its governmental revenues from oil and gas production on its tribal lands; also from the National Tribal Environmental Council, an organization in Albuquerque, whose membership includes over 180 tribal governments; the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council; the Native American Energy Group; the United South and Eastern Tribes, an organization consisting of 22 tribes located on the eastern seaboard from Maine to Florida. Also, support continues to come in. One non-Indian group that has submitted support is the U.S. National Chamber of Commerce.

I ask unanimous consent that those letters of support be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, who is a stalwart supporter of this movement.

There is no question, if we do not take this back up between now and July, if there is a second degree offered at that time, we will be giving the opponents of this bill--instead of giving Indians an opportunity to get up off their knees and get some jobs--an opportunity to gin up some opposition. I think that is what the delay is for. I appreciate the support of the Senator from New Mexico.

I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, as well as my colleague and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator John Breaux, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than 1 million Americans with type 1 or juvenile diabetes.

As the founder and co-chair of the senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. Diabetes is a devastating, life-long condition that affects people of every age, race, and nationality. It is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. Moreover, a new study released by the American Diabetes Association last week estimates that diabetes cost the Nation $132 billion last year, and that health care spending for people with diabetes is almost double what it would be if they did not have diabetes.

The burden of diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young adults with type 1, or juvenile diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is the second most common chronic disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow.

In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure, and people with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating, life-threatening complications as well as a drastic reduction in their quality of life.

Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will be cured in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the Edmonton Protocol, an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1921. Of the approximately 200 patients who have been treated using variations of the Edmonton Protocol, all have seen a reversal of their life-disabling hypoglycemia, and nearly 80 percent have maintained normal glucose levels without insulin shots for more than 1 year.

Moreover, the side effects associated with this treatment-- which uses more islet cells and a less toxic combination of immunosuppressive drugs than previous, less successful protocols--have been mild and the therapy has been generally well tolerated by most patients.

Unfortunately, long-term use of toxic immunosuppressive drugs, has side effects that make the current treatment inappropriate for use in children. Researcher, however, are working hard to find a way to reduce the transplant recipient's dependence on these drugs so that the procedure will be appropriate for children in the future, and the protocol has been hailed around the world as a remarkable breakthrough and proof that islet transplantation can work. It appears to offer the most immediate chance to achieve a cure for type 1 diabetes, and the research is moving forward rapidly.

New sources of islet cells must be found, however, because, as the science advances and continues to demonstrate promise, the number of islet cell transplants that can be performed will be limited by a serious shortage of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation. There currently are only 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these, only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively.

The legislation we are introducing today will increase the supply of pancreases available for these trials and research. Our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to grant credit to organ procurement organizations OPOs--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research.

Currently, CMS collects performance data from each OPO based upon the number of organs procured for transplant relative to the population of the OPO's service area. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

In addition, the legislation establishes an inter-agency committee on islet cell transplantation comprised of representatives of all of the Federal agencies with an active role in supporting this research. The many advisory committees on organ transplantation that currently exist are so broad in scope that the issue of islet cell transplantation-- while of great importance to the juvenile diabetes community--does not rise to the level of consideration when included with broader issues associated with organ donation, such as organ allocation policy and financial barriers to transplantation. We believe that a more focused effort in the area of islet cell transplantation is clearly warrented since the research is moving forward at such a rapid pace and with such remarkable results.

To help us collect the data necessary to move islet cell transplantation from an experimental procedure to a standard therapy covered by insurance, our legislation directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study on the impact of islet cell transplantation on the health-related quality of life outcomes for individuals with juvenile diabetes, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.

Diabetes is the most common cause of kidney failure, accounting for 40 percent of new cases, and a significant percentage of individuals with type 1 diabetes will experience kidney failure and become Medicare-eligible before they are age 65. Medicare currently covers both kidney transplants and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants for these individuals. To help Medicare decide whether it should cover pancreatic islet cell transplants, our legislation authorizes a demonstration project to test the efficacy of simultaneous islet-kidney transplants

and islet transplants following a kidney transplant for individuals with type 1 diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end stage renal disease ESRD.

Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation JDRF, addresses some of the specific obstacles to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack. Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water system, recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries. Plants, such as variable leaf milfoil, are crowding out native species. Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over southern New England's tidal pools, and just last year began their advance into Maine--to the potential detriment of Maine's lobster and clam industries.

Maine and many other States are attempting to fight back against these invasions. Unfortunately, their efforts have frequently been of limited success. As with national security, protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams, and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by individual States alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal effectively with invasive species.

Today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for combating alien species that invade our shores.

The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and damaging public water supplies.

In the 1950s, European green crabs swarmed the Maine coast and literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the 1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than 1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44 million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.

Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new invasions. It is too late

to stop European green crabs from taking hold on the east coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.

Three months ago, in the town of Limerick, ME, one of North America's most aggressive invasive species--hydrilla--was found in Pickeral Pond. Hydrilla can quickly dominate its new ecosystem--already hydrilla covers 60 percent of the bottom of Pickerel Pond from the shoreline out to 6 feet deep. Never before detected in Maine, this stubborn and fast- growing aquatic plant threatens Pickerel Pond's recreational use for swimmers and boaters, and could spread to nearby lakes and ponds. Unfortunately, eradication of hydrilla is nearly impossible, so we must now work to prevent further infestation in the State.

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 is the most comprehensive effort ever to address the threat of invasive species. By authorizing $836 million over 6 years, this legislation would open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy cruise of invasive species into U.S. waters through the ballast water of international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million per year to develop and implement these regulations.

