Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to be notified when I have used 10 minutes.

Madam President, we have heard a number of speakers in the Senate this week. It has been an important week. We have had the testimony of David Kay, the United Nations inspector who just came back from Iraq. We had the reaction to his testimony. We had reports from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. And today we are going to have a major speech by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet.

It is very important that we put in perspective what is happening and the steps that should be taken to ensure we are addressing the problems correctly.

First, Mr. Kay, who is totally credible on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, made the following statements in his Armed Services Committee testimony.

Senator McCain asked the question:

[Y]ou agree with the fundamental principle here that what

we did was justified and enhanced the security of the United

States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?

Mr. Kay:

Absolutely.

Senator Kennedy:

Many of us feel that the evidence so far leads only to one

conclusion: That what has happened was more than a failure of

intelligence, it was the result of manipulation of the

intelligence to justify a decision to go to war . . .

Mr. Kay:

All I can say is if you read the total body of intelligence

in the last 12 to 15 years that flowed on Iraq, I quite

frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other

than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with

regard to weapons of mass destruction.

He went on to say:

I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and

removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this

may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous

than we thought. I think when we have the complete record

you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime

that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own

protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking

weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood at some point in

the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made

that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated

with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.

Senator McCain:

Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass

destruction; true?

Mr. Kay:

Absolutely.

Senator McCain:

He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes

or no.

Mr. Kay:

Oh, yes.

Senator McCain:

OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned

chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s.

Mr. Kay:

Yes, sir.

Senator McCain:

We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear

program.

Mr. Kay:

Yes.

Senator McCain:

And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use

weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Kay:

Clearly.

Senator McCain:

So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no

doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and

use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in

your mind?

Mr. Kay:

There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that,

Senator.

So I think, when we look at the testimony of the man who has been on the ground, who has searched for the weapons of mass destruction, who knows what all the clues are, who knows what the body of intelligence was--and he

says it really could have been more dangerous than we even ever thought--I think we have to assess that in the context of all of the rhetoric we are hearing about second-guessing a decision that was based on what we had at the time.

Senator Feinstein said we should relook at our intelligence-gathering organization. I do not think anyone would disagree with that, including the President of the United States.

In our first effort to address the issues of the failure that led to 9/11, we all tried to look at the intelligence failures, to look at the things that did not compute, to look at the communications systems that did not match up. We tried to put a grid in place in the agency that was created for homeland security that would allow all of the intelligence gathering that is done in and for our country to be put through a grid to warn us when there was an imminent danger.

Let's talk about what the result has been because we have tried to address those failures. We have prevented potential terrorist acts. We know we prevented an airliner from being blown up because a very smart flight attendant saw a man get ready to strike a match and light his shoe. We know from that experience what to look for in an airline passenger, and we have refined the system. We have seen flights canceled because there was a suspicion there might be something going on. Who knows what was prevented in that instance?

We have seen arrests in very remote parts of our country because of intelligence gathering. We have not had a terrorist attack on our country since the time we were attacked on 9/11. We have had attempts, but we, because we have processes in place from what we have learned, have thwarted those attempts, including one this week in the United States Senate.

So, yes, we need to relook at our intelligence gathering. Yes, we are learning every day. And, yes, the President of the United States has already said he will have an independent investigation of our intelligence gathering that led to the invasion of Iraq. He has said he would do that. The President has also agreed to the extension asked for by the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan commission that is looking into what happened before and during the 9/11 incident. He has said, yes, I will agree to an extension, because he was asked. The President of the United States is being open. The President of the United States is trying to do the right thing to get to the bottom of this because he has the interests of the United States at heart.

Let's look at some other results. Let's look at the difference in the hope of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan today. Yes, there are continuing problems. Yes, it grieves every one of us. Our hearts stop when we hear there has been another bombing or mishap that has hurt one of our soldiers or killed one of our soldiers or an Iraqi citizen. Yes, it hurts.

But do the people of Iraq today have a better chance to live in freedom and prosperity than they had the entire time they had been ruled by a despot? Absolutely. Do the people of Afghanistan today have the hope for a future of freedom more than they had under the Taliban and the other despots under whom they have been buried for all these years? Oh, yes. They have a constitution that is getting ready now to become implemented that actually says women will be equal in that country.

We have come a long way.

Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma if he would like to extend the time or is he prepared to go to the highway bill.

Thank you.

Madam President, let me end by saying I hope we will come together and support the President in his initiatives to get to the bottom of this issue. The President is looking out for the United States of America, and we do not need partisan rhetoric on an issue such as this. We need to come together. That is what we must do.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I yield back the time that was allocated for morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to recognize the oldest highway in Texas and establish the El Camino Real de Los Tejas National Historic Trail.

This bill will preserve a vital piece of Texas history for generations to come. The El Camino Real trail established a key corridor for settlers, immigrants and militaries helping lay the groundwork for our state's future. It also served as a path for such Texas heroes as Davy Crockett and Sam Houston who both fought in the struggle for Texas independence from Mexico.

The 300-year-old corridor also served as a critical trade route, a post road, cattle trail and a military highway. The trail opened America to Texas and Texas to the world. Still today the trail collectively represents a series of roads and paths extending more than 2,500 miles in length from the Rio Grande River near Eagle Pass and Laredo through San Antonio, Bastrop, and Nacogdoches, Texas to Natchitoches, Louisiana. While 2,500 miles of the trail are in 40 Texas counties, the last 80 miles are in Louisiana.

The El Camino Real served as a strategic corridor during Texas' struggle for independence. Critical supplies made their way via the El Camino Real for the Republic of Texas Army as they victoriously forged ahead to defeat the Mexican Army in the Texas Revolution.

This legislation will recognize the significance of the El Camino Real and preserve its historic importance, as well as direct the National Park Service to establish the El Camino Real trail as a National Historic Trail. It will also allow our state agencies such as the Texas Historical Commission to participate in the establishment and designation of the trail, while protecting the private property of landowners along its route. This legislation will allow Texans and the thousands who visit our state each year to learn more of the rich history that forged the Lone Star State.

I am proud to offer this legislation to pay homage to an important piece of Texas and U.S. History, and I urge my colleagues to support the El Camino Real de Los Tejas National Historic Trail Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to recognize the oldest highway in Texas and establish the El Camino Real de Los Tejas National Historic Trail.

This bill will preserve a vital piece of Texas history for generations to come. The El Camino Real trail established a key corridor for settlers, immigrants and militaries helping lay the groundwork for our state's future. It also served as a path for such Texas heroes as Davy Crockett and Sam Houston who both fought in the struggle for Texas independence from Mexico.

The 300-year-old corridor also served as a critical trade route, a post road, cattle trail and a military highway. The trail opened America to Texas and Texas to the world. Still today the trail collectively represents a series of roads and paths extending more than 2,500 miles in length from the Rio Grande River near Eagle Pass and Laredo through San Antonio, Bastrop, and Nacogdoches, Texas to Natchitoches, Louisiana. While 2,500 miles of the trail are in 40 Texas counties, the last 80 miles are in Louisiana.

The El Camino Real served as a strategic corridor during Texas' struggle for independence. Critical supplies made their way via the El Camino Real for the Republic of Texas Army as they victoriously forged ahead to defeat the Mexican Army in the Texas Revolution.

