Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am here today to discuss a resolution, strongly disapproving of the recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. I am hopeful that the Senate will pass this resolution later today. ,

The Pledge of Allegiance is a record of American values and history and the words of the Pledge still resonate in the convictions of Americans today.

For more than 50 years, the Pledge of Allegiance has included references to the flag, to our country having been established as a union ``under God,'' and to this country being dedicated to securing ``liberty and justice for all.'' The Senate believes, as recognized in a resolution passed unanimously in 2003, that the Pledge is a fully constitutional expression of patriotism.

However, some of our courts have either no respect for or understanding of these American traditions.

Several years ago--June 26, 2002--in what has become an infamous case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional when recited voluntarily because it uses the phrase ``one nation under God.''

On June 14, the Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase ``one nation under God,'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling that the plaintiff could not challenge the patriotic oath because he did not have standing in the case. This procedural ruling did not directly address whether the pledge recited by generations of American schoolchildren is constitutional. It left the Pledge vulnerable to another challenge.

Not unsurprisingly, on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and four others filed a second suit in the Eastern District of California challenging again the words ``under God'' in the Pledge.

Yesterday, the Eastern District of California refused to dismiss the case, holding instead that the Ninth Circuit's ruling in 2002--that the words ``under God'' were unconstitutional--was still good law. The effect of the court's ruling is that the Pledge has been deemed unconstitutional in three Sacramento-area school districts. This issue will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit again.

We are a nation of many faiths and beliefs. Tolerance for dissent is one of our great American values. But so is our common conviction that America is a nation that seeks the will and enjoys the protection of Divine Providence. The fact that some might disagree with that conviction is not a reason to deprive the rest of us of our right to affirm it in the Pledge.

I hope this body will join me in expressing support for the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance by passing this resolution that the Senate strongly disapproves of yesterday's decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Senate on having just agreed to the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act in the form of an amendment, the Talent-Dodd amendment. I will speak a few minutes about it. My friend from Connecticut also will make a few comments about this amendment.

The Senate's action will be viewed, if we can get it agreed to by the House, as a historic moment, a blow in favor of civil rights and finding out the truth in cases that have been covered up for years, in a sense, but are still there.

Let me briefly address the merits of the amendment that the Senator from Connecticut and I have cosponsored before the Senate. The bill creates an unsolved civil rights crime section of the Civil Rights Division, a cold case section of the Civil Rights Division, the sole purpose of which would be to investigate unsolved murders that were a violation of the civil rights laws at the time they occurred and have never been solved. Many cases, particularly the cases that occurred in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, were not solved because they never were investigated and because no effort was made to solve them.

Currently, the Civil Rights Division does investigate those cases. We certainly applaud the efforts both of the Civil Rights Division and in many cases of local prosecutors who have cooperated. We are not suggesting the Civil Rights Division is not trying to investigate those cases now. In many instances, they are.

This is what we are hearing from advocates and family members of those who have been murdered in the past. They tell us they are working with the Justice Department and in many cases are pleased with their response. But what we do not have is a regularized, systematic commitment on the part of the Government to find the truth in these cases. We do not have a set of people who are dedicated to doing that and nothing else.

We think it is very important to do this for several reasons. In the first place, a section of people who are dedicated to that task will develop a forensic expertise in investigating those kinds of cases that you are not going to get if you occasionally investigate them but do not do it on a regular basis.

In the second place, we think once the section exists and it becomes known to the public, it will encourage people to come forward with information, people who might have been afraid to do so to this point, but they will know this Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Section is there, this cold case section is there. They will contact that section and give them information about past offenses and tragedies.

Finally, we think the existence of this section will cause those who committed these crimes--and in some cases who are still walking around in the belief they are beyond justice--to not rest easy anymore. As my friend from Connecticut has said, we want them to sweat. We want them to know the Government is trying to find them, that there is a section of the Government that is out to get them for the murders they may have committed 40 or 50 years ago or for which they may have been complicit, for which they may have believed they were safe from investigation. So we think there are a lot of advantages to this section.

I will say a little bit about the history of it. I was having a discussion with a man named Alvin Sykes. Alvin is a nationally recognized civil rights advocate from Kansas City, who has been very active in getting the Emmett Till case from mid-1950s reopened, trying to achieve justice in that case. We were talking about that investigation. We were working on that issue. He said: Why don't we have a regularized procedure for looking at cases such as the Emmett Till case?

This was the case of a young man from Chicago who went to visit his uncle in Mississippi. He was kidnapped, beaten, murdered, and his body was dumped in the river because he had allegedly, the day before, whistled at a white woman. The two men who were responsible for that were tried actually, but after about 60 minutes of the jury's deliberations, they were acquitted. They subsequently had interviews with national magazines in which they basically admitted their complicity, admitted their guilt, and they were never prosecuted. They died, unfortunately, without being brought to justice. But there are others maybe who were complicit who could be brought to justice. There are a lot of those cases out there such as this. We believe a section such as this will bring them to light and do justice.

Mr. Sykes said: Why don't we have a section like this? There is not any reason we shouldn't.

So the bill creates this cold case section, if you will, of the Civil Rights Division, requiring they investigate these murders and requiring they report back to the Congress. In some cases they will find the truth and be unable to prosecute anybody, but at least they will uncover the truth and be able to report back and tell us that. Or if they have not been able to uncover the truth, at least they will do their best, at least we will have done our best, even at this late date, to achieve justice in these cases.

I think that is very important for two reasons. The first reason is, when you talk to the family members of those who were victimized, those who were in these cases, you realize that the fact the case was 40 or 50 years ago does not mean it has been forgotten. These family members have been unable to reach closure on these cases. They have been unable to put them behind them and move on because there is this tremendous tragedy that occurred where they lost somebody because of a vicious crime. They feel as though the rest of society has not taken an interest in bringing the criminals to justice. We have a chance to allow these family members to find out the truth, and to move on in their own lives. We owe them that. The country owes them that.

The country needs closure as well. We need to know what happened, and we need to know, as a country, that we did the best we could in a systematic and planned way to find out the truth in these cases, to bring those to justice where justice is possible, and to mourn with the survivors of these victims, to know the truth, and then be able to pull together and move forward. This bill allows us to do that.

I thank very much the managers of the bill on both sides of the aisle, as well as Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for their support. We have not gone through the Judiciary Committee in doing this, but everybody felt it was important to get this done, and that this was the bill we could use as a vehicle for doing it.

I think there are a lot of people around the country who have been working tirelessly to get these cases reopened for whom this is going to be the most encouraging news they have had in a long time.

I hope my colleagues will take satisfaction in having done a very good thing and having struck this blow for justice, struck this blow for having an opportunity to close these cases and move forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and defer to my good friend from Connecticut.

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

Mr. President, I rise for a few moments to speak in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Dayton, which I am pleased to cosponsor along with many others, that would increase funding for Justice assistance grants by $275,000.

Justice assistance grants, as the Senate knows, incorporate what used to be called the Byrne grants and the Local Law Enforcement Program grants and are used to fund a number of important law enforcement initiatives, among which include multijurisdictional task forces.

I wish to speak briefly about that side of this important amendment because as the Senate may know, I have done a lot of work on the subject of fighting methamphetamine. Earlier in the debate on this bill, the Senate adopted an amendment which consisted of legislation that Senator Feinstein and I have introduced, the Combat Meth Act, which was a comprehensive antimethamphetamine program designed to put the Federal Government squarely and aggressively on the side of local law enforcement which is fighting this terrible drug. And it is a terrible drug. It is the worst single drug threat that I have confronted in my 20 years in public life.

Methamphetamine is seriously addictive, maybe more so than any other drug of which I am aware. It is almost instantly addictive for a lot of people. It changes the physical nature of the brain. Even if you get off methamphetamine, which is difficult, and I will speak more on that in a moment, that will not necessarily fix the damage because it can change the structure of the brain. It tends to make the people using it more aggressive rather than less aggressive. Some drugs tend to make people more passive, and as bad as they are, at least it doesn't cause them to go out and attack other people, but methamphetamine does.

In addition, there is no known treatment for methamphetamine. There is no methadone for methamphetamine. So we sponsored, and the Senate adopted, a measure which had been cosponsored by more than 40 other Senators to help the Federal Government get aggressively into the business of fighting methamphetamine. It was a series of grant programs along with legislation that would put pseudoephedrine, the precursor drug for methamphetamine, behind pharmacy counters. I think that was very important, and I said at the time I was grateful to the bill managers for working with us on that issue.

One of the worst things about methamphetamine is that the drug is not just used in our neighborhoods and sold in our neighborhoods, it is made in our neighborhoods. It is made in local labs that can operate out of a cabin, out of a house, in a kitchen, in a van while it is being driven around, on the side of a road, or in the woods in a country area.

The process by which methamphetamine is made is literally toxic. The chemicals in it are chemicals that should not go anywhere near the human body, but they do.

These labs have cropped up all over States such as Missouri. It is like a cancer that spread throughout our States in the Midwest and now in other States as well. It is a terrible problem in the South and in the West and the Southwest. I do not think there is a State in the country which is not experiencing growing problems with it.

The National Association of Counties surveyed its members. The No. 1 problem reported more often than any others was methamphetamine. Not the No. 1 law enforcement problem, the No. 1 problem because the drug causes terrible social service problems and health care problems, and it is also overwhelming local budgets, in particular law enforcement budgets.

Think of the situation when you have a sheriff's department in a county with maybe 6 or 10 deputies, or a bigger county with 20 or 25 deputies: With all the jobs that local law enforcement has to do-- security for the county fair, domestic violence issues, all the typical work they have to perform--and then you superimpose on that 10 or 15 or 20 methamphetamine labs in the county, it is very difficult to track down those labs. It is difficult to break them down. These deputies have to get trained in environmental chemistry to break these labs down.

It is an enormous burden on local budgets. One of the ways we can help our sheriffs, our local law enforcement officers in dealing with these meth labs is multijurisdictional task forces where they are able to get grants from the Federal Government, band together in regional task forces, and use that manpower efficiently to help go after labs. That is what the Dayton amendment is designed to support, and that is the big reason I am so strongly supportive of it.

The amendment would move funding for these programs back to where they were in fiscal year 2003. It is a substantial increase, but I can assure you, Mr. President, based on my experience with this issue, it certainly is no more than is needed. If we don't get ahead of this methamphetamine problem, if we don't start winning it--I would not say we are winning it now. We have heroic efforts by local law enforcement, but they are telling us we are not gaining yet--if we don't start winning, we will have increasing costs in terms of effect on kids, neighborhoods, jobs, costs that would dwarf what this amendment would add to the bill.

This amendment is offset. This drug is destroying lives all over States such as Missouri, all over the country. We can do something about it--not by the Federal Government taking this over but by the Government assisting local law enforcement in efforts that they are telling us are going to work. That is why this amendment is so important.

I appreciate the managers working with Senator Dayton and the other cosponsors, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes on one of the amendments the Senate just adopted by unanimous consent. That amendment contained the Combat Meth Act that Senator Feinstein, my good friend and distinguished colleague from California, and I have cosponsored along with 40 other Senators. It is the most comprehensive methamphetamine legislation ever introduced, much less passed by this body, and I want to begin my brief remarks by thanking the Senator from Alabama and his staff for working with us, and the Senator from Kentucky for his good work. I know my friend from California feels the same way. We are very grateful for their efforts in including this amendment in this bill. It was very important to do.