The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It would provide $12 million per year for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally, the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for research, education, and outreach.

The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing $25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.

One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway. The bill we are introducing today would establish a framework to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species by ships.

Currently, the U.S. is in negotiations with the international community on the development and implementation of an international program for preventing the unintentional introduction and spread of non-indigenous species through ballast water. I commend American negotiators for working with the international community to address this global problem. This legislation offers a strong framework that the U.S. should use as a model in negotiating this important international convention. The U.S. Government must ensure that the international convention will be at least as protective as the legislation we are introducing today. The United States must take the most protective action possible to protect our waters, ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species before it is too late.

Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003. This bill, which reauthorizes the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to protect the Nation's waters. This bill deals with the prevention of new introductions, the screening of new aquatic organisms coming into the country, the rapid response to new invasions, and the research to implement the provisions of this bill.

The problem of invasive species is a very real one. Over the past 450 years, during colonization and development of this country, more than 6,500 nonindigenous invasive species have been introduced into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes.

Some of my colleagues may remember that back in the late eighties, the problem of aquatic nuisance species was first raised after the zebra mussel was released into the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now, 20 States are fighting to control them. Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic invasive species is maritime commerce. Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for ballast. Aquatic invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into the Great Lakes when ships, often from halfway around the world, pulled into port and discharged their ballast water. Aquatic invaders can also attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.

Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes, Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that have reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes. The current law requires that ships entering the Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water exchange.'' Unfortunately, the effectiveness of ballast water exchange has been left undefined. Consequently, alternative treatments have not been fully developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast technology do not know what standard

they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because ultimately, only onboard ballast water treatment will adequately reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced through ballast water.

Our bill rectifies this problem. First, this bill establishes deadlines for national interim and final standards for ballast water management. This way, technology vendors and the maritime industry know when to expect clear requirements. Second, our bill establishes what the phrase ``as effective as ballast water exchange'' means for the purposes of the interim period. Research has shown that ballast water exchange has highly variable effectiveness rates. This bill takes the maximum effectiveness that ballast water exchange could have using the safest approach--a 95-percent reduction of near coastal plankton and establishes it as the floor for treatment effectiveness which is a 95 percent kill or removal of live organisms. Within 18 months of the bill's passage, the Coast Guard is required to issue regulations implementing an interim ballast water standard that would require ships that enter any U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles to either use ballast water treatment technology that meets the standard, retain the ship's ballast water, or exchange the ship's ballast water in the high seas. Ships operating in coastal waters would not be required to manage ballast water during the interim standard.

A 95-percent reduction of organisms will be the interim standard used for treatment technology until the EPA, with the concurrence of the Coast Guard, promulgates the final standard. This interim standard is not intended to be implemented for the long run, and it is not perfect. However, a final standard is difficult to set today or in the near future because of the limited research that has been conducted on how clean or sterile ballast water discharge should be, what is the best expression of a standard, and what is technologically achievable. Rather than wait many more years before taking action to stop new introductions, I believe that an imperfect but clear and achievable interim standard for treatment technology is the right approach. This interim standard will lead to the use of ballast treatments that are more protective of our waters than the default method of ballast water exchange provides, and it can be implemented in the very near future. Further, the bill provides the Coast Guard with the flexibility to promulgate the interim standard using a size-based standard or by whatever parameters the Coast Guard determines appropriate.

I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched and are ready to be tested onboard ships. These technologies include ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals, deoxygenation, and several others. Each of these technologies has a different pricetag attached to it. It is not my intention to overburden the maritime industry with an expensive requirement to install technology. In fact, the legislation states that the final ballast water technology standard must be based on ``best available technology economically achievable.'' That means that the EPA must consider what technology is available, and if there is not economically achievable technology available to a class of vessels, then the standard will not require ballast technology for that class of vessels, subject to review every 3 years. I do not believe this will be the case, however, because the approach creates a clear incentive for treatment vendors to develop affordable equipment for the market. Since ballast technology will be always evolving, it is important that the EPA review and revise the standard so that it reflects what is the best technology currently available and whether it is economically achievable. Shipowners cannot be expected to upgrade their equipment upon every few years as technology develops, however, so the law provides an approval period of at least 10 years.

There are other important provisions of the bill as well. The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up the Mississippi through the canal into the Great Lakes. Equally important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system. The bill establishes an experimental ballast treatment approval process to take effect immediately so that the treatment technology industry can begin full-scale experimental installations of treatments on ships. The bill authorizes additional funding for better coordinated research to find effective means of combating invasive species. It would help Federal, State, and regional authorities guard against future invasions by developing early detection monitoring and rapid response plans. And it provides funding for outreach and education programs to inform the public and marina owners about the dangers of inadvertently carrying aquatic invaders on the hulls of recreational boats or dumping bait buckets into the Lakes.

Invasive species threaten the region's biological diversity and are an economic drain. Estimates of the annual economic damage caused nationwide by invasive species go as high as $137 billion. Because of the system of canals connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean, there are no physical barriers to block the spread of invasive species, making the Great Lakes highly vulnerable. Because of the frequency of ships entering into the Great Lakes, though, our region is often ``ground zero,'' and once an exotic species establishes itself, it is almost impossible to eradicate and sometimes difficult to prevent from moving throughout the nation. Therefore, prevention is the key to controlling new introductions.

All in all, the bill would cost between $160 million and $170 million each year. This is a lot of money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much greater. However, compared to the $137 billion annual cost of invasive species, the cost of this bill is minimal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill swiftly through the Senate.