This legislation will recognize the significance of the El Camino Real and preserve its historic importance, as well as direct the National Park Service to establish the El Camino Real trail as a National Historic Trail. It will also allow our state agencies such as the Texas Historical Commission to participate in the establishment and designation of the trail, while protecting the private property of landowners along its route. This legislation will allow Texans and the thousands who visit our state each year to learn more of the rich history that forged the Lone Star State.

I am proud to offer this legislation to pay homage to an important piece of Texas and U.S. History, and I urge my colleagues to support the El Camino Real de Los Tejas National Historic Trail Act.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Arizona talking about some of the statements that have been said on the floor today and really setting the record straight, which I think is very important.

I would like to continue to talk about the President's budget. I heard people say the budget is too much; we are going to have bigger deficits. And then I hear people say: Oh, but it is not compassionate; we are not spending enough.

What the President of the United States has submitted to Congress in a budget is very bold, but it is also very simple. The President of the United States is doing what every family and every small business would do when they are in a budget crunch, when their revenues are not meeting their expenditures. He is prioritizing the spending.

He put as his very first priority the national defense of this country. He raised the spending from last year on national defense by 7 percent. He made a priority the homeland security of our country, protecting our homeland. He increased spending 10 percent on homeland security needs.

He decreased the growth in spending. We never decrease spending in Washington, DC. He holds discretionary spending to below 4 percent and nonsecurity-related spending to .5 percent--less than the rate of inflation.

The President is saying we are going to prioritize our family budget just like families all over our country are doing. We are going to protect our country in national defense, we are going to protect the citizens of our country in homeland defense, and we are going to cut back in areas that are not absolutely necessary.

I wish to talk about what the President has done and let the people of our country decide who is being responsible in our budgeting.

He advances the ongoing efforts in the war on terror by providing $1.2 billion for rebuilding Afghanistan, continuing to build the broad coalition. NATO is now in Afghanistan in force to try to defeat that center of terrorism where the Taliban took hold and was helping al- Qaida. We are making the commitment and keeping our word in Afghanistan.

There is $5.7 billion in military and economic assistance to front- line States supporting the United States in the war on terror.

The President is strengthening and transforming our defense capabilities by providing $402 billion for the Department of Defense, an overall 7 percent increase. The President's budget is providing a 3.5 percent pay raise for our military personnel; improving housing, which is something that I as the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee in the Appropriations Committee want to do, working with the President to assure that we have a quality of life improvement for our military personnel who are on the front lines every day protecting our country and in harm's way in many instances.

He also provides a 10 percent increase in homeland security. We are providing $5.3 billion for the Transportation Security Agency, a 20 percent increase; $6.2 billion for the Coast Guard, a 9 percent increase, because the Coast Guard is being called on today to step up to the plate to patrol our borders and our shores. They are doing a great job and we are making sure they have the capability to do that job.

It doubles the level of first responder preparedness grants, targeting the high threat areas that face greater risk. These are the policemen, the firefighters, the front line first responders who can save lives if we have another terrorist attack. In many instances, it is those people who are outside our Senate Chamber today working on perhaps a new terrorist attack that has occurred in the Senate as we speak. The first responders are there trying to go through our buildings, gathering the unopened mail to see if there is any more of this ricin that was found in the Dirksen Office Building. We need to prepare those first responders so that everyone in America who might be vulnerable will also have an immediate response with trained personnel.

It protects our food supply by providing $553 million, a 180 percent increase in funds for a new agriculture and food defense initiative; $274 million for a new vital surveillance initiative; $5.1 billion, an 11 percent increase, for the FBI, to make sure we have the counterterrorism effort that our FBI can give.

So these are the defense initiatives and the homeland security initiatives the President of the United States is providing for our country. That is exactly what I hoped he would do, focus on the big things that only the Federal Government can do to secure our country. That is his first responsibility, and he met the first responsibility in the budget that is being criticized today.

Let us talk about the discretionary spending. Where are we putting the priorities in discretionary spending? We are cutting back on the increases in discretionary spending but we are holding the priorities that are so important. We initiate a job creation plan. We are looking at an economic recovery that is just in its initial stages, but we have not seen the jobs yet. The President is very concerned about people not having jobs. We are talking about a $250 million grant program for our Nation's community colleges. These are the places where we can train for jobs in the future. These are places where we can train for the high-demand occupations that are identified as the places where we can put people to work if they have the training.

Our community colleges are the unsung heroes and heroines in our country because they can put people back to work with training. They can take people who have lost jobs in one sector and train them for something else. There is $333 million to help students make the transition from high school to college.

He provides for a national energy policy, one of our best job creators, to ensure affordable, reliable energy supply; upgrading our Nation's electrical grid so we will not have blackouts and brownouts in any part of our country; promoting energy efficiency and increasing domestic energy production, which will protect the environment and put people back to work.

The budget will also spur job creation by providing more than $20 billion in small business lending and equity programs. Small businesses are the economic engine of our country. If we free small businesses and help them with the capital they need to expand their businesses and grow, we will be able to create the jobs that will stabilize our country.

So through the President's budget we are trying to increase job creation in our country. We will not have a true recovery if we have a jobless recovery. The President understands and knows that, and he is trying to make sure we address that very important issue.

Let us talk about education. President Bush is the education President. He wants to make the commitments that will allow every child to reach his or her full potential in our country. His budget increases title I funding by $1 billion, 52 percent more than in 2001; it provides $1 billion more for special education, a 75 percent increase since 2001;

it increases funding for early reading programs, a 12 percent increase over just last year. The President knows that if you can catch a child early, you will be able to correct that child's reading problems and allow that child to absorb the education that allows the child then to reach his or her full potential. The budget helps 5 million students pursue postsecondary education by providing $12.9 billion in Pell grants, an $856 million increase.

He is fulfilling his promise to increase the funding for historically black colleges and universities, minority-serving institutions, by 30 percent, $394 million by 2005. That is this year's budget. It provides $57 billion in direct and guaranteed student loans to postsecondary students and reforms higher education student aid by raising loan limits for first year students, expanding options to offer courses online and increasing loan forgiveness for those teaching certain subjects in high poverty schools, a great trade, a win for everyone. If we can put teachers in schools that have teacher shortages and forgive student loans, we will make up the interest that would be paid on those student loans by giving more children a chance for a quality education.

So how can one say the President is not doing right by education when he is focusing on the increases in spending in education that will fund No Child Left Behind, the act we passed to try to increase options for education so that our public school education can compete with private school education and give parents all the choices they could possibly need to do the best for their children?

We know every parent has the dream for his or her child that that child will be able to get a great education and send that child off into America, into the world, fully ready to earn a living, raise a family, and have a good life.

Let us talk about health care. Let us talk about what the President's priorities are in the budget in health care. The President expands health care coverage by making it more affordable for small businesses to purchase coverage for employees through association health care plans. It is very important that we lower the number of uninsured Americans. We can do that by making health care coverage available to small businesses that want to cover their employees and help their employees but they cannot afford the premiums if they are a small business. If we can pass association health care plans, as the President has requested us to do, we can take millions of Americans off the uninsured rolls. That is what we are asking our colleagues to help the President do.