It is amazing, since we introduced this bill, the response that we have had within this body and from the law enforcement and the social services community around the country. Senators and America are aware of the fact that methamphetamine is the single most deadly drug threat we have confronted certainly in my time in public life in the 20 years that I have been in legislative bodies. As bad as the other drugs are, it is worse than the other drugs. It is almost immediately addictive.

Let us send a message out right now: You cannot use methamphetamine casually. If you take it, you are going to get addicted to it. It changes the physical structure of the brain. It causes people to be more aggressive. It can turn some people into maniacs. Law enforcement will tell you other drugs are not as dangerous because they are passive. Methamphetamine causes people to become more aggressive. It changes the physical structure of the brain. It causes people to become more aggressive. It is almost instantly addictive and there is no known medical model for getting people off it. There is no methadone for methamphetamine.

I talked to a substance abuse counsellor from Marriville, MO, about this one time. He had been in his line, in his profession, for 16 years, and he said: When I counsel somebody in trying to get somebody off methamphetamine, I just use the 12-step program and I rely heavily on the first step. There is a higher power who can help you because that is what it takes to get off methamphetamine. And there are some people who do. It is heroic and miraculous. But we have no known effective treatment. It is the perfect storm of drugs because in addition to all that, methamphetamine, unlike other drugs, is not just sold and consumed in our neighborhoods, which would be bad enough, it is made in our neighborhoods. And the process by which it is made, which is it is concocted in labs, presents by itself a huge set of problems and causes a huge number of social pathologies which our local authorities have been fighting heroically for years and years.

Methamphetamine labs are toxic. The process by which the drug is made and then used is toxic. There are all kinds of toxic chemicals that are being used. So when these meth cooks operate a lab in a home or a van, they create a toxic waste dump. It costs $10,000 to clean it up. Our law enforcement officers have to be trained, not only as law enforcement officers but as environmental experts, because as they take down these meth labs they have to break them down, and it costs a lot of money, not even counting the training costs. Then the chemicals have to be disposed of in an environmentally safe way. That costs a lot of money. Because these labs are out there operating, it presents a whole host of additional dangers to our children, even beyond the fact that their parents or caregivers may be using a seriously deadly drug, because these kids are growing up in homes that are toxic.

I have had social service workers in Missouri tell me that when they pull children out of these environments, they have to decontaminate them, sometimes two or three times, because the residue of these toxins is all over their bodies. It is tragic and terrible. I have had law enforcement officers tell me they will go in and the air is so bad they have to wear breathing filters or moon suits, and there are little children running around within a few feet.

They have seen cradles next to methamphetamine labs. All of this is a problem with methamphetamine that does not exist with other drugs, as dangerous and as terrible as other drugs may be.

Methamphetamine is epidemic. The fact that it is relatively easy to make the drug and the information about it is all over the Internet means that there are, in my State alone, law enforcement tells me, hundreds, perhaps thousands of labs operating in isolated areas, and often in not so isolated areas. The home next door may be making methamphetamine. They make it in cars and vans. I have fire protection district chiefs in urban and suburban areas tell me half the vehicle fires they are fighting are meth related, because this is a dangerous process in which this drug is made, even resulting in fires or explosions--and these are chemical fires they have to fight.

I said in urban or suburban areas, because it is not just a rural problem anymore. It started there, but it spread to our urban and suburban areas. The consciousness of this moved many Members of this body to support this bill when Senator Feinstein and I sponsored it, and to support it passionately. I was moved and pleased by the number of Senators who came, at our initial press conference, and spoke movingly because, of course, we get around in our States. We talk to people. We see the devastation and we have heard law enforcement, and the Senate has acted by adding the Combat Meth Act to this legislation.

I am very pleased about it. We have a chance now to send this over to the House. If the Senate approves the bill, which I am confident it will, I hope early next week, then we can get this bill passed and sent to the President's desk.

I promised to be brief. I was not, although I am sure listeners understand that brevity in the Senate means something different than it may mean in other places. But the bill contains a number of important provisions. Probably the centerpiece of it is a provision that would take cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine and put them behind pharmacy counters around the country. This has been done in a number of States. Missouri is a leader in this. Oklahoma is a leader. Iowa is a leader. I thank Senator Coburn for his efforts in helping us, and Senator Grassley for his efforts, helping us. They know what methamphetamine is, coming from the States from which they come. This would put these precursor drugs behind pharmacy counters. It means consumers will still have access but meth cooks will not. Because they have to assemble 20 or 30 or 40 packages of cold medicines in order to make methamphetamine, they will not be able to do it anymore. They will not be able to steal it or buy it because it is going to be behind pharmacy counters.

Then, in addition, there are a number of targeted grant programs designed to assist our law enforcement and social service workers stopping this drug and dealing with the terrible fallout from it.

I am grateful to all those involved. We need to move now to the next step. We need to keep working in other ways, above and beyond this bill, in which we can stop this deadly drug.

I am grateful to all those who helped make this day possible, and I know I speak for Senator Feinstein saying we are very pleased the Senate has adopted this and added it to this measure and that now we are in a position to send it to the House.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a minute?

Mr. President, the Senator has yielded the floor so I can add, for a moment, that I very much appreciate his kind words. I did not in my remarks talk at great length about Senator Feinstein's efforts. I will have the opportunity to do it. I have done that in the past and I will have the opportunity to do that again.

The remarks of the Senator are very fine, but let me say Senator Feinstein has been on this issue since at least the 1990s. She saw it coming. We have not completed anything yet. We still have to get this over to the House and pass it. There are other things we have to do. The remarks of the Senator are very kind, but Senator Feinstein is the outstanding leader. It has been a great pleasure to work with her to this point and I look forward to continuing to work with her and other Senators from both sides of the aisle, getting this done completely, including the Senator from Kentucky. I know what a problem this is in Kentucky. He and I talked about this. I am grateful for his assistance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. President, Missouri is an auto State. Each year the hard-working employees of six assembly plants produce well over 1 million cars and light trucks that are shipped around the country. In fact, we have 221,000 auto-related workers in Missouri. There are 6.6 million autoworkers around the country. I raise the question: What happens to our automobile economy, what happens to the workers, what happens to the people who buy them, what happens to the people on the highways if suddenly our auto manufacturers are forced to make unreasonable changes in fuel economy standard?

When enacted, CAFE established a 14.6-mpg level for combined car and light truck fuel economy. That level increased to 17.5-mpg in 1982 and to 20.7-mpg in 1996. Since the early 1970s, new vehicles have continued to become more fuel efficient. According to the EPA data, efficiency has increased steadily at nearly 2 percent per year on average from 1975 to 2001 for both cars and trucks. Fuel economy rates in cars have more than doubled in the past generation, from 14.2 miles per gallon in 1974 to more than 28.1 miles per gallon in 2000.

Today's light truck gets better mileage than the compact cars from the 1970s. This bipartisan approach, offered by Senator Levin and the Senior Senator from Missouri, Kit Bond, increases fuel economy. It does it in a way that also allows the domestic manufacturing industry in our U.S. economy to thrive as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can accomplish both goals. If we rush to legislate higher CAFE standards it will have a negative effect on the American economy and on manufacturing jobs in America. If we do it wrong, we will not even benefit the environment the way we should.

I drive a Ford, and I just toured the Ford Motor plant in Kansas City. I listened to the car manufacturers, the

working men and women in the unions who build the cars, and the other impacted groups, and the significantly higher CAFE standard creates a real possibility of costing thousands of Americans their jobs, including many of the 221,000 auto-related workers in Missouri. The Ford F150 pickup truck is made in Kansas City. They estimated that an increase in CAFE standards to the 34-mpg that others are suggesting would raise the price of the truck by $3,000. That is a lot of money to a farmer or a construction worker considering a purchase. Adding $3,000 or more to the sticker price of a new SUV or truck hurts sales and it kills jobs. This compromise offered by Senators Bond and Levin is a reasonable measure that gives our U.S. automakers equal footing with their foreign counterparts. The adverse effects of an increased fuel economy standard will have a negative effect on the relative competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.

A higher fuel economy discriminates against the American auto industry. The American-manufactured vehicles, like those made in Missouri, are just as fuel efficient as the imports. However, they are put in a negative position, because of the CAFE structure--the fact that it looks at a fleetwide average rather than looking at class of vehicles compared to class of vehicles. Nothing is gained for the environment if an imported SUV is bought instead of an American-made SUV where the American SUV is at least as fuel efficient as the foreign SUV. Nothing is gained for the air, but a lot of American jobs are lost. This is the impact of a 36-mile-per-gallon combined car/truck standard on five manufacturers. Honda only has to increase theirs by 20 percent; Toyota, 36 percent; GM, 51 percent; Ford, 56 percent; DaimlerChrysler, 59 percent.

Instead of saying the same size vehicle will be subject to the same CAFE standard, the same mileage standard, it lumps together all vehicles of a manufacturer, and the results are, in my judgment, bizarre and costs huge numbers of American jobs without the benefit to the environment. While CAFE standards do not mandate that manufacturers make small cars, they have had a significant effect on the designs manufacturers adopt--generally, the weights of passenger vehicles have been falling. Producing smaller, lightweight vehicles that can perform satisfactorily using low-power, fuel-efficient engines is the most affordable way for automakers to meet the CAFE standards.

The only way for U.S. automakers to meet the unrealistic numbers that others are proposing is to cut back significantly on the manufacturing of the light trucks, minivans, and SUVs that the American consumers want, that the people of my State and the people of the other States want--to carry their children around safely and conveniently, to do their business.

Levin-Bond asks the Department of Transportation to consider rulemaking that would also consider the effect on U.S. employment, the effect on near-term expenditures that are required to meet increased fuel economy standards on the resources available to develop advanced technology. It puts in place a rational and science-based system of looking at many criteria which are relevant to the question of where the new standards for fuel economy ought to be instead of arbitrarily picking a number out of the air. CAFE should be addressed through a rational rulemaking process that is put in place by experts over a fixed period of time that then makes a decision on what the new standards should be. Politicians who don't fully understand the technologies involved should not arbitrarily set unattainable CAFE standards.

As we struggle to get our economy moving again, we ought to be developing proposals that will increase the number of jobs--not eliminate them. We are debating this obscure theory of CAFE where foreign manufacturers are relatively unconstrained by CAFE because of a fleet mix, not because they are more fuel efficient class by class. For those who say, too bad, we must force the U.S. Big Three to build more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, do you know that under CAFE it doesn't matter what the companies manufacture and build? It is calculated based on what the consumer buys.

Our auto manufacturers can produce vehicles that get 40 miles per gallon. Sure, they can. They can produce electric vehicles which even do better than that. The question is: Are there people who want to buy them? Light trucks today account for about 50 percent of GM sales, 60 percent of Ford sales, and 73 percent of DaimlerChrysler sales. There are over 50 of these high economy models in the showrooms across America today. But guess what. They represent less than 2 percent of total sales. Americans don't want them. You can lead a horse to water; you can't make him drink. You can lead the American consumer to a whole range of lightweight, automobiles, but you can't make them buy them.

Additionally, with the higher cost of new vehicles, farmers, construction workers and parents aren't going to afford the more expensive new light truck. More older, less efficient cars will stay on the road longer. How does that improve our air quality or reduce the need for imported oil?

Let's put this debate in perspective. Support the American autoworker, support the American economy, support the Levin-Bond amendment and oppose the unreasonable proposal from Senator Durbin.

Mr. President, I sure agree with what the Senator from Delaware was saying, and the Senator from Michigan, so I do not have to repeat it all. I want to make what I think are four brief points.

