A bill to establish pilot projects under the medicare program to provide incentives for home health agencies to utilize home monitoring and communications technologies.

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1749

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his initiative on this issue and congratulate him for the final product that has been crafted. This could have been a very controversial and contentious issue, but by compromise, conversation, and consultation among him and the other Senators he mentioned, we now have an amendment that is virtually noncontroversial.

It is important that we do not enforce the conflict-of-interest issue with such difficulty that ultimately the pharmaceutical companies are cut off from any opportunity of ever consulting with the best experts in the field because those experts want to also remain available to the

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have three amendments which I send to the desk and ask for their consideration.

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

Mr. President, the first amendment is in regard to a study on the sheep industry in the United States by the National Academy of Sciences. The second authorizes a demonstration tribal housing program. And the third authorizes a land transfer in Mississippi from the Agricultural Research Service to Mississippi State University.

All three of these amendments have been considered carefully on both sides. They have been cleared on both sides. I ask that they be approved en bloc by a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask that the vote be reconsidered and that reconsideration be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be recognized to speak as in morning business. We are under the Agriculture bill, and no one seems to be coming forward under the Agriculture bill, so I obviously have no objection, but I think, to be clear, it should be as in morning business; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given the opportunity to do that.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Hawaii has some amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. President, as near as I can tell, there is support for these amendments on both sides of the aisle. I ask they be considered en bloc by a voice vote.

Mr. President, unless the Senator has an additional amendment----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, one of the issues that has occupied this Chamber for some time and had a particular impact on those of us in the Western States is the issue of the storage of nuclear waste. The question of where nuclear waste should be stored has been before various administrations and various Congresses literally for decades.

The original policy decision made by administrations past and Congresses past was that there should be a single repository for nuclear waste. After a study by the National Academy of Sciences and others, the decision was made to put that repository in Nevada, in Yucca Mountain. Ever since that time, construction has gone forward at the Yucca Mountain facility.

All of that happened before I came to Congress. When I got here, the debate was going on, and we had a particular point where we had to vote, once again, on whether to put nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

At that time, as I looked at the various alternatives, I decided that the best scientific answer to the question of what to do with nuclear waste was to leave it where it was. I was assured by the scientists that it was safe in the dry cask storage that had been prepared for its transportation, and that it could be safely transported across the country to Yucca Mountain.

My reaction to that was, if it is safe where it is and if it is safe to transport, why transport it at all? Why not leave it where it is?

It was very clear that the Congress was not going to accept that position, that the President was not going to accept that position, and that we were going to go ahead as a matter of public policy and have a single repository for nuclear waste.

So I said: If we are going to have a single repository for nuclear waste, the most logical place for that is Yucca Mountain. And I voted in favor of Yucca Mountain.

Looking back on it, the keyword in that sentence is the word ``if.'' If we are going to have a single repository for nuclear waste, it appeared that the logical place to put it was Yucca Mountain.

It is now clear that we are not going to have a single repository for nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain has been challenged on scientific grounds. Yucca Mountain has been challenged in the court on legal grounds. And as we look at the present state of our need for energy, Yucca Mountain will be challenged on practical grounds because it is very clear that we are going to need more, not less, nuclear power.

Nuclear power is here to stay. The nuclear plants that we have are going to be recommissioned and relicensed, and Yucca Mountain will be full if we go ahead with the existing plans to send nuclear waste there. We will still need storage in place even if Yucca Mountain opens. It doesn't make sense from a practical point of view to move the material all across the country, store it in Yucca Mountain for the purpose of ending storage in place, and then have storage in place come back.

Those who saw this in advance--Senator Reid and Senator Ensign--have the right to tell the rest of us, ``I told you so,'' as it now becomes clear that scientifically, legally, and practically, Yucca Mountain is not going to become the single repository for nuclear waste. And we need to start thinking about new strategies and new places to deal with this issue.

I want to make it very clear that I am not opposed to nuclear power. Indeed, I am a strong supporter of nuclear power. I have supported Senator Domenici in his efforts in crafting the Energy bill to craft the bill in such a way as to encourage America to build new nuclear powerplants. We are behind the rest of the world on this issue. Go to Europe and you will find the French have something like 80 percent of their power generated by nuclear power. The British have large amounts of nuclear power.

With the price of natural gas going as high as it is, it becomes increasingly economically unwise for us to continue to build gas- powered electric plants. Nuclear power is something in which we should get involved in a big way in the future, and the Energy bill we passed prior to the August recess laid the groundwork for that.

The question is, of course, if we go in that direction, what do we do with the nuclear waste? If Yucca Mountain is not going to be available--and I am now convinced that it will not be--where should it be put? There is a proposal that it should be put in the State of Utah at an interim storage site that has just recently been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I put stress on the word ``interim'' because the whole idea behind the proposed facility in Utah, in a place called Skull Valley, was that it would simply be a stopover for the waste on its way to Yucca Mountain, and so it has been designed and it has been licensed as an interim storage facility.

