Floor Statements

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 251, I voted nay. I intended to vote yea. It does not change the outcome of the vote. I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect as I have stated.

Mr. President, every session in Congress we spend a large amount of time discussing education in this country. Debates range from accountability to school construction to teacher recruitment. While our discussions are of the utmost importance, it is the implementation of our decisions by the individuals within the education system that changes how our children learn. Today I rise to honor a man who had dedicated his life to improving education for children in Louisiana, Dr. Gerald Wayne Cobb.

In 1960, Dr. Cobb received his bachelor's degree in health and physical education from Louisiana Tech University. Since that time he has been a crucial part of school improvements within the Lincoln Parish School System. Dr. Cobb has served as principal of Hillcrest Elementary School, Simsboro High School, and Ruston High School. He has worked as visiting associate professor at Louisiana State University and Louisiana Tech University.

Dr. Cobb has also served in the Louisiana Department of Education, working as the director of secondary education, the executive director of academic programs, and the executive assistant to the superintendent. While with the Louisiana Department of Education, Dr. Cobb was instrumental in developing the Compensatory Education Program in Louisiana which provided remediation for students not meeting the passing scores on the State's Basic Skills Testing Program. Dr. Cobb also revised Bulletin 741, which is the Louisiana Handbook for School Administration and served as the basis for the State's accreditation program. Dr. Cobb worked to increase in-service training for principals by coauthoring the Louisiana Academy for School Administrators Program and representing Louisiana at the Leadership Training for Principals.

After working with the Department of Education and serving as principal for schools throughout Lincoln Parish, Dr. Cobb continued his public service in the area of education by serving as superintendent for the Lincoln Parish School System. For the past 15 years, Dr. Cobb has immensely helped the 14 schools and 6,865 students in the Lincoln Parish School System. During his tenure, Dr. Cobb helped to construct the Lincoln Parish Secondary Alternative School at no cost to local taxpayers. He saw the students in Lincoln Parish receive the highest ACT scores throughout the State in 1996. In 2000, Ruston High School graduated seven National Merit Finalists, the most of any public, nonmagnet high school in the State. Dr. Cobb helped to expand the preschool program, implement the Even Start Program, construct a Parental Involvement Center, initiate the Career Options Program, wire all schools with the Internet, and implement 4x4 block scheduling in high schools.

The gifts that Dr. Cobb has given the Lincoln Parish School System and all of Louisiana go far beyond those that I have named above. Dr. Cobb has spent the past 43 years giving his kindness, his leadership, his vision, his service. It is to educators like Dr. Cobb that we owe many of the successes of our education policy. My best wishes are with Dr. Cobb and his family as he enters retirement.

Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning an individual who has longstanding dedication and service specific to Xavier University and to education as a whole. Dr. Francis is being honored by the Urban League of Greater New Orleans on June 28, 2003, for his leadership at Xavier University as an outstanding President and advocate for academic excellence.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Dr. Norman C. Francis who has exhibited a spirit of greatness and for his leadership at Xavier University of Louisiana as an outstanding President and advocate for academic excellence.

It is certainly important to reflect upon his accomplishments as Dr. Francis is still motivated to new levels, to enhance educational opportunities throughout our colleges and universities and throughout the community at large.

Mr. President, I rise today on the 138th anniversary of the day that Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, TX. They brought the news that the war had ended and that the enslaved were now free. Since its origin in 1865, the observance of June 19th as African American Emancipation Day, or Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery.

It took two and a half years after the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation set forth by President Lincoln for the news of freedom to arrive in Texas. Of course, this kind of delay in finding out about new national policy, especially a bold new initiative set forth by Executive Order, would be absurd in our present society. We are now part of the information age and access to the most up-to-date news is commonplace. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to trace their genealogy face undue delay in obtaining the necessary documents to try and piece together their unique heritage. For this reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research Clearinghouse, SEARCH, Act of 2003. This bill establishes a national database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, housing various documents that would assist those in search of a history that because of slavery, can not easily be found in the most commonly searched registered and census records.

Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans were considered property, so the name of former slave owners would have to be identified with the hopes that the owner kept record of pertinent information, such as births and deaths. In most cases, If records exist, many African Americans were not associated with last names, thus making them more difficult to trace. With slaves not being listed by name, this also precludes the use of the most popular and major source of genealogical research, the United States

Census. Even the use of letters, diaries, and other first-person recordings of slave simply do not exist because slaves could not legally learn to read or write.

We may think after 1865, African Americans could then begin to use traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to participate in may of the privileges of citizenship, including voting and attending school. Discrimination meant the prevention of African American siting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal organizations. Therefore, many of the records were also segregated. For example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but at the end of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Calvary Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to know to look in the index of the United States Colored Troops and not the index of the State Military Regiments.

