Oil Shale and Tar Sand Development Act of 2005

Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Utah, I thank the managers of this Omnibus Energy bill for their leadership in producing a comprehensive and broadly supported proposal.

If the American people think bipartisanship is dead in Congress, they should look at this bill and how it is being managed on the floor these past 2 weeks.

On behalf of the people of Utah, I want to thank the managers of this Omnibus Energy bill for their leadership in producing such a comprehensive and broadly supported proposal.

If the American people think that bipartisanship is dead in Congress, they should take a look at this bill, and how it is being managed on the floor these 2 weeks.

I must commend the leadership of Chairmen Domenici and Grassley, and their Democratic counterparts, Senators Bingaman and Baucus as the Senate considers this critically important piece of legislation.

In addition, I want to thank Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus for working so closely with me on the energy tax incentive package, now part of the Omnibus Energy bill.

In particular, this bill includes a number of provisions of great importance to Utahns, provisions I authored. These include my CLEAR Act, which promotes alternatives in the transportation sector, my Gas Price Reduction through Increased Refinery Capacity Act, and my proposal to improve the treatment of geothermal powerplants. All were included in the energy package.

I am also grateful to the leaders of the Energy Committee, Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for agreeing to include the major provisions of another bill of keen interest to Utahns, my bill, the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Promotion Act, S.1111, which was cosponsored by Senators Bennett and Allard.

Our bill would promote development of the largest untapped resource of hydrocarbons in the world. There is more recoverable oil in the oil shale and oil sands of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming than in the entire Middle East.

The chairman and his staff have done yeomen's work to successfully strike a compromise on S. 1111 that is agreeable to all sides and that can be accepted into this bill. I thank both leaders for that effort.

And finally, I thank them for including my bill, S. 53, in the Energy bill. S. 53 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sands and a lease for oil and gas, thus freeing up a new resource of natural gas in our Nation.

Now, I would like to turn to the Hatch-Bennett amendment on high level nuclear waste, which we filed in an effort to bring some focus to our Nation's policy for handling spent nuclear fuel.

In my hand is an article from yesterday's Washington Post.

The headline reads, ``Bush Calls for More Nuclear Power Plants.'' And the article begins: ``President Bush called today for a new wave of nuclear power plant construction as he promoted an energy policy that he wants to see enacted in a bill now making its way through Congress.''

The President is calling for a robust nuclear power strategy, and his reasons are clear: nuclear power is clean and safe, and there is an abundant supply of cheap uranium in Northern America.

But my question is, ``What are we going to do with all the waste?''

We cannot have a nuclear power strategy until we know what to do with all the spent nuclear fuel.

And what is becoming quickly apparent to me and to the people of Utah is that we do not have a coherent national nuclear waste policy. Until we do, we are putting the cart before of the horse.

For years, I have supported sending this high level nuclear waste to the desert of Nevada.

To be honest, it has never been an easy vote for me, because it was against the wishes of my friends and colleagues from that State. However, it

has been our national policy for more than two decades to build a site at Yucca Mountain, a safe, remote location, where spent fuel could be taken over by the Federal Government and buried deep beneath the desert.

Even though Utah does not use or produce nuclear power, I have recognized the need to have a nuclear power program in the U.S. that relies on a plan to safely handle our waste. In other words, we need a strong nuclear waste program.

Here is a picture of the desert area where Yucca Mountain actually is. You can see it is desolate and out in the middle of nowhere.

Unfortunately, a few nuclear power utilities are attempting to hijack our Nation's nuclear waste strategy by joining forces to build an away- from-reactor, aboveground storage site for one-half of our Nation's high level nuclear waste on a tiny Indian reservation in Tooele, UT.

Even more unfortunate is that the only tribe they could con into taking this waste was the Skull Valley Band of the Goshutes, whose small reservation just happens to sit on one of the most dangerous sites you could imagine for storing high level nuclear waste.

The Skull Valley reservation is directly adjacent to the Air Force's Utah Test and Training Range and Dugway Proving Grounds where live ordnance is used.

Here is an illustration of an F-l6 that flies regularly in this area.

This location proposed for the aboveground storage of half of our nuclear waste sits directly under the flight path of 7,000 low altitude F-16 flights every year.

Even if this area were truly remote from all civilization, which it is not, its location alone should disqualify it for the storage of even one cask of high level nuclear waste. But that's the problem with allowing private intrests to establish our nuclear waste strategy, economics can get in the way of reason and safety.

Mr. President, 80 percent of Utah's population sits within 50 miles of the Skull Valley reservation.

Represented on this picture are the type of communities we have near that place.

As a crow flies, Skull Valley is less than 15 miles away from Tooele City, one of the fastest growing cities in Utah, which is becoming a major suburb of Salt lake City.

Skull Valley is only about 30 miles from the Salt Lake City International Airport. And let us not forget that many of the families of the Skull Valley Band live right on the reservation, and half, if not more, of them are against this. These families face, by far, the greatest risk.

When this group of utilities, known as Private Fuel Storage, or PFS, applied for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Commission's three judge Atomic Licensing Board ruled that the threat of a crash from an F-16 was too great to allow a license for the proposed facility. Not letting science get in its way, PFS came back later after two of the three judges were replaced with new ones, this time making a different pitch even though all the facts remained the same.

As a result, the two new judges ruled, in a two-to-one decision, that the risk of a crash from an F-16 was low enough to allow the license.

One has to wonder who in the world would allow the license for a small tribe in this area with this type of danger. The trustee I don't think could possibly do that. Nevertheless, they ignored the prior commission and went ahead and did it.

However, Judge Peter Lam, the senior member of the panel, and its only nuclear engineer, gave a very strong dissent. I would like to quote from Judge Lam's dissent:

The proposed PFS facility does not currently have a

demonstrated adequate safety margin against accidental

aircraft crashes. . . . This lack of an adequate safety

margin is a direct manifestation of the fundamentally

difficult situation of the proposed PFS site: 4,000 spent

fuel storage casks sitting in the flight corridor of some

7,000 F-16 flights a year.

Judge Lam also cited the inadequacy of the new methodology used to determine that the site would be safe.

He writes:

In this current proceeding, the Applicant has performed an

extensive probability analysis and a structural analysis to

rehabilitate its license application. As explained below, the

Applicant's probability and structural analyses both suffer

from major uncertainties. These uncertainties fundamentally

undermine the validity of the analyses.

Mr. President, with 7,000 F-16 flights every year, one can imagine that emergency landings are not uncommon at the training range, and I am unhappy to report that crash landings are not rare, either.

In the last 20 years, there have been 70 F-16 crashes at the Utah Test and Training Range, and a number of these crashes have occurred well outside the boundaries of the training range.

I have found it baffling that the Final EIS for the Skull Valley plan does not require PFS to have any on-site means to handle damaged or breached casks. Rather, the NRC staff concluded the risk of a cask breach is so minimal that they did not have to consider such a scenario in their EIS. I find this conclusion dubious and dangerous in light of the facts relating to F-16 overflights.

In his dissent, Judge Lam refers to the threat of accidental aircraft accidents. He doesn't even go into the possibility of terrorists. Since the events of September 11, we have learned that one of our Nation's most serious threats may come in the form of deliberate suicide air attacks. It would seem inconceivable that a Government entity would consider giving their endorsement of the PFS plan without thoroughly taking into account the added terrorist threat our Nation now faces.

Yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has refused to reopen the Environmental Impact Statement to consider this new threat, even though post-9-11 studies have been completed at all other facilities licensed by the NRC.

It is apparent they just want to dump this stuff somewhere. I have to say, if this continues, I am certainly going to do some reconsidering myself.

I found this especially troubling since the NRC has never granted a license for the storage of more than about 60 casks, but the Skull Valley site will hold up to 4,000 casks of this waste.

I want my colleagues to understand that not only is the size of the PFS proposal a gigantic precedent, but issuing itself a license for a private away-from-reactor storage site has never been done and runs counter to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which clearly limits the NRC to license storage sites only at Federal facilities or onsite at nuclear powerplants.

Former Secretary of Energy Abraham stated publicly he shares our interpretation. In a letter to members of the Utah congressional delegation, Secretary Abraham issued a policy statement that barred any DOE reimbursement funds from being used in relation to the Skull Valley site. This would include industry members who would lease space at the site. He said:

Because the PFS/Goshute facility in Utah would be

constructed and operated outside the scope of the [Nuclear

Waste Policy] Act, the Department will not fund or otherwise

provide financial assistance for PFS, nor can we monitor the

safety precautions the private facility may install.

My amendment is compatible with the policy outlined by Secretary Abraham in his letter. It would ban the transportation of high level nuclear waste to private away-from-reactor waste sites and calls for a study to the feasibility of storing spent fuel either at Department of Energy facilities or of the Department taking possession of the spent fuel onsite at nuclear reactors.

My amendment calls also for a study of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for future use.

Let me state the obvious for the record. The PFS plan is vehemently opposed by the entire Utah congressional delegation, Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Gov. Michael Leavitt, and an overwhelming majority of Utahans. In fact, virtually everybody in Utah. A large portion of the 70-member Goshute Band is strongly opposed to the proposal. We believe a majority of them are, but there is some indication of fraud in their elections out there.

Furthermore, the leader of the band, Leon Bear, has pleaded guilty to a Federal indictment. It is notable that every other tribal government in Utah has come out flatly against it. How could any trustee for the Indians allow something like that to be?

Utahns are well aware of the points I have made today. Because of the risks we face associated with the PFS proposal, we know better than any that our Nation's nuclear waste policy is broken. It was with good reason that our Nation's nuclear waste strategy has been built around the expectation that the Federal Government, namely the Department of Energy, would take possession of spent nuclear fuel rods. What better example do we need than the PFS plan to see why private industry should not be allowed to develop and implement our Nation's nuclear waste strategy.

