Floor Statements

Mr. President, this amendment incorporates a whole energy bill. It has many provisions that are deeply flawed. But we are voting on whether to end debate on a complicated, flawed energy bill before debate has even begun, making it very difficult to correct those flaws.

The Senate passed a comprehensive and balanced energy bill in July 2003. Then, after weeks of closed-door meetings with virtually no input from Democratic conferees, the Republicans put forward a ``take it or leave it'' energy conference report that was drastically different than the bill that the Senate passed. I voted against cloture on the conference report in November 2003 because it was deeply flawed and had been produced by a flawed process. The Domenici amendment, the energy bill, which is before the Senate today, suffers from that same problem. There are simply too many provisions on the negative side of the ledger for me to support it, and because this is a cloture vote, voting yes would make it difficult to consider amendments.

At a time when crude oil prices are at 13-year highs, gasoline prices are reaching new record highs daily, diesel prices are breaking records, and high jet fuel prices are straining our airline industry, the Senate should be considering legislation that would do something to lower oil prices. The bill however, would push oil, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices even higher by directing the Department of Energy, DOE, to ``as expeditiously as practicable acquire petroleum in amounts sufficient to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the [1 billion] barrel capacity.'' By directing DOE to take tens of millions of barrels of oil off the market at a time when supplies are tight and prices high--as they have been for the past 2 years--this bill would tighten supplies in the commercial inventories even further, drive oil and gasoline prices even higher, and keep private sector inventories from building back to normal levels.

The bill would fill the SPR in a manner that is inconsistent with two recent amendments adopted by the Senate. Last fall, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment that Senator Collins and I offered to the Interior Appropriations bill, directing DOE to develop procedures to minimize the cost to the taxpayer and maximize the overall supply of oil in the United States when acquiring oil for the SPR. This amendment expressed the sense of the Senate that the DOE's current procedures for filling the SPR have raised oil prices, are too costly for the taxpayers, and have not improved our overall energy security. Unfortunately, this amendment was not included in the Interior Appropriations conference report, and the administration has continued to fill the SPR without regard to the price or supply of oil. This is a significant reason oil and gasoline prices are so high today.

In light of the continuing rise in oil and gasoline prices, and the administration's refusal to suspend SPR shipments, the Senate approved an amendment that Senator Collins and I offered last month to the budget resolution for FY 2005. Our amendment would cancel the planned delivery of 50 million barrels of oil to the SPR from now through sometime in 2005 that would have completed the filling of the reserve. The SPR is 93 percent filled already. Our amendment is being considered in the House-Senate conference on the budget resolution.

By directing the DOE to fill the SPR to 1 billion barrels--300 million barrels above its current capacity of 700 million barrels--the bill before the Senate today would worsen a SPR policy that is 180 degrees opposite from the direction the Senate just approved in the Senate budget resolution.

By increasing deposits in a government reserve at a time when commercial supply is scarce and prices are high, oil companies will meet the additional demand for crude oil for the reserve by removing oil from their own inventories rather than purchasing high-priced oil on the spot market. Since the price of oil is so closely tied to inventory levels, filling the SPR under these market conditions both depletes private sector inventories and pushes up prices for America's consumers.

Two years ago, the DOE's own staff explained this as follows: ``Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows, and OPEC does not accommodate that growth by exporting more oil, the increase comes at the expense of commercial inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices are directly correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels over a 6-month period can substantially increase prices.''

For these reasons, in 2002, DOE SPR staff recommended against buying more oil for the SPR in tight markets. The administration chose to ignore these warnings. SPR deliveries proceeded. As the DOE staff predicted, oil supplies tightened, private inventory levels fell, and prices climbed.

In summary, the direction in the bill to DOE to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by another 300 million barrels, to a total level of 1 billion barrels, is likely to increase the cost of crude oil and crude oil products, such as gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel and jet fuel, to American consumers and businesses, with no benefits to our national security.

The electricity provisions of the bill before us are also deeply flawed. Instead of improving our current situation, I believe they will make it worse. The massive power failure of August 2003, on top of the massive price manipulation perpetrated by Enron and others, provided additional proof--proof that should not have been needed--that the United States' deregulated energy markets are not functioning well to secure a supply of energy against interruption.

The bill before us--the Domenici amendment--would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1934, PUHCA, long-standing consumer and investor protection legislation governing energy industry structure and consolidation. With the repeal of PUHCA, the resulting provisions of the bill before us fail to provide adequate protections to prevent industry market manipulation and consumer abuses.

The Congress needs to enact mandatory reliability legislation, and while some provisions of the bill would be an improvement over the current voluntary system of reliability standards, other provisions of this bill would take us in the wrong direction and could, in fact, make things worse. The bill fails to ensure that regional transmission organizations, RTOs, will have the authority to enforce electric reliability standards in order to prevent, or respond effectively to, another blackout. Further, the ``participant funding'' provision of this bill shifts the cost of building new electric transmission such that transmission construction will be discouraged and utilities will be encouraged not to participate in RTOs. There is a strong need for a stand-alone electricity reliability bill that sets mandatory standards, requires utilities to join RTOs, and establishes consistent rules for enforcement of standards. But the bill before us today is not the right answer.

Two provisions of the bill would significantly impede the ability of federal

and state agencies to investigate and prosecute fraud and price manipulation in energy markets. If adopted, section 1281 would impede state and Federal authority, other than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in financial and commodity markets. It would turn the CFTC into a gatekeeper for all other federal and state investigations into matters within CFTC- regulated markets, which would be an unprecedent intrusion into the enforcement of state and federal consumer protection laws.