If it does not make sense for us to take this nuclear waste and put it in a permanent repository, which is what Yucca Mountain is, why does it make sense to put it in an interim repository that does not have the safeguards that are built into Yucca Mountain?

Yucca Mountain would put the waste below ground. It would put the waste in vaults that have been prepared for it. The interim facility in Skull Valley would leave the waste above ground. It would leave the waste in the dry cask receptacles that were built for transportation. Why ship it from its present site aboveground to another site aboveground to say, well, this is an interim storage site until we put it in permanent storage?

The reality is, if you do that, you are creating a permanent storage site because there will be no place to put it after it has been transported to the interim storage site.

There are those who say: You just don't want it in Utah. And that is true, I don't want it in Utah. But there is another factor that drives the reason I don't want it in Utah. This particular interim storage site is at the portal to the Utah Test and Training Range. Even most people in Utah have never heard of the Utah Test and Training Range, and they have no idea what it is. It is the largest land range for bombing practice in the United States. It goes all the way back to the Second World War. The crew that flew the mission over Hiroshima in the Enola Gay trained at the Utah Test and Training Range.

Today, it is still in use. F-16s from Hill Air Force Base fly over the Utah Test and Training Range and practice their bombing runs with live ordinance. I have flown over the Utah Test and Training Range in a helicopter and have been told: We have to get out of here because the F-16s are coming, and they are going to start bombing.

It clearly does not make sense to have an interim storage facility for nuclear waste in an area where F-16s with live ordinance are going to be flying.

There are those who say: The F-16s can change their flight pattern; they can go around this area; they don't need to pay attention to it.

One of the things we have learned from spending time with the BRAC process in determining which military facilities will be retained and which will not is that more military facilities have been closed by encroachment than have been closed by BRAC--encroachment being development or other activities that come close to the gate of the military base that make it impossible for the people on the base to do their job, and they ultimately say: When we built this base, it was surrounded by open spaces. Now activity has come in, development has come in, encroachment has happened, and we are going to have to close this base.

I do not want to see encroachment take away the last remaining large, land-based test and training range in the United States. We need to rethink this whole thing.

So, Mr. President, I am now making it clear that my support for Yucca Mountain, however well intended it was at the time, in my opinion does no longer hold in the situation in which we find ourselves.

I also believe the proposal that was made at the time we approved Yucca Mountain the last time, that of leaving the material in place until we can work out the economics and the technology of reprocessing it, is the right approach. That is what the future holds.

Right now people say: Reprocessing it is too expensive. But we know from past experience that technology will find a way around that. It will become cheaper and cheaper the more we do it. We are already involved in reprocessing warheads from the former Soviet Union as we go through the process of reducing nuclear weapons and nuclear stockpiles around the world. As that reprocessing activity goes forward, we will learn how to do it faster, we will learn how to do it cheaper, and reprocessing will be available for the nuclear waste that is currently being developed by our nuclear power facilities.

At that time, it would make sense for the nuclear waste that is stored onsite to be shipped to a reprocessing center, not to an interim storage facility.

There is one other factor that needs to be stressed. At the present time, the contract to take the nuclear waste and ship it to the interim storage facility in Utah--which, by the way, has not been built; there is still $1 billion worth of investment that will have to go into that--the process by which that will go forward will be under the ownership of the utilities that run the nuclear plants.

The main difference between an interim storage facility and a permanent storage facility in the law has to do with titles. In the interim storage facility, the utility that created the waste and ran the nuclear plant retains title to the waste. While it is being packaged, while it is being shipped, and while it is in interim storage, it is owned by the utility. Under the Yucca Mountain proposal, the Federal Government would take title to the waste the minute Yucca Mountain would open so the Federal Government would be responsible for packaging it, the Federal Government would be responsible for protecting it while transporting it, and the Federal Government would be responsible for the security on the site where it would be located. If we leave it where it is while we work on the issue of reprocessing, title remains with the utility that produced it, but the security that the utility has already built into its plant is already there. It is not exposed to any terrorist attack while it is moving so that utility does not have to bear the expense of extra security in moving waste to which they retain title.

Then when we get to the point where we can move it to a reprocessing plant, once again the Federal Government may take title to it.

The Federal Government can provide the security during transportation. The Federal Government can see that it is kept safe from terrorist attack and bring it to the reprocessing facility.

One last point. One of the reasons we want to be sure the Federal Government is in charge of all of the reprocessing is that the end product after reprocessing is not only additional energy created by the process, but the residue that is left is weapons-grade plutonium. We do not want to run the risk of having weapons-grade plutonium in the hands of private entities. We want to be sure that the Government controls it.

