Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the proposal for an independent commission to look into what has happened in the Gulf States. This issue has been spoken about, worked on so hard and so carefully by Senator Reid, Leader Pelosi, my colleague, Senator Clinton, and many others.

I speak from the experience of the devastation that occurred in New York after the terrorist attack almost 4 years ago. It will be 4 years this Sunday, and many of us will be at Ground Zero commemorating that.

I think of that every day to this moment, the people I knew who were lost--a guy I played basketball with in high school, a businessman who helped me on the way up, a firefighter from the community in which I was raised. I wear this flag. I put it on September 12, and I wear it every day and, God willing, will every day for the rest of my life in memory of those who were lost.

One of the main desires of the families of those who were killed in 9/11 was to get to the bottom of it. I believe it was a selfless desire, a desire to figure out what went wrong so it would not happen again.

Now we face a tragedy of similar consequence although of different origin, and that is the hurricane in the Gulf and the lack of an excellent response to it. Obviously, our first concern has to be rescuing those who are still in need of help, making immediate provision for the hundreds of thousands of individuals who were displaced and trying to deal with the immediate aftermath. Then we will have a longer term job of restoring the city of New Orleans.

I have talked with Senator Landrieu and Congressman Jefferson about what we learned in New York about bringing people back to an area that had become temporarily abandoned. That is what happened to downtown on 9/11. But another thing we are going to have to do is figure out what went wrong with the same positive motivation that motivated us after 9/ 11, and that is so we might reduce the chances of loss of life, loss of property in the aftermath of it happening again.

We learned one thing. We learned very simply that the best way to get to the bottom of this is have an impartial, nonpartisan commission not composed of politicians. The best way to get to the bottom of this, frankly, is to repeat the experience of the 9/11 Commission and have a group of people--many experts in different fields, some citizens with motivation to find out what went wrong--and give them the authority they need, the resources they need, the time they need, and let them get to the bottom of it.

Frankly, there has been a lot of discussion of how we should do this in the House and Senate. From what I understand, the majority leader is now considering simply having joint hearings with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joined with the House. I have no objection to that, but I will say this: When elected officials, when politicians are on a commission, generally it does not work

out. Republicans will have a natural view to defend the administration. Democrats will have a natural view to attack the administration. Both are legitimate roles. But to assure the public that the truth will actually be found, a nonpartisan commission, not composed of elected officials, is the best way to go.

The calls for doing things in the House and Senate with our particular needs--appropriations, oversight of various Government agencies--is not a bad one, but only if it is not a substitute for an independent commission.

I hope my colleagues will rise to the call in the next few weeks and months. We do not have to constitute this commission immediately, but we should do it soon enough because, again, the only way to assure the public that we are getting to the bottom of this is to have a commission that is nonpartisan and not populated by politicians, each of whom has a legitimate ax to grind--a legitimate ax to grind, but it is an ax to grind nonetheless.

I wish to make one other point before I yield the floor. The initial calls for an independent commission after 9/11 were resisted. They were resisted by the administration, and they were resisted by many in the House and Senate. But it was the fortitude of the families of the victims, the survivors--Kristen Breitweiser and her colleagues from New Jersey, so many of the families I know from New York--who forced the Commission to occur.

My guess, my prediction is this: If we do not form that commission ourselves, on our own volition quickly, at some point the citizens of the Gulf States will demand that we do so in any case as we move past the tragedy and hopefully begin to rebuild for those who have been caught in this gulf catastrophe. Those who lost loved ones, at least some of them will do what was done in New York. They will band together and try to do everything they can to help a community they love. And they will urge us and importune us, just as the families in New York did, to form such a commission. That is my guess. It is just how things are. And it is the right thing to do. So let us do it now. Again, it does not have to be done next week. It probably should not be done next week. Our main goal should be to focus on helping those who need help. But within the next month or two, without question, if we really want to get to the bottom of what went wrong to prevent it from happening again, we should form an independent commission, not composed of elected officials with an ax to grind but nonpartisan citizens of various expertise to figure out what went wrong and to give us guidance as to how to avoid it in the future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak, as my colleagues have before me, about the terrible tragedy in the Gulf Coast. As the rescue and recovery in the Gulf Coast continues, as we pray for each life, my thoughts, for instance, always go back to 9/11, the tragedy that befell my city and State.

It is sort of a horrible thing to say, in a certain sense, about the number of people who died, but people thought the number of deaths in our State and our city would be much greater than it was. I think about a week after the planes hit the Twin Towers, most people were talking about over 10,000 people dying. As I said, I feel awkward

saying this, but it is a true thought we all have, that only 3,000 were found to have passed. Still, it is an awful number, and the families miss those people every single day. I knew some of them myself. I miss them and think of them. But we hope and pray this happens in Louisiana, that the horrible numbers we have heard about--the possible number of deaths--are significantly lower.

One other thought I want to mention about New York, before getting into the substance of my remarks, is that this morning I was privileged to attend a groundbreaking for the new New York/New Jersey rail station to be built at Ground Zero. It will be a beautiful and sweeping station. The architect, the world-famous Mr. Calatrava, got the idea of a child releasing a dove at the station. At least by the designs and pictures I have seen, it will be a soaring and sweeping station.

At that memorial I thought about the victims and the people of the Gulf. I said to them that a week after the planes hit the Twin Towers, we were filled with despair, anguish, anger, and thought there would never be any hope after something that horrible happened. But the human condition is a remarkable one. And, of course, hope is always with us, as the Greek mythological story of Pandora's box shows.

The groundbreaking that Senators Clinton and Lautenberg and Corzine and I attended this morning with the Governors of New York and New Jersey shows us there is always hope. This station--a beautiful, sweeping, soaring station--will rise like a phoenix out of the ashes of 9/11.

I say to my colleagues who represent the Gulf States, as well as to all the people in the Gulf States: Hope will return. It is hard to see now, with so much devastation and so much anguish and so much sadness, but it will return. Just as in New York we are rebuilding ourselves, hopefully to be bigger and better and stronger than we were before 9/ 11, I know that, too, will happen with the people in the gulf region. So my thoughts are with them. All of our thoughts are with them.

Because of the devastation of Katrina, we confront one of the most extraordinary challenges this Nation has ever faced: To feed, to clothe, to house, to help an estimated 1 million Americans who were displaced and who now have to rebuild their lives.

The disaster area is some 90,000 square miles. That is almost double the entire State of New York. It is an area nearly as large as the United Kingdom. The amount of damage to the homes, the businesses, the schools, the infrastructure, the roads, the bridges is in the tens of billions of dollars, most certainly. It is already estimated, for instance, that Louisiana alone has lost at least 110,000 businesses. And that number is likely to climb as we calculate the full extent of the damage.

The images on TV are devastating. They are of hungry, weeping children, of families returning to the destroyed remains of their neighborhoods, discovering they have lost everything they have owned, from precious family keepsakes to their houses and cars and livelihoods. The pictures of angry, frightened people, with nowhere to go, unsure of what will happen to themselves and their loved ones rings a deep chord in every one of our hearts. And there are the deaths of so many. The psychological toll of this tragedy will be heavy indeed, especially, of course, on the children. Another thing we learned after 9/11 is to pay particular attention to the children. Sometimes it took them, in New York, over a year to speak about what they had seen.

When my city faced a devastating attack, America stood with us in our time of need. I want to assure the people of the gulf region that New Yorkers--I think I can say probably just about every one of the 19 million New Yorkers--will stand with you, the people of the gulf region, as you stood with us in the dark days immediately following 9/ 11.

The love and support New Yorkers received from the rest of the country after 9/11 meant so much in the wake of those attacks and the long, difficult road to recovery. I want the people of New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast to know we will support them, too, no matter how long, no matter how difficult their recovery may be. We will do whatever it takes to help now, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and on into the future.

We took the first step last week when Congress provided $10.5 billion in desperately needed disaster relief funds to the devastated region. But as I learned in the aftermath of 9/11, money is only the first step. The next step is to ensure that bureaucratic rules and regulations do not prevent the money from being spent quickly and where it is most needed. We discovered after 9/11 that the rules governing how Federal dollars can be spent and benefits accessed--from HUD to the Department of Transportation to the IRS--became insurmountable obstacles for so many of our citizens in need. And many of the problems faced after 9/11 will be faced a thousandfold for Hurricane Katrina because there are so many more people and businesses that were hurt.

It is essential that Congress take action as quickly as possible on as many fronts as possible. Every day makes a difference for those seeking a place to live, a way to get their children back to school, to get health care, to get a job. So many jobs are gone. Furthermore, after 9/11, Congress tackled many of the problems facing Hurricane Katrina victims and has a template to work with. And Senator Reid, working with our committee leaders, has already compiled a list of action items Congress should address this week.

Before I get into those action items, I want to say one other thing. We do need the most competent people running the agencies that are in charge of this recovery effort. And I heard, an hour or so ago on the floor, our colleague, my friend, Senator Mikulski, speak on that issue. We all know Senator Mikulski is somebody who knows FEMA and the agencies involved with recovery extremely well because as chairperson and as ranking Democrat on the relevant appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA, she knows them. We also know she is a temperate person in the sense that she does not regularly get up and demand that people step down. But when she spoke on the floor an hour ago and said that the FEMA head, Brown, should either step down or be forced to step down, I think all of us should listen to her. These are serious times, and fingers of blame should not be pointed at any one place. But to make sure we have the most competent people in charge as the rescue effort proceeds is very important. So again I want to urge my colleagues to listen to what Senator Mikulski had to say because I think it is extremely important to us.

Now, getting back to the list that Senator Reid, working with some of our committee leaders, has compiled, it is a list of action items, and I hope Congress will address it this week. The list includes providing Medicaid, housing vouchers, and emergency cash for all displaced victims, waiving deadlines, and expediting applications where necessary, and waiving the requirements to prove residency or asset levels or to provide other paperwork which, of course, so many of those who have lost everything in their lives no longer have. The Reid package also proposes tax incentives for families who take in victims, and identifying Federal facilities that can house them.

The proposal also focuses on helping the tens of thousands of children who need to get enrolled quickly into schools around the country by providing those schools with financial assistance and waiving the usual bureaucratic requirements for enrollment. I believe this must be one of our highest priorities. Since the hurricane occurred right at the beginning of the school year, there is not a day to waste. We cannot let our children simply hang out there without providing for their education, which, Katrina or not, means their future.