It implements the prescription drug discount card to give immediate discounts of 10 to 25 percent to cardholders. In the next couple of months, our seniors will be able to take those prescription cards and buy drugs with a 10 to 25 percent discount. So that is immediate help. That is while we are also building up a system that will give even better choices and more options for prescription drug coverage to our seniors. The President's budget will give $600 annually in immediate assistance to low-income individuals to pay for prescription drugs. So the low-income people are going to get that $600 direct, immediate assistance. And then the drug benefit plan should be implemented by 2006.

The President does provide incentives in his budget that will provide immediate help for our seniors for prescription drug discounts now, and to work toward the options that will provide real help for a prescription drug benefit for our seniors.

Environment: The President has several things in his budget to enhance the Nation's supply of clean, affordable energy by increasing funding for clean energy resources, by trying to have more research into hydrogen and fuel cell research and development. He wants a zero emissions coal fuel powerplant and he wants to fund development of that in this budget he is presenting.

He presents the President's Healthy Forests Initiative to prevent the catastrophic wildfires we saw raging through western America. It was just horrible to see what was happening in California this last year, the forest fires that were raging and taking people's homes as well as their property. The President has a $58 million increase to remove excess wood and brush that fuel these fires.

He would accelerate the Great Lakes cleanup by providing $45 million, a fivefold increase over previous levels to clean up the Great Lakes.

He tackles the remaining Superfund sites. We all know the toughest sites to clean up are these Superfund sites. But he is willing to take this on and increase, by 50 percent, the funding for Superfund cleanup so we will be able to get a handle on the worst environmental hazardous areas that we have in our country.

I have heard all the talks on the Senate floor today that have criticized the President's budget. I think the President has a balanced budget. He is prioritizing where we need to prioritize. He is providing for the national defense for our country. He is providing for the homeland security of our country. He is putting the money in education. He is putting the money into job creation and job training, and he is helping to meet the health care costs of our senior citizens and people who work for small businesses.

Our President presented to Congress a balanced budget. Everybody can find something to criticize, something they would not prioritize the same way. But the President is leading and the President has presented us a budget that will cut the deficit in half in 5 years while maintaining the homeland security and defense our people have asked him to provide. I think we should work with the President to pass this budget and have some budget authority that will keep us from overspending and increasing the deficit further.

Mr. President, this should be a team, not a critical debating society. We should be teaming together to help America get through the war on terrorism, fund our priorities, cut the deficits, and be responsible to the people who elected us, as the President is trying to do.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak on this legislation because let me say that I hope in the end I will be able to support the bill.

At this point, I could not possibly do that because of the inequity to Texas. Let me say that I know the chairman is working with other Members to try to come up with solutions, and I hope I will be able to support the bill in the end.

Most of the goods that drive our economy ride on our Nation's highways in large part because over the past 50 years the Federal Aid Highway Program has assisted the States in producing one of the world's finest highway and mass transit networks.

The majority of that system was designed in the 1950s to meet the needs of a rapidly growing nation to connect to new population centers in the West. Today, there are other critical needs to be addressed different from those in the 1950s, particularly the amount of trade that is stemming from NAFTA and the increased burden on our infrastructure that NAFTA produces.

Although strong trade partnerships with our neighbors--Mexico and Canada--have provided substantial national benefits, the resultant traffic is devastating to our Nation's infrastructure.

Back in the 1950s, our smaller States and Western States needed the extra help at the expense of States such as Texas. But now, I think, every State has more of an ability to contribute to its own infrastructure. The ability to contribute is much more equal today than it was in the fifties when there were huge inequities in the amount of national infrastructure.

The State that has borne the greatest burden in the entire life of the Federal Aid Highway Program has been my home State of Texas. We are the single largest donor State. Since 1956, Texas has contributed over $5 billion more to the program than the State has received in funds to build its own highways. In fact, there has never been a year that Texas received more in highway funding than it sent to Washington.

Texas has the most highway miles of any State in our Nation. Therefore, the people of Texas, obviously, buy more gasoline and, therefore, contribute more to the tax. Over the past 12 years, Texas and other donor States have made good progress. In 1998, Texas received only a 76-cent return on every dollar sent to Washington, a loss of $1.7 billion. Current law guarantees us 90.5 cents on the dollar, but this is still very inequitable.

Though we expected to equalize more this year, hoping to get up to 95 cents at least, that has not happened. I cannot possibly support the highway funding formula in this bill. I am concerned that in an effort to limit costs, the committee created a new class of superdonor States.

It appears that Texas, California, and Florida have been designated to shoulder the burden of the Nation's transportation network at the expense of their own. I have to object to this new superdonor category.

The bill before us distributes $227 billion in highway funds using a formula that will hold six States--Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Maryland--at a 90.5 cent rate of return for 5 years. So for every dollar our constituents send to Washington, they get 90.5 cents back. Only in the final year, the sixth year, does that increase to the level of 95 cents. If Texas were to receive 95 cents for all 6 years, the formula would provide Texas an additional $700 million over this period.

These superdonor States have one aspect in common: They are the fastest growing States in America. Ironically, the formula in the bill offers the least relief to States whose needs are most pronounced, States whose cities and populations are developing most rapidly. Three of these six also are on the Southwest border, so we have the added burden of infrastructure needs from NAFTA in addition to being high growth states.

The committee thinks we should like this legislation because while the total spending grows 36 percent, Texas will see a 42 percent dollar increase compared to 6 years ago. However, our increase has little to do with the formula but is caused by Texas buying more gas and paying more taxes into the highway trust fund.

In 2002, Texas contributed 9.11 percent of the total dollars in the trust fund, up from 8.27 percent 4 years earlier. Buying more gas allows us to contribute more funds. We do grow in dollars returning to the state, but we don't grow as much as we are putting in. We keep the same rate of return, 90.5 cents on the dollar, until the sixth year.

Ever since the 1993 passage of NAFTA, it is these fast-growing superdonor States that are the major trade gateways to the United States. Eighty percent of NAFTA traffic travels through my home State of Texas. But while the entire Nation benefits from that resulting commerce, Texas bears the brunt of maintenance and upkeep on our highways, and those costs are not insignificant.

To its credit, the committee did, for the first time, create a border and a corridor fund that represents some of that added burden on the States on our northern border with Canada and our southern border with Mexico. I commend the chairman and thank him for adding those funds.

However, the $1 billion for each of those funds which, by the time Texas gets its fair share, will still not bring us up anywhere close to the $700 million we are losing by not being treated like other donor States.

In 2002, over 4 million trucks hauling 18 billion pounds of cargo entered from Mexico through 24 commercial border crossing facilities. Over 3 million of those trucks, or 68 percent, entered through Texas.

In addition to commercial traffic, 90 million personal vehicles from Mexico also traveled through the Southwest border States. So Texas now with a bigger infrastructure burden is getting less percentage of what it sends to Washington than almost all of the other States.

I am just hoping the chairman will work with us, not to create a new superdonor State category. I hope we don't break precedent and create this new sort of stepchild in donor States that will also be used for other formulas for other kinds of State aid.