Section 1282 would impose a higher, criminal standard, ``knowingly and willfully'', for filing false information and for improper phony round trip trading than exists under current law. The new round trip trading provision is inconsistent with current law and the Cantwell amendment that recently passed the Senate, which prohibited market manipulation in electricity markets.

Manipulation is difficult to prove even under current law. By raising the burden of proof, this provision will make it nearly impossible to prove illegal round trip trading or wash sales. Rather than weakening the laws preventing fraud and manipulation in energy markets, the Congress should be strengthening these prohibitions.

Over the past several years, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I previously chaired and on which I am now the ranking minority member, has investigated how Enron, financial institutions, and others have manipulated financial energy markets and prices. The record we have established is clear and dramatic. Strengthened oversight and transparency are critical to the proper functioning of our energy and financial markets. The provisions in this amendment will weaken our ability to ensure these markets are functioning properly.

There are some provisions of the bill before us that I support. The amendment contains two provisions that appear on their face to partially address the unfair air quality restrictions placed on a number of Michigan counties. These provisions do not go far enough, however, to remedy the negative impacts that I have fought against for years.

According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, would not be required to act on the results of the demonstrations study that is required by the so- called Upton language included in this amendment. It also would not relieve new major sources from state new source review regulations, and it would not release Southwest Michigan from Clean Air Act provisions that mandate specific local reductions following completion of the study. Finally, it would not prevent Southwest Michigan nonattainment areas from classification bump-up if the area is unable to attain the standard by the deadline.

The so-called Barton provisions contained in this amendment would help some for two Michigan counties, Cass and Muskegon, those are the only two counties subject to transport that have been designated under Subpart 2 of Section 181 of the Clean Air Act. However, the help is modest because it is workable only if those areas fail to meet the standard by the deadline and the EPA decides to ``bump them up'' to a higher classification.

We need to do more to prevent restrictions from being placed on areas that are impacted by overwhelming transport. The potential consequences of a nonattainment designation are significant. I will continue to work with the EPA and the Congress to ensure that the Clean Air Act provisions are applied with common sense so that counties are not required to take costly actions for problems that are created downwind, which would be illogical and unfair.

The Senate has worked to create a national energy policy for years, but the bill before us today is not the right answer. Even if we were to pass it today, it will get caught in a logjam between the House and Senate on energy policy that is centered on the issue of the fuel additive methyltertiarybutylether, MTBE. The energy bill conference report that I voted against in November contained a provision that would exempt its producers from liability. In Michigan, it has been estimated that MTBE has contaminated groundwater around over 700 leaking underground storage tank sites. There are similar problems in many other states.

The crux of the matter is that the Senate will not pass legislation that includes the MTBE provision and the House will not pass legislation without it. So we are in a logjam, and I believe that any legislation that we pass will eventually come back to this body containing the MTBE liability exemption, which would then again be rejected.

We should continue work to complete a long-term, comprehensive energy plan that provides consumers with affordable and reliable energy, increases domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner, invests in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources and protects the environment and public health. But the bill before us today, offered to legislation on a completely different matter, is not the right answer. Nor is voting ``aye'' to end debate on an important bill like energy before the debate has begun.

Mr. President, this week mayors and police chiefs from across the country will join with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to urge President Bush and Congress to renew the federal Assault Weapons Ban.

The 1994 law banned a list of 19 specific weapons, as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics such as pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The assault weapons ban also prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and which accept a detachable magazine. This law is scheduled to expire on September 13, 2004.

I support the efforts of the law enforcement community and local leaders who are calling for legislation extending the law. In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and, last month, I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years.

Law enforcement support for the assault weapons ban is broad. It includes the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of School Resource Officers, the National Fraternal Order of Police, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association.

In addition, mayors and police chiefs from Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have joined over 200 other local leaders in sending a letter urging Congress to immediately pass a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban.

Despite broad support for this law, the National Rifle Association fought against passage of the assault weapons ban in 1994 and continues to oppose it to this day.

While President Bush has indicated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and a bipartisan majority in the Senate is on the record supporting reauthorization, the President has failed to urge Congress to act on this important legislation before it expires on September 13th. The ban is a major public safety measure that protects citizens and police officers and I urge the President and the Congress to act immediately to reauthorize the law.

Mr. President, the demise of the Soviet Union, in 1991, provided an opportunity for millions of people to chart their own destiny as people free from the yoke of repressive communism. At that time, there was great hope that a free and prosperous Ukraine could become a member of the

Euro-Atlantic community that is united by democracy, free markets and the rule of law.

In the past 12 years, Ukraine's transition to democracy and capitalism has been a difficult process marked by success and failure. The successes are many: Ukraine has given up nuclear weapons, peacefully changed power from Leonid Kravchuk to Leonid Kuchma, partnered with NATO's Partnership for Peace program, and has stationed roughly 1,600 troops in Iraq--one of whom, Private Ruslan Androshchuk paid the ultimate price for his service.

Yet, in spite of these achievements, Ukraine faces a stark choice of leadership as it seeks to shape its second decade of freedom from communism. Those who would seek to forge a new and open Ukrainian identity aligned with the community of democratic nations stand in contrast to those who seek to return the nation to its repressive past by establishing a more authoritarian regime that avoids the needed reforms it must undertake.

The choices facing the Ukrainian people are clear, and the upcoming October 2004 presidential election will play a critical role in determining the course that this proud and important nation will take. It is my hope that the presidential election will draw Ukraine closer to the West by cementing a strong and stable democracy. Unfortunately, a number of recent events and actions by the Ukrainian government have provided supporters of a democratic Ukraine with reason for concern.

