Floor Statements

Mr. President, this morning the Senate will conduct a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with the first half of the time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the second half allotted to the majority leader or his designee.

At 10:30, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1637, the FSC/ ETI bill. When the Senate resumes the bill, the Dodd amendment on outsourcing will be the pending business. A number of Senators have expressed an interest in speaking on the amendment, and it is the leader's expectation that a second-degree amendment will be offered to the Dodd amendment this morning.

For the remainder of the day, we will continue to work through amendments to the bill. Under the previous order, following the disposition of the Dodd amendment, the Senate will take up an amendment by Senator Bunning which would accelerate manufacturing-sector tax cuts. Rollcall votes are possible during today's session, and Senators will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak a few moments in support of the amendment, and perhaps to address some of the issues and concerns that have been raised as well. I begin with the points made by the Senator from Arizona about the overall size of the bill. This amendment, if and when adopted, would certainly reduce the total amount of funds available in the bill, but the increase in highway spending relative to the last 6-year bill would still be 21 percent. To suggest that somehow the supporters and proponents of this amendment do not want to invest in infrastructure, do not want to improve the safety of our highways, do not want to improve the quality of our bridges, do not want to expand in some cases the existing interstate highway system, is simply not correct.

We are not engaged in a debate about the value of infrastructure. We are engaged in an important debate and discussion about how much is enough and about how much we can afford and, as Senator McCain of Arizona pointed out, what our overall priorities are going to be.

I understand for some a 20 or 30 or 35-percent increase in spending is not enough. I certainly believe it is enough, given that the President has pledged to veto a bill that is at that level, given that we have other pressing national security issues, Social Security modernization questions, a Medicare bill that was passed last year that is going to be far more expensive than even the supporters of that bill suggested. We do have other priorities among which we are going to have to choose.

I think it is very misleading to suggest the supporters of this amendment do not care or are not willing to commit that money we are collecting in excise taxes, gasoline taxes, to this kind of investment. This bill as it is currently written breaks the budget. It violates the budget resolution. We just had a vote to waive the budget requirements, to waive a budget point of order so this bill could go forward, because it violates the budget resolution, because it breaks the bank, because it is far more than was prescribed in that budget resolution. As a result, it is going to significantly increase the deficit.

In addition, the legislation contains financing mechanisms that are disingenuous at best, and phony at worst. We are diverting general revenue funds that were never intended to go into the highway trust fund into the highway trust fund, and we are doing it by crediting money to the highway trust fund that is never collected. We say, well, if we had excise taxes that applied to States, cities, and towns, we would collect more in excise taxes, so let's pretend we collected those taxes and put them in the highway trust fund. That is simply wrong.

When that money is credited to the highway trust fund, it has to be taken from somewhere else and it is being taken from general revenues. I think it is instructive to go back to the last debate we had when we wrote a highway bill--in fact, in 1998--and the proponents of a very large highway bill at that time said the only thing we are asking for, and the only thing we ever will ask for, is that all of the money we collect in gas taxes go to highways. That was essentially accomplished with the writing of that bill.

Today we are listening to a debate that pretends that commitment was never even made.

The goal seems to be to scrape every penny possible into the highway trust fund in order to pass a bill that is as large as it could possibly be. That certainly is not OK by me.

I am sure there are some people here who would like to raise gasoline taxes. I am certainly willing to have that vote. There are some people who would like to pass bonding authority. I am certainly willing to have that vote. But somehow the supporters of those ideas, while they want to talk about those ideas and suggest there is a conspiracy to prevent them from doing those things, don't really want to have those votes because they know they would not win.

This bill adds to the deficit, and we do have an extraordinarily high deficit right now. Our economy is just beginning to grow. It is certainly not the right time to raise taxes, but I think it is the right time to begin to exercise some fiscal restraint.

Another question that I think is begged by some of the claims thrown around in this debate is, What is the role of States in highway and infrastructure--transportation spending? There is certainly a tone that suggests the State of Missouri, or the State of Texas, or the State of New Hampshire, or California somehow do not have the wherewithal to design and build a decent road; they don't have the commitment or the foresight to levy excise taxes, collect those taxes, hire good people to run departments of transportation, and invest in maintenance or safety, bridge management, or new highways.

I think that is simply wrong. States are not incapable. States certainly care every bit as much as any Member of this Senate about the safety of their roads, and about their potential for economic growth.

If you look at the highway fatality rates of the different States, some States have done a much better job than other States in dealing with the safety issues that were discussed earlier by some Senators. I think States have not just an important role but a leading role to play here. Certainly in my experience they set better priorities. They tend to spend the money a little more efficiently.

That brings me to my final point. Ultimately, what we are really talking about is a redistribution of funds. If you think literally about what we are doing, the Federal Government is collecting 18.4 cents for each gallon of gasoline sold in the State of New Hampshire or the State of Missouri, or Oklahoma, literally bringing that money here to Washington, and then we are engaging in a debate as to how to divide up that money to send it back to the States. It makes you wonder what the purpose of this diversion is in the first place because I can assure you, the laws of physics, finance, or nature result in less money ultimately going back to invest in pavement or bridges or transit at the local level than ever came to Washington in the first place-- unless you believe all the administration, oversight, and regulation that comes from Washington with regard to transportation is free.

It is not. Ask any worker at the Department of Transportation. They may wish they were earning a better wage but they are certainly not working for free. There is a significant overhead cost. That does not mean there is no Federal role at all in these programs or projects or investments, but I think we need to be a little more careful in our debate and discussion. Certainly we need to be a little more careful with the use of the moneys we are collecting, and be more careful in the debate or discussion than to somehow suggest the Federal Government is the only entity that has the ability to make a good decision about which 5- or 10- or 50- or 100-mile stretch of pavement ought to be dealt with first and foremost in our States.