My heart grieves at the sight of so many of these children sitting around the Astrodome and other shelters with no place to go. It is September. Let us pledge to get all those children, who have faced so much trauma already, into school by the end of the month. We must provide the Federal dollars needed to bolster those schools that are opening their hearts and doors to these children, from Houston to San Francisco to Vermont. We must also provide these children with all they will need--food and shelter and school supplies--to keep their education on track.

We must also make sure our brave National Guard personnel, who are on the front lines abroad in Iraq and now here at home, receive all the assistance they need, from debt and student loan relief to allowing them to qualify for Federal health care and retirement benefits. Our Nation owes these American heroes nothing less.

Finally, the Reid proposal addresses what may ultimately be our most pressing challenge--finding employment for the victims of Katrina, by making employers eligible to claim the Work Opportunity Tax Credit of up to $2,400 per worker they hire. We need to do this and much more. With so many businesses and so much infrastructure destroyed, we will need both the Federal Government and the private sector to step to the plate and get people back to work.

Congress can and should tackle right away in these few weeks the problems that have been mentioned above. We should learn lessons from what we were able to do after 9/11 for New York. With a million people in need of assistance, it is inexcusable that we would delay. Let us move this package this week, not next week or the week after.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, my particular thoughts go to our colleague from Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has experienced visiting such devastation.

I have some idea of how he feels because less than 4 years ago--a little more than 4 years ago--I experienced the same in New York.

Tonight, our Nation is experiencing one of the most tragic and heartrending natural disasters in our history. Entire towns have been destroyed, lives upturned, families lost, and the chaos we have all watched unfold continues even tonight.

Our hearts go out to the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and all of the other Gulf States affected by Hurricane Katrina. Our prayers go out most of all to those still stranded and to those who have lost loved ones. The images on television are devastating--hungry, weeping children sitting on the street amidst garbage; family members returning to the destroyed remains of their neighborhoods discovering they have lost everything they have ever owned, from precious family keepsakes to their houses, cars, and livelihoods; and angry, frightened people with nowhere to go and no rescue in sight.

I join with all Americans and people all over the world in praying for the safe rescue of all the victims of this heartbreaking tragedy.

Four years ago, my city of New York faced a devastating attack, and America stood with us in our time of need. New Yorkers will stand with the people of the gulf region now as they stood with us then.

The love and support New Yorkers received from the rest of the country after 9/11 meant so much in the wake of those attacks and the long, difficult road to recovery. I want the people of New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, and the rest of the gulf to know we will support them, too, no matter how long and difficult their recovery may be. We will do whatever it takes to help now, tomorrow, and into the future.

Our first step comes tonight, when the Senate will agree to provide $10.5 billion in desperately needed disaster relief funding to the devastated region. And we will stand unified with President Bush and ready to provide everything and anything that New Orleans and the rest of the gulf region will need to rebuild and recover. Just as we did after 9/11, this body and the entire Nation will work together to overcome this disaster. The American people are strong, and we will persevere.

Like so many Americans, I have been watching the terrible images on television, and I worry about the thousands of people still stranded in the Superdome and throughout the city and region without food, water, sanitary facilities, or medical treatment. I worry so very much about the desperately ill people, including small babies and frail seniors who need medical care, and the people who may still be trapped in places rescuers have not reached, people in attics who retreated to the attics as the waters rose and then were stuck there.

I know firsthand how difficult it can be to organize a massive rescue and recovery effort, and clearly this disaster is unprecedented in its scope and difficulty.

Tonight, a lot of people's lives still hang in the balance. Money for the long run is necessary, and that is why we are here tonight. But there is much more we must do immediately. We must focus all our efforts on rescuing those who are in need of medicine, who are hungry, thirsty, and frightened and despairing. We must get these people to shelter and to medical facilities immediately. We must fly in food, water, clothing, blankets, medicine, and whatever else is needed. We must get as many ships, buses, and trucks as we can, from wherever we can get them, to transport the victims and to begin clearing the wreckage. We must provide the soldiers and law enforcement needed to restore law and order--however many it takes.

This is literally a life-and-death crisis, where every moment of delay has a human price. There is not a minute to lose, no matter the cost.

I know the phones have been ringing off the hook in my office and those of my colleagues. Many have called asking where they can contribute. That act of generosity is also noted. We are hearing from our constituents who have heartfelt questions about what went wrong in this tragedy and what else could have been done to prevent it. At the moment, we must keep our total focus on saving lives. But I want them to know that their questions are not falling on deaf ears. In due time, after we have done everything to save those whose lives hang in the balance, we will ask those difficult questions--not to lay blame but to learn from the mistakes that were made so that the Nation will be better prepared for the next disaster we might face.

But now is the time for action, for solving these problems, and for saving the lives that hang in the balance. In the days and months ahead, this Nation will pull together united as we did after 9/11. We will do everything we can to help the victims and repair and rebuild the cities and towns in the gulf, especially the much beloved city of New Orleans.

Just as we did in New York, we will face difficulties and great sorrow, but I know I join all of my colleagues in the Senate in pledging assistance--financial and beyond--that the gulf region needs and anything else in our power to help our fellow citizens.

Tonight, our prayers--our fervent prayers--are with them.

Mr. President, I will not speak on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, which I support, but on the underlying provision. It is hard for me to accept the fact that we are taking a special interest, we are taking an industry that deals with something that admittedly can be dangerous, and exempting them from liability and giving them greater exemption than just about anybody else.

We talk about special interests. That is exactly what ``special interests'' means. Giving it to one small group because they have influence rather than for a whole larger group who may also deserve it. Even when somebody is grossly negligent, even when an organization does not abide by the rules, they will still get an exemption. How can we say that to people who are injured, perhaps, as a result of that negligence and carelessness?

I want people to remember the terror brought upon ordinary Americans with the Washington snipers. These terrorists acquired their assault rifle to shoot 13 people. They got the rifle at the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply. Bull's Eye could not account for the sale. Bull's Eye could not account for 230 of its guns. Yet Bull's Eye would be protected when these families sought recompense by this legislation. Who in America would exempt a gun dealer who repeatedly violated the law and put them above those who had lost loved ones?

That says enough. I know my colleagues are eager to move on so I will not speak for much longer. If Members want to know why the American people get fed up with this body, it is legislation such as this that caters to a small, powerful group.

The right to guns is a good thing. I support the second amendment. But no amendment is absolute. Not the first, not the fourth, not any of them, including the second. There are some here who believe only the second amendment should be exalted above all the others. I disagree.

This is an awful piece of legislation, despite my respect for its sponsor. I urge we defeat it.

To reiterate, I rise in opposition to this bill, which will give a free pass to gun dealers and gun manufacturers, even when their products wreak havoc on innocent people.

With all of the important business before the Senate right now, it is shocking that we would spend our time giving unwarranted and unprecedented immunity to an industry whose products, when allowed into the hands of the wrong people, do incredible harm to innocent Americans. We even put off working on a defense bill to do this favor to the gun lobby.

This bill, will literally endanger people's lives because it eliminates the last check we have, on bad gun dealers--the threat of lawsuits.

This bill will hurt victims of gun violence all across America--the innocent men, women and children who will end up being shot and killed if this bill passes because a gun dealer can't or won't keep track of his guns and there is no check on him.

We remember too well the terror that was brought upon ordinary Americans when the Washington snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, went on their 23-day shooting spree.

These terrorists acquired the assault rifle that they used to shoot 13 people at Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, and Bull's Eye could not account for that sale.

In fact, Bull's Eye couldn't account for over 230 of its guns. This bill would protect gun dealers like Bull's Eye from lawsuits by the families of the sniper victims.

And this wasn't a dealer operating under the radar. In fact, Bull's Eye was inspected by the ATF not once, not twice, not even three, but four times in the 6 years prior to the sniper shootings. And what did those inspections reveal? They revealed that Bull's Eye could not account for over 160 guns missing from its inventory.

One of these guns was used by the DC snipers to kill ten innocent people and injure three others. It was only after people died that ATF did a real investigation and found that it was not 160, but 238 guns that were missing.

But it was still open and doing business.

What recourse did the sniper victims and their families have while they were

waiting for the government to act? These victims sued the gun dealer for negligence, and won a $2.5 million settlement.

That won't bring back the innocent people who were killed by the snipers. But it gives these victims what we are all entitled to when someone else's negligence does us harm--our day in court and the opportunity to achieve justice.

This bill would shield bad dealers like Bull's Eye from justice. It would say to people like the victims of the DC snipers--``I'm sorry but you have no right to your day in court because Congress has made a special exception for bad gun dealers.''

We don't do this for other industries, but due to pressure from the gun lobby we are being asked to carve out a special exception to an industry that makes and sells what are, in the hands of the wrong people, very deadly weapons.

In Philadelphia, a small child found a gun on the street and accidentally shot a 7-year-old boy. That boy's mother was able to recover a settlement from the gun dealer, who negligently sold multiple guns to a gun trafficker. One of those guns ultimately caused her son's death. This bill would deny that mother her day in court.

And it's not just about money. Gun dealers and manufacturers also agree to implement safer practices as a result of these negligence suits. This bill would give bad dealers and manufacturers no incentive to enact these safer practices.

Lawsuits against bad dealers, or dealers who are too lazy to adequately keep track of their inventories, do not affect the right of law-abiding Americans to safely use guns to hunt or collect.

But this bill does wipe away the right of American citizens to have their day in court. This bill destroys that right and slams the courthouse door in the faces of gun crime victims who are trying to make sure that gun dealers are responsible.

We have heard some of my colleagues talking here about the importance of responsibility. Well this bill says that everyone should be responsible--except the gun industry. You get a free pass. The rules that apply to every other industry in America don't apply to you.

Our court system works. And when a frivolous or baseless lawsuit is brought, there are rules to make sure that it doesn't go forward.

We should allow the system to continue to work. It worked for two New Jersey police officers who won a $1 million settlement from a dealer who negligently sold 12 guns to a straw buyer. It worked when the dealer agreed to implement safer sales practices to prevent criminals from getting guns.

That is why I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the amendment being offered by my friend from New Jersey, Senator Corzine. This sensible amendment will allow law enforcement officers like those two New Jersey police officers to obtain justice when careless sellers allow guns to get into the wrong hands.