Think about it. PFS is a shell corporation. If anything went wrong, Utah is going to eat it. That is all there is to it. It is ridiculous.

I understand why our colleagues from Nevada oppose the Yucca Mountain site. I am getting more and more understanding of that as I go along. But if they are concerned about waste at Yucca Mountain, they should be exponentially more concerned over the PFS site which is so flawed as to be inherently dangerous, extremely dangerous.

In closing, let me drive home one point. Our President has called for a dramatic increase in our Nation's capacity to generate nuclear power. As Congress considers that proposal, I ask, Should any increase we might authorize rest on a nuclear waste policy established by the Federal Government or should that policymaking rest with a couple of private companies that are driven by profit?

Do we want the Federal Government to take possession of our high level nuclear waste or is our national waste policy to allow private companies to control the transport, storage, and security of this waste? And with shell corporations at that. If that is to be our policy, then I need to inform our colleagues that our Nation's nuclear power strategy is a house built on sand.

Let me summarize my remarks. We Utahns are adamantly opposed to the storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley reservation. The current site that has been selected by a consortium made up of eight utilities has several fatal flaws, including the fact that it contemplates a facility that is, one, located fewer than 50 miles from the Salt Lake Valley where 80 percent of our fellow Utahans live; two, directly under the Utah Test and Training Range where roughly 7,000 low-altitude F-16 training flights take place each year, many with live ordnance, and over a range where 70 crashes have taken place already; and three, on the small Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation where about 40 of the band's 120 total members reside--only 40. Moreover, the Skull Valley Band's leadership is in question. Leon Bear, the band's current chairman, has been accused by his colleagues of disregarding a vote of no confidence. In addition, Mr. Bear recently pleaded guilty to Federal criminal charges and is awaiting sentencing relating to his management of tribal financial resources.

I would like to know if my friend, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, believes that storing spent nuclear fuel on a privately run and privately owned offsite facility, such as the Skull Valley reservation in Utah, is a component of our national nuclear waste policy.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that clarification.

I again thank the leaders of this bill who have done such a great job in bringing both sides together to pass what will be one of the most important energy bills in the history of the world. It certainly is going to do a lot for our country if we will continue to follow this through conference and get it back for final passage. It is long overdue.

I know it has been an ordeal for Senator Domenici in particular and others as well. I pay my tribute to them for the hard work they have done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of this Energy bill and in particular the amendment that is primarily sponsored by Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Landrieu, Vitter, and others.

First, I thank Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for their skillful leadership, their dedication, their patience, and everything they have done to craft a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan energy policy that I believe encourages, incents, provides us, as a country, with clean and affordable energy in a growing and obviously more secure economy.

We have made significant progress so far on this measure. I look forward to passage of this bill in the Senate so we can get a final measure passed before the summer recess.

This bill is important for three salient reasons: No. 1, the security of this country; No. 2, jobs in this country; and No. 3, the competitiveness of the United States of America.

As far as security and energy independence, we must become less reliant on foreign sources of oil and natural gas from unstable, unreliable places in the world.

Second, as far as jobs are concerned, this measure, when passed, will save jobs. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be saved and hundreds of thousands of jobs in a variety of ways will be created--new jobs. It is important for saving jobs especially in the areas where there is manufacturing of chemicals, fertilizers, plastics, forestry products, and even tires. All of those can be manufactured anywhere in the world, but we have a high-intensity need for clean burning natural gas right here in America. And jobs will be saved if we produce it here within our own borders.

We are supporting new technologies for the production of electricity using clean coal technology--where we are embracing the advances of technology to utilize an abundant resource, coal--we are the Saudi Arabia of the world in coal, and we ought to be using it, as well as new technologies for clean nuclear power generation. That is where jobs matter.

As far as competitiveness, there is not a person here, not a person in this country, whether it is driving to school, driving to work, operating a business, and it could be the highest, most technologically advanced business, that doesn't need electricity. Everything we consume goes by rail, truck, air, or a combination thereof before it gets to the store or to our homes or to our places of business. This bill is essential for lower gasoline and diesel costs for transport of these products.

We need to have an affordable energy source for our economy, for jobs, and the competitiveness of our country in the future because many of these jobs can be put anywhere in the world. In addition to proper tax policies, reasonable regulatory policies, less litigation, and the embracing of innovations, an energy policy for this country is long overdue.

With regard to competitiveness, I was Governor at one time. We would always try to get businesses to locate in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We succeeded. The businesses looked at the cost of operations in different States. They looked at what the cost was; what is the regulatory burden; do you have a right-to-work law, which we did; what is the cost of health care. They cared about transportation, but they also looked at the cost of doing business with electricity. We would have a report to top management in New York City, and we would compare our electricity rates in Virginia to those in the New York City area. Virginia's electricity rates, compared to those, looked as though they were almost free. That was an attribute, a strong selling point for businesses to come to the Commonwealth of Virginia. These same principles apply to the entire United States of America.

Let's look at natural gas. Natural gas, that wonderful clean burning fuel, is in many places around the world, in many strong economies around the world. We would certainly want to be able to match other countries in the cost of producing this clean burning fuel, whether for our homes, but also for manufacturers. It is not just the chemical and fertilizer manufacturers, it is the farmers who have to pay these

higher prices, and when farmers have to pay higher prices to run their tractors or to fertilize their fields, that means the cost of food goes up, which affects us all in that way as well.

Look at our prices--and these prices are from February, and prices of natural gas have gone up in this country since this report. In the United States of America, we are over $7 for 1 million Btus of natural gas and it is rising.

Take the United Kingdom, Great Britain. It is $5.15. Turkey is only $2.65. Ukraine is $1.70. Russia is less than a dollar per 1 million Btus. You say, well, we are not competing with them. Who are we competing with then? We are competing with them, as well as with South America. Look at the prices of natural gas in South American countries: $1.50 in Argentina compared to over $7 in the United States. In North Africa, it is less than a dollar.

What about real competition we are facing in the loss of manufacturing jobs to India and to China? China and India are increasing in their economies and, of course, demand for oil, natural gas, coal and other fuels is going up, too, exacerbating the prices. We see China now trying to buy up our gasoline companies, specifically Unocal. For our national security, it's important that we have a comprehensive review of the types of investments State owned Chinese companies are making in international and U.S. based energy resources.

Even there, where China has this booming economy, their price is $4.50 compared to us. The same with Japan. India pays half the price we do in natural gas, $3.10 per 1 million Btus. Our friends in Australia pay $3.75 for a million Btus of natural gas.

As a result of what we are seeing in these higher natural gas prices, we are already losing jobs in this country. The chemical industry, one of our Nation's largest industrial users of natural gas, has watched more than 100,000 jobs, one-tenth of the U.S. chemical workforce, disappear just since the year 2000.

Recent studies by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council found that 2 million jobs could be saved if Congress lays out a fresh blueprint for the supply, delivery, and efficient use of all forms of energy, including clean burning natural gas.

To address this natural gas crisis that is crippling our American farmers and manufacturers, we need a positive, proactive strategy for greater fuel diversity. The bill does just that by supporting clean coal. It supports nuclear energy and a whole host of renewable technologies, such as biofuels and incentives for fuel cells.

In the area of nuclear, I think it is one of the most important aspects of the bill. When one thinks of the generation of electricity, we ought to be using clean nuclear and clean coal technology while allowing natural gas to be utilized not for base load electricity generation but rather for factories, manufacturing jobs, and in our homes.

The President's Nuclear Power 2010 Program is designed to work with the nuclear industry in a 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement. It also addresses some of the risks and litigation aspects of it. One thing that is not in this measure but I am going to work on in the future is the repository.

The Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, was talking about Yucca Mountain. I fully understand why the people in Nevada would not want to have highly radioactive fuel rods that are radioactive for 40,000 years. What we need to do long term is look at what France is doing with nuclear power. What they have done is taken a technology that was started in this country on reprocessing and they have perfected it. We ought to be reprocessing this nuclear fuel, these spent fuel rods. If we do that, it is a much more efficient and much less dangerous approach. It is much less volume, and are decreased. That is something we need to do long term. It is not in this measure, but we need to move forward with it in the future.

Also in this bill we have set efficiency standards for everything from buildings to appliances that will help reduce our demand for electricity and natural gas.

Ultimately, we need to need to produce more natural gas. This amendment talks about coastal States that are committed to more exploration, the impact on their coastal areas and allowing them to get some assistance to these States closest to the exploration.

What I am going to say is not part of this amendment, but the issue of exploration off the coasts of different States came up during the hearings in our committee. It is not necessarily part of--in fact, it is not part of this amendment, but for the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this is an issue of some interest in our General Assembly. Our State legislature, in a very strong bipartisan action, stated that they were in favor of allowing or at least determining if there is any natural gas--not oil but natural gas--far off the coast of Virginia, beyond the viewshed, and, in the event that there is, allowing Virginia to share some of those revenues. That is not going to be part of this measure, and I say to Senator Bingaman, it is not part of this measure.

I realize things move slowly around here, slower than some of us would like, but I do think that the people in the States should have more of a say in energy production. Right now, if one looks at these coastal areas, it is all subject to the whims of the Federal Government. The Federal Government says they own it; the Federal Government says: We will determine if it is in a moratorium or not.

I am one, having been Governor, who would actually like the people in the States to have more prerogatives. There may be a different batch of folks in the Senate, and we may have a different President who says, No, we are going to do this, we do not care what the people of New Jersey think; we are going to go forward and explore. I would like to protect the prerogatives of the people of the States and also allow the people in the States, if they so choose to explore, to actually share in those revenues.

