Floor Statements

Mr. President, I also want to comment about another subject which is not as much on the minds of the American public, but it clearly is on the minds of some.

There is an article that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks from today's New York Times by William Broad entitled ``U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences.''

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a speech Senator Daschle gave 2 weeks ago to the American Association for the Advancement of Science be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, the author of this report on the front page of the New York Times today, Mr. Broad, points to several trends that are working against the United States with regard to our world leadership position in science and technology. He points out the percentage of patents issued to Americans is declining. He points out the portion of published research attributable to Americans in top physics journals is decreasing. He points out the number of Nobel Prizes awarded in the basic sciences to Americans is decreasing. He points out the number of doctoral degrees granted in science and engineering in this country is on the decline. He points out the declining percentage of science and engineering doctoral degree candidates from foreign countries who are planning to stay in the United States after they graduate. This last phenomenon I referred to has been dubbed ``the reverse brain drain.'' He talks extensively about that.

The simple fact is, the world has become a highly competitive place with regard to science and technology leadership and talent and investments. We have historically believed we were the leaders in the world in this arena, and we have taken for granted the fact that promising young scientists and engineers from other countries would all want to come here, to stay here, and contribute to our continued world leadership. All of that is now in danger of changing.

We ignore this challenge to our long-term economic security at our own peril. This challenge requires strong efforts by our Government and our industry to counter the strong efforts that are being made in other countries, and to match the strong efforts that are being made in other countries in this field.

So what needs to be done? Let me list briefly six areas on which I think we ought to take aggressive action. The first area relates to research frontiers. We need to start by focusing on broad support for basic science and engineering research across the board, as well

as on targeted investments in critical emerging technologies that will drive future job growth and economic growth in this economy.

Unfortunately, in terms of broad-based basic research support, we have a pattern of underfunding across the physical sciences and engineering, and that is in comparison particularly to what we have been doing in biological and life sciences for several years. I do not advocate reducing our commitment to the biological and life sciences, but I strongly advocate a comparable commitment to maintaining our leadership in the physical sciences and engineering.

In terms of targeted research and development, there are many areas where there are promising developments that we should be paying attention to. Let me cite three examples. One is high-end computing. Japan today is the world leader in high-end computing with their Earth Simulator supercomputer. That is a sad statement to make on this Senate floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to continue for another 5 minutes.

That is a sad statement because I can remember a decade ago when the United States was the unrivaled leader in high-end computing. We need to do much better in this field.

Senator Lamar Alexander and I have introduced the High-End Computing Revitalization Act. I hope that the leadership in the Senate will see fit to move this legislation this year, and that we will receive strong support from our colleagues.

Nanotechnology is another area. Although Congress passed a nanotechnology bill last year, and the President signed the bill with great fanfare, the truth is, we are not putting the needed funding into it. The administration has not requested sufficient funding. We are not committing the money. This is another major shortfall.

The next specific area I believe we need to target is next-generation lighting. I have spoken several times about that on the Senate floor. Semiconductor lighting has the promise to greatly increase the efficiency of lighting devices and also to create an enormous number of jobs. The estimate is this will be a $12 billion per year industry for these devices in the future. The question is, where will the leadership be in developing these devices? Will we maintain some of that leadership in this country? And where will the high-wage jobs be created by this? I hope those jobs will be created in the United States, but Congress needs to act to ensure that.

A second area deals with the training of scientists and engineers. An enormous amount needs to be done to better prepare our own students for careers in these fields. We do too little in those areas. We need to do better. We now have the added concern that the foreign students who have traditionally come here to study are, first, finding visa problems that keep them from coming here; and, second, are deciding not to stay once they complete their education but go back to their home country. This is a precursor to the shifting of more and more research and development activity out of this country and into other countries around the world, which I think is a very bad trend for our economic future.

The third area is infrastructure. The National Science Foundation estimates there are roughly $10 billion of unfilled needs for science and engineering facilities at universities. Unfortunately, the system we have in Congress today to fund these needs is through random, uncoordinated earmarks to appropriations bills. This is totally unacceptable. We need a merit-oriented solution that involves a look at the merits of the request and the need, and also the commitment that State and local governments are willing to make to creating this infrastructure.

The fourth area is finance. We need public policies and strategies to expand the pool of risk capital for entrepreneurial investment.

A fifth strategy is public-private sector interactions. We need to fully fund the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. The administration's request that we zero-fund the Advanced Technology Program is totally wrongheaded, in my view, and clearly needs to be rejected by this Congress. We should have the Federal Government take a stronger role in supporting science parks and incubators around this country as well.

The final area I would mention is regulation and trade policy. We need to recognize the strategic importance of legal or regulatory structures to high-technology industries. We need to increase the efforts to protect intellectual property, to support fair competition regimes, to enforce legitimacy and transparency in the global market system, and to assure access by U.S. companies to these markets.

We need to spend some time better monitoring and being sure we are getting fair treatment under the trade agreements we have already entered into instead of rushing forward pellmell trying to find new agreements we can sign.

We need to focus on export promotion. There is way too little attention to export promotion.

We need to focus on assistance programs for those people who are displaced and those communities that are damaged by increased trade. The current administration and, unfortunately, the Congress in the last few years have not done what needed to be done in this area. We have no formal science and technology policy. The administration has undermanned and seemingly neglected the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

In previous remarks to the Senate, I have gone through a list of the proposed cuts by this administration to basic science and applied research in the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Agriculture Department, in the transportation sector, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the Advanced Technology Program in the Department of Commerce.

These include:

$660 million in cuts proposed for basic and applied research at the Department of Defense, the sort of research that has the greatest potential for dual use and effective spin-off to the civilian high- technology industries;

$63 million in cuts for energy conservation R&D at the Department of Energy;

$183 million in cuts for FY 2005 for agricultural research;

$24 million in cuts for transportation research; and

$68 million in cuts for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, a major supporter of basic physical sciences and engineering research-- we have 40 Democratic Senators and 15 Republicans on a letter asking for increased funding rather than cuts here--and;

total elimination of the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce, a loss of $171 million for new technologies that otherwise would have been enabled and brought to commercial reality. This is a highly successful program praised by the national academies and even the President's own budget language, cut for short- sighted ideological reasons.

For the sake of our future national competitiveness, we need to face up to the challenges and technological revolutions of the 21st century and ensure that the United States has an effective plan for taking them on. It would be my hope that the coming Presidential election will serve as an opportunity to reflect on the ineffective ways in which we are currently addressing these issues, and to put forth the case that we need a comprehensive change in our policies to ensure our future competitiveness.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, May 3, 2004]

U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences

(By William J. Broad)

The United States has started to lose its worldwide

dominance in critical areas of science and innovation,

according to federal and private experts who point to strong

evidence like prizes awarded to Americans and the number of

papers in major professional journals.

Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even

exceed America's, apparently with little public awareness of

the trend or its implications for jobs, industry, national

security or the vigor of the nation's intellectual and

cultural life.

``The rest of the world is catching up,'' said John E.

Jankowski, a senior analyst at the

National Science Foundation, the federal agency that tracks

science trends. ``Science excellence is no longer the domain

of just the U.S.''

Even analysts worried by the trend concede that an

expansion of the world's brain trust, with new approaches,

could invigorate the fight against disease, develop new

sources of energy had wrestle with knotty environmental

problems. But profits from the breakthroughs are likely to

stay overseas, and this country will face competition for

things like hiring scientific talent and getting space to

showcase its work in top journals.

One area of international competition involves patents.

Americans still win large numbers of them, but the percentage

is falling as foreigners, especially Asians, have become more

active and in some fields have seized the innovation lead.

The United States' share of its own industrial patents has

fallen steadily over the decades and now stands at 52

percent.

A more concrete decline can be seen in published research.

Physical Review, a series of top physics journals, recently

tracked a reversal in which American papers, in two decades,

fell from the most to a minority. Last year the total was

just 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983.

China, said Martin Blume, the journals' editor, has surged

ahead by submitting more than 1,000 papers a year. ``Other

scientific publishers are seeing the same kind of thing,'' he

added.

Another downturn centers on the Nobel Prizes, an icon of

scientific excellence. Traditionally, the United States,

powered by heavy federal investments in basic research, the

kind that pursue fundamental questions of nature, dominated

the awards.

But the American share, after peaking from the 1960's

through the 1990's, has fallen in the 2000's to about half,

51 percent. The rest went to Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany,

Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand.

``We are in a new world, and it's increasingly going to be

dominated by countries other than the United States,'' Denis

Simon, dean of management and technology at the Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute, recently said at a scientific

meeting in Washington.

Europe and Asia are ascendant, analysts say, even if their

achievements go unnoticed in the United States. In March, for

example, European scientists announced that one of their

planetary probes had detected methane in the atmosphere of

Mars--a possible sign that alien microbes live beneath the

planet's surface. The finding made headlines from Paris to

Melbourne. But most Americans, bombarded with images from

America's own rovers successfully exploring the red planet,

missed the foreign news.

More aggressively, Europe is seeking to dominate particle

physics by building the world's most powerful atom smasher,

set for its debut in 2007. Its circular tunnel is 17 miles

around.

Science analysts say Asia's push for excellence promises to

be even more challenging.

``It's unbelievable,'' Diana Hicks, chairwoman of the

school of public policy at the Georgia Institute of

Technology, said of Asia's growth in science and technical

innovation. ``It's amazing to see these output numbers of

papers and patents going up so fast.''

Analysts say comparative American declines are an

inevitable result of rising standards of living around the

globe.

``It's all in the ebb and flow of globalization,'' said

Jack Fritz, a senior officer at the National Academy of

Engineering, an advisory body to the federal government. He

called the declines ``the next big thing we will have to

adjust to.''

The rapidly changing American status has not gone unnoticed

by politicians, with Democrats on the attack and the White

House on the defensive.

``We stand at a pivotal moment,'' Tom Daschle, the Senate

Democratic leader, recently said at a policy forum in

Washington at the American Association for the Advancement of

Science, the nation's top general science group. ``For all

our past successes, there are disturbing signs that America's

dominant position in the scientific world is being shaken.''

Mr. Daschle accused the Bush administration of weakening

the nation's science base by failing to provide enough money

for cutting-edge research.

The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, who

attended the forum, strongly denied that charge, saying in an

interview that overall research budgets during the Bush

administration have soared to record highs and that the

science establishment is strong.

``The sky is not falling on science,'' Dr. Marburger said.

``Maybe there are some clouds--no, things that need

attention.'' Any problems, he added, are within the power of

the United States to deal with in a way that maintains the

vitality of the research enterprise.

Analysts say Mr. Daschle and Dr. Marburger can both supply

data that supports their positions.

A major question, they add, is whether big spending

automatically translates into big rewards, as it did in the

past. During the cold war, the government pumped more than $1

trillion into research, with a wealth of benefits including

lasers, longer life expectancies, men on the Moon and the

prestige of many Nobel Prizes.

Today, federal research budgets are still record highs;

this year more than $126 billion has been allocated to

research. Moreover, American industry makes extensive use of

federal research in producing its innovations and adds its

own vast sums of money, the combination dwarfing that of any

other nation or bloc.

But the edifice is less formidable than it seems, in part

because of the nation's costly and unique military role. This

year, financing for military research hit $66 billion, higher

in fixed dollars than in the cold war and far higher than in

any other country.

For all the spending, the United States began to experience

a number of scientific declines in the 1990's, boom years for

the nation's overall economy.

For instance, scientific papers by Americans peaked in 1992

and then fell roughly 10 percent, the National Science

Foundation reports. Why? Many analysts point to rising

foreign competition, as does the European Commission, which

also monitors global science trends. In a study last year,

the commission said Europe surpassed the United States in the

mid-1990's as the world's largest producer of scientific

literature.

Dr. Hicks of Georgia Tech said that American scientists,

when top journals reject their papers, usually have no idea

that rising foreign competition may be to blame.

On another front, the numbers of new doctorates in the

sciences peaked in 1998 and then fell 5 percent the next

year, a loss of more than 1,300 new scientists, according to

the foundation.