So the system needs to work for all Americans--and Congress shouldn't create special rules for special interest groups, especially when the lives of so many people are literally at stake.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this Energy bill. Even though I am opposed to the bill, I first want to pay my compliments to both Senators from New Mexico, Mr. Dominici and Mr. Bingaman, for the work that they have done. While I am opposed to the Energy bill for a variety of reasons, which I will elucidate in a minute, it was Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici who worked very hard to make the bill better.

The bill that left the Senate was considerably better. I thought the House bill could not have been much worse. The bill that comes back to us obviously is somewhere in between. Without the efforts of the two Senators from New Mexico, it would have been considerably worse.

I want to say one other thing. It was of monumental strength that the odious MTBE provisions that the House had clung so steadfastly to, that brought the bill down last time it came around, are not in the bill. That is because the Senate, on the Democratic and Republican sides, hung tough. The MTBE provisions were a disaster. To reward polluters and stick taxpayers who had lost their supplies of drinking water with a bill for what had happened would have been a disgrace. To pay the MTBE companies over $2 billion because they could no longer sell as much of their product as before was doing what we do for very few businesspeople who produce far more worthy products.

So I want to compliment my two colleagues for knocking out that provision. It is the reason we are sitting here with a conference report.

Let me talk about one provision in the bill that bothers me greatly but then talk about what bothers me more than that because what bothers me most is not what is in the bill but what is not in the bill. What is in the bill is an ethanol provision that will force people on the coasts, States that do not grow much corn, to buy ethanol whether they need it or not. I understand the need to help agriculture. I have voted for many of those types of provisions myself. I know the dairy farmers, apple growers and cherry growers in New York State, and they do need some help. I am not adverse at all to the Government helping. But this ``Gyro Gearloose'' way of helping the corn growers of the Middle West by foisting the costs upon drivers, particularly on the east and west coasts, at a time when gasoline is already $2.30, $2.40 or $2.50, makes no sense.

We want to keep the air clean, and we need to make sure that gasoline burns, but there are many ways to do it, not only with ethanol or MTBEs. To require the refiners throughout the country to use MTBE or at least pay for MTBE, even when they are not going to use it, is a disgraceful subsidy. We already subsidize ethanol heavily, and it is very unfair to do it.

If one wants to encourage ethanol, I have no problem with encouraging the creation of ethanol plants in places such as New York or maybe Nevada, where there is not much ethanol now. The real cost of ethanol is not in making it but in transporting it. While it is dubious, recent studies have shown that the energy cost into making ethanol exceeds the energy benefit into using it as a substitute for gasoline. Nonetheless, growing it near the source of use would make it far more efficient. I am very regretful that it is in here.

New York drivers will pay 5, 6, 7 cents a gallon more than they have to because of this ethanol provision. It is unfair to make the salesperson in Rochester who drives 500 or 600 miles a day and has enough trouble earning a living pay a direct subsidy to a corn grower in Iowa, however much that corn grower needs help. It is not a way to do business, and yet that is what we have done here.

So the ethanol provision is rotten. The ethanol provision is a boondoggle. The ethanol provision occurs only because of the political power of the ethanol makers and the growers of corn in the Middle West and some other parts of the country, not because it is right. It is indefensible on the merits. It should not be in the bill.

Having said that, what bothers me even more is what is not in the bill. I love this country, and I try to think what could make this country decline, what has made other great powers decline, whether it is the Roman Empire or Great Britain in the 19th century. When one reads history, it is that they became so preoccupied with enjoying things day to day that they were unable to look beyond the horizon a little bit and try to solve problems that might be upon them 5 or 10 years down the road. That is exactly what we are doing with energy.

Our dependence on foreign oil, our lack of being able to solve our growing energy needs is a crisis in the making. It is not a crisis today, but it is going to be a crisis 5 and 10 years from now. Even now, energy costs are akin to a slit on the wrist. We slowly bleed and it weakens our economy.

Yet, in this bill, we do some things but not close to enough, and nothing major and nothing of vision to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in general and imported fossil fuels, in particular. Conservation--we know that we should do both things. I do not disagree with the far left or the far right. The far left, conserve only, get rid of fossil fuels; far right, produce more oil, forget about conservation. We should be doing both. I am not adverse to better utilizing fossil fuels, to figuring out coal gasification, even to looking at oil and gas reserves off our coasts, if it is done in a careful and pro-environmental way, as it was done when we sold some tract in the east Gulf several years ago.

Conservation has to be part of any plan to reduce our energy dependence. CAFE standards, not in the bill; major incentives for conservation, not in the bill, even mild provisions, such as the Senator from Oregon offered to raise CAFE standards a mile per gallon a year were rejected. That is because of the cloud of the big three auto companies in America and, frankly, I regret to say, the unions that serve them. They have been arguing for the status quo for years. For that reason now, I hate to say it but foreign automakers are again overtaking them.

We have to look to the future. I am happy to help our auto industry with new incentives to figure out ways to burn less fossil fuel and have alternative sources, but we are not doing it. It is no good for the auto companies, it is no good for the autoworkers, and it is no good for America.

So conservation is not in the bill, nor is a dramatic program to reduce our

energy independence. There are some subsidies here and there for wind power, solar power and biomass. There are subsidies for coal, gas and oil. But the emergency that we face to really engage in crash programs, to use hydrogen better, to use fuel cells better, to find other alternatives, is virtually a necessity or will be a necessity 5 years or 8 years from now, lest our economic vitality continue to be sapped.

It is amazing to me that China, a country not regarded for its fealty to the environment, has stronger CAFE standards, stronger incentives for alternatives to gas and oil than we do. That is a sign that this great American experiment, this noble experiment, as the Founding Fathers called it, may be at least in this area losing its bearings. If we are more interested in providing immediate subsidies to the powerful few in the energy industry who are around us than figuring out a grand plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and on fossil fuels in general, we are not serving the people of America.

The amazing thing is I think the people of America are ready for a vision, if we look at all the surveys, finding a way to be independent of imported oil.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Dependence on foreign oil gets our foreign policy twisted in a knot, which, of course, saps our country of wealth every minute, every second, 365 days a year, and the American people want some change. They are willing to make some sacrifice and tighten their belts. As China is ahead of America in this area, the American people are ahead of this Congress. Again, we seem more concerned with feeding particular special interests, some good, some bad, than we do with coming up with a vision as to how we are going to reduce our energy independence.

So is this bill an evil, horrible bill? No. The ethanol provision is odious, but the bill on balance may take a small, few steps forward, but not close to what is needed. I cannot think of an area, in a large policy way, where the needs and the political possibilities are not far ahead of what we have done tonight.

I regret to say I am going to vote against this bill, not only because of the ethanol provisions in it, but because at a time demanding vision, at a time demanding foresight, at a time demanding an effort to solve problems that are only problems today but could become crises 5 years from now, we have done mostly the prosaic, the mundane, the expected. That is not what a great power does. That is not what true leaders do. That is what this bill does.

So despite my respect for the leaders of the bill and the wonderful, harmonious way in which they worked, I have to say, to me, this bill is a serious disappointment and I have no choice but to vote against it tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to engage my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, who serves as the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and who acted as the ranking Senate conferee, in a colloquy regarding the conference report on the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I thank my friend for his service in this body and hard work on this bill, and particularly his efforts in resolving the contentious issues surrounding MTBE remediation litigation. It is my understanding that the language contained in section 1503 of the conference report addresses this issue in a matter consistent with current law on three vital fronts. First, it would in no way preclude or abrogate the right of citizens and local governments to pursue all available State and Federal remedies where there is environmental harm and other injury that results from contamination of MTBE into groundwater and public water supplies. Second, nothing in the language will alter the substantive law that courts currently apply in these cases and that they will apply to future claims. And finally, it is not intended to provide Federal courts with exclusive or subject matter jurisdiction or grant Federal courts jurisdiction over nonproduct liability cases, such as environmental cleanup and cost recovery cases involving general petroleum spills initiated by State governments and private citizens. Rather, it is intended that under section 1503, cases involving general spills will remain in State court, where many of these cases are currently handled. Does the Senator from New Mexico share my understanding of this language and its intent?

I thank the Senator from New Mexico for sharing his understanding of section 1503.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion

for cloture. Whatever Members feel about gun liability, and there are many divided opinions here, nothing could be more important than returning to the DOD bill, supporting our troops, supporting our veterans. It is a $440 billion bill. The fact that we cannot debate it for more than a few hours says something is wrong with this Senate. We can do both. We should not leave the DOD bill until we finish. I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture, whatever your view is on the gun liability provision.

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

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment that has not yet been filed.

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

Mr. President, we have had some discussion floating around this Foreign Operations appropriations bill about the proposed CNOOC-Unocal merger. As I understand it, amendments that directly affect that merger have been withdrawn. That is not a problem, as far as I am concerned, if the sponsors of those amendments on both sides of the aisle wish to delay offering the amendments, to do it on a different appropriations bill.

My amendment is different. Let me explain.

My basic problem with the CNOOC-Unocal merger is not the same as that of many of my colleagues.

I am not sure it meets the strategic test, and I am willing to leave that to the body that judges that strategic test. I have a different problem. It is a problem that the Senator from South Carolina and I have talked about in terms of currency and other issues; that is, China doesn't play fair. What China thinks is good for China, they don't think is good for American companies. That is true here in terms of mergers. CNOOC wishes to buy Unocal, an important company in the United States dealing with a very important commodity--oil--whether it meets the strategic test or not. But if you look at the ability of American companies to buy Chinese companies in industries that China considers strategic, you will find barriers along the way. At least that is what I have found.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We ought to have some degree of reciprocity. If the Chinese--in this case, the Chinese Government, since they own 70 percent of CNOOC--wish to buy an American company, why should they be allowed to block

American companies that wish to buy similarly situated Chinese companies, the American automobile industry, the American construction industry, the American financial services industry? I will be issuing a report shortly which shows that in these strategic industries, American firms have barriers placed in their way. All of them meet approval. Yet in instance after instance, the American company cannot buy a majority share. The barriers are different for different industries, but they exist. In fact, foreign investment in China is divided into four categories--encouraged, permitted, restricted, and prohibited. Even in the nonprohibited categories, all foreign investment must be approved by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation called MFTEC.

