Floor Statements

Mr. President, I never had the opportunity to serve with Bruce Newcomb in the Idaho State Legislature, but having been privileged to get to know him, I very much would have enjoyed working with a man of his caliber.

Bruce is retiring from the Idaho House of Representatives at the end of the 2006 session, and he will be sorely missed by his colleagues in the legislature and his constituents in Idaho. Bruce has developed a reputation of being an honest and evenhanded speaker of the house whose sense of humor helps in tackling contentious issues and a heavy workload. In addition, he is a strong leader who is not afraid to make a strong stand when the situation calls for it.

Having grown up on a working farm and ranch in Idaho myself, I understand the difficulty of going to Boise to serve in the legislature in the middle of the calving season. Bruce has been able to handle his work as a rancher while serving the constituents of Idaho, without sacrificing the quality of either profession--not to mention his important duties as a family man, the husband of Celia Gould and father of five children. It takes a truly talented man to handle all these responsibilities and continue to have such strong loyalty and respect from colleagues, family, and friends.

Over the 2006 President's Day recess, I had the opportunity to share the floor with Bruce at the Mini-Cassia Lincoln Day Luncheon in Burley, ID, to answer questions from the constituents of Idaho. Bruce fielded all the State-related questions and handled them with impressive knowledge, not to mention a down-home country charm which made complicated issues easy to understand. After seeing Bruce in action with his constituents in his home district, it is easy to understand why he will leave such huge boots to fill when he retires.

Bruce served 20 years in the Idaho House of Representatives, where he held many different leadership roles: majority caucus chairman, assistant majority leader, majority leader, and four terms as speaker of the house. His four terms as speaker marks him as the longest- serving speaker in the Idaho House of Representatives.

Bruce, thank you for your service to our State. You truly are a speaker who speaks for Idaho.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2006. This Act authorizes prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either died or have retired.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2006. This Act authorizes prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who have prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either died or have retired.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. President, just before we recessed 2 weeks ago, many celebrated the Irish national holiday commemorating the Patron Saint Patrick. That day also marked an important anniversary for another man: William G. Myers. Mr. Myers' nomination was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary committee exactly one year ago on that day, and he has since been waiting for confirmation by the Senate.

My colleagues know that this is the second time Mr. Myers will be considered by the Senate for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is important to note that in the previous Congress a majority of the Senate voted to confirm him. Due to the circumstances of that time, however, his confirmation required a supermajority. I am confident that the current Congress will see the fine qualities of Mr. Myers, and he will receive a full bipartisan vote for confirmation.

Mr. Myers will be an advocate of truth and justice. He was confirmed in the past as Solicitor for the Department of the Interior and is a very talented and capable candidate. His tremendous background demonstrates that he will provide clear and precise judgment and leadership to the Western States in the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Myers has proven throughout his professional career that he understands the culture and heritage of the Western States and the issues critical to that region. His professional history demonstrates that he will show responsibility and intellect in every decision that he makes as a judge.

I strongly support William Myers' nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court. He deserves our fair consideration for this position, and it is my hope that he will be given an up-or-down vote in the Senate. The President has correctly selected this highly qualified nominee, and I ask that the Senate move quickly to confirm him.

Mr. President, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests has previously announced a hearing to be held on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to the bills previously listed, the following bills will be included:

S. 1056, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the city of Henderson, NV, certain Federal land located in the city, and for other purposes; and S. 2373, to provide for the sale of approximately 132 acres of public land to the city of Green River, at fair market value.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at (202) 224-7545 or Sara Zecher at (202) 224-8276.

Mr. President, I will be brief, but it is important I have the attention of my colleagues.

Yesterday, with the Burns amendment, we increased veterans funding over last year by 14 percent, so we have already increased veterans spending by 14 percent. The Senator from Michigan wishes now to increase it by 36 percent. That is 104 billion new dollars over a 5- year period. And it is taxed for. At least she has the courtesy of offering something that is paid for.