A minor exodus also hit one of the hidden strengths of

American science: vast ranks of bright foreigners. In a

significant shift of demographics, they began to leave in

what experts call a reverse brain drain. After peaking in the

mid-1990's, the number of doctoral students from China, India

and Taiwan with plans to stay in the United States began to

fall by the hundreds, according to the foundation.

These declines are important, analysts say, because new

scientific knowledge is an engine of the American Economy and

technical innovation, its influence evident in everything

from potent drugs to fast computer chips.

Patents are a main way that companies and inventors reap

commercial rewards from their ideas and stay competitive in

the marketplace while improving the lives of million.

Foreigners outside the United States are playing an

increasingly important role in these expressions of

industrial creativity. In a recent study, CHI Research, a

consulting firm in Haddon Height, N.J., found that

researchers in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea now account for

more than a quarter of all United States industrial patents

awarded each year, generating revenue for their own countries

and limiting it in the United States.

Moreover, their growth rates are rapid. Between 1980 and

2003, South Korea went from 0 to 2 percent of the total,

Taiwan from 0 to 3 percent and Japan from 12 to 21 percent.

``It's not just lots of patents,'' Francis Narin, CHI's

president, said of the Asian rise. ``It's lots of good

patents that have a high impact,'' as measured by how often

subsequent patents cite them.

Recently, Dr. Narin added, both Taiwan and Singapore surged

ahead of the United States in the overall number of

citations. Singapore's patents include ones in chemicals,

semiconductors, electronics and industrial tools.

China represents the next wave, experts agree, its

scientific rise still too fresh to show up in most statistics

but already apparent. Dr. Simon of Rensselaer said that about

400 foreign companies had recently set up research centers in

China, with General Electric, for instance, doing important

work there on medical scanners, which means fewer skilled

jobs in America.

Ross Armbrecht, president of the Industrial Research

Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington that represents

large American companies, said businesses were going to China

not just because of low costs but to take advantage of

China's growing scientific excellence.

``It's frightening,'' Dr. Armbrecht said. ``But you've got

to go where the horses are.'' An eventual danger, he added,

is the slow loss of intellectual property as local

professionals start their own businesses with what they have

learned from American companies.

For the United States, future trends look challenging,

many analysts say.

In a report last month, the American Association for the

Advancement of Science said the Bush administration, to live

up to its pledge to halve the nation's budget deficit in the

next five years, would cut research financing at 21 of 24

Federal agencies--all those that do or finance science except

those involved in space and national and domestic security.

More troubling to some experts is the likelihood of an

accelerating loss of quality scientists. Applications from

foreign graduate students to research universities are down

by a quarter, experts say, partly because of the Federal

government's tightening of visas after the 2001 terrorist

attacks.

Shirley Ann Jackson, president of the American Association

for the Advancement of Science, told the recent forum

audience that the drop in foreign students, the apparently

declining interest of young Americans in science careers and

the aging of the technical work force were, taken together, a

perilous combination of developments.

``Who,'' she asked, ``will do the science of this

millennium?''

Several private groups, including the Council on

Competitiveness, an organization

in Washington that seeks policies to promote industrial

vigor, have begun to agitate for wide debate and action.

``Many other countries have realized that science and

technology are key to economic growth and prosperity,'' said

Jennifer Bond, the council's vice president for international

affairs. ``They're catching up to us,'' she said, warning

Americans not to ``rest on our laurels.''

I am glad to yield.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his courtesy in reserving my opportunity to speak.

The pending business before the Senate is the Domenici amendment which has been offered to the Internet tax bill. I thought it would be useful to try to talk about that legislation and the substance of that legislation, at least to some extent this afternoon, before we get to a cloture vote tomorrow. This amendment, of course, is the Energy bill. For those who have not focused on it, this is the amendment I hold in my hand. It is 913 pages. It is called the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

Unfortunately, not a lot has changed since the beginning of the floor debate that we had in the Congress last May, or when we debated the energy conference report last November. We have before us proposed legislation that I believe does not command the broad public support that we need in order to have a national energy policy.

I would cite three categories of problems with the bill. First, I will talk about some of the objectionable provisions in the bill and give examples of concerns in that area. Second, I will talk about some meritorious provisions which the Senate has previously passed as part of the Energy bill that we acted upon in this Congress and in the previous Congress but which have been deleted from this bill, which I think is a mistake. Finally, I will talk about the legislative thicket that we would be wading into if in fact we invoked cloture on this amendment.

First, let me talk about this category of objectionable provisions that are contained in the Domenici amendment. There are fairly good provisions in the bill as well. Let me say that at the outset. Many of those are ones we have included in legislation previously passed in the Senate. I do not mean to imply that there are not good provisions in the bill. But let me start the list of examples of objectionable provisions by talking a little about electricity and the efforts that we made in the Senate regarding the regulation of electricity markets.

The new amendment substantially fails to protect electricity consumers from market manipulation, including most of the schemes that were used in California by Enron and other companies that were acting in the same way that Enron was. It makes illegal only one specific practice that was used by Enron, that is round-trip trading. It potentially leaves an inference that Congress does not view the other schemes as equally problematic.

The Senate voted last year, 57 to 40, for a broad ban on market manipulation. I strongly believe that was the right way for us to vote on this issue. I do not understand the rationale for ignoring a past strong Senate vote on this subject in an effort to prohibit market manipulation.

The amendment also contains a proposal to shift the cost of constructing new transmission from one set of parties in the electric utility industry to another. Trying to legislate rate design is probably never a good idea. In the form of so-called participant funding that is contained in this amendment, it is particularly egregious. Its effect would be to create a huge disincentive for the construction of new transmission by corporations that are not already in a substantial monopoly position in a given region.

Why should we want to cut down on the number of companies interested in building generation and transmission? I fear that is what this amendment, as it currently stands, would do. The new amendment repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act. It does so, however, without any other provisions being added to ensure that electric or gas mergers or acquisitions had to be in the public interest, without any real protection for the ability of State public utility commissions to protect consumers against cross-subsidization or other abuses.

If there were such protections, it would be my inclination to support the repeal of PUHCA, and I have supported the repeal of PUHCA in the past. But I think a world of untrammeled mergers of electric utility companies is going to turn out to be bad for electricity consumers.

The amendment also overreaches, in my view, in the response to the standard market design rulemaking. It basically throws into question the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority to issue rules of general applicability that are other than the standard market design rule. If we have another price crisis in this country as we have in California, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will be unable to intervene as it ultimately did in California and in the West. Since standard market design is, for all practical purposes, a dead issue at this point, I do not see why we are still trying to address it in the clumsy way it is addressed in the amendment.

Let me move on from electricity and the whole issue of oil and gas.

With respect to the dependence on foreign oil, the bill has some problematic provisions, both on the efficiency side and on the supply side. One provision in the amendment would increase U.S. gasoline demand over the current law by 11 billion gallons by 2020. Given today's prices at the pump, that would seem to me to be a step in the wrong direction.

With respect to oil and gas production, the bill mixes up the worthy goal of getting more energy development on Indian lands with provisions that weaken the National Environmental Policy Act process--the NEPA process--with the change in the trust relationship between Indian tribes and the Department of the Interior. The trust relationship has nothing to do with energy, and the change contemplated by this bill is vigorously opposed by several Indian tribes. I do not know why it needs to be included in this amendment either.

The new amendment adds some other new provisions related to the oil and gas industry that, in my view, are likely to backfire when they actually get implemented. The first of these provides the cost of NEPA analyses can be pushed off on oil and gas producers to be recovered by them at some future date from their royalty stream to the government, if one ever develops from the lease for which the NEPA work was done. This is essentially a mandate that producers give the Federal Government the equivalent of an interest-free loan with the producers paying for something they thought they had already paid for through their taxes.

If this amendment were to become law, there would be much greater pressure to let producers bear the entire cost of preparing the Government's NEPA documents with a theoretical cost recovery by them at some point in the future. I do not think this is good public policy.

A second provision that could backfire is the very detailed micromanagement of the permit approval process in the Government with extremely tight deadlines like a 10-day deadline for agency action. This is likely to result in a great deal of paperwork to explain why the 10-day limit was exceeded for such permits, and the effort spent on generating all of the defensive paperwork will probably come at the expense of actually getting permits done.

What we need and what I have strongly supported is getting more resources into the field offices of the Department of the Interior to eliminate the backlogs that are there at the present time. That is what we should be focused on--not on micromanaging the bureaucratic process.

With respect to coal, the new amendment waters down the Clean Coal Technology Program in some very important ways. It lowers the fraction of funds in the program that needs to be spent on the cleanest technologies from what we have previously agreed to here in the Senate. It also sets up a brand new competing program to the Clean Coal Technology Program. Under that program, the Federal Government will contribute up to $1.8 billion to the utility industry to help foot the bill for off-the-shelf coal and pollution control technology for existing coal plants. I don't see how this subsidy makes sense from the point of view of energy, or the environment, or our budget situation.

With respect to renewables, the new amendment authorizes grants to burn biomass for energy, but then it fails to protect old-growth forests. Under the amendment, old-growth forests could be cut down with Federal grants for use as an energy source. I think that is objectionable. An imperative for Federal energy policy legislation has to be to recognize the ways in which energy use and energy policy is intertwined with the environment.

In this area, the amendment we have before us has some major failures. If enacted, it would be the first statute in years to substantially roll back environmental protections for our citizens and those rollbacks have nothing to do with improving our energy security.

For example, the amendment loosens ozone attainment standards nationwide. To its credit, EPA in the last few weeks has taken definitive steps in the opposite direction; that is, for tough standards for ozone control. I don't know why we should vote in the Senate to undercut the progress the EPA is making. Further changing ozone standards is a topic that has never received Senate consideration in the past on any energy bill.

The particular provision I am describing here materialized for the first time in one of last year's closed-door conference discussions.

The conference report also exempts oil and gas construction sites from the Clean Water Act, even large sites that have been under regulation for years. It contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with a thoughtful environmental review process under NEPA.

I could go on at some length here pointing out problems in the bill.

I have a letter I received today from Trout Unlimited and various Indian tribes in the Northwest and other outdoor sportsmen's groups--41 groups in total--that talks about problems they see with the hydroelectric provisions in this amendment. It is a letter sent to all Senators and I am sure all Senators have received it.

They say:

We urge you to oppose cloture on the amendment and support

amendments to fix or eliminate the hydro provisions from the

energy bill.

They also go on to say:

At this point, the adoption of the hydropower title would

significantly complicate the implementation of these new

rules and would lengthen the licensing process.

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

Madam President, these are some of the many problems contained in the pending amendment. I am sure colleagues will come to the floor and mention others they particularly are focused on.

Let me talk about the second class of problems which consists of the good and needed energy policy provisions the amendment leaves out, even though those in most cases I am going to discuss are ones we in the Senate have passed as part of the Energy bill we sent to conference.

First of all, the amendment steps backward from the old conference report that was brought to the Senate last fall in one important area; that is, in renewing the Federal Government's ability to enter into emergency savings performance contracts. This is one of the Federal Government's primary tools for improving energy efficiency in Federal facilities. I don't know why we would not want to include that in any energy bill we passed here in the Senate. We have included it in the bills we have passed previously.

Second, the new amendment lacks something that enjoys majority support in the Senate; that is, a renewable portfolio standard for electricity.

Along with the tax incentives in the FSC/ETI bill, this measure is essential, in my view, in order to give new certainty to the fledgling market to allow economies of scale to drive down costs and improve manufacturing capacity for renewable energy equipment in the United States.

The Energy Information Agency agrees with this analysis. They have come up with their own analysis that shows this renewable portfolio standard is effective in getting more renewables into the market beyond what tax incentives would do. That would relieve some of the pressure on national gas prices over the long term.

Another problem that is unaddressed in the bill deals with distributed generation such as combined heat and power at industrial facilities. The amendment does not address the barriers that have been erected to uniform interconnection of distributed generation to the grid. It is not enough to have the technology; we need to rid ourselves of the redtape that is keeping the technology from being used. The amendment, unfortunately, does not do that.

With respect to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the new amendment leaves out another important proposal that has overwhelming support in the Senate. That would be the innovative amendment offered last year by Senator Landrieu to promote oil savings economy-wide. That amendment passed this body 99-1 as part of our debate of an energy bill. Again, I see no reason why that should not be included if we are going to, in fact, pass an energy bill.