Let me clarify, whether you meet CAFE standards does not depend on the cars you offer to sell. It depends on the cars that people actually buy. It is very important to remember that. That is the reason for the problem with the amendment of the Senator from Illinois that the Senator from Michigan and Senator Biden both mentioned.

The Japanese have been effective in capturing more of the small-car market. American manufacturers have been more effective in capturing the SUV and truck market. Now, the Senator from Illinois says we missed a bet by going after the truck and SUV market. Well, the Japanese don't think so. The Senator from Michigan made the point, they have been going like a house afire to try to capture precisely that market. And the amendment of the Senator from Illinois would make it much easier for them to do it.

The reason is, the trucks and the SUVs we sell now are general fleet. They tend to be big and, therefore, have somewhat lower mileage. So if the amendment of the Senator from Illinois were adopted, the Japanese manufacturers could continue to sell lower mileage bigger trucks and bigger SUVs and still comply with his standard under the CAFE laws. The result would be they would be able to capture the SUV and larger truck market.

His amendment would not cause people to buy fewer large SUVs and trucks. It would cause them to buy fewer American SUVs and American trucks. That is the point the Senator from Michigan and my friend from Missouri have made.

Now, the Senator from Illinois talks about monster SUVs. I have to comment, people do not buy SUVs or trucks because they have lower gas mileage. They buy them generally for reasons of safety or utility. We went through this in my family. We used to drive smaller cars. When we started having kids, my wife put her foot down and said: The car you have been driving would fold up like an accordion if you ever got in an accident. We have kids now. You have to get a bigger car. That is the first time we bought an SUV. That kind of decisionmaking goes on all over the United States.

Let me close by commenting on some of what the Senator from Illinois said about our auto manufacturers. He was criticizing decisions they made and mentioning they are having difficult economic times. It is true that our auto manufacturers are going through some troubled times. Is that a reason to heap a new burden on them? It is true they have not been as effective as any of us would have liked in capturing the small- car market. Is that a reason to take the larger truck market from them? It is true that America relies too much on overseas oil. Is that a reason to send our jobs overseas?

We have an alternative in front of us that is going to encourage greater fuel economy: higher mileage automobiles. It is working. It is rational and logical, as the Senator from Michigan has said, rather than arbitrary. It is the Bond-Levin amendment.

I urge the Senate to adopt that amendment and stay the course. It is working, and it will protect American jobs.

I thank the Senate, Mr. President. I yield whatever time I have.

Mr. President, I have talked to both sides to get permission for a unanimous consent request allowing me to offer an amendment that is acceptable to both sides on a voice vote.

Amendment No. 819

So I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to offer amendment No. 819 and proceed to a vote right after I explain it.

Thirty seconds.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been accepted by unanimous consent and voice vote by the Senate in the past. It would allow municipalities to help meet their EPAct requirement by using biodiesel. I am offering it on behalf of Senators Johnson, Bond, Dorgan, and myself.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to amendment No. 826, the McCain-Lieberman climate change amendment.

As we debate whether to adopt some form of carbon cap, I am reminded of the dire warnings regarding energy we see every day in the news:

Oil prices soared past $59 a barrel on Monday even as the president of OPEC said the group will consider raising its production target by half a million barrels as early as this week.

The Wall Street Journal reported on June 8 that high energy prices are the leading cause of a world-wide slowing in manufacturing growth. A survey of chief financial officers, conducted by Duke University and CFO Magazine, found that 87 percent of U.S. manufacturers said they were facing pricing pressures as a result of high energy and raw material costs.

Farmers have decried the high cost of oil and natural gas, fearing it may drive them out of business. Farmers use diesel to run their tractors and other equipment, natural gas to produce fertilizer, and gasoline to get their crops to market. And yet, the price of gasoline has doubled in the last 3 years, and natural gas by 66 percent over the same time period. An AP story of May 13 states that this means farmers will spend an additional $3 billion in energy costs, a 10-percent increase in overall costs.

Nationwide, farmers paid $6 billion more for energy in 2003 and 2004, in part

because higher natural gas costs have pushed the average retail cost of nitrogen fertilizer from $100 per ton to more than $350 per ton.

Consumption of natural gas is exceeding production at an increasing rate. Residential, commercial and industrial consumers have paid over $130 billion more for natural gas than they did 2 years ago, an 86 percent increase.

Despite oil prices of nearly $60 per barrel, continued growth in oil consumption could spur still-higher prices and further damp economic growth. Gasoline and diesel use continues to rise strongly in the U.S., the largest oil consumer by far, despite high prices and a slowing economy. China is now the world's No. 2 oil user, and it continues to burn more fossil fuel to power its domestic economy and meet rising demand for its goods. Economists say energy prices are reemerging as a prime constraint on the world's growth potential, and they have trimmed their projections of economic growth by a quarter point as a result.

China faces a coal shortage by 2010, according to a May 25 AP story. China will consume 2.2 billion tons of coal by 2010, 330 millions of tons per year less than they produce today. By 2020, China will consume 3.1 billion barrels of crude oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year, with half of the oil imported.

What does this mean? Greater demand for energy means higher prices, higher even than those we are facing and trying to reduce today. As I have already stated, high energy prices have a direct and negative impact on economic growth. As world demand for energy grows and prices rise, manufacturers face higher costs. They have a harder time meeting payroll, and people lose their jobs.

Senator McCain states that his plan to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions is ``affordable and doable.'' However, McCain-Lieberman will undoubtedly drive up the cost of energy at a time when we are seeking for ways to increase energy supply and reduce energy costs. Direct costs of the program are estimated to be upwards of $27 billion annually. Studies by the Competitive Enterprise Institute show that McCain-Lieberman will lead to a cumulative loss to gross domestic product of $776 billion through 2025. In addition, studies by United for Jobs, a group sponsored by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, cite studies that show the climate bill would cost the U.S. economy over 600,000 jobs. We can't afford this kind of hit to our GDP or the loss of jobs that could result from this proposal.

Jobs lost as a result of adopting an onerous climate change proposal will be exported oversees to countries that do not cap their emissions. So not only will the jobs be exported, but the emissions will be, too. This bill purports to address ``global'' warming. The bill's proponents are correct that the problem, to the extent there is one, is not regional or national but global. However, the fix we are debating would hamstring our economy by driving up energy costs while doing nothing to limit emissions in developing countries.

Already, high natural gas prices have cost America's chemical sector nearly 90,000 jobs and $50 billion in business to overseas operations. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, just 1 is in the U.S. while 50 are in China.

Interestingly, the May 5 AP article I referenced earlier notes that China's massive demand for coal is leading managers to ignore safety, causing 5,000 mining deaths per year. If China is not worried about mining safety, we can be pretty certain that they are not going to worry about greenhouse gas emissions.

Advocates for this amendment continue to point to the Kyoto Protocol. What did the Senate say to Kyoto? As you know, in 1997, the Senate voted 95 to 0 for a Byrd-Hagel resolution assailing Kyoto's provisions, leaving President Clinton unable to even bring the Kyoto Protocol up for a vote. By their own admission, McCain-Lieberman is Kyoto-lite. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and to what end? It may not even solve the problem it purports to solve. Yes, there will be lower emissions under this amendment; however, those in favor of Kyoto say Kyoto only scratches the surface.

Environmental groups concede that it will have no impact on what they believe to be impending catastrophic global warming.

Greenpeace International agreed that the Kyoto Protocol should only be an entry point for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Jessica Coven, a spokesperson for the environmental group, told CNSNews.com that ``Kyoto is our first start and we need increasing emissions cuts.''

``The Kyoto Protocol . . . doesn't even go near to what has to get done. It is not anywhere near to what we need in the Arctic,'' said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chairwoman of Inuit Circumpolar Conference. ``Kyoto will not stop the dangerous sea level rise from creating these kinds of enormous challenges that we are about to face in the future. I know many of you here believe that we must go beyond [Kyoto],'' she said during a panel discussion.

Despite the fact that green groups at the U.N. climate summit in Buenos Aires called President George Bush ``immoral'' and ``illegitimate'' for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol, the groups themselves concede the Protocol will only have ``symbolic'' effect on climate because they believe it is too weak. Kyoto is an international treaty that seeks to limit greenhouse gases of the developed countries by 2012.

``I think that everybody agrees that Kyoto is really, really hopeless in terms of delivering what the planet needs,'' Peter Roderick of Friends of the Earth International told CNSNews.com. ``It's tiny, it's tiny, tiny, it's tiny,'' Roderick said. ``It is woefully inadequate, woefully. We need huge cuts to protect the planet from climate change.'' Roderick believes a global climate emergency can only be averted by a greenhouse gas limiting treaty of massive proportions. ``We are talking basically of huge, huge cuts,'' said Roderick.

I ask you, if Kyoto isn't enough to solve the purported problem, and McCain-Lieberman would reduce emissions by even less, why are we even thinking of doing it?

What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes our need for a secure and affordable supply of energy that drives economic growth and creates jobs in America. Our energy policy cannot be formed in a vacuum; it must recognize the global competition for energy that we face and why such competition exists.

The United States is a model for much of the world. Developing nations have seen the value of low cost energy as a means of lifting their citizens out of poverty and misery. We are seeing it today in China and India, and they are not doing it relying on government mandates and bureaucracy. They are improving the standard of living of their people through economic growth that provides good paying jobs for hard working citizens.

Does this mean we have to choose between a strong, growing economy and a clean environment? No, of course not. These two important goals work together. Economic growth is the means of environmental responsibility. Earlier on the Senate floor, Senator Domenici declared that the Energy bill ought to be called the ``Clean Energy Act'' due to the many incentives and requirements it contains for clean sources of energy--wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, clean coal technologies, hydrogen, ethanol, and biodiesel--and the many requirements for improved energy efficiency which will reduce energy use and, therefore, emissions.

Numerous of my colleagues have delineated the efficiency measures, energy savings and incentives in the bill before us and how this package will slash emissions through reducing the need to burn fossil fuels and thus reducing emissions. Nuclear power, IGCC, renewables, and the encouragement of transmission investment to increase customer access to cheaper, more efficient sources of electricity, will reduce emissions by using less fuel to make electricity.

In addition, increased production of ethanol and biodiesel fuels and the incentives for hybrid cars will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Domenici included in the Record a detailed statement of all of the provisions in the Energy bill that are aimed at new technologies that will

have no global warming emissions, and I won't repeat that list here.

Neverthless, let me offer a few important statistics on the impact of the current energy bill:

Passage of the bipartisan energy bill will save nearly 2 million jobs over the next decade, according to a study released today by the national association of manufacturers, the manufacturing institute and the american council for capitol formation.

The bill will reduce U.S. energy use by about 2.4 percent in 2020 compared to baseline forecasts by the U.S. energy information administration. The bill will also reduce natural gas use in 2020 by about 1.1 trillion cubic feet, equivalent to current annual consumption by New York State. And the bill will reduce peak electric demand in 2020 by about 50,000 MW, equivalent to the capacity of 170 powerplants, 300 MW each.

The energy efficiency standards in the bill will save so much energy in the coming years that by 2010, the electricity savings will total 12 GWh and will reduce peak electric demand by the output of 12 new 300-MW powerplants. By 2020, the savings will total 66 GWh and reduce peak demand by the output of 75 new 300-MW plants. By 2030, the savings will equal 96 GWh and reduce peak demand by the output of 108 new 300-MW plants.

The ethanol mandate in the Senate Energy bill will displace as much as 2 billion barrels of imported crude oil, lower the U.S. trade deficit by $67 billion, create $51 billion in new farm income and cut Government farm payments by an estimated $5.9 billion--all by 2012.