If you don't think we are just talking about a redistribution of money, take a look at the tables that are part and parcel of this legislation. The percentage redistributed to each State is spelled out in excruciating detail, year after year. You can see one State has 102.5 percent of what was collected from that State in gas taxes in year 1. Then it might go to 104.8 percent and then 95.4 percent and then 93.2 percent. The only reason to calculate such specific statistics is that ultimately this is a vote and a battle over a formula for redistributing the money we took from our States and our consumers in the first place.

I think there is some value in a discussion about whether we should leave more of that money at the State level in the first place. Certainly we could give the opportunity to those States that would like to collect that excise tax in the State to spend it locally, and I believe a little bit more efficiently than Congress might do here in Washington.

That is not part of this debate, empowering States, empowering consumers, empowering local officials to collect and invest a little more of their share of these excise taxes, but perhaps in the future it will be. But at the very least, we can take up and support the

amendment before us today that will bring this bill into compliance with the budget, that will bring this bill to a level that will not be vetoed by the President, that will bring this bill up to a level that will ensure we do not have to raid the general fund; that we don't have to raid taxpayers' funding that they are sending for programs other than laying pavement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to respond to the Senator from New Mexico and some of the thoughts and ideas he has presented. I appreciate his interest in this topic and his interest in science and technology. But I strongly disagree with some of the conclusions he draws.

I think the reason for some of those conclusions is that all too often when Members of the House or the Senate talk about issues of science and technology, we assume that all programs having to do with science, technology, or research that carry that label in the Federal Government are all created equal; that they all have the same goals, motives, and effects in areas of science or research and the same effect on our economy. They simply do not. I think it is important that we draw a distinction between the various types of research and technology programs that have been discussed.

The Senator from New Mexico mentioned NASA's program. He touched very briefly on National Science Foundation programs, many of which fund some of the nanotechnology initiatives. He mentioned the Advanced Technology Program, and that in particular is the one I wish to talk about.

If there is one program in the Federal Government that ought not to be expanded, it is the Advanced Technology Program. It is for the reasons that are described or listed in the description read by the Senator from New Mexico. He described a program that invests in or subsidizes commercial research for private companies to develop new products to sell in the market. This isn't investing in research that subsidizes or supports basic physics or chemistry or computational mathematics. This is new product development for private--and in most cases profitable--companies. The description he read of their commercial applications means that someone somewhere has to assess the value of these new products. I think the description also mentioned the risk involved.

Those who have worked in manufacturing, engineering, and product development understand there are risks involved in developing new products. But there are also rewards to be gained. That is why many of these companies are quite profitable.

What this program in particular--not all federally funded research, and certainly not the work of the National Science Foundation that provides support for physics and chemistry and computational mathematics but the advanced technology program--is doing is subsidizing product development for private sector companies. That naturally begs the question, What companies? What companies are benefiting from these subsidies? As I said, they are profitable. But these are companies that have competitors. That means someone in the Federal Government--a man or woman somewhere in the Federal Government--is looking at a number of different firms in a given industry and picking one or two to provide a taxpayer-funded subsidy for the development of a new product that they are going to sell in the marketplace and make money from.

The Federal Government doesn't get an equity position. We don't get royalties. We are not benefiting from the fruit of these subsidies, but we are certainly taking the taxpayers' money from families who might be earning $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a year--middle income or low income. We are taking their tax money and giving it to some private corporation to subsidize their new product development. That is simply wrong. It does not matter if there is a merit review. It does not matter if the man or woman or the board evaluating these programs is being very thoughtful about it and very judicious in trying to be fair and balanced and pick the right technology or the most promising technology.

It is wrong to be subsidizing the product development of a private company selling its goods into the marketplace, trying to make a profit. It is certainly not an efficient way to run an economy. It certainly is not fair to those competitors who are selling similar products who have to compete with the company getting the big government subsidy or the small government subsidy. It does not matter to me if they get $100,000 or $200,000 or $2 million. It certainly is not the role of the Federal Government to try to manipulate or micromanage markets for commercial products. That is not the role of the Federal Government.

I do not take issue with a lot of the concern and interest shown in encouraging our children to dedicate themselves to areas of science or technology or mathematics. I certainly enjoyed math and science as a student, and although I don't know how well I performed, I performed well enough to go to engineering school and work at least at one time in the real world helping to develop new products and helping to bring them to market. Maybe it is that personal experience, having worked at the very type of firm that may be applying to the Federal Government for these subsidies, that makes me so concerned this is not the right role for the Federal Government. This is not the best way to spend taxpayers' money.

That is precisely the reason the administration has said we ought not to be spending $150 million in this way. We can find a better use for this money. We can find a better way to utilize it for the public good in a way that does not, in my opinion, sap our economic strength by trying to manipulate or micromanage these markets.

There are many areas of the Federal Government where we might be providing support--through the National Science Foundation, through the National Institutes of Health--the basic research in medicine or physics or chemistry or mathematics or some of the other areas I mentioned which might be very worthwhile, to expand our understanding in these areas of basic science and mathematics. But helping some company develop a new air conditioning system or new control system or write a new software code they can sell into the marketplace is not the way to do it.

I yield the floor.

I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Mexico.

To reiterate what I hope I was clear in saying before, I am not talking about National Science Foundation funding, which was the funding principally used to support the development of the human genome project. I have been quite supportive of the NSF funding and the National Institutes of Health funding research, which is where the human genome funds came from.

Talking about the Advanced Technology Program, I am not quite sure what ``precompetitive'' means. I would like to use the definition that is just behind the Senator from New Mexico. It says ``commercial potential.'' That means products that are commercially viable that will be sold in the marketplace, in a competitive marketplace, in that description behind the Senator from New Mexico.