But even the Veterans Administration, with the Burns amendment, by their best guesstimation--and I use the word ``guesstimation''--would suggest that veterans' care next year will grow by less than 2 percent. There is absolutely no justification for increasing veterans health care budgets by a grand total of 36 percent in 1 year.

This Senate has been progressively generous to America's veterans, as we should be. It is now one of the most rapidly growing health care budgets in our country, with the Burns amendment, not the Stabenow amendment. Please vote no on the Stabenow amendment.

The President's budget proposal fiscal year 2007 includes a plan to change, through issuance of a new administrative ruling, the way Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, retires its debt to the Federal Treasury. The plan would require BPA to use excess revenues to retire long-term debt more quickly. Because the change would be made through the rulemaking process, congressional approval would not be needed for the rule to go into effect. Analysts believe the proposed rule would result in 10-percent rate increase that BPA would be forced to pass on to ratepayers.

This rate proposal is not acceptable. The Northwest is a region that is growing very rapidly, and our economy is built on hydropower. That means each year is different, depending on what

kind of water year we have had. This proposal would limit BPA's flexibility to deal with the bad water years by taking advantage of the good ones.

According to a February 8, 2006, analysis by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, proposal will result in a retail rate increase of at least 6.6 percent, raising power rates $145 million a year, costing retail customers an additional $26.13 a year, decreasing personal income in the Northwest by $109 million, and resulting in the loss of 1,120 jobs. The Pacific Northwest economy is only beginning to rebound from the recent recession, and increasing energy costs will only serve to slow that recovery. Surely, it is preferable to foster longer-term economic growth in the region rather than focus on a short-term revenue stream for the U.S. Treasury.

Some assert that this proposal is good business practice because it prepays BPA's Federal debt. I disagree because the full story is not being told. While it is not unusual to prepay debt, it is certainly unusual for the Government to require this. In fact, this proposal is one-sided. It takes excess revenues away from BPA during good water years but does not assist BPA in bad water years.

BPA has been prepaying debt for more than 20 years, even when our Northwest States had the second and third highest unemployment in the country. Power rates were not raised to do this. So why is the Government requiring prepayment of debt and an increase in power rates when the Northwest has been successful in prepaying debt without impacting rates? This does not make sense unless there is another reason for the proposal.

According to the Department of Energy, DOE, the main purposes of the proposal are to allow more financial flexibility for BPA and to help build more transmission infrastructure. We agree with these goals but think the individuals in the region can better decide how to accomplish them.

Unfortunately, it seems this proposal would result in the establishment of BPA as a revenue raiser for the Treasury--a questionable precedent and one BPA will not always be able to achieve. This proposal must be stopped.

Senators Crapo, Wyden, and Murray have successfully inserted section 312 into S. Con. Res. 83, which relates to requiring BPA to use excess revenues to prepay long-term debt. I commend my colleagues for their effort and support their provision, but this is just the first step in making sure that this proposal does not go forward. Our work is far from over.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to put this issue to rest.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 29, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. l832, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease oil and gas resources underlying Fort Reno, OK, to establish the Fort Reno Management Fund, and for other purposes; S. 2150, to direct the Secretary of Interior to convey certain Bureau of Land Management Land to the City of Eugene, OR, and H.R. 3507, to transfer certain land in Riverside County, CA, and San Diego County, CA, from the Bureau of Land Management to the United States to be held in trust for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545 or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I will speak softly today because I am just recovering from laryngitis. I believed it was important, as chairman of the authorizing committee who proposed to the chairman of the Budget Committee the underlying budget proposal for the funding of the VA for this coming year, that I discuss the Burns amendment.

When I consider the Burns amendment, I feel the same way I felt with the President's 2007 budget and the announcement for VA. On the one hand, I am pleased that the VA budget is a top priority during debate on the budget resolution. It should be. America's veterans have always been and will remain a top priority of this Senate. On the other hand, I am sobered that the President and the underlying resolution propose a 9.6-percent increase in funding for veterans medical care, with additional revenue generated on top of that through various fee proposals on higher income veterans with no service-connected injuries. The chart to my left clearly demonstrates my concerns. From 2001 to this budget, it is visible what this Congress has done to fund veterans, a 69-percent increase in a very short time.