Using 100 percent biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by more than 75 percent over petroleum diesel, while using a 20 percent biodiesel blend reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 15 percent.

In 2003, U.S. nuclear powerplants avoided the emission of 679 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, from the fossil fuels that would have been burned to generate power in the absence of nuclear energy. Annual carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. electric sector are approximately 2,215 million metric tons. Without nuclear energy, U.S. electric sector carbon emissions would have been approximately 30 percent higher.

As we conserve energy and promote new clean sources of energy production, we burn less fossil fuel, thereby reducing emissions in the most economically sound manner.

Even Senator McCain recognizes the need to promote clean sources of energy, namely nuclear energy and clean coal. He said:

The fact is, nuclear is clean, producing zero emissions,

while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity

produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases

accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to

air pollution affecting our communities.

His proposal includes money and loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors, new ultra-clean coal power plants, plants to create ethanol from sources other than corn, and large-scale solar power sites. These projects are consistent with many of the incentives that are already included in the Energy bills.

This is important since, if nuclear energy is to continue providing 20 percent of the U.S.'s electrical supply, 50 new 1,000 megawatt power plants will have to be constructed by 2030.

The Hagel-Pryor amendment that we accepted on Tuesday provides additional incentives to develop workable technology to control emissions without exporting jobs and stifling our economy. I voted for this because it allows us to find the right technology and to further explore whether we really have a problem to solve. We are not even sure that a warmer earth is a bad thing.

I have spent significant time studying this issue. When I was chairman of the small business committee in the House of Representatives, I held extensive hearings on the Kyoto Protocol, which the current amendment is modeled after. I wanted to question both sides in depth on the scientific and economic sides of the issue. I reached the conclusion that the science of global warming is much less precise than either side would like to suggest. There is some evidence of ozone depletion but the evidence of resulting global warming is much more dubious. We are just not sure whether and to what extent the Earth is warming; it is not easy to take the Earth's temperature at any given time, and of course it is even more difficult to determine whether the Earth is warmer relative to past ages. Nothing that has been presented in the current debate has changed my mind.

Even the National Academy of Sciences and their brethren organizations can say no more than it is ``likely'' that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. ``Likely'' is not good enough to risk our jobs and our economy, especially since many other notable scientists aren't even that sure. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago when the scientists were telling us that an ice age was coming.

My colleagues have already discussed how the Kyoto Protocol is not really helping the environment since countries participating in Kyoto have been unable to meet their targets and some, in fact, are seeking to find a way out of it due to its devastating economic impact and minimal environmental benefit.

As you all know, the Kyoto Protocol would require industrialized nations to limit their greenhouse gas emissions to varying percentages below 1990 levels. However, all but 40 of the 192 countries in the world are exempted from Kyoto. This creates a two-tiered environmental obligation, forcing the entire burden of reducing greenhouse emissions on industrialized nations and turning the developing world into a pollution ``enterprise zone.'' This will not succeed in reversing ``global warming'' or eliminating greenhouse gases; it would simply change their point of production and push millions of jobs overseas.

America has been down this path before. In the 1987 Montreal Protocol on the production of ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, the U.S. agreed to a framework eliminating the production of CFCs for industrialized nations only. Following the 1987 Protocol, the U.S. virtually eliminated production of CFCs in 10 years, but the developing world nearly doubled its production. The environmental consequences of the Kyoto treaty would be even worse. It is estimated that if the U.S. not only stabilizes emissions but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent and every other industrial country also reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, yet developing nations continue on their current path, then worldwide greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 250 percent before 2030. The factories other countries would build would not be subject to any of our environmental laws and would be much less healthy.

I want to repeat that I have spent scores of hours studying this issue, and the conclusion is inescapable that, even if global warming is a problem, the Kyoto Protocol would have been a disaster for America, causing millions of people to lose their jobs. I cannot understand, therefore, why so many environmental groups keep pushing measures like it. We should all be able to agree that economic growth, while it poses real challenges for the environment, is necessary for the environment's health as well. Poor countries don't have strong environmental policies. So it is in everyone's interests to focus on real environmental concerns--and there are certainly enough of those-- without dividing the political community and wasting time and effort on proposals that make no sense from any point of view.

A new bureaucratic program that creates economic incentives to solve a problem that may not exist is not a good addition to our pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-environment Energy bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I want to begin my brief statement by congratulating the managers of the bill for their good work in explaining the bill to this point. This is not a resolution I can support, but I acknowledge its good faith.

I point out that the resolution states, in the effective clause where it says what the sense of the Senate is, that we should ``enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on emissions,'' provided that--and subsection (1) says that ``will not significantly harm the United States economy.'' I read it and caught that word ``significantly.'' Evidently it is OK, under the resolution, to harm the American economy provided that it is not significant. I just wonder what the word ``significant'' means. Not significant may be if somebody else loses their job as a result of it. If I do not lose my job, it is not significant. I am wondering how much of GDP, how much of a loss of manufacturing jobs is significant. The estimates of the McCain-Lieberman amendment would be $27 billion annually as a direct cost. I wonder if that is significant.

High energy prices, which legislation of the kind envisioned by the resolution would cause, hurt the American economy. I do not want to do that. I do not want to vote for a resolution that presupposes it is OK to hurt the American economy. That is not the way to solve this problem.

I want us to start thinking not in terms of economic prosperity or environmental quality, I want us to think in terms of economic prosperity and environmental quality. It is not a question of more jobs or doing something about climate change. It is a question of more jobs and doing something about climate change.

Without prosperity, without growth, without the wealth that creates for the American people in their private lives, and also for the governments in this country--Federal, State, and local--we cannot defeat these environmental problems.

Most of them come down to a question of money. That is certainly the case in the State of Missouri. We have significant water quality issues. We need funds to solve those problems. If we have funds, we have to have revenue; to have revenue, you have to have growth; and you are not going to have growth if you are passing resolutions saying it is OK to harm the American economy, providing it is not significant.

I know the sincerity of the Senator in offering this amendment and others who are going to vote for this, but I ask them to get out of this mindset: We can solve the global warming problem, but we will do it with prosperity, not without prosperity.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 791, Senator Bingaman's amendment which would require a mandatory renewable portfolio standard, or ``RPS.''

I am a big supporter of new, clean forms of energy. I am convinced that we cannot become energy independent without making renewable energy resources an important part of our energy mix.

I also believe that each region of the country has something to offer to meet this country's clean energy needs, but what each region has to offer is not the same. For that simple reason, I oppose including a nationwide, mandatory renewable portfolio standard in this energy bill.

In particular, for many regions of the country not blessed with renewable energy resources, this RPS mandate would essentially result in a huge wealth transfer payment from consumers to the Federal Government or to renewable energy generators located in other areas of the country. The amendment ignores the reality that some regions of the country simply do not have the amount of renewable resources demanded by this amendment.

The leading advocate for wind power, the American Wind Energy Association, lists my home State of Missouri as the 20th best state for wind energy potential. That would seem to imply that Missouri would have no trouble meeting a 10 percent RPS with wind energy.

However, the detailed studies done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory show that the wind Missouri does have is of insufficient power and consistency for utility grade wind turbine applications. In other words, the utilities in Missouri cannot build windmills in the State to meet an RPS. There's just no wind to make them turn.

Missouri is not the only State that finds itself unable to use wind, the one renewable resource that RPS proponents do not dispute is central to meeting the proposed requirement. The wind resource map prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory graphically demonstrates that the entire southeastern region of the country has virtually no wind potential. Those States are even worse off than Missouri. Moreover, large areas of the upper midwest have marginal wind potential, unless those States plan to build wind farms in the Great Lakes, and I don't think any of us expect that to happen.

So if not wind, what else might be used? The proposed amendment lists a limited number of forms of renewable energy that meet the requirement--solar, wind, geothermal energy, ocean energy, biomass, landfill gas, or incremental hydropower.

My State has just a little bit of hydropower. However, under Mr. Bingaman's proposal, existing hydropower, though clearly a renewable resource and one of the very cleanest and cheapest sources of electricity, inexplicably does not count. All of the hydropower in the Pacific Northwest also does not count under this proposal.

My State also has a generator that burns tire chips. Every tire that is burned to make electricity is one less that will be tossed into our overburdened landfills. That is certainly something we should encourage, but are tires considered renewable? I do not see us driving cars without tires anytime soon. Nevertheless, tire chips do not count, either.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has also found that Missouri does not have utility-scale geothermal, solar, or fuelwood biomass resources, either. So what do I tell my homestate utilities that they should use to meet this RPS requirement?

This morning, Sen. Bingaman acknowledged that many States do not have access to the best renewable resources. He recognized that wind, solar, and geothermal resources are generally concentrated in western States. These are the major sources of clean, renewable power. He suggested that, no matter, another renewable--biomass--is available in every State. What he did not tell you, however, is that you can not just toss switchgrass or other biomass into a boiler and churn out electricity.

Biomass is not generally used to make electricity today, and its use is not without substantial costs. It must be thoroughly dried before burning. That requires lots of space and energy for drying and, obviously, it can not be stored outside in a heap like coal. Building a drying and storage facility to process and store the mountain of biomass it would take to meet an RPS requirement would cost a lot of money. There would also be quite a cost to gather and transport these materials from the hundreds of acres it would take to grow sufficient biomass just to equal a couple of tons of coal. Plus, there is a substantial cost to consumers for utilities to modify their boilers to co-fire or blend biomass fuel. And, on top of this, burning biomass may leave the utilities with additional cost to comply with the Clean Air Act.

Proponents of a mandatory RPS say, ``Just buy wind power from wind generators in other States.'' Sounds easy enough, but how do we get that power to the State? Wind turbines obviously have to be built where the wind is. These locations are usually remote and far from our cities where the electricity is most needed. In most every instance, there is insufficient transmission capacity to move that power to where it is needed. And at $1 to $3 million a mile, new transmission does not come cheaply, nor is it easy to get all of the necessary approvals to get it built. So I am not ready to say I can count on economically transmitting wind power to Missouri, if at all.

Moreover, wind turbines are just as susceptible to fierce local opposition as any other energy facility proposed near population centers. Senator Alexander has highlighted how large and intrusive each of these modern wind turbines are. And while one on the horizon may be interesting, it will take hundreds of them on that horizon to meet a 10 percent RPS requirement. I do not know that this is how any of us want to meet our Nation's energy needs, if we can even get that many wind turbines built.

What is the result if this wind energy does not get built or can not be delivered? This RPS amendment will end up being nothing more than a new energy tax on consumers who depend on traditional fuels for their electricity. Higher energy costs, particularly those that result in a wealth transfer payment from our constituents to the Department of Energy, is not good energy policy.

Utilities in my State already voluntarily offer the green power that they have available to their customers if they prefer to buy green. They are adding wind generators where they can--For example, Kansas City Power and Light is adding up to 200 megawatts of wind power in Kansas. This is about as much as they have found feasible to produce there. But this does not even come close to meeting a 10-percent RPS requirement.

According to EIA, total electricity sold in 2002 by the Missouri utilities that would have to meet the proposed RPS was 47,378,256 megawatt-hours, meaning Missouri utilities would have to produce 4.7 million megawatt-hours of renewable electricity, and this amount will only grow, as electricity demand has increased in recent years by nearly 5 percent.

KCP&L's 200 megawatts of wind energy capacity will translate into no more than 584,000 megawatt-hours of wind energy, assuming the energy is available \1/3\ of all hours of the year, far

short of the 4.7 million megawatt-hours that a 10-percent RPS requirement would demand. Even on a capacity rather then energy basis, the 200 megawatts would only equate to 5 percent of KCP&L's current generating capacity of 4,000 megawatts.