It says the grantees of this program are businesses--businesses and joint R&D partnerships that are funded by, I assume, I hope, American businesses. In fact, at one time some of the largest grantees of this program were those in the automotive industry, automotive manufacturing industry. We were using these ATP funds for the partnership for the next generation vehicle. This was an initiative driven originally by Vice President Al Gore at the time to develop a hybrid car, hybrid electric and combustion engine. After spending about $2 billion in all with the Advanced Technology Program, that effort was abandoned. It simply is a case in point as to why it is not a good idea to take taxpayer money and try to subsidize the product development--in this case, of cars--that is a product sold in the marketplace, and in a competitive marketplace at that.

One final anecdote, and I think it is an important anecdote. The Senator from New Mexico mentioned Taiwan. I have been to Taiwan before; not to this particular office park. I do not believe in a national economic policy that says: Let's do what the Japanese are doing. Let's do what the Germans are doing.

In Germany right now they have over 10 percent unemployment. In Japan right now they are still in the throes of a deflationary spiral and a stock market collapse that began several years ago.

I do not want to be Japan. I do not want to be Germany. I want to be America. I want the strongest, most competitive, most vibrant economy in the world. That is what we have today. I do not want to lose that, certainly. But if we look back just a little bit, back to the late 1980s, industrial policy wonks within the Senate and the U.S. Government were insisting if we wanted to be a competitive economy, we had to subsidize the development of the high-definition TV standard, and they did not talk about putting $100 million or $200 million or $150 million, as we have in the Advanced Technology Program today, into subsidizing the development of a TV standard. They were talking about billions--$2 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion--to subsidize the development of a commercial application.

Fortunately, the United States did not do that. But Japan, the model cited by the Senator from New Mexico, did do it. They put roughly $20 billion of their federal taxpayer resources into the development of that commercial standard. As a result, they have a high-definition TV standard that cannot rival the standard that was developed by the private sector, the competitive marketplace here in the United States.

It is a small example.

We might be able to point to an example where a technology or venture in ATP did result in a good commercial product that enabled the owners of that product to make a lot of money. But, as I often point out to my constituents, if you let me spend $150 million a year, I can certainly create a few jobs with it; the question is, is it the role of the Federal Government. Should we be micromanaging private sector, profitable companies in the private marketplace? Should we be subsidizing one company at the expense of its competitors? Is it the right thing to do? I think in this case it simply is not.

I yield the floor and very much appreciate the Senator from New Mexico engaging in this discussion and difference of opinion.

It is my understanding the Senate is in a period of morning business with a time limit not to exceed 30 minutes. I will not take that much time. I wish to speak very briefly and ask a rhetorical question, since I am not allowed to ask a question of a Senator who does not have the floor. But then I would be pleased, if permissible under the rules, to yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I happened to come to the floor to hear my colleagues from Illinois and Iowa talking about their concern for the deficit and for spending priorities, and I share their concern.

However, it is worth noting that at this time the pending business of the Senate is a transportation bill that is, by any standards, enormous. It represents an increase of over 40 percent over the previous 6-year bill. It represents a dramatic expansion in the size and scope of Federal Government. It totals over $300 billion. Unfortunately, it seeks to obtain funds by diverting general revenue tax receipts into the highway trust fund, something that has never been done before.

To the best of my knowledge, both of my colleagues who spoke earlier are more than willing to vote for this enormous spending measure.

I just do not think it is credible to take the floor and raise concerns about deficits and spending priorities and, at the same time, be willing to support such a massive increase in infrastructure spending, when we know full well that States are very capable of making sound decisions for this kind of construction and investment. We know full well that it is wrong to divert money from the general revenue fund in order to support an expansion of this funding. And we know full well this bill is significantly in excess of what has been proposed by the President.

While I do not agree with all the priorities in the President's budget, I think it is fair to say that we would have $20 or $30 or $40 or $50 billion more for the priorities my colleagues spoke about if they would join with me in raising concerns about this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the very spirited debate we have had about the Energy bill. A number of Members have come to the floor to talk about specific provisions--the concern for the liability waiver for MTBE, in particular.

I want to step back and talk about the bigger picture--about the financial health of our country and the impact that this Energy bill, given its enormous size, will have on the long-term health of our budget, as well as our economy.

During the budget debates, we hear a great deal about fiscal responsibility. People love to talk about fiscal responsibility in the abstract. When you are looking out 10 years and are talking about surpluses or deficits, or more broadly about revenues or spending, it is all about fiscal responsibility. But they don't like to talk about it as much when we have a specific piece of legislation on the Senate floor, as we have now, that will draw from the Federal Treasury and start spending that money in a way that I don't think is very well thought out. I certainly don't think it will have a very positive effect on our economy.

In particular, if we look at the Energy bill and its scope and size, it not only breaks the budget that was agreed to just 6 months ago, it not only violates the budget once or twice or three times, it is in violation of the Budget Act in four different ways. In fact, in one area in particular, on spending, it violates the Budget Act three different times. A point of order, as has been indicated by the budget chairman himself, lies against this bill. It violates the budget caps, busts the budget by over $800 million next year alone, by more than $3.4 billion over the next 5 years, and by $4.3 billion over a 10-year period. It breaks the budget cap, breaks the budget agreement, and violates the Budget Act. That is a lot of money--800 million dollars, $3.4 billion, and $4.3 billion over the next 10 years.

I think at a certain point we have to draw the line. We have to say energy is important to the country, markets are important to the country, competitiveness is important to the country, but we can achieve these things without violating the budget agreement that was just put into place several months ago.