The United States has a policy of being open to foreign direct investment in nearly every case, and strict levels of Government approval are only reserved for the most sensitive transactions involving national security. Of the 1,525 cases that have been filed with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States since 1988, only 25 have warranted investigation; 12 have been reported to the President, and only one has been denied. In the converse situation, where American firms seek to buy Chinese companies, the devil is often in the details. The Chinese Government creates de facto barriers that almost always require Western companies to give up some degree of control over its enterprise that would be highly irregular in any truly free market.

What is more, it is nearly impossible to gain an accurate picture of which investments, mergers, and joint ventures are rejected by the Chinese Government because companies' investors don't publicly want to admit it. The Chinese will say to General Motors or General Electric or scores of smaller companies: We will let you do it, but only under these circumstances. And the company, not wanting to offend the Chinese, doesn't fight the circumstances. All too often these large companies have an interest to their shareholders--they are supposed to--but not to the United States. If it serves their interest to send the technology to China, even though it will create many jobs in China and hurt jobs here in the United States, so be it. It is good for General Motors. So it is hard to figure this out. As I said, we have begun to do it, and we will be issuing a report shortly about it.

There are additional complications when a U.S. company wants to merge or acquire a Chinese state-owned enterprise such as a CNOOC, which is a state-owned enterprise, because any merger with an SOE requires additional approval of many state agencies, and so in instance after instance, which we will highlight in our report, the Chinese do not play the same way with our companies that they want us to play with their companies.

What our amendment does is very simple. It does not prohibit a merger from taking place. It simply requires a report be submitted to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to assess whether that country will allow a similar transaction to occur in the opposite direction. The aim is not building barriers but simple reciprocity--fair, part of free trade, and better for everybody.

I hope my colleagues will accept this amendment. It doesn't go to the heart of this merger--that is a different issue which we will delay and do on a different bill--but, rather, goes to the point that the Chinese should treat our companies the way they want us to treat theirs.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and that my amendment be called up.

Mr. President, I know we have agreement to accept this amendment, so I will not speak for very long. I know people want to vote on final passage.

Two quick points: This amendment does not block or change in any way the CNOOC-Unocal merger. It simply says, after any merger where a corporation that is owned by a foreign government seeks to buy an American company, that our Government, particularly MFTEC in the Treasury Department, issue a report that shows whether that country is treating our companies reciprocally and fairly. In other words, would an American company that wished to buy a Chinese company in a similar position be allowed to do so? I would argue that the Chinese do not. If you believe in free trade, it has to be a two-way street.

This amendment at least gives us a report and some knowledge of that condition. That is all I am asking.

With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, if reports are correct, less than 5 hours from now, President Bush will announce to the Nation his first nomination to the Supreme Court. This process and his choice will surely make up a large part of his lasting legacy.

The President no doubt spent a great deal of time and thought before making the selection he will announce tonight, and I am hopeful--still hopeful--that it will be a truly consensus nominee, one we can all support and one that will serve this country well on the highest court in the land.

I must admit to some disappointment that President Bush did not do more to consult with the Senate on this pick because, as many of us have said all along, it is such consultation that helps ensure a smooth confirmation process and a unified vote.

Had we been given some names beforehand, we would have been able to do some due diligence before any announcement and be able to suggest to the President who might quickly succeed and who might face a tougher road to confirmation, just as Orrin Hatch did with President Clinton.

But be that as it may, tonight we start fresh and likely with a nominee who has not been vetted with the Senate beforehand. This will make the upcoming hearings on this nominee that

much more important--perhaps the most important we have had in several generations. We, in the Senate, will soon begin to fulfill our constitutional duty to advise and then to give or withhold our consent on the President's nominee. Whomever the nominee, whether Edith Clement, as many are rumoring, or another, there will be many tough questions on a broad range of issues. It is my hope that every Member of the Senate will take this solemn duty seriously and move forward with dignity, diligence, and a view toward coming to a deliberate, but not dilatory, conclusion on whether the coming nominee should be on the Supreme Court.

Because Justice O'Connor was such a swing vote on so many issues vital to Americans, the answers this nominee gives at the hearings will be of incredible importance in determining whether the nominee is suitable for the Court.

So tonight is a momentous night--for President Bush, for the nominee, for the Senate, and most of all for the country. We must renew our determination to fulfill this sacred trust with vigor and fairness, but with thoroughness as well.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1242

Madam President, this amendment seeks to strengthen the borders, which is a good goal, but at an awful price. It could take 24 percent of our money away from our first responders--police, firefighters, emergency technicians. In every one of the States we had an argument the other day that we don't get enough money for these people, that whether you are from Wyoming or Kansas or Maine or New York, there is not enough money for our first responders. There is nothing that says we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That is the problem here. It is not in strengthening the borders. It is in taking money away from the people every day who defend us and, since 9/11, have new duties. That is why both Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, are against this amendment. There is bipartisan opposition to it because our police, our firefighters, our medical technicians are the ones who need the help. Don't take money away from localities to put into this Federal pot.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 10 minutes on this amendment and the next one.

Mr. President, this amendment deals with air cargo. We have done a very fine job in making our air travel safer when it comes to passengers. They are checked very well to prevent them from smuggling not only metal but now explosives onto planes.

However, most passenger planes--more than half--carry cargo in the belly of the plane. That cargo is not inspected. So somebody who, God forbid, would want to do damage could smuggle explosives into the cargo and detonate it and do just as much damage as a passenger.

This amendment very simply provides $302 million to provide for air cargo security, $200 million for existing air cargo security countermeasures, $2 million for a pilot program on hardened containers, and $100 million for research.

We have learned since 9/11 that terrorists look for our weakest pressure point. Cargo is our weakest pressure point on air travel, and I urge support of the amendment.

Madam President, what I have been attempting to do in some of these amendments is look for our weakest pressure points because the terrorists also know where we have done things, and they know where we have not done enough. A place where we are completely weak is truck security. We have seen that terrorists have used trucks to hurt us--in New York City at the World Trade Center in 1993, of course in Oklahoma City a few years later, and in Europe and around the world as well. A truck loaded with explosives can do terrible damage at a football stadium, at a skyscraper or another place that is heavily populated.

The interesting thing is that technology does exist to track trucks the way we track airplanes. It is GPS. It is not very expensive. But since the truck market is so fragmented, no one company does it alone, even though many companies have GPS systems in their trucks, mainly for theft.

We provide just $70 million, not very much, to develop and implement a system for identification and tracking only of hazardous material trucks--those that carry gasoline, explosives, chlorine--that could be used for terrible purposes. If we can't afford $70 million to do this-- and I disagree with my friend from New Hampshire, we are not doing enough now--then we ought to look into the mirror. I hope this amendment will be supported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after Senator Sarbanes speaks for his 7 minutes that I speak for the 10 that I have been allotted.

I ask unanimous consent, that my colleague from Rhode Island immediately precede me with his allotted time.

I have already gotten unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am here to address the various amendments we have on rail security, but I also must speak about something that occurred in the last few hours related to mass security.

Mr. President, I know Secretary Chertoff. I was proud to support his nomination. I was proud to support his nomination to the Federal bench. He is a smart man, he is a thoughtful man, he is a capable man. But when I read the statements that he made this morning, I was aghast. These are some of the most appalling comments that I have heard coming from any Government official in a long time.

First, Secretary Chertoff said that the responsibility for transit security must rest with the localities. And then he said the following:

``The truth of the matter is that a fully loaded plane with

jet fuel, a commercial airliner has the capacity to kill

3,000 people,'' Chertoff told Associated Press reporters and

editors.

And then he continues:

A bomb in a subway car may kill 30 people. When you start

thinking about your priorities, you are going to think about

making sure you don't have the catastrophic thing first.

I would like Mr. Chertoff to ask the people in London if what happened last week was minor in passing or the people in Madrid--the chaos, the loss of life. To say what happens on the subways because it might only kill 30 people is less of a priority for this Federal Government than what might happen in the air is an appalling statement that leaves me aghast. I am asking Mr. Chertoff immediately to withdraw his statement and apologize, apologize to those who have lost loved ones and apologize to every transit user in New York and around the country.

Our responsibility, I would tell the Secretary, the responsibility of the Federal Government is to prevent terrorism in the homeland wherever it occurs--in the air, on the rails, in the water. To simply wash the Federal Government's hands of responsibility at a time when this Government is cutting back on mass transit funding and the localities have very little money is an abdication of responsibility.

I know I am speaking in strong terms, but if Mr. Chertoff professes these views, then I am not sure he should continue as the Secretary of Homeland Security. And as I said, I respect him. He is a smart man, he is a bright man. But I could hardly believe it when I read this and when a reporter asked me about it that it came out of his mouth. When I sat down with Mr. Chertoff when he was the nominee, he didn't voice any of these views. In fact, Senator Clinton and I took a tour with him of Grand Central Station, and he seemed fully to understand the needs of mass transit in terms of homeland security. And now we have a 180- degree about turn?

I hope and pray that Secretary Chertoff misspoke, because every one of our citizens on transit--whether in the air, on the water, on rail, or on the road--is our responsibility to keep safe and prevent terrorism from afflicting them.

If this administration has embarked on a new policy which says that we will protect people in the air but not on the rails and washes its hands of that responsibility, then they ought to let America know, and they will be facing the fight of their life on this floor and in this country.

Here we are, debating amendments to try to get some more money for homeland security on the rails because we know we are so short of dollars, and at the same time we are hearing from the Secretary of Homeland Security that our rails, our commuters don't need that money. I would like Mr. Chertoff to go to Grand Central Station or Penn Station or to the Atlantic Avenue Station in Brooklyn or the Woodlawn Station in the Bronx and tell the commuters there that Washington doesn't have the responsibility to protect them from terrorism. Let him face them directly and say that to them. Let him go to them and tell them that it is all up to the local governments even though we know we have declared since 9/11 that the war on terror is largely a Federal responsibility.

So it is really that I rise to speak about this subject with some sadness because, as I said, I like Mr. Chertoff, I have respect for Mr. Chertoff. And, again, I would repeat my plea. Secretary Chertoff, please retract your remarks. Apologize to those who use mass transit and the rails and let us agree that the Federal Government has a real responsibility to protect the rail riders of this country from terrorism.

Now, in my remaining time I would simply like to address the amendments. I salute my colleagues from Alabama and Maryland and Rhode Island for their amendments. We have learned since London and Madrid that transit seems to be the terrorists' target of choice. Madrid may have been our first wakeup call and London was our second. We ignore it at our peril.