What I think we need to do--``we'' being the collective word for the administration and the Congress, generally--is to adopt some fundamental principles and then rethink the whole issue to come up with the appropriate details. The fundamental principles that I would recommend and that I embrace are, No. 1, we are in favor of nuclear power. We want more nuclear power in this country for all of the environmental reasons dealing with greenhouse gases, for all of the demand reasons dealing with the increased necessity for electric power, and for all of the legal reasons having to do with the control of the ownership of these facilities. So the No. 1 principle, I am in favor of nuclear power. No. 2, I am in favor of reprocessing. I think we should work toward that technical solution for the question of waste. And No. 3, while we are in the process of building new nuclear plants and working toward reprocessing of the waste, we should leave the waste where it is. If, indeed, as I say, it is safe to transport and it is safe to store in an interim facility someplace else, by definition, it is equally safe to store it where it is. That is cheaper, that is equally as safe, and that sets us up for the solution of our problem. I believe that if we rethink the whole issue as to how we are going to handle it and what we are going to do, there may very well be a useful purpose for Yucca Mountain. We have spent, as a nation, billions of dollars preparing that facility. We should review the facility and what it offers and see how it might be used at some particular point in the future and see how we might retain some of the investment we have made there.

I am not one who thinks we ought to fill Yucca Mountain up with dirt and walk away and leave it. There can be a win-win situation for all. Nevada can get some value out of the investment that has been made in Yucca Mountain if we think it through carefully. The Nation can get additional power without the greenhouse gas effect that comes from fossil fuels, and we can ultimately solve the problem of nuclear waste with reprocessing.

I have discussed this in general terms with Senator Domenici, who is the chairman of the Energy Committee as well as the chairman of the energy and water subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and I commend him for his original thinking of moving in directions that will make sense for the future. However, much as the idea of a single repository may have made sense decades ago, it is now clear, as I say, that it does not make sense, and we need to move in some future direction. To the degree that Senator Domenici will allow me to participate in trying to find logical solutions under the three principles I have described, I will be more than happy to cooperate with him. To those who had the vision long ago who, as I say, have earned the right to say to the rest of us, ``I told you so,'' I say I will be happy to join with you, too, in seeing how we can think this thing through and get the best solution for our Nation and all of those who live in it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ensign amendment No. 1753 be modified to be drafted as a first-degree amendment, provided further that the vote in relation to the Ensign amendment No. 1753 occur at 4:45 today with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I also ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I believe that amendment No. 1726 is now the pending business.

This is the managers' amendment that Senator Kohl and I introduced last Thursday. It makes some technical corrections in the bill regarding conservation technical assistance for DuPage County, IL. It also makes some technical corrections in the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. It has the approval of the authorizing committee, as well as the support of USDA, and there is no additional cost to the bill. Senator Kohl and I have taken the position that we will not offer any authorizing legislation on this bill that does not have the approval of the authorizing committee. And this one falls within that scope. So it has been cleared on both sides of the

aisle, and I believe we are now prepared to pass it on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and ask that that be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I share the concern and frustration of the Senator from Missouri with the proposal. We have had some of that same concern and frustration in Utah. Charitably, I will say that the efforts to close these offices have been handled a little less wisely than might otherwise have been the case.

I hope that between now and the conference we can learn more about this proposal. I think the Senator's comments about getting information and input from those directly affected is very wise.

I pledge to work with all the Senators concerned on this issue between now and the time we get to conference. So knowing that this will be the vehicle whereby we can get to conference, I am willing to proceed now to a voice vote and urge Senators to support it. I understand it has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, as we are approaching the hour of 4:45, which has been set as the time for the vote on the Ensign amendment, I say to my colleagues that Senator Ensign outlined the reasons for his amendment. I have heard others who for one reason or another have already been opposed to it. But so far, none of them have come to the floor to express that opposition.

I make it clear to anyone who is following the proceedings that one of the reasons we have delayed the vote as we have and kept the afternoon as open as we have has been to allow those who may be opposed to the Ensign amendment the opportunity to present their proposals.

We now are at 4:45. I expect the time is far gone and the vote will proceed. I didn't want anyone thinking we had made any effort to prevent anybody from presenting a different point of view than what Senator Ensign laid out when he proposed his amendment this afternoon.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have been asked throughout the vote whether that is the last vote of the evening. That obviously is not my call. It is the responsibility of the leader to make that decision. At the moment, I don't know of any amendment that would require a vote. I would hope that our colleagues who have amendments would be aggressive in coming to the floor now and offering them. We could offer an amendment now, lay it down for a vote in the morning.

I yield.

The Senator from Kansas satisfies our request instantly. I am happy to yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1742

Mr. President, I have no objection to this amendment and believe we should move forward on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask that we withhold from the vote, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are now prepared to proceed to a voice vote on the Roberts amendment.

I would tell the Senator that I share his concern regarding this provision in the House Report. The report on the Senate version of this legislation is silent on this matter, but this matter will certainly be preserved for consideration in conference.

I am pleased to yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.

In developing a new industry, I fully understand the need to be flexible and recognize that all issues cannot be anticipated during the initial phases of a project. I fully concur with the request for flexibility in the use of the funds provided by this committee.