KCP&L estimates that to meet the RPS requirement it would face with wind energy, it would need as much as 450 megawatts of wind. This equates to about 297 wind turbines, each of which needs at least 60 acres of land, meaning it would take upwards of 18,000 acres of land to meet the RPS requirement. KCP&L estimates the total cost of complying with the RPS proposal to be between $400 and $500 million. And that's just one utility that serves just a portion of Missouri.

Today, the cost of all types of energy is at unacceptably high levels. Adoption of this amendment would increase consumers' electric bills, since if a utility cannot meet the standard, it would have to buy credits at 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Missouri's average retail rate for electricity is around 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, making the RPS amount to a 25-percent increase in cost to Missouri customers for this portion of their electricity needs. This would have particularly negative consequences for those who can least afford it, such as the working poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

This is just a wealth transfer from States with little renewable resources to those with a lot. We do not do this for any other source of electricity--States with low cost coal or hydropower do not subsidize States that rely on higher cost fuels such as natural gas. Why should we have some States subsidize others to promote a selective fuel for producing electricity? At 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, this could cost Missouri consumers as much as $71 million a year.

Such a large sum of money would be better spent in shoring up our Nation's transmission grid or pursuing other clean energy sources. Missouri utilities are voluntarily spending hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing clean coal technology to take advantage of the natural resource that is readily and economically available to Missouri, just as other States are doing what they can with the resources they have available, whether that is coal, natural gas, wind, biomass or other forms of energy such as nuclear.

Utilities are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit their plants to remove NOX, SO2, and mercury from emissions, and may be subject to CO2 reductions as well. KCP&L alone is spending $280 million to meet emission reduction goals.

Adding a tax to support renewables in other regions of the country is an excessive burden on this critical industry that needs to be focusing capital resources on improving the transmission grid to increase reliability. This transmission investment is needed to improve the existing grid, not to extend the grid to remote locations where wind turbines must be placed, far from where the electricity is used.

States that have renewable resources in sufficient quantity have already moved ahead and adopted renewable portfolio standards tailored to the resources of the State. Not surprisingly, adoption of this amendment would conflict with the RPS programs adopted by 20 States that have different eligible renewable resources and implement timetables.

Even some of these States with their own RPS will not be able to meet this mandatory proposal. Of the 20 States with portfolio requirements, only 13 of them have set a standard high enough to meet the proposed 10-percent Federal standard by 2020. Some of 13 that meet the 10- percent threshold may still fail simply because their definition of renewable energy doesn't meet what would be the national standard definition. They, like other States coming up short will be subject to what amounts to a Federally-mandated energy tax.

I believe that, if we want to encourage renewable energy, and we do, a better way of doing it, particularly for wind, is through stable tax credits. Stable tax credits are the better solution to encourage renewables. A greater need for wind developers than the RPS is the certainty of a production tax credit that doesn't annually disappear and reappear. Extending this credit from an annual credit to 5 or 10 years would make wind competitive in areas of the country where it is viable and wanted. An RPS does not make wind competitive in the marketplace; it just raises the cost of electricity to consumers, who are already paying too much for energy. This is not good energy policy.

I urge the Senate to reject this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise briefly to continue the conversation my friend from South Dakota started about the importance of renewable fuels. I thank him for his work on the amendment that is going to be offered that I hope will not only be a bipartisan amendment--I know it is going to be that--I hope it becomes virtually a consensus amendment. It ought to be that for the reasons my friend from South Dakota said. I am going to discuss them for a few minutes myself.

I also join him in congratulating the chairman of the Energy Committee in bringing out a very strong Energy bill, a bill that is designed, in its entirety, to be a pro-energy bill, a proproduction bill, but also a proconservation bill and a pro-environment bill. I believe very strongly that it is not a question of ``energy or conservation or the environment,'' but a question of ``energy and conservation and the environment.'' The American people want all three, and they can have all three. I believe the bill is a long step toward giving them all three.

The renewable fuels standard which is part of the bill, and will be part of an amendment that is offered by the Senator from New Mexico, is an important part of the bill.

We all know that America has been importing more and more oil from foreign countries. In 1999, America was importing over 55 percent of its oil and petroleum products. Just 2 years later, our dependency had increased to over 59 percent. And by the year 2025, the Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States will import nearly 70 percent of its petroleum, unless something is done. And something needs to be done.

We cannot continue in a world where we are fighting a war against terror, in a world where there are many countries that, from time to time, express their dislike for us, to rely on foreigners for our energy. We do not rely on them for our food, and we should not rely on them for basics such as energy.

The good news is that the same people who are producing our food for us, and have given us the safest, highest quality, and most abundant and least-expensive food supply in the world, are well on the way to doing the same thing with regard to energy.

I am pleased to report that renewable fuels are not just the future-- although I think they are part of the future--but they are the present. They are now. They are a ``here and now.'' This year, we will use 3.8 billion gallons of ethanol in the Nation's fuel supply. That is about 3 percent of the Nation's fuel supply which is being produced in scores and scores and scores of ethanol plants around this country, many of which are owned and operated by the same farmers who are producing the corn which we then turn into ethanol.

Renewable fuels are here, and we need to make certain they are here 5 years from now and 10 years from now, and in greater and greater supplies so we can protect our national security. That is what the renewable fuels standard is about.

An amendment is going to be offered by the Senator from New Mexico. It is going to be a thoroughly bipartisan amendment. We have worked it out. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for working out an arrangement with the Senator from New Mexico to have a consensus amendment as between the two of them. I appreciate the hard work of the Senator from South Dakota. That amendment will reflect the basics of the renewable fuels standard that we put on in committee with very strong bipartisan support.

It will increase, from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 8 billion gallons in 2012, the amount of biofuels or renewable fuels that are in the Nation's energy supply. That is not just ethanol. It is important to make that clear. It is partly ethanol, and probably will be mostly ethanol, but it will also be biodiesel, which we make from soybeans, and it will be biomass. There are provisions to develop the technology so we can turn sugar into energy. And I would expect, at 8 billion gallons, all those various kinds of renewable fuels will be present in substantial supply in the Nation's fuel supply by the year 2012.

Now, I said it was good for energy independence. I think that is pretty clear. Which one of us would not rather be dependent upon our farmers for their energy than upon, let's say, Saudi oil producers? It seems to me to be pretty self-evident that we can rely more on our own agricultural producers than we can on foreigners. I come from a farm family. I know a lot of farmers. They can get stubborn now and then, but they are not going to embargo us from energy.

The Senator from South Dakota mentioned the oil embargo in the early 1970s. I am glad he is old enough to remember that. I am barely old enough to remember that oil embargo. I do not want my kids and grandkids to go through what I went through as a stripling. And they will not have to, to the extent we are relying on renewables.

It is also a tremendous hedge against rising oil prices. At the current price for oil, $55, $56 a barrel, you can buy a gallon of ethanol for less than you can

buy a gallon of gasoline. So this is exerting now a downward pressure on the price of fuel, and will do so in the future. It is a hedge against increased costs of oil, obviously, because it is an alternative source--you increase the supply and you decrease the price over time. It is important for that reason as well.

It is also important because it is good for the environment. Again, common sense tells us, if we are burning in our engines what we are growing from the ground, that is going to be better for air than burning petrochemicals. And it is. The use of ethanol-blended fuels-- and this is the same for biodiesel--reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12 to 19 percent compared with conventional gasoline. The American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago credits ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline with reducing smog-forming emissions by 25 percent since 1990. So again, this is an example not of ``energy or the environment'' but ``energy and the environment.''

It certainly is good for jobs in the United States. I already mentioned there are scores and scores of ethanol plants. We are building biodiesel plants, as well, and building a new biodiesel plant in Missouri. These plants are located, by and large, in the more rural areas. They are good jobs for those communities. The plants are often owned by people who live in the communities.

It is a tremendous hedge against lower farm prices. So people who are concerned about the cost of the farm bill need to understand that this amendment that is going to be offered on the floor of the Senate will save us $1 billion over the next few years from the price of the farm bill because this is an additional market for our commodities and, therefore, it tends to sustain the price of corn and soybeans and the other products that we use to make this kind of energy.

People who want us to use more solar energy, I ask them: Where do you think we get the ethanol and the biodiesel? What is the energy that we use to produce that? It is solar energy. The farmers grow the corn and they grow the sugar and they grow the soybeans and they grow the other biomass. They grow that using solar energy. You grow food by combining sunlight and water, along with pretty good soil. We have a lot of good soil in Missouri. So it is a way of getting solar energy into the energy mix for the country as well.

I could go on and on about the advantages of this kind of fuel. I think it is pretty self-evident. We can have it and have it without any kind of significant market distortions. I believe this renewable fuels standard that we are offering today is something that the market would probably reach on its own. But what it does is offer an assured market for this kind of product so that the investment in these plants and the investment in the distribution network that we need to get this energy out to people will continue. And it is going to continue.

I started off by saying that renewable fuels are the future. But they are also the present. And that is true. There are hundreds and hundreds of stations around the country that are already pumping an ethanol blend. Those within the sound of my voice may be using ethanol now almost without knowing it because you can use a blend of up to about 50 percent ethanol in gasoline without even changing the existing engines. And there are millions of cars that have been purchased that can use up to 85 percent ethanol. We just do not have enough stations pumping that now, but that is coming as well for the future.

It is here and now. It is good for the environment, it is good for creating jobs, it will hold down the price of oil and gasoline, and it will help protect us and our national security and our energy supply against foreign oil embargoes.

I congratulate everybody involved with this amendment. I am glad we were able to save the 8-billion-gallon standard that we put on in committee. I appreciate very much the work of the chairman and ranking members of both committees. People look at what we do here and they often see the conflict or the partisanship or sometimes the personalities. We have all those things. But there is a whole lot that goes on on the Senate floor that involves people working together. Disagreements that may exist are honest disagreements. They are honestly debated, and then we vote on them.

The renewable fuels standard is an outstanding example of that. It was offered 2 years ago at a lower level in an amendment offered by the majority leader and the Democratic leader jointly. I can't think of anything else we did in the last Congress like that. It got almost two- thirds of the vote. I believe this amendment will get a similar vote in the Senate today. I am pleased to have been a part of it. Now we need to pass the amendment, then go into conference, and hold this renewable fuels standard for the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today Senator Lincoln and I introduce legislation to extend the current excise tax credit for biodiesel through 2010. This tax credit brings great benefits to our nation's economy and environment while at the same time reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Biodiesel is a cleaner burning alternative to petroleum-based diesel, and it is made from renewable resources like soybeans and other natural fats and oils, grown here in the United States. It works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It can be used in its pure form (B100), or blended with petroleum diesel at a level--most commonly 20 percent (B20). Soybean farmers in Missouri and across the Nation have invested millions of dollars to build a strong and viable biodiesel industry.

In last years JOBS bill, we created an excise tax credit for biodiesel; a $1/gallon credit for biodiesel produced from virgin oils, and a $0.50/gallon credit for biodiesel produced from yellow grease or recycled cooking oil. This important tax credit is set to expire in less than 2 years. It is imperative that we extend this incentive that is expected to increase domestic energy security, reduce pollution and stimulate the economy.

I certainly would prefer to fill up my tank with a clean burning fuel grown by farmers in our Nation's heartland instead of petroleum imported from the Saudis. Our farmers pose no security risks. I'm not alone in this preference. More than 400 major fleets use biodiesel commercially nationwide. About 300 retail filling stations make biodiesel available to the public, and more than 1,000 petroleum distributors carry it nationwide.