The new amendment also entirely ducks the important issue of climate change. Climate change is closely related to energy policy because the two most prominent greenhouse gases--that is, carbon dioxide and methane--are largely released due to energy production in use. Every study of how to mitigate the possibility of global climate change comes up with a list of policy measures which relies heavily on increased energy efficiency and new energy production technologies with lower greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this connection, much of the energy policy and much of the climate change policy has to be discussed together. To do one is, by implication, to do the other; to ignore one while doing the other is to risk unfortunate and unintended consequences.

The Senate has previously passed energy bills with numerous provisions to ensure that we integrate climate change strategy with energy policy, develop better climate change science, and that we focus on breakthrough technologies with better environmental performance, and the United States takes the lead in exporting the clean energy technologies we develop. These provisions do not receive even the slightest consideration or mention in the amendment that has been put forward. Leaving climate change out of the energy legislation is a very shortsighted approach, both in terms of energy policy and in terms of our overall relations with the rest of the world.

Finally, let me talk about this third major problem, and that is the way we are being asked to go about legislating on energy with this cloture vote on this amendment added to the Internet tax bill. This has to do with the fact that all of the above problems are encompassed in the 913-page amendment. Because it is a second-degree amendment, all 913 pages are, at the moment, unamendable. It is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for the Senate at this point.

Let us suppose a cloture is invoked on this second-degree amendment and it was then adopted to the first-degree Daschle amendment. At that point, Senators who wish to change language currently contained within the Domenici amendment could only do so by offering a complete substitute amendment for the whole 913-page amendment. Senators who wish to add new subject matter, not seeking to change what is currently in the Domenici amendment, would do so by offering amendments that would be added onto the end of the amendment. But whenever the first substitute amendment fixing a problem within the Domenici amendment was adopted, no further amendments to the amended Daschle amendment would be in order.

To have further amendment opportunities, Senators would then have to agree to adopt the Daschle amendment to the underlying text of S. 150. At that point, Senators with new ideas could still add new amendments addressing those new ideas but--and this is significant--Senators who still want to address problems remaining in the text would have to write so-called ``bigger bite'' amendments.

As an example of what I am talking about, a Senator wishing to change something on page 600 of this 913-page amendment would have to write an amendment containing part of S. 150 and the first 599 pages of the Domenici amendment, and then the Senator would have to make sure the amendment made substantive changes both to the text of S. 150 and to the Domenici amendment. Successful amendments of this sort could take bigger bites that would unwittingly screen out other such amendments other Senators might want to offer.

If this sounds convoluted as a way to do business in the Senate, that is because it is. If anyone wants to stand up and say this amendment would be fully amendable even if we invoke cloture tomorrow, I guess there is some technical argument to the effect that is true, but the reality is, all Senators with interests in changing specific problems in this 913 pages would find themselves at a considerable and perhaps overwhelming disadvantage compared to the normal way we go about amending bills in the Senate.

So for both substantive and procedural reasons, I think proceeding to invoke cloture on the Domenici amendment is not the best course of action for the Senate. I believe we have better options for enacting energy issues in this Congress than this convoluted amendment situation. Those options would be to take the most pressing energy needs and promising energy opportunities and act directly on those without getting mired in the many controversies that are contained in this amendment.

The Senate has already made a start in that direction. Over the past few months, the Senate has incorporated both large chunks and smaller pieces of the energy conference report into other legislation it has either passed or hopefully is going to pass. The prime example, of course, is the unanimous agreement to incorporate the Senate's bipartisan energy tax package into the FSC/ETI bill. We have also acted separately on LIHEAP reauthorization, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program reauthorization, putting that in a separate bill, S. 1786, which passed the Senate on February 12. Other sections of the Energy bill were put into the highway bill, which has also passed the Senate.

I have pointed out for some time now that there are a number of additional provisions from the conference report that have broad bipartisan support that we could act on. Instead of mixing them with the Internet tax bill, we ought to separate them and pass them individually.

One such provision, of course, is the legislation related to electricity reliability. Congress has been working on this over three Congresses now. Senator Cantwell has proposed freestanding legislation and has come to the Senate floor twice now and asked unanimous consent to pass this bill. Her requests have been denied. I urge my colleagues to let this bipartisan bill pass. There is no reason why this much needed provision should be held hostage to more controversial energy provisions.

Another noncontroversial energy provision is related to the Alaska gas pipeline. The needed fiscal incentives to build the pipeline are now in the FSC/ETI bill. That is a great development. Why can't we go ahead and pass the provisions to streamline the regulatory approvals for the pipeline by unanimous consent? I am not aware of anyone in the Senate who objects to doing that.

A third example where the Senate could act very easily, in my view, would be to renew the authority for energy savings performance contracts. This is an important energy matter that has broad bipartisan support. I pointed that out. As I have also pointed out, it has been totally deleted from this amendment.

I could go on and point to other provisions related to the oil and gas industry, to energy efficiency, to research and development, and to other topics that are probably also easy enough to pass on a bipartisan basis. It does not make sense to take the position that we cannot do any single thing related to energy unless we tie it to the resolution of every other controversial issue in energy policy. In my view, that is counterproductive.

I hope my colleagues will agree with me that the current amendment before the Senate is not the path we should take to move forward.

I think there has been too much partisanship on energy in this Congress. In my view, that is unfortunate. Taking an especially partisan approach to formulating the policy has not been a recipe for success. I hope the Senate will not proceed forward with this amendment and will proceed forward with the underlying Internet tax bill. I do not believe this amendment provides the right balance between energy supply, energy efficiency, and the protection of the environment. We can do better for this Nation by passing the sensible energy provisions that are broadly supported in this body, and passing them soon.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Tribal Nations and River Conservationists Call on the Senate To Oppose Cloture on Senator Domenici's Second Degree Amendment To Add the Energy Bill (S. 2095) to the Internet Tax Bill--Provisions Harmful to Rivers

and Fish Must Be Fixed or Eliminated in the Energy Bill

April 28, 2004.

Dear Senator: Last year, the conference committee agreed to

profound changes to the Federal Power Act contained in the

proposed hydropower title of the Energy Bill. These changes

turn 80 years of law on its head by significantly changing

Sections 33(b), 4(e), and 18 of the Federal Power Act. Under

the new statute, States, Tribes and interested citizens

would, for the first time, be afforded inferior status in the

process for establishing fish passage and other public land

protections on hydropower licenses. Today, Senator Domenici

is trying to add the Energy bill, S. 2095, containing these

provisions to the Internet Tax Bill. We urge you to oppose

cloture on his amendment, and support amendments to fix or

eliminate the hydro provisions from the Energy bill.

Under these provisions, a given license applicant would

offer alternative conditions contrary to what the Secretaries

of the Interior, Commerce, or Agriculture may have

recommended, and provide them with an unfair and exclusive

opportunity to specify the level of protection for public

lands (including Indian lands) or implementation of fish

passage. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this language

is the establishment of a new administrative appeals process

in the form of a ``trial-type'' hearing. Both this new

``hearing'' and the right to require the agencies to accept

alternative conditions are available only to dam owners.

Other interests already full parties to FERC proceedings,

including states, tribes, irrigators, landholders, and

environmental are prohibited from gaining party status in

this process. To suggest that State and Tribal governments or

local citizens should not be able to exercise their role as

full parties to hydro licensing when hydropower dam operators

proposed alternatives that could damage fisheries and public

lands is nothing less than an attack on basic democratic

principles.

Today, there is even less reason to adopt the language from

last year's conference. On July 23, 2003, FERC finalized new

rules that establish a new licensing process--Integrated

Licensing--designed collaboratively by industry, FERC, State

and Tribal governments and the public interest community. See

``Hydroelectric Licensing Under the Federal Power Act; Final

Rule,'' 68 Fed. Reg. 51069-51143 (August 25, 2003). This new

process specifically addresses the longstanding concerns that

inadequate interagency coordination has resulted in delays

and unnecessary costs in licensing decisions. Under this

process, licensees along with the other parties are provided

with opportunities to work collaboratively with the

conditioning agencies on the development of public land

protections and fishways in FERC licensing. The process will

run on a strict clock to assure a relicensing decision before

expiration of an original license, as the hydropower industry

requested. The rules also require FERC to conduct

consultation with tribes affected by the licensing. At this

point, the adoption of hydropower title would significantly

complicate the implementation of these new rules (for

example, by requiring Commerce, Agriculture and Interior to

undertake their own further rulemakings), and would lengthen

the licensing process. Without question, they will add a new

layer of red tape to a process that has not even been given a

chance to work.

Yesterday, amendment was offered to the Internet tax

legislation on the Senate floor that includes the Hydropower

Title. We ask you to vote ``no'' on cloture for Senator

Domenici's amendment. We also ask you to oppose any efforts

to attach or otherwise pass the hydropower title and its

provisions that are so contrary to the interests of State and

Tribal governments and local citizens. Let's give these new

FERC regulations an opportunity to work.

We thank you for your continued leadership on this issue to

ensure that our nation's rivers remain a public resource for

all to use and enjoy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Capacity to Learn for All Students and Schools (CLASS) Act of 2004, along with Senators Kennedy and Reed, to ensure that all of our students receive the high quality of instruction they need and deserve. We know that teacher quality is the single most important factor in determining the success of our school children. Children who consistently have access to good teachers are more likely to do well academically; those who do not are more likely to fall behind.

As the son of two former teachers, I am well aware of the satisfactions and challenges that accompany a career in teaching. I have been a long-time and strong supporter of our devoted teachers and our public schools. Over the years, I have visited many schools throughout my home State of New Mexico and spoken with countless students and teachers. I frequently have witnessed the dedication of our teachers in preparing young people to lead meaningful and productive adult lives.

So many of us can look back on our own student years and recall a special teacher whose passion for learning ignited a similar passion in us, whose high standards caused us to set higher standards for ourselves, and whose commitment to education provided a model for our own lives. We need to ensure that all children have access to such special teachers. Many other Senators share my interest in this issue, including my colleagues on the HELP Committee. In fact, I am pleased to be introducing this bill along with the Senior Senator from Rhode Island. Senator Reed's PRREP Act is a great complement to the CLASS Act, and I look forward to working with him and other members of the Committee as we proceed toward reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

The current act authorizes three types of competitively awarded grants: State Grants, Partnership Grants, and Recruitment Grants. The CLASS Act significantly increases funding for these programs, strengthens the provisions of the current law, and expands the learning and teaching capacity of students, teachers, and schools. I want to mention some of our critical educational needs and explain how the CLASS Act addresses those needs.

First, we need to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified, have strong teaching skills, understand scientifically based research and its applicability, and can use technology effectively in the classroom. The preparation afforded prospective teachers must enable them to meet the varied needs of our nation's students, of our schools and institutions of higher education, and of our competitive workforce.

The CLASS Act will address this need in a number of ways. For example, the CLASS Act establishes Academic Teaching Centers (ATCs). The ATCs provide a setting--a model teaching laboratory--for the integration of education and training, research, and evidence-based practice for teacher candidates, university professors, and master teachers. Modeled on academic health centers, ATCs offer prospective teachers with a system of practice-based support at initial levels of preparation, training during the first years of practice, and continued support in maintaining high levels of skill mastery. The ATC provides a clinical setting with an education and research mission, mentorship by expert practitioners, cross-pollination between practice and research, and high-quality services for its K-12 students.

The CLASS Act also authorizes a Professional Development Program (PDP) that encourages states to pursue alignment with National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a tiered licensure system, multiple career paths, and opportunities for professional growth. The PDP will improve teacher recruitment and retention by increasing the attractiveness of a teaching career, encouraging teachers to enhance their competencies and skills, and reinforcing their efforts to advance in their profession. The CLASS Act also encourages clinical, field, induction, mentoring, and other professional development experiences.

Further, the CLASS Act requires rigorous standards for teacher certification or licensure designed to enhance teacher quality and to ensure that all prospective teachers meet the same high State standards. The act also expands programs that prepare prospective teachers to use advanced technology.