Mr. President, in consultation with the Democratic manager of the bill, I now ask unanimous consent that all first-degree amendments to the pending Agriculture appropriations bill be filed at the desk no later than 4 o'clock tomorrow, Wednesday, with the exception of those managers' amendments that have been cleared by both managers.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Voinovich of Ohio in introducing a new Social Security lockbox proposal, the Truth in Budgeting Act of 2005. For years, I have urged my colleagues to stop what I believe is the reckless practice of raiding Social Security trust fund surpluses to pay for other things. By failing to save these surpluses, we are putting future generations in the position of having to borrow trillions of dollars to make good on our Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other commitments.

The legislation Senator Voinovich and I are introducing today would not only take Washington's hand out of the Social Security cookie jar, it would literally take the cookie jar away. If our bill is adopted, Social Security surpluses and other trust fund surpluses would no longer be used to fund other functions of Government and to mask the size of the Federal deficit. Instead, Social Security payroll taxes would be used to provide future Social Security benefits, as they were always intended.

Our bill would end the practice of spending trust fund surpluses. Instead, it would require those surpluses to be set aside and invested in a broadbased bond index fund that will be drawn on to finance our future obligations. In many ways, this legislation is a truth-in- budgeting bill because it will force us to recognize the true size of our fiscal deficit. It is our hope this will force Congress and the President to work together to address not only our current budget imbalances but our long-term entitlement challenges.

Let me take a few minutes, if I could, to explain why I think this legislation is so important.

Our budget situation has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Over the last 5 years, we have gone from record surpluses to record deficits. The 2005 deficit is now projected to be $331 billion, the third worst in U.S. history. That is before Katrina. The increase in debt this year will be far higher.

This is something that I find confuses the American people, confuses my constituents, confuses the media, and perhaps even confuses our colleagues: The advertised deficit--$331 billion before Katrina--is not the amount the debt will increase by this year. The amount the debt will increase by is much larger, approaching $589 billion,

and that is before Katrina. Why the difference? Because in the deficit calculation, borrowing from trust funds is ignored. It is not ignored when you consider how much the debt is increasing. It is ignored in the deficit calculation.

But, for example, the $173 billion this year that will be borrowed from the Social Security trust fund and used to pay for other things, is not included in the deficit calculation. It is added to our debt. It has to be paid back. It is not included in the deficit calculation.

There are $85 billion of other transactions, such as that one, that will add up to a total of a $589 billion increase in the debt. Again, that is before Katrina.

Looking forward, our current budget takes every penny of Social Security surplus over the next 10 years to pay for tax cuts and other spending priorities. Over the next 10 years, under the budget that has been passed here, every penny of Social Security surplus is being taken to pay for other things--$2 .5 trillion.

The reported shortfall in Social Security over the next 75 years is $4 trillion on a net present value basis. I, frankly, do not believe that. I think that shortfall is significantly overstated. But if it were real, if it were $4 trillion, look at the comparison here on this chart: We are taking $2.5 trillion in Social Security money over the next 10 years, using it to pay for other things, when we say Social Security has a $4 trillion shortfall on a net present value basis. What sense does this make? We are digging the hole deeper before starting to fill it in.

I said something I want to go back to because I indicated I do not believe the projected $4 trillion shortfall in Social Security is correct. That is the estimate of the actuaries. I think they are wrong. Why do I think they are wrong? Because their whole scenario is based on economic growth for the next 75 years averaging 1.9 percent a year. Over the previous 75 years, the economy has grown at 3.4 percent a year. If the economy were to grow in the future as it has in the past, 80 percent of the Social Security shortfall would disappear.

Does that mean we do not have a problem? No. I wish it did. We have a huge problem. The problem we have, I believe, is a budget problem. The problem we have is, first, we are running very large deficits now before the baby boomers retire. No.2, the shortfall in Medicare is 7 times the shortfall in Social Security, approaching $30 trillion. There is the real 800-pound gorilla.

In Social Security, the problem is not so much the shortfall, at least from my perspective. I think the problem is that the assets in the Social Security trust fund--and there are assets there. Anybody who tells you there are no assets there is wrong. There are assets there. They are special-interest Government bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, that are in the trust fund. The problem is, those bonds have to be redeemed out of current income. That is the problem. Those bonds sitting in the Social Security trust fund have to be redeemed out of current income.

We already have a circumstance in which we are running massive deficits. We have this looming shortfall in Medicare. Oh, yes, we have a problem. We have a big problem, and the sooner we get at it, the better. The first thing to do is stop diverting Social Security money to use for other purposes. As I have indicated, this increase in debt is happening at the worst possible time, right on the brink of the retirement of the baby boom generation. The number of Social Security beneficiaries is projected to climb to 81 million people by 2050. This is not a projection. It is not a projection. The baby boomers have been born. They are alive today. They are going to retire, and they are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. That has enormous implications for the future.

As stunning as it may seem, we are only 3 years away from the beginning of the retirement of the baby boom generation. Social Security trust funds are running surpluses now. But starting in 2017, payroll tax revenue will no longer be sufficient to pay for benefits. Those bonds we are issuing to the Social Security trust fund will have to be redeemed out of current revenues at the time. At this point, as shown on the chart, the Social Security surpluses will turn into Social Security deficits--out here in 2017. When that happens, a serious budget crunch will ensue, unless we find a way now to save those surpluses.