Mass transit systems are open. They bring in lots of commuters all at once. And they prove to be, unfortunately, a tempting target for terrorists.

What is our responsibility? It is not what Mr. Chertoff says. It is, rather, to step up to the plate and provide funding as we do in the air. For every air passenger, we spend $7 on homeland security. For every rail passenger, we spend a penny. That is out of whack. The amendment by Senators Shelby and Sarbanes, Reed, myself, and many others moves to address that.

We need to do so many things in mass transit. I have called my folks in New York. We hope in the longer run we can develop detection devices that, like smoke detectors, can tell when explosives are brought on a train or in railroad stations, whether on someone's person or in a knapsack. But until we do, their No. 1 need is for explosive-sniffing dogs. They are desperately short. Yet the President's proposal does not allow that to happen. There will be a colloquy that urges that to happen.

We are short of transit patrolmen. I have been told, for instance, on a heavily populated commuter line there is only one police officer who patrols about 10 stations that handle tens of thousands of commuters every day over a 30- or 40-mile expansion of commuter rail on Long Island.

Structure changes are needed to strengthen subways and tunnels so that, God forbid, if a terrorist attack occurs maybe the structures will withstand it. We need signage and help for the tunnels to have escape routes and ventilation to minimize loss of life if terrorism, God forbid, occurs.

I rise in support of this badly needed amendment. We have neglected mass transit when it comes to homeland security. We are trying to redress that in a bipartisan amendment.

I also mention, of course, Senator Byrd's amendment which deals with transit and rail, which I will support. Senator Gregg's amendment, which takes $200 million out of port security and adds it to transit and rail, is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The terrorists look for our weakest pressure point and strike there. Rail at this point is our weakest pressure point. We should strengthen it. To take money from ports, where we have not

done the job, and put it in rail does not make much sense because if we strengthen air security, they will look to the rails. If we strengthen rail security, they will look to the ports. If we strengthen port security, they will look to the trucks.

As the war on terror overseas must be fought on many fronts, so must the war on terror at home. To pick, as Mr. Chertoff does, one place where the Federal Government is going to put its efforts and ignore the others, is not doing a service to our citizens. Therefore, we must do more to strengthen security on the rails.

The best thing we can do to show the Nation that Mr. Chertoff's statement was not what America needs is to vote for the Shelby- Sarbanes-Reed amendment and the Byrd amendment, as well.

How much time have I used?

I will take my 20 seconds to yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to compliment my friend from Kansas for his remarks. While I am not sure he is right, he is doing what we should be doing on this floor. We presented an amendment on a serious issue, and he is debating that amendment. He is saying: Here is a place in the amendment that I think is wrong, and maybe you ought to change it.

That is how a debate ought to go. But the response of my colleagues who have cosponsored the other amendment is not that at all. It is not to debate a serious issue that involves national security. It is, rather, to create a smokescreen--``You stick it to us, we will stick it to you''--when we all know that the issue of who leaked this information is a serious issue. We did not say it is a serious issue. President Bush did. George Tenet did. The original investigation I was involved in creating because I called George Tenet and said: This is an affront to all CIA agents. He agreed, and called the Justice Department and said: Do an investigation. It is serious stuff.

What do we get in response? A smokescreen. It is almost sort of the childish sticking out your tongue back at somebody. Debate the issue. I can understand why you do not want to debate the issue. Somebody in the White House did something seriously wrong. Does anyone have any doubt that if this occurred under a Democratic President that you would want to debate it, as you should? The opposition party is intended in this Republic to be a check.

As I said, I originally called for this investigation. I worked with Deputy Attorney General Comey to get an independent counsel who was above reproach. I never mentioned a word about any individual. Because there was none. There was all this swirl about Karl Rove. You did not hear the senior Senator from New York talking about it. You, rather, heard me say: Let's get to the bottom of this.

But in the last 2 or 3 weeks, we have seen some serious and indisputable evidence. We do not know if it meets the criminal standard. That is why I have not called for Karl Rove to step down. But we do know, without any doubt, that security was compromised. You cannot hide behind the argument: Well, I mentioned the husband and not the wife and, therefore, I didn't breach some kind of security.

While the criminal law standard says you had to know whether that wife was classified, whether Ms. Plame, Agent Plame was classified, that is not the standard in terms of entitling someone with the privilege of hearing national security secrets.

If you cannot keep those secrets, if you disclose those secrets, for whatever motivation, and particularly a venal one, if that was the case, political retribution, you do not deserve to continue to hear those secrets. That is what the amendment offered by my colleagues from Nevada and Michigan and West Virginia simply says. It is the right thing to do.

The President should have done it without any amendment. If someone leaks a name--and it looks more and more as though it was Karl Rove; and we know for an undisputed fact--his lawyer admitted it--he stepped right up to the line--we don't know if criminally he stepped over it or not; that will be for Mr. Fitzgerald to determine, not for us--then he should not have that security clearance.

You are right, my colleagues, we should not have to be here today. The President should have done this on his own. And if you think the amendment is poorly drafted, as my good friend from Kansas does, that is what this place is all about. Come and tell us why and how we can change it and make it better.

But if the response is simply to say, ``Oh, we're going to try to create a smokescreen or maybe intimidate you on the other side,'' that is not worthy of what this body is about, at least in its better and finer moments.

So, my colleagues, I would hope we could have a 100-to-nothing vote on the amendment by the Senator from Nevada. Yes, it is embarrassing that it happened in the White House, and they are Members of your party. But it happened. No one disputes it happened. I do not think a single American thinks that nothing should be done.

I urge support of the Reid amendment and rejection of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.

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

Mr. President, I ask that amendment 1183 be called up.

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

I now ask that amendment 1183 be withdrawn.

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

I rise to call up amendment 1184, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is about something the Senator from California and I have long cared about, arming our planes with Stinger missiles.

It is my understanding the managers of the bill have cleared the modified text. I ask unanimous consent the amendment as modified be agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1189.

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

Mr. President, my amendment addresses the issues of air cargo security and how we need to be doing much more to protect our Nation's skies. Right now, TSA security procedures leave a staggering 95 percent of cargo on passenger and all-cargo flights unscreened. In addition, TSA security regulations are voluntary and go unenforced.

My amendment provides a total of $302 million for fiscal year 2006 to improve air cargo security. We all know not only are there planes that carry cargo exclusively but most commercial flights have cargo in the belly of their plane.

I ask a rhetorical question: What good does it do to make sure all of the passengers onboard the plane are screened so that there are no explosives or any other weapons, yet allow cargo that would ride in the belly of the plane to not be screened 19 out of 20 times, thus keeping every passenger on that plane, as well as the pilots and everyone else, at risk? The answer is obvious. It makes no sense.

For all the money we have put into passenger screening, we are leaving a gaping hole alongside, and that is cargo screening. While passenger screening has, indeed, improved rather significantly--anyone who goes to any airport in this country knows that--cargo security has not.

My amendment gives $200 million to improve the existing air cargo security measure and $100 million for a competitive grant program to fund private research and development into air cargo

security technology, and $2 million to fund a pilot program to evaluate the use of blast-resistant cargo containers in commercial and all-cargo aircraft.

Last year, I was proud to join our good friend, former Senator Hollings from South Carolina, in cosponsoring an amendment included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and signed into law by the President, authorizing these exact funding levels, totaling almost $1 billion over 3 years to improve air cargo security.

My amendment would fully fund 1 year of the 3 years of authorization. This is the second step in something that this body has found very necessary; that is, adequately protecting us from terrorists who might put bombs, explosives, or whatever in air cargo. The potential threat from unchecked air cargo is just as serious, just as dangerous as a threat from an actual terrorist boarding a commercial flight.

It has been reported that TSA considers the likelihood of a terrorist bombing a passenger airplane to be between 35 and 65 percent. It is the likely primary aviation target for terrorists.

An analysis done by the RAND Corporation on security measures at Los Angeles International Airport determined that a bomb smuggled onto a passenger plane by a passenger but through uninspected cargo posed the greatest threat relative to other types of attack. RAND determined it would be the most likely to succeed and, unfortunately, the most likely to kill the most people.

Twenty-six percent of all air cargo in the United States is not carried on cargo planes but rather on passenger flights, and only a tiny fraction of that is inspected. Even more cause for alarm is the fact that 46 percent of all international air cargo is carried on international cargo flights. The best way to protect against biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons being smuggled onto a flight is to ensure that as much cargo as possible is screened through advanced detection systems. However, TSA only screens 5 percent of the nearly 3 billion tons of cargo carried on commercial flights each year.

My amendment does three things. It gives $200 million to improve existing air cargo security measures, in addition to the $50 million already recommended by the committee for air cargo security activities.

Right now, TSA's principal means for checking cargo are through known shipper programs where so-called ``trusted'' shippers can avoid additional screening in exchange for following stricter security protocols. However, TSA does little to ensure that shippers are trustworthy and have adequate security measures in place. In addition, enrollment in a known shipper program is voluntary, with only a third of domestic shippers currently participating. Since the TSA screens such a small percentage of cargo, it is very likely something could be missed.

It is clear we need an additional line of defense. That is why I am proposing such a significant investment in new screening equipment and security infrastructure so the TSA can check more cargo and protect more flights.

Second, the amendment adds $100 million for the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish and carry out a competitive grant program to encourage the development of advanced air cargo security technology. The amendment will fund research into new cargo screening technology, including the use of x rays, CT scans, and chemical trace detection to speed up the screening process and allow more cargo to be screened more effectively.

Third, my amendment would fully fund a pilot program to evaluate the use of blast-resistant cargo containers, cargo baggage containers. You put the baggage in a container and even if, God forbid, it explodes, it cannot damage the plane. The 9/11 Commission recommended every passenger aircraft have at least one hardened container in which questionable or suspicious cargo can be shipped to reduce or eliminate the risk to passengers in the case of an explosion.

I know there are many competing demands for Homeland Security funding, but we are not investing enough time, effort, and resources into air cargo security. This amendment will help address this critical area. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Amendment No. 1190

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 1190.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is about truck security and how we need to be doing much more to protect our highways and communities from the threat of truck bombs and stolen hazardous material.

Madrid was a wake-up call for us. And now London is a second wake-up call. Obviously, there is a lot of focus on rail. I support that focus and had my amendment which was going to add another $300 million to the $100 million already requested in rail security, but I have joined efforts with the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, and the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, and others to have one mass transit amendment which will have an amount far greater than the amount I was going to propose--and we will also have a colloquy--so that money can go to more things.