I understand small States have the ability to have more votes in the Senate. I understand small States may believe they should have more of a piece of the pie than the larger States. However, representing a large State as I do, I just have to say I think we are all much more equal in capacity now than States have ever been before, and the concept that there should be donor and donee States should be going by the wayside.

I am not saying we would want to do something that cuts people off precipitously or hurts people immediately, but I think we ought to be in a phasedown of the entire donor-donee State strategy or attitude because I think every State should be able to decide, getting 100 percent of what it sends to Washington, what it wants the money spent for. If we are going to have a Federal highway system, we all want it to be a good system, and perhaps there should be some donor capacity. But a 10-cent-on-the-dollar donation seems to me to be too high. I hope the chairman will work with us to create all donor States equal, to create everyone at least at a 95-percent rate of return. The House bill treats all of the donor States the same. Donee States do vary all across the board. But we have never made a new class of donor States, and I hope we will not do it in this bill.

I hope the chairman will work with those of us who believe there should be a much more equitable funding formula so that I can support the good provisions in this bill.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Madam President, could I offer to make that trade to the Senator from Nevada on a percentage basis? I will trade him right now.

Madam President, I do understand the difficulty of dealing with these formulas, and I am sure the chairman of the committee and the ranking member tried in every way to please as many people as they possibly could. It just seems wrong to create a new level of super donor State. Yes, we have increased to 42 percent instead of the average 36 percent, but that is because our people are putting more in the highway fund because we are buying more gasoline. Therefore, of course, our rate of increase would go up. We are still in the same position of sending a dollar to Washington and getting 90.5 cents back until year 6. It is just hard to see that a donee State has more infrastructure burden than a State like Texas which not only has the most highway miles but has 80 percent of the traffic from NAFTA.

I would love to take the chairman of the committee to I-35 where it is a parking lot from Austin to Dallas. It takes more time to drive from Austin to Dallas than it does to fly from Austin to Washington. It is just ridiculous. It is a parking lot, and that is because it comes from Mexico through Texas and we do not have the capability to expand at the rate the traffic is expanding on that NAFTA corridor.

As I said in my statement, the chairman did create a real border corridor fund that will be helpful, but it still does not nearly make up for the deficit we are sending in this new super donor

State capacity to Washington. It is $700 million we could be spending on our own infrastructure trying to meet these needs if we could get 95 cents on the dollar back so every donor State would be equal.

I know it was hard. I absolutely appreciate that. Unfortunately, representing Texas for 10 years, I have been in a lot of the formula fights, and small States tend to win. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has been a donor State and knows how it feels, so he probably understands how I feel right now. I just hope in the end we can see that we will get to 95 cents either through the help of the border corridors or in the formula in some way to acknowledge we should not be a super donor State with all of the problems we have.

That would certainly be an interesting study to have. I would also point out that part of the purpose of the gasoline tax is to maintain highways for use, and even if it is someone like the Senator or someone using the highway for NAFTA purposes, they are using the highway and it is the wear and tear that must be maintained.

Mr. President, today in honor of the memory and sacrifice of seven astronauts whose lives were tragically cut short one year ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia, I bring to the floor a bill to authorize the construction of several memorials in communities that were severely effected by the event.

This bill authorizes $5 million to be used in communities along the Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery Corridor: specifically, Lufkin, Hemphill, and Nacogdoches, TX. Each of these communities have started work with NASA to memorialize the disaster and the indomitable spirit of adventure and courage, the spirit that defies complacency and accepts challenge, the spirit that each of these astronauts, and each of these communities showed.

This spirit of adventure turned space travel from dreams to a reality. It is this spirit of challenge which fueled the courage and ambition of seven men and women into the sky on January 6, 2003. It is also this same spirit that drives these communities to permanently commemorate the high price we sometimes pay for reaching new horizons.

Hemphill, TX, where the nose cone of the Shuttle was found, is also where the remains of the crew were recovered. The VFW post in Hemphill fed thousands of volunteers for weeks without so much as a complaint or a dime. The men and women of Hemphill did not take their task lightly, but rather with a solemn grace and dignity.

The greatest amount of debris came down in the populated areas of Nacogdoches, TX. Backyards and streets were littered with debris, permanently altering the community. The citizens of Nacogdoches pulled together and focused on the recovery, working day and night with NASA until the job was complete. A spirit of courage overran the community of Nacogdoches and their sacrifice should never be forgotten.

The population of Lufkin, TX doubled overnight as the retrieval effort started. The people of Lufkin opened their doors and hearts to thousands and made their civic center NASA's Columbia retrival command center. From combing the streets and fields for debris to making home cooked meals for the recovery workers, the people of Lufkin mustered around the Columbia tragedy.

In recent years, America has borne too much tragedy and experienced too much grief, but our collective loss still sears our souls and the pain is never easy to bear. Today, just one year after they vanished into the deep blue skies of Texas, we pause to remember and honor Rick Husband, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Ilan Roman, William McCool, David Brown, and Michael Anderson.

And though the families' losses cannot be diminished, their pain and grief is shared around the world and our prayers are with them. This bill will memorialize their sacrifice and will honor the courageous spirit of the communities effected. Their sacrifices will never be forgotten.

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

Mr. President, today in honor of the memory and sacrifice of seven astronauts whose lives were tragically cut short one year ago in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia, I bring to the floor a bill to authorize the construction of several memorials in communities that were severely effected by the event.

This bill authorizes $5 million to be used in communities along the Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery Corridor: specifically, Lufkin, Hemphill, and Nacogdoches, TX. Each of these communities have started work with NASA to memorialize the disaster and the indomitable spirit of adventure and courage, the spirit that defies complacency and accepts challenge, the spirit that each of these astronauts, and each of these communities showed.

This spirit of adventure turned space travel from dreams to a reality. It is this spirit of challenge which fueled the courage and ambition of seven men and women into the sky on January 6, 2003. It is also this same spirit that drives these communities to permanently commemorate the high price we sometimes pay for reaching new horizons.

Hemphill, TX, where the nose cone of the Shuttle was found, is also where the remains of the crew were recovered. The VFW post in Hemphill fed thousands of volunteers for weeks without so much as a complaint or a dime. The men and women of Hemphill did not take their task lightly, but rather with a solemn grace and dignity.

The greatest amount of debris came down in the populated areas of Nacogdoches, TX. Backyards and streets were littered with debris, permanently altering the community. The citizens of Nacogdoches pulled together and focused on the recovery, working day and night with NASA until the job was complete. A spirit of courage overran the community of Nacogdoches and their sacrifice should never be forgotten.

The population of Lufkin, TX doubled overnight as the retrieval effort started. The people of Lufkin opened their doors and hearts to thousands and made their civic center NASA's Columbia retrival command center. From combing the streets and fields for debris to making home cooked meals for the recovery workers, the people of Lufkin mustered around the Columbia tragedy.

In recent years, America has borne too much tragedy and experienced too much grief, but our collective loss still sears our souls and the pain is never easy to bear. Today, just one year after they vanished into the deep blue skies of Texas, we pause to remember and honor Rick Husband, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Ilan Roman, William McCool, David Brown, and Michael Anderson.