I have suggested that in Virginia, we ought to use a good portion of it for universities and colleges to reduce in-State tuition costs; another big chunk for transportation to alleviate traffic congestion; and another portion to the coastal areas, such as places like Virginia Beach, for things like beach replenishment. That is just something I would like to see ultimately allowed, but that is not part of this measure.

I also do think that I know the President's views on the inventory issue. People in South and North Carolina, Florida, and New Jersey do not even want an inventory. They do not even want to know what is off their coast. In my view, the compromise to all of this, if they do not want to, they don't have to. Why spend money looking off those coasts because the people of Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey, and maybe South Carolina as well, do not want to. So why waste the money? However, if the people of Georgia and Virginia would like to know what is off their coasts, allow them to at least find out what is out there and then make a determination therefrom. That might be the good compromise to this issue in conference.

This measure that Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter have brought up has to do with Louisiana and a great deal, obviously, with the gulf coast. They have certain needs in Louisiana. Being in Cajun country and all around Louisiana last year for a variety of purposes, I know this is a very big issue to the people of Louisiana. We should be thankful to the people of Louisiana for the efforts they have made in the exploration off their coast because they are powering this country.

Granted, natural gas prices are high, and maybe we will get more production out of Alaska, and maybe we will get some more out of Louisiana or maybe off of Mississippi, but the point is that they have great coastal impacts, not because of the exploration way off in the Gulf of Mexico but because of the services to transport it, just the nature of the bayous. It is just the topography, that they have coastal erosion there that is of great concern to everyone in the State of Louisiana, especially south Louisiana. They are all proud of that sportsman paradise, as they call it.

I strongly support Senator Domenici's and Senator Bingaman's effort in this bill to consider the needs of producing States. Long term, what we are looking at is supporting, creating, and

preserving manufacturing jobs and finding environmentally safe ways to increase production of clean burning natural gas. It is important for jobs in this country. It is important for our national security to be less dependent on foreign energy. We need to be more independent, and, of course, we need to be much more competitive for investments and jobs if we are going to be the world capital of innovation.

So I urge my colleagues most respectfully to vote for this amendment that allows coastal impact assistance to States closest to this exploration. We have listened in meetings to Senator Vitter argue very persuasively to me and to others, I hope, and the same with Senator Landrieu in a variety of forums as well--they have made a persuasive argument for Louisiana, but ultimately it is a persuasive argument for the United States of America.

I thank my colleagues for their attention, and most importantly I thank my colleagues in anticipation of a positive vote for this amendment and moreover getting this Energy bill passed so that this country can become more independent of foreign oil, foreign energy, save those jobs, create more jobs, and make this country more competitive for investment and creativity in the future.

I yield the floor.

I say to my chairman that the reason I wanted to get on his committee was because I believed that this Energy bill was the most important legislation we will pass in this Congress that will affect our competitiveness, jobs in this country, as well as our independence or less dependence on foreign oil and foreign energy, whether it is natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and all the rest.

I have been so impressed by the bipartisan way the Senator has methodically tried to move this measure forward that has great importance for the future of our country, not just for the next 5 or 10 years but, indeed, for generations to come. It is a model for how we can work in a bipartisan way. Does everyone get everything they want? No. But I think the American people ultimately will be much better off, there will be more people and families working, and we will be more competitive, thanks to the Senator's leadership.

I am very proud and pleased to have been appointed and elected to the Energy Committee, and I look forward to working with the chairman. He is a magnificent leader with the right vision for this country.

Mr. President, I appreciate the strong, eloquent statement of the Senator from Massachusetts. He is a former chairman of this committee, the Judiciary Committee. Of course, he is not only a former chairman but, as one of the three most senior Members of the Senate, is well aware of what has been our practice.

I think we may also hear from the senior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, who is another former chairman.

Let me speak in my capacity also as a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

It is now almost 1 month since the bipartisan agreement was forged to avert an unnecessary ``nuclear'' showdown in the Senate. Democratic Senators who signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations that averted the nuclear option have fulfilled their commitments with respect to invoking cloture on several controversial nominees. Sadly, with Republicans voting party-line on almost every one of these nominees, they have been confirmed. Meanwhile, as the Democratic leader had offered months ago, the Senate considered and voted upon two Sixth Circuit nominees and an additional DC Circuit nominee.

What has yet to take place, however, is the kind of meaningful consultation that Republican and Democratic Senators explicitly called for in that memorandum. They ``encouraged the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.'' They called for a ``return to the early practices of our government'' that reduced conflict and led to consensus. We have not yet noticed an abundance of consultation. And unfortunately, White House officials have declared that the President has no interest in and feels no obligation to assist in implementing this feature of the memorandum.

Since the White House will not acknowledge the record, I thought it worth noting that 214 of this President's judicial nominations have already been confirmed by the Senate. That includes 41 circuit court nominees, an almost 80-percent confirmation rate of his many divisive circuit court nominees. These figures are all well ahead of the rates during President Clinton's administration. At a similar point in the last administration, only 180 nominees had been confirmed, including only 31 circuit court nominees, which amounted to barely 74 percent of President Clinton's circuit court nominees.

With all the recent talk from Republicans about the principle of every nominee being entitled to an up-or-down vote, it is striking that such a standard was not considered at all while Republicans pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. As I demonstrated during the time I served as chairman and since then, President Bush's nominees have been treated far more fairly than were President Clinton's nominees.

I have spoken over the last 4\1/2\ years, most recently in the last few weeks, about the benefits to all if the President were to consult with Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle on important judicial nominations. I return today to emphasize, again, the significance of meaningful consultation on these nominations. It bears repeating given what is at stake for the Senate, the judiciary and the American people.

In a few more days the U.S. Supreme Court will complete its term. Last year the Chief Justice noted publicly that at the age of 80, one thinks about retirement. I get to see the Chief Justice from time to time in connection with his work for the Judicial Conference and the Smithsonian Institution. Sometimes we see each other in Vermont or en route there, and I am struck every time by his commitment to service. He is waging his personal battle against ill health with his characteristic resolve. I know that the Chief will retire when he decides that he should, and not before. He has earned that right after serving on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years, the last 19 as the Chief Justice. I have great respect and affection for him, and he is in our prayers.

In light of the age and health of our Supreme Court Justices, speculation has accelerated about the potential for a Supreme Court vacancy this summer. In advance of any such vacancy, I have called upon the President to follow the constructive and successful examples set by previous Presidents of both parties who engaged in meaningful consultation with Members of the Senate before selecting nominees. This decision is too important to all Americans to be unnecessarily embroiled in partisan politics.

I have said repeatedly that should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, I stand ready to work with President Bush to help him select a nominee to the Supreme Court who can unite Americans. I have urged consultation and cooperation for 4 years and have reached out to the President, again, over these last few weeks. I hope that if a vacancy does arise the President will finally turn away from his past practices, consult with us and work with us. This is the way to unite instead of divide the Nation, and this is the way to honor the Constitution's ``advise and consent'' directive, and this is the way to preserve the independence of our federal judiciary, which is the envy of the rest of the world.

Some Presidents, including most recently President Clinton, found that

consultation with the Senate in advance of a nomination was highly beneficial in helping lay the foundation for successful nominations. President Reagan, on the other hand, disregarded the advice offered by Senate Democratic leaders and chose a controversial, divisive nominee who was ultimately rejected by the full Senate.

In his recent book, ``Square Peg,'' Senator Hatch recounts how in 1993, as the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he advised President Clinton about possible Supreme Court nominees. In his book, Senator Hatch wrote that he warned President Clinton away from a nominee whose confirmation he believed ``would not be easy.'' Senator Hatch goes on to describe how he suggested the names of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom were eventually nominated and confirmed ``with relative ease.'' Indeed, 96 Senators voted in favor of Justice Ginsburg's confirmation, and only three Senators voted against; Justice Breyer received 87 affirmative votes, and only nine Senators voted against. Nor are these recent examples the only evidence of effective and meaningful consultation with the Senate over our history.

The Constitution provides that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint'' judges and explicitly the members of the only court established by the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court. For advice to be meaningful, it needs to be informed. Despite his public commitment at a news conference three weeks ago specifically regarding the Supreme Court, the President has not even begun the process of consulting with Democratic Senators. I wrote to the President, again, last month, urging consultation and even making suggestions on how he might wish to proceed.

Bipartisan consultation would not only make any Supreme Court selection a better one, it would also reassure the Senate and the American people that the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice has not become politicized.

The bipartisan group of 14 Senators who joined together to avert the ``nuclear option'' included the following in their agreement:

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United

States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to

consultation between the Senate and the President with regard

to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We

encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with

members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior

to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for

consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may

well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately

accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the

traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators

seek to uphold.

I agree. Bipartisan consultation is consistent with the traditions of the Senate and would return us to practices that have served the country well. Our fellow Senators have history and the well-being of the Nation on their side in urging greater consultation on judicial nominations. They are right.

What is troubling are the recent reports that the White House plan does not include meaningful consultation at all, but instead plans a political-style campaign and some sort of preemptive contact to allow them to pretend they consulted, without anything akin to the kind of meaningful consultation that this important matter deserves. Partisan activists supporting the White House boasted last week about a war chest of upwards of $20 million to be used to crush any opposition to the White House's selection. That sounds awfully like preparations for all out partisan political warfare. If the White House intends to follow that type of plan, it would be most unfortunate, unwise and counterproductive.