Second, we need to empower teachers and schools to provide access for all students to a high-quality general education curriculum, including minorities, students in high-need schools, and students with disabilities and limited-English proficiency. Our teachers need to be able to provide effective instruction to diverse student populations and to address special learning needs. We also need to recruit new teachers from underrepresented groups and to increase access to certification or licensure for other qualified individuals.

The CLASS Act will address this need by creating Centers of Excellence. The Centers of Excellence will increase minority teacher and principal recruitment, development, and retention. The act will also prepare teachers to provide access to the general education curriculum for all students, including students with disabilities and limited-English proficiency.

Third, we need to enhance the ability of schools, districts, and states to collect, analyze, and utilize data to improve schools and programs and to fulfill the requirements of No Child Left Behind and the Higher Education Act. Good data and data systems are the bedrock on which accountability is built. Yet present data and data systems are too often inadequate to meet the needs of our schools, districts, states, and nation. For example, in 2003 the General Accounting Office reported that states did not have complete or consistent criteria to determine the number of highly qualified teachers and that state data systems did not track the federal criteria.

The CLASS Act will address this need by strengthening accountability through improved assessment procedures that are valid and reliable, are aligned with reporting requirements, and allow for accurate and consistent reporting. The CLASS Act will also require a State-level needs assessment for Teacher Enhancement Grants to identify areas of greatest need and to specify a timetable for meeting identified needs. The needs assessment will assist States to identify teacher production needs in high-need academic subjects, such as mathematics and science; in high-need services, such as special education, bilingual education, and early childhood education; in high-need rural and urban areas; and in high-poverty, high-minority, and low-performing schools.

Further, the CLASS Act will create data systems designed to improve public education, including enhancing teacher preparation programs. State educational agencies can apply for new Data Systems Grants that enable them to develop or expand data systems that have the capacity to integrate and coordinate individual student data from educational and employment settings; to conduct analyses necessary for evaluating programs and policies and identifying best practices; and to facilitate alignment among schools, institutions of higher education, and employment settings. These data systems also allow teacher preparation programs to follow graduates as they proceed toward certification or licensure and into the classroom.

Fourth, we need to improve teacher recruitment and retention. Each year, more of the nation's teachers leave the field than enter the profession. In fact, approximately one-third of teachers leave the field during their first 3 years, and almost half leave during their first 5 years. Moreover, the overall turnover rate for teachers in high-poverty areas is almost a third higher than the rate for all teachers. Some of our schools, such as the rural schools in New Mexico, face unique challenges in recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers. These challenges include low salaries, geographic and social isolation, housing shortages, poor physical working conditions, a paucity of teacher preparation programs targeted to rural schools, limited opportunities for professional development, and the necessity for teachers to teach more than one grade or subject.

The CLASS Act will address this need in the following ways. Among other initiatives, the act will fund a wide range of teacher recruitment and retention strategies designed to put--and keep--highly qualified teachers in every classroom, including induction

and mentoring for beginning teachers and ongoing opportunities for professional growth and advancement.

Importantly, the CLASS Act will also create the Rural Education Recruitment and Retention Program to address the needs of rural districts by funding a range of recruitment strategies, such as tuition assistance, loan forgiveness, housing assistance, and financial incentives for working in areas of greatest need; as well as retention strategies, such as mentoring programs and ongoing opportunities for professional growth and advancement. In addition, the act encourages partnerships designed to meet the needs of rural schools.

Fifth, we need to better prepare students for postsecondary education and a competitive workforce. According to recent data, a majority of college professors and employers rate high school graduates' skills in spelling, grammar, writing, and math as only fair or poor. Too many students leave high school ill-prepared to meet the requirements of postsecondary education or the demands of high-skilled, high-wage employment. Half of all students entering higher education take at least one remedial course, and, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, employers frequently report difficulty in finding qualified workers who have satisfactory skills. High school graduation requirements are often not aligned with the requirements governing college admission, obtaining a job, or enrolling in credit-bearing courses once in college. High school curricula and assessments often stress different knowledge and skills than are required by college entrance and placement requirements.

The CLASS Act will address this need by creating the data systems described above that are designed to improve public education and to facilitate alignment among schools, institutions of higher education, and employment settings. These systems will have the capacity to integrate and coordinate individual student data from educational and employment settings. The CLASS Act will also support programs that provide special certification in advanced placement (AP)-level or international baccalaureate (IB)-level content and pedagogy.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am very pleased to introduce a bill designed to ensure that all of our students are taught by highly qualified and effective teachers. No task is more important.

Each child who falls behind diminishes the power of our society's future. I hope you will all join me in reinforcing our national commitment to teacher preparation and teacher quality.

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

Mr. President, I have three subjects I intend to address today. Let me address the first and the most sad of those. That is, of course, the enormous price that many families are paying as part of the current engagement that we are in in Iraq.

pfc christopher ramos

General Robert E. Lee was once quoted as saying:

Duty, then, is the sublimest word in the English language.

You should do your duty at all times. You can never do more.

You should never wish to do less.

On Monday, April 5, just 3 days ago, PFC Christopher Ramos, age 26, did his duty with the First Marine Division. He lost his life in action against Iraqi insurgents in Al Anbar Province in Iraq. Christopher Ramos was from Albuquerque, NM. While at West Mesa High School, he dreamed about serving his country as a U.S. marine. Private Ramos' father, Al Ramos, said of his son Christopher:

He was proud of what he was doing. He wanted to be a

Marine. He said it was either the Marines or nothing.

Today, it is important that we in the Senate honor his memory and service, and the service of so many other brave young men and women who have answered the call to duty and have made the ultimate sacrifice for their Nation. It is equally important that we keep the families of those individuals in mind and in our prayers.

Private First Class Ramos leaves behind a wife, Diana Ramos, and an 18-month-old daughter, Malaya.

army sgt lee duane

In addition to that terrible news, the Four Corners area, which includes my State of New Mexico, also lost another fine young man in the last few days, Army SGT Lee Duane Todacheene, who was from Lukachukai, AZ, and was the nephew of the vice president of the Navajo Nation, Frank Dayish, Jr. This young man, Sergeant Todacheene, was killed in an Iraqi ambush, according to the Navajo Nation. We extend our sympathies to his family as well.

marine lt erasmo valles

Finally, last week Marine LT Erasmo Valles of Hobbs, NM, was severely injured in an attack in Falluja when his Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. He is being treated at Bethesda Naval Hospital and we wish him a speedy and a full recovery.

These brave soldiers were put in harm's way by their country, and their sacrifice needs to be noted by all of us. Just as we celebrate the safe return of many, we need to acknowledge and mourn those who are not going to return. I regret that PFC Christopher Ramos and other brave marines and soldiers have lost their lives in this endeavor, and our sympathies go out to their families.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, let me move to another subject and express some words about the pension bill that is pending before us.

I intend to support this bill, but I say that with substantial reservations because of the process, once again, that was followed in getting this bill to the Senate floor--the partisan way in which it was handled. I also say it because of what wound up in this pension bill that was not intended to be there. There were things that were left out, and many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently about those. The multiemployer plans were not treated fairly, as they should have been and as I believe most Senators would want them to be, but also there were provisions included in this bill--at least one provision that I think is highly objectionable.

Section 207 of the conference report creates an antitrust exemption for the graduate medical residency program that currently assigns medical students to hospitals where they are required to work for 60 to 100 hours per week for an average of $9 or $10 an hour. To people who are not familiar with the way this place functions in recent years, they would be surprised to find that we have written into the pension bill a retroactive exemption from the antitrust laws related to this issue of medical residency programs. I understand there is currently a lawsuit pending before Judge Paul Friedman in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia brought by medical residents that alleges a price-fixing scheme among graduate medical education programs in the United States.

On February 11 of this year, Judge Friedman issued an opinion that denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. In his opinion, the judge explained that the lawsuit involves one claim--that the defendant graduate medical education programs engaged in price fixing.

Subsection (b)(3) of section 207 explicitly preserves the right to bring an antitrust lawsuit alleging any type of price-fixing arrangement among two or more graduate medical education programs. Clearly this subsection ensures that the antitrust exemption that is described in subsection (b)(2) does not apply to this pending lawsuit.

The last sentence in subsection (b)(2) states that evidence of participation in a graduate medical education residency matching program shall not be admissible in Federal court to support a claim alleging antitrust violations.

However, subsection (b)(3) clearly states that:

``Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt from

the antitrust laws'' any agreement on the part of graduate

medical education programs to fix prices.

Obviously, the restrictions on the admissibility of certain evidence in subsection (b)(2) cannot apply to price-fixing lawsuits that are explicitly preserved in subsection (b)(3). The provision says ``nothing'' in this section shall provide exemptions from price-fixing claims. Therefore, any provision that would not allow necessary evidence to be admitted in price-fixing cases must not apply and could not be construed to apply.

That being said, the antitrust exemption that is established by subsection (b)(2) raises grave constitutional concerns. There has been no justification presented to this Congress, to any committee of this Congress for depriving medical residents of the same protections under the antitrust laws that are enjoyed by other workers and other Americans. I do not see how it is constitutionally permissible to take away the equal protection and the due process rights of medical residents without any showing that is necessary or beneficial.

Frankly, this is outrageous for Congress to be legislating in this way, without any hearings, without any testimony, without any knowledge of what it is doing.

The reason we have debate on the Senate floor is to allow Members to express views when we are getting ready to change the law. This is a time-honored process. It is one that was not honored in this case. As far as I know, there has been no debate on the floor nor has there been debate in committee about this issue.

I spoke to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over our antitrust laws, and asked if he was informed about this provision being included in the pension bill. He said he had not been informed. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was not informed either.

This is a provision that was added in a conference, without participation of Democratic Senators, and clearly it is contrary to good policy and to proper procedure here in the Senate.

Let me conclude by having printed in the Record a letter that Senator Craig, Senator Feingold, Senator Herb Kohl and I all wrote to our majority leader, Bill Frist, and to the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, last November, expressing our concern about this exact type of legislative proposal and stating our strong objection to the inclusion of this kind of provision in legislation at that time or any time in the future. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

In November of 1965, a disturbance on the electric grid resulted in the loss power to some 30 million people in the Northeastern U.S. Almost all of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey were blacked out for up to 13 hours.

In July of 1977, power lightening caused the loss of power to 9 million people in New York city and surrounding areas.

In December of 1982, high winds caused the failure of a transmission tower. Power was lost to 5 million people.

In July of 1996, power was lost to 2 million customers in 14 States in the West, 2 Canadian provinces and 1 Mexican state. The outage was the immediate result of a line sagging into a tree.

In August of 1996, again as the result of contact with trees, another outage affected 7.5 million people in 14 Western States, 2 Canadian provinces and 1 Mexican state.

In August of last year 50 million people in 8 Northeastern and Midwestern States and 3 Canadian provinces were blacked out for up to 4 days.

These were only a few of the major outages that have rendered parts of our Nation powerless over the last few years. The most dramatic outage ever was only last summer. I don't have to tell the Members of this body how serious the effects on the economies of these regions were. We all saw it. Airports were shut down for days. Traffic was snarled for hours. Businesses were closed, schools shut down. The estimates of losses were in the tens of billions of dollars.

After the first big blackout, in 1965, the industry, under pressure from the government, created a voluntary association to try to govern the reliability of the system. That association became the North American Electric Reliability Council or NERC.

After the West Coast blackout in 1996, the Department of Energy put together a task force on reliability headed by former Congressman Phil Sharp. That task force made a number of recommendations. Chief among them was that Congress should pass legislation creating a mandatory structure for reliability, with penalties for failure to comply with the rules, and with government oversight.

In 1999, the Senate unanimously passed a bill sponsored by Senator Slade Gorton of Washington, that did just that. The House did not pass such a bill and no final action was taken.

After this most recent blackout, the Department of Energy, along with the Canadian Government, convened a task force to look at the causes of the outage and to make recommendations as to how to prevent future blackouts. That task force issued its final report Monday. There are a number of recommendations contained in that report, but the one that this body most needs to pay attention to is the recommendation that the Congress pass legislation to create a mandatory system for ensuring reliability, with penalties for failure to comply with the rules, and with government oversight. The report says: ``The U.S. Congress should enact reliability legislation no less stringent than the provisions now included in the pending comprehensive energy bills, HR. 6 and S. 2095.''

The bill that is before contains those very provisions.