The bill includes new mandatory spending, which is effectively on automatic pilot, where once the bill is signed into law, the spending will take place automatically, without appropriations and without any new legislation passed. So it is $3.7 billion in mandatory spending over the next 5 years, $5.4 billion in new mandatory spending over the next 10 years. In addition to that, we have all the authorized spending in the bill--over $70 billion in spending is authorized over the next 10 years.

Looking at the authorization language, the different programs--dozens and dozens of different programs--total over $70 billion. These programs are effectively picking and choosing among different ideas and innovations and areas of the energy industry, picking winners and losers among the different competing forces. That is where we need to be very careful about the impact a bill like this would have. Why should any legislator, or bureaucrat, for that matter, be trying to pick the winning or the losing energy technology or innovation 5 or 10 years out into the future? We are not experts in this area. We are not scientists. We don't dedicate our lives to understanding the nuances of new energy technology. We certainly should not be writing legislation that picks those winners and losers in the marketplace.

If you read through--just to touch on a few to get a sense of what I am talking about--$250 million is in the bill for photovoltaic energy commercialization, the use of photovoltaic energy in public buildings. Photovoltaics is an interesting technology, perhaps a promising one. But to spend $250 million to try to commercialize this in public buildings suggests that we know, as Senators, that this is the right energy source to use in public buildings for the foreseeable future.

Why not let the market compete? Why not let investors step forward to build or renovate or improve public buildings, to use energy more efficiently in public buildings, pick the best contractor, the best product, the product which delivers the best value for the public? Why do we have to spend $250 million biasing the marketplace? There is $125 million for a coal technology loan. It turns out this particular one will actually go to convert a clean coal technology plant into a traditional coal-fired generation plant.

Elsewhere in the bill, we have a couple of billion dollars to subsidize the clean coal technology industry. So this

is a case where maybe we are just not sure what the winner is going to be, and we are trying to hedge our bets. There is nearly $100 million in the bill for the reduction of enginizing heavy-duty vehicles; reduce the amount of heavy duty vehicles' idle--I suppose in traffic, or sitting at the truck stop, or wherever else it might be. Energy efficiency in heavy-duty trucks is a great idea. Somebody tells me that those who build, manufacture, and own and operate heavy-duty trucks have a financial incentive not to waste the diesel fuel they use to drive the trucks all over the country. I don't think they need a subsidy of $100 million for us to do the job that they ought to be doing to make themselves more competitive and ultimately earn more money in the marketplace.

Engine testing program, $25 million. Why should we be subsidizing the testing of commercial engines that companies or industries use to operate and earn a good living, as they should?

Here is another very interesting one. The next generation of lighting initiative; $250 million for the next generation of lighting. We have next generation Internet. I am still not sure why we put a billion dollars or $2 billion into that. The Internet is probably the one area of our economy that has attracted more capital faster than any other idea in our history. Why the Federal Government should be subsidizing that, I don't know. Why we should be subsidizing new lighting technologies, I certainly don't know. There are wonderful companies that make great lighting products, such as halogen lights, neon lights. I could name a few companies, but I am sure I will leave some out.

When we go to the Home Depot to buy lighting products or to the local hardware store or COSTCO and buy lighting products, we know who the competitors are. Why does the Federal Government need to spend $250 million to help develop better or newer lighting?

Somebody might say we are working on more efficient lighting. If you build a better light bulb that is less expensive to use and/or less expensive to sell, I bet customers will recognize that value. It is a mature industry, a well-understood industry. You don't need a Ph.D. to understand why you would use a light bulb, how you use one, how much it costs, and what the value is. That is the classic example of an industry that certainly doesn't need a taxpayer subsidy.

Let's recognize that all of this spending--$250 million for lighting, $125 million for a coal loan, $2 billion for MTBE producers--is not money just being printed out in a back room somewhere. These are dollars that we are collecting from working families, men and women who work very hard. We collect their Federal taxes and we have an obligation to be fiscally responsible and to do a thoughtful job in the way this money is spent in Washington.

We have new mandatory spending, we have authorized spending, and then we get to the tax subsidies, some $25 billion. The President recommended only $8 billion. The Senate recommended $18 billion. It comes out of conference with the House and Senate at nearly $25 billion in tax subsidies, loan guarantees for diesel fuel plants, loan guarantees for three new coal plants. A loan guarantee to build any of these new plants effectively puts the taxpayer on the hook for all, or a very significant part, of that facility.

Again, I think the coal industry is a terrific industry, and also the oil and gas industry, electricity generation, wind power, hydropower, solar power. What we ought to be working toward, however, is a level playing field where these competing ideas and competing technologies can provide electricity, can provide power, can provide energy so consumers and investors can make good decisions about where to put their money and which one of these competing technologies to buy.

There are certainly some good provisions in this legislation. I think the electricity title takes important steps. I support repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. We have better reliability standards in this legislation for our electric grid. We have regulatory reform which I think is important for building out the electric infrastructure and avoiding future crises, shortages, or blackouts. But we can do all of these things without busting the budget. We can do all of these things without violating the Budget Act. We can do all of these things without coming back with a bill that has three times the tax subsidies the President proposed.

Like so many Energy bills I have seen in my short time working in Congress, this bill is full of some very grandiose pipedreams. One of my favorites is the hydrogen car--$2 billion for the hydrogen car. We are just coming off a $2 billion bender known as the Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle. Mr. President, $2 billion of taxpayers' money was spent to try to develop an electric car that was going to be a hybrid electric car, a hybrid combustion engine and, at the end of the day, it was a failure--$2 billion later. It had no material impact on the delivery of more energy efficient vehicles into the marketplace.

Someone somewhere suddenly decided: It turns out the car of the future is not an electric car, the car of the future is really a hydrogen car. We must have gotten that whole electric car thing wrong. Forget about that Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle; it is really the hydrogen car, and we only need $2 billion to do it.