Though the landscape ahead is sown with the potential for controversy and contention should a vacancy arise on the Supreme Court, confrontation is unnecessary. Consensus should be our mutual goal. I would hope that the President's objective will not follow the path he has taken with so many divisive circuit court nominees and send the Senate a Supreme Court nominee so polarizing that confirmation is eked out in the narrowest of margins. This would come at a steep and gratuitous price that the entire Nation would have to pay in needless division. It would serve the country better to choose a qualified consensus candidate who can be broadly supported by the American people and by the Senate.

The process begins with the President. He is the only participant in the process who can nominate candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies. If there is a vacancy, the decisions made in the White House will determine whether the nominee chosen will unite the Nation or will divide the Nation. The power to avoid destructive political warfare over a Supreme Court vacancy is in the hands of the President. No one in the Senate is spoiling for a fight. Only one person will decide whether there will be a divisive or a unifying process and nomination. If consensus is accepted as a worthy goal, bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. I believe that is what the American people want, and I know that is what they deserve.

If the President chooses a Supreme Court nominee because of that nominee's ideology or record of activism in the hopes that he or she will deliver political victories, the President will have done so knowing that he is starting a confirmation confrontation. The Supreme Court should not be a wing of the Republican Party, nor should it be an arm of the Democratic Party. If the right-wing activists who were disappointed that the nuclear option was averted convince the President to choose a divisive nominee, they will not prevail without a difficult struggle that will embroil the Senate and the country. And if they do, what will they have wrought? The American people will be the losers: The legitimacy of the judiciary will have suffered a damaging blow from which it may not soon recover. Such a contest would itself confirm that the Supreme Court is just another setting for partisan contests and partisan outcomes. People will perceive the federal courts as places in which ``the fix is in.''

Our Constitution establishes an independent federal judiciary to be a bulwark of individual liberty against incursions or expansions of power by the political branches. That independence is what makes our judiciary the model for others around the world. That independence is at grave risk when a President tries to pack the courts with activists from either side of the political spectrum. Even if successful, such an effort would lead to decisionmaking based on politics and would forever diminish public confidence in our justice system.

The American people will cheer if the President chooses someone who unifies the Nation. This is not the time and a vacancy on this Supreme Court is not the setting in which to accentuate the political and ideological division within our country. In our lifetimes, there has never been a greater need for a unifying pick for the Supreme Court. At a time when too many partisans seem fixated on devising strategies to force the Senate to confirm the most extreme candidates with the least number of votes possible, Democratic Senators are urging cooperation and consultation to bring the country together. There is no more important opportunity than this to lead the Nation in a direction of cooperation and unity.

The independence of the federal judiciary is critical to our American concept of justice for all. We all want Justices who exhibit the kind of fidelity to the law that we all respect. We want them to have a strong commitment to our shared constitutional values of individual liberties and equal protection. We expect them to have had a demonstrated record of commitment to equal rights. There are many conservatives who can readily meet these criteria and who are not rigid ideologues.

This is a difficult time for our country, and we face many challenges. Providing adequate health care for all Americans, improving the economic prospects of Americans, defending against threats, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the continuing upheaval that afflicts our soldiers in Iraq--all these are fundamental matters on which we need to improve. It is my hope that we can work together on many issues important to the American people, including maintaining a fair and independent judiciary. I am confident that a smooth nomination and confirmation process can be developed on a bipartisan basis if we work

together. The American people we represent and serve are entitled to no less.

How much time remains?

I ask unanimous consent that others who wish to add statements to the record on this subject be allowed to do so.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont, our leader on the Judiciary Committee, for, as usual, being right on point with eloquence and with no malice.

As many know, there is a real possibility that a vacancy on the Supreme Court will be announced shortly. The Supreme Court should finish its term either Monday or Thursday, depending on the caseload.

There is one question American people are asking about the Supreme Court; that is, how, if and when a vacancy occurs--and we all pray, of course, for Chief Justice Rehnquist's health, but if and when a vacancy occurs--how do we avoid the divisiveness that has plagued this body, this town, and this country about Court nominees over the last several years?

The answer is simple. It can be described in one word: consultation. The ball is in the President's court. If the President chooses to do what he has done on court of appeals nominees--not consult, just choose someone, oftentimes way out of the mainstream, and say take it or leave it--the odds are very high there will be a battle royal over that nomination. If, on the other hand, the President follows the path of what so many other Presidents before him have done--consults with the Senate, with the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, and takes their advice to heart--we can have a smooth, amiable, easy Supreme Court nomination.

Again, the ball is in the President's court. Consultation is part of the constitutional process, advise and consent. The Founding Fathers did not use words lightly. The relatively short document of our Constitution is amazing for its brilliance and its brevity. When they decide to put a word in like ``advise,'' lots of thought has gone in before it. ``Advise'' means seek the advice of the Senate. It does not say in the Constitution, seek the advice of your party or seek the advice of people who agree with you. The intention, it is quite clear, is to seek a breadth of advice.

That is why, today, a letter signed by 44 of the 45 members of the Democrat caucus, asking the President to consult with us, will be sent. The 45th member, Senator Byrd, agrees with the thrust and the concept of our letter but felt so strongly about the issue he is sending his own letter, which I am sure will be in his own wonderful style and make the point well.

The need for advice, the need for consultation, was made clear when the group of 14--seven Democrats and seven Republicans--got together. In their agreement, they wrote:

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United

States Constitution, the word ``advice,'' speaks to

consultation between the Senate and the President with regard

to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We

encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with

members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior

to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for

consideration.

This is a moderate, bipartisan group. They tend to be some of the more conservative Democrats and some of the more liberal Republicans. It is certainly mainstream. Will the President heed their advice and seek the advice of the Senate? If he seeks advice, will it be real? To simply call someone in for a meeting and say, what do you think, and then go about things as if the meeting did not happen is not advice. Real advice means talking about specific nominees in private, saying: What do you think of this name or that name, this person or that person? That is, indeed, what President Clinton did as he consulted Senator Hatch, hardly his ideological soul mate, and many others. Senator Hatch told President Clinton some proposed nominees might be out of the mainstream and garner opposition, at least from the other side of the aisle. But some, even though Senator Hatch clearly did not agree with their politics, were in the mainstream and would get through the Senate with relatively little acrimony. President Clinton took Senator Hatch's advice and the nominations were smooth.

That is not the only time advice has been sought. In 1869, President Grant appointed Edward Stanton to the Supreme Court in response to a petition from a majority of the Senate and the House. In 1932, President Hoover presented Senator William Borah, the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, with a list of candidates he was considering to replace Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Borah persuaded Hoover to move the name of the eventual nominee, Benjamin Cardozo, from the bottom of the list to the top, and Cordozo was speedily and unanimously confirmed.

There are many instances of Presidents seeking the advice in terms of the advice and consent of the Senate. When the President has done it on judicial nominees here, it has worked. Frankly, the President and the White House have consulted with me about nominations to the district courts in New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They have actually bounced names off of me and said: What do you think of this one? What do you think of that? As a result, every vacancy is filled quickly with little acrimony and with broad consensus.

Most of the nominees I have supported in my area do not agree with me philosophically. But they are part of the mainstream, and I was willing, able and, in many cases, happy to support them. So it can be done and should be done.

There is all too much divisiveness in Washington. On the issue of the courts, it is our sincere belief on this side of the aisle that the President's refusal to consult and willingness to nominate some who are so far out of the mainstream that they cannot be regarded as interpreters of law rather than makers of law. That is the main reason we stand at this point of great acrimony in terms of judicial nominations. All of that can be undone by some sincere consultation.

President Bush, when he ran for office and got into office, said he wanted to change the tone and climate in Washington; he wanted to bring people together. That was a noble sentiment, a wonderful sentiment. He can, despite the acrimony that has occurred on judicial nominations and so much else over the last few years, almost like with a magic wand, undo much of it by seeking real consultation should there be a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

On behalf--I believe I can say this without any hesitation--of all 44 of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we plead, we pray, with the President to engage in real consultation, to heed the advise and consent of the Constitution, and to come up with a Supreme Court Justice, should a vacancy occur shortly, that we all--from the most conservative to the most liberal Member of this body--can be proud to support.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am sorry I was at the DPC lunch, but I heard that a number of my colleagues had a little debate about consultation, a letter that 44 of the 45 Democrats sent to the President today, and the 45th, Senator Byrd, agreed in theory with the letter, agreed in the sentiments of the letter but wanted to write his own. He felt so strongly about it, he told me, that he wanted to put it in his own words.

All of a sudden we are hearing two things from the other side about consultation. First--and I could not believe this statement--my good friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, said the Democrats are being political. If 1984 has not arrived, when asking to consult and bring people together is political and asking to be divided and not consult is nonpolitical, I don't know what is. This is 1984. We are asking the President to bring people together. We are asking the President to follow the Constitution. There is the word ``advise.'' And all of a sudden that is called being political? Please, give me a break.

The American people have asked us--every one of us; we can be from any one of the 50 States, we can be of any political philosophy, and I am sure we are asked when we get home: How do we break this partisanship on judges? The wisdom of the Founding Fathers, as always, is usually best. They recommended advise as well as consent, meaning consult. And here we, in a way--all the Democrats--in a desire to avoid confrontation, asked for consultation, and we are called political?

It seems to my good friend from Texas the only thing that is not political is we just say yes to whatever the President asks. That is not what we will do, and that is not what America is all about.

Our letter, I say to the American people, was heartfelt.

Our letter said: Let us avoid the confrontation on judges. The only way to do it is by consultation, plain and simple. President Clinton consulted. He called Senator Hatch at a time when Senator Hatch was not in the majority. According to Senator Leahy, he told me this morning that Senator Hatch at that time--it must have been 1993 or 1994--was the ranking minority member, and as I understand it President Clinton bounced names off Senator Hatch: How about this one, how about that one?