I don't think that anybody in the Senate believes that we should not pass this legislation. The only question is in what form. This bill is the same as the language contained in S. 2095, Senator Domenici's more comprehensive energy bill. I am not optimistic that the larger bill will pass the Senate, or if it does, survive a conference with the House to make it to the President's desk.

Again and again this country has experienced crippling blackouts. Again and again investigating panels have recommended that the Congress pass legislation to establish a mandatory regime for governance of reliability, with penalties for failure to comply with the rules and with government oversight. Again and again, the Congress has failed to do so.

It is time for us to pass this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that several articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the extension of the temporary extended unemployment compensation program, which expires today. I support this effort because, in my view, we still face an extremely serious problem of unemployment in the United States, specifically as it relates to the number of workers who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and are still unable to find work.

The Democrats have tried to extend this program through unanimous consent at least a dozen times this winter and the effort has been rejected by Republican leadership every time. We tried in February of this year. We tried in January of this year. And we tried a number of times in November 2003. Each time the other side of the aisle said the program was no longer needed. Even worse, they said that extension of the program would only give incentives to workers to stay home instead of look for work. This is a very different view of American workers than I have.

According to the latest data from the Department of Labor, between December and February there will be at least 781,000 workers that will have exhausted their regular State benefits and will go without additional Federal unemployment assistance. Based on extrapolations from that analysis, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities argues that with each week that goes by, another 80,000 workers will be added to this list. In no other comparable data on record has there been this many ``exhaustees.''

In my State of New Mexico, it is estimated that 4,300 workers have exhausted their benefits from December 2003 through March 2004. Through September 2004, it is estimated that 7,200 workers will have exhausted their benefits. In a State where the most recent unemployment rate is 5.7 percent and jobs are very difficult to come by, this is hardly an encouraging figure.

The Bush administration has argued that extension of the TEUC program is not necessary because the unemployment rate is low and the economy is growing. They suggested again and again that we are on the verge of an economic recovery and jobs are being created. I respectfully disagree.

In 2001, the Bush administration claimed that their tax cuts would create at least 800,000 jobs by 2002. That did not happen. In 2002, the Bush administration claimed that 3 million jobs would be created in 2003. That did not happen. In February, the Bush administration claimed in their economic report that 2.6 million jobs will be created in 2004, but everyone in the administration quickly backed away from that number. No one truly believes that this will happen.

Given the lack of coherent or comprehensive policy proposals by the administration, I say it is time we in Congress act to address job creation and help the victims of their failed policies. Extending the temporary emergency unemployment compensation program is, in my view, the least we can do for Americans that have been attempting to find work but cannot do so. As a practical matter, this means workers can continue to get unemployment insurance benefits while they continue to search for work.

So I want to add my voice to the others today and say that we must pass this legislation before it expires. American workers deserve to be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner, especially in this time of need. They need a lifeline, and it is up to us to provide it.

Mr. President, in conjunction with Senator Smith, I am introducing the ``Children's Vaccine Access Act of 2004.'' This legislation makes three changes to the Vaccines for Children program with the intent of expanding access and the delivery of vaccines to our Nation's children. This legislation is supported by the Administration and included in the Administration's budget as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.

First, the legislation expands access to the Vaccines for Children, or VFC, program for children whose private health insurance does not cover immunizations by allowing children to receive their VFC vaccines at State and local public health clinics. Currently, underinsured children must go to specially designated Federal Qualified Health Centers or rural health centers to receive VFC vaccines. Consequently, our bill expands the number of access points at which children can get the vaccines they need.

According to the CDC, there are approximately 3,000 Federally Qualified Health Centers enrolled in VFC, compared with approximately 7,000 health department clinics. As the CDC notes, ``Increasing access points for VFC eligible underinsured children will allow those who may have been previously denied immunizations at public health clinics to be vaccinated with the full series of routinely administered vaccines.''

Second, the bill seeks to restore the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines to the VFC program by lifting the 1993 price caps that were in use prior to enactment of the VFC program. The price caps are so low that, for example, the tetanus booster vaccine was unfortunately dropped from VFC coverage when no vaccine manufacturer would bid on the contract at the 1993-imposed price cap levels.

CDC estimates that over 200,000 additional children would be served through VFC with these two changes.

And finally, the bill includes new authorizing language to allow the CDC to sell the VFC purchased stockpile vaccines to its grantees or back to manufacturers for use in the private sector in the event that the stockpiled vaccines are needed by non VFC-eligible children.

Immunizations are critical to both children's health and the public health care system. The VFC program began on October 1, 1994, to improve vaccine availability to children nationwide by providing vaccines free-of-charge to Medicaid-eligible, uninsured, underinsured, American Indian, or Alaska Native children through both public and private providers. The VFC program automatically covers vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, and approved by the CDC.

VFC has had an enormous impact on improving the immunization rates among our Nation's children. According to the Children's Defense Fund, ``Between 1993 and 1999, there was nearly a 20 percent increase in the number of fully immunized two year-olds.''

However, the goal of achieving a 90 percent immunization coverage rate, with the complete series of recommended vaccines, has still not been achieved. According to the National Immunization Survey (NIS), the nationwide vaccination coverage levels

among children 19-35 months of age for the 4:3:1:3:3 series of childhood immunizations was 74.8 percent in 2002. Unfortunately, the immunization rate in New Mexico was just 64.6 percent in 2002 and second worst in the Nation to only Colorado. To address that problem, in December 2001, I requested the CDC to work with the State of New Mexico on improving its immunization rate and a number of positive developments have taken place, including the creation of an Immunization Task Force at the state level and the passage of legislation to create an immunization registry by the New Mexico Legislature this past month.

It is my belief that the strides the Nation and New Mexico continue to make to further improve the childhood immunization rate is assisted by this legislation. I would like to thank the CDC for their fine work on the VFC program and their assistance with this legislation and in its assistance directly to the State of New Mexico. I would also like to thank Senator Smith for his dedication and support for this initiative to improve the health of our Nation's children.

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

Mr. President, in conjunction with Senator Smith, I am introducing the ``Children's Vaccine Access Act of 2004.'' This legislation makes three changes to the Vaccines for Children program with the intent of expanding access and the delivery of vaccines to our Nation's children. This legislation is supported by the Administration and included in the Administration's budget as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.

First, the legislation expands access to the Vaccines for Children, or VFC, program for children whose private health insurance does not cover immunizations by allowing children to receive their VFC vaccines at State and local public health clinics. Currently, underinsured children must go to specially designated Federal Qualified Health Centers or rural health centers to receive VFC vaccines. Consequently, our bill expands the number of access points at which children can get the vaccines they need.

According to the CDC, there are approximately 3,000 Federally Qualified Health Centers enrolled in VFC, compared with approximately 7,000 health department clinics. As the CDC notes, ``Increasing access points for VFC eligible underinsured children will allow those who may have been previously denied immunizations at public health clinics to be vaccinated with the full series of routinely administered vaccines.''

Second, the bill seeks to restore the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines to the VFC program by lifting the 1993 price caps that were in use prior to enactment of the VFC program. The price caps are so low that, for example, the tetanus booster vaccine was unfortunately dropped from VFC coverage when no vaccine manufacturer would bid on the contract at the 1993-imposed price cap levels.

CDC estimates that over 200,000 additional children would be served through VFC with these two changes.

And finally, the bill includes new authorizing language to allow the CDC to sell the VFC purchased stockpile vaccines to its grantees or back to manufacturers for use in the private sector in the event that the stockpiled vaccines are needed by non VFC-eligible children.

Immunizations are critical to both children's health and the public health care system. The VFC program began on October 1, 1994, to improve vaccine availability to children nationwide by providing vaccines free-of-charge to Medicaid-eligible, uninsured, underinsured, American Indian, or Alaska Native children through both public and private providers. The VFC program automatically covers vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, and approved by the CDC.

VFC has had an enormous impact on improving the immunization rates among our Nation's children. According to the Children's Defense Fund, ``Between 1993 and 1999, there was nearly a 20 percent increase in the number of fully immunized two year-olds.''

However, the goal of achieving a 90 percent immunization coverage rate, with the complete series of recommended vaccines, has still not been achieved. According to the National Immunization Survey (NIS), the nationwide vaccination coverage levels

among children 19-35 months of age for the 4:3:1:3:3 series of childhood immunizations was 74.8 percent in 2002. Unfortunately, the immunization rate in New Mexico was just 64.6 percent in 2002 and second worst in the Nation to only Colorado. To address that problem, in December 2001, I requested the CDC to work with the State of New Mexico on improving its immunization rate and a number of positive developments have taken place, including the creation of an Immunization Task Force at the state level and the passage of legislation to create an immunization registry by the New Mexico Legislature this past month.

It is my belief that the strides the Nation and New Mexico continue to make to further improve the childhood immunization rate is assisted by this legislation. I would like to thank the CDC for their fine work on the VFC program and their assistance with this legislation and in its assistance directly to the State of New Mexico. I would also like to thank Senator Smith for his dedication and support for this initiative to improve the health of our Nation's children.

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

Mr. President, I rise to very briefly speak about some of the issues my colleague from Idaho raised related to the high price of gasoline at the pump. I am afraid the impression was created by my colleague that if the Senate were just to go ahead and pass the energy bill that is now on the Senate calendar, that would solve the problem of high gas prices for the American consumer. I think we need to dispel that notion if that was the impression that some people had.

The truth is, there are three big issues I heard referred to. One is clearly production of oil is not what it needs to be relative to demand today to bring prices down, and the world market is indicating that. We received the very unfortunate news this morning that OPEC had decided to go ahead with the cut in production they had earlier talked about. That is unfortunate. Some of the media has speculated that would result in $40 per barrel of oil in the reasonably near future. If that is the case, then we will see very high prices for gasoline in this summer driving season.

In a letter I sent to the President last week on March 24, I had urged the administration to do all it could to dissuade the OPEC nations from going ahead with that proposed cut in production. I do not know what actions the administration took. Clearly, if they did take actions they were not effective, and accordingly the amount of oil being produced by OPEC nations will decrease and that will add to the problem of high prices of gasoline at the pump.

A second item mentioned by my colleague from Idaho was that there is inadequate refining capacity. That is clearly true. I recognize that. It is one of the items we deal with in this letter I sent to the President last week. In that letter, I have urged that the President take the necessary steps to bring the parties together and to identify what the barriers are to the construction of additional refining capacity in this country.

That is not something we are proposing to legislate in an energy bill. There is nothing in the energy bill that deals with expanding refining capacity. I do not want anyone who has been watching this debate to think by passing an energy bill the problem of refining capacity will be solved.

The Presiding Officer asked the Energy Information Administration to do a report as to the effect of the pending energy legislation on prices, production, and availability of fuel in the future, and essentially the conclusion was the effect of that legislation would be negligible. Let's not give people the impression the problem of high prices at the pump is going to be solved by the Senate going ahead and passing a particular energy bill at this stage.

I would also point out what we all know, which is that we have passed an energy bill in this Senate in this Congress. We passed an energy bill in this Senate in the last Congress. So it is not that the Senate has been unwilling to act on responsible energy legislation.

The third item I wanted to talk about is this whole issue of boutique fuels. My colleague from Idaho correctly pointed out that one of the problems we have and one of the reasons why prices stay higher than they should is there is not enough what is called product flexibility, that we do not allow refiners to produce product which can be shipped to enough parts of the country. We have too many different types of boutique fuels and too many formulations for these boutique fuels around the country. There are estimated now to be 110 formulations of these boutique fuels.

What I recommended to the President is what the Cheney energy task force recommended nearly 3 years ago, and that is the Administrator of the EPA be directed by the President to work, with technical assistance from the Secretary of Energy, to require revisions of State implementation plans to reduce the overall number of fuel specifications by at least a factor of 5, and preferably closer to a factor of 10. This is not something that requires legislation. This did not require legislation when the Cheney task force recommended it; it does not require legislation now.

In fact, when people go back and look at the Cheney task force recommendations, there were 105 recommendations listed. They are all detailed in the appendix to that report. By the administration's own calculation, 76 of the 105 do not require legislative action; they are recommendations for administrative action.