Abraham Lincoln said, ``a man who cares nothing about his past can care little about his future.'' In 1965, Alex Haley stumbled upon the names of his maternal great-grandparents while going through post-Civil War records at the National Archives here in Washington, D.C. This discovery led to an 11-year journey that resulted in the milestone of literary history, Roots. By providing $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act proposes to significantly reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who truly care about their American past, and care enough to contribute to the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index records locally.

In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH Act of 2003 helps to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans to navigate the genealogical process, given the circumstances unique to the African American experience. No longer should any American have to wait to find out about information leading to freedom.

I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Juneteenth this year by passing this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today on the 138th anniversary of the day that Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, TX. They brought the news that the war had ended and that the enslaved were now free. Since its origin in 1865, the observance of June 19th as African American Emancipation Day, or Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery.

It took two and a half years after the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation set forth by President Lincoln for the news of freedom to arrive in Texas. Of course, this kind of delay in finding out about new national policy, especially a bold new initiative set forth by Executive Order, would be absurd in our present society. We are now part of the information age and access to the most up-to-date news is commonplace. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to trace their genealogy face undue delay in obtaining the necessary documents to try and piece together their unique heritage. For this reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research Clearinghouse, SEARCH, Act of 2003. This bill establishes a national database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, housing various documents that would assist those in search of a history that because of slavery, can not easily be found in the most commonly searched registered and census records.

Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans were considered property, so the name of former slave owners would have to be identified with the hopes that the owner kept record of pertinent information, such as births and deaths. In most cases, If records exist, many African Americans were not associated with last names, thus making them more difficult to trace. With slaves not being listed by name, this also precludes the use of the most popular and major source of genealogical research, the United States

Census. Even the use of letters, diaries, and other first-person recordings of slave simply do not exist because slaves could not legally learn to read or write.

We may think after 1865, African Americans could then begin to use traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to participate in may of the privileges of citizenship, including voting and attending school. Discrimination meant the prevention of African American siting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal organizations. Therefore, many of the records were also segregated. For example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but at the end of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Calvary Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to know to look in the index of the United States Colored Troops and not the index of the State Military Regiments.

Abraham Lincoln said, ``a man who cares nothing about his past can care little about his future.'' In 1965, Alex Haley stumbled upon the names of his maternal great-grandparents while going through post-Civil War records at the National Archives here in Washington, D.C. This discovery led to an 11-year journey that resulted in the milestone of literary history, Roots. By providing $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act proposes to significantly reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who truly care about their American past, and care enough to contribute to the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index records locally.

In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH Act of 2003 helps to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans to navigate the genealogical process, given the circumstances unique to the African American experience. No longer should any American have to wait to find out about information leading to freedom.

I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Juneteenth this year by passing this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I understand the Senator from New Mexico has 11 minutes remaining. Is that correct?

Thank you, Madam President. I would like 5 of those minutes.

Madam President, today I rise in opposition to Senate Amendment No. 884, offered by the Senator from Florida. Everywhere you turn these days you hear talk of a natural gas crisis facing this country. On May 21, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve testified before Congress that he was ``quite surprised at how little attention the natural gas problem has been getting,'' he said, ``because it is a very serious problem.'' Yesterday, while testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he went on to add that the increase in gas prices--more than double what they were last year--have put significant segments of the North America gas-using industry--chemical, fertilizer, steel and aluminum--in a weakened competitive position against industries overseas.

What Mr. Greenspan is referring to is the looming gap between natural gas demand and supply in this country. Currently, we produce about 84 percent of the natural gas we consume. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, projects that imports of natural gas will provide 22 percent of demand. Quite simply, we are facing the prospect of our natural gas market following in the footsteps of our oil market where imports continue to account for a growing percentage of supply.

For years we have pursued a policy that is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, we encourage the use of natural gas in this country to meet our energy needs and environmental goals. It is viewed as a clean fuel to improve air quality and a low carbon-dioxide fuel to meet climate change targets.

However, we have ignored the supply side of the equation. National output has remained stagnant since 1995 but one of out of every two homes in the United States is now heated by natural gas. The amount of natural gas used to generate electricity has increased 33 percent in the past 5 years and will likely grow an additional 60 percent by 2015.

So, we now find ourselves living in a state of denial when demand outstrips supply and volatile prices occur.

In my State of Louisiana, chemical plants, which use natural gas as both a fuel and a feedstock, face record-high prices. Because of tight supplies, the average natural gas price--NYMEX--for the first quarter of 2003 was $5.91 per million Btus. This represents a staggering 129 percent increase over the average natural gas price for the first quarters of the previous 10 years, which was $2.58.

For ammonia plants in particular, the cost of natural gas can represent 70 to 90 percent of the total cost of manufacturing its products. Since 1998, the number of Louisiana Ammonia Producers, who account for approximately 40 percent of the U.S. production of ammonia, has gone from 9 companies employing more than 3,500 employees to 3 companies employing less than 1,000.

