Floor Statements

Mr. President, today with Senators Domenici, Murray, Jeffords, Alexander, Cantwell, Akaka, Reed, Chafee, Leahy, Dodd, and Dayton we introduce legislation entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2005.''

This legislation would extend provisions that were included in Public Laws #108-74 and 108-127 that amended the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to permit the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin to apply some of their enhanced SCHIP matching funds toward the coverage of certain children enrolling in Medicaid that were part of expansions of coverage to children through Medicaid in those 11 states prior to the enactment of

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Rockefeller and Feingold that is similar to S. 2906 in the 108th Congress and will have more to say about this legislation when we return in September.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nancy Falk, who is a fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of H.R. 6.

That is fine. Go ahead.

Mr. President, let me say how pleased I am that we are able to bring back to the Senate a conference report on energy policy that is truly a bipartisan consensus document. This bipartisan consensus had its beginnings earlier this year in our committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the chairman, Senator Domenici, my colleague from New Mexico, reached out to those of us on the Democratic side and pledged to work in good faith to bring to the Senate a comprehensive Energy bill.

We readily accepted that invitation and we had a very open and bipartisan committee process. The result of that process was a bill that was recommended to the Senate by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by a vote of 21 to 1. On the floor of the Senate when this bill was first being considered, we continued to work together in that open and bipartisan process. The result was that the Senate as a whole passed the Energy bill by a margin of 85 to 12.

In conference, my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, was adamant that we use an open and a bipartisan process there as well, and include House Democratic Members and staff who had not been included in the past in that same process.

I congratulate Senator Domenici on the passage of the resolution that we adopted earlier this evening to designate this the Domenici Energy Policy Act of 2005. He successfully persuaded the chairman of our conference, Congressman Joe Barton, of the wisdom of proceeding in an open and bipartisan manner, and it proved to work very well. The bipartisan and bicameral conference committee staff was able, in short order, to resolve many of the technical issues that are so important to get right in this complex area of legislation. As they encountered issues that were unresolvable by the staff and needed guidance from members, Chairmen Barton and Domenici and Ranking Member Dingell and I were able to work together to forge compromises that we thought could be recommended to the entire conference. Those compromises, in fact, were embraced in almost all cases by our respective colleagues.

The result was a conference report that was signed by 13 of the 14 Senate conferees. That conference report is 1,724 pages in length. I do not think you can judge the quality of legislation by the size of it, but I do think the size of it indicates the comprehensiveness of this legislation and the complexity of it. The conference report was adopted earlier today in the House of Representatives with 75 House Democrats voting for the legislation, led by Congressman John Dingell.

Most of us came away from the conference with many provisions that we were happy to have in the final conference report and some provisions that we reluctantly had to give up on. I, for example, am very sorry that the bill before us does not contain the renewable portfolio standard which would require utilities to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. I know Chairman Barton is disappointed that he was not able to get a number of his priorities agreed to in the conference. But the nature of a good conference is that it is a give and take and not everything ultimately can be agreed to. So compromise is the order of the day.

The result of this conference is a bill that has many more bright spots than flaws and a bill that deserves passage by the Senate and the signature of the President. I will mention a number of the bright spots, and then I will acknowledge some of the flaws and gaps

that are contained in the conference report.

The conference report has strong provisions for increasing energy supplies from a number of sources. As I have often said, increased domestic energy production is one of the four key elements of sound energy policy. We have good provisions for producing oil and gas in an environmentally responsible way, for unlocking the untapped energy potential on Indian lands, for relicensing of hydroelectric dams, for improving geothermal leasing on Federal lands, and for opening a path to renewable resources in offshore environments. We are making a major push in the area of energy from coal toward new technologies that have better environmental characteristics and that will be adaptable to a future in which we may want to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

The conference report has strong provisions for increasing energy efficiency. Over a dozen new appliance efficiency standards are called for under this act. The Federal Government's own energy efficiency will be enhanced through the strengthening of the Federal Energy Management Program and through extension of authority to enter into energy-saving performance contracts.

The conference report expands authorizations both for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and weatherization and State energy programs.

The conference report has perhaps some of the strongest provisions in the area of protection of energy consumers. Both the electricity and natural gas provisions of the conference report contain broad new provisions to ensure market transparency and to prohibit market manipulation. In the area of electric utility mergers, we have expanded the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over mergers involving existing generation plants; that is, plants that are in existence at the time the merger takes place. We have also created new requirements in the Federal Power Act for special scrutiny for possible cross subsidization as a result of mergers. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can approve a merger, it must find that any possible cross subsidization is actually consistent with the public interest, which I think will prove to be both a flexible and a strong protection for ratepayers and for workers and for other persons who should be protected if we are being consistent with the public interest.

The conference report authorizes a broad range of research and development and demonstration and deployment activities for new energy technologies that will help us toward our energy future. It couples them with energy tax incentives and a comprehensive new approach to loan guarantees at the Department that will help these technologies over the final threshold into commercialization. This latter part of the bill is a particular accomplishment of Chairman Domenici that I think will pay off in this country for years to come.

The conference report also will result in major changes in our national slate of transportation fuels. It requires that we reach a target of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. It sets a path forward for the development and commercial introduction of ethanol made from cellulosic biomass which promises to have a profound impact on our ability to manufacture and use renewable fuels in the future. Our work on fuels and fuel additives in this conference report is not complicated by the issue of developing safe harbors for product liability claims for any fuel additive, whether ethanol or MTBE. Resolving this dispute involved including a provision that, when it first appeared in the publicly released base text of the conference report, caused some confusion. I know that some Members may want to address this issue in this debate. The best explanation, though, of the intent of this provision was given by Chairman Barton himself in the course of the final public meeting of the Energy bill conference Monday night. He did it in the course of an exchange with Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, who was about to offer a clarifying amendment to this provision in the conference report. Based on the understanding conveyed in that exchange, Congressman Stupak decided that he did not need to offer his intended amendment.

Since that exchange was crucial to how this provision was dealt with in conference, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of that exchange be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, there is much more that I could say on behalf of the energy conference report that is before us, but I want to allow time for others to speak as well. It is worth acknowledging that in the process of conferencing with the House, we had to yield to their strong demands and desires in a few areas. Some of those provisions, in my view, were misguided. They include some weakening of environmental laws and some additional subsidies to energy industries that are probably unnecessary. I am sure that some of my colleagues will explore those problems in more detail. But these flaws, serious as they are, do not, in my opinion, lead to a conclusion that this bill should not be enacted. On balance, this is a good bill for the country and the best Energy bill this Congress is going to produce. We should enact it into law.

To the extent that there are gaps in the bill, that there are subjects that we should have covered and have not adequately covered, we need to look to the future. It has taken Congress over 4 years to craft this Energy bill. The Energy bill prior to that was the Energy Policy Act of 1992, passed 13 years ago. When we complete this bill, I don't believe we have the luxury of waiting another 13 years to pass the next Energy bill. The energy security needs of this country that are not addressed in this bill will not wait for another decade for attention. The threats posed by our dependence on oil imports or by global warming will continue to face us and will continue to grow as issues. This bill does maintain and increase our investment on a range of clean energy sources, but it does not contain a critical mechanism that was contained in the Senate Energy bill; that is, the renewable portfolio standard that I referred to earlier.

This bill has positive and helpful measures to increase domestic refining, but consumers will still face burdens at the gas pump. There is critical work to be done on these issues, but I believe the positive message coming out of this bill is that we have developed a truly bipartisan way to move forward on those issues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think that I speak both for myself and for my colleague who is chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in saying that we intend to work together both in the short term and in the long term to address the issues that need additional attention in this general legislation. He has my pledge to continue to work in this Congress to advance the ball and to get to a finish line on proposals that we could not achieve closure on in the context of this bill.

Let me just mention three of those. First, flexible mandatory measures to address global warming. We had an excellent hearing which Chairman Domenici chaired in the Energy Committee. In fact, during the time that this bill was being considered in conference, time was taken out to have this hearing on the issue of global warming. I believe it was a very useful hearing. Chairman Domenici stated that it was the first of several that we may be able to have to better understand that issue and see if a consensus can be reached on a path forward in dealing with it.