Another way of looking at this is by looking at the total balances in the Social Security trust funds, which are expected to peak at over $6 trillion in 2026. As shown on this chart, this is the pattern of the Social Security trust fund assets. You can see, right now we are at about 2005, about right here, and we are still in the buildup phase. There are massive surpluses being run in the Social Security accounts. But instead of the money being used to prepay the liability or to pay down debt, the money is being used to pay for other things.

So here we have it. We have this massive buildup. In 2026, roughly, the trust fund assets peak at $6 trillion, and then they begin being drawn down precipitously. We have a problem. It is a serious problem. It is a problem that is inexorable. Unfortunately, our current budget policy is contributing to the problem because it is taking the amount that is in surplus every year and using it to pay other bills. That is comfortable. That is easy. But it does not help us deal with the problem.

In 2001, I urged my colleagues to set aside $900 billion of what was then projected to be surplus to either prepay the liability or pay down debt. For those who are advocates of personal accounts, the money could have been used to establish personal accounts, not borrowing it but putting real assets behind it. For those who do not like personal accounts, the money could have been used to pay down debt to better prepare ourselves for the time when the baby boomers retire.

The chart I was showing before perfectly illustrates why this is no time to permanently or continually divert Social Security and other trust fund surpluses to other purposes. Failing to return to a fiscal path of saving trust fund surpluses will severely limit Congress' ability to address the looming pension and health care needs of the baby boomers and will shift a larger debt and tax burden on to future generations.

Any private-sector corporation that behaved like the Federal Government is behaving would find its chief officers on their way to a Federal institution, but it would not be the Congress of the United States, it would not be the White House. Anybody who was running a private-sector entity that took trust fund assets, retirement fund assets of its employees, would be guilty of a Federal crime. They would be on their way to a Federal institution. It would not be Congress; it would not be the White House; they would be on their way to a Federal penitentiary.

What is happening here is a shell game, and it is a shell game with enormous consequences, not like a shell game where somebody bets on some corner deal and loses $10 or $20. This is a shell game being played by society. I believe it is time to put a stop to this practice of borrowing against future commitments.

That is why I am proud to join Senator Voinovich to introduce a newly designed bipartisan lockbox bill to stop the raid on Social Security and other trust funds. This legislation says enough is enough. The raid on Social Security and other trust funds has to stop. It is time to start saving Social Security surpluses for Social Security and to stop raiding the Social Security piggy bank to pay for other priorities.

With this bipartisan legislation, Senator Voinovich and I intend to finally put Social Security in a lockbox that works. Our bill takes a new tack on the lockbox concept by fundamentally changing the way in which Social Security and other trust fund surpluses are invested. The legislation would create a new Office of Trust Fund Administration at the Treasury Department that would be charged with investing Social Security and other trust fund surpluses in safe, non-Federal debt instruments, including State municipal bonds, corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and bond index funds. These interest- bearing investments could only be used to meet the obligations of Social Security and other Federal trust funds.

Under our proposal, trust fund surpluses would no longer be used to fund the general operations of Government, and the true size of the Federal deficit would be revealed, forcing us to tackle

these deficits head on. This bill, if passed, would force Congress, the President, and the public to recognize the true cost of Federal borrowing, and it would force the Federal Government to invest in real assets that could be used to finance future financial obligations.

I believe our Nation is in a precarious financial position. Unfortunately, our current budget policies have worsened our outlook by driving the Nation further into deficits and debt. We need to begin by returning to budget discipline and paying down debt.

It is time for us to take a new direction. I believe this legislation is an important first step.

I thank my colleague, Senator Voinovich, for his work on this matter. He has spent months pursuing the issue. I am honored to join him. I believe this is an important policy change for the country and for the Congress. I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005. I want to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, which include Senate Minority Leader Reid, and Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Kohl, Schumer, Stabenow, Dorgan, and Corzine.

This legislation would put in place a Federal law to prohibit gasoline price-gouging during national emergencies, and would institute new protections for American consumers from manipulation of oil and gasoline markets.

Even before the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and its tragic aftermath, skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices were burdening American families and our Nation's economy--with the notable exception of the oil industry, which continued to rack up record profits. Already in my home State of Washington, prices had reached 74 cents a gallon more than last year before the storm hit. After the storm--though our supplies were not directly affected--prices topped $3 per gallon in some areas of my State, including some of the most rural and economically challenged. And following that tragic storm, gas prices in some areas of this Nation reached almost $6 per gallon.

The volatility in oil and gasoline prices shows few signs of abating. Just yesterday, we saw oil set the new record for a one-day spike in prices. At the New York Mercantile Exchange, those prices rose more than $4 per barrel just yesterday, to close at $67.39. That's the largest single-day price spike since oil started trading on the exchange, in 1983.