I am pleased that we will soon have a biodiesel plant in Missouri. Missouri Soybean Association and Mid-America Biofuels LLC recently announced plans to build a biodiesel plant in Mexico, MO. The plant is expected to produce 30 million gallons of biodiesel annually. There is strong support for this endeavor and they have exhibited exceptional leadership by bringing this plant to Missouri. I look forward to working with them.

As I've said before, biodiesel is a fuel of the future that we can use today. It is nontoxic, biodegradable and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. Biodiesel offers similar fuel economy, horsepower and torque to petroleum diesel while providing superior lubricity. It significantly reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, unburned hydrocarbons and sulfates. On a lifecycle basis, biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel. In other words, biodiesel is good for your car and the environment.

Additionally, this new value added market for soybeans brings jobs to our economy and benefits to farmers. Based on the USDA baseline estimates for future soybean production, over a five year time period the biodiesel tax incentive could add almost $1 billion directly to the bottom line of U.S. farm income. In addition, the provisions will significantly benefit the U.S. economy and could increase U.S. gross output by almost $7 billion.

I want to thank Senator Lincoln and Senator Grassley for their leadership on this important issue. We need to prevent this tax credit from expiring. It is expected to increase biodiesel demand from an estimated 30 million gallons in fiscal year 2004 to at least 124 million gallons per year, based on a U.S. Department of Agriculture study.

Mr. President, today Senator Lincoln and I introduce legislation to extend the current excise tax credit for biodiesel through 2010. This tax credit brings great benefits to our nation's economy and environment while at the same time reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Biodiesel is a cleaner burning alternative to petroleum-based diesel, and it is made from renewable resources like soybeans and other natural fats and oils, grown here in the United States. It works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It can be used in its pure form (B100), or blended with petroleum diesel at a level--most commonly 20 percent (B20). Soybean farmers in Missouri and across the Nation have invested millions of dollars to build a strong and viable biodiesel industry.

In last years JOBS bill, we created an excise tax credit for biodiesel; a $1/gallon credit for biodiesel produced from virgin oils, and a $0.50/gallon credit for biodiesel produced from yellow grease or recycled cooking oil. This important tax credit is set to expire in less than 2 years. It is imperative that we extend this incentive that is expected to increase domestic energy security, reduce pollution and stimulate the economy.

I certainly would prefer to fill up my tank with a clean burning fuel grown by farmers in our Nation's heartland instead of petroleum imported from the Saudis. Our farmers pose no security risks. I'm not alone in this preference. More than 400 major fleets use biodiesel commercially nationwide. About 300 retail filling stations make biodiesel available to the public, and more than 1,000 petroleum distributors carry it nationwide.

I am pleased that we will soon have a biodiesel plant in Missouri. Missouri Soybean Association and Mid-America Biofuels LLC recently announced plans to build a biodiesel plant in Mexico, MO. The plant is expected to produce 30 million gallons of biodiesel annually. There is strong support for this endeavor and they have exhibited exceptional leadership by bringing this plant to Missouri. I look forward to working with them.

As I've said before, biodiesel is a fuel of the future that we can use today. It is nontoxic, biodegradable and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. Biodiesel offers similar fuel economy, horsepower and torque to petroleum diesel while providing superior lubricity. It significantly reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, unburned hydrocarbons and sulfates. On a lifecycle basis, biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel. In other words, biodiesel is good for your car and the environment.

Additionally, this new value added market for soybeans brings jobs to our economy and benefits to farmers. Based on the USDA baseline estimates for future soybean production, over a five year time period the biodiesel tax incentive could add almost $1 billion directly to the bottom line of U.S. farm income. In addition, the provisions will significantly benefit the U.S. economy and could increase U.S. gross output by almost $7 billion.

I want to thank Senator Lincoln and Senator Grassley for their leadership on this important issue. We need to prevent this tax credit from expiring. It is expected to increase biodiesel demand from an estimated 30 million gallons in fiscal year 2004 to at least 124 million gallons per year, based on a U.S. Department of Agriculture study.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.

I want to take a few minutes, if I can, to pause from this debate on the amendment to make a few comments about the underlying highway bill. I wanted to have a chance to do this when we debated the motion to waive the budget point of order, but I was not able to do so because of the unanimous consent agreement that limited time for debate.

So I thought I would do it now because I am very grateful to my friends, the managers of this bill on both sides of the aisle, Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe, my good friend and a zealous worker for better transportation infrastructure, Senator Bond and, of course, Senators Grassley and Baucus for their amendment which we adopted earlier increasing the size of this highway bill. I thought it was important that those of us who feel strongly about this come down and say so.

We have a problem with transportation infrastructure. The problem is getting to be so big that awareness of it has penetrated even here in Washington. But everybody in America, at least everybody in Missouri I talk to, already knows about it, and has known about it for a very long time. Because they have to drive on these roads. They have to use the rail and the transit. For them, it is not an abstract question of public policy. For them, it is a question of getting where they need to go, to do what they need to do, safely and on time, to make this country run. It is getting harder and harder because the roads are no good.

I am going to try to contain my frustration about this issue. It is hard because this is not rocket science. A lot of the issues we confront here are very difficult.

This really isn't that difficult. We know how to build roads. We know we need to do it. The question is whether we have the will to do what we obviously need to do and what will empower our people to help us create the wealth and opportunity that will then enable us to do the other things we need to do.

I said there was a problem before. The statistics have been repeated often enough, but I guess in the Senate nothing is ever said quite enough so I am going to repeat them. Thirty-two percent of the Nation's roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 37 percent of the urban roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 28 percent of the bridges are substandard. I can show you some substandard bridges in Missouri. As a result of this, our Nation loses about $65 billion a year in lost man- hours and lost productivity because people are stuck on the highways. A recent report said it was three times what it used to be in 2003. We lose $50 billion a year in extra maintenance costs because our cars and our vehicles are damaged as a result of the bad roads.

Who among us has not had the experience of hitting a pothole and saying to ourselves, ``There goes that shock absorber. That is another front-end alignment I will have to get''?

This is common knowledge throughout America. The Department of Transportation studied it in 2002, 3 years ago. The problem hasn't gotten any better since then. They concluded--and this is a rather big study--that $375 billion is what we needed in the next highway bill to address the problem. We don't have $375 billion in this bill. We have under $300 billion. We have less than we had last year. We have more than we would have had, if not for the heroic efforts of the bill managers. But we don't have enough even with what they have added. Yet

people on this floor say that this is too much.

This is a problem I have been working on with my friend from Oregon, Senator Wyden. We believe it is time to begin using bonding as part of our Transportation financing package. We have proposed the Build America Bond Act. A number of people have joined us in cosponsoring the bill. My friend from New Jersey is one of them. This is legislation that would create a federally chartered, nonprofit corporation that would issue about $38 or $39 billion in bonds and set aside $8 or $9 billion of that in a fund which would then accumulate interest over time and be used to pay off the principal. Then we would have $30 billion for immediate investment in the Nation's transportation infrastructure.

We could get that money out in the next construction season or two. We could begin taking some of these vital projects that are constantly moved to the right, moved from 2010 to 2015, to 2020, and start moving them back to the left on the time line. We could build some of the bridges we need, fix some of the roads that are substandard.

We also have a provision in the bill that says some of the bonds have to be in low enough denominations that Americans can purchase them, average folks can go out and buy a $50 bond, a $25 bond, knowing that they are investing in American roads, transportation infrastructure, and jobs to make America competitive for the future.

I am pleased that we have made some progress on this. The bill managers were good enough to include a provision for the underlying corporation in the bill. We don't have authority to issue the bonds yet, but we have the corporation in the bill.

I am also very grateful to the managers of the bill for including in the substitute amendment my amendment to authorize private activity bonds, $15 billion in transportation highway infrastructure bonds.

These bonds could be issued in a partnership between States and localities and private companies for specific projects. The localities would repay the principal through a variety of revenues, including annual appropriations or charging rent for the infrastructure that was built. Since the bonds are tax exempt, it means the holders would pay no taxes on them to the Federal Government. They would be preferred by the market. We could get $15 billion in a kind of bond money out there right away to begin addressing the problems that the country is facing.

Nobody really argues with what I have said. That is one of the things that is frustrating. The people who supported the budget motion, who want the bill to remain small, don't argue that there is no problem. You can't argue the fact that there is a problem. What they say is: We can't fix the problem because we have a deficit. We can't spend more money on transportation infrastructure because we already have a deficit.

Investment in transportation infrastructure is dynamic. That means it helps grow the economy. It helps produce revenue. We understand that in every other context. Nobody argues with that in any other context except the highway bill. All the economic models say about $1 billion in investment in transportation infrastructure produces 47,500 jobs. Every dollar invested returns $5.75. That is the multiplier effect.

The same people who are saying we can't spend money on highway and transportation infrastructure will stand up in the context of a trade bill and say: The reason it is OK to pass an open trade bill--and I have supported many of them--even though we will be trading with countries that have lower wage rates than we do, is that we are still competitive because we have a more sophisticated financial system, a more sophisticated telecommunications system, and a more sophisticated transportation system. They are right. That is one of the reasons we can be competitive with countries that pay lower wage rates because we can get our products to market because decades and decades and decades ago other Senators and other Congressmen had the foresight to invest in transportation infrastructure.

I know we have a budget deficit. We have a transportation deficit. It isn't going to get better if we don't do anything. Saying we can't invest in transportation infrastructure because we are worried about the budget is like a farmer who is hard pressed saying: You know what, I am afraid my cash flow isn't what it should be. I am not going to buy fuel for the combine.

It is like a homeowner saying: The budget is tight. I am really hard pressed. I am not going to fix the hole in the roof because that might cost money.

This is a problem that is not going to get better if we don't do anything about it. Every 5 or 6 years we pass another highway bill, and the people who are concerned about the cost say: It is bigger than it was 5 or 6 years ago. Yes, it is bigger. Every year, even though the highway bill is bigger, the gap between what we are spending and what we need gets bigger, too.

This year, even under the amendment we adopted earlier, we have about a $80-billion gap. I guarantee, if we don't do something about it, 5 years from now it will be bigger than that.

What do the people who opposed the amendment on budget grounds want to do? What can you do to build more transportation infrastructure? You can raise taxes. They don't want to do that. I understand that. It is hard to raise gas taxes when gas prices are up. That is a hard thing to do. They don't like bonding either. That is out. They don't want general revenue to be used for highways. That is out. Now they are saying they don't want other streams of revenue. Even though it would pay for it, they don't want that used either. So they are all for fixing infrastructure as long as we don't use taxes, bonding, general revenue, or any other revenue to do it.

Stop and ask yourself a question for a second: What is the domestic achievement of the Eisenhower administration that people remember? The building of the interstate highway system. Roll Call magazine, one of the Capitol Hill magazines, did a survey of congressional scholars and asked them what the most significant bills were that the Congress passed in the last 50 years. No. 4 on their list was the interstate highway bill passed in the 1950s, which they pointed out intensified economic growth, boosted domestic tourism and made possible just-in- time manufacturing processes.

How can anybody say that investment in transportation infrastructure does not produce economic growth?