Second, doing more to tap the potential of renewable energy. Again, I believe that more can be done there, and I hope we can revisit that issue before this Congress adjourns.

Third, we need to continue to focus on oil savings. The United States imports more than 65 percent of our oil, and the Energy bill will not reduce those imports significantly. Reducing oil consumption will make us less dependent on foreign oil and ultimately save Americans money at the gas pump. Although the oil savings approach that we took in the Senate bill did not win acceptance by the House of Representatives, that is a concept that continues to hold promise as a way of addressing the problem, and we need to

revisit that issue in legislation, in my view, as soon as we possibly can.

We worked hard to create the Energy bill compromise before us today. We should enact that compromise and move forward aggressively to ensure that it is implemented rapidly by the executive branch of our Government. If there are negative consequences to what we have enacted, then we can document those and work to correct those errors. If there are topics we need to address more effectively, then we certainly can do that.

Again, I congratulate my friend and colleague on his accomplishment. But securing our energy future in some sense is a job that is never done. I look forward after we have had time to rest and reflect on what has been done to again begin the effort to address policies that will increase our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, provide for more use of clean energy, lower gas prices, and deal with the emissions that are leading to global warming.

Again, I congratulate my colleague and all members of the conference and all Members of the Senate for the constructive approach they have taken to the development of this legislation.

At this point, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Chairman Barton. Are there other amendments from the House

conferees to Title XV? Mr. Stupak.

Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at

the desk, but if I may, before I offer it, I would like to

ask you, as chairman, a couple questions on Section 1504, if

I may?

Chairman Barton. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for

your willingness to come to a consensus on the MTBE. I know

it has been a difficult couple days, and I am trying to get

this thing resolved and I----

Chairman Barton. Well, I am not consenting, I am just

admitting that I don't have the votes in the Senate.

Mr. Stupak. Well, your willingness to work with the

conference committee.

Chairman Barton. I know when to fold them and this is one

time you got to fold them. So what was the question?

Mr. Stupak. Well, in light of that, Mr. Chairman, I just

want to be clear about one of the compromise provisions

that's been inserted into the amendment and this is Section

1504, called Claims Filed After Enactment. Can the chairman

clarify for us what this language means and is intended to

do, this Section 1504?

Chairman Barton. If you will suspend just briefly.

Mr. Stupak. Yes, sir.

Chairman Barton. The Section 1504 is a negotiated section

between the House and the Senate, that in lieu of the base

text language in the House bill on MTBE, we put in a section

that is permissive, that for prospective claims, defendants

may request that they be consolidated in a Federal court as

opposed to a State court. It is a permissive, not mandatory,

thing.

Mr. Stupak. So in that case, then it can remain in the

State courts. So this provision does not in any way give the

Federal courts a new subject jurisdiction over MTBE cases?

Chairman Barton. The base text that's before the conferees,

on existing MTBE lawsuits, changes nothing on prospective

MTBE lawsuits, that is, lawsuits that have not yet been

filed.

Mr. Stupak. Correct.

Chairman Barton. It gives the defendant in the lawsuit, the

prospective lawsuit, if it were to be filed, the right to

request that the lawsuit be sent to a Federal court.

Mr. Stupak. Or it could remain the State court if----

Chairman Barton. Well, it just gives them right to request

it. Now I am not an attorney, so I am not--but that's what

the section does.

Mr. Stupak. I just want to make sure that the Federal

courts don't have an exclusive right to try these cases and

it is my understanding they would not, based upon----

Chairman Barton. Well, of the existing cases that have

already been filed, they are in the hundreds, all but 12 are

in Federal court.

Mr. Stupak. Correct.

Chairman Barton. They are 12 that are in State court.

Mr. Stupak. So it is really----

Chairman Barton. I don't think this section is unduly

restrictive or adverse to the current situation.

Mr. Stupak. So Section 1504, then, is it fair to say, gives

those involved in future MTBE litigation or disputes, the

discretionary ability to remove their case to Federal court?

Chairman Barton. No, it gives them the right to request it.

Mr. Stupak. Okay.

Chairman Barton. That's all.

Mr. Stupak. Discretionary. They don't have to. It is within

their discretion to go to Federal court, if the defendants so

choose.

Chairman Barton. That's correct.

Mr. Stupak. And then it is up to the judge whether or not

the case is properly there or remanded back to State court?

Chairman Barton. That's my understanding.

Mr. Stupak. So we are not conferring a new substantive or

subject matter jurisdiction over these cases?

Chairman Barton. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I will not

offer my amendment.

Chairman Barton. We appreciate the gentleman.

Senator Kerry will be the first Senator on this side, followed by Senator Wyden. So why don't we go back and forth, if that is acceptable.

Mr. President, I would like to comment on two specific provisions of the conference report. I am pleased that the provisions contained in the conference report on hydroelectric relicensing, section 241--Alternative Conditions and Fishways, have been improved over the provisions contained in both the House and Senate bills. I continue to have concerns that the new process for alternative mandatory conditions and fishway prescriptions will add complexity and delay to the process. The requirement that the resource agencies afford all parties an opportunity for an on the record trial-type hearing on material

issues of fact could prolong these proceedings. However, I understand that the intent behind the provision is that these not be lengthy hearings. Rather they are to afford an opportunity for a review of narrow issues of fact, and not a review of the application of the facts or the decisions based upon them.

I am pleased that the provisions allow all parties to the proceedings, including States, tribes and third parties, to participate equally. I understand the conference language ensures that the heads of the resource agencies retain discretion to employ scientific data and other information submitted by any of the parties to licensing or relicensing proceedings in determining what conditions will provide for adequate protection and use of tribal lands and what fishways are needed for the protection of fishery resources for which the United States has a legal or trust responsibility to preserve and protect on behalf of Indian tribes. I also am satisfied that the conference language preserves the principle that Indian lands and fishery resources held in trust by the United States, or for which the United States has legal responsibility, will continue to be protected and preserved in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal Power Act of 1920 and subsequent rulings of the Federal courts that reaffirm these protections for tribal lands and fishery resources.

Finally, I understand the motivation behind these provisions to be an effort to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of conditions and fishways--and not to be an opportunity to undermine the conditions and fishways that resource agencies determine are necessary for the adequate protection of federal reservations and fish resources. I expect that the resource agencies will carry out these provisions with this intent in mind.

Mr. President, section 354, Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas Production Through Carbon Dioxide Injection grants the Secretary authority to provide royalty relief in order to achieve the dual purposes of the section, which are both to promote the capturing, transporting, and injection of produced carbon dioxide, natural carbon dioxide and ``other appropriate gases or other matter'' for sequestration, and to promote oil and gas production by providing incentives to undertake enhanced recovery techniques using injection of these substances. It is my understanding that the provision is intended to encourage the sequestration of greenhouse gases, and the ``other gases or matter'' referred to are gases and matter that fall within that definition. I understand the intent to be that any royalty relief under this section be made available only where doing so achieves the dual purposes of benefitting the environment through sequestration of greenhouse gases while also bringing about enhanced recovery.

BLM Cost Recovery

Mr. President, I share the understanding of the language expressed by my friend from New York.

Mr. President, the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on the energy bill is noteworthy for its brevity, but somewhat short on explanations. The managers simply did not have time to say more than we did if we were to file the conference report in time for both the House and Senate to act on it before the August recess.

As a result, the statement of managers omits explanations of several important provisions that many of us believe are key to understanding the agreements we reached on these issues and the meaning of these provisions. In some cases, specific text had already been negotiated and agreed upon for inclusion in the managers' statement, and the assurance that the agreed upon text would be included in the managers' statement was a critical component of the compromise reached on the legislative text.

Would the senior Senator from New Mexico, as the chairman of the Senate conferees, be willing to put these explanations on the record for the information of all Senators?

The first of these explanations relates to section 210, which establishes two grant programs to improve the use of forest biomass for energy production. Section 210 was included in response to Federal land managers and other experts that have recommended removing some of the slash, brush, pre-commercial thinnings, and other non- merchantable wood and plant material from many of our forests to improve forest health and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire.