In the lead up to the fall's election, Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma has pursued constitutional changes that would shift substantial powers from the presidency to the Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, on the eve of the presidential election in which a strong opponent of the President is currently leading in the polls. In response to concerns expressed by many nations, President Kuchma dropped the most egregious provision, which would have replaced the direct election of the president with an election by the Ukrainian parliament. Deliberations on constitutional reforms, especially reforms that would alter the political landscape and structure of the nation, should be discussed in a full and open parliamentary debate with the broad participation of the Ukrainian population. Yet, the proponents of this measure primarily relied on backroom maneuvering to push through their changes. Although President Kuchma argued that he was not advocating these changes to strengthen his position, since he has said he will not run for reelection, many concerns existed that he was doing so to fortify the position of his allies in the legislature.

In a sign that true democratic aspirations in Ukraine are still alive, those changes to the Ukrainian constitution failed by six votes earlier this month. I am hopeful that President Kuchma will permit the election to go forward without further attempts to undermine Ukraine's constitution.

The constitutional changes advocated by President Kuchma are just one facet of an increasingly authoritarian trend in Ukraine. Media repression that threatens the safety of Ukrainian journalists also limits the ability of citizens to obtain fair and accurate reporting prior to the October elections. A free press and open media are essential foundations for any open, democratic society. Yet the ability of the media to operate freely has been threatened in the past several years.

The commercial FM Dovira network removed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, RFE/RL, Ukrainian-language programs from its schedule in February of this year. This move came after the takeover of the network by a political supporter of President Kuchma. The network had previously served as the RFE/RL major affiliate, reaching roughly 60 percent of Ukraine's population. Apparently RFE/RL programming did not ``fit the envisioned new format of the radio network,'' despite the fact that these programs were the most popular shows on the station.

When Radio Kontynent, an FM commercial station in Kyiv, started airing RFE/RL programming a couple of weeks later, the station was raided and closed by Ukrainian authorities. The station's transmission equipment and three employees were briefly detained. The former owner of the station fled to Poland fearing for his life and is awaiting political asylum.

This action was not an isolated event, unfortunately. According to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Ukrainian authorities continue an ongoing campaign against the independent media, including the harassment of journalists and the suppression of fact-based news and information and investigative reporting. Several journalists have been murdered and others have been killed in suspicious ``accidents.'' We must do more to support efforts in Ukraine by journalists and media organizations that fight for fundamental rights.

Political repression and harassment apparently influenced the election for the mayor of Mukachevo, a town in southwestern Ukraine. Exit polls for this election indicated that Our Ukraine's candidate received 62.4% of the vote, yet a subsequent recount indicated that his opponent won by 5,000 votes. Reports trickling out after the election indicated that some of the election stations were raided and damaged by ``criminal elements'' and other ballots were summarily destroyed or ignored. Four members of the parliament were beaten and an election observer was hospitalized after being assaulted. In addition to this, prior to the election the Our Ukraine candidate temporarily was taken off the ballot and a theater director that allowed Our Ukraine to use his venue for a meeting was severely beaten.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, expressed its concerns about this election, as well as recent legislation that bars domestic non-partisan observers from monitoring elections. Without the assurances of a free, open, and transparent election, there is little to hope that the fall election will, in fact, uphold true democratic values. The events in Mukachevo and the barring of domestic observers are reasons for great concern. Recent actions, such I described, raise the fear that this election will be stolen from the Ukrainian people.

Ukraine has taken some positive steps toward the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market economy, though much more remains to be done. This is why a free and fair presidential election in October 2004 remains so important to determining the future path of Ukraine. Who emerges victorious from this election is a matter to be decided by the Ukrainian people. What is of concern to the United States is how these elections will be conducted. Both the election day and the pre-election period must meet international standards for a free and fair electoral process, including ensuring that candidates have unimpeded access to media outlets, citizens are guaranteed the opportunity to exercise their civil and political rights, free from intimidation and interference, and domestic and international monitors are allowed to observe the electoral process and report their findings. The numerous problems in Ukraine noted in elections in 1999 and 2002 by election observers only intensify everyone's concerns.

Ukraine, if it is to realize its considerable potential, must take action now to protect the fundamental human rights of its citizens. There have been some achievements in the past twelve years, but much more remains to be done. I know that my Senate colleagues share my concerns about the upcoming presidential elections and stand ready to support the Ukrainian people as they continue with efforts to make their nation more free and democratic.

Mr. President, this year I once again come before the Senate to pay tribute to those who lost their lives or were forced from their homeland as a result of the horrific genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people from 1915 through 1923. During those years, the Turkish Ottoman government used the outbreak of World War I as a pretext for subjecting its citizens of Armenian descent to deportation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The land on which some of the Armenians had lived for generations was expropriated from them. It is imperative for the American people and for people around the world to commemorate this tragedy, with the hope that by remembrance we will advance the day when the world will no longer witness such horrors.

Over one million Armenians perished as part of a deliberate campaign of murder in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire. Armenians, given that they were neither Turks nor Muslims, were treated as threats, even though the Armenians had been exemplary citizens and had lived together peaceably with their Turkish neighbors for centuries. April 24th is the date chosen to commemorate this genocide, since it was on that day in 1915 that government leaders rounded up 300 Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals for their deportation and for many, their deaths. While the preeminent members of the Constantinople's Armenian community were being rounded up on that day, 5,000 others were slaughtered in their homes and on the streets.