I don't know if hydrogen is going to propel vehicles in the future. It would be terrific if it did. I think the right way to get the answer is to let the marketplace decide, to let competing technologies and ideas in the marketplace decide; put those ideas out, attract capital, attract investment, do the research and development, and, believe me, if somebody develops a cost-competitive electric car, let alone a hydrogen car, they are going to make a lot of money because there is a demand for that in the marketplace.

People are willing to pay for a cheaper vehicle. People are willing to support initiatives that not only fulfill the needs in their daily lives traveling around but also help keep our environment a little cleaner by reducing emissions.

We have coal gasification, at $1 billion or so--nearly $1 billion for a coal gasification initiative. Twenty years ago, it was all about synthetic oil. That was clearly going to be the energy of the future-- the fossil fuel energy at least. I guess we must have gotten that one wrong because we spent $4 billion, $5 billion on that, and it turns out it is really not cost competitive. So we are going to go with coal gasification. Maybe that is what we meant to say or we learned a little bit since then.

Now we can see the future much more clearly, and we are going to start out with a little bit less than $1 billion, but you can be assured that over time it is going to be a lot more than that.

These are pipedreams. These are important visions for scientists or technologists to have, and we want them to put some funding or risk some capital for these ideas. The question isn't whether they are interesting ideas or whether they are even worthy of investment but whether they are worthy of taking Federal money, taxpayer money, and putting that money at risk in a marketplace that should be able to stand on its own, compete on a level playing field, and continue to deliver the innovation and technology of which I think most Americans would and should be very proud.

We can do a lot better than this bill. We can do better than a bill that busts the budget. We can do better than a bill that has a $25 billion grab bag of tax subsidies that distort the marketplace of ideas and the marketplace of capital. We can do better in terms of legislation that should be promoting a very competitive environment and, therefore, a stronger, more robust economy, but instead, in distorting the marketplace, I think we will do great damage to our economy.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. President, we can do better than this legislation. Frankly, we need to do better than this legislation because if we don't, I am afraid if we adopt this conference report, this will become the standard method of operation, the standard way we approach science, technology, and energy: That

we get together in a room in a conference or in a committee, and we sit down as Senators and we try to pick the winners and the losers; that we distribute subsidies in the way of spending or we distribute--in some ways this is even worse--subsidies in the way of added complexity to the Tax Code. Instead of ending up with an economy that is robust, an economy that is the envy of the world, an economy that encourages new ideas and innovation, we end up with some sort of variant of what has already been defeated in the Eastern European countries and in the former Soviet Union--a manipulated government-subsidized enterprise or government-run economy where bureaucrats or elected officials try to pull the strings, but to no avail, degrading the economy, making it less efficient, making it less robust, and not discovering those very entrepreneurs we know are the heart and soul of the prosperity we enjoy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this legislation is the product of many, many hours of debate and discussion. I appreciate the commitment of the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and the sponsors of the bill, Senators Wyden and Allen, to try to address my concerns and accommodate my views on this bill. I appreciate the indulgence of the Ranking Member, Senator Hollings, for his understanding and assistance on this bill. Through persistence and thoughtful consideration by a handful of interested Members in both bodies, an agreement was reached on a legislative package that has brought us to this stage of the process. While I still have significant reservations, I am willing to allow the bill to proceed forward.

Nanotechnology is a burgeoning field of inquiry that has captured the interest of many of our nation's brightest scientific minds. While the concepts behind the study of nanotechnology are not necessarily new, recent successes have highlighted its enormous potential. If early experiences are an indication of things to come, nanotechnology has the capability to dramatically change our approach to a wide range of complex scientific problems. By understanding materials and compounds at the molecular or atomic level, scientists can develop techniques to improve the properties of everything from medicines to metals; machines to microchips.

S. 189 is meant to complement, rather than restrain, the work that the Bush administration is already doing on the issue of nanotechnology. This administration is deeply committed to expending the resources and conducting research on critical areas of nanotechnology and nanoscale science and engineering. The administration's ``National Nanotechnology Initiative'' is on track to commit almost $900 million in FY 2004 for nanotechnology research within appropriate Federal agencies. In addition, the administration has already established a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office to facilitate and coordinate the muli-agency effort. It is essential that S. 189 not infringe on the good work already being done by the administration on this issue or on the near- or mid-term plans for further work in this area.

Despite this progress, I have several concerns about the underlying text of the managers' amendment, and for that matter, the original version of S. 189. I firmly believe that oversight is an important function of the Senate, and an important part of that oversight is to ensure that Federal funds are spent appropriately. However the Managers' Amendment creates redundant reporting requirements for various agencies within the Administration. By my count, the bill includes annual, biennial and triennial reporting obligations by the National Science and Technology Council, the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, and the National Academy of Sciences, respectively. These reports have a number of overlapping components that will result in the checking and rechecking of similar questions and issues. It is important to note that Congressional studies and reporting requirements impose very significant costs on the reporting agencies, thereby draining funds from the very projects and research we are trying to fund.

S. 189 also authorizes the establishment of several interdisciplinary and specialized research centers on nanotechnology. The language of the bill requires that the process for establishing these centers be on a merit-reviewed and competitive basis. Let me serve notice to those involved in the establishment of these centers: I will work to ensure that any center established pursuant to this bill be placed at the most appropriate setting possible. I know this sentiment is shared by the Chairman of the Commerce Committee and other Members of the Senate, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that the principles of merit-review and competitive basis are upheld.