And though the families' losses cannot be diminished, their pain and grief is shared around the world and our prayers are with them. This bill will memorialize their sacrifice and will honor the courageous spirit of the communities effected. Their sacrifices will never be forgotten.

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

Parliamentary inquiry to the distinguished minority

whip: Is it premature to ask for unanimous consent to change the time of the vote?

Madam President, it would be in everyone's interest, once our Senators are notified, if we could set that time so our time could be roughly equally divided before then.

With that, Madam President, I will speak on our time and talk about the importance of passing the omnibus bill. This is a bill that encompasses many departments in our processes in the Senate. Normally, we try to pass each department separately so we can deal with those issues separately. Because of various circumstances, we now have a bill that takes in several major departments. Therefore, there are things that have not been debated separately. I know there are concerns that have been raised. However, we must pass this bill if we are going to have the will of today's Congress take effect for the appropriations between now and October 1 of this year.

If we do not pass this bill--the alternative is a continuing resolution--it means that last year's priorities would prevail, and there would be some major losses in funding for the next 9 months of this year.

Let's take, for instance, the veterans. Today we would lose, by not passing this bill, the ability to fully serve our veterans in their health care. Continued operations under a continuing resolution would force the Veterans' Administration to curtail the hiring of new physicians and nurses, pharmacy costs would continue to rise, and we would not have the money to pay for the added expenses that we are seeing in the medicine benefits to veterans. The waiting list for veterans medical care would start to rise, and it would mean the VA would not be able to expand its long-term care services under the old priorities.

Part of our bill this year that is before us today expands veterans medical benefits. If we pass a continuing resolution, we would not be able to increase that medical service. We have new veterans with medical needs coming home now from Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea that we would not fully fund the needs of veterans today is unthinkable. That is what would go by the wayside if we do not pass the omnibus bill.

Let's talk about education. In the bill, Pell grants maintain their historically high maximum award of $4,050 to help disadvantaged students achieve the dream of a college education. Afterschool centers are increased in funding to $1 billion.

Impact Aid--now, Impact Aid is for school districts that have a high number of bases, military personnel in that school district. Impact Aid helps the school district overcome the fact that you cannot tax Federal property. If a base is a major part of a school district, that is nontaxable property. Yet military personnel send their children to these schools. So the Federal Government has always made up the amount that would be lost in property taxes by giving Impact Aid. It is increased $49 million over last year. That will be lost for the next 9 months if we do not pass this bill, thereby further strapping the school districts in the places that have a high volume of military personnel.

Wouldn't that be an incredible thing to say to our active duty military: Oh, we are putting more responsibility on you. We are putting more burden on you. Many of you are overseas, but you have to worry about the school districts not having the money to fully educate your children while you are serving our country. Is that really a message we want to send today to our military personnel?

Head Start funding, to help prepare our disadvantaged young children to learn and succeed in school, it is boosted by $148 million in the omnibus. That would be lost for the next 9 months if we do not pass this bill, so we would not be able to get those programs geared up with the reforms that we are trying to put in place that make Head Start more of an educational experience rather than just a play experience that is day care. We are trying to give these young children the opportunity to proceed, before they get to kindergarten, with the very best early childhood education possible.

When I was home over the holidays, I visited one of these target Head Start centers, where children in the 3-year-old class and the 4-year- old class were learning their ABCs. They were learning their numbers. They were learning the computer. There were 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds working on the computer. This is the kind of Head Start Program we want to fund. That would be possible if we pass the omnibus bill. That would certainly be curtailed if we do not pass the bill.

The National Cancer Institute would have $148 million more over the next year if we pass the omnibus bill. But if we stick with last year's priorities, the National Cancer Institute will have to stop its funding increases. Many people know, with the increase in health care research in the National Cancer Institute, we have been able to make great headway in fighting cancer, in finding the cause of cancer, and then finding something that will fight that particular cause of cancer.

The Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program would be funded in fiscal year 2004 $5 million. It would help educate the public on issues surrounding blood cancers. None of this funding would be provided under a continuing resolution. So that is $5 million that would go to the education of cancers such as lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, which is very important because these are the cancers that have historically been underfunded. Many people now are getting these cancers when they are not really aware that they need to have their blood checked but because they are losing energy. It is a terrible disease. The Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program funding would lapse if we do not pass this bill.

Election reform. We made major steps in the right direction on election reform this year. The Help America Vote Act would be providing funding to States to make sure they follow through on Congress's commitment to strengthen the electoral process. None of this funding would be available under the continuing resolution.

In a very important Presidential election year, when we are going to elect every Member of the House and when we are going to elect one- third of the Senate, do we really not want to fully fund the reforms to assure our electoral process is fair, that it is a system where people can count on their vote counting? I hope not. That is $1.5 billion in the omnibus bill that would not be funded for the next 9 months, until October 1, if we do not pass the bill.

So we obviously would not have any of these reforms in place if we do not fully fund and pass the omnibus bill that is before us today.

The Millennium Challenge. This is a program that would be both authorized and funded at $1 billion this year to help developing countries achieve economic growth, to lay out alternatives to poverty, violence, and terrorism. This is very important in our war on terrorism. If we keep terrorists from being able to lock into a country that is very poor, we will give the people of that country hope, hope that there is something else besides just violence and continued poverty. Economic possibilities, economic opportunities are what will make a difference in many of these countries.

The FBI is a very important part of homeland security. We now have put the FBI into the same grid that works in homeland security, with intelligence sources to try to pick up the signals that maybe there would be another terrorist attack.

Under the omnibus bill, the FBI will be able to hire 229 new agents, receiving $138 million in program improvements to help in the fight against terrorism. If we do not pass this omnibus bill, we will go 9 months without allowing the FBI to gear up for what we are asking them to do; and that is, to hire the agents to be a part of our homeland security.

The International Trade Administration is funded at $28 million more this year. What would we lose if that funding goes by the wayside? This is what is focusing on many countries' compliance with trade standards, China's compliance with trade standards. We

have heard many concerns raised in our country about China complying with fair trade standards. We need to make sure China and every country meets the standards they have signed on that they would meet, standards that require intellectual property to be protected.

We don't want to allow people to copy the videotapes or the movies or the books that are being written by other people and not pay the intellectual property requirement to do so. But we need the enforcement capability. That will be lost.

We are targeting countries for cultural exchanges and education programs. One of the long-term goals in the war on terrorism is to try to bring people from countries that do not have democracy, that do not know freedom, to our country for cultural exchanges, for education, to show public education, giving our children the opportunity to learn, to read and write and learn math, to be able to function in a world that will create an economic base for a country. Many of the countries that are the home bed of terrorism do not have these freedoms.

Cultural exchanges are one of the long-term goals that we have in the war on terrorism to have people come from these countries to see what happens when you have a strong system of public education, to see what happens when you have freedom, to see how people can live when there is the right to free speech, when there is the right to a free public education that would give our young people the economic opportunities that education will give them.

A long-term continuing resolution that would not give any of these priorities that we have put in place in the bills that have come out of these committees would cause a $5.5 million budget shortfall for the Small Business Administration. That would be almost a 20-percent reduction in their budget. Programs that help small businesses compete, such as the 7A program, would eventually be shut down if we have a continuing resolution rather than this omnibus bill.