Many Western, democratic nations became aware of the ruthless targeting of the Armenian population yet did not act to stop it. In May 1915, Great Britain, France, and Russia advised the Turkish leaders that they would be held personally responsible for this crime against humanity. Later that year, Henry Morgenthau, the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, cabled the State Department saying, ``Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.'' His successor, Abram Elkus, wrote in 1816 that, ``. . . unchecked policy of extermination through starvation, exhaustion, and brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish history.''

In addition to the government records decrying the events in the Ottoman Empire, historians have been able to record the memories of the victims. It is important to share these stories, to ensure that the subsequent generations can truly understand the appalling conditions under which their ancestors both perished and survived. The Genocide Project, an effort by the San Francisco Bay Area Armenian National Committee, has done a remarkable job of compiling oral and visual documentation from some of the survivors.

Edward Racoubian told the project how when, ``We reached the Euphrates River and despite the hundreds of bodies floating in it, we drank from it like there was no tomorrow. We quenched our thirst for the first time since our departure. . . . Of a caravan of nearly 10,000 people, there were now only some 300 of us left. My aunt, my sisters, my brothers had all died or disappeared. Only my mother and I were left. We decided to hide and take refuge with some Arab nomads. My mother died there under their tents. They did not treat me well--they kept me hungry and beat me often and they branded me as their own.''

``Sometime later, Turkish gendarmes came over and grabbed all the boys from 5 to 10 years old. I was about 7 or 8. They grabbed me too,'' Sam Kadorian said. ``They threw us all into a pile on the sandy beach and started jabbing us with their swords and bayonets. I must've been in the center because only one sword got me . . . nipped my cheek . . . here, my cheek. But, I couldn't cry. I was covered with blood from the other bodies on top of me, but I couldn't cry. If had, I would not be here today.''

I believe the highest tribute we can pay to the victims of a genocide is by acknowledging the horrors they faced and reaffirming our commitment to fight against such heinous acts in the future.

In commemorating the tragedy of the genocide today, I would also like to recognize the fact that yesterday Canada's House of Commons, took the courageous step of officially recognizing that the events initiated on April 24, 1915, were in fact a genocide and crime against humanity. It is my hope that all people of goodwill will join in calling this tragedy by its correct name--a genocide. I hope that our colleagues will join me in commemorating this tragedy and vowing to honor and remember the innocent victims of the Armenian genocide.

Mr. President, this week marks the 5-year anniversary of the tragic shooting of 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. The very mention of Columbine High School strikes a nerve with the American public. It reminds us of that horrendous scene of terrified children running from their assailants as SWAT teams descended on their school.

Earlier this week, students, parents and residents of Littleton gathered at Columbine High School to remember those who died and renew their commitment to address school violence. The anniversary brought back painful memories. Michael Shoels, the father of student Isaiah Shoels, who was killed in the shooting, told the Associated Press, ``It's most definitely something I think about every day but, you know, we can't wallow in victimhood. Under the circumstances, we need to get out there and do something about it.''

In response to this massacre, many schools have implemented security

measures such as posting in-school police officers, installing security cameras and metal detectors, and developing emergency response programs. But a recent report from the National School Safety and Security Services, a firm specializing in school security and school safety for K-12 schools, found an increase in school-related violent deaths in the 2003-2004 school year. According to the report, there have been 43 violent deaths nationwide this school year, more than the previous 2 years combined and more than any school year prior to Columbine. In addition, there have been more than 60 non-fatal shootings this year and more than 160 other incidents of high-profile violence, such as stabbings and riots. This is simply not acceptable.

Despite continued school violence, the President has not led on this issue and Congress has also failed to enact sensible gun safety laws that could help to turn the tide. In fact, President Bush's budget proposes eliminating funding for the COPS school resource officer program. We have yet to close the gun show loophole, despite bipartisan support in the Senate. And, while the President has said he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban and a bipartisan majority in the Senate is on the record supporting reauthorization there are no plans to consider this important legislation before it expires on September 13 of this year.

America's schools need our help and these are simple, commonsense steps we can take to improve school safety. I urge my colleagues to close the gun show loophole, keep the ban on assault weapons, and restore funding for COPS school resource officers. As the end of another school year approaches, the push to enact sensible gun safety legislation must continue.

Mr. President, with so many baby boomers nearing retirement age, increasing the likelihood and availability of secure retirement savings is more important than ever. Strengthening our private, employer-based pension system is a critical component of this effort.

Right now, our Nation's companies are confronting real challenges in providing adequate, guaranteed retirement benefits as the number of retired workers grows and global competition increases. This is a big part of the crisis that we are experiencing in our manufacturing sector. Across the Nation, 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost during the Bush administration. Michigan alone has lost over 180,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Our States and our Nation cannot continue to sustain such losses, and action is needed on many fronts to address the crisis.

This bill is a small, but important, step toward helping with our manufacturing crisis. For the companies whose plans this bill helps, it will free up resources for equipment upgrades, new hires, R&D, and other investments in the future.

I am troubled by the fact that the component of this bill dealing with most multiemployer pension plans that had overwhelming support in the Senate has been dropped out of this conference report. I am hopeful that we can provide relief to those multiemployer plans soon. That is why I will cosponsor Senator Kennedy's bill that would do just that.

If I thought that defeating this bill would help the many pension recipients whose plans were left out of this conference report, that would be one thing. However, after careful thought, I have concluded that defeating this bill would not achieve that goal but would only hurt those who do get the much-needed relief in the bill.