The MTA, in my area, the leading mass transit agency that runs New York City subways, the Long Island railroad, Metro-North, carrying millions of passengers every year--billions of passengers every year, and millions, I guess, every week--has said they cannot spend the money on what they need, such as explosive-detecting dogs, which is one of the best types of ways to stop explosives. But that is rail security. As I said, that will come for another time in debate, I believe, tomorrow.

But what Madrid also teaches us and London also teaches us is that terrorists look for weak pressure points. If we strengthen air, they may look to rail. If we strengthen rail, they may look to trucks. If we strengthen trucks, they may look to our ports. So it is extremely important we have a multifaceted war on terror at home.

As you know, I support a strong war on terror abroad. And we are fighting a strong war on terror abroad, maybe too strong in the eyes of some. But we also have to have not only a good offense in the war on terror, we have to have a good defense. We have to look across the board. It has been a great concern of mine that we are not doing enough in various areas. I have tried to put my efforts into the areas where there is clearly a great danger compared to meager effort. Truck security is one of those areas.

My amendment gives $70 million--not a large sum in this very large budget--to the Transportation Security Administration to develop and implement a system for identifying and tracking hazardous material shipments using global positioning system technology.

According to the 1997 Census of Interstate Commerce, 740,000 Hazmat shipments travel by truck each day in the United States. Approximately 50,000 trips are made daily by gasoline tankers, and many of them hold as much fuel as a Boeing 757. These trips often end with a late-night delivery to a deserted gas station.

Trucks also cross the country carrying potentially deadly chemicals, such as ammonium nitrate, chlorine, and cyanide. An attack with these types of chemicals could cause an even greater level of destruction because these chemicals can form clouds of

deadly fumes which would affect individuals miles away from the site of a terrorist incident.

My amendment simply provides TSA with the financial resources to look into how we go about monitoring what has been shown to us as a vulnerability within our existing plan to secure our country from terrorist threats.

Have we forgotten the initial attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, both of which were the result of truck bombs? While the Nation has completely revamped aviation security since the September 11 attacks--we have a longer way to go, but we have come a long way--we have done next to nothing to secure our country from the danger that can be caused by a truck filled with explosives, chemicals, or biological weapons.

Today, on their own, many of the larger trucking companies have GPS systems on their trucks, like an ever-growing percentage of American automobiles. Frankly, they have put the GPS systems on often to deal with theft as much as to deal with the threat from terrorism. The systems allow the companies to know where the trucks in the fleet are. If the truck moves off a route, the company knows. If a truck is stolen, the company knows.

I believe it is important the TSA take a similar approach and create a nationwide tracking system so that if a terrorist should steal or hijack a truck loaded with dangerous materials, we will find them quickly. It would be very similar to when a plane goes off track, we now know that. F-16s are scrambled. We have learned that here in the Capitol over the last year, twice. The same thing can be done with trucks, not very expensively.

My amendment provides TSA with tremendous flexibility and much-needed funds to address truck security and have none of the mandates or the high costs to industry that the ATA alleges.

In addition, my amendment specifically limits the type of commercial vehicles and content subject to tracking to the most dangerous and high-hazard materials. It is not going to affect every truck shipment.

Both the TSA and DOT are currently working on improving truck- tracking systems and background checks for commercial driver's licenses with a Hazmat endorsement. My amendment would help continue and build on those existing efforts, which have been slow, in part, due to lack of funding.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help close this hole in our Nation's homeland security.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I believe I have sent the modification to the desk.

Be?

No. I think I have asked that already. But if you want to do it twice, maybe it will increase my legislative batting average.

If my colleague from New Hampshire would yield, I also withdrew amendment No. 1183, as per our agreement.

Correct.

Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act as applicable to 1189 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I was listening to our majority leader's words on consultation and the process thus far. I will make a couple of points.

The first is that we are off to a good start. I certainly agree with the majority leader. The phone calls that have been made and this morning's meeting with Senators Frist, Reid, Specter, and Leahy are a good first start. That is how it should be. But simply phone calls or meetings, if they are devoid of substance, are not going to lead to real consultation.

I certainly agree with the majority leader's point. The Senate is not a conominee. It is the President who has to do the nominating. The way consultation has successfully worked in the past is for the President to quietly, privately, offer some of the names he is considering to those on both sides of the aisle and get opinions about those names: How would this one fare? How would that one fare? Would this one cause a fight? How about that one?

It is not that we would be conominators at all. Consultation is that. The President is the nominator, and a good consultation means that nominator discusses who he is thinking of nominating, takes the temperature, if you will, of the Senate, particularly of the other party, to see if a consensus nominee could come about. Thus far, neither the President nor any of the people working for him--I had one call with Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff--has offered a single name. From what I understand this morning, the President did not offer a single name.

So we are off to a good first start. Make no mistake about it--it is a first start to begin the consultation process. But the consultation process, for it to work, is not going to be, Okay, who do you think is a good name, and that is that and we do not have a back and forth. In fact, for consultation to work--and we all want it to work--the President should suggest some names and get the opinion of those in the Senate.

This is how it worked with President Clinton. It was not simply that President Clinton called up Orrin Hatch and said, Give me some names, and didn't have a discussion. President Clinton bounced off names. In Orrin Hatch's book, he states that one of the names offered who President Clinton very much wanted to nominate was Bruce Babbitt, the former Interior Secretary and Governor of Arizona. While Orrin Hatch did not state how he would vote--and I have talked to Orrin a little about this--he said: I think Babbitt would cause a big fight. And wisely, President Clinton did not offer his name. So that is how the consultation process, to be successful, ought to go.

In my call with Andrew Card, I told him something I have said repeatedly. And I think I speak for just about every member of this caucus on this side of the aisle. We do not want a fight. We certainly do not relish a fight. We would much prefer a consensus nominee. Furthermore, we know that nominee is not going to be a liberal or even a moderate. It is likely to be a conservative. But our view is--again, this time I am speaking for myself, but I think a lot of my colleagues share this view--our view is very simple: that nominee, though conservative, will interpret law, not make it; will be thoughtful, will be pragmatic, will understand the other point of view. If that happens, I think we can have a process that works well.

So in summary, Mr. President, the consultation we have had is great. The number of phone calls may exceed any others that have been named. But so far, at least according to my phone call and the ones of many of my colleagues with whom I have talked, and from what I have been told about the meeting this morning, we have not gotten into the real nitty- gritty of consultation--not co-nomination, absolutely not. The President is the nominator. But the nitty-gritty means offering some names. The President offers some names and gets the opinion before he

makes his decision--and the decision, of course, by the Constitution is solely his--as to whether that nominee would get broad acceptance or whether that nominee is likely to cause quite a stir in the Senate.

Let us hope this is not the end of the consultation process but the beginning. Let us hope there will be that kind of dialog. I reiterate my call to the President to have a summit, to call a good number of Democrats and Republicans together for a day at Camp David or an evening or dinner at the White House and have a real back-and-forth where we roll up our sleeves and really get into a serious, detailed discussion of how we all feel. Who will benefit if that happens? Who will benefit if there is real consultation? Certainly the President, certainly the Senate, certainly the Supreme Court, but, most of all, certainly the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent--I think Senator Feinstein has agreed--that I be given 10 minutes immediately after the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment or the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment, whichever it may be, because it would distribute a greater percentage of first responder money to areas that need it the most.

First, I thank my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, for their leadership. They have been at the forefront of saying that we needed a new formula. I think all of us in this area agree. I know they are trying their best to balance the interests of smaller States and larger States, an issue in this Republic since it was founded in 1789. While I do not agree with the way they came out, I have a great deal of respect for their efforts to be fair. If I were from a smaller State, who knows, maybe I would be supporting that formula. I hope not, but that might be the case.

But the reason I feel so strongly about the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is this: The war on terror is a war we probably faced before 9/11, but we probably only realized we were fighting a full-fledged war after 9/11. The war on terror is a serious one, and I have said time and time again we have to make this a two-front war--a good war on offense, which you fight overseas, and a good war on defense, which you fight here at home.

Unfortunately, because of technology, small groups of bad people can hit any place at any time. Technology allows them to do this. So every one of our citizens is on the front line.

I understand that a Senator from Wyoming or a Senator from Maine or a Senator from Connecticut believes, correctly--or a Senator from Georgia, a middle-size State--believes that their people are on the front line. But I have to tell you that you have to live in New York to understand the difference. It is theoretically possible, of course, that terrorists could hit us everywhere, as I said. But it is not everywhere that has been subject to two devastating terrorist attacks. It is not everywhere where 100 members of the police force are overseas, on their own, trying to figure out intelligence to thwart an attack on our dear city. It is not everywhere, where every bridge in New York, every major bridge, has two police officers at one end and two police officers at the other end, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

It is not that the other areas are any less careful; it is just the threat and danger is greatest to us. So it seems patently unfair to say that States that might have a threat but do not have as large, as tangible, as repeated a threat--week after week, month after month-- should actually get more money on a per capita basis than States such as New York or California or Texas, which are much more on the front lines simply because they have large agglomerations of people. We all know that is where the terrorists want to hit. They want to try to hurt as many people as they can, and our larger cities and larger metropolitan areas have those concentrations.

You do not read in the newspapers and when we have our intelligence briefings up in 407, when you ask what names have been named, you don't hear the smaller cities. You only hear a handful of names, over and over again. They are not the smaller cities. They are not the smaller States. They are the New Yorks and the Los Angeleses and the Washingtons and the Miamis.

I hope my colleagues in this case would rise to the occasion. Again, I understand that every State has needs. As I said, how can I be sure that if I were from a small State I would not want to favor a formula that had more for the small States? But in New York City, we would like to get a lot of corn subsidies or oil subsidies, but we don't have much corn or oil. This provision is aimed at threat. It is not something good to have, it is something bad to have, but it is only fair and it is only right that we make this as threat- based as possible.

The great irony is that at the very time when the administration, under Mr. Chertoff's leadership, has made pledges that their discretionary dollars, which is now 60 percent, would be threat-based, we in the Senate are making the formula less threat-based. The great irony is that, if we gave 100 percent of the money to the administration, the areas under the greatest threat would do better than under this proposal. That often doesn't happen when you are from New York City, but this is the case right now.