Finally, let me mention that there are concerns expressed by individuals within the academic and scientific communities and by general citizens that research and development of nanotechnology could possibly spiral out of control leading to the harmful impacts on humans. Some people have expressed concern that nanotechnology will lead to a super-race of humans or a situation where nano-machines attack or even dominate human beings. Others argue that there are uncertainties about the impact of nanotechnologies on important aspects of our daily lives, including our society, environment, ethics, educational systems, legal structure or workforce. While I do not dismiss the possible negative ramifications of the study and realization of nanotechnology, I believe those possible dangers are remote and avoidable. Almost all scientific research or new technology can be used for mischievous purposes. Moreover, there are potential implications by the use of nanotechnology that should be examined as part of research projects and development stages of nanotechnology. However, the emphasis that S. 189 provides to these issues is more than I would have considered necessary. We cannot and should not fear the technological future; we should pay it proper respect and plan for it accordingly.

In closing, it is my understanding that the product of today's Senate work on this bill will likely be taken up and passed by the House and sent to the President for his consideration. I look forward to the multiple advances that will occur from the statutory framework provided under this bill. Our action today will signal to the research community the importance and significance we place on this field of study, and this will spur further investment by the private sector and hopefully lead to the technological breakthrough that will ignite further innovation and economic growth.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Oregon and in particular the emphasis he placed on what the tone and the tenor of our current debate on nominees could mean for future nominees, for future qualification of those who might be interested in serving on the bench.

As elected officials, we talk all the time about tenor in politics, big media,

and advertising campaigns, and all the rest that a modern campaign involves, and the way in which the introspection and intrusiveness of that process discourage good people from running for office.

Anyone who has ever spent time looking at the political process is aware of that concern. It doesn't matter if you are running for the Senate or not; you could be running for school board or mayor or dogcatcher, for that matter; but people understand that there is a level of intrusiveness, an invasion of personal life, that discourages good people from running for office.

There is not much we can do about that as a Senator, as an elected official, but there is something we can do about this process, the judicial nomination process, the vetting process, the approval process. If we allow this current tone and tenor to remain, then, as the Senator from Oregon has described, we will not only discourage good people from wanting to serve on the Federal judiciary to bring their judgment and intellect to bear, to help provide justice to those who deserve and need justice, we will even discourage people from engaging in debate, from putting their ideas out on the table, from writing, from thinking about different ways to look at or evaluate the law.

I am not a lawyer. I am about as far from the law as one can get. I am an engineer by training, and I am proud of that fact. I understand the value of creativity, innovation, and debate, and the marketplace of ideas. When we have Members of the Senate come to the floor and say: I am voting against someone because I don't like the way they decided a case, that raises a red flag for me. If there is a specific case and a specific issue and you truly believe the way they decided the case means they are not capable, they are not fit, they are not qualified, that is fine, but let's not suggest for a minute that we will ever or should ever seek to find candidates who agree with us on every issue on every legal point.

My constituents back home won't agree with me on every issue anytime. I don't think there is a member of my family who agrees with me on every issue. And we certainly shouldn't accept that kind of bar for our judicial candidates. What we should look for are qualifications of experience, intellect, or a sound, consistent case record.

I think we have moved away from that. When we have nominees who have the support and endorsement of every paper in their State, liberal or conservative, or we have nominees for the judiciary who have received the support of 70 or 75 percent of the people in their State, liberal and conservative, or we have nominees who have demonstrated time and again, as we do, their commitment to uphold the law as written regardless of their own point of view, I think these nominees deserve the fairness of an up-or-down vote, and that is ultimately what I think is at stake here.

We can look at the numbers and discuss whether or not there has ever been a cloture vote at a particular time or a particular place on a particular nominee, and we have had cloture votes before, but what is different about the current debate is that cloture votes have never been used in a partisan way to prevent a nominee from getting that up- or-down vote on the floor. It certainly hasn't been used on the past on four, five, six, seven, or eight nominees. It is that process that I think has Members of this Senate, Democrat and Republican, and the public very frustrated.

Technically, is it within the right of the minority to force these cloture votes? Sure. It is not a question of whether it is technically within the right of a Member of the Senate or the minority to engage in this kind of obstruction. The question is, Is it the right thing to do, is it the fair thing to do?

Ultimately, it is important that we take a stand as to whether or not we believe it is right. I certainly do not. And ultimately the public will also be asked to decide whether they think this is appropriate behavior for their Senators and for their leaders in Washington, DC.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the President of Easter Seals New Hampshire, Larry Gammon, whose leadership has been crucial to the ability of Easter Seals to do so much for so many in our State. He is a man of remarkable character, who has devoted his life to community service, beginning his career in public education and then joining Easter Seals, where he is currently in his thirty- second year with the organization.

Mr. Gammon shares the dedication, enthusiasm, and vision of the founders of Easter Seals to increase the independence and improve the quality of life for individuals with special needs. As a result, Easter Seals New Hampshire has grown significantly to meet the needs of communities throughout the State, as well as in Maine, New York, and Vermont.

In New Hampshire, Easter Seals provides services to more than 20,000 residents each year, addressing a wide range of physical and emotional concerns including cerebral palsy, autism, muscular dystrophy, and Alzheimers disease.

And each day, an average of 125 New Hampshire children are served through Easter Seals' youth programs including families in need, family mediation, parenting workshops, and 24-hour emergency support. For those who needed, but could not afford, assistance in the past year, Easter Seals New Hampshire provided $2 million in free and reduced-cost services.

New Hampshire's elderly population is well served by senior programs offered by Easter Seals including: a medical day rehabilitation program for individuals requiring light nursing monitoring; an ambulatory program for those with light medical and mental health needs; and an Alzheimer's day program for elders with dementia and memory loss.

Equally impressive as the quantity of services provided by Easter Seals New Hampshire is their variety. Deaf or hard of hearing clients are fitted with hearing aids, and vocational training is provided to the visually impaired. Additionally, rehabilitation therapy is available for those who have sustained traumatic injuries.