Senator Hatch was wise enough to know that he was not going to get a conservative. The President would not nominate a conservative, just as we know and do not expect the President to nominate a Democrat or a liberal. We know that. But there are always shades of gray which only the ideologues of the hard right and the hard left never see. There are people who are mainstream conservatives who would be acceptable to most of us because we believe--my test, and I think it is the test of most of us is not on any one issue but, rather, would be people who would interpret the law, not make it.

I do not like judges who are ideologues. I do not like judges at the extremes. Obviously, the President has nominated some judges at the extremes, but my judicial committee, under my instructions in New York, where I get a say in nominations, knocks out anybody on the far left. That is because ideologues want to make law. They are so sure they are right that they can ignore everybody else.

Consultation is what it is all about. In my judgment, consultation is the only way to avoid the kinds of confrontations which I am sure none of us likes when it comes to judges. To call it political, that does not pass the laugh test.

Then I heard--and again, I was not here--that my friend from Texas and I believe my friend from Kentucky were having a debate on what should be allowed to be in the record in terms of if and when a Supreme Court Justice is nominated. I was told, Well, what they considered and argued while in court should not be considered because they were representing a client, or it should not be this or it should not be that.

The nomination and the confirmation of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and a U.S. Chief Justice is one of the most important things we shall do as Senators. Let me put my colleagues on notice: Everything should be on the record--everything. Some will have less importance, some will have more importance, but to already, before someone is even nominated, start saying, Oh, this should not be part of the record, that should not be part of the record, sounds a little defensive.

I suppose we should not know anything about the nominee; just take the President's recommendation. Well, again, read the Constitution, I would advise my colleagues, with respect. It does not say the President determines who are Supreme Court nominees. In fact, for two-thirds of the period when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they had the Senate choose the Supreme Court. The only reason they changed it to have the President nominate is--I think they called it unity of purpose. They thought having--then it was probably 30--26 people try to choose 1 nominee was far more difficult than 1 choosing a nominee. But make no mistake about it, they wanted the Senate to be very active. In fact, as we know from our history and we have repeated on this floor, although it does not seem to make much of a dent, the early Senate rejected one of George Washington's nominees, and I believe in that Senate there were eight Founding Fathers.

They ought to know better than any of us. Here we are saying this should not be part of the record, that should

not be part of the record. Maybe my colleagues are being a little defensive. Maybe they do not want--I do not know who the nominees will be. I have no idea. But maybe they are worried that if all the facts came out, the American people might not want the nominee. I am of the other view. Justice Brandeis stated that sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. The more we see and the more we learn, the better we will be prepared.

I see my good friend, our great leader from Hawaii, has come to the floor of the Senate, and I do not want to delay him.

In conclusion, one, we plead with the President to consult with the minority, as President Clinton did, as President Hoover did, as President Grant did, and as so many others. That will make the process go more easily. When the American people ask us what can avoid the kind of confrontation we have seen with judges, there is a one word answer: consultation. Advise, as in advise and consent.

The ball is in the President's court. He can determine whether we have the kind of process the American people want--careful, thorough but harmonious, without acrimony, by consulting--or he can be like Zeus from Mount Olympus and throw down judicial thunderbolts and say: This is the nominee. Then maybe some of his minions will say: You cannot admit this fact about the nominee or that fact about the nominee or that fact about the nominee. That is not legitimate. That will not create a harmonious process in this body.

We are on the edge of perhaps a nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court--again, one of the most important things we Senators do. Let us hope, with consultation, it will occur in a harmonious and bipartisan way.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the anticipated vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever the timeframe for a vacancy on the Court, the process for selecting the next Associate or Chief Justice should reflect the very best of the American judiciary, not the worst of American politics. We deserve a Supreme Court nominee who reveres and respects the law--and a confirmation process that is civil, respectful, and keeps politics out of the judiciary.

This morning, a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle asked to be consulted about any future Supreme Court nomination.

I have two responses. First, we should be clear. Although consultation, in theory, may or may not be a good idea, there is no constitutional requirement or Senate tradition that obligates the President, or anyone in the executive branch, to consult with individual Senators, let alone with the Senate as an institution.

Second, consultation may or may not be a good idea, but Senators should behave in a manner that is both respectful and deserving of such a special role in the Supreme Court nomination process, if they expect the administration to meet them halfway.

At a minimum, the President should consider the following three conditions before agreeing to any special consultation with any particular Senator. First, whoever the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications, not personal political beliefs. Second, whoever the nominee is, the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan, political, or personal attacks. Third, whoever the nominee is, the Senate should apply the same fair process that has existed for more than two centuries, and that is confirmation or rejection by a majority vote.

First, as I said, there is no constitutional or Senate tradition requiring consultation with individual Senators, let alone with the Senate as an institution.

The text of the Constitution contemplates no formal role for the Senate as an institution--let alone individual Senators--to advise on selecting Justices on the Supreme Court, or on any Federal court.

As renowned constitutional scholar and historian, David Currie, has pointed out, President George Washington did not consult with the Senate. I quote: ``Madison, Jefferson, and Jay all advised Washington not to consult the Senate before making nominations.''

Professor Michael Gerhardt, the top Democrat adviser on the confirmation process, has similarly noted that ``the Constitution does not mandate any formal prenomination role for the Senate to consult with the President; nor does it impose any obligation on the President to consult with the Senate prior to nominating people to confirmable posts.''

My second point: If there is to be any consultation, the Senate must first show that it will behave itself in a manner worthy of such a special role in the Supreme Court nomination process. After all, there is a right way and a wrong way to debate the merits of a Supreme Court nominee. And history itself provides some useful benchmarks.

First, whoever the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications--not on personal political beliefs.

When President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Court in 1993, Senators knew that she was a brilliant lawyer with a strong record of service in the law. Senators knew that she served as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal organization that has championed the abolition of traditional marriage laws and attacked the Pledge of Allegiance. And they know that she had previously written that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional; that the Constitution guarantees a right to prostitution; that the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Mother's Day, and Father's Day are all discriminatory institutions; that courts should force taxpayers to pay for abortions against their will; and that the age of consent for sexual activity should be lowered to the age of 12. The Senate, nevertheless, confirmed her by a vote of 96 to 3.

Similarly, when Steven Breyer, nominated in 1994 by President Clinton, and Antonin Scalia, nominated in 1986 by President Reagan, the Senate recognized that these were brilliant jurists with strong records of service. Breyer had served previously as chief counsel to Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. His nomination to the Court was opposed by many conservatives because of alleged hostility to religious liberty and private religious education, while Scalia was known to hold strongly conservative views on a number of topics. The Senate, nevertheless, confirmed them by votes of 87 to 9 and 98 to 0, respectively.

Second, whoever the nominee is, the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan political or personal attacks.

Unfortunately, as we know, respect for nominees has not always been the standard--at least it has not always been observed.

Lewis Powell, a distinguished member of the U.S. Supreme Court, during his nomination process was accused of demonstrating ``continued hostility to the law,'' and waging a ``continual war on the Constitution.'' Senate witnesses warned that his confirmation would mean that ``justice for women would be ignored.'' John Paul Stevens, also with a distinguished record of service on the Supreme Court, was charged during his confirmation hearings with ``blatant insensitivity to discrimination against women.'' Anthony Kennedy, also on the Court, was scrutinized for his ``history of pro bono work for the Catholic Church,'' and found to be ``a deeply disturbing candidate for the United States Supreme Court,'' according to some accounts.

David Souter, also on the U.S. Supreme Court, during his confirmation process, was described as ``almost neanderthal,'' ``biased,'' and ``inflammatory.'' One Senator actually said Souter's civil rights record was ``particularly troubling'' and ``raised troubling questions about the depth of his commitment to the role of the Supreme Court and Congress in protecting individual rights and liberties under the Constitution.'' That same Senator condemned Souter for making ``reactionary arguments'' and for being ``willing to defend the indefensible'' and predicted that, if confirmed, Souter would ``turn the clock back on the historic progress of recent decades.'' At Senate hearings, witnesses cried that, ``I tremble for this country if you confirm David Souter,'' warning that ``women's lives are at stake,'' and even predicting that ``women will die.''

The best apology for these ruthless and reckless attacks is for them never to be repeated again. Unfortunately, recent history is not particularly promising. Even before President Bush took office in January 2001, the now-leader of the opposition party in the Senate told Fox News Sunday that ``we have a right to look at John Ashcroft's religion,'' to determine whether there is ``anything with his religious beliefs that would cause us to vote against him.'' And over the last 4 years, this President's judicial nominees have been labeled ``kooks,'' ``Neanderthals,'' and even ``turkeys.'' Respected public servants and brilliant jurists have been called ``scary'' and ``despicable.''

Third, whoever the nominee is, the Senate should apply the same fair process that has existed for over two centuries when it comes to confirmation or rejection--by an up-or-down vote of the majority.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have recently asked to be consulted about any future Supreme Court nomination--even though the Constitution provides only for advice and consent of the Senate, not individual Senators, and only with respect to the appointment, not the nomination of any Federal judge. If Senators want an extraordinary and extraconstitutional role in the Supreme Court nomination process, the President should first consider seeking a commitment from them to subscribe to the three principles that I have talked about briefly above.

After years of unprecedented obstruction and destructive politics, we must restore dignity, honesty, respect, and fairness to our Senate confirmation process. That is the only way to keep politics out of the judiciary.

Yes.

The distinguished assistant majority leader is correct.

Again, the distinguished assistant majority leader is correct.