One hurdle that must be overcome is that in many regions of the country there currently are few economically viable enterprises using this type of biomass. If a viable market for these materials existed, the ultimate cost of forest restoration treatments would decrease as landowners who currently pay to have this biomass removed could sell it at a profit.

During the conference, we deliberated about the potential for the grants authorized by these programs to adversely affect current and future markets for using such material for other value-added products that are not provided grants through these programs. Along with biomass energy, alternative markets are a critical element of the effort to make forest health treatments cost-effective. This was a significant concern, was it not?

Mr. President, the second of these issues relates to oil and gas leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 established the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Four years later, the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1981, Public Law 96- 514, directed the Secretary of the Interior to open the Reserve to competitive oil and gas leasing, subject to specific terms and conditions.

Both the House bill and the Senate amendment transferred the competitive leasing program in the appropriations act into the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. The Senate amendment went further, however, by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, and to mitigate, adverse effects from leasing and development activities. The conference report omits this additional Senate language.

It is my understanding, however, that the Senate language was omitted because the Department of the Interior is already interpreting the standard in existing law in the manner set forth in the Senate language. For that reason, the conferees decided that the language was unnecessary. Is that the case?

Finally, the conference report contains an entire title designed to help Native Americans promote the development of tribal energy resources, including an innovative program of tribal energy resource agreements. Would the distinguished chairman of the Senate conferees comment on this title?

I thank Senator Domenici for placing these explanations in the Record.

Mr. President, before I yield back the remaining time, since I see there are no additional Senators waiting to speak, unless there are some who appear, I want to take a few minutes to thank committee staff for the excellent work that went into the development of this bill. We have had superb staff work here in the Senate on the Democratic side and the Republican side. I particularly want to single out the staff members on the Democratic side who have worked so hard, over many weeks, months, and even years in the development of this legislation. To the extent this work product is a step forward, it is a result of their hard work and their commitment, and clearly this is an accomplishment which could not have been achieved without that excellent work.

Bob Simon is the staff director on the Democratic side. He has done a superb job. Sam Fowler is the chief counsel and also has done yeoman work. Vicky Thorne; Bill Wicker; Patty Beneke; Deborah Estes; Mike Connor; Jennifer Michael; Leon Lowery; Jonathan Black; Al Stayman; Scott Miller; David Brooks; Michael Carr; Sreela Nandi, who is an AAAS fellow sponsored by the American Chemical Society who works with our committee staff; Tara Billingsley, who is a Department of Energy detailee who worked with the committee in May and June of this year; Amanda Goldman; Mark Wilson; Jonathan Epstein, who is a fellow in my personal office who also worked hard on various aspects of this legislation; and James Dennis in my office, who worked on the tax provisions of the bill.

In addition, I want to acknowledge the extremely capable staff on the Republican side, in particular Alex Flint, who was mentioned by Senator Domenici earlier, the staff director; Judy Pensabene, who is the chief counsel on the Republican side; and the other many staff members who I am sure will be recognized by Senator Domenici before action on this legislation is complete.

Let me also acknowledge key House staff who worked so hard during this conference committee that we concluded: Mark Menezes, who is counsel for Chairman Joe Barton; Sue Sheridan and Bruce Harris, who are counsels for the ranking member on the House side, Congressman John Dingell.

All of these individuals whom I named made a tremendous contribution to this legislation and all of them deserve our great thanks. No constructive work is done here in the Congress without this kind of excellent staff work and we are very fortunate in the case of this legislation.

I am informed there are no other Senators wishing to speak at this point. I am also informed we will have additional time tomorrow for statements before any actual votes occur on or in relation to the conference report.

I yield the floor at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the city of

Alamogordo, NM, for doing an outstanding job in the All America City Award competition. Alamogordo finished in the top 30, which is a great achievement considering it was their first time in the competition.

The National Civic League, NCL, focuses its efforts on strengthening and promoting community democracy by bringing together all sectors of society in addressing common needs. The All America City Award, sponsored by the NCL, recognizes that the basis of a healthy democratic society is cooperation and participation of private citizens, government, voluntary organizations and government. Those communities that foster an environment where citizens can express their needs and concerns and articulate challenges they face, and then bring together all of its resources to address those needs, exemplify democracy at work. These political systems respond to the needs of its citizens and in doing so, allow them to focus on their pursuit of their American dream. Alamogordo should take pride in the fact that they foster this environment in their community.

As the Alamogordo All America City award application mentions, the community's efforts in three specific areas, water conservation, economic development and healthy youth, attest to the community's strength and spirit of cooperation. The success of Alamogordo's water conservation efforts is truly a model for the State, decreasing usage from 6.61 million gallons per day in 2000 to 4.82 million gallons per day in 2003, even while experiencing population growth. The community- wide efforts to develop the local economy, and create jobs have been a tremendous success, leading not only to new jobs, but to multiplier effects in healthcare, community charitable giving and education. The third area of focusing on healthy youth is exemplified in the skateboard park, which provides safe recreation alternatives for 12,600 kids each year.

Further, the community of Alamogordo actively encourages basic and necessary democratic practices--encouraging citizens to take active roles in articulating and resolving community issues, encouraging effective and efficient local government, and harnessing local philanthropic and volunteer resources with the end goal of cooperating and building consensus, reinvigorating the community's vision for itself, facilitating intergroup relations, sharing information in the community, and inspiring community pride.

The hard work and dedication of a handful of notable public servants who acted as delegates for the presentation, and contributed to this tremendous success include: Joan Griggs; Anne Romero; Gwen McCourt; Don and Rosemarie Carroll; Maureen Schmittle; Inez Moncada; Donald Cooper; Susan Flores; Sharon and Al Hodges; Kory Guerra; Phillip Flores; Peter Madrid; Tammie and Ana Reynolds; Elva Oesterreich; Forst Hibler; Laura and Austin Harris; Major John Bryan; Elizabeth Upton; Ed Carr; Sharon Masters; Flori and Raschal McElderry; Amanda Runnels; Shannon Flanagan; Penina Nunnelley; Tony Taylor; and Dr. Rodger and Judy Bates.

I would also like to recognize other team members who were not able to make the trip to Atlanta, but whose hard, tireless work made the presentation possible. Finally, I congratulate each and every Alamogordo citizen on their efforts to build this model community, and for setting an example that we can all look to for inspiration. I appreciate their efforts in representing New Mexico on the on the national level as an example of civic pride and partnership in community improvement.

Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes off the time on this side.

I want to speak briefly about the CAFTA agreement. I start from the proposition that increased trade with the international community can advantage us, and it also can advantage those with whom we trade. Most of the trade of these countries that are covered by this CAFTA-DR agreement, most of their trade, over 70 percent of their trade, is, in fact, with the United States. It is very much in our interest that that circumstance remain the case. It can benefit us, and it can benefit these countries to see that trade increase. And it is very much in our interest, not only to strengthen our own country's economy but to see the economies of this region strengthened.

This trade agreement comes at a time when our trade imbalance with the world is enormous. It is the largest in the history of our country. It is the largest in the history of any country in the world. Unfortunately, it is continuing to grow. As far as I can tell, our own Government has no strategy to deal with that problem. We have no strategy to promote investment in the United States. We have no strategy to promote the building of productive capacity or to keep this country competitive in the global economy.

I hope very much that the Finance Committee, which I am privileged to serve on, can play a role in developing such a strategy over the next few months. When we had the markup of this legislation yesterday, I discussed that with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. It is my hope they will be able to schedule some hearings to begin understanding this issue better and helping us to craft a set of proposals to help deal with the very real problem we have in global trade.

That being said, when I look at the provisions of this DR-CAFTA agreement, I do not see them contributing significantly to that trade imbalance. These are countries that have exported over 85 percent of what they send to the United States duty free. They have done that since the implementation of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act in 2000, and before that they were shipping most of their product into the United States duty free under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The main effect of this agreement we are now debating will be to phase out and eliminate tariffs that they currently impose upon our products that we are exporting to them.