Mr. President, last month the Senate considered and passed the Boxer trigger lock amendment by a 70-27 vote. Senator Boxer's amendment would require that all handguns sold by a dealer come with a child safety device, such as a lock, a lock box, or technology built into the gun itself. Further, it would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop standards for child safety devices. The need for this legislation is clear, and I supported its passage.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, each year teenagers and children are involved in more than 10,000 accidental shootings in which close to 800 people die. Further, about 1,500 children age 14 and under are treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional firearm injuries. About 38 percent of them have injuries severe enough to require hospitalization.

In addition to accidental shootings, according to the Brady Campaign, every year 1,300 children use firearms to commit suicide. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal. These children are given no second chance.

It does not have to be this way. If gun manufacturers put locking or other safety mechanisms on guns, or dealers sold handguns with safety devices, many shootings could be avoided, and fewer children would die each year.

The gun industry immunity legislation, to which Senator Boxer's amendment was attached, would have provided unprecedented protection from liability to gun manufacturers and dealers, even in cases where their own gross negligence or recklessness led to someone being injured or killed. I opposed the immunity bill and was pleased that it failed to pass the Senate. However, Senator Boxer's trigger lock amendment passed with bipartisan support. Given that, I hope the Senate takes up and passes that legislation this year.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize my Senate page today, Brittney Moraski of Bark River, MI, for achieving highest honors at the Senate Page School. Brittney's hard work earned her a 4.0 grade point average this semester, the highest in her class.

Highest honors are nothing new for Brittney. At home in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, Brittney attends Bark River-Harris High School where she is a member of the National Honor Society and also maintains a 4.0 G.P.A. Brittney took advanced placement classes in U.S. Government and Politics and microeconomics and achieved the highest score possible on both A.P. exams. In addition, Brittney has taken college classes at Bay de Noc Community College. Brittney was the first Bark River-Harris High School student to earn the highest endorsement level possible on the senior-level Michigan Educational Assessment Program test as a sophomore.

Complementing her school year work, Brittney has participated in activities that further nurtured her lifelong interest in government and politics. Last summer, Brittney spent three weeks in Washington as part of the Junior Statesmen Summer School at Georgetown University where she took a course on foreign policy and had the opportunity to meet with high-ranking officials in the Congress, State Department, Pentagon, White House and French Embassy.

In addition to her exemplary academic achievements, Brittney stands out for her community involvement. She is the president of the Bark River-Harris Key Club and serves on the Community Foundation of Delta County's Youth Advisory Committee. During the past three years, she traveled to Honduras to volunteer at a soup kitchen, distribute food and clothing, and read and play with Honduran children.

Brittney brings her idealism and achievements to her duties as a Senate page. In her application for the page program, Brittney wrote, ``I would not only grow as a student of government from the experience, but I would grow as an individual and as a potential future public servant.'' Later in her application, Brittney said, ``I believe in the U.S. government and in American values, and I would be honored to serve as a page in the epicenter of American lawmaking, the U.S. Congress.''

Mr. President, Brittney Moraski exemplifies all that is best in the Senate Page Program and in our young people, and I congratulate her on her outstanding achievements.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Assumption Greek Orthodox Church, the second Greek Orthodox congregation to be formed in the state of Michigan. Events celebrating the 75th anniversary of Assumption Church began in 2003 and will continue in 2004 with a grand banquet to be held on April 24. These events bring together members of the congregation, as well as thousands of others from throughout the metropolitan Detroit area and around the country, to mark this milestone in the history of Assumption Church.

At the turn of the century, many Greek immigrants settled in cities and towns across the nation. Greek immigrants established a thriving community in Detroit, in what has become known as Greektown. Seventy- five years ago, seven men from the growing Greek community on Detroit's ``eastside'' met to lay plans for a parochial school and a place of worship that would be close to their homes. They sought to continue the tradition of teaching the Greek language and history to their community. In 1930, with the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the first Church Council established the Assumption Church at Hillger and Kercheval in Detroit. The Church was formally named ``Koimisis tis Theotokou'' meaning ``The Dormition of the Virgin Mary.''

The Church experienced steady growth in both the number of families that joined the parish and the number of new programs that served the needs of the parishioners. Beginning with its first Greek school ``Socrates,'' the Church added various programs for its youth, women, and senior citizens, and continued to expand its philanthropic and religious outreach. The parishioners' reputation as a thriving, caring congregation grew and attracted families from Detroit's suburbs and beyond. Today, more than 1,200 families belong to Assumption Church, making it the largest parish in the region and one of the largest parishes in the Archdiocese.

The Assumption Greek Orthodox Church family moved several times over the years before building the current facilities in St. Clair Shores, which include the notable Assumption Cultural Center. They built churches at Beniteau and Vernor Highway and on Charlevoix that serve Protestant congregations today. Like these stalwart structures that are reminders of the congregation's vision and faithfulness, Assumption's spiritual leaders have been significant pillars in the community. The first priest, Father Christopher Makris, arrived in Detroit from Chicago. His service was followed by 11 clergy leaders and several laity, who have been represented in the highest positions of service nationally in matters of religious education, stewardship, athletics, the St. John Chrysostom Oratorical festival and various missionary activities. Father Demetrios Kavadas provided spiritual leadership for 39 years and is Assumption's longest serving clergyman. In 2003, Father Epihanios Perialas became interim pastor and honored the parish through his elevation to Metropolitan of Spain and Portugal. Father Michael Varlamos became pastor in 2003 and continues to serve in that capacity today. Unfortunately, the Church experienced a devastating fire on December 21, 2002, that destroyed the interior of the Church along with its beautiful iconography. The Church was promptly restored and re- opened its doors almost one year to the day, in December 2003.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating the congregation of Assumption Greek Orthodox Church for achieving 75 years of devotion to God, their faith, and excellence in serving their members and the surrounding communities.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, earlier this week the OPEC cartel announced it would reduce oil production by 1 million barrels of oil per day starting April 1. This move is designed solely for one purpose: to keep pushing up oil prices in the United States and other oil-consuming countries.