I know we have a vote coming up soon. I will close by saying a couple things. In the first place, the bill where we now have it--I was going to say it is the least we should do, but the truth is it is not as much as we should do. I urge the bill's managers to go to conference with this bill as it now is and do everything possible to hold this number or, if possible, find some way to inject more money into transportation infrastructure this year. I know they are committed, and they are going to try to do that. I urge them to stand by their commitment. This is worth doing, and it is worth doing now. We cannot afford to give another 5 or 6 years away to the locusts and then come back here and face the same problem we have now, except it is bigger.

I believe in the people of this country. I am not one to focus on the problems we have. Any Senate, any time in the Nation's history, if it wants to focus on the problems of the country, can get discouraged. I know we are fighting a war now, and we have education issues and health care issues we have to address, and they are all very big.

The reason I am optimistic is I believe in the American people. I believe in the productivity and ingenuity of the American people. The answer to all these problems, broadly speaking, is to empower them, to let them have the resources they need--which is one of the reasons I have been for tax reduction--so they can make the economy grow. Let them do what they do in their everyday lives, raising their families, doing their jobs, running their small businesses, to keep the economy growing and make us prosperous and strong and free. But the American people cannot on their own build roads. They can do a lot of things on their own or together in private businesses or associations of one kind or another, but they cannot build roads. That is a job the Government has to do. We will deal with the transportation deficit, and the American people will deal with the budget deficit as well if they can

get to work in the morning. Let's help them do that.

I congratulate the managers on adopting the amendment. I hope we can do even better in conference.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss this amendment which I am offering with Senator Dodd. It has been accepted by the managers on both sides, and I am grateful for that.

The amendment is the next step in lifting a very significant burden off minority contractors around the country who want to do business with the Government. Very simply, it would direct the Secretary of Transportation to inform State and local governments that receive Federal dollars through the highway bill of a new law, a law that provides that minority contractors who have already been certified as 8(a) contractors under Federal law are automatically certified under State law as minority contractors on any contract that is funded in whole or in part by Federal dollars. Let me explain the background.

As Senators know, the 8(a) Program is one of the programs that small businesses use to get certified as a minority contractor in doing business with the Federal Government. State and local governments have similar certifications for doing business as a minority contractor with their governments. This has presented a serious obstacle for minority small businesses that want to do business or take advantage of goals or setaside programs because they have in the past been required to get additional certifications at both the State and local levels after already having been certified under the Federal Government's 8(a) Program. As a result, countless small minority-owned businesses have spent thousands and thousands of dollars and countless hours getting certified at the State and local levels just to learn that the contracting opportunity they originally sought was, by the time they were certified, no longer open.

In short, getting multiple certifications at the State and local levels after you have already done it at the Federal level is a time- consuming, expensive, and unnecessary process that in the past has left many highly qualified minority small business contractors shut out from the competition of Government contracts. So last year, I added an amendment on the JOBS bill that provides that section 8(a) contractors, those who have already been certified on the Federal level, are automatically certified as minority contractors in any State or local program funded in whole or in part by Federal dollars.

I have already heard from small businesses from Missouri and around the country. I am pleased to report this provision is saving minority small business people thousands of dollars and many hours and a lot of headaches. In many cases, it is making it possible for them to participate in programs and projects that they would not have been able to participate in in the past without maneuvering through the obstacles of getting additional State or local certifications. Now we need to get the word out about the new law.

So today, the amendment of Senator Dodd and myself directs the Secretary of Transportation to inform State and local governments of the new law that prohibits them from requiring federally certified 8(a) minority firms from obtaining State and local certifications on any State or local project that receives Federal funding.

This amendment is the natural followup to last year's law. It should not cost money. It has the support of minority small business associations around the country. I am pleased that it has majority and minority support on the Senate floor, and I am very pleased that the handlers on both sides of the aisle have accepted the amendment.

I thank the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Hispanic Chamber of Greater Kansas City, the Minority Business Council of St. Louis, and the Hispanic Chamber of Metropolitan St. Louis for their continued support in providing 8(a) contractors equal access to all projects receiving Federal funding.

I also want to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his work and effort on behalf of the amendment and his continued leadership on behalf of small business issues. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment. I understand that the handlers are desirous of a rollcall vote so I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

My understanding was that the handlers wanted the yeas and nays on the amendment. I will withdraw the request if that is not the case.

My understanding is we are going first in morning business on this side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I will claim 20 minutes of the time. I will appreciate it if the Presiding Officer notifies me when 15 minutes are up because Senator Hutchison wants to use 10 minutes. I want to make certain everyone knows I do not intend to filibuster this morning. There will be a limit to my remarks.

I appreciated what the leader said about the highway bill. We do need to pass it. We need to pass a robust highway bill for all the reasons he stated. We are all very strongly for reducing the deficit, but spending on infrastructure is dynamic in nature, as I happen to believe tax cuts are dynamic in nature in the sense they produce economic growth. When we reduce the deficit, make this country competitive, help people get to work, Americans will get rid of the deficit if they can get to work in the morning. We need to have that debate in the Senate. Everyone needs to vote their conscience and vote out a robust highway and transportation bill.

That is not what I am here to talk about this morning. I am here to talk about judicial nominations. We have spent altogether too much time on judicial nominations the last 2 years, 150 hours on judicial nominations--not even Supreme Court nominations but court of appeals nominations. We have

been told over and over again how important they are. And they are important. They are the second highest court in the country. There are only three levels of courts in the country so the second highest court is also the second lowest court. They do the day-to-day appellate business of the Federal courts. It certainly is very important, but it is not worth filibustering the Senate and obstructing it to death and preventing the vote on these nominees. That is basically my message today.

For the first 214 years of this Senate, no nominee for the Federal court of appeals was ever successfully filibustered in the Senate. There were runt groups of Senators who in recent years tried filibusters, embryonic filibusters, that were cut off and defeated because the leadership of both parties, majority and minority leadership, opposed those filibusters on the grounds it was a mistake for this Senate to get in the business of filibustering judicial nominees. That was, until a couple years ago, the uniform point of view.

Senator Boxer said--and I am not picking out Senators in any particular area; I guess they are alphabetic:

According to the U.S. Constitution, the Senate nominates,

and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not

the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent

numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given

the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

Senator Daschle, former Democratic leader:

I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against

even voting on a judicial nomination . . . We have a

constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial

nominee--vote against the nominee.

And, I add, let them have a vote.

Senator Feinstein:

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them

down . . .

But vote on them.

Senator Feinstein again:

Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.

I couldn't agree with that more. I will get to that a little bit later if I do not have so many digressions that I use up my 20 minutes.

Senator Kennedy:

We owe it to Americans across the country to give these

nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues do not like

them, vote against them. But give them a vote.

Senator Leahy, now the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, former chairman of that committee:

I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully

filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the

Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted

how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.

Yes, he is right.

Senator Leahy again:

I . . . do not want to see the Senate go down a path where

a minority of the Senate is determining a judge's fate on

votes of 41 . . .

With 41 Senators out of 100, if we allow the filibuster in these cases, you can stop a nominee from ever coming to a vote. So nominees with bipartisan majority support in the Senate do not even get a vote if we allow filibusters in these cases. That has been the case with all these nominees.

I could go on and on with quotes. I will not do it.

For 214 years we never had one successful filibuster of a court of appeals nominee, not one supported by the leaders of either party. In the last 2 years we have had 10 successful filibusters and 6 other threatened ones.

What has happened? Is there something extraordinarily wrong with these nominees? No. I will go to two nominees before the Senate.

Justice Priscilla Owen from Texas. I do not know Justice Owen. I did not insist she come in and speak to me before I voted on her nomination. Here is her history.

Before joining the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen was a partner with the well-respected Texas law firm of Andrews and Kurth. She made partner. I never did. She practiced commercial litigation for 17 years. She earned a B.A. cum laude from Baylor University and graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School in 1977. After graduating from law school, Justice Owen earned the highest score in the State on the December 1977 Texas bar exam. Lawyers within the sound of my voice know the difficulty of earning the highest score on the bar exam. I am not certain how I ever staggered through the Missouri bar, but I am certain I did not get the highest score.

Justice Owen served on the Supreme Court in Texas since 1995. This person who could not even get a vote for 10 years has been a supreme court judge in Texas. She was reelected to her second term by 84 percent of the vote. Every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. She cannot get a vote. She has significant bipartisan support, including from three former Democratic judges on the Texas Supreme Court. I will read some of that in a minute.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown from California is the daughter of sharecroppers, born in Greenville, AL, in 1949. She attended segregated schools in the era of Jim Crow. She moved to Sacramento, CA. Her family did. She got a B.A. in economics from California State in 1974 and her law degree from the UCLA Law School. She has received honorary law degrees from Pepperdine University, Catholic University of America Law School, and Southwestern University School of Law--three more honorary degrees than I have. She currently serves and is an associate justice-- another justice on the State Supreme Court who cannot get a vote. She has held that position since 1996. Before that, she was on the intermediate State appellate court. She got on the State court of appeals. She cannot get a vote to get on the Federal court of appeals. She is the first African-American woman to serve on California's highest court and was retained with 76 percent of the vote in the last election.

I can go on and on with honorary degrees. She spent 24 years in public life in various legal capacities. She is experienced in judicial matters, in other governmental matters as a lawyer. She cannot get a vote. She is being filibustered.

Some of my colleagues say these and the other eight are too extreme; they are not in the mainstream. I wish every Federal judge on the bench today had the qualifications of these people and the bipartisan support of these people. The people who know them best from their own States do not think they are too extreme.

Raul Gonzalez, former Democratic Justice on the Supreme Court of Texas said of Justice Owen:

I found her to be apolitical, extremely bright, diligent in

her work and of the highest integrity. I recommend her for

confirmation without reservation.

I guess he would support a vote since he says we ought to confirm her.

Here is another former Democratic Chief Justice:

After years of closely observing Justice Owen's work, I can

assert with confidence that her approach to judicial

decision-making is restrained, her opinions are fair and well

reasoned, her integrity is beyond reproach . . . I know

personally how impeccable her credentials are.

This is from a Democrat in Texas, one of her colleagues.

Jack Hightower, a former Democratic Justice on the Supreme Court of Texas:

I am a Democrat and my political philosophy is Democratic,

but I have tried very hard not to let preconceived philosophy

influence my decision on matters before the court. I believe

that Justice Owen has done the same.

A bipartisan group of 15 former presidents of the State Bar of Texas:

Although we profess different party affiliations and span

the spectrum of views of legal and policy issues, we stand

united in affirming that Justice Owen is a truly unique and

outstanding candidate for appointment to the Fifth Circuit .

. . The status of our profession in Texas has been

significantly enhanced by Justice Owen's advocacy of pro bono

service and leadership for the membership of the State bar of

Texas.

They go on and on. These are 15 bipartisan former presidents of the State bar of Texas about Justice Priscilla Owen. She cannot get a vote. The 215-year tradition of not filibustering court of appeals nominees is broken to keep people such as her from not getting a vote.

The same things can be said of Justice Janice Rogers Brown who appears to be an extraordinary person. A bipartisan group of 12 of her current and former judicial colleagues says:

Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble

beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California

Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not

be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the federal

bench. We believe she is qualified because she is a superb

judge. We who have worked with her on a daily basis know

her to be extremely intelligent, keenly analytical, and very

hard working. We know that she is a jurist who applies the

law without favor, without bias and with an even hand.

And she can't get a vote. This 214-year tradition of not filibustering court of appeals judges, we are breaking to keep people such as this woman from getting on the Federal bench and even getting a vote because she is not in the mainstream.

Here is the truth: There is not any one judicial mainstream, as there is no one mainstream of political philosophy in the Senate. Judges disagree about issues as Senators disagree about issues. The point is to disagree without being disagreeable. Disagree while recognizing the other person has a valid point of view. The fact that you do not agree with them does not make them automatically unfit even for a vote to serve on the Federal judiciary.