I don't see the basis for the claim, which I have heard on the Senate floor and from others around the country that this agreement will result in the further export of jobs from the United States to Central America. The reality is that U.S. companies have many options about where to build their next plant, where to manufacture the products that they sell. Central America has been one of those options for a very long time. There is nothing I know of pending here in the Congress that would change that circumstance. In my view, this agreement would not change that circumstance as well.

I would hope and expect that if this agreement is implemented, as I expect it will be, we will see the encouragement of more investment in productive capacity in Central America, but at the same time, as our exports to that region increase, we will see more investment in productive capacity here in the United States.

There are clearly some problems with this agreement. Many of those have been pointed out. I don't suggest I have answers for all of those, by any means. Two of the problems that have particularly concerned me are, No. 1, the serious lack of attention to the enforcement of worker rights in these countries and, secondly, the inadequate provision of assistance with regard to the negative impacts that U.S. exports of agricultural product into that region may cause.

Let me talk first about enforcement of worker rights. I have urged the administration to commit resources to this as a priority. It is not reasonable to require U.S. producers and workers to compete with foreign producers who do not afford their workers certain basic rights. To begin addressing this issue, Ambassador Portman, our trade representative, has assured me the administration will propose and will support funding for worker rights enforcement to the extent of $40 million per year for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Second, on monitoring of compliance with the various requirements on worker rights, there is a need for an independent and transparent monitoring of the treatment of workers in these countries. I have urged the administration to fund the International Labor Organization, or ILO, headquartered in Geneva, to conduct ongoing monitoring on worker rights in Central America. This would include reports that they would publish every 6 months beginning when the agreement goes into effect and continuing to the end of the 2009 fiscal year.

The administration has agreed to commit $3 million per year to accomplish that task. That $3 million would come out of the $40 million per year in funding that they are otherwise committing for enforcement of worker and environmental rights.

I believe both of these commitments--to worker rights enforcement and the commitment to ILO monitoring--should be a part of all trade agreements that we have with developing countries. In addition, of course, I hope that the actual commitment to workers' rights standards in the language of the treaties, in any future treaties we sign, will be stronger than we find in this agreement. I believe it is also incumbent upon us to urge the next administration, after President Bush leaves office, to continue with these same commitments in the future.

The other issue I mentioned is agricultural assistance--adjustment assistance for those working in the agricultural sector. I have also urged the administration to commit resources to allow subsistence-level farmers to make a transition without undue dislocation problems. This should help reduce the problem of dislocation of workers in these countries and the additional illegal immigration to the United States that likely would result if that dislocation occurs.

Again, the administration is committed to provide increased support to address this issue. The level of funding is not what I would like it to be, but if these countries do receive funding under the Millennium Challenge Corporation grants, those funding levels should increase substantially.

Mr. President, each of these commitments that I have referred to are set out in a letter that Ambassador Portman has provided to me.

I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record following my comments.

Mr. President, with these additional commitments, I have concluded that I can support the implementation of this trade agreement. I will do so when the roll is called later today.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Executive Office of the President, the United States

Trade Representative,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2005.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Jeff, as the Congress considers the Central America-

Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), you have

raised concerns about ongoing efforts to improve enforcement

of labor laws and to monitor progress in this regard in the

CAFTA-DR signatory countries. As you know, Congress

appropriated $20 million in FY05 specifically for projects to

improve labor and environmental law enforcement in these

countries.

The recent House Appropriations Committee mark-up of the

FY06 Foreign Operations appropriations bill increases this

commitment for the next fiscal year, with $40 million

earmarked for labor and environmental enforcement capacity-

building in the CAFTA-DR signatory countries. The

Administration is willing to support this level of funding in

the FY06 Senate appropriations bill.

Furthermore, because we are willing to make a longer-term

commitment to improve labor and environmental law enforcement

in the CAFTA-DR countries, the Administration is willing to

propose and support this same level of labor/environment

capacity-building assistance for the next three fiscal years,

FY07 through FY09.

More specifically, you have suggested the assistance of the

International Labor Organization (ILO) in monitoring and

verifying progress in the Central American and Dominican

governments' efforts to improve labor law enforcement and

working conditions.

We are willing to implement your idea. Your proposal, as I

understand it, is that the ILO would make a transparent

public report of its findings every six months. The

Administration has now consulted with the ILO and determined

that this function would require additional funding to the

ILO of approximately $3 million annually. The Administration

is willing to devote approximately $3 million of the $20

million in FY05 labor enforcement assistance monies to

support and fund this ILO monitoring initiative. To ensure

that this monitoring continues, the Administration is willing

to continue a funding commitment to ILO monitoring for the

next three fiscal years, FY07 through FY09.

The Administration also shares your goal of ensuring that

we pair expanded trade opportunities with economic

development assistance designed to ease the transition to

free trade, especially for rural farmers in our CAFTA-DR

partners. On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Millennium Challenge

Corporation (MCC) signed a $215 million compact with Honduras

targeted specifically at rural development and

infrastructure, and on the same day the MCC announced a

$175 million compact with Nicaragua that will be signed

shortly.

As Secretary Rice and I have already communicated to you,

we are willing to give high priority to negotiating compacts

with El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic when

those countries become eligible for MCC assistance under

higher per capita income caps next year. I anticipate that

such compacts would provide substantial U.S. economic

assistance for rural development in these countries.

In addition, the Administration has worked with the Inter-

American Development Bank (IDB) to provide new assistance,

including $10 million in new grants announced by the IDB

earlier this month for rural development and institution

building. I hope you will join me and officials from the IDB,

World Bank, and other institutions next month for an

international donors conference to discuss other ways we can

direct development assistance toward meeting the needs of

rural populations.

To address your specific concern about the period before

MCC compacts might be negotiated with El Salvador, Guatemala,

and the Dominican Republic, the Administration is willing to

support additional spending for rural development assistance

of $10 million per year for each of those countries starting

in FY07 for a total of five years, or until the signing of an

MCC compact with such country, whichever comes first. This

amounts to a $150 million commitment in transitional rural

assistance for these countries over five years.

These monies will provide transition assistance to rural

farmers in these three countries for a defined period, while

preserving a very strong incentive for candidate countries to

meet the statutory criteria to receive what would likely be

much higher levels of economic assistance under an MCC

compact. Since the implementation of CAFTA-DR requires steps

which reinforce the statutory criteria for funding under the

MCC law, I believe that implementation of the agreement will

assist these three countries to move quickly toward

qualifying for a successful MCC compact with the United

States.

Furthermore, because many of the agreement's requirements

for agriculture liberalization in the CAFTA-DR countries for

sensitive commodities--such as dairy, poultry, and rice--will

not fully occur until ten, fifteen, or even twenty years

after CAFTA's implementation date, I am confident that this

transitional mechanism provides ample time for adjustment in

the rural economies of these nations.

Sincerely,

Rob Portman.

Mr. President, may I ask my colleague to yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers be as follows: Senator Obama, 15 minutes from the time of Senator Dorgan; Senator Brownback, 15 minutes from Senator Grassley's time; Senator Coleman, 15 minutes from Senator Grassley's time; Senator Corzine, 10 minutes from Senator Dorgan's time; and Senator Burr, for 10 minutes from Senator Grassley's time.

Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize Albuquerque Vocational Technical Institute (TVI), a community college in New Mexico that is celebrating its 40th year of service to the community.

Since TVI's humble beginnings in an old vacated school building serving only 150 students, the school has made a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of students and has grown to serve about 27,000 students each year across four campuses. Considering the enriching education and workforce opportunities TVI provides it is no surprise that TVI is a ``crown jewel'' of the city of Albuquerque.

In a community noted for cultural diversity, TVI is a model technical education institution which provides high quality instruction and training in a variety of technical careers, trades, and professions. TVI delivers innovative, customized training and skill development to develop a highly skilled workforce for business, professional organizations, and government agencies. TVI wisely collaborates with business and industry to ensure that their students, as future workers, meet the demands of the high-tech 21 century workforce. TVI graduates provide needed technical assistance and services to a variety of industries including our National Labs. TVI's dedication to their students' professional growth has positively impacted the economic development of the community and of the State.