Let me remind everyone that there is plenty of money in the President's budget request for returning Iraqi veterans and Afghan veterans. They represent only 2 percent of VA's patient population. They are and will remain our top priority, and they are funded. There is also plenty of money in the President's budget for the care of service-connected veterans and low-income veterans. I believe those are statements of fact. They should not be, nor do I believe they can be, challenged. There are significant increases for important initiatives we all support for our veterans: an additional $345 million for mental health services, including PTSD treatment; $64 million for homeless programs; and $161 million for prosthetics and sensory aids.

The question before us now is the extent the Congress will fund medical care services to every veteran who shows up at the door, irrespective of their income or their need for treatment associated with a service-related disability. In other words, are our veterans hospital doors open for all?

Assuming the adoption of the Burns amendment, this resolution will assume a 12.4-percent increase in direct appropriations for VA medical care. Senator Akaka is proposing an amendment of an increase of about 15 percent, or may. Any way you cut it, the spending proposed for the 2007 budget under either amendment will result in a 70-percent-plus increase in VA medical care from 2001 to 2007. That is the reality of the numbers being played within these amendments. Assuming a 12.4- percent rate of growth, VA medical care will double every 6 years. I never dreamed when I became chairman of the VA Committee that in my tenure I could preside over a $100 billion-a-year VA budget.

These amendments simply advance that to a reality. With Senator Akaka's 15 percent annual growth, the budget would double every 5 years. Is it right? Is it justifiable? Is it reasonable in today's care of America's veterans? The bottom line is this: At these rates, VA spending will soon collide with demands made on all other areas of Government. The President's budget proposal began to address the fiscal challenge we faced. I thought he was responsible in doing it. I could not deny that it was a responsible act, and I encouraged the Budget chairman to put it in the budget. I continue to believe those proposals were eminently reasonable. However, I know that the majority of my colleagues do not find these proposals reasonable. Why? In large part because every veteran service organization in the Nation doesn't want them. They have lobbied and argued that they should not happen. I understand why.

I have also spoken directly to all of those organizations and suggested if not now, when. If not now, when do we begin to face the reality of not a doubling every 6 years but a doubling every 5 years? When do we face the reality of VA colliding with Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and the military defense budget itself? Those are the realities we face in this Congress, not in 2007. We will not face them because we are going to choose not to face them. I do not believe that is responsible.

I am left with a tough decision. Without enactment of the President's proposal, the system will need an additional $800 million. That is what Senator Burns recognizes. That is what he is offering. I cannot in good conscience vote to purposefully underfund VA medical care, if the President's fee proposals will not be carried forward. Therefore, I will support the Burns amendment. Is it fiscally responsible? I will leave that to the decision of fellow Senators.

What isn't fiscally responsible under today's budget system is to suggest that we will double this budget every 5 years and have it collide directly with every other program that is out there, without saying to those veterans who are capable and able that if they want service from the finest health care delivery system in the country today--and that is our VA--and they are not service connected and they are not disabled and they are income disqualified, that they ought not pay $21 a month to gain access to the best health care system in the country. That is less than a carton of cigarettes. No, this Senate does not have the political will to say so. Or $15 a month for a pharmaceutical that could cost you $300. It is the best deal in the country, folks. I am proud of it. I defend it because I support our veterans. But I am also asking every veterans service organization, starting today, working through next year, to help us find a solution to this problem other than just dumping billions more into it each year out of the general fund budget.

To suggest that these needs are not there is to deny reality, but to suggest there are alternative and responsible ways of funding them is a reality we must face. Simply throwing more and more money at the budget is shirking that responsibility, especially when doing so sets up painful choices. I have spoken to them. Those choices collide directly with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We won't face those choices yet, either.