It's clear to me that we have a lot of work to do, if we're going to get serious about addressing one of the most important challenges facing our generation of Americans: improving our Nation's energy security. We need a long-term plan and national commitment to free us from our over-dependence on oil in general. We need to make the American economy more fuel efficient, and position this Nation to compete in the 21st Century economy. It is in our Nation's long-term economic and national security interests to improve the fuel efficiency of American vehicles, provide consumers with the tools to make smart choices, provide those same consumers with a broader array of fuel- flexible vehicles and transportation options, and expand our production of home-grown biofuels, in more diverse regions of this country. Especially when it comes to fuel efficiency, this body has to date lacked the political will necessary to take the steps we must to bolster this Nation's energy and economic security. Along with my colleagues who have been tireless champions on this issue for so long, Senators Feinstein and Durbin, I will continue to fight to put our Nation on the right path when it comes to fuel efficiency.

But in the short-term, we also need to take a close look at the lack of transparency and increased concentration in the oil and gasoline markets, which has left us in a situation where the very few can set the prices that impact the lives of so many. And we need to make sure we have a national plan--triggered in cases of national emergencies-- that makes it clear profiteering at the gas pump will not be tolerated.

Right now, the oil companies know we don't have a plan to protect American consumers. That's why we need a Federal law that's going to prohibit price gouging, and assess Federal penalties from those who exploit national tragedies to maximize their profits. That is why my colleagues and I have come together today to introduce this legislation.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we have already heard gas station owners complaining that the big oil companies ordered them to raise prices. Investigating those claims should be the top job of federal regulators--and there should be harsh penalties for that kind of behavior, profiteering in the midst of a national disaster.

Today, 28 States have anti-gouging laws on the books. Unfortunately, my own State is not among them. But in crafting this legislation, I have looked to those other state laws--focusing specifically on the law of the State of New York, where price gouging cases have been successfully prosecuted in the past, related to natural disasters.

But I also want to remind my colleagues again that, while Hurricane Katrina exposed the underlying vulnerability of the American economy to supply disruptions, average U.S. gasoline prices were already 75 cents more than they were a year earlier--and many consumers had begun to ask why. While the oil companies have filled their coffers with record profits over the past few years, our Nation's airlines, truckers, farmers and small businesses across the board are struggling to make ends meet because of skyrocketing fuel costs. Worker pensions are in jeopardy, and families are already feeling the squeeze.

That's why this legislation also contains provisions to ban manipulation in oil and gasoline markets, and institutes new market transparency, investigation and enforcement mechanisms. These measures are based on provisions in the recently enacted bipartisan energy bill that prohibited these practices in other sectors of the energy industry. It provides for the same kind of anti-manipulation and transparency rules as those with which electricity and natural gas industries must comply. This legislation would apply the same sort of anti-manipulation and transparency standards to the oil industry that we already apply to companies that sell other essential energy commodities.

Already, these prices are impacting a diverse swath of the U.S. economy and hurting hard-working Americans. According to the Department of Energy, Americans will spend over $200 billion more on energy this year than they did

last year, totaling over one trillion dollars.

These energy prices are also costing us jobs. On average, every time oil prices go up 10 percent, 150,000 Americans lose their jobs--based on the calculations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Federal Reserve Board.

What's more, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a 40 percent increase in gas prices this month will decrease total domestic consumption by 0.4 percent. And unless prices come down in the fourth quarter, our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will fall by 0.9 percent. These energy price spikes are strangling economic growth. According to the Congressional Research Service, every time oil prices go up by 10 percent for a sustained period of time, we lose somewhere between $80 billion and $160 billion in economic growth.

But while these prices are hurting the economy as a whole, they are having a particularly profound impact on our Nation's energy-intensive industries. For example, they are hampering the American airline industry. The airline industry estimates it will pay $9.2 billion more for fuel in 2005 than in 2004, a 103 percent increase from 2001. As Southwest CEO Steve Kelly told the Seattle Times just last week, ``We are now facing energy prices that no airline can make money at, at least with today's [ticket prices].''

These prices are also making it impossible for our farmers to break even. Even during a good year, farmers operate on profit margins of only about 5 percent, so fertilizer, fuel, and pesticide price increases of 20 percent or more have made it very difficult to get by.

Other sectors of the transportation industry are also being dramatically impacted. Take, for example, the trucking industry. Diesel fuel accounts for a quarter of the trucking industry's operating expense, or $85 billion in 2005. Each penny increase in diesel costs the trucking industry $350 million over a full year.

And these prices are impacting essential services in this country. School districts and local governments are feeling the pain, as are federal agencies themselves. Higher fuel prices are expected to add $300 million to the Postal Service's transportation costs nationwide this year.

What about the pain these prices are causing, in other ways? Energy costs are putting pensions at risk and requiring taxpayer bailouts. That's particularly true when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of airline workers in this country. United Airlines has already transferred $6.6 billion of its pension obligations to the government pension agency. If Delta and Northwest terminate their pension plans following their bankruptcy declarations, taxpayers would have to cover another $12 billion.