For its leadership in educational advancement and for its invaluable contributions, I commend the students, the teachers, and the administration of the Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute for 40 years of exceptional service to the community and to the State of New Mexico.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of Dexter in the Pecos Valley of southeastern New Mexico, who will soon be celebrating the centennial of their community.

In its early years, the settlement that would become Dexter was located near the large body of water known as Lake Van in Chaves County. With the rise of the railroad and the construction of an irrigation canal a few miles away, a new town was necessary. Three men selected the townsite, and the only married man of the bunch, Albert Macey, was given the privilege of choosing the name of the town. He chose the name Dexter in honor of his hometown of Dexter, IA.

Dexter served an important role as a railroad depot in its early years. The depot contributed greatly to the economic and social life of the town. Dexter also became part of the historic Ozark Trails highway system and still has remnants of this fabled roadway, now known as State Highway Two. Agriculture, with cotton and alfalfa being the chief crops, has been and continues to be important for Dexter and the Pecos Valley.

These days, Dexter is also known for its fish hatchery, where advanced biological research takes place and endangered species are protected and propagated. The Dexter National Fish Hatchery is currently working with 17 species of fish native to New Mexico and neighboring States. If something should happen to devastate an original fish species in the wild, the hatchery could use the fish it holds in refuge to help replace the damaged population.

Given the long history of settlement in New Mexico, turning 100 barely qualifies a town as middle aged. But Dexter and its 1,200 residents have done a great deal in that short amount of time. I congratulate the town of Dexter on its centennial and offer my best wishes for the next 100 years.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

I want to speak briefly in support of the Sununu amendment. This amendment is simple. It is narrow. It is clear. It provides that none of the funds appropriated in the bill can be used to plan or construct new logging roads for private logging companies in the Tongass. Some would say: Why single out the Tongass? How does that relate to my State or the area of the country I represent?

I think we have to have a little context for this amendment. We are debating an extremely tight budget for the Forest Service, one that simply does not come close to meeting the needs of the National Forest System. That is the reality that is being brought on by the growing deficits and the resulting cuts in spending.

Let me give a few examples of the cuts that are found elsewhere in this bill. This bill cuts the State and Private Forestry account by $87 million. That includes a 45-percent cut in critical funding to protect communities from wildfires, leaving volunteer fire departments and other responders underfunded and leading to greater risk to life and property. This is made worse by a $353 million cut in the Federal Wildfire Management account. It also includes a 30-percent cut in the Forest Health Management account.

A program that rehabilitates and restores areas burned by wildfires is cut in this budget by 84 percent. The bill cuts more than $180 million from the Capital Improvements and Maintenance accounts, which fund the road construction and maintenance in the Tongass and in the rest of the country. That account already is more than $10 billion in the red. So that gives people some sense of the extreme cuts that are taking place elsewhere in the Forest Service budget.

In stark contrast to that are the accounts used to support logging in the Tongass National Forest. Rejecting the President's proposed cuts in those accounts, this bill would increase funding for logging programs in the Tongass. It takes money from the programs throughout the rest of the country and puts it into the logging program in the Tongass.

That is why it is important that this amendment pass. We need to be sure that taxpayer dollars are going where the most good can be done for the public. It is no wonder that Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Taxpayer Waste, and many other organizations and businesses have objected to this program and the funding that is being provided.

In February of this year, the Congressional Budget Office joined in and proposed eliminating the Forest Service timber sales in Alaska and elsewhere as a way to save taxpayers $130 million in 2006.

Mr. President, I believe this is a very meritorious amendment. I hope my colleagues will support Senator Sununu and me on this. The Federal deficit clearly is too high. It cuts critical programs in our States too deep. Taxpayer money is too precious for us to spend it in this way. This amendment would help correct that problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on May 24, 1999, the Bureau of Indian Affairs produced an agreement regarding the funding formula for the two BIA postsecondary schools Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, known as SIPI, and Haskell Indian Nations University. SIPI and Haskell agreed that while base funding for each institution would not be impacted, all new funds would be proportionately distributed to each school based on unmet student need. In accordance with the agreement, BIA developed a formula for unmet need.

In the conference report to Public Law 106-113, the Interior Appropriations bill, Congress then directed BIA to allocate funds for SIPI and Haskell for fiscal year 2000 as determined by such formula. Since then, however, BIA has not used the formula agreed upon by all parties, but should have, as Congress directed.

I ask if the chair and ranking member would work with me, should funding become available, to find $178,730 in conference for SIPI, which is the amount of funds I believe is needed to correct this situation for the period that the formula should have been used according to Congressional direction, up to and including fiscal year 2006.

Mr. President, my amendment provides more opportunities for Youth Conservation Corps to partner with the land management agencies funded through this bill. In addition, according to agency information, it would save the taxpayers money.

For decades, we have included a provision in this bill requiring the land management agencies to carry out some of their projects in partnership with the Youth Conservation Corps. In the mid-1970s, we funded the YCC program at $60 million each year. Unfortunately, Congress has more or less forgotten the YCC for the last 5 years, which is how long it has been since we increased the modest setaside for the programs to about $7 million.

YCC projects range from building trails and campsites, to restoring watersheds and monuments, to eradicating exotic pests and weeds. The Youth Corps bring to the agencies enthusiastic young adults that are ready to work hard to improve our public lands. The youth corps members come away with a good job and invaluable experiences.

In New Mexico, for example, the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps has partnered with all of these agencies to carry our many projects over the years. One project was to create a scenic lakeside trail with an interpretive nature component in the Carson National Forest. Recently, the site was listed as one of the top 15 camping sites in New Mexico, and the lakeside trail is an integral component of that camping experience.

We held a hearing on the YCC program in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources a few years ago, and the Park Service Director testified that his agency received $1.70 in benefits for every $1.00 it invested in YCC projects. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that it received $2.00 dollars for every $1.00 it invested. Supporting this program is good fiscal policy.

My amendment would provide a modest increase of almost $2 million in the YCC setaside, to be spread among the four agencies. This does little more than prevent the program from shrinking from where it was 5 years ago, but it would result in tangible benefits to our youth, our public lands, and our budget.

This amendment is good education policy, good public lands policy, good economic policy, good government policy, and good fiscal policy. I am gratified that this amendment was adopted.

Amendment No. 1050

Mr. President, the bill before us is not perfect. It does not go as far I would have liked, or others may have liked, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to improve our automobile fuel efficiency, or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But it makes a good start. The bill puts the Senate on record, for the first time, as saying that global warming is a problem and that we need to take serious action to address it. The bill stops short of taking those actions itself, but it acknowledges the problem, and that is an important--indeed essential--step in the right direction.

The bill also takes major steps toward increasing the amount of energy we use to make our electricity and to fuel our cars and trucks from renewable energy sources. It promotes the development and deployment of new energy technologies, improves energy efficiency, and modernizes our electricity laws. It was a good bill coming out of committee and it has been made better on the floor.

Much of the credit for the bill goes to Chairman Domenici for the fair, open, and bipartisan process he used to draft the bill and shepherd it through the

committee and on the floor. Not all issues were resolved the way he would have liked or I would have liked, but he let the committee and the Senate work their will. It has resulted in a good bill.

Special thanks must also go to the committee staff, both majority and minority, who put in long hours and hard work on the bill over the last several months. Everyone on the Democratic staff of the committee contributed to this effort: Bob Simon, Sam Fowler, Patty Beneke, Tara Billingsley, Jonathan Black, David Brooks, Michael Carr, Mike Connor, Deborah Estes, Amanda Goldman, Leon Lowery, Jennifer Michael, Scott Miller, Sreela Nandi, Dominic Saavedra, Al Stayman, Vicki Thorne, Bill Wicker and Mark Wilson. I especially wish to thank our Democratic staff director, Bob Simon. I would also like to single out Jonathan Epstein and James Dennis on my personal staff for their contributions to the bill.

I would also like to acknowledge the constant and valuable help given to us by the Democratic cloakroom staff and the staff of the Democratic Leader.