I hope we rise to the occasion. To have Wyoming get $38.31 per capita while New York gets only $5.47 per capita doesn't look like a formula based on threat but looks like a formula based on politics, to me. So we can change this around. The Cornyn-Feinstein bill does not go all the way to make it totally threat-based, but at least it restores some of the balance and makes it fair. I hope my colleagues will rise to the occasion and support a bill that we all know is ultimately the right thing to do. Support the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment which will give the areas under the greatest threat the greatest amount of dollars.

I yield the remaining time to my colleague from California, who generously ceded to me the 10 minutes I was granted.

How much time remains?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consultation between the Senate and the President with regard

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

encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with

members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior

to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for

consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, as I understand it, the procedure precludes second degrees?

The amendment I am going to offer--there is a friendly second degree that Senator Kyl and I have agreed to.

As I understand it, Senator Domenici and his staff know of the Kyl amendment and approve of it. Senator Kyl is on his way. If my colleague will yield, it is filed.

I am. I do not have that much to say, and we limited the time. I do not want to finish before Senator Kyl gets here. His staff has told him to get here. I guess I can talk about a lot of different subjects until he gets here.

First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks Senator Kyl be recognized.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment with my colleague from Arizona to strike language from this Energy bill that would undermine years of progress toward combating nuclear terrorism in an effort to solve a problem that does not exist.

I want to repeat myself for the benefit of my colleagues. By weakening existing law, section 621 of this Energy bill would drastically undercut efforts to encourage reductions in the circulation of weapons-grade uranium and to defend against the specter of nuclear terrorism.

I have often said that the prospect of a nuclear attack on America's soil is our nightmare. That is why I, like many of my colleagues, have been so aggressive in pushing the administration to install nuclear detection devices in our ports, and to take other measures to make sure that nuclear materials cannot be obtained by terrorists and used against us. The human, environmental, and economic impact of such an attack on the United States--any part of our dear country--would be almost unfathomable.

So I urge my colleagues to contemplate that when they are examining what exactly the provision in the Energy bill would do. For years, we have prohibited what this provision of the Energy bill would allow.

The supporters of the language claim that it is necessary to avert an impending crisis in the supply of medical isotopes used in radiopharmaceuticals. A

look at the current isotope industry raises some serious questions as to whether that is what is really going on here. Isotope producers currently make isotopes for use in radiopharmaceuticals and other products by taking a mass of fissionable material, known as the fuel, and using it to shoot neutrons through another mass of fissionable material; that is, the target. Reactors have traditionally used highly enriched uranium, HEU, which can be used to make a nuclear bomb, for fuel and targets.

The Law that we enacted over 10 years ago, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, has encouraged reactors to shift to low-enriched uranium. And the difference is very simple. It does the same medically, but it cannot be used to create a nuclear weapon. What we do in present law is require that any foreign reactor receiving exports of United States HEU, highly enriched uranium, work with our Government in actively transitioning to LEU, low-enriched uranium, the kind that cannot be used in bombs. It makes common sense, complete common sense. Why the heck would we want to encourage companies to have HEU?

Now, the language in the Energy bill undoes that. After 12 years of it working, after 12 years of everyone getting the medical isotopes they need, and after 12 years of moving countries away from HEU--highly enriched uranium, which bombs can be made from--to LEU, the language in the Energy bill needlessly and dangerously undercuts this requirement. What does it do? It exempts research reactors that produce medical isotopes from current U.S. law.

As our Nation continues to fight the war on terror, now is clearly the wrong time to relax export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium and potentially increase the demand for that material.

By increasing the amount of HEU in circulation around the world, the language in the Energy bill would create an unacceptable risk by heightening the possibility that weapons-grade uranium could be lost or stolen and fall into the hands, God forbid, of terrorists with known nuclear ambitions.

What makes this language even more astonishing is that it creates so much risk for no reward by claiming to fix a problem that does not exist. Supporters of the language argue we are in danger of running out of medical isotopes if the current law is not changed. All of the isotopes that can be produced with HEU can also be produced with LEU, which has no danger to us. And under current law, no producer has ever been denied a shipment of the material necessary to produce isotopes. Let me repeat that. No producer has ever been denied a shipment of the material necessary to produce isotopes.

In fact, the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory has declared that the proposition that our supply of medical isotopes is in danger because LEU targets have not been developed is incorrect, and the U.S.-developed LEU target ``has been successfully irradiated, dissembled, and processed in Indonesia, Argentina, and Australia,'' a move from HEU to LEU because of our law.

Mr. President, I would like to be clear about one thing. I do not intend to trivialize in any way the plight of those suffering from illnesses overseas that require isotopes to treat. My colleagues and I who support this amendment take this point seriously and are unequivocally supportive of making sure that patients can get the medicine they need. In fact, if current law hindered the ability to get isotopes and treat the sick, maybe this debate would be different. But that is not the case.

Under existing law, medical isotope production capacity has grown to 250 percent of demand. Let me repeat that. Under present law, which the Energy bill seeks to change, medical isotope production capacity has grown to 250 percent of demand.

In addition, I repeat, no medical isotope producer has ever been denied a shipment of HEU as a result of the successful incentivization of efforts to convert to LEU.

Existing law guarantees continued use of HEU to produce medical isotopes until LEU substitutes are available, so long as the foreign producers cooperate on efforts to eventually convert to LEU.

For example, exports to Nordion, a Canadian producer, have never been affected by current law, and the company which is at issue here has several years' worth of material stockpiled at soon-to-be-operating reactors. Quite frankly, maybe we have given them too much access and made them complacent. Despite the efforts of the United States to operate in good faith and keep supplying Nordion, this company has decided to resist and slow-walk the conversion process to LEU.

Why? Because it may inconvenience them or cost them a few more dollars in the short run. So for one company, not an American company, we are going to increase the chances of nuclear terrorism by whatever amount with no benefit other than to that company because everyone is getting the isotopes. Maybe they can save a few dollars. If they think that the Senate is willing to risk a catastrophe for their convenience, they have another thing coming.

Existing law does not jeopardize an adequate supply of medical isotopes. Instead, it has been successful in enticing foreign operators to begin converting to LEU, thereby reducing the risk of proliferation.

The record shows that the program works. As a result of existing law, reactors in several nations have successfully instituted measures to convert to LEU. The Petten reactor in the Netherlands, where the major isotope maker Mallinckrodt produces most of its isotopes, will convert its fuel to LEU by 2006 because of incentives in the current law.

The Department of Energy has recognized the importance of this goal and the effectiveness of the program. Secretary Bodman has said we should set the goal of ending commercial use of weapons-grade uranium, and that the LEU allows great progress toward that end. The Department of Energy's Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors Program Web site states:

This law has been very helpful in persuading a number of

research reactors to convert to LEU.

So what we have here is an effort to undermine an existing program that has not had a negative impact on health care and has played a role in our fight against nuclear terrorism.

If the provision in the Energy bill does become law, make no mistake, it will create a proliferation risk. By increasing the amount of weapons-grade uranium in circulation, this bill would increase the likelihood that lost or stolen material would find its way into the wrong hands.

I know the list in this bill looks innocent enough with countries such as Canada, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. However, four of these countries are members of the EU and subject to the U.S.- EURATOM Agreement on Nuclear Cooperation.

Under the agreement, these nations will not be required to inform the United States of retransfers of U.S.-supplied materials from one EURATOM country to another, report on alterations to U.S.-supplied materials, or inform the United States of retransfers of these materials from one facility in one country to another facility in that same country.

As a result, HEU could end up being directly sent to any of the 25 countries in the European Union, including those in which the Department of Energy is spending a considerable amount of money to remove existing HEU stockpiles.

So to my colleagues I say, if you support the language in the Energy bill, do not do it because of assurances that the countries the material is heading to are safe. In reality--in reality--we do not know this and cannot control where the material may end up. That is a terrifying thought.

In conclusion, the reality of this situation is that terrorists do not care if the weapons-grade uranium they can try to get their hands on was meant for a military or medical purpose. All we know they care about is how they can use it to attack our Nation and harm our way of life.

If we learned anything from the attacks on September 11, it should be that we can never again afford to underestimate the ingenuity or determination of those who would cause us harm. Likewise, we must take every step to ensure that they can never lay their hands on the materials they would need to launch an attack of mass destruction against the United States.

Mr. President, a needless risk is a reckless risk, and that is exactly the type of risk the language in the Energy bill lays before us. I urge my colleagues to support the existing law that has effectively combated nuclear proliferation without degrading the quality of health care in the United States by voting for my amendment, along with the friendly second-degree amendment that my colleague from Arizona, I believe, will offer.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, I now yield to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 810.

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

Mr. President, I will let some of the opponents speak now, since I have spoken, unless my colleague from Arizona would like to speak. We could have some of the opponents go.

Mr. President, I was not on the floor when the unanimous consent request was proposed. It is not typical to have 7 minutes on the other side and only 1 for us right before the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that 7 out of our 15 minutes be used right before the vote on the Schumer-Kyl amendment.

I am going to take 3\1/2\ minutes and yield the closing 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl.

Mr. President, again, the argument is simple: Do we want nuclear proliferation? If we do, we allow highly enriched uranium to be floating around the world with very few checks.

There is no issue of health. Let me repeat: Everyone, every single person in this country and in other countries who needs isotopes has gotten them. Let me quote from Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group that has been involved: Contrary to its stated intent, section 621, the new section added to this bill, would do nothing to ensure the supply of medical isotopes to the United States because that supply is not currently endangered by restrictions on exports of HEU.

So the bottom line is simple: We want sick people to get these isotopes. They are all getting them. But why do we have to trade away the ability to prevent highly enriched uranium from proliferating around the world? God forbid the consequences to our country if a terrorist steals such uranium or it gets lost.

No U.S. firm has any interest in this. It is one Canadian firm that does not want to pay the extra price that other firms have been paying to require foreign countries to convert from HEU, highly enriched uranium, which can be used for weapons, to low-grade uranium, LEU, which cannot.

So the argument is simple. There are a large number of organizations that support our amendment, many of them concerned with nuclear proliferation and, of course, organizations concerned with health such as Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The argument is clear-cut. This amendment never should have been put in the Energy bill. The policy that our country has had for the last 12 years has been working very well, and we have had our cake and eaten it, too. Everyone gets isotopes, and various reactors and foreign countries are required to convert from HEU to LEU. Right now, we are worried about Iran. We are worried about North Korea. We are worried about terrorists stealing weapons-grade uranium, and we are now doing something here, mainly at the behest of one Canadian company, to allow more of that uranium out on the market.