And these prices are especially harmful to low-income Americans. Households with incomes under $15,000--about one-fifth of all households in this country--this year will spend around 10 percent of their total income on gasoline alone.

And what's going to happen this winter? Heating costs for the average family using heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 during the upcoming winter months. This represents an increase of over $400 over last winter's prices and $700 more than the winter heating season of 2003 and 2004. For families using natural gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an increase of over $600 over last year's prices and $640 more than 2003 and 2004.

These alarming statistics lead me to question where is all this money going? The Congressional Budget Office wrote recently that increased gasoline prices are ``basically a temporary redistribution of income from consumers of gasoline to the stockholders of refiners.''

This is a situation that is causing gross inequities between different industries themselves. Oil industry profits have nearly tripled over the last three years to roughly $87 billion last year-- likely to be even more this year--while the airline industry has lost over $32 billion over the last four years.

How is this happening? While we watch all of these economic impacts transpire, our federal regulators have allowed the oil industry to strengthen its choke-hold on American consumers and businesses. According to the independent Government Accountability Office, mergers and increased market concentration with the U.S. petroleum industry has led to higher wholesale gasoline prices in this country.

That's why it's time for this body to do something about it. The Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act is a common-sense approach to protect American consumers from gasoline price gouging during national emergencies. And it begins to shine the spotlight on the marketing practices of the oil industry in general.

I thank my cosponsors for their support, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, what is the pending order of business?

I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. President, I have two amendments to offer. I call up amendment No. 1729 to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1730 to H.R. 2744.

Mr. President, I rise to offer two amendments to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture appropriations bill for FY 2006, that will help protect the health of the American public. Amendment 1730, the downed animal amendment, would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, from utilizing funds under this act to approve downed animals for human consumption.

Downed animals are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease.

While I commend USDA and livestock organizations for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals, I am still very concerned about diseases such as BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease, that pose a serious risk to the United States cattle industry and human health. A food inspection study conducted in Germany in 2001 found that BSE is present in a higher percentage of downed livestock than in the general cattle population. USDA stated that downed animals are one of the most significant potential pathways that have not been addressed in previous efforts to reduce risks from BSE. Stronger legislation is needed to ensure that these animals do not enter our food chain. My amendment is very simple. It would prevent downed animals from being approved for consumption at our dinner tables. This will allow USDA and other stakeholders to continue working on reducing and potentially eliminating the risk of BSE or any other prions from entering our food chain.

Currently, before slaughter, USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, diverts downer livestock that exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE or other types of diseases until further tests may be taken. However, this does not mean that downed livestock cannot be processed for human consumption. If downer cattle presented for slaughter pass both the pre- and post-inspection process, meat and meat by-products from such cattle can be used for human consumption. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. This was demonstrated by the surveillance of a similar inspection process in Europe, showing that the process is inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, BSE-infected cattle can be approved for human and animal consumption.

Today, USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately 10 percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my understanding that USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. While I am not asking the industry and Federal Government to test every slaughtered cow, I am asking the Federal Government to address and reduce the real risks associated with BSE and similar diseases in the U.S.

Some individuals fear that my amendment would place an excessive financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE this year shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion as a result of the discovery of BSE and more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain.

We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. My amendment reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to our food supply. It also requires higher standards for food safety and protects human health from diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress.

amendment no. 1729

Amendment No. 1729 is based on my bill, the Pet Safety and Protection Act, S. 451. It will protect family pets while allowing research on dogs and cats to continue in an environment free from scientific fraud and animal abuse.

This amendment prohibits Federal funds from being provided to a research facility that purchases animals from Class B dealers. Class B animal dealers collect dogs and cats from ``random sources'' and routinely violate the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act sets the minimum standards of care for animals and requires accurate record keeping on their acquisition and disposition. Dogs and cats are subjected to abusive handling and exposure to the elements while kept on the premises of Class B dealers. They are routinely denied sufficient food, water, and veterinary care before they are sold off to laboratories.

Less than a month ago, one of the more notorious Class B dealers, C.C. Baird, pleaded guilty in a case before a U.S. District Judge. He had violated the Animal Welfare Act because he transferred the dogs and cats to research facilities with false acquisition records. During the search, approximately 125 dogs were seized by Federal agents as evidence of various violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

I recently sent a letter to all my colleagues in the Senate requesting support in passing the Pet Safety and Protection Act. On the front were pictures of a hound dog, Buck, who was in terrible shape-- skinny, his ribs sticking out, pieces of his ear torn off--after being held by a Class B dealer.

There are only 17 Class B dealers selling random source dogs and cats for research. However, there are hundreds of suppliers to these dealers. Random source animals are dogs and cats that may be obtained by fraudulent means, through ``free to good homes'' ads, false animal origin records, and stealing of pet dogs and cats from their owners. The Department of Agriculture lacks the necessary resources to track the interstate activities of Class B dealers to ensure that they comply with Federal law. USDA cannot provide an assurance that illegal acquired pets are not being sold by Class B dealers. This is a problem that is certain to grow in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina with the thousands of animals placed in shelters.