Our task now will be to keep our bipartisan bill from being undermined in conference. Twice before the Senate has sent an energy bill to conference, only to see it die in conference or on the floor. But I am confident that the third try is the charm.

Again, I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership and bipartisan approach to this effort. I think we have come up with a bill which should enjoy good bipartisan support here on the Senate floor.

There are obviously some provisions I wish were in the bill that are not. But I think we are going into conference with a good piece of legislation. I hope we are successful in persuading the House to agree with us on that. I do think we still have many hurdles to overcome, as we have learned from previous Congresses, but I am optimistic that this time we will succeed in completing action on an energy bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Drake Bailey, an intern in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor today.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments and his willingness to let me speak for a few minutes.

I join him in urging that we go ahead and invoke cloture on the bill. I do believe we have had a good debate on the Senate floor. We have had a good opportunity for amendments to be offered. The process has been open. I have supported some amendments that have been offered to the bill; I have opposed others. I note my colleague has done the same. I believe each Senator has done the same. That is exactly how the Senate is intended to operate.

Obviously, there are Senators who still have amendments they would like to offer. Some of those amendments will be germane after the cloture vote occurs even if cloture is invoked. Those amendments can be considered by the Senate and disposed of at that time. That is appropriate.

But I understand the scheduling problems the majority leader has and the Democratic leader has as well. They believe they need to move to other legislation early next week, or even as early as tomorrow. Therefore, they would like to go ahead and conclude work on this bill.

This bill is not coming to the Senate sort of ab initio, as they teach you in law school. It has come here after we had a substantial debate on these very same issues two Congresses ago, and again last Congress. As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, we had a very thorough and open process in the committee. This process we have had on the floor has been a thorough and open process as well.

I believe the bill that came out of committee was a good product. It was a substantial improvement over current law. And I said that. I believe it has been further improved as we have been working here on the Senate floor in considering amendments to the bill, so I do not doubt it could be improved even more. Some of the amendments which Members may still want to offer may well improve it more, and I may be a strong supporter of those. But clearly this has been a process that I think has given everyone an opportunity to participate and offer amendments. It has been a process that has led to a good product which we can take to conference with the House of Representatives. As I say, there will be additional opportunities, even if cloture is invoked, for us to further improve this bill with germane amendments.

So I will support cloture. I know each Senator can make his or her own mind up about that vote, but I believe the chairman of our committee has worked diligently to get us to this point. I have tried to work with him in that process. I think the majority leader and the Democratic leader are very focused on trying to get conclusion on this legislation. I support their efforts.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment. I am a cosponsor of this amendment. It would dedicate funding for coastal impact assistance to States that currently produce oil and gas from the Federal OCS adjacent to State waters.

I have visited the coastal area near Louisiana with Senator Landrieu. I know of the very serious concerns which many in that State have about the loss of coastal wetlands caused by a variety of factors, including some activities related to the oil and gas development that has occurred there. Senator Landrieu has been a tireless advocate for her State on this issue and I know her colleague has as well.

It is important for my colleagues to know what the amendment does not do. The amendment does not modify any moratorium on OCS leasing. It does not provide an incentive for States to start production. It does not provide for a State opt-in or opt-out for resource assessment or leasing activities. What the amendment does is establish a coastal impact assistance program and provide a stream of revenues for coastal impact assistance to States that already have OCS production off their coast.

Under the amendment, funding would be made available to address the loss of coastal wetlands as well as for other projects and activities for the conservation, protection, and restoration of coastal areas, mitigation of damage for fish and wildlife and other natural resources, and implementation of federally approved marine coastal and conservation management plans.

In addition, up to a fixed percentage of the funding could be used for mitigation of the impact of OCS activities through funding of infrastructure projects. In other words, the amendment allows funding of certain infrastructure projects and public services, but the amount of funds that can be expended for those purposes is capped.

Before concluding, let me clarify one significant point. I support the amendment because it does provide dedicated funds from the Treasury for coastal impact assistance. The amendment does not provide a percentage of revenues or future revenues or otherwise call for revenuesharing from the Outer Continental Shelf. I have stated repeatedly my opposition to that idea. It is my view that the oil and gas resources in the OCS belong to the entire Nation, and the revenue- sharing arrangement, which was earlier discussed but is not part of this amendment, would run contrary to that principle.

In closing, I reiterate my support for this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting aye for the amendment and waiving the Budget Act, if necessary.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is my understanding there are other Members who have asked to be given a chance to speak, some in opposition to the amendment, perhaps some additional in favor. So we are not able to go to a vote at this point.

Mr. President, let me speak also in opposition to the Feinstein amendment. Federal jurisdiction over the siting of import and export terminals is constitutional, it is appropriate, it is a necessary part of this energy bill, in my view, and of any rational national energy policy.

Obviously, as the Senator from Tennessee was just pointing out, an adequate natural gas supply is extremely important to our Nation's economy. The regulation of foreign commerce, such as import and export terminals for LNG, is a Federal role under our Constitution.

The States have a legitimate interest, an interest in protecting their environment and the health and safety of their citizens. But the Feinstein amendment is not necessary because State participation authority in the LNG siting process is already very robust. For us to add another provision of law that says after the NEPA process is completed a Governor can come in and veto the siting of an LNG facility would be bad policy. In my view, the amendment being offered ignores the current State authority and turns the process on its head.

Today, for both offshore and onshore LNG proposals, State agencies with environmental expertise and related permitting authority are active participants in the NEPA process. Furthermore, an applicant must obtain all of the required State and local permits before that applicant can construct and operate an LNG terminal.

The bill which we have reported out of the committee does not take away any existing State authorities related to the LNG siting process. And the key Federal statutes that provide States permitting authority-- those statutes are explicitly protected in our committee bill. It strikes a balance between Federal and State interests.

The Deepwater Port Act Gubernatorial veto, which has been referred to by the Senator from California, is not a good model for us to follow in this legislation. It was enacted in 1974 to provide a process for siting deepwater oil ports. The Governors' veto authority in the Deepwater Port Act has never been utilized. We are not certain why, but I would argue it is an artifact from a time when the environmental statutes that States currently can use were very new and were untested. The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, of 1969, was just in its infancy in 1974.

The NEPA process has evolved since the 1970s to require a thorough and wide-ranging public review of the environmental impacts of Federal actions and a consideration of alternatives to the proposed actions. Many other environmental statutes--the Coastal Zone Management Act mentioned by the Senator from Tennessee, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Clean Air Act--were also enacted in the early 1970s. These Federal statutes delegate significant permitting authority to the States.

The Feinstein amendment is not workable as it is currently drafted. It allows the Governor to veto a proposed terminal after the entire NEPA process has been completed and a final environmental impact statement has been issued. Yet the amendment does not require the Governor or the relevant State agencies to participate in that same NEPA process. This is a process that can take up to a year to complete. It is a process that is designed to involve all interested parties and to identify all of the significant environmental and safety issues that need to be resolved.

The amendment also allows the Governor to require the FERC to impose conditions on the LNG project to make it consistent with State environmental laws. But the veto and the consistency provisions in the Feinstein amendment duplicate authorities the States already have under other laws. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that an applicant seeking a Federal permit to construct an LNG terminal in a coastal area prove to the State that the activity will be consistent with the State's coastal laws. If the State denies the consistency determination, the Federal permit cannot be issued. This effectively vetoes the project. There is a limited right of appeal to the Secretary of Commerce.

The Clean Water Act requires that an applicant obtain from the State a section 401 certification that the facility will comply with the act, including the State's water quality standards. Denial of this certification effectively vetoes the project as the only appeal that is provided for is to the State courts.

The committee bill does not take away any of these powers, nor does it affect the State and local laws that require project developers to obtain dozens of permits for LNG facilities.

I ask my colleagues: Why do we need to add this additional authority? It will discourage States from engaging in the NEPA process for a project that is in its early stages, when alternative sites can be identified and safety measures can be required. Indeed, the prospect of the Governor waiting to interject himself and the State at a later point in the project after the environmental impact statement is done will discourage industry from developing the LNG terminals that the country will need in the future.