President Clinton appointed a lot of judges during his time in office who were a lot more liberal than I would have liked. I probably wouldn't have appointed very many of them. I cannot say they are out of the mainstream. They represent the views of tens of millions of people in the country. When you say somebody who disagrees with you is out of the mainstream, you are slandering everyone who supports their views. It is not the right thing to do. It is extremely divisive.

When we hear Members in the Senate say somebody else is not in the mainstream, what they mean is that other person disagrees with me. A confrontational person follows this logic: You say, They do not agree with me; therefore, they are not in the mainstream, and then when you add the filibuster on top of that, you say, therefore, I am not only not going to vote for them--which to me is the first mistake--but I am not even going to let them have a vote. What you are saying is they, and everyone such as them in the whole country and the Senate, do not even deserve a vote on whether they are qualified for public office.

Then we wonder why this place gets divisive and why it is hard to operate because we are not showing respect to many who may disagree with us.

My wife says, when she wants to bring me down to earth when I am on my high horse, Jim, wouldn't the world work wonderfully if everyone would only agree with you all the time about everything? We do not all agree with each other about everything. We have a vote and we go on. And then we try and concentrate on the areas where we do agree, such as the highway bill.

The worst thing about this--and there are a lot of bad things about what is happening with regard to the filibustering of nominations, the breaking of this 214-year tradition--the worst thing about it is the slandering of the credentials and the careers of these qualified people.

There is an old idiom, an old saying: People will forgive you the wrong you do them, but they will never forgive you the wrong they do you. Once, for whatever reason, they have done something that is wrong to you, then they may decide, you know what, I have to make that person out to be a bad person to justify the wrong I did to them in the first place.

A filibuster of these people, breaking the tradition to do that, to not even let them have a vote, these people who have bipartisan majority support on the floor, to justify that, you have to say things about their records. That completely disserves their histories of public service and qualifications, as the people who know them best have said.

The second worst thing about this whole issue is the fact that there are now large parts of the political community in this country, and even here, that, in order to support this effort and to win this battle that is going on, are treating the filibuster like it is a great thing. My heavens, there are groups that have made a mascot out of the filibuster. Filibuster is an extraordinary, obstructive tactic that is not even permitted in most legislative bodies. Even the advocates of it say it should be used sparingly.

The case is actually being made on the floor of this Senate that the filibuster is part of our deliberative process, that it promotes calmness and coolness, compromise, moderation. Is this calmness? Holding these votes up for years, is this coolness? Is this compromise? We have used the filibuster for the first time in 214 years, taking yet another step with the device, making it more common, a device that even the advocates of it say should be used very sparingly.

Do you want to know why? I will explain why. It has to do with the dynamics of a legislative body. If you care passionately about an issue before the Senate--and we should care passionately about these issues-- and you know that issue is going to come up for a vote, what are you going to do? If you know it is going to come up for a vote, and a majority is going to win, what are you going to do? You are going to appeal to the middle, aren't you? You are going to seek arguments and amendments and methods that get the middle with you. That encourages compromise. If you do not have the middle with you, and you know it is going to be voted on, and you know a majority is going to win, what is going to happen to your position? Even Senators can figure out that math. You are going to lose.

The majoritarian process promotes compromise and discussion because it empowers the middle. Filibusters empower the extreme, and not just the extreme philosophically; they empower the confrontational people. I have nothing against people who take that point of view. And you need some of them in a legislative body, but you have to be careful how much you empower them. The people who say: Look, if it isn't the way I want it, it is not going to happen at all. It has to be my way or the highway--that is what filibusters empower. I am not saying we should not have it on the legislative calendar. But we have to remember there is a cost to it.

Do you want to know why we don't have an energy bill? Because of the filibuster. There are a lot of other examples of legislation the country has wanted and needed that have been held up with the filibuster. It is a tactic with a cost. It should be used sparingly. It should not be extended in areas where it has not been used in the past with a bipartisan consensus. That is the reason all these distinguished Democratic Senators said, for years on the floor of this body: We are not going to filibuster judicial nominations. It is because they knew what would happen.

We can be certain of one thing: The same standard is going to be applied in this body from President to President. I do not want the filibuster standard applied. I do not want a situation where because I disagree with a judicial nominee of a Democratic President, I am expected, as a matter of course--because that is the protocol and the precedent in this Senate--not to permit a vote. I believe--and it was the tradition here for years--that even if you disagree with a nominee, if they are competent and have integrity, you vote to confirm them out of respect for the process that elected that President and respect for the people and the party that person represents, even if you disagree. If they are a good person, you vote to confirm them. That is what I want to do in this Senate year by year.

One more minute, and I will really be done, if the Senator does not mind.

At the very least, we have to allow a vote. Let's keep the tradition of 214 years in the Senate. Let us allow a vote on these people, all of whom have bipartisan, majority support on the floor of the Senate. Let's not continue doing an injustice to the reputation of these fine Americans. Let's preserve the traditions of the Senate, have this vote, and then move on to other issues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have an amendment to send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent the Bayh amendment be set aside so I can do that, offer the amendment; and then, at the end of the 3 or 4 minutes I am going to use to offer the amendment, that we would go back to the Bayh amendment. That would be my unanimous consent request.

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

Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma and my friend from Indiana for allowing me to get this amendment pending. I am very hopeful we will eventually get it accepted. I am working with the chairman and ranking members of both the full committee and subcommittee to get that done.

The purpose of the amendment is to address the problem of the increasing number of accidents occurring in which either parked first responder vehicles are rear-ended by other vehicles or the first responder is struck after leaving the vehicle.

In first responders--such an antiseptic term--we are talking about our police officers, our ambulance workers and drivers, our firefighters who are dealing with the issue of a car that is parked on the side of the road, maybe because the police officer pulled the car aside, or because the car has been abandoned, or it is on fire. It is all too often the case in this country that our first responders who are working on those situations are injured or killed by a passing vehicle.

I will share the story of a Missouri law enforcement officer who tragically lost his life this way. I know there have been many more such as him around the country. Michael Newton was a State trooper for the Missouri highway patrol. He stopped a vehicle on Interstate 70 in Lafayette County, MO, for a traffic violation on May 22, 2003. He and the other driver were sitting in the patrol car when they were struck from behind by a pickup carrying a flatbed trailer. Trooper Newton died at the scene. The driver he had stopped suffered serious burns. Trooper Newton was only 25 years old. He left a wife, two young sons, many loving relatives, and a community that deeply mourned his loss and was very grateful for his service to the State of Missouri.

In 2003, 193 other people lost their lives in crashes involving emergency vehicles, including 141 lives lost in crashes involving police vehicles, 29 lives lost in those involving ambulances, and 24 lives lost in crashes involving firetrucks.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, vehicle-related incidents are the No. 1 cause of police officer injuries and the No. 2 cause of police officer deaths. In 2004, 73 out of 153 police officer deaths were vehicle related. Not all of those involved parked cars, but most of them did.

I was very surprised to see those statistics and deeply concerned that we have not informed people and raised their awareness about this problem. That is what this amendment is designed to do. My Pass With Care amendment requires the Secretary to start a nationwide publicity campaign through public service announcements, developing a Web site, providing informational materials, to increase public awareness of this crucial safety issue.

Our first responders, our police, our firefighters, our ambulance workers dedicate their lives to helping protect the rest of us. They save so many lives through their heroic efforts. If more people realize they can help protect our first responders by quickly and safely pulling over when they hear an emergency siren or being more careful when they see a first responder vehicle parked on the road or the shoulder of the road, that will reduce the risks for our law enforcement, health workers, and firefighters.

The amendment requires the Secretary, in consultation with the National Highway Safety Administration, to develop and implement a program to promote compliance with State Pass With Care laws and ``move over'' laws. Those laws govern how motorists pass and yield to first responders' vehicles.

The Secretary, under my amendment, would compile a list of best practices to promote compliance with such laws, would conduct an analysis of the various State and local laws that deal with the safety of first responder vehicles, and from that analysis develop model legislation that States can adopt should they choose to do so.

Unfortunately, only 27 States currently have Pass With Care laws or ``move over'' laws. The amendment would help give guidance to the remaining States on drafting laws that would help save lives. The Secretary would be authorized to enter into partnerships with safety organizations and engage with public outreach to help improve first responder safety.

This is not an amendment that would be coercive on the States. I tried to be sensitive to that in drafting it. It is what we can do as an alternative to mandating the States in this area to help provide a clearinghouse of information for them to help develop model legislation and also in appropriate ways to develop an increased public awareness of this problem.

If people become more aware of this as the bill goes through and as a result of an awareness campaign the Secretary would conduct, that in itself would probably reduce the number of deaths.

I was surprised to hear of the number of first responders who are imperiled. If we can help them by raising awareness, I think we ought to do it. I am pleased to introduce the amendment on behalf of our first responders at risk on our roads and highways. They should not be at risk. I urge the Senate to pass the amendment to help strengthen these laws, and ensure the safety of our first responders.

I certainly am willing to work with the managers of the bill to help deal with any concerns they may have regarding the wording of the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I honor Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, who is a key leader in the civil rights movement and continues to be a guiding light in his community. I am honored that Reverend Shuttlesworth is visiting Missouri on April 29, and I want to commemorate his visit by briefly sharing some of his accomplishments.

Reverend Shuttlesworth grew up in Birmingham, AL, and graduated from Alabama State University in 1951. After graduating, he continued to do graduate work at Alabama State and then received seminary training at Cedar Grove Academy and Selma University. His involvement in civil rights has been grounded in his belief that ``a man should not be judged by the color of his skin any more than he is judged by the color of his eyes.''

In 1953, at the age of 30, Reverend Shuttlesworth became pastor of the Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham, during the period of time when the city earned the nickname ``Bombingham'' for the black homes that were bombed by white supremacists. In May 1956, Reverend Shuttlesworth helped lead a group of ministers to establish the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, in response to the NAACP being outlawed in Alabama.

Reverend Shuttlesworth, on many occasions, nearly became a martyr of the Civil Rights Movement. On Christmas Day 1956, as Reverend Shuttlesworth prepared to lead protests against the segregation of Birmingham's buses, someone threw a bomb under his bed in the parsonage of his church, where he was talking to a visiting deacon. Miraculously, he was unharmed.

Undeterred, in 1957 Reverend Shuttlesworth joined with Dr. Martin Luther King, Reverend Ralph David Abernathy and Bayard Rustin to form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was firmly committed to using nonviolence to advocate for Civil Rights despite the violence that was being committed against its members. He would later help to organize sit-ins against segregated lunch counters and was a key leader of the mass protests and demonstrations in Birmingham during the spring of 1963. During those tumultuous times, Reverend Shuttlesworth was also assaulted by police dogs, knocked unconscious by a fire hose, and jailed more than 35 times.

Reverend Shuttlesworth moved to Cincinnati, where he founded the Greater New Light Baptist Church in 1966, and today he continues to serve as Pastor. In 1988, Reverend Shuttlesworth established the Shuttlesworth Housing Foundation to help needy families access capital for down payments for the purchase of homes. His efforts have helped hundreds of low-income families in the Cincinnati area to become homeowners.

These are just a portion of the good works that this outstanding servant of God has done to help make our Nation more just. I commend Reverend Shuttlesworth for his outstanding contributions to the cause of civil rights for all Americans. I am honored to share his story with my colleagues, and I wish him and his family all the best for the future.