For 22 consecutive years, Easter Seals has ranked number one among National Health Council members for the percentage of program dollars spent on direct client services, allocating over 90 cents of every dollar for this purpose. Larry Gammon has provided prudent financial stewardship to Easter Seals New Hampshire with the organization earning numerous accolades for its fiscal management and services.

Mr. Gammon is an individual of remarkable character who leads by example, with an impressive record of community service that extends beyond his work at Easter Seals and includes active roles in a number of other community organizations. This effort has made him successful in recruiting individuals of similar dedication to the board of directors and staff of Easter Seals, which now totals 1,200.

The contributions of Larry Gammon and Easter Seals New Hampshire on behalf of individuals with special needs are an example of America's community spirit and a role model for the rest of us. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to honor this extraordinary individual and organization.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fair Credit Reporting Act which we are debating on the floor today. I think it is important as we move through this debate and take up amendments to the legislation that we continue to ask the question, Why do we need this legislation in the first place? What are we trying to accomplish with the bill?

First and foremost, this is legislation that is intended to serve and protect the interests of consumers in the United States of America. In this legislation we are providing consumers access to a national credit system. If we look at the financial services, or our commerce system across the entire country, it is our job to look out for the interests of consumers where interstate commerce and business is concerned, and this legislation does just that. It provides access to a national credit system, and it does so at a reasonable cost. We strike a balance between the needs of the consumers and the impact on our economy so that in the long run both consumers and America's economy are well served.

We work to ensure consistency and fairness in the legislation. Any bill we take up here which might affect consumers or any other interests in the country, we would want to work to ensure it is consistent, it is fair, and that it creates a level playing field wherever possible.

As indicated and described by Senator Johnson in his remarks, the existence of this national credit system has resulted in speedy approval for consumer decisions and requests and credit cards and other financing mechanisms. As a result, we have seen access to credit dramatically increase since 1970 when the first credit acts were signed into law.

That improvement in access to credit markets and credit opportunities has been most dramatic for those at the lowest end of the income ladder. That is something we should recognize as being good for all of those consumers but also for our country as well. The reason we are here is for those consumers.

If we look at the result of the work that was done beginning in 1970, the Credit Reporting Act in 1996, and now with this legislation to reauthorize that legislation, the results have been a more accurate system, a stronger economy as described in detail by a number of the previous speakers, and now with some of the new provisions we will also have greater protection from identity theft and a system that is adapted and modernized to meet the new technologies and the new opportunities that exist today.

Senator Sarbanes described the details of the legislation. I will not go through all of the provisions that enable us to enjoy these very positive results, but I will reemphasize the fact that this is strong bipartisan legislation. Chairman Shelby and ranking member Sarbanes worked through six hearings in our committee to conduct exhaustive investigation as to the results of the legislation that has been enacted before, the new opportunities created by technology, and different opinions on different provisions. We have a very strong committee record. I am pleased to have participated in most of those hearings to ensure that we are taking the disparate views into consideration and improving the strong legislation that is already on the books.

We want to avoid having 50 States adopting 50 different standards in each

of the areas that have been discussed--whether it is enforcement, access for consumers to credit reports, information sharing, or whatever the issue. We don't want to have 50 different systems for each of these areas. That would be a more costly system for consumers. That would mean we would have a less accurate system. That would also mean-- I think this is an important point--we would come back to this debate with a disparate patchwork, and it would also mean greater susceptibility to identity theft.

When we are looking at the issue of information sharing or opt-ins and opt-outs, some of the privacy issues that are very important, we have to be sure we at least give law enforcement the same level playing field criminals have in that we at least ensure law enforcement has the most consistent system possible to do its job in protecting against identity theft. A patchwork of laws and legislation would increase the risk of identity theft, not decrease it.

At the end of the day, this is a consumers' bill. That is exactly what we want it to be. We give consumers greater access to reports. We have all been frustrated with mistakes, or errors, or oversights in our own credit reports. We want to make sure consumers have that access. We give them the protection from identity theft. We improve the enforcement mechanism for those who commit crimes involving credit reporting or identity theft. We have very commonsense provisions for information sharing among affiliates that exist so they can make sure the information they are acting on is accurate and fair and adequately represents the consumers' interests in these.

Again, I give great credit to the staff of the committee and to the chairman and ranking member for the work they have done.

I look forward to this debate. I hope we can quickly conclude the work on this legislation so our national credit system can remain strong as it has been for decades, but also so it can be improved to respond to what is in a changing world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on the nominations of Kirk Van Tine and Jeffrey Rosen, DOT; Michael Gallagher, DOC; Cheryl Halpern and Elizabeth Courtney, CPB.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on nominations of Michael O'Grady, to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services; Jennifer Young, to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services; and Bradley G. Belt, to be Member of the Social Security Advisory Board, Social Security Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a subcommittee hearing on North Korea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittees on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Database Security: Finding Out When Your Information Has Been Compromised,'' on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list: Mr. Mark MacCarthy, Senior Vice President of Public Policy, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Washington, DC; Mr. David McIntyre, President and CEO, TriWest Healthcare Alliance, Phoenix, AZ; and Mr. Evan Hendricks, Editor, Privacy Times, Cabin John, MD.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Recommendations to Improve Mental Health Care in America: Report from the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Financial Reconstruction in Iraq.''

Mr. President, we have heard a number of speakers who I think have raised a number of important points. We have heard questions and discussions about the science of climate change. The science is important, and over time we hope to better understand the Earth's climate. I hope this is an area where we do research, where we can develop better models. It is one of the most complex areas of investigation.

We have heard about the costs, both direct costs of this legislation that will increase energy costs for everyone in America, but also indirect costs, because other countries that have been mentioned by Senator Voinovich, for example, such as China, India, Brazil, Russia, or Australia, do not adopt such stringent controls on emissions, and they will benefit by American jobs moving overseas.