I say to the distinguished assistant majority leader that any lawyer--and we are likely to get a lawyer nominated for this important job on the Supreme Court--is going to have taken on behalf of a client, someone they have represented, or if they have taught, as the question suggests, during the course of their academic musings, programs, or writings, in Law Journal articles or otherwise, they are going to engage in the kind of intellectual exercise speculating perhaps about the limits of the law or what the law would or would not be under a particular set of circumstances.

It is simply unreasonable to ascribe to those nominees, let's say, the views of someone they are defending in a criminal case because they have volunteered to serve pro bono to defend somebody accused of a crime, or to ascribe to them as their own personal beliefs or ones they will actively seek and enforce from the bench or what they have written in academic writings on perhaps the limits of the Constitution or what would or would not stand up in a particular court decision.

I agree we should be fair to the nominees. We should require they rule in accordance with precedent and the intent of Congress when it comes to interpreting acts of Congress. But we should not try to mischaracterize them or paint them as out of the mainstream by viewing in isolation some of these writings or representations in their legal practice.

As the distinguished assistant majority leader knows, there has been a mischaracterization of the record of many nominees who have come up in recent times and one I hope we do not see repeated when we have this Supreme Court vacancy to consider, the President's nominee. But we have not had a good record recently of treating these nominees respectfully, understanding that these are people who are subjecting themselves to this process and public service at some personal sacrifice. I worry if this process becomes too mean and too unfair that we will simply see people who will not answer the call when the President requests they serve as a judge.

We have seen those kinds of characterizations and attacks, as the assistant majority leader described them. It is my hope, and I know his, that we will not see a repetition of that, but we will see a respectful process. We will see one where the Senate does its job. We ask tough questions. We do a thorough investigation. But at the end of the day, we do not try to paint these nominees as something they are not and that we have an up-or-down vote on these nominees, as we have had for more than 200 years.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to add my support to the Domenici amendment No. 891. However, before I proceed, I want to extend my gratitude and congratulations to the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for their hard work in producing this Senate energy bill.

Congress has tried several times to approve a comprehensive energy bill. Under their wise guidance and counsel, I believe that we will be successful this time. It is critical that we provide the country with the resources and tools to meet our growing energy needs and this bill will go a long way in accomplishing that goal.

It is toward this same goal that I support this amendment that would share a portion of the revenues generated by off-shore oil and gas operations with coastal producing States. As we work to address our Nation's growing energy needs and to increase our domestic production of oil and gas, there will be enormous pressures placed on the communities along our coasts that serve as a platform to these operations. These pressures take a variety of forms and present a number of challenges. By giving coastal States an arrangement that States with in-land development already have by sharing some of these oil and gas revenues, we can mitigate some of these pressures. This includes assistance with conservation of critical coastal habitats and wetlands to providing coastal communities with help for infrastructure and public service needs. There has been a significant amount of discussion on the issue of coastal erosion in Louisiana, but I want the Senate to know that parts of Texas are experiencing some of the very same problems.

I also appreciate the comments and reservations expressed by the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee. As a member of the Budget Committee, I recognize the significance and implications of waiving the Budget Act. However, in this case, the budget resolution does contain a specific reserve fund to accommodate spending in the energy bill. This amendment does not cause the bill to exceed the funds provided in the resolution for the bill and is fully within the amount of money Congress set aside for the energy bill.

Texas is proud of its heritage as an energy producing State. Texas will continue to play a vital role in providing for the Nation's energy needs. This amendment is a reasonable proposal to address an issue of basic fairness. This will demonstrate to those communities along the coast that are so vital to the production of oil and gas for the Nation that they are valuable, important, and supported.

Amendment No. 891

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

How much time does the Senator want?

Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may use.

Mr. President, fellow Senators, shortly the Senate is going to vote. We are going to have a cloture vote to decide whether we should bring closure to

what I think has been an excellent 2 weeks of debate about a new American policy, a policy which is directed at trying to make our energy supply for the future more secure for our domestic growth and for our national security.

We have been waiting a long time for this day. If the Senate, indeed, at its pleasure, grants cloture, which I hope we will, it means we will bring to a conclusion in short order a long debate and fulfill a longstanding need for an American energy policy that is encapsulated in this bill, which was produced by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee over weeks of hearings and day after day of debate, with voting, and finally concluding that the bill that is before us is the right thing to do.

Since then, the Senate has exercised its right to offer amendments and discuss them. Some amendments were adopted to change, alter what the committee recommended. But in essence, fellow Senators, we have a rare opportunity today, in a reasonable period of time--not with acrimony but with debate--to pass this legislation. That is, in a sense, consistent with the best of the Senate: having amendments openly debated, many of them; views, some in accord with the bill, some in opposition to the bill here on the floor, as witnessed by those who pay attention to what goes on in the Senate.

So I say, as one who has been a participant for a few years, this is an effort to bring this matter to a vote in the Senate so we can bring this legislation to the House of Representatives. Our Constitution requires that both Houses agree on the legislation. Some do not understand that our Constitution is rather conservative when it comes to passing legislation. You do not just have your vote in the Senate; the House has theirs. Then you have to go to conference and agree on the same text in both Houses, which is done by a committee called a conference committee.

That will occur only when we have voted out a bill. We will vote out a bill only when we have completed debate under our rules. We probably will not conclude debate for a long time unless cloture is imposed.

I believe on a domestic bill, cloture should not be invoked arbitrarily or in advance of a reasonable amount of time. People should be permitted to talk, to amend. But, fellow Senators, we have been at this on the floor for enough time. And when you consider the prior efforts, I believe the American people are wondering why we cannot get something done. Why more time? The purpose for this activity called cloture is to say we have had enough time. With cloture invoked, sooner rather than later, the bill will be voted ``yes'' or ``no'' by the Senate.

So we seek that. That is the privilege of saying to the Senate, we are going to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' soon rather than later. The way we can do that is by voting ``aye'' on the cloture vote.

I note the presence of Senator Bingaman. I have additional time. Would the Senator care to address the issue of cloture today?

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

I ask for the regular order.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Regular order, Madam President.

I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, first, let me say to the Senator from New Hampshire----

Of course.

Mr. President, might I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, of course, this motion is debatable, as the Senator knows. We do not want to take a lot of time, and we do not want them to take a lot of time. But we have objection to proceeding from the other side, so we are going to be here a while. Sooner or later we will vote, even if it is at the end of 30 hours. Everybody should know that. So whoever is delaying this, all the other amendments are waiting.

I say to the Senator, you should know that at some point I am going to take 3 minutes to explain my version of the budget.

You do not have to be here, but I want you to know that so you don't think I am doing it without your knowledge. I will not take more than 3 minutes explaining what I think it says. All right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response to that question, I would say that our national policy for handling high level nuclear waste is to store it at the proposed DOE site at Yucca Mountain. I don't know whether the Skull Valley site will receive the regulatory approval it needs. That is not my decision. However, in my view, our focus should remain on a solution that puts this waste directly in the hands of the Federal Government.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, might I say to all of those who pay attention to these issues that the Senator is a new member of the Energy Committee, and I wondered when we made up the committee why the Senator had chosen to be on the committee. Then I found out that Virginia has a terrific interest in a lot of these issues, and I found that the Senator was very knowledgeable and a very good participant. The Senator helped us get a good bill. I commend the Senator on his analysis today. This is a bill that should direct us in the right way, especially in the natural gas area.

Clearly, we are at our knees. People say it is the gas pump, but it is also the price of natural gas that is causing America great trouble. We have resources. We just cannot use them because we need new technology and we need to do a better job of getting them ready for the marketplace so that we do not damage the air. We are working on that, and I thank the Senator for that.

Also, I want to compliment the Senator on seeing the value of the offshore resources of the United States. I am not suggesting that I understand each State's political issues, but I do understand that there is a lot of natural gas offshore. No. 2, I do understand it can be produced with little or no harm to anybody. A lot of it can be produced if it is there.

I commend the Senator for realizing that is an American asset and he would like very much for the Congress to face up to that.

I yield to the Senator.

I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield momentarily.

I say to the Senators who are listening and to their staffs, we are in the process of trying to put together a short list of amendments that are absolutely necessary. We are getting close to the end--the end will be here when 30 hours have elapsed and then we could have a series of votes, but I don't think anyone wants that.

The Democratic and Republican staffers are taking these amendments and they are working together to see how many are absolutely necessary.

I ask Senators, do not wait, because we will have to go back and call you all. If you are serious about an amendment, there are people on the Democratic side and the Republican side and in the respective cloakrooms waiting to see and talk with you through your staffs or otherwise as to what you want to do about the amendments.

Clearly, there are numerous amendments and I am sure they are all not going to be offered. They were submitted in good faith, but I am sure they are not intended to be voted on before we finish.

Would Senators on both sides of the aisle--I think Senator Bingaman agrees--try to help by getting word to the cloakrooms whether they are serious, whether they want to work on their amendments so we can put our list together.

I am pleased to yield.

Might I say it this way. We are not going to agree unilaterally or even together what the list is. Senators have to agree. So, Senator, you and others who do not want that on the list, you will be there and you will say no, and so it will not be on that list. That is the best way to say it. It is not going to be on the list unless Senators want it on the list. If you do not want it on the list, when we get there, we will call, as you know, and

we will find out. We cannot tell you now because we have a lot of amendments. Let's follow the regular order. You will be there and everyone should know that.

The Senator is absolutely right. That is the way it is done. That is the way it will be done.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I know he wants to speak. I do want to explain the position I am in. I am trying very hard to get the amendment that is pending voted on. We have been waiting for a long time. Both Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici have to leave. Our scheduled time of departure is 3:30 to get home to go to a BRAC Commission meeting where six commissioners will be there. I need all the time between now and 3:30 to get it done. But if the Senator wants to speak, I will yield and see what happens.