This recommendation to the Director of the EPA to deal with this boutique fuels problem is one of those actions that can be taken by the administration without any action by this Congress. Again, it is one of the items I included in the letter we sent to the President last week urging that they move ahead with this. As far as I am informed, there has been no action taken on this since May of 2001, when the Cheney task force report was released.

These are things that could be done. None of them, in and of itself, is going to dramatically affect the price of gasoline at the pump, but together they would help moderate the prices of gasoline as we move into the summer driving season. For that reason, I think there are actions that should be taken. These are 3 of the 13 different recommendations contained in the letter. None of those recommendations requires legislation to be passed.

Clearly, there are provisions of law that I favor enacting and I think we should try to enact before the end of this Congress, and I hope we are able to do so. To leave the impression that inaction in dealing with the price of gasoline is purely a failure of the Congress is just misleading.

For that reason, I urge everyone to review that letter I sent last week. I hope we will have more debate in the coming days about those steps that can be taken in the near term to deal with the very high price of gasoline and to deal with the very high price of natural gas, which, of course, we are seeing in the utility and heating bills we all have to pay.

I know my colleagues are waiting to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Landrieu, Lugar, and Lott, to introduce a bill to honor our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who have served and continue to serve their country by working for a free, independent, and stable Iraq and a new Afghanistan. These missions have been difficult and the cost has been high; nearly 600 Americans have been killed and almost 3,000 Americans have been injured in Iraq, while more than 500 Americans have been injured and more than 100 U.S. service men and women have been lost in Afghanistan.

More than a year after the initial invasion, nearly 110,000 troops are still stationed in Iraq, working to build a new, stable beacon of freedom in the region. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II. We cannot understate the importance of the work being done there today.

The administration's focus on Iraq leaves the mission in Afghanistan incomplete. Despite constant progress there, the fighting is still not over. Recent assassinations of government officials, car bombings, and the lingering presence of terrorist forces and former Taliban fighters force thousands of our troops to stay in-country.

For there courageous efforts, the Department of Defense has decided to award our brave young men and women with the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, GWOT, and no other medal. This is despite the fact the GWOT medal is meant for any individual who has served overseas during the war on terror and may have come within a few hundred miles of a combat zone. The dangers of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are greater; therefore, along with my colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, and Lugar, I propose to correct this mistake by passing legislation authorizing the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. We believe that what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activities such as peacekeeping operations or no-fly-zone enforcement.

They continue to serve, even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives and the tremendous hardships they face.

There is a difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you don't need to go to war. You only need to be ``placed in such a position that in the opinion of the Joint Chief of Staff, hostile action by foreign armed forces was imminent even though it does not materialize.''

To earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the standard is higher. A military member must:

Be engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed opposition regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or while participating in the Operation, regardless of time, [the service member] is wounded or injured and required medical evacuation from the Area of Engagement.

Many within the military agree that there is a difference. According to the Army Times, ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat.

Campaign medals matter. ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and his physical fitness score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if he can hang. They show what you've done and how serious you are,'' said GySgt James Cuneo. ``If you're a good Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time. . . .''

My fellow colleagues, it is time. We must recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army SPC Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated.

We have also asked much from our Reserve and National Guard Forces.

The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 guardsmen and reservists currently on active duty.

My colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Lugar, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in addition to the GWOT medal, new decorations that characterize the real missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, two that are distinctive and honor their sacrifice, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.

What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decoration. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: the Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, the Army's Distinctive Service Cross, the Silver Star, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes the Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the Korean Service Medal, and the Prisoner of War Medal.

The list goes on and on. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time to do our job and honor them with an award that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Army Times and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Landrieu, Lugar, and Lott, to introduce a bill to honor our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who have served and continue to serve their country by working for a free, independent, and stable Iraq and a new Afghanistan. These missions have been difficult and the cost has been high; nearly 600 Americans have been killed and almost 3,000 Americans have been injured in Iraq, while more than 500 Americans have been injured and more than 100 U.S. service men and women have been lost in Afghanistan.

More than a year after the initial invasion, nearly 110,000 troops are still stationed in Iraq, working to build a new, stable beacon of freedom in the region. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II. We cannot understate the importance of the work being done there today.

The administration's focus on Iraq leaves the mission in Afghanistan incomplete. Despite constant progress there, the fighting is still not over. Recent assassinations of government officials, car bombings, and the lingering presence of terrorist forces and former Taliban fighters force thousands of our troops to stay in-country.

For there courageous efforts, the Department of Defense has decided to award our brave young men and women with the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, GWOT, and no other medal. This is despite the fact the GWOT medal is meant for any individual who has served overseas during the war on terror and may have come within a few hundred miles of a combat zone. The dangers of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are greater; therefore, along with my colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, and Lugar, I propose to correct this mistake by passing legislation authorizing the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. We believe that what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activities such as peacekeeping operations or no-fly-zone enforcement.

They continue to serve, even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives and the tremendous hardships they face.

There is a difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you don't need to go to war. You only need to be ``placed in such a position that in the opinion of the Joint Chief of Staff, hostile action by foreign armed forces was imminent even though it does not materialize.''

To earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the standard is higher. A military member must:

Be engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed opposition regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or while participating in the Operation, regardless of time, [the service member] is wounded or injured and required medical evacuation from the Area of Engagement.

Many within the military agree that there is a difference. According to the Army Times, ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat.

Campaign medals matter. ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and his physical fitness score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if he can hang. They show what you've done and how serious you are,'' said GySgt James Cuneo. ``If you're a good Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time. . . .''

My fellow colleagues, it is time. We must recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army SPC Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated.

We have also asked much from our Reserve and National Guard Forces.

The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 guardsmen and reservists currently on active duty.

My colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Lugar, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in addition to the GWOT medal, new decorations that characterize the real missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, two that are distinctive and honor their sacrifice, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.

What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decoration. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: the Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, the Army's Distinctive Service Cross, the Silver Star, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes the Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the Korean Service Medal, and the Prisoner of War Medal.

The list goes on and on. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time to do our job and honor them with an award that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Army Times and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

I strongly support this amendment and believe it is an essential part of any TANF reauthorization. If we were to defeat this amendment, we would probably have to conclude that we are better off under current law than under the bill that has been reported out of the Finance Committee. Many of my colleagues believe we should have done more for childcare in the legislation we were considering in the Finance Committee, but it was determined at that time that our best opportunity to get the support we needed was to follow the lead of the two sponsors of this amendment, Senator Snowe, in particular, in the committee and Senator Dodd here on the floor, to be sure that this legislation got enacted.

The truth is, the underlying bill imposes greater work requirements on low-income mothers and puts them in an impossible situation if we don't continue to provide the childcare assistance they need. It is also clear that if we take the level of funding of childcare that is provided for in the bill without this amendment, we will see childcare assistance denied to hundreds of thousands of working poor families.

This is essential legislation. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With this amendment, we can move ahead with consideration of other amendments and hopefully wind up with reauthorized TANF legislation that we can all support.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan childcare amendment being offered today. This amendment would provide reasonable and necessary increases in funding to the Child Care Development Block Grant.

The underlying bill only provides increases of $200 million per year for 5 years for childcare. Unfortunately, this level of funding fails to support low-income families who are trying to become independent and self-sufficient. First, the underlying bill imposes more rigorous work requirements on TANF mothers without providing enough resources for essential childcare support. In addition, the level of funding in the underlying bill is so inadequate that it will result in the loss of childcare funding for hundreds of thousands of working poor families. The cost of quality childcare in this country can exceed $10,000 per year, thus rendering quality childcare out of reach for too many low- income working families.

I strongly support this amendment. This amendment would provide the necessary funds to support the work requirements of TANF recipients as well as the efforts of low-income working families--parents trying to stay off welfare. It would provide sufficient resources to, at the very least, maintain the number of childcare slots available to working families. And, it would provide families with opportunities for quality childcare.

The availability of childcare assistance through the Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, played an essential role in the decline of welfare caseloads around the country throughout the 1990s. Both the Federal Government and the States dramatically increased spending for child care after passage of welfare reform in 1996. The

bulk of the increases, however, came from the Federal Government. By 2002, the Federal Government appropriated approximately $4.8 billion for childcare in both discretionary and mandatory spending. States also saw record declines in TANF caseloads, and thus were able to use the flexible TANF dollars for childcare assistance.

The number of employed single mothers dramatically increased from 6.4 million in 1996 to 7.3 million in 2001. And, employment rates among low-income mothers with young children increased from 44 percent in 1996 to 59 percent in 2000. The number of children receiving childcare services through CCDBG doubled during this period from 1 million to approximately 2 million children.

Further, research shows that the availability of childcare subsidies leads to more work, higher earnings, and a greater likelihood of remaining off welfare. A recent study found that single mothers with young children who receive childcare assistance are 40 percent more likely to still be employed after 2 years than mothers who do not receive such assistance. And, the numbers only increase for mothers who were former welfare recipients. According to the data, former welfare recipients with young children who receive childcare assistance are 82 percent more likely to remain employed after 2 years. The evidence shows that our childcare policies work; childcare assistance helps low- income working mothers move from welfare to work.

Our commitment to childcare, however, has waned. The Federal contribution to childcare has remained frozen since 2002. And as a result of severe budget crises facing our States, the state contribution to childcare has significantly diminished. The use of TANF dollars for childcare has declined since 2001. Moreover, states have had to close budget gaps cumulatively totaling $200 billion since FY 2001, and many States have cut assistance to childcare to close the budget gaps. According to the General Accounting Office, nearly one half of all States have made policy changes that reduce the availability of childcare subsidies, and 11 other States are proposing changes that will reduce current levels of spending on childcare.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost approximately $4.5 billion in Federal funding just to maintain the current number of childcare slots for the next 5 years. If this amendment fails, it is estimated that more than 400,000 children would lose their childcare assistance.

Although CCDBG serves approximately 2 million children nationwide, we are only providing childcare to 12 percent of the eligible population. Further, due to State cuts, we are already seeing States reducing eligibility, lowering income limits, increasing waiting lists, lowering provider reimbursement rates, and increasing parent copayments.

For example, 15 States and the District of Columbia have reduced their eligibility limits, either lowering the eligibility cutoff based on poverty or restricting eligibility to TANF-only families. New Mexico has lowered eligibility for childcare, making the income cutoff lower than it was in 2000. These policy changes, of course, do not mean that low-income families are any less in need of childcare. It just means that without the childcare subsidy, it will be that much harder to afford quality childcare.

In New Mexico, there are almost 100,000 children in low-income families with all parents in the workforce. A family of three earning more than $22,890 a year cannot qualify for childcare assistance in New Mexico, but at this income level they would be struggling just to cover their basic expenses. In Albuquerque, for example, annual costs for decent housing, $7,008; food, $4,212; transportation, $1,932; health care, $3,060; and other necessities such as telephone service, clothing, and household items, $3,480 alone would total $19,692, according to a study of basic family budgets. Paying for average-priced center care for an infant and a preschooler, $10,408, would put this family $7,210 over budget.

The cost of quality childcare is simply out of reach for too many working families. The quality of childcare has a significant effect on children's health and development and their readiness for school. Studies show that children who have traditionally been at risk of not doing well in school are affected more by the quality of care than other children. These children are more sensitive to the negative effects of poor childcare and receive greater benefits from higher quality care. Evidence demonstrates that children who attend higher quality childcare perform better on measures of cognitive development, such as math and language skills, as well as on behavioral development, such as thinking and attention, interactions with peers, and behavior skills. Yet, while low-income children are at greater risk, they are less likely to be able to access high-quality childcare.

Without adequate increases in funding for childcare, we are forcing our low-income mothers into impossible situations. This bill requires TANF recipients to work, yet fails to provide adequate childcare to support their efforts. The bill also fails to provide sufficient childcare funding to maintain childcare assistance for hundreds of thousands of working poor families. How can we expect low-income families to maintain independence and self-sufficiency, if we fail to provide them with the necessary supports--or worse, we take them away. For nearly 30 years, the evidence has been telling us that quality early care and education makes all the difference in the world in a child's readiness for school. Yet by failing to make quality childcare accessible to low-income families, we continue to wonder why all of our children are not academically successful. Without adequate funding for childcare, we continue to leave hundreds of thousands of children behind.