In particular, it stands to reason in those areas of our economy that are most dependent on energy as an import, energy incentive industries like manufacturing, steel, smelting, and the like, those are the jobs that will be the first to go overseas.

I want to speak about the environmental issue because if we look closely at the environmental impact of this legislation, it actually undermines the legislation. It shows its weakness and it illustrates why it should not be adopted. If we were to agree on the increase in temperature of the last 50 or 100 years, agree there was some relationship between manmade emissions of CO2 and that increase, and assume the full impact of the Climate Change Commission, the IPCC and the Kyoto protocols, let us look at what the environmental impact might be. This is a forecast of increasing temperatures over the next 50 years, a forecast projected increase of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius, maybe 2 degrees Fahrenheit. The benefits of Kyoto are enormously small, perhaps one or two-tenths of a degree Celsius. Over 100 years, if the projected change is 4 or 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the impact of Kyoto might be four or five-tenths of one degree.

The question is: What benefit would that provide at the significant economic costs that are not likely but certain? Supporters have pointed out their legislation, but our legislation is not as dramatic as Kyoto. It is not as harsh as Kyoto, and that means the environmental benefit will be even less.

Questionable environmental benefit, enormous cost. I certainly urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Oklahoma in opposing this amendment. No one wants to see fraud or abuse in the democratic process. The Senator from Missouri talked about some pretty egregious examples, and it is not necessarily an easy amendment to oppose. But there is a lot of funding in the pipeline that is equally important, maybe more important.

This busts the budget, and this is subject to a point of order. I think we have to exercise restraint, discipline, and focus when we are dealing with budget issues. If the funds are a priority, we should find a way to provide the support and funding within the constraints of the budget resolution. But we cannot come to the floor with amendments for initiatives that sound very worthwhile but violate the budget resolution and take us over the budget limits and caps, which will continue to increase the deficit.

So I think we need to stay focused on that resolution and exercise some fiscal discipline. I appreciate the concerns in a place such as St. Louis, where cocker spaniels are voting, but I think we can address that with funding already in the pipeline. I hope the States are taking real action to address those kinds of situations of fraud and abuse. I will support my colleague from Oklahoma in opposing this amendment.

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

Mr. President, on Wednesday I introduced S. 1692, to designate the U.S. Post Office Building at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, NH as the ``Hugh Gregg Post Office Building,'' and honor one of our State's most beloved and hardest working public servants.

On September 24, New Hampshire lost one of its great citizens, statemen, and historians when Hugh Gregg passed away at the age of 85. Hugh Gregg was an alderman and then mayor of his hometown of Nashua, leading the city through a time of economic transition by bringing prosperity back to the mill yards lining the Merrimack River in Nashua after they had gone in silent in the 1940s. He was elected the youngest Governor in New Hampshire history at the age of 34, then returned to the private sector to pursue successful ventures as a lawyer and businessman. It was at this point that Hugh Gregg began to evolve into one of the most important figures in New Hampshire history.

Hugh Gregg's love of New Hampshire and politics inspired his passion for preserving, and often-times defending New Hampshire's first-in-the- nation Presidential primary. He was involved formally and informally with many campaigns over the years, and was a virtual encyclopedia of knowledge regardingthe history of New Hampshire's unique role in electing Presidents of the United States. In 1998 Hugh Gregg, who is often referred to as the Godfather of the New Hampshire primary, help found the New Hampshire Political Library, which was and is the only nonpartisan, nonprofit institution in the State dedicated to politics and the primary.

Hugh Gregg held high the New Hampshire values of honesty, frankness and caring throughout a life of political, business, and community leadership. I was just one among his countless friends who turned to him for his advice and perspective over the years, receiving sound counsel often accompanied by a touch of dry wit. My thoughts and prayers go out to Hugh Gregg's wife, Cay, his son and our colleague in the Senate, Judd Gregg, and the entire Gregg family. My family and I, and all of New Hampshire will miss Hugh Gregg very much.

Mr. President, naming the Post Office in Nashua for Hugh Gregg is an appropriate way to remember the life of one of New Hampshire's most enduring and endearing personalities. I ask that my colleagues in the House and Senate move quickly to pass this legislation in his honor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I certainly join my colleagues in underscoring the fact that, of course, this shouldn't be a discussion about motives or patriotism. This is not a discussion about a former Senator, Mr. Cleland, or any other individual. All of us have the right to disagree on issues of substance.

Senator Dodd was absolutely right. The issues of substance that we should be discussing are how to succeed in

Iraq and how to do the right thing for homeland security. But at the same time, all of us are responsible for the words we use and the terms we use and what it conveys not just to the American people but to our allies abroad.

In this regard, I was most concerned about the use of the word ``bribery'' in reference to foreign assistance. I think that was a mistake. I think that was not just a poor choice of words but a counterproductive choice of words, because to suggest that the funds we provide for reconstruction is bribery suggests that all of the foreign assistance we engage in around the world is misspent, or, again in the worst case here, bribery.

I believe our foreign assistance should be scrutinized, should be debated, and that we should strike the right balance, but in all cases the foreign assistance that we provide around the world should be used to further our national security interests. That is an important issue of substance. The funds we are providing to Iraq should strengthen security in the United States and should strengthen the stability and security of the people in Iraq and in the region of the Middle East.

In all cases, we should scrutinize that foreign assistance budget. But to refer to it as ``bribery'' I think is a mistake. It sent the wrong message to our allies and to those who are benefiting from our economic support, foreign military financing program, and even our humanitarian aid around the world. It is for our national security interests and the purposes for which we do that, and our debate should reflect that point.