Most energy experts say that given current inventory levels in the United States and elsewhere and current consumption rates, OPEC's cuts mean that gasoline prices will likely stay high, hurting American families; jet fuel prices will stay high, hurting our airlines; and diesel fuel prices will stay high, hurting our truckers, manufacturers, and farmers.

As OPEC was planning this price hike, what was the response of the administration? Just a few days before, the Secretary of Energy stated he was not about to go begging for oil.

One step we should take immediately to counteract high prices and OPEC's action is to stop filling our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This month, the administration is going to put about 200,000 barrels per day of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If OPEC's cuts are distributed equally among its customers, this is about how much the OPEC cut will reduce U.S. supplies. Since the U.S. imports about 20 percent of OPEC's output and OPEC plans to cut production by about 1 million barrels per day, about 200,000 barrels per day will be the reduction in the supply to the United States.

Holding off additional deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would keep about as much oil on the U.S. oil market as OPEC is taking off our market. One way to fight back is to cancel these additional deposits which will otherwise go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already 93-percent filled.

Mr. President, 200,000 barrels per day is a lot of oil. It is as much oil as is produced in several of our major oil-producing States. For instance, Oklahoma produces about 180,000 barrels a day. It is about as much as we import from Kuwait. Last year we imported about 205,000 barrels per day from Kuwait.

Over time, 100,000 to 200,000 barrels per day adds up to a significant amount of oil. Over the course of the next year or so, these daily fills will add up to about 50 million barrels of oil. In other words, over the next year or so, the Department of Energy, if it sticks to its plan to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 100 percent, the DOE will take about 50 million barrels of oil off the market and put them into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

If we keep that oil in the market, in the private sector, we would get both short-term and long-term benefits. The day after the Senate passed the amendment which I offered with Senator Collins to cancel the planned delivery of 50 million barrels of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, prices on the New York and London crude oil exchanges fell by more than $1, just on the news that the Senate had acted, even before anyone knew whether the House would follow suit. Prices rose back to their previous levels when the Department of Energy and some key Members of Congress said that the DOE should keep putting that oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The market's reaction to the news that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve deliveries might be canceled is good evidence of how the market will react to the cancellation of those deliveries. We should listen to what the market is telling us. Keeping 50 million barrels of oil on the market rather than putting them into the reserve will enable our private sector inventories to build back to normal levels. They have not been at normal levels for some time now. They have been well-below normal and recently fell to historic lows.

If we restore those private sector inventories, this will reduce prices substantially, and most experts agree that absent some type of additional supplies in the market, oil and gas prices are going to stay very high.

I want to make it clear that we are not proposing removing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time. What we are talking about is simply to stop putting even more oil into the reserve which is already 93 percent of capacity.

The administration says the daily addition is too small to make a difference in the price of oil. This is wrong for two reasons.

First, the amount the DOE is putting into the reserve each day is a lot of oil. Second, the administration's position ignores the long-term effect of putting these barrels of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--and this is the DOE's own staff I am going to quote. This is what DOE's own staff said:

Essentially, if the reserve inventory grows, and OPEC does

not accommodate that growth by exporting more oil, the

increase comes at the expense of commercial inventories. Most

analysts agree that oil prices are directly correlated with

inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels over a 6-month

period can substantially increase prices.

In fact, commercial inventories did fall on average by 20 million barrels in each of the three successive 6-month periods following the DOE staff's warning.

The Department of Energy's own staff who operates the Strategic Petroleum Reserve recommended against buying more oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in tight markets.

In the spring of 2002, as prices were rising and inventories in the private sector were falling, this is what the Department of Energy staff warned:

Commercial petroleum inventories are low, retail product

prices are high and economic growth is slow.

This is DOE staff's bottom line:

The Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve

under these circumstances.

Commercial petroleum inventories are low,--

They are still at an all-time low.

retail product prices are high--

They are at an all-time high now.

and economic growth is slow.

And it does continue to be sluggish. This is what their bottom line is:

The Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve

under these circumstances.

The administration chose to ignore those warnings. The reserve deliveries proceeded, and just as the DOE staff predicted, supplies tightened and prices climbed.

The administration continues to ignore the advice of these experts at the reserve, and American consumers are paying the price.

A wide variety of experts outside the Department of Energy has stated that

filling the reserve during tight oil markets increases oil prices. This January, Goldman Sachs, which is the largest crude oil trader in the world, said the following:

Government storage builds will provide persistent support

to the markets--

meaning filling the reserve pushes prices up, and

Government increases in storage lowered commercially

available petroleum supplies.

Bill Greehey, who is the chief executive of Valero Energy, the largest independent refiner in the United States, has criticized the administration for filling the reserve when commercial inventories were low, thereby preventing increases in the commercial inventories.

Last September, when oil prices were at $29 a barrel, Greehey complained the reserve program was diverting oil from the marketplace. Here is what he said:

If that was going into inventory, instead of the reserve,

you would not be having $29 oil, you'd be having $25 oil. So,

I think they've completely mismanaged the strategic reserve.

Now that is the chief executive of the largest independent refiner in the United States.

One of the top energy economists in the country, Phil Verleger, estimates the reserve program has added $8 to $10 to the price of a barrel of oil.