Let me mention one other fact. I know the Senator from Rhode Island was talking about problems. He mentioned the KeySpan project in his State. FERC currently is actively engaged in assuring that these facilities are sited in safe locations. The Energy Daily, on May 23, had an article in it with the headline ``FERC Staff Flunks Rhode Island LNG Facility on Safety.''

In this article they point out that ``the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff, in a final environmental impact analysis, said Friday that a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal project in Rhode Island would flunk Federal safety standards with inadequate earthquake protection and an insufficient fire buffer.''

Then the article goes on to say:

. . . it is highly unlikely that FERC would vote to approve

the project over the findings of the final [environmental

impact statement] which said rather bluntly: ``KeySpan's

LNG's proposed LNG import terminal would not meet current LNG

safety standards . . . [and] KeySpan LNG has not provided any

data to show that the proposed import terminal can be brought

into compliance with the current safety standards.''

I cite that to make the point that FERC is doing its job. They are not trying to put facilities or permit facilities at locations that are unsafe. They are taking into account the concerns of the local community and the concerns of the States. They are flunking applications where those concerns are valid.

We have tried to protect the rights of States and local communities in this legislation. I believe we have done that. I urge that we not adopt the Feinstein amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is 3 minutes remaining in opposition to the amendment?

Mr. President, let me speak briefly. I thank my colleague for yielding me some time to conclude my remarks here, and I compliment him on his statement. The Constitution is very clear. It says in article I of the Constitution--and Senator Byrd isn't on the floor, but he is usually reading this to us--that ``the Congress shall have the power''--then it lists a whole bunch of things--``to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.''

This is a question of siting import and export terminals, so that we can conduct business with foreign nations. Clearly, there are major authorities that States and local governments have to participate in this process and to object. Anybody who has tried to site one of these terminals--and I have talked to several of them--will tell you there are a lot of people in the process who can say ``no'' and that ``no'' will stick.

The States clearly are in that position. The States, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, have the ability to say no, if they do not determine that the permitting or that the applicant who is seeking a permit is consistent with the State's coastal laws. Under the Clean Water Act, the State can say no and deny a certification under section 411 if they determine that the proposal has not complied with the State water quality standards. There are a variety of places where the State can say no and, of course, local communities as well.

What we have tried to do in the underlying bill is to be sure that once the need for process is completed, once the State has signed off on various permits and certifications, then there is not an additional problem that can be raised by the Governor of the State. Presumably, that government will have been involved in every stage of this process, and that State's appropriate agencies will have been involved in every stage of the process. But we need to have some finality to this, and we need to be able to be sure FERC can go ahead with the siting if they determine, after all this has been done, that in fact this is a safe project that makes sense and ought to be permitted. That is all we are trying to do in the bill.

The amendment of the Senator from California would have the effect of saying to Governors that you have the final word. Regardless of what FERC determines, regardless of what the process reveals, regardless of any of that, if you still don't like it, you can say no. That is not a good process. That will not give the confidence and assurance that is needed.

Mr. President, I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I understand Senators Specter and Allard would like to speak. I ask unanimous consent they be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each and I then be recognized to call up my amendment, numbered 866.

Mr. President, there is no time agreement entered. I am glad to enter into an hour-long time agreement, equally divided, if that is acceptable.

I believe myself, Senator Domenici, and perhaps Senator Specter wish to speak on my amendment. I hesitate to limit it to 10 minutes if that is what the Senator is suggesting.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, let me restate the request. Senators Specter and Allard would like to speak. I ask unanimous consent they be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Following that, the Senator from Oklahoma and I would have time equally divided on the modified Bingaman amendment, numbered 866, and a vote would occur in relation to that amendment at 5:30, with no amendments in order.

This is not a queue. This is a queue of one. We are just trying to get in a position to act on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, could we have the unanimous consent request put to the Senate again.

Let me restate it for Senators who might not have heard it before: We recognize Senator Specter to speak for up to 10 minutes. We recognize Senator Allard to speak for up to 10 minutes. The remainder of the time, between now and 5:30, would be equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma and myself in relation to the modified amendment that I have offered, amendment No. 866. There would be a vote at 5:30 on or in relation to amendment No. 866, as modified.

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

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

Mr. President, let me restate the request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes; Senator Allard from Colorado be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes; and following that, I be recognized to present my amendment No. 866 and a modification of that amendment; that the time between then and 5:40 be equally split between myself and the Senator from Oklahoma; and that we would then have a vote at 5:40.

Mr. President, as I understand it, under our unanimous consent agreement, it is now appropriate for me to call up amendment No. 866, as modified.

Mr. President, I went ahead and allowed the clerk to complete the reading of the amendment because it is short and because it is important that Members focus on what is contained in the amendment. We just had a significant debate on the Senate floor with regard to the proposal made by Senators McCain and Lieberman to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Some voted for it because they believed that this was an appropriate proposal. Others voted against it--some because they did not believe the issue is a valid one; some because they did not believe the effect on the economy was one they would favor; others because of the workability of it.

I have worked with Senator Domenici during recent weeks to see if we could come up with a proposal based on the National Commission on Energy Policy recommendations which would have done some of the same things but would have been a more modest beginning at containing and constraining carbon emissions going into the atmosphere.

We were not able, frankly, to get agreement among enough Senators that the proposal, as currently drafted, is workable in all respects. Therefore, Senator Domenici has indicated here on the Senate floor that he will try to have hearings and that we will be able

in the next several months going forward to consider this with great deliberation in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee. There are other committees with jurisdiction as well over this same set of issues. I am sure they will have the opportunity to work on it.

The resolution that is before the Senate right now and that we are scheduled to vote on in another half hour is an effort to see if we can get agreement on some basic propositions. In my opinion, it is important that we demonstrate agreement on basic propositions in order that we can move ahead and deal effectively with this important and complex issue.

The propositions were as read. Let me go over them once again for my colleagues so that everyone knows what is contained in the resolution. Before I go through that, let me indicate the cosponsors of this resolution are Senators Domenici, Specter, Alexander, Cantwell, Lieberman, Lautenberg, McCain, Jeffords, Kerry, and Snowe. I ask unanimous consent that they all be listed as cosponsors of the amendment.

The amendment is a sense of the Senate. It reads:

Findings. Congress finds that greenhouse gases accumulating

in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at

a rate outside the range of natural variability and are

posing a substantial risk of rising sea levels, altered

patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and

increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts.

I know this is an issue that some in this Senate disagree strongly with, and I am sure my colleague from Oklahoma will take great exception to this. I believe the science is well established that this is the case, and the National Academy of Sciences has stood behind that basic statement.

This is the second statement in the resolution:

There is growing scientific consensus that human activity

is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the

atmosphere.

Again, we may have Members here in the Senate who disagree with that conclusion. They are certainly free to do that. But I hope a majority of the Senate agrees with it.

The third finding set out in this amendment is that ``mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.''

There are some who have spoken in the Senate today who have said that mandatory steps are not required, that this problem will be solved by voluntary action, that the marketplace is solving this problem as we speak, and we do not need to be concerned about enacting any kind of mandatory provisions. I respectfully disagree with that perspective. I respectfully suggest that this is an issue that is going to require action of a mandatory nature by this Congress, and we need to acknowledge that.

The final part of the amendment is the sense-of-the-Senate provision. It says:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact a

comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory,

market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse

gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such

emissions at a rate and in a manner that, No. 1, will not

significantly harm the U.S. economy and, No. 2, will

encourage other action and key contributors to global

emissions.

I will point to two charts that are an outgrowth of the work of this National Commission on Energy Policy in order to indicate to my colleagues why we have the language of this provision written as it is.

This first chart is the Commission climate proposal timeline. What they have proposed in their recommendations is a system which has been criticized by some in the environmental community for being too weak and too modest. I can understand those criticisms. But it is a proposal that would slow the rate of increase of emissions for the first 10 years. Then about 2020, you would be into a period where emissions would no longer be growing, and then you would go into a phase where emissions would begin to decline.