I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I came to the floor nearly a week ago to talk about high energy prices. I know several of my colleagues have been speaking about this issue today. At the time I spoke last week, I outlined a series of suggestions, 13 concrete actions I was urging the administration and particularly the President take to begin addressing this problem, both of high price of gas but also the high price of natural gas and the impact that is having on American families and on our economy.

The figures are fairly startling. Today, energy prices are at historic highs. Some analysts estimate that energy price shocks this year could cost American consumers more than $40 billion. Speaking very frankly, we cannot afford this kind of expense. We need to maintain a healthy pace of growth in our gross domestic product, and high energy prices dampen that growth. Clearly we need to give attention to this.

I was encouraged by some of the reaction we received to my statement last week. I did receive a letter from the National Association of Convenience Stores, particularly endorsing the suggestion that we begin to address this boutique fuels problem, the proliferation of boutique fuels.

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

Mr. President, I was also encouraged by the comments of my colleague from New Mexico and others who have come to the floor endorsing some very similar suggestions. It is important that we speak today about this issue because of the OPEC meeting that is about to occur in Vienna, Austria. I want to reiterate that it is extremely important that the administration assert pressure on OPEC, the OPEC members who are meeting in Vienna, to forego their proposed 1 million barrel-per-day production cut. We do need to rein in high oil and gas prices and we need to send a strong message that cutting production of oil in OPEC is not the way to do that.

OPEC has the ability to affect price in two important ways: They can add to supply or they can talk down the price of oil on the world market. We have seen them do both in previous periods. I don't see any real action to affect the price of oil on either front at this point. We have been out of the price band--this is, I believe, this $22 to $28 band that OPEC has talked about--for quite some time now. At the same time that we have been way above that band, some OPEC members are talking about not only keeping production steady but actually cutting production.

This would be a very wrong-headed move. It would have adverse consequences on American consumers. I hope very much they will reconsider and I hope our administration will use its very best efforts in the next day or two to ensure that OPEC in fact does not cut production.

Exhibit 1

National Association

of Convenience Stores,

Alexandria, VA, March 25, 2004.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,

Mr. President, how much time remains of the 5 minutes I requested?

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to a bill to honor our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who have served and continue to serve their country by working for a fee, independent and stable Iraq and a new Afghanistan. These missions have been difficult and the cost has been high; nearly 600 Americans have been killed and almost 3,000 Americans have been injured in Iraq, while more than 500 Americans have been injured and more than 100 U.S. servicemen and women have been lost in Afghanistan.

More than a year after the initial invasion, nearly 110,000 troops are still stationed in Iraq, working to build a new, stable beacon of freedom in the region. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II. We cannot understate the importance of the work being done there today.

The administration's focus on Iraq leaves the mission in Afghanistan incomplete. Despite constant progress there, the fighting is still not over. Recent assassinations of government officials, car bombings, and the lingering presence of terrorist forces and former Taliban fighters force thousands of our troops to stay in-country.

For their courageous efforts, the Department of Defense has decided to award our brave young men and women with the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal--GWOT--and no other medal. This is despite the fact that G.W.O.T. medal is meant for any individual who has served overseas during the war on terror and may have come within a few hundred miles of a combat zone. The dangers of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are greater; therefore, along with my colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, and Lugar, I propose to correct this mistake by passing legislation authorizing the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from active duty, National Guard and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. We believe that what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activities such as peacekeeping operations or no-fly zone enforcement.

They continue to serve, even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives and the tremendous hardships they face.

There is a difference between an Expeditionary Medal and a Campaign medal. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary medal and Kosovo Campaign medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you don't need to go to war. You only need to be ``placed in such a position that in the opinion of the Joint Chief of Staff, hostile action by foreign armed forces was imminent even though it does not materialize.''

To earn the Kosovo Campaign medal, the standard is higher. A military member must:

Be engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally

hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed

opposition, regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or

while participating in the Operation, regardless of time,

[the service member] is wounded or injured and required

medical evacuation from the Area of Engagement.

Many within the military agree that there is a difference. According to the Army Times, ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat.

Campaign medals matter.

``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders

look first at his decorations and his physical fitness

score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if

he can hang. They show what you've done and how serious you

are,'' said Gunnery Sgt. James Cuneo. ``If you're a good

Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time. . .

.''

My fellow colleagues, it is time.

We must recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army Specialist Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy.

Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire nation rejoiced when he was liberated.

We have also asked much from our Reserve and National Guard forces. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and Reservists currently on active duty.

My colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Lugar, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in addition to the GWOT medal, new decorations that characterize the real missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, two that are distinctive and honor their sacrifice, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation medals.

What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decoration. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, the Army's Distinctive Service Cross, the Silver Star, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes the Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the Korean Service Medal and the Prisoner of War Medal.

The list goes on and on. The great men an women of our military forces are doing their jobs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time to do our job and honor them with an award that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about high gas prices and high natural gas prices and what we could be doing about it and what I would urge the administration to do about it. I would like to outline 13 concrete steps I believe the President can take to address and to lessen the impact these high prices are having on the U.S. economy and on American families.

Several others in the Senate have talked in recent days to suggest that the cure-all for the current high energy prices would be to take up and pass either the Energy bill conference report that was blocked last fall or a new comprehensive Energy bill that is now on the Senate calendar. Clearly there are some specific legislative provisions related to energy that we in the Congress should be passing this year, and I strongly support getting to those.

The truth is, though, that neither last year's nor this year's bill does much to address the high prices we now face, either in the area of natural gas or in the area of gasoline one gets at the pump. That was a conclusion the Energy Information Administration, EIA, reached after a thorough analysis of last year's conference report that they carried out at the request of Senator Sununu.

The EIA conclusion on that conference report, which applies equally to the Energy bill that is currently on the Senate calendar, is: On a fuel-specific basis, changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible. As the Wall Street Journal stated so succinctly yesterday in an editorial on the NRC legislation:

No energy bill has the ability to ease the crunch in oil

and natural gas prices before this fall's election.

Even though there is not a legislative fix, or an immediate fix to this set of problems, nevertheless there are a number of effective steps the President can take under current law using existing statutory authority. These steps would actually do more to address current high energy prices, as well as the root causes, than anything we have in the 1,200-page Energy bill that is still awaiting action.

Let me first talk about the high price of natural gas and what could be done to deal with that. The first set of specific steps the administration could take to address current high prices involves increasing the domestic supply of natural gas. Those steps would allow the President to reprogram additional funds in fiscal year 2004, the current year--reprogram those to Federal oil

and gas programs--and request supplemental funds to reverse the cuts to Federal oil and gas programs that the administration has requested in next year's budget.

Federal programs to support increased domestic oil and gas production have fared very poorly in the President's most recent budget request to Congress. This is in spite of the many public statements of support for increased domestic production by administration officials. The rhetoric, unfortunately, has not been matched by actual requests for investment in these activities.

Here is a chart that tries to summarize a couple of points. This is entitled ``Bush Administration Budget Cuts for Oil and Natural Gas Production--Fiscal Year 2005.'' It is broken into, first, the budget cuts related to the Interior Department and, second, the budget cuts related to the Energy Department. Let me go through this.

A case in point is the oil and gas management program in the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior. This is the program that governs onshore oil and gas production on Federal lands such as the oil and gas production on the Federal lands in New Mexico. The 94,000 Federal onshore oil and gas wells currently account for 11 percent of U.S. natural gas production and 5 percent of our oil production. The administration's own figures show there is a backlog of oil and gas lease applications and drilling permits on Federal lands of about 2,100 for the current fiscal year.

That is a remarkable statistic. It means we are foregoing additional oil and gas production and essentially preventing it, not because of some environmental restriction, not because we have closed off some promising new area to development, but because the administration will not hire the people to process the paperwork needed to approve the drilling applications that companies are willing and anxious to undertake.

You would think getting adequate Federal resources to support oil and gas exploration in the field in areas that are not controversial would be fairly easy to accomplish. I can assure my colleagues it is not. My home State of New Mexico is a State that produces a substantial quantity of oil and natural gas. I had to go back to the Bureau of Land Management again and again over the last couple of years to get them to hire additional personnel in the Farmington field office to process natural gas drilling permits. Farmington is not alone in this respect. This is a problem all throughout the Intermountain West.

Instead of taking aggressive action in this year's budget to reduce the backlog to zero over the next year, the President's latest budget request cuts $3 million from the budget of the oil and gas management program with the difference being made up by raising fees on independent oil and gas producers for each lease application or drilling permit for which they apply.

Think about that a moment. In the face of very high natural gas prices, the administration says we should cut Federal expenditures for the very people needed to approve more drilling, and we should make up the difference by bumping up the cost of a drilling permit. Not only do we not get more supply, but the additional costs that are levied on producers most likely get passed along to consumers and get reflected in natural gas prices.

As a result of this so-called status quo effort in the BLM, the administration's own figures estimate the bureaucratic backlog in BLM will only decline by 200 in fiscal year 2005. The net backlog of 2,100 would be reduced to 1,900 during that fiscal year, so 18 months from now we would have approximately 1,900 lease applications awaiting some kind of action. This is an inadequate response in light of the current high prices we face. Instead of making it more costly for domestic producers to look for oil and gas on Federal lands and doing little or nothing to make the necessary resources available in the field to speed the processing of leases and permits, the administration should be asking Congress for an increase in this budget.

To address the problem, I recommend the administration take the following three actions to boost domestic natural gas production: First, the Department of Interior should request that fiscal year 2004 funds be immediately reprogrammed to start reducing the drilling backlog at the BLM.

Second, the President should submit a supplemental request for an additional $8 million for fiscal year 2005, to get that backlog down to zero.

And, third, the President should direct the BLM to abandon the notion of a rulemaking that would erect greater fiscal barriers to the exploration and production of oil and gas on Federal lands.

A second set of deep budget cuts affecting natural gas production can be found in the administration's budget requests for the administration's oil and gas R&D programs. These programs are focused on helping independent producers with access to new technologies that make domestic production of oil and gas more efficient and more effective. They fund efforts such as the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, which has demonstrated a strong track record in boosting the productivity for independent oil and gas producers. They account for much of our domestic oil and gas production. The President's budget request for 2005 cuts these programs by nearly half.

One particularly important program, the Department of Energy's Petroleum Exploration and Production Research Program, proposes an 84- percent cut under the administration's budget request. Again, given the need to sustain domestic production and the strong support for these programs that has been repeatedly shown in Congress on a bipartisan basis, it is difficult to justify these funding requests.

So my fourth recommendation to the President is that at a minimum the administration submit a supplemental request for $37.1 million for fiscal year 2005 for the Department of Energy oil and gas R&D programs. All we are asking for is that we maintain these programs at current funding levels. Frankly, these programs should be increased, but at the very least we should not be phasing them out as the President is currently proposing.

That is natural gas. Let me move to the issue of the high price of gasoline at the pump. Let me make some recommendations as to how that could be relieved.

My first recommendation in this regard would be for the administration to temporarily suspend using royalty-in-kind oil to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The Senate voted in favor of such a suspension while we were considering the budget resolution 2 weeks ago. I supported that action. It was proposed on a bipartisan basis by Senators Levin, Collins, and Clinton. I recognize the Senate vote was not binding on the administration. But, the idea of not diverting oil from the market to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time of exceptional tightness in oil markets makes sense at least as a signal to the market that the administration recognizes the depth of economic hardship being caused by current high prices.

The President has the authority and discretion to either put the Government's royalty share of oil in the SPR, or to let it be sold on the market, where it will help provide more supply. I believe that the President should direct the Department of Energy to suspend this policy temporarily, to be reinstated when oil prices return to more normal levels. Some have argued that putting the Government's royalty share of oil on the market is some sort of attack on the SPR. That is not true. The practice was started during the Clinton administration, at my urging--and at the urging of others in the industry--because oil prices then were very low, and the extra Government oil being placed on the market was threatening the long-term financial viability of small producers. It was started as a counter-cyclical measure; we should stop it as a counter-cyclical measure in the same way, in my view.

My second recommendation to help reduce high gasoline prices would be for the President to press the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--OPEC--to increase world oil supply.