From a scientific research point of view, Class B-acquired animals have not had standardized care nor is there any certainty of the history of the animals. These circumstances make them unsuitable as research subjects in any case, since they cannot be used as control cases or experimental animals. Valid scientific research relies on controlled experimental design and replicable results--two things highly questionable when using animals with unknown history and background.

This simple amendment prohibits funding in this FY 2006 appropriations bill from going to research facilities that purchase animals from a dealer that holds a Class B license under the Animal Welfare Act.

I urge my colleagues to support these two amendments.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the ranking member, Senator Kohl, for accepting these amendments.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may offer an amendment dealing with horse inspection and that no second-degree amendments be in order.

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

Mr. President, I withdraw my previous unanimous consent request and I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 1726.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleagues, Senators Byrd, Landrieu, Graham, Lott, Stabenow, DeMint, Feinstein, and Lautenberg, to submit an amendment to the 2006 Senate Agriculture appropriations bill.

The goal of our amendment is simple: to end the slaughter of America's horses for human consumption overseas.

I graduated from Colorado State with a degree in veterinary medicine. I have been concerned with animal welfare since my earlier days as a youth and pursued those interests as a practicing veterinarian.

Our Nation's history and cultural heritage is strongly associated with horses. George Washington is pictured many places with horses. We are reminded of the legend of Paul Revere's ride and the Pony Express in the West. The Depression era race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral raised the morale of our country during desperate times.

The owners who sell their horses at auction are often unaware that those horses may be on their way to one of the three remaining horse slaughterhouses in America. These slaughterhouses--two in Texas and one in Illinois--are owned by French and Belgium companies. They slaughter American horses almost exclusively for one purpose--exporting the meat overseas for human consumption.

Workhorses, racehorses, and even pet horses--many young and healthy-- are slaughtered for human consumption in Europe and Asia, where their meat is considered a delicacy. The profits, along with the product, are shipped overseas. These horses are slaughtered in America and shipped to Japan, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany for human consumption.

Last year, nearly 100,000 American horses were slaughtered for human consumption overseas. Sixty-five thousand of these were sent to three slaughterhouses in the United States, and more than 30,000 were shipped across our borders to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.

Our amendment effectively stops this practice. It restricts the use of Federal funds for the inspection of horses being sent to slaughterhouses for human consumption. Without these inspections, required under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, horses cannot be slaughtered, or exported for slaughter, for human consumption overseas.

Strong support for our amendment is reflected in the House of Representatives, where an identical measure was passed by a vote of 269 to 158 this past June.

We have several articles and editorials from around the country that have been written in support of our amendment. Articles have appeared in the Washington Times, the St. Petersburg Times, the Charleston Gazette, and the Louisville Courier-Journal, just to name a few. I ask unanimous consent to have these articles printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Ensign-Byrd amendment also has strong support from some of the people most familiar with the slaughterhouses. Paula Bacon, the mayor of Kaufman, TX, which is home to the Dallas Crown Slaughterhouse, recognized the importance of ending this slaughter.

She stated:

My city is little more than a doormat for a foreign-owned

business that drains our resources, thwarts economic

development and stigmatizes our community. There is no

justification for spending American tax dollars to support

this industry.

That is Paula Bacon, mayor of Kaufman, TX, home to the Dallas Crown horse slaughterhouse facility.

Members of the local community would like to see this slaughterhouse closed, as well.

Concerns have been raised about what will happen if this slaughter is ended. Many of these horses will be sold to a new owner. Some horses will be kept longer by their original owner, others will be euthanized humanely by a licensed veterinarian, and still others will be cared for by the horse rescue community. Efforts are underway to standardize practices for horse rescue organizations. Guidelines for this ever- growing sector have been developed by the animal protection community and embraced by sanctuaries.

Statistics do not support claims that this legislation will result in more abuse and neglect of unwanted horses. In Illinois, the number of abuse cases actually dropped from 2002 to 2004, when the State's only slaughterhouse was closed due to fire. In California, there has been no rise in neglect cases since the State passed a ban on slaughter for human consumption in 1998.

Furthermore, it is illegal to ``turn out,'' neglect, or starve a horse, so this amendment will not lead to more orphaned horses. If a person attempts to turn his or her horses out, animal control agents can enforce humane laws. These animals still can be euthanized and disposed of by a veterinarian for about $225, a fraction of the cost to keep a horse. That cost is not too big of a burden to bear when no other options are available.

Our amendment is good for horses. That is why it is supported by many animal protection groups. The Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Doris Day Animal League, the American Humane Association, and Society for Animal Protective Legislation--all support our legislation. We have also received support from much of the horse industry and veterinarians nationwide. In fact, congressional measures to end horse slaughter are supported by Veterinarians for Equine Welfare, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, Churchill Downs, Incorporated, and dozens of owners and trainers of champion racehorses, including Kentucky Derby winners.

The time to end this slaughter is now. Please join my colleagues and me in supporting this important amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.