I want to avoid the painful choices because I want to make sure the VA system is there today for America's veterans and there tomorrow for tomorrow's veterans because our history would suggest to us there will be tomorrow's veterans. We are a nation which has found it necessary from time to time to use force as an extension of our foreign policy for the purpose of securing our freedoms and maintaining our Nation. That policy approach produces a veteran. And because of that, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, for he who hath borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan, that is our responsibility as a nation. The Burns amendment recognizes it in the broad sense. I believe it fails to recognize the reality of where we must go in the long term. The President attempted that this year. I agreed with him. The Budget chairman agreed with him.

We will see where the Senate takes us. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have just passed the Burns amendment. The Burns amendment is a 12.2-percent increase for veterans, the largest increase in the history of this Government for veterans. All incoming veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are paid for. All veterans of current service needs, both disability and service related, are paid for. This is a doubling of the veterans budget every 5 years on the amendment we just voted for.

There is a fundamental question to be asked: How much is enough? This Congress, this Senate just now was generous, and appropriately so, to America's veterans. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Akaka amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3039

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 5, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to review the 2005 wildfire season and the Federal land management agencies' preparations for the 2006 wildfire season.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics or Sara Zecher.

Mr. President, I look forward to the U.S. Senate passing this resolution and designating the week of March 13-17, 2006, as National Safe Place Week. I thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her work on this issue. I would also like to the other cosponsors of this resolution: Senator Durbin, Senator Cochran, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Inhofe, Senator Mikulski, Senator Crapo, Senator Landrieu, Senator Salazar, Senator Clinton, Senator Bunning, Senator Lincoln, Senator DeWine, Senator Inouye, Senator Lieberman, Senator Feingold, Senator Dodd, Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, Senator Murkowski, Senator Johnson, and Senator Kohl. This action will recognize the importance of Project Safe Place and send a message that we will keep working to protect our children. In countless hours of selfless work, volunteers truly do make a difference every day, and in passing this resolution, the Senate will be applauding the tireless efforts of the thousands of dedicated volunteers across the nation for their many contributions to the youth of our nation through Project Safe Place.

Events of the day may turn our attention overseas, but it is essential to remember those who are fighting an ongoing battle right here at home. This battle has been raging for generations and consists of fighting to protect this Nation's most valuable resource: our children. Young people are the future of this Nation; they need to be both valued and protected. Sadly, however, as my colleagues know, this precious resource is threatened daily.

I come to the Senate today to talk about a tremendous initiative between the public and private sector that has been reaching out to youth for over 20 years. Project Safe Place is a program that was developed to assist our Nation's youth and families in crisis. This partnership creates a network of private businesses trained to refer youth in need to the local service providers who can help them. Those businesses display a Safe Place sign so that young people can easily recognize a ``safe place'' for them to go to receive help.

The goal of National Safe Place Week is to recognize the thousands of individuals who work to make Project Safe Place a reality. From trained volunteers to seasoned professionals, these dedicated individuals are working together with the resources in their local communities and through their ties across the Nation to serve young people. Because of Project Safe Place, this

all happens under a well-known symbol of safety for in-crisis youth.

Project Safe Place is a simple program to implement in any local community, and it works. Young people are more likely to seek help in locations that are familiar and non-threatening to them. By creating a network of Safe Places across the Nation, all youth will have access to needed help, counseling, or a safe place to stay. However, though the program has already been established in 42 States, there are still too many communities that don't know about this valuable youth resource.