As I have gone through my State during the past 2 months, I have found many small business people complaining that the Small Business Administration offices are being shut down, the services are not there, the opportunity to have Small Business Administration loans and counseling is not as it used to be. If we pass a continuing resolution instead of this omnibus bill, we will lose almost 20 percent of the Small Business Administration budget.

It is very important we pass this bill, if we are going to fully fund our veterans health care, if we are going to fully fund the schools in our home district military bases so that people on active duty serving our country will not have to worry that their children in school are not getting their full educational opportunities this year.

The National Cancer Institute, with a $148 million cut over the next 9 months will have to stop the progress they are making in many arenas for finding the cure and the cause of cancer.

We are in a major election year. We would not fund the reforms that Congress has passed to assure every vote is counted, that we have good voting machines so that we won't have an issue such as what happened in Florida in the last Presidential election. We are helping States to have the integrity of the ballot in this very important election year for our Congress and for the President.

The International Trade Administration must be able to make sure that our intellectual property rights are met by countries such as China and other places that copy movies, copy books that don't pay the intellectual property requirements; the long-term exchange programs that will help us fight terrorism by giving the young people from a country that does not know freedom the opportunity to see what freedom and public education can bring; cutting back on the FBI--all of these are the things that would happen if we don't pass this omnibus bill.

It is my hope that we will have the opportunity to pass this bill today so we can put the imprimatur of Congress today on the next 9 months of funding in this fiscal year rather than rely on a bill that passed 2 years ago which doesn't take into account some of the reforms that have been made in Congress. It is my hope that Members will see that our veterans' needs and the needs of our active-duty military children in education and in cancer research will prevail. We will pass this bill and give our children a chance, and our country a chance, to have the increases we need for our homeland security, and the education of our children, and the research into cancer to find the cause and the cure. We must pass the omnibus bill to go forward in all of these aspects.

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

I will contact the leader's office.

I look forward to working with the distinguished Democratic whip to see if that can be put forward and locked in. I hope we would then start from a point to have equally divided time up until the vote at noon.

Parliamentary inquiry: The time would be equally divided from now or from the beginning of the session?

That is fine. I didn't know how it would come up. I wanted to make sure, if we have some people before 12, that there is some way to accommodate them.

Mr. President, the Senator from New York is on the floor and Senator Bennett is on his way, but I want to take a moment and say I understand some of the concerns that have been raised, but this is a bill that puts Congress's imprimatur on spending for the next 9 months. It does not take last year's priorities. It takes this year's priorities.

We have had a chance to talk about it. We have had a chance to debate. We have had amendments earlier in the process. There has been a full vetting of the differences on this bill. My bottom line is, are we going to let this bill fail and have a continuing resolution that will go from January to October 1 and fail to enact the reforms in election law that will ensure the integrity of the ballot in our country during a Presidential election year? Are we going to keep $148 million from going into the National Cancer Institute when we are doing great research on the causes of cancer and the potential cures? Are we going to fail to meet the needs of our veterans by not allowing the hiring of physicians and nurses, not fully funding the pharmacy costs which are going through the roof, which we must fund for the veterans who are needing drugs as so many people in our country do? Are we not going to fully fund the impact aid schools where our military children go to school while their parents are in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we going to let those schools' budgets be cut back? I ask, what is the alternative to passing this bill? The alternative is using last year's budget, last year's priorities, and not putting the stamp of this Congress on these priorities in place.

I think we have to look at our choices. The choices are increasing the FBI, increasing impact aid for our schools, increasing National Cancer Institute funding, increasing the ability to make sure China and other countries are complying with intellectual property laws. We will lose a lot if we do not pass this omnibus bill today and go forward with the funding programs for next year on an orderly basis.

Mr. President, I have been here for 10 years now. There are many in the Chamber who have been here longer than I. But I know one thing. Anytime we do something that is very major and very complicated, it is easy to pick it apart. It is easy in 30 seconds to say why you are not going to vote for something that has so many facets. That is much more politically feasible and it is much easier. It is harder to vote yes on something that isn't perfect.

How can you ever expect a bill this complicated to suit every person in this body perfectly? Of course, you can't. That is why we have 100 Senators from 50 States. It is why we go back and forth and compromise. Yes, there is compromise in this bill. But let me tell you in a few minutes why I am voting yes.

I am voting yes because senior citizens do not have benefits for prescription drugs. We must start. No one would say this is perfect. Who could expect a perfect bill that is this comprehensive? This is the bill. Of course, you don't agree with every word in it. But are we going to throw it away and not even start? I hope not. Those who have been around here longer than I know that we will come back and we will adjust where adjustment is necessary, as we do in every major piece of legislation that is far-reaching.

I am voting for this bill because for the first time everyone in our country will have the chance to put aside money in a health savings account to build up for their copays and for their premiums on health care insurance. It will be a tax-free buildup, and it will be tax free when you take it out for your health care needs.

I am voting for this bill because it increases the reimbursement for our people who give medical services. Our rural hospitals are dying all over our country and they will have a better reimbursement rate, something Senator Kennedy and I worked on very hard. This is not what I wanted in totality, but we are going to increase the teaching hospital reimbursement because the teaching hospitals are the ones that treat our poor. Our teaching hospitals are where our up-and-coming physicians and nurses learn how to treat patients. We are increasing the reimbursement. Senator Kennedy and I worked very hard on that.

It is not everything we wanted but we can come back and we will make it even better. There will be millions of dollars going into our teaching hospitals and every State in our country has a teaching hospital.

The reimbursement to physicians is going to increase. How many physicians have said, I am not taking Medicare patients anymore; I cannot afford it. We want physicians to take our Medicare patients. We also want a freedom to choose, which our Medicare patients do not now have and which we will have in the future.

That is why I am voting for this bill. It is the harder vote. I urge my colleagues to step up to the plate and help us start.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be told in 3 minutes because I intend to leave 2 extra minutes to the Senator from Utah.

After I use 3 minutes. Thank you.

Mr. President, while the medical community has ridden the technological wave of the future, pushing the envelope in research into new pharmaceuticals, treatments and life-saving measures, Medicare has been stuck floundering in the 20th century. The venerable program, designed to provide healthcare for the elderly and the disabled, has failed to meet all of the needs of those it set out to serve.

After years of talk, Congress is poised to enact the most sweeping change for America's seniors in nearly 40 years. We have the opportunity to bring Medicare up-to-date and take advantage of the incredible advances in prescription drugs.

Pharmaceuticals are one of the miracles of modern medicine. Ailments that traditionally required an expensive in-patient hospital stay and invasion surgery can now be treated with medication. But most Medicare recipients wouldn't know it. While the government pays for costly heart surgery, it currently will not pay for the preventative drugs that may have precluded the need for an operate in the first place.

An estimated 9.9 million Medicare beneficiaries do not have private prescription drug coverage, almost 600,000 in Texas alone. Some seniors who could lower their cholesterol by ingesting a simple pill like Lipitor have to pay out their pockets for the drug which retails at $108 per bottle, placing this simple solution out of their reach.