As I say, some who are on the environmental side say that is too modest, we can't do that little. But others, of course, say it is too onerous, and we can't do that much. What we have tried to do with this sense of the Senate is to say, OK, some think it is too onerous, some think it is too much. Can we at least get agreement that we have to put in place some type of system, some type of mandatory limits that will, in fact, begin to slow the rate of emissions, eventually stop the rate of emissions, and bring emissions down? That is what we are trying to do.

There is one other chart I wish to show. That relates to the harm to the economy. I know that much of the discussion on the McCain-Lieberman amendment was that if we were to enact that amendment, it would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. I disagree with that. But I am suggesting that there are ways--and the National Commission on Energy Policy concluded that as well--that we can responsibly act to contain emissions and to constrain the growth of emissions without significantly affecting our economy in an adverse way.

This chart shows that graphically. What it basically shows is that the economy is expected to grow very dramatically between 2005 and 2025. You can see that the growth of the economy will be $312.47 trillion. That is business as usual. We asked the Energy Information Agency, which is part of our own Department of Energy and the executive branch of our Government, to model this and determine what they thought the effect of the National Commission's recommendations on greenhouse gas would be to those figures. How much would it impact the economy? They concluded that under the NCEP proposal, you would see a very slight reduction in the amount of growth in the economy. So over that 20-year period, it would be $312.16 trillion instead of $312.47 trillion of economic growth in this country. You cannot have a more modest proposal than that as far as impact on the economy.

I am not here trying to persuade Members that this is the only way to proceed. I am saying this is evidence that we can, in fact, design a proposal for constraining the growth in greenhouse gases that will not adversely affect our economy, and that is exactly what we should be about, is trying to put that into place.

This resolution is nothing but a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. But it is important that we pass it. In my opinion, it is important that we pass it because the Senate is on record in 1997 as voting unanimously against going forward with the Kyoto treaty. I was one of those who voted not to proceed with signing on to the Kyoto treaty. That does not mean we should not take this step. This step would be the responsible thing to do. It would say this Senate is resolved to move ahead and try to enact legislation that will deal with this serious problem. And we recognize that doing so will require some mandatory limits on emissions.

I know that is something some Members in the Senate do not agree with. It is my hope that a majority of the Senate does agree with that, and it is my hope that a majority of the House of Representatives will agree with it, and that eventually we can persuade the administration to agree with this point of view as well. We need to move ahead with this issue--the sooner the better. This is a responsible way to do so.

I very much appreciate the good faith with which my colleague, Senator Domenici, worked with me to see if there was something that could be jointly proposed to deal with this issue as part of the Energy bill. It was his conclusion--which is certainly understandable--that there was too much complexity involved at this point and too many unanswered questions for us to proceed with an amendment to solve the problem as part of the Energy bill.

But I am very pleased that he is willing to cosponsor this sense-of- the-Senate resolution, indicating that even though we are not able to do it as an amendment to the Energy bill, we can in fact plan to go ahead.

Mr. President, with that, I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I yield that to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, before my colleague reads that, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment we just agreed to.

As I understand the request, the Senator would like us to go ahead with the argument in opposition.

I am glad to agree to whatever unanimous consent the Senator from Tennessee believes is appropriate once we conclude our debate.

Mr. President, I reluctantly rise to speak against this amendment. I do so for some very basic and sound reasons. I will just mention a few of them.

No. 1, this amendment moves in the exact opposite direction of the legislation that is before us. I have been working with Senators Domenici and Alexander and others on the committee to develop a piece of legislation that would provide for the energy future of the country, would encourage domestic development of energy from all sources, all available sources. We are encouraging development of clean coal, natural gas, nuclear power, oil resources, hydrogen technology, renewable fuels, electricity; and in each case, we have tried to simplify the process that a person or applicant has to go through in order to develop these resources and meet the needs of the country, as we see them.

We have also put incentives in this bill so as to further the development of these resources. This amendment, with regard to wind power, does just the opposite of that. It raises obstacles, and it says that we are going to make it more and more difficult for people to proceed with development of wind power projects. How does it do that? It goes through and it says we are going to, first of all, designate what we call highly scenic areas. Highly scenic areas are fairly broadly defined; they are any area listed as an official United Nations educational, scientific, cultural or World Heritage site, as supported by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and International Council of Monuments and Sites. Any lands designated as a national park, national lakeshore, national seashore, national wildlife refuge, national military park, Flint Hills--it goes on and on. It says if you are a highly scenic area, then a so-called qualified wind project, which is any wind turbine project located in a highly scenic area or within 20 miles of the boundary of various of these things I have listed here--then it says over here a qualified wind project shall not be eligible for any Federal tax subsidy.

That essentially says there are not going to be wind power projects constructed in any of these locations. I think if we have ever had a proposal that is a one-size-fits-all proposal, this is that. There are a great many of these sites. I point out, also, by way of just a historical note, I think this will be the first time, if this amendment is adopted, that the Congress has put in law a provision that essentially recognizes the significance of World Heritage sites designated by the United Nations. I remember debates on the floor in recent years where people objected to the whole notion that U.N. World Heritage sites were going to get some kind of special protection. In this amendment, we are saying they get special protection. We are not going to allow the construction of one of these wind projects within 20 miles of them.

To my mind, there are undoubtedly areas in this country where we don't want windmills. I agree. But I think that needs to be a decision that is made on the basis of the local circumstances, on the basis of the geography of the area, and I think what we are trying to do here is sort of pass a very broad prohibition against getting tax benefits. If you want to build a site that is within 20 miles of any of these things, then you are out of luck, as far as any Federal tax support. I think that is contrary to the whole thrust of the legislation. I think it is contrary to good sense. In my own State of New Mexico, we have several sites that are listed. I have a list that the Senator from Tennessee has been kind enough to give me called, ``Scenic Sites that are Protected by this Legislation.'' When you go down the list, in my State, you can see Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Well, I could conceive of the people in Carlsbad, NM, wanting a wind farm, a wind project within 20 miles of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. I can conceive of there being an area within that 20-mile radius that would be appropriate for a wind site. I don't know that that is the case, but I would hate to legislate a prohibition against it. The same with Chaco Culture National Historic Park and with Carlsbad Caverns National Park and the Pueblo de Taos, which has been exempted. I appreciate that.

The Senator from Tennessee--I mentioned to him there may be a desire on the part of people in the Taos area in my State to go ahead and have a wind project. I need to be legislating a prohibition against that--a prohibition on any Federal tax support in that circumstance. Each Senator can look at the list and see whether they want to do this to their home State. I think if people will look at this list carefully and get on the telephone and call back to their States, they may find this is not something they wholeheartedly embrace.

The Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, has asked for 5 minutes. I yield him 5 minutes.

I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, let me speak for 30 seconds, and then I will yield to my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin.

I do think, as the Senator from Idaho pointed out, that this does raise a very substantial obstacle to the construction of wind projects in a great many areas of the country about which we are somewhat uncertain. As I say, in my State I can conceive of areas near these scenic locations that would be appropriate for consideration as wind projects. I do think there is ample opportunity for local communities to object. There is ample opportunity for States to object.

My experience is the burden is on the applicant to persuade all of the local government and all of the State government entities that have some claim on this.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, can we make a unanimous consent request that the Senator will have his 2 minutes now, and in addition to that, we will have 2 minutes equally divided before the vote?

As the Senator from Wisconsin knows, I see ring fencing as an important issue and think that we should push FERC to protect small businesses and consumers from these abusive practices. The underlying bill, however, contains strong new authority for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to oversee mergers of public utilities. Congress directs FERC to use this new authority to assure that mergers are conducted appropriately and that consumers are protected from Enron-style abuses. We also direct FERC to use its existing authority to ensure Enron-style abuses do not happen again. The antimarket manipulation language also works toward this goal.

I commit to the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas that I will work on this important issue in conference and ensure that the Energy Committee holds a hearing on this important consumer protection, fair competition, and financial integrity issue. In addition, I agree to request, jointly with the Senators from Wisconsin and Kansas, a GAO investigation into the potential for abusive affiliate transactions by holding companies and affiliate businesses of public utility companies.