If your State does not already have a Safe Place organization, please consider facilitating this worthwhile resource so that young people who are abused, neglected, or whose futures are jeopardized by physical or emotional trauma will have access to immediate help and safety in your community. To create more Project Safe Place sites in Idaho, the staff in several of my State offices have completed the training to make them Safe Place sites, and now have the skills and ability to assist troubled youth. In the coming years, Project Safe Place hopes that every child in America will have the opportunity to connect with someone who can provide immediate help by easily recognizing the Safe Place sign.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the priorities and plans for the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy and to review the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request for atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 16, 2006, at 10 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on the semi-annual monetary policy report of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 2253, to require the Secretary of the Interior to offer certain areas of the 181 areas of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the Energy Information Administration's 2006 annual energy outlook on trends and issues affecting the United States energy market.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Administration's Trade Agenda for 2006''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 10 a.m. in SD-G50.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in the Senate Dirksen Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations: Timothy C. Batten, Sr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia; Thomas E. Johnston to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia; Aida M. Delgado-Colon to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; Leo Maury Gordon to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade; Carol E. Dinkins to be Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Alan Charles Raul to be Vice Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Paul J. McNulty to be Deputy Attorney General; Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; Reginald Lloyd to be U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Stephen King to be a Member of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States.

II. Bills: H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 Smith-- TX; S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer, Feingold, Durbin; S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 Grassley, Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin; Graham, DeWine;

S.__, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's Mark]; S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act Alexander, Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch.

III. Matters: S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment Allard, Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16, 2006, for a committee hearing on the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 Department of Veterans Affairs budget. The hearing will take place in room 418

of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16 at 1:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution approving the location of the commemorative work in the District of Columbia honoring former President Dwight D. Eisenhower; S. 1870, a bill to clarify the authorities for the use of certain National Park Service properties within Golden Gate National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1913, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease a portion of the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center for use as a visitor center for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes; S. 1970, a bill to amend the National Trials System Act to update the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with that trail, and for other purposes; H.R. 562, a bill to authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933; and H.R. 318, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Ocean Policy Study be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on the NOAA Budget.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 1st at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to review the role of the Forest Service and other Federal agencies in protecting the health and welfare of foreign guest workers carrying out tree planting and other service contracts on National Forest System lands, and to consider related Forest Service guidance and contract modifications issued in recent weeks.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics or Sara Zecher.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my agreement with President Bush's belief that our country's security depends in large part on a diverse energy portfolio, one that is not overly reliant on any one energy source, especially sources of foreign origin. I agree with the President that this country is overly dependent on foreign oil. Consistent with that belief, the Bush administration has just announced a potentially far-reaching energy program known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or GNEP. This program provides a wide- reaching, long-term plan for establishing a robust and sustainable future for nuclear energy in this country and abroad.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership promises to provide abundant energy, without emitting greenhouse gases; to recycle used nuclear fuel in order to minimize waste; to safely and securely allow developing nations to deploy nuclear power to meet their energy needs, while reducing proliferation risks; to assure maximum energy recovery from still-valuable used nuclear fuel; and to allow the U.S. to rely on a single geologic waste repository for the rest of this century.

Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of this Nation's electricity, and does so without emitting any carbon, greenhouse gases, or other air pollutants. All the waste generated by commercial nuclear powerplants is securely managed and destined for safe, permanent disposal in a geologic repository.

However, according to current law, that repository can contain only slightly more than the amount of waste already stored at existing reactor sites. Even if the law is changed, the repository at Yucca Mountain can only accommodate about the amount of spent nuclear fuel that will be generated by the existing reactors in this country over their lifetimes. If nuclear power is to have a future in this country, even to maintain its current 20 percent share of electricity generation, either a second repository will need to be developed soon-- with many more to follow--or an alternative means of managing this waste is needed.

After a single use, spent nuclear fuel retains more than 95 percent of its energy potential. That energy potential could be tapped by reprocessing the spent fuel, recycling the useable part and disposing of the rest as waste, which makes up only about 3-4 percent of the spent fuel. This could substantially reduce the amount of long-lived nuclear waste requiring burial in a geologic repository, and could extend the lifetime of the Yucca Mountain repository many fold.

But efforts to recycle spent fuel were abandoned in this country back in the 1970s, largely because of concerns about nuclear proliferation. Those concerns stemmed from the fact that, at that time, the method used to recycle spent fuel, the ``PUREX'' process, separated out pure plutonium, which might be used to construct a nuclear bomb.