Economist Larry Kudlow said:

Normally, in Wall Street parlance, you're supposed to buy

low and sell high, but in Strategic Petroleum Reserve

actions, we're buying higher and higher and that has really

helped keep oil prices high.

Now that is from a conservative economist.

In an article explaining why oil prices are so high, a recent issue of the Economist reported the following:

Another factor . . . propping up oil prices may be what [a]

trader calls ``supply disruption risk.''

Here is what the Economist went on to say:

These worries have, in part, been fueled by a most

unexpected source, the American government. Despite the high

prices, American officials continue to buy oil on the open

market to fill their country's strategic petroleum reserves.

Why buy, you might ask, when prices are high, and thereby

keep them up? The Senate has asked that question as well. It

passed a nonbinding resolution this month calling on the Bush

administration to stop SPR purchases, but Spencer Abraham,

the Energy Secretary, has refused.

In January, the Petroleum Argus, an energy industry newsletter, stated the following:

The act of building up strategic stocks diverts crude

supplies that would otherwise have entered the open market.

The natural time to do this is when supplies are ample,

commercial stocks are adequate and prices low. Yet the Bush

administration, contrary to this logic, is forging ahead with

plans to add [more oil] to the stockpile.

After the Senate passed our amendment that said we should hold off further purchases, Todd Hultman, who is president of Dailyfutures.com, a commodity research provider, was quoted as saying the amendment:

. . . makes good sense and is designed to make more crude

oil available at a time when unleaded gasoline prices have

been making new record highs.

Last summer, Dr. Leo Drollas, chief economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, criticized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve program:

They've continued filling the reserve, which is crazy,

putting the oil under the ground when it is needed in

refineries.

Now that is why the Senate, with support from both Republicans and Democrats, recently approved an amendment, which I offered with Senator Collins, to stop Strategic Petroleum Reserve shipments, sell the oil that would have been placed in the reserve and use the money from those sales for important homeland security programs.

Fifty-three House Members, 39 Republicans and 14 Democrats, recently wrote the President requesting a suspension of SPR petroleum reserve shipments. The House letter states the following:

Filling the SPR, without regard to crude oil prices and the

availability of supplies, drives oil prices higher and

ultimately hurts consumers.

The administration still chooses to ignore common sense and it adds oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, no matter how high the price or how tight the supply of oil.

Even though this discussion is about suspending additional deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are high and private and commercial inventories are low, I would like to comment on a misimpression regarding what happened the last time the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was actually used to release oil. Again, we are now shifting the discussion from talking about not putting more oil to the reserve to what happened last time we took oil out of the reserve. This is what happened during the Clinton administration when 30 million barrels were taken from the reserve and put on the private market. This was in September of the year 2000. Here is what the Washington Post recently stated:

The last time an administration tapped the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve, the impact on price was negligible. When

President Bill Clinton ordered the sale of 30 million barrels

of oil on September 22, 2000, the average price of regular

gas had climbed to more than $1.56. By October 24, when the

oil began to hit the market, prices had slipped one penny,

according to the Energy Department's Energy Information

Administration.

Well, that statement is highly misleading because it omits critical information. Here is the full story: On September 22, 2000, with crude oil prices at $37 a barrel, home heating oil stocks at historic lows and winter around the corner, President Clinton ordered the release of 30 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Within a few days of the announcement of the release, crude oil prices had fallen by $6 a barrel. Within a week, home heating oil prices fell by 10 cents per gallon. Within 2 weeks, wholesale gasoline prices had fallen by 14 cents per gallon.

So what the statement omitted is what happened to oil and gas prices immediately after the order for the release of that 30 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There was an immediate impact downward on gasoline prices, wholesale prices for home heating oil, in the amounts of 10 cents a gallon for home heating oil and 14 cents a gallon for gasoline. So the statement that gasoline prices on October 24, a month later, were only a cent lower than on September 22 omits the critical information that oil and gasoline prices fell significantly immediately after the release but then rose later due to unrelated events in the Middle East.

Two weeks after the release, crude oil prices were still $6 per barrel lower than the prerelease prices and wholesale gasoline prices were 14 cents per gallon lower. Only when a wave of violence hit the Middle East during the third week after the release did gasoline prices rise to their prerelease levels.

So the release of 30 million barrels of reserve oil during the Clinton administration did have a significant, immediate effect on oil and gas prices downward.

Just as taking oil out of the reserve can significantly affect prices, putting oil into the reserve can have a significant effect as well. That is what is going on now. The administration should listen to its energy experts and the economists and stop adding oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is already 93 percent full. The result will be lower oil and gasoline prices, a welcome relief to American consumers, manufacturers, and airlines.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, two weeks ago, the Violence Policy Center released a report rebutting a number of assertions made by the Fifty Caliber Institute about the civilian sale of .50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles.

The .50 caliber sniper rifle is among the most powerful weapons legally available. According to the Violence Policy Center's report, a .50 caliber sniper rifle is capable of accurately hitting a target over 1,500 yards away, and the ammunition available for the .50 caliber includes armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive bullets. The report also cites the U.S. Army's manual on urban combat, which states that .50 caliber sniper rifles are designed to attack bulk fuel tanks and other high-value targets from a distance, using ``their ability to break through all but the thickest shielding material.''

One of the most disturbing parts of the report quotes a brochure from the leading manufacturer, Barrett Firearms, advertising the .50 caliber sniper rifle.

The Model 82A1 is designed to provide extreme accuracy at

extended ranges with standard military ammunition. . . . The

accuracy of the Model 82A1 makes possible the placement of

the shot in the most vulnerable area of the target. The

compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of

helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it

capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a

single hit delivered to a vital area. The cost-effectiveness

of the Model 82A1 cannot be overemphasized when a round of

ammunition purchased for less than 10 USD [U.S. Dollars] can

be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.