OPEC has successfully managed the global oil market with an increasing degree of precision since its announcement in March 1998 of a pact to lower output and keep oil prices within a $22 to $28 per barrel price band. Supply has been tight and prices have remained

high in particular over the past 12 months.

On February 10, 2004, OPEC announced a surprise agreement to cut its output quotas by 1 million barrels a day, or 4 percent, starting in March, because of concern that prices may fall once winter ends in the northern hemisphere. Meanwhile, crude oil prices in New York reached a 13-year high of $38.18 a barrel on March 17, 2 weeks before OPEC's next meeting.

Given the economic impact that high energy prices are having on American families and businesses, I believe that the administration needs to act more aggressively to combat the mounting economic crisis. With a decrease in supply, the demand for oil could send prices at the gasoline pump well above $2 a gallon this summer.

It is time that this administration uses every means at its disposal to bring down high energy prices. OPEC has limited its production of oil to drive prices higher and collect additional profits. This is not acceptable. I recommend that the administration exert diplomatic pressure on OPEC to abandon its agreement of February 10 and to increase oil supplies instead of decreasing. Doing so would not set some new precedent. The Clinton administration used its international leverage to encourage OPEC to keep oil prices stable and affordable during its two terms in office. If President Clinton and his top officials could act in the interest of consumers and the American economy, then I think President Bush can, as well.

My third and fourth recommendations to help moderate gasoline price pressures on consumers would be for the administration to fine-tune the current gasoline sulfur regulation to ease price pressures resulting from the transition to low-sulfur gasoline.

EPA is in the process of implementing a new rule on sulfur in gasoline. This rule sets the acceptable level of sulfur in gasoline at 120 ppm as of January 1, 2004. Over the next two years, this level will drop to only 30 ppm. The move to cleaner, more sulfur-free transportation fuels is necessary and should continue. The rule rewards companies that achieve early reductions in their operations' baseline level of sulfur to generate sulfur credits for use in 2005.

An additional level of special credits called ``allotments'' was developed to reward companies which made significant capital investment. The rule, however, does not have a reliable mechanism for independent fuel importers to participate in the system if markets are tight and the number of allotments they need to buy--to stay in compliance--are not available. I recommend that the administration revise this rule to allow independent importers to carry a small deficit balance in case they are unable to buy enough allotments. By doing so, we will facilitate the ability to move more gasoline that is currently on the world market to U.S. consumers this summer, without compromising environmental protections.

If unexpected significant refinery or pipeline disruptions occur, or if gasoline prices rise to levels that cause significant economic harm, I recommend that the administration be prepared to issue an emergency rule allowing the use of the sulfur credits for 2005 in this year. This additional flexibility in the use of sulfur credits would not result in any greater emission of sulfur dioxide over the 2-year period of 2004- 2005, but would add to the ability to bring more gasoline into the United States so that consumer are not paying more than they should.

While some of the preceding actions show how fuel prices can be temporarily moderated by lowering barriers to fuels already on world markets this summer, we need to get our national fuels systems in order for the longer term. Although the administration published a general report on national energy policy in 2001, our country still lacks a focused national fuels strategy. Current policies on issues such as the operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--SPR--are simply outdated. The administration has made no progress towards stopping and reversing the increasing balkanization of U.S. fuel markets--a balkanization that hits every consumer right in the pocketbook with higher fuel prices than necessary. And there has been no attempt over the past few years to build consensus around a balanced approach to both increase the supply of refined fuels and increase the efficiency of our oil use economy-wide.

These changed circumstances and new needs call out for a number of policy initiatives that should be undertaken as part of a broader national fuels strategy.

First, such a strategy should look at how conservation in transportation fuel use can be enhanced. Instead of debating on the merits of any single approach to the problem, it would be more productive if the administration were to set a policy target for itself of oil savings it would like to achieve economy-wide over the next 10 years. This would give the administration and the public a yardstick to evaluate the effectiveness of various policy proposals. Such a target would likely be broadly supported across the political spectrum. In the Senate, one such proposal for an oil savings target was supported last year by a vote of 99 to 1. I recommend that the administration set such a policy target, after public consultation.

Second, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency should start addressing the need for further refining capacity in areas, such as the east coast, that are now importing gasoline to keep pace with demand. States, localities, consumer groups, environmental groups, and industry should all be invited to participate in a process to identify measures to facilitate capacity expansion. For such a process to succeed, there would have to be credible actions ongoing at the same time to spur increased conservation. But that is if that is possible. I believe that such a process would identify the current barriers to building additional refining capacity, such as permitting and financial disincentives. I would recommend that the administration immediately set such a process in motion, and that it issue a report to the Congress and the public within 6 months, identifying specific options for improving regulatory practices or streamlining permitting processes in order to increase U.S. refining capacity.

Third, the administration needs to review its policies regarding the operation and use of the SPR. Right now, we lack ``rules of the road'' for tapping the SPR that are clearly defined and clearly understood. As I have pointed out in previous letters to the Department of Energy, a clearer understanding of how SPR oil will be managed in a new environment of volatile markets and increasingly higher prices would provide more certainty to the market.

Fourth, when fuel pries are tight, product flexibility is crucial. If a region needs more gasoline than its refineries can produce, or if a refinery or pipeline shuts down unexpectedly, flexibility becomes the key factor in determining the speed at which motor fuels can be supplied from other regions to meet the shortfall and to dampen the price spikes to consumers.

The proliferation of boutique fuel specifications across the country has greatly reduced the overall flexibility and efficiency of our fuel system. It is a major factor in the increasing fragility of our fuel system to price spikes.

The Clean Air Act authorized States to regulate fuels through federally approved State implementation plans in order to attain a national air quality standard. That was the right policy, but the implementation of the policy has been flawed. There are now dozens of different kinds of fuels being required by different States, all with Federal approval, leading to more than 110 different formulations of these boutique fuels throughout the United States. These 110-plus different fuel types make the use of existing transportation infrastructure for fuels much less efficient, and, correspondingly, more expensive to run. Those costs get passed directly on to consumers. The large number of types also limits flexibility in product distribution, particularly if a disruption occurs. Consumers pay for that lack of flexibility whenever there is a price spike.

The President's 2001 energy policy report directed the EPA to study ``opportunities to maintain or improve the environmental benefits of State and local boutique clean fuel programs while exploring ways to increase the flexibility of the fuel distribution infrastructure,

improve fungibility, and provide added gasoline market liquidity.''

There have been 3 years since that directive was given to the EPA, and as far as I know the administration has not taken any significant steps to reduce the growth of these boutique fuels. This is a major failing which we need to address at this time.

I believe it is time to take real action. The administration can do that. It has the authority under current law in each of these areas I have cited.

The President should direct the Administrator of the EPA, with technical assistance as needed from the Secretary of Energy, to require revisions of State implementation plans to reduce the overall number of fuel specifications by at least a factor of 5 and, preferably, closer to a factor of 10.

Finally, a recommendation aimed at preventing fuel shock prices in gasoline or other fuels would be for the administration to encourage the IEA, the International Energy Agency, to direct the strategic stock modeling methods.

The IEA monthly oil market reports are critically important to the global oil market. The supply, demand, and stock figures that the IEA projects each month literally turn markets. Energy experts tell us that the method the IEA uses to calculate monthly demand and supply figures is flawed, that it encourages OPEC to undershoot the market in terms of the amount of crude oil it supplies to the world. A revision of the strategic stock calculation methodology could fix this.

The root of the flaw lies in the fact that the current IEA market report treats stocks of oil in the major consuming countries as a fixed and variable amount. This treatment of stocks is not realistic. Its effect on IEA models is to bias toward understating the amount of oil OPEC needs to produce for the world market, the so-called ``Call on OPEC.'' Recently it appears that OPEC has given great credence to the ``Call on OPEC,'' in determining what it would supply to the market.

Further, key OPEC nations, such as Saudi Arabia, have at times interpreted IEA data to mean the IEA will not punish certain behavior by the cartel to maintain high prices so long as they meet these ``Call on OPEC'' levels.

Given the importance of this IEA forecast methodology, it is crucial it be based on the best possible real-world data and not on a static and unrealistic treatment of stock levels. A more real-world treatment of stocks in IEA oil forecast methodology would alleviate some of the tensions which many analysts believe is keeping crude prices higher than they otherwise might have been.

For this reason, I recommend the administration engage vigorously with the IEA to improve the realism of the models underlying its monthly oil market report. That change, though seemingly esoteric, could make a real difference, for instance, at the pump to Americans. The United States is a leading member of IEA, so our ability to influence and improve this key market driver is very great.

Carrying out the 13 recommendations I have outlined today will help to relieve some of the pressure on our fuel markets that are affecting consumers, adversely affecting them and perhaps will continue to adversely affect them in the coming days and weeks. These recommendations could set the stage for a long-term improvement in our fuels security.

My colleagues should know that none of the 13 recommendations require new legislative authority from Congress. The President already has the power to implement these recommendations. I urge him do so.

I put these recommendations in a letter to the President, a copy to the Secretary of Energy, and a letter I have sent today. I hope he will consider these commonsense and effective recommendations and take action on them. I will come back to the Senate floor once we receive a response to that letter and hopefully report on the progress being made to help bring down both the cost of natural gas and the cost of gasoline at the pump before this summer is on us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response to the question, first, let me say these are 13 recommendations that do not require legislation. These are all recommendations that I believe the President has full authority to implement and enact under current law.

The purpose of my letter to him and this statement today in the Senate was to urge he do right now what can be done under existing law to help deal with these problems.

As far as the energy bill is concerned, it is my view that if the majority leader wishes to bring the energy bill to the Senate floor and is willing to allow Senators to offer amendments, then we should certainly proceed in that way.

I don't think it is realistic, and I certainly told my colleague from New Mexico and others this repeatedly, I don't think it is realistic to be requiring Democratic Senators to limit amendments at this stage since the bill that will be coming to the floor was written without the input of Democrat Senators.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment included in the package of amendments offered by the managers of H.R. 2584, a bill to provide for the conveyance to the Utrok Atoll local government of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, and for other purposes.

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, by virtue of its jurisdiction for the U.S. territories, has a long history in dealing with the islands of the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Utrok Atoll is one such group of islands located in the northern Marshall Islands, about 2500 miles southwest of Hawaii. One distinction of these islands is that they were affected by fallout from our Nation's first thermonuclear bomb test--the ``Bravo'' test held at Bikini Atoll in 1954. Since that time, the U.S. Government has been monitoring the health of the individuals affected, providing healthcare, and monitoring the radiation levels on the islands. All Americans should recognize the impact that the development of our nation's nuclear deterrent had on Utrok and the other affected communities at Enewetak, Bikini, and Rongelap. We have a continuing interest in their welfare.

This legislation, H.R. 2584, serves that continuing interest by authorizing the transfer of a decommissioned NOAA vessel to the Utrok local government to assist the community by improving transportation to the capital at Majuro. One reason to visit Majuro is to use the U.S. Department of Energy's whole-body counting facility located there. Members of the affected communities can get whole-body counts and reassure themselves about the efficacy of their radiation clean-up and remediation efforts.

One concern regarding the transfer of this vessel, however, is whether the community has properly planned for its use and operation. Over the years, the Energy Committee has been involved in several vessel transfers. Two common problems with these projects are that the vessels are found to be ill-suited to the needs of the community or the community lacks the resources to operate and maintain them.

I commend the managers of this bill for including an amendment that would require the Utrok government to submit a plan for the use of the vessel, including the identification of sources of funding for operations and maintenance. I understand that NOAA had an annual operating budget for this vessel of $2.9 million. While there would be economies available to reduce these costs, such as hiring a non-U.S. citizen crew, operation and maintenance costs will certainly be beyond the capacity of the Utrok local government. It is my hope that the Utrok local government will work with the Marshall Islands government and with other communities in the area to find the resources needed to make this project a success. If, in the end, the resources are not found, it may be necessary, as it has been in other cases, to sell the vessel in order to purchase a more suitable one, or to use the proceeds to meet the community's needs in other ways.

I thank the managers of this bill for including this amendment, and I look forward to reviewing with them, and with the Utrok community, the plan for this vessel's use.

The bill (H.R. 2584), as amended, was read the third time and passed.