If my friends on the other side could point to a single person who is denied the isotope they need for health purposes, they might have an argument, but they do not. The argument is simple: the cost to one Canadian company versus our ability to prevent weapons-grade uranium, highly enriched uranium, from proliferating around the world.

I hope we will go back to present law, stay with present law, stick to the law that has been supported by both administrations, Republican and Democrat, and prevent the danger of nuclear terrorism from getting any greater than it is.

I yield my remaining time to my colleague and friend from Arizona, Jon Kyl.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent we return to consideration of amendment No. 805, a previously pending amendment.

Madam President, I will address this amendment. As I understand it, we might be able to call for a vote shortly because I will not speak for that long.

Madam President, I rise today offering an amendment that will express the sense of the Senate that the Federal Government should take long overdue action to curb the record-high gasoline prices that are plaguing America's consumers at the pump.

We know there are two aspects to the energy problem we face in America. If anything, the more important is the long-term problem, and there we need conservation and new energy sources and new exploration. In my judgment, at least, this bill does a tiny, little bit of that, not close to enough of what we need, particularly on the conservation side.

But we also have a short-term problem. That short-term problem is the record-high prices of gasoline. It is caused by a number of things: Obviously, increasing demand here in America and worldwide, China and India, in particular, but at the same time, it is also caused by the fact that we are up against a cartel, OPEC, and OPEC manipulates the production of oil.

If OPEC were in the United States, if those 11 countries were 11 companies, they would be brought up on antitrust laws. They play havoc with the gasoline markets. A few months ago, while demand was climbing, they cut back production by a million barrels. Realizing they had overdone it, even from their own point of view, they then asked their members to increase production by 500,000 barrels a day. But that was a paper reduction. It did not really come into the markets.

So the bottom line is this: We have a serious problem in terms of OPEC. Many think we are powerless to deal with it in the short term-- for the long term, as I mentioned, there are ways to deal with it--but I do not believe that is the case because we have an ace in the hole; that is, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is now full. It has not been full in a long time. There are 700 million barrels of oil, or close to that, sitting in the Louisiana and Texas oil flats.

If we were to strategically use that oil in a swap, which would not decrease the amount of oil in the Reserve but would be a tool to bring down prices, and then we would buy back the oil or have the oil replaced in this swap when the price comes down so we would actually put more oil into the Reserve than when we started, we could do a lot of good for drivers in this country.

The last time the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was used--and it can be used, by law, for this; President Clinton did it in October of 2000, after I spent a lot of time importuning him to do it--prices went down considerably. I have no doubt, if the sense of the Senate resolution is adopted and the President follows it, that prices would go down again.

Madam President, I see my good friend from New Mexico is here. I am told it would be his preference that we have a vote by 12:10. So I will only speak for another 3 or 4 minutes.

Madam President, I would like to offer another amendment, not speak about it, but just lay it down, and then give the remaining 4 or 5 minutes to my colleague from New Mexico, and then we would have a vote. If that is OK with the Senator from New Mexico, that is what I would propose we do.

Great. I will try to keep my remarks brief because I have spoken about it before.

Yes, it has been filed.

Amendment No. 811

Madam President, while we are talking about it, I ask unanimous consent

to temporarily lay aside the pending amendment so that I may offer amendment No. 811.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside and we return to the pending business, which is amendment No. 805.

Thank you, Madam President.

Now, so we have this ace in the hole, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has been used before; it is not a long-term solution. But right now OPEC calls all the shots. They know that they can, more or less, set the price, particularly at a time of rising demand. If we were to strategically use, if you will, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we could break OPEC's resolve, break OPEC's will, and actually deal with the problem of high gasoline prices in the short term. It is virtually the only way to do it.

So I would say to my colleagues, we cannot order the President to do it, so this is simply a sense of the Senate that says we should do it. I believe drivers throughout America--whether they are driving trucks thousands of miles or driving kids to school or anything in between-- are looking at us to see if we will do something. This amendment signals our desire and ability not to simply take it on the chin over and over again from OPEC but, rather, to use our strategic weapon, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as it has been used before, to both lower gas prices and let OPEC know we have good cards in our hand that we can lay on the table and use.

With that, Madam President, since the amendment has been discussed before, and this is an issue I have been involved with for years and years, I will, in the interest of time and getting a vote on this amendment quickly, yield the floor so my colleague from New Mexico might respond.

Will my colleague yield?

Madam President, I have a technical modification to the amendment. There was a drafting problem. I would like to modify the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that line 22, title (c), be stricken and that on line 23 of page 4--OK. I will send the modification to the desk.

I thank the chair. If I could make one brief point to my colleague.

First, we are only calling for 60 million barrels, at max, to be used. There are 700 million barrels there. Second, this is a swap, which is what was done before. So within 6 months, with presumably the price lower, the amount of oil would be replaced and more so.

Those are two points I wanted to make. I am ready to have a vote.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Iowa for his being always thoughtful. We even want to produce ethanol plants and wind in New York. We just don't want to transport it over to Iowa. I am not from Iowa. In any case, I am not here to talk about that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

This is the sense of the Senate amendment on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. President, I believe the amendment is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico for his grace, as usual. I will be brief as I make a statement on the amendment.

I rise to offer this amendment, which will express the sense of the Senate that the Federal Government should take long, overdue action to curb the record-high gasoline prices that are plaguing American consumers at the pump. As my colleagues are well aware, for weeks, oil and gasoline prices have been placing an immense burden on working families and threatening our fragile economic recovery, and it is time that this body took action to protect our Nation's economic security from the sky-high oil prices and the whims of the OPEC cartel.

This amendment would urge the administration to provide the American consumer with relief by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through a swap program in order to increase the supply, quell the markets, and bring down prices at the pump. Of course, the other side of the swap is that we would buy back the oil when the price was lower and put it back in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is now just about full.

Mr. President, what we are faced with here is simple market economics of supply and demand. If demand goes up, price goes up. If supply goes up, price goes down. At a time facing record-breaking gasoline prices, it is hard to believe that the Federal Government would be taking oil off the market and exacerbate the high energy costs to working families.

The price of crude oil has remained at near record highs for over one-third of 2005, with oil having traded at over $50 a barrel since May 25. Just today, we saw the biggest jump yet, with oil closing at almost $60 a barrel. OPEC used to claim it was interested in helping to keep prices under $30 a barrel. That is when it went from a $22 to $28 rate. It may be fun to double down in Las Vegas but not in the oil market, and certainly not at the gas pump.

These prices have already burdened Americans in New York and in the rest of the Northeast. We get a double whammy because we have high home heating oil prices, as well as high gasoline prices because we depend on heating oil more than most parts of the country. Other parts are warmer or use more natural gas. I know these families were hoping for a quick spring so they could enjoy a brief respite from the high energy prices.

Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case, as the increased burden of oil costs has just moved from the home to the highway. As Americans are beginning to plan for their road trips and summer vacations, the national price of gasoline has seemingly reached a new record high every week. Last week, the Energy Information Administration reported that prices had increased for the second straight week, to $2.13 for regular self-service. That is an increase of almost 49 cents from last year. Unfortunately, it could give way to even higher prices in the future.

We know who is being hurt by these oil prices, and we know who is benefiting--OPEC. Last year, OPEC made $300 billion in oil revenue. They stand to gain much, much more if the price of oil stays as high as it is--stratospheric levels. In order to institutionalize the profits from these spikes, OPEC agreed to abandon their longstanding price target of $22 to $28 a barrel, as I mentioned before, and some of its members say they could be comfortable with oil remaining at $40 to $50 permanently. I know who will not be comfortable--American families who depend on affordable oil to commute to work, heat their homes, and provide for their energy needs.

Some of my colleagues may be asking: Didn't OPEC agree to increase production in March by 500,000 barrels a day?

The reality is that OPEC's pledge to increase production on paper has not reduced prices at the pump. OPEC, after having cut production by 1 million barrels in the face of rising oil prices--it is not that amazing--claimed that they would increase production by half the previous cut. While this would seem like a step in the right direction, the reality is they were already producing 700,000 barrels over their quota, so as a result this paper increase added no oil to U.S. markets.

These are exactly the type of shell games that the OPEC cartel uses to take money out of Americans' pockets to put toward OPEC profits.

We have to act to stop it. Once again, OPEC is talking about another 500,000-barrel increase. We will see if they actually follow through.

Instead of standing up to OPEC, what has this administration done? It has continued, incredibly enough, taking oil off the market and placing it in the SPR. This policy, which further tightens oil markets by taking much needed supplies out of commerce, is slated to take an average of almost 85,000 barrels per day off the market during the height of the driving season, between April and the end of August, despite the fact that the SPR is almost completely full.

I understand that some of my colleagues think the SPR should never be

touched, even to safeguard our economic security. I would argue that concerns to this degree do not properly balance America's physical security needs against its economic security needs. With the SPR almost full, we can easily reduce 30 million barrels through a swap and still have an effective safeguard against a physical supply disruption.

Initiating a swap of oil from the SPR to increase the supply of oil is a proven way to reduce the price of gasoline and heating oil. In the fall of 2000, the Clinton administration announced a swap of 30 million barrels over 30 days, causing crude oil prices to quickly fall by over $6 a barrel and wholesale prices to fall 14 cents a gallon. Under a swap, the Federal Government could decide on a set quantity of oil to release from the SPR and accept bids from private companies for the rights to that oil. The companies would then bid on how much oil they would be willing to return, in addition to the oil they would receive under the swap, to the SPR at a later date.

The administration has had these tools in its hands and could have acted more quickly, earlier, to stand up for the American consumer, but it has not. Instead, despite repeated urgings from Members of this body, among others, it has steadfastly refused to intervene and to allow oil prices to soar. It has been good for oil companies, it has been good for OPEC and bad for the American consumer.

This amendment says enough is enough and gives this body an opportunity to do what others have refused by hitting the breaks to stop runaway gasoline prices.

An oil swap would result in a win-win situation where gasoline prices are lowered and long-term contributions to the SPR are augmented at no additional cost to the taxpayers. The SPR is intended to provide relief at times when American families are struggling to make ends meet. The time is now. The summer driving months are just beginning.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the pocketbooks of working families from OPEC profiteering by supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.