I believe that information detailing the potential destruction these weapons can cause should alert us to the dangers to airline safety, as well as homeland security. That is why I cosponsored Senator Feinstein's Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act, S. 429. This bill would change the way .50 caliber guns are regulated by placing them under the requirements of the National Firearms Act. This would subject these weapons to the same regimen of registration and background checks as those weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act. This is a necessary and commonsense step towards assuring the safety of all Americans.

The .50 caliber sniper rifle is among the most powerful firearms legally available. Senator Feinstein's bill presents us with a simple solution to improving their regulation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, last night the University of Michigan Wolverines defeated the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights 62- 55 in the final game of the 2004 Men's Basketball National Invitation Tournament to complete a 23-11 season.

The win was even sweeter for the Wolverines as they defeated Rutgers before a crowd of 16,064, largely cheering for the Scarlet Knights, at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Throughout the season and particularly during the NIT, a vocal home crowd at Crisler Arena cheered Michigan to victory. Cheering their team through the first three games of the tournament, Michigan's fans were truly the team's sixth man.

For the season, Michigan won 16 of their 19 home games. Prior to the NIT, they had only won five of their 13 road games. Winning two games in Madison Square Garden proved the mettle of this young team that has relied heavily upon its many sophomores and freshmen. I know I speak for all of Michigan in extending my heartiest congratulations to University of Michigan men's basketball team on their championship. This was a hard fought victory and one that I'm sure Wolverines fans enjoyed immensely.

Twenty years ago, Bill Frieder coached a young Wolverines team that won the NIT Championship. That team used their championship as a springboard to greater success: in each of the next two years they won the Big Ten Championship. I am sure that Michigan Coach Tommy Amaker and his players have similar hopes for a program that has not been to a postseason tournament since 2000. This banner will be raised in the rafters of Crisler Arena next to the 1989 NCAA championship and the 1984 NIT championship banners.

For 68 years, the National Invitation Tournament has showcased some of the

greatest talents in college basketball and this year was no exception. Last night, players from both teams displayed their excellent training and hard work. Michigan was led by tournament Most Valuable Player Daniel Horton, who led Michigan with 14 points and Dion Harris who had 13 points.

Michigan opened a lead of 41-29, but a 15-2 Rutgers' run quickly nudged the Scarlet Knights in front, albeit briefly. The old adage ``the best offense is a good defense'' came true as Michigan constructed its win around a defensive strategy where defensive specialist Bernard Robinson, a senior whose leadership helped guide this young team, limited Rutgers' hot-shooting freshman to just two points.

In his third year with the Wolverines, Coach Amaker not only assembled the winning game plan, but also brought together a team that will consistently compete with any team in the nation. Last night's victory is testament to a team that worked hard to salvage its season and reputation. While individual performances by Robinson, Daniel Horton and Dion Harris played a key role in this game, Michigan's championship was a team effort that has helped restore the pride in the Michigan basketball program. I congratulate Coach Amaker and his team for their selfless efforts in putting University of Michigan basketball back on the national map.

I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating the University of Michigan men's basketball team on their victory, and I know we all look forward to next year when this team really comes of age.

Mr. President, I ask that the players and coaches names be printed in the Record.

The list follows:

Players: Lester Abram; John Andrews; Amadou Ba; Ashtyn

Bell; Graham Brown; Colin Dill; Sherrod Harrell; Dion Harris;

Daniel Horton; Chris Hunter; J.C. Mathis; Brent Petway;

Bernard Robinson Jr.; Courtney Sims; Dani Wohl.

Coaches: Head Coach Tommy Amaker; Assistant Coach Charles

E. Ramsey; Assistant Coach Chuck Swenson; Assistant Coach

Andrew Moore.

Mr. President, I take a moment to recognize the International Association for Organ Donation, IAOD. The IAOD strives to increase awareness of organ donation and transplantation, as well as bone marrow and tissue donation. This organization provides educational and outreach programs to the general public, with a focus on racial and ethnic minorities.

Each April, the International Association for Organ Donation celebrates National Donate Life Month. This year is especially important as it marks the 50th anniversary of the first successful liver transplant. In honor of this monumental occasion, the IAOD is sponsoring ``50 Years of Sharing Life'' to publicize the plight of those in need of an organ transplant.

Today in America, 83,000 patients are currently awaiting an organ transplant. Although there are 68 successful organ transplants each day, an additional 100 patients are added to the waiting list and sadly, 18 people die each day as they wait for this life-saving procedure. Tissue donations, such as bone marrow, are also in short supply. Nearly 3,000 people are searching the National Marrow Donor Program Registry at any one time and an additional 3,000 patients are added to the registry each month.

There is something we all can do to reduce these staggering statistics. Great strides could be made if the estimated 10,000 to 14,000 eligible Americans who die each year pledge to become organ donors. The IAOD is a driving force in sharing the message that life is a gift to share.

It is with great pleasure that I offer my sincerest appreciation and support to the International Association for Organ Donation as it celebrates the 50th anniversary of the first successful liver transplant. I give my thanks to the organization, its staff, and its partners as they work to fulfill their lifesaving mission.

Reserving the right to object, I wonder if as part of that agreement we could line up speakers as follows: That Senator Durbin be recognized in morning business for 15 minutes; followed by Senator Bennett for 20 minutes; followed by myself for 15 minutes; followed by the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, for 15 minutes.