During the 30-plus years since then, the U.S. has--through research at its National Laboratories--made considerable progress in developing new methods for reprocessing spent fuel that are much less prone to proliferation risks, because they do not separate out pure plutonium, but keep it mixed with other actinides. This mixture is not readily used for nuclear weapons.

Reintroducing recycling into this country's strategy for managing spent fuel is a major change in policy, and one that deserves serious discussion. That discussion should be based on fact and not emotion; should address current technologies, not those from more than a generation ago; and should consider reasonable alternatives to maintaining nuclear energy as a viable part of our Nation's energy supply.

And what reasonable alternatives are there? Total electricity consumption in the U.S. is projected to increase by about 40 percent by 2025. Wind and solar energy cannot provide large-scale, base-load electricity, because they are intermittent energy sources. Hydro provides about 10 percent of our electricity right now, but building new

dams to fully accommodate the increased demand is not possible. Relying solely on fossil fuels to make up the difference is environmentally irresponsible, and with the price of natural gas increasing dramatically, less economically appealing. Nuclear energy is the most environmentally sound technology capable of adequately meeting such increased demand. But even simply maintaining the current share of electricity generation provided by nuclear energy will require constructing many new nuclear powerplants in this country.

So should we continue to push for opening Yucca Mountain to begin accepting waste as soon as possible? The answer is clearly yes. Electric utilities demand confidence that spent fuel will be managed responsibly if they are going to continue to build new nuclearpower plants in the U.S.

But can we build many more Yucca Mountains to accommodate the additional waste? I think the answer is clearly no.

Still, new nuclear powerplants are being planned--and not only in this country, which has not ordered a new nuclear plant in 30 years, but around the world. China, Russia, several European countries, and others are planning--or building--new nuclear powerplants. Somewhere between 100 and 150 new nuclear plants are likely to be built in the next 20 years or so. In fact, the U.S., despite having pioneered nuclear power, risks falling far behind in this home-grown technology.

Furthermore, the growth in nuclear power worldwide, while avoiding the potential environmental impact of a similar number of fossil-fuel powerplants, raises serious concerns about nuclear proliferation. An increasing number of countries are interested in developing nuclear power, and in some cases, developing or acquiring technologies that could lead to their ability to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran constantly remind us of the potential danger.

Therefore, the U.S. and other responsible nuclear-capable countries need to work together to help developing countries acquire clean, affordable energy, but not the means to develop nuclear weapons.

And this is another farsighted goal of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Through GNEP, this administration proposes to work with international partners to help developing nations deploy proliferation- resistant and emission-free nuclear energy by developing international fuel services and small-scale modular reactors.

Finally, if this country is to eventually wean itself off its dependence on foreign oil and gas, we need to develop a clean-burning fuel for transportation. In fact, even if nuclear power replaced all the fossil-fueled powerplants in this country, it would make little impact on our oil use. We would still need to import about 70 percent of our oil for transportation.

This need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, in addition to reducing carbon emissions, was the impetus for President Bush to propose his Hydrogen Initiative in the 2001 State of the Union, and he has restated his convictions in all subsequent State of the Union addresses.

Consistent with President Bush's vision, we must continue our efforts to make the transition to a hydrogen-based economy, and we need to generate that hydrogen by using environmentally responsible technologies. Nuclear energy provides one such technology with high- temperature reactors such as the Next Generation Nuclear Plant that will be able to produce market-competitive hydrogen.

Nuclear power has the potential to provide clean, affordable, and emission-free electricity to an increasingly energy-hungry world, and the next generation of nuclear plants will produce fuel for transportation in an increasingly oil-starved world.

Access to affordable energy is crucial for improved quality of life and overall economic prosperity. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership promises to increase energy security, both here in the United States and abroad. It will encourage environmentally responsible energy development around the world, and will provide that energy with minimal impact on the environment. I congratulate our President for his vision and commitment to helping make all this possible.