The Senator wants to be recognized for a speech.

So long as there is no misunderstanding, the business I am talking about would include a vote.

I am appreciative. I thank the Senator so much.

Yes, indeed. As soon as this business is finished on the pending amendment, he will be recognized for whatever time he needs.

In order to save time, I wonder if I could have 2 minutes of colloquy with the Senator from Louisiana, which is part of the proposal we are trying to finish. No amendments, just a colloquy with reference to the subject matter. I know the Senator from New Jersey is here. This colloquy has to do with some amendments he is pulling down that put our compromise together so we don't have any amendments that offend you. He wants to ask me about two amendments which he will withdraw.

The Senator has my assurance. Just as I have tried to do that in the past, I will continue to do it. It cannot be included in this bill for a lot of reasons, including those the Senators from offshore States understand. We will continue to work on it and see how we can move it along in due course.

Will you pull your amendment after this colloquy?

Will you withdraw it?

Might I ask if we are ready to proceed now? Is the chairman of the Budget Committee prepared to make his closing remarks?

The appropriate word is ``recalled.''

I thank the Parliamentarian.

There is none. When you finish, we are going to vote.

Equal time, 1 minute, 2 minutes; whatever you take, I take. Then we vote.

I will use 2 minutes.

Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has the right to raise a point of order and he did. There is also a provision in the Budget Act that says if a point of order is made, the Senate may waive the point of order. So the issue before the Senate is whether we should waive the point of order. I want to make two points.

First, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has the bill on the floor, was allotted $2 billion. People think we were allotted a lot of money. We were allotted $2 billion to be spent by the committee on matters pertaining to this bill. We have a debate as to whether we can spend it on this amendment or whether we have to spend it on the bill in committee. The Senator from New Mexico maintains that we should, as a Senate, say the $2 billion was given to the committee. We are spending it on legitimate committee business, and we ought to be allowed to spend it on this amendment. We do not break the budget, we just use the money we were allotted. So it isn't a budgetary question. It is a budget issue whether we should waive based upon whether we should have used it in the committee or whether we could use that very same amount of money on

the floor of the Senate. That is the issue.

I yield back any time I have.

Mr. President, before the yeas and nays are called, I think we have a unanimous consent agreement that everybody put their fingerprints on. I will read it, after which time we will vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments that I send to the desk be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to the bill, including the managers' amendment, which are enumerated; provided further that this agreement does not waive the provisions of rule XXII; further, that upon disposition of the pending Domenici amendment, no further amendments relating to the issue of OCS moratorium and natural gas and oil exploration be in order to the bill, with the exception of amendments Nos. 802 and 804, to be offered by the distinguished Senator Vitter; and that upon his statements on them, the amendments will be withdrawn. I modify that to strike the amendment we have already recalled, and that was amendment No. 802. So I strike No. 802, which has already been recalled. The rest of the proposal I leave with the Senate.

I understand that we will proceed to an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, I might say to the Senate, after this vote, I don't believe either Senator from New Mexico will be here for the remainder of the votes. Senator Larry Craig will assume my role as manager of the bill. I thank everybody for their cooperation to get the bill this far.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand we have 30 minutes; is that correct?

First, I thank my friend and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, for permitting me to go first so we can attend in an appropriate way the Armed Services Committee and Secretary Rumsfeld. It is typical courtesy on his part.

I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. President, as we all know, a major debate may soon be underway in the Senate and the country if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. It is clear that the Bush administration is well along in choosing its nominee for the vacancy, and the Senate must be well- prepared as well.

The initial major question is whether, for the highest judicial position in the land, President Bush will choose consultation and consensus or confrontation and conflict. I urge the President not to cede this important constitutional responsibility to a narrow faction of his own party--and to groups so extreme they have called for the impeachment of six of the current nine Justices because those Justices refuse to make the law in accord with the groups' wishes.

In the landmark May 23rd agreement, the bipartisan group of 14 Senators spoke clearly for this body on two vital points. First, we intend to remain the world's greatest deliberative body, where the rules, not raw power, prevail, and where the rights of the minority are respected--not silenced. Second, the agreement sent a strong reminder to the President that the Constitution requires him to obtain both the advice and consent of the Senate before appointing judges, and that we expect him to do so in good faith.

When the Framers of the Constitution adopted our system of checks and balances 218 years ago, they focused intently on the process for selecting judges. They wanted judges to be independent, so they gave them lifetime positions and prohibited any reduction in their compensation.

Initially, they were so concerned that Presidents might abuse the power to select judges that they gave the Senate the sole power to appoint Federal judges. But some delegates argued for a Presidential role, and they debated the issue at length.

Benjamin Franklin, always ready with new ideas, pointed to the Scottish system, where the lawyers themselves selected the judges. Invariably, he said, the best and smartest candidates were selected as judges, because the other lawyers wanted to remove their toughest competitor and divide his business among themselves.

In fact, in three separate votes in July 1787, the Framers refused to give the Executive any role in judicial selection, because they did not believe the President could be trusted with that responsibility. They again placed the entire appointment power in the Senate.

Later, as the Constitutional Convention was ending in September, they agreed to a compromise, based on the procedure that Massachusetts had used successfully for over a century. To get the best possible judges, the President and the Senate would have to agree on appointments to the Federal courts. The President was powerless to appoint judges without considering the Senate's advice and obtaining its consent.

For over two centuries that system has worked well. At the Supreme Court level, Presidents have nominated 154 Justices. Most of them were confirmed by the Senate, but some 20 percent were not. Some could not get Senate consent because the Senate did not feel they were qualified for the job, some because they were selected for reasons of politics or ideology with which the Senate did not agree, and some because they were perceived as being too close to the President to be independent.

A few of us who have been here in the Senate for all of the confirmations of the current nine Justices know that most of them were consensus choices. Seven of them--including all six whom the right-wing wants to impeach--were confirmed with such strong bipartisan support that no more than nine Senators voted against them, and, of those, four received unanimous Senate support.

We learned many things from past debates. One of the most important is that there are large reservoirs of excellent potential nominees among the many capable judges and lawyers in the United States, and that, if they are chosen for the High Court, they will receive overwhelming support in the country and in the Senate. Presidents who have listened to the Senate's advice and selected such candidates have had no problem obtaining Senate consent. President Bush can do that, too. If he takes our bipartisan advice, he will have no trouble obtaining our bipartisan consent.

Presidents who have had the most trouble with the confirmation process are those who listened to erroneous advice about the process. As recently as this week, a Member of this body argued in print that:

Senate practice and even the Constitution contemplate

deference to the President and a presumption in favor of

confirmation.

That's not what the Constitution says. Since the days of George Washington--whose nomination of a Justice was denied consent by the Senate of that day, there has been no ``presumption in favor of confirmation'' of lifetime judicial appointees. In general, many of us do give some deference to a President's nominees to the executive branch, since they are not lifetime appointments. But even there, if the President overreaches, we act to fulfill our constitutional responsibility.

Three times in my experience, Presidents have pushed the Senate too far on Supreme Court nominations, and the Senate has said ``no.'' Each time, the White House argued for Senate deference and the Senate, each time with bipartisan support, refused to defer. Two of those rejections were consecutive nominations for the same vacancy, with members of the President's own party providing the majority for rejection each time. In the second of those two, the selection was so plainly an arrogant affront to the Senate, that the best argument the proponents could make was that mediocrity deserved representation, too, on the High Court, a proposition the Senate soundly rejected.

Clearly, Senators should not support a nominee just because a President of their party proposed the nomination. The Framers relied on each of us to make independent and individual judgments about the President's nominees. We do not fulfill our constitutional trust if we merely ``placate-the-President.'' I have seen repeated examples of Senatorial courage when numerous members of the President's party--even members of his leadership team--have refused to go along with plainly inappropriate Presidential selections.

We should do exactly what the Framers intended us to do--be joint and co-equal defenders of the rule of law and the fairness and quality and independence of the Federal courts. We must listen to their voices now, summoning us across the centuries, to uphold that basic ideal, with full devotion to our role in the checks and balances that have served the Nation so well. We fail them if we march in lockstep with the White House.

As past experience shows, nominees selected for their devotion to a particular ideological agenda are likely to have the most difficulty being confirmed, because that kind of choice rarely achieves a consensus. History shows plainly that the better course is to search for the highest quality candidates who have demonstrated their respect for the rule of law. They respect core constitutional principles, especially those that define the rights of each citizen. They have demonstrated their commitment to finding the law, not making the law. They respect stare decisis, the deference to well-accepted past decisions that have kept the Nation strong by reconciling traditional principles with new needs and challenges. They show respect for the basic structure of Government, especially for Congress when it acts within its established powers. They have demonstrated the ability to subordinate their own ideological and result-oriented preferences to the rule of law.

Especially at the Supreme Court level, the choices should not be partisan choices based on today's partisan issues. The Justice we may select this year could well be providing justice to our children and grandchildren for decades to come. It is more important that the nominee have a strong dedication to principles of justice than a strong position on controversial issues of the day.

It is a disservice to the Court to attempt to install ideological activists bent on making sudden and drastic shifts in the Court's careful, gradual jurisprudence. The Supreme Court is at its worst when it splits into extreme, contentious sides, and reaches extreme results that make much of the Nation cringe and leave only the ideological activists satisfied.

Like sausage and legislation, the confirmation or rejection of a Supreme Court nomination is not always something pleasant to watch or be part of. The course is set by the President. If the President submits an ``in your face'' nomination to flaunt his power, it takes time and effort and sweat and tears before the truth about the candidate is fully discovered and explained to the public and voted on.