The bill before Congress would give America's seniors access to a prescription drug benefit for the first time. Beneficiaries would pay a $35 monthly premium and a $250 deductible, after which they would pay 25 percent of drug costs between $275 and $2,250 and 100 percent between $2,250 and $3,600. Costs over that threshold would require an average copay of $2 for generic drugs and $5 for brand name drugs, or 5 percent of the total drug cost depending on the plan.

Until these reforms are in place, a prescription drug discount card offering savings of up to 25 percent will be available in 2004, providing some relief immediately.

This measure also offers additional and unprecedented assistance to those with low incomes. Medicare beneficiaries at the poverty level and below will pay no premiums or deductibles and will have nominal cost sharing responsibility, with copays of $1 for generic drugs and $3 for other pharmaceuticals. Those at 135 percent of the poverty level, or $12,123 annually for

individuals, will not pay premiums or deductibles and will have co- payments of no more than $5. Beneficiaries at 150 percent of the poverty level, or $13,470 annually, will have a sliding scale subsidy for premiums, a $50 deductible and $2 and $5 co-pays. These changes will mean more than 680,000 low-income Texans will pay no more than $5 per prescription. Furthermore, with the Federal Government providing drug coverage for those individuals who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, my State will save $1.7 billion over an eight-year period.

Though much of the attention surrounding Medicare reform has focused on the prescription drug benefit, there are a number of other elements that are important. In the end, the legislation is a good compromise and addresses the fundamental problems.

One significant element is choice. This plan provides access to a broad array of healthcare options, similar to what most working Americans already enjoy. Seniors can stay in traditional Medicare, add a prescription drug plan or choose an HMO or PPO that includes a prescription drug plan. Unlike the current Medicare+Choice plans, which have been pulling out of communities, the bill guarantees all seniors will have access to an HMO or PPO plan.

It also has provisions to encourage companies currently providing healthcare to their retirees to continue offering this important benefit.

Another important component of the bill is an increase in the reimbursement rate for physicians, many of whom have stopped taking on new Medicare patients. Physicians were facing a cut in March of 2004 and another in 2005, but this legislation not only stops the reductions, it gives physicians an additional 1.5 percent reimbursement.

Hospitals that treat a large number of illegal immigrants will receive some compensation for their services--a provision important for Texas hospitals and other providers.

Another advantage that will benefit the general population, not just those within Medicare, is the creation of Health Savings Accounts, which will allow individuals and families to put tax-free money into an investment-type account dedicated to their medical costs. The money is not taxed when withdrawn for qualified medical expenses, giving Americans another tool to cover healthcare costs, such as deductibles and co-payments.

As with any compromise, the bill is not everything I would want. I advocated larger teaching hospital reimbursement levels, and although the percentage is not as high as I proposed, in 2004 it increases the current reimbursement rate, from 5.5 percent to 6 percent in April and then to 5.8 percent in October, but it is still higher than the current rate.

This increase means almost $13 million to Texas' teaching hospitals. Every State has at least one teaching hospital, with 1100 of the facilities nationwide. Teaching hospitals train nearly 100,000 physicians, and the Federal Government has traditionally recognized the higher costs inherent in training and educating those health care providers. They utilize newer technology and provide more indigent care. This increase will provide some much-needed assistance to our financially strapped rural and teaching hospitals.

Let me be clear: this bill is not perfect, but as AARP President James Parkel said this week, ``Millions of Americans cannot wait for perfect. They need help now.''

After years of talk, we are taking the first step to bring this vital program up-to-date. For the first time, we can provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit that offers additional assistance for those who need it most and strengthen Medicare for future generations.

I know my 3 minutes are up. I would like to add 2 minutes to Senator Hatch's 5 minutes with that added 2 minutes. I urge my colleagues to support this major first step.

Mr. President, I am proud to offer the Clean Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act.

Texas, like many States, faces increasingly difficult challenges in improving air and water quality.

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set air quality standards and establishes deadlines for State and local governments to achieve those levels. Today, more than 90 communities across the country are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. These so-called ``non-attainment'' areas are threated with regulatory sanctions, such as loss of federal highway funding, if they do not meet mandated ozone levels by 2007.

Texas has four non-attainment areas: Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas- Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston. The Houston area alone needs an estimated $4.1 billion annually in order to meet Federal air quality standards.

These communities will not achieve compliance without assistance. Too many industrial plants need to install expensive equipment. If these environmental investments do not become more affordable, communities will either suffer sanctions or force industrial facilities to close and move offshore, causing substantial economic hardship.

Texas and many areas of the country, especially in the Southwest and West, also face critical water and wastewater problems. Investments in sources of clean water must be made or we will face shortages in the coming decades. However, necessary water infrastructure improvements are extremely expensive. According to the Texas State water plan, the cost of water supply acquisition projects, water and wastewater treatment, and other infrastructure projects in Texas through 2050 will be more than $100 billion.

Currently, air and water pollution control facilities cannot be financed by tax-exempt bonds. Even if they could, they would be limited by a cap which sets the total amount of tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by a state. Given the demands of other projects, such as housing, relatively few of the air and water pollution projects would have an opportunity to access this financing option.

In order to help us meet the challenges, I am introducing the Clear Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act. My bill will allow federal tax-exempt bonds to be used by private firms for air and water pollution control projects. Given the importance of these critical projects, these bonds also would be issued outside the constraints of the private-activity bond caps. The Texas Water Development Board estimates this could save 30 percent in financing costs for water projects.

For example, this bill would allow tax-exempt debt to be used to finance private systems along the Gulf Coast that desalinate seawater and brackish groundwater, and to install air pollution facilities on electric utility plants. States and communities would have an important new tool for addressing air and water pollution control needs.

Pollution control is a problem for all of us. It is to everyone's benefit to develop ways to promote public and private partnerships which can finance projects to improve air and water quality. I hope my colleagues will support this effort.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to offer the Clean Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act.

Texas, like many States, faces increasingly difficult challenges in improving air and water quality.

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set air quality standards and establishes deadlines for State and local governments to achieve those levels. Today, more than 90 communities across the country are out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. These so-called ``non-attainment'' areas are threated with regulatory sanctions, such as loss of federal highway funding, if they do not meet mandated ozone levels by 2007.

Texas has four non-attainment areas: Beaumont-Port Arthur, Dallas- Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston. The Houston area alone needs an estimated $4.1 billion annually in order to meet Federal air quality standards.

These communities will not achieve compliance without assistance. Too many industrial plants need to install expensive equipment. If these environmental investments do not become more affordable, communities will either suffer sanctions or force industrial facilities to close and move offshore, causing substantial economic hardship.

Texas and many areas of the country, especially in the Southwest and West, also face critical water and wastewater problems. Investments in sources of clean water must be made or we will face shortages in the coming decades. However, necessary water infrastructure improvements are extremely expensive. According to the Texas State water plan, the cost of water supply acquisition projects, water and wastewater treatment, and other infrastructure projects in Texas through 2050 will be more than $100 billion.

Currently, air and water pollution control facilities cannot be financed by tax-exempt bonds. Even if they could, they would be limited by a cap which sets the total amount of tax-exempt private activity bonds issued by a state. Given the demands of other projects, such as housing, relatively few of the air and water pollution projects would have an opportunity to access this financing option.

In order to help us meet the challenges, I am introducing the Clear Air and Water Investment and Infrastructure Act. My bill will allow federal tax-exempt bonds to be used by private firms for air and water pollution control projects. Given the importance of these critical projects, these bonds also would be issued outside the constraints of the private-activity bond caps. The Texas Water Development Board estimates this could save 30 percent in financing costs for water projects.

For example, this bill would allow tax-exempt debt to be used to finance private systems along the Gulf Coast that desalinate seawater and brackish groundwater, and to install air pollution facilities on electric utility plants. States and communities would have an important new tool for addressing air and water pollution control needs.

Pollution control is a problem for all of us. It is to everyone's benefit to develop ways to promote public and private partnerships which can finance projects to improve air and water quality. I hope my colleagues will support this effort.

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

Certainly.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for shepherding this very important and very complicated bill to the floor.

I have to say I have been in the Senate for 10 years, and I have tried to get an Energy bill through the Senate during all of that time. We have never been able to do that until the Senator from New Mexico became chairman of

the committee. What he has produced is a balanced bill. There are many things in it that I don't like. There are many things in it that I am sure every one of us in this Chamber would do a little differently. But we are a legislative body, and people have the right to have differing views and come together in compromises.

When we are making the decisions about how we are going to vote on legislation, we have to determine if the good outweighs the bad and if the bad is going to be unchangeable or more harmful than we should allow. I think the good definitely outweighs the bad in this bill.

I was going to talk about the MTBE issue. I couldn't talk about it any better than the Senator from New Mexico. People forget that MTBE was a mandate from the Federal Government. It came as a result of a mandate to produce oxygenated gasoline to try to reduce smog in our country and reduce pollution. The manufacturers came forward with MTBE. It is a perfectly safe product if used properly. In fact, it did have the intended consequences of reducing pollution.

The reason it is going to be phased out is that it has been misused, it has leaked into water supplies, all of which is very bad. But I don't think making the manufacturers of a product that was produced at the insistence and mandate of the Federal Government is good public policy. I think the MTBE issue has been used as a stalking horse for people who do not like other parts of the bill.

In fact, I think this is a good Energy bill. We must have an energy policy that addresses the issue of self-sufficiency for our country.

Between 1950 and 2000--50 years--overall energy consumption in the United States increased three-fold. We currently account for 24 percent of consumption worldwide. Yet, while demand has drastically increased, domestic exploration and the development of renewable sources have not kept pace. What we are doing today and tomorrow and as long as it takes to pass this bill, I hope, is promoting conservation, promoting increased efficiency, promoting reduced consumption, and promoting increased production from traditional sources. Some forms of energy are limited. They will exhaust themselves over time. But others are replaceable.

In this bill, we encourage the replaceable sources. Geothermal technology offers a clean, sustainable energy created by the harnessing the Earth's heat. Geothermal resources can be found in shallow ground or in hot water and rock miles below the Earth's surface. Hydropower, currently the largest source of renewable power in the United States, yields electricity from flowing water. Solar energy harnesses sunlight to generate electricity, provide hot water to heat and cool, and light buildings. Wind energy is created by 16-ton turbine engines capturing the wind with two or three giant blades to generate electricity. These turbines can be seen on hilltops where there is strong wind and not too much turbulence.

These are becoming increasingly a common sight in my home State of Texas, one of the Nation's leaders in wind energy production.

All of these sources are clean, natural, and renewable, and they can play a greater role in our Nation's energy policy. This legislation provides incentives for nuclear power. This has been overlooked in recent decades.

Since 1978, no new nuclear plants have been built in our country. Fear of accident and extraordinary insurance costs have made nuclear energy a costly venture. While European nations have safely developed sophisticated nuclear capability, the United States has let development of this important source lag. By encouraging the development of nuclear energy, we will give American companies a kick start that will create the high-paying technology and construction jobs and provide probably the biggest source of clean energy to meet our high demand.

One of the parts of the bill that I wrote is tax credits for marginal wells. Marginal wells are the 10-barrel-a-day wells, or less. When there are wells that produce a million barrels, thousands of barrels, a 10-barrel-a-day well is a small well. It takes a lot of capital to go out and drill a well. If a producer believes it is going to be a very small well, that producer is going to be less likely to incur the costs of drilling. But in fact, these little bitty wells, if they are going at full capacity in our country, and if we encourage them, can bring up the same amount of oil and gas as we import from Saudi Arabia every day. These little wells can be drilled by small business people. They can create jobs in the oil fields, and they can become a significant source of oil and gas for our country.

We have tax credits for these small wells if the price goes below $18 a barrel. These people will go out of business at $18 a barrel. They cannot make it. They can't break even. They will have to close the well, which is also expensive, and let their people go. So you have a loss of jobs. With a credit for marginal wells, when the price goes below $18 a barrel, you can encourage these people to go ahead and drill the well, put people to work and keep producing oil and gas for our country. Hopefully, the price goes back up--and, of course, the price is up right now. So it wouldn't even take effect right now. But it gives that floor so that the little guys will take the chance to go ahead and drill that well.

This provision was modeled after a Texas law that has also been quite successful in waiving certain State taxes for the little guy to keep those wells going.

The other thing it does is allow expensing for delayed rental costs, and G and G--which is the geological and geothermal exploration. These are expenses that are incurred, and in any other business they are able to be written off. They would be able to in this bill as well.

It encourages deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is quite expensive. We have had incentives over the last few years for this deep drilling. It has become the largest source of oil and gas we have in our country except for Alaska. Of course, we are not able to drill in ANWR. So this is a very significant resource for us, the Gulf of Mexico.

All of these are provisions I put in the bill because I believe that keeping the small businesses in business is a very important part of energy self-sufficiency in our country and creating jobs.

There is a national security issue. When 60 percent of our oil is imported--and we know how volatile the largest sources of those imports are in the Middle East--we know our country is going to be in a very bad fix if we lose those resources because of volatility or the war on terrorism. Our economy will be affected adversely. That will affect our jobs. It will affect our factories. It will affect our small business costs if we don't have our own sources of energy. That is why the Senator from New Mexico and the people on the committee who worked to forge this bill were addressing our national security interests as much as those who work on the defense issues.

If we are energy self-sufficient, that means our economy will not be in upheaval if we have a huge loss in the ability to import foreign oil, and therefore the price goes up and it becomes prohibitively expensive. We need to have our own sources of energy. We need to be dependent on ourselves. We need to keep the jobs for energy in our own country. That is why this bill is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. No one said it is. I would not have written it this exact way, but it is a good bill. It will make us more energy self-sufficient, which also means we will be more secure in our country, more secure in our economy, and we will keep the jobs coming which are so important to keeping our economy strong and to have the recovery we have all been looking for to occur in the next year.

I support this bill. I hope people will look at the big picture. I hope people will look at the rhetoric on MTBE and overlook some of the things they do not like in the bill by looking at the good things that will increase production, increase the renewable energy sources, increase the clean energy, and decrease our consumption all at the same time so we will have a better energy policy for our country.

We have been working on this for over 10 years. The time has come. We will be able to fix things that do not work. We always do that with major legislation that is passed. The time has come. We have the capability to act now. I hope we will not lose it.

I yield the floor.

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