We are fortunate to have had a dress rehearsal for the process. Before the White House decided to threaten the Senate with the nuclear option, few Americans had any idea what was happening here and how important it was. It took some time, but eventually the public understood the seriousness of the threat to break the rules in order to change the rules, so that for the first time in Senate history, a bare majority of the Senate could impose a gag rule on every other Senator and enable the President to exercise absolute power over the courts without meaningful review by the Senate. Fortunately, the Senate stepped back from that brink, and the Senators who reached that bipartisan agreement to make it possible deserve great credit.

Those who want the Senate to be a rubber stamp for a White House nominee to the Supreme Court will undoubtedly try to rush us through our duty. But if we are to do our job for the American people in good faith, the process of considering a Supreme Court nominee cannot be rushed. It will take time to obtain the necessary information and documents, and to review and understand them. It will take time to gather witnesses and prepare for hearings. If the nomination is not a consensus nomination, the hearings will be intensive and extensive. If the nominee is evasive, there will be longer hearings and follow-up questions, which will also take time to analyze. Only when all the information is available and fairly considered, can the nomination go forward.

If President Bush resists his fringe constituencies, and seeks the advice of the Senate as he should, the nomination process can have a happy ending. I hope our colleagues across the aisle will urge the President to respect the May 23rd bipartisan agreement and its memorandum of understanding, and take to heart its serious request that he consult with Senators from both parties before proposing a Supreme Court nominee.

We already have in place a process for doing so. In selecting district judge nominees in our States, the White House sends us the list of persons being considered seriously, and asks for our comments on each, as well as our suggestions for additional names to consider. When they have narrowed down the list, they share the short list with us, so that we can give our final advice as to which ones are best and which ones would raise problems. Almost always, our advice is considered and respected. As a result, most District Judges go through the confirmation process quietly and expeditiously, and obtain the consent of the Senate.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution clearly says, ``with the advice and consent of the Senate,'' not the advice of anyone else, just 100 of us here in the Senate, who speak for all the American people. It doesn't take much to get our consent. All the President has to do is seek out his preferred non-ideological choices, ask us about them, and listen to our answers.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask for recognition in my own right and I ask my comments be printed in an appropriate place in the Record and be given as in morning business.

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

The pending business is the amendment offered by Senators Landrieu, Domenici, Vitter, and others with regard to the offshore royalty.

Mr. President, I believe there are some negotiations going on on other issues. My intent is to speak strictly on this amendment, and then I would be glad to put a quorum back in place if there is not another Senator waiting to speak.

To me, this amendment is about energy production, but it is also about basic fairness. I am not going to argue at this point with those who are opposed to oil and gas drilling in various and sundry places. I personally think we should drill where the oil, where the gas is. I know that is a novel idea. I do believe we need a national energy policy that is broad, that will have more production of oil and gas and clean coal technology and hydropower and nuclear power and LNG plants and conservation and alternative fuels--the whole package.

I am glad we appear to be getting to the end of this debate and amendment process and hopefully will produce a bill that passes overwhelmingly and will get into conference and will come up with a bill that can be passed. We need to do it for the country.

This legislation is about national security, and it is about economic security. If we don't deal with the problems of energy needs, if we don't become less dependent on foreign imported oil, the day will come when we are going to have a problem. Just remember, those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, those sailors steaming in ships, those tanks, those planes, it takes fuel to run them. So it is about national security.

We are an energy-driven economy. We need this diversity. We need more production, more independence. I believe we should open more areas than we are prepared to do apparently. But the fact is, in my part of the country and the Gulf of Mexico, we have been prepared to have an energy policy. We have been prepared to have the oil and gas industries and refineries and nuclear plants and LNG plants. We are prepared to do what is necessary not just for our own people and for the financial benefit of our own but, frankly, for the whole country.

We are prepared to produce fuels and oil and gas and other fuels. We are prepared to refine it and share it with the rest of the country. We are prepared to wheel our power to other parts of the country because we have been willing to take the risks. We are willing to build utility plants.

Other parts of the country don't want to drill. They don't want coal. They don't want nuclear power. They don't want hydropower. They don't want utility plants. They want nothing. But they want to flip the switch and have the lights come on. They want to get in their SUVs and drive off into the sunset. I resent that hypocrisy, quite frankly, but that is the way it is.

All we are saying is, in our area--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama--we have been willing to do what needs to be done, the right thing for our region, for our people, and for our country. So we have oil and gas off the coast. I haven't had a problem with it. I live on the Gulf of Mexico. When I get up in the morning and look out the window, I am looking at the gulf. I am looking at the pelicans that now are plentiful. I am sure they are coming from Louisiana. When I look at ships going and coming, I am looking at oil tankers, smaller tankers that are lightering oil from bigger tankers. I can remember sitting on my front porch and looking at a natural gas well being flared late at night. It wasn't ugly. It was really quite pretty. But there are risks that go with this.

Particularly in Louisiana, they have paid some prices for what we have done. We levied the Mississippi River, the big and mighty Mississippi River, to keep it from overflowing year after year. That has affected their wetlands because now you don't have that overflow that goes particularly west of the river that puts sediment out there. The levees send it right on out into the gulf. Now we are concerned about dead zones. We are concerned about the impact on salinity. We are concerned about the fisheries in the gulf, the shellfish and others.

We have had to oil drill. In some areas of our region, that has led to some channelization. When you are taking things from under the Earth, I think it has an effect on elevation in certain areas, wetlands areas in particular, estuaries.

You might say: Wait a minute. You get the benefit of the business. Some, yes, I don't deny that. It does create some jobs--some good- paying jobs, some dangerous jobs. It does, though, create a lot of activity for which we have to provide services--roads, harbors. Some of the big companies in the Gulf of Mexico drill off of our coast of Mississippi, but they don't do business there, not in my State. They don't really even hire that many employees. So there is some good from this, but there is some risk and some bad things.

Other parts of the country, when you drill in their States, they get 50 percent of the royalties, and we get an infinitesimal 1 percent plus some benefits within, I guess, the 6-mile limits of the State. But that money coming out of the gulf goes into the deep dark hole of the Federal Treasury. A lot of it goes into land and water conservation for other parts of the States.

Other States are saying: We don't want you to drill or produce or build utility plants in our area. And by the way, we don't want you folks down there who are doing the job and taking the risk to get any of that money. We want that money to come up to the Federal Treasury and come to our States.

Now we are accused of trying to bust the budget. No, we are trying to get a fair share. It is not big money in my State, but it would make a huge difference. When you come from a small 2.8 million-population State with a history of poverty and needs, even though we are making some progress now--we are not 50th or 49th or 48th on most lists; we are moving up the line, creating more jobs, more businesses, better education, better roads--we have other problems. We do have wetlands that are being disturbed or destroyed. We are losing some land, as they are in Louisiana. We do have some environmentally sensitive and some historic sites we need to preserve, protect, and improve. We need some help. We are prepared to do the dirty work. We are prepared to take the risks. We are prepared to do the right thing and share it with America. But we do think we should get a little bit of the return on the royalties that go right through our hands to the rest of America.

This is not a great money grab by Louisiana or Texas, Alabama. This is a way that we can get some help from things that we are producing, some benefit that will help our people and preserve the areas we live in and love. We are accused of being insensitive to the environment and to conservation. Well, this will give us a way to do something about it. Quite often, we don't do what we need to do because we cannot afford it; we do not have the money. I plead with my colleagues from all parts of the country: Look at what we are doing. Look at what problems we are coping with, and look at what we will do with this small amount of money.

By the way, the budget allowed $2 billion in this energy area for us to make some decisions on. Yes, it can be objected to on a point of order at the committee or on the floor or out of conference. But there was money allowed, and this amendment gets well within that number. I think this is a questionable budget point of order, although I don't dispute that the chairman has that authority. I want him to have that authority. Chairman Judd Gregg is doing his job. I am not mad at him. I told him I hope he will do his job and I hope he will do it for effect, but don't get mad about it. If anybody should get mad, the Senators from Louisiana and the Texans should get mad, and the Mississippians, too.

I support this amendment. I plead with my colleagues, let us have a little bit to help ourselves, and we will in turn help the country.

I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, we have great fear that some day, one of those hurricanes will go right up the mouth of the Mississippi River and inundate New Orleans. When Hurricane Ivan was coming through the gulf last year, when it got to the hundred-mile marker, it was headed for my front porch. Then it veered to the east and missed us by about 90 miles and did a lot of damage.

What can we do about that? First of all, you have to have evacuation routes. We need more money for roads to allow the people to get out of there. The best buffer against the damage is the wetlands, the protective barrier islands, protective areas. The only reason my house hasn't been wiped out is because we have a seawall in front of my house, and we are up on a relatively high point. My house is 11 feet up off the ground, what we call an old Creole house.

It survived hurricanes for 150 years. But these estuaries, these areas outside the main area in which we live, are critical because once that high wind and water hits that area, it begins to lose its strength. If we keep losing land into the gulf, across the Gulf of Mexico, the hurricane damage--even though the violence may not increase, the damage will really increase. This is just one aspect.

By the way, we have to be prepared to get people off these oil rigs and out of the Gulf of Mexico. We have to have infrastructure to do that. This will help us achieve that goal.

I yield to my colleague from Mississippi.

I thank my colleague from Mississippi for his comments and his knowledge of the issue and the procedures we are dealing with. It is a great comfort to have him here.

One final point before I yield the floor. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman for working with the Senators who are sponsoring this legislation to try to help us find a way to make this effort, to get it at a level that would be helpful to us that would not be a budget buster, that would comply with the amount of money that was allowed in the budget resolution. So I commend Senators Vitter and Landrieu, and I hope we will be able to get this provision approved.

I yield the floor.