Thanks to the good work of the Energy Committee, led by Chairman Domenici, I believe there are some provisions in this Bill, that if enacted, would stimulate natural gas production in the short term. For example, I offered an amendment at committee that was accepted and would encourage deep gas production from wells in shallow waters on existing leases. Provisions such as this one can bring gas to market quickly.

While there are some conservation and efficiency measures we can take to try and slow high prices in the short term, we cannot continue to pretend that the supply imbalance does not exist. Believe it or not, the fight today is not over whether to produce more natural gas but instead focuses on a mere study, albeit a critical one.

The proponents of the amendment before us would have you believe that enacting the inventory called for under section 105 of the bill would open Pandora's Box and lead to oil and gas production everywhere on the Outer Continental Shelf, regardless of whether an area is currently under moratoria.

The fact is the inventory will do nothing of the sort. Section 105 will in no way affect existing moratoria on oil and gas activity in the OCS, nor will it diminish the rights of those states that oppose drilling off their coasts. Section 105 does not provide for the use of exploratory wells. The real truth behind section 105 is simply to inform the American public about how much potential oil and natural gas there is within these areas of the United States.

I believe that the American people should have the most up-to-date and accurate projections of these public assets. An amendment such as the one pending before the Senate sends a signal to America's consumers, homeowners and manufacturing industries that Congress is out of touch and not committed to addressing a problem that only continues to get worse.

The question might arise, why do we need to re-examine our offshore resources when many assessments of oil and natural gas resources off our coasts have been done? The answer is most, if not all, of these assessments relied solely on the geophysical and geological data yielded by company exploration and production efforts. In some areas, where moratoria have been in place for some time, the data is very old--10 years or more--and the estimates may no longer be accurate.

Since this frontier was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to the nation's energy production as the OCS. The OCS accounts for more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas and oil production.

With annual returns to the federal government averaging between $4 to $5 billion annually, no single area has contributed as much to the federal treasury as the OCS. In fact, since 1953 the OCS has contributed $140 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

In light of these tremendous contributions, it is particularly interesting to realize that almost all of our OCS production comes from a very concentrated area of the OCS, the western half, which really means offshore Louisiana and Texas. Ninety-eight percent of the nation's offshore production comes from this half of the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2001, offshore Louisiana accounted for almost 80 percent of total OCS gas production.

By taking this inventory, maybe we discover there are more resources on the OCS than we originally thought or maybe we actually learn less is out there. Regardless, we owe it to ourselves to find out.

Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New Mexico.

I understand the amendment offered by my colleague from Tennessee will be accepted. That is good. It is a good amendment and certainly should be part of this bill.

Since I am in the Chamber, I wish to speak a minute in support of the amendment and add to the record he has so ably outlined. In one case in Louisiana--and there are many cases, but in one case Louisiana Ammonia Producers has gone from, in 1998, 9 companies employing more than 3,500 people to 3 companies employing fewer than 1,000 people. Part of the reason for this tremendous decline at a time when we are trying to create jobs instead of losing them is the rising price of natural gas. The price of natural gas, because supplies are so tight, in the first quarter of 2003, was $5.91 a million Btu's, a 129 percent increase over the average price for the first quarter of the previous 10 years.

The Senator from Tennessee is absolutely right. A commission to study ways to increase the supply of natural gas is critical and important if we are going to keep the companies, large and small, in this country competitive.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, we are today continuing a very important debate on fashioning an energy policy for our Nation. We will be voting on many key amendments as we attempt to move this very important bill off the Senate floor, to conference with the House, and to the President's desk for signature.

It is crucial that we increase domestic production of oil and gas.

It is crucial that we invest more money in research and technologies for alternate fuels that are more environmentally friendly. It is crucial that we reduce our consumption, particularly of oil, as well as have a revitalization, in my opinion, in the appropriate ways, of our nuclear industry--they are all important aspects of this bill--as well as have the deregulation components of electricity and the expanding of the electric grid, in the appropriate ways, which is quite difficult because there are regions of the country that come at that issue from a variety of different standpoints, and it has been very difficult to negotiate those particular aspects of the bill.

But I compliment the chairman from New Mexico and our ranking member from New Mexico who have worked beautifully together trying to fashion a bill that is balanced and is actually possible to pass and not get logjammed in ideological battles; it is something that will help our country move toward more energy efficiency and security; increasing our national security and improving efficiency in our economy, hopefully putting people to work in developing these new technologies. So I commend them for their patience and persistence and their guidance.

I believe the amendment I offer today will go a long way to minimizing the consumption of oil in this country. We are a nation that has only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves. Yet we consume more oil than any country per capita or in any way you might

want to arrive at that conclusion. It is simply essential that we reduce our consumption of oil.

You might say to me, Mr. President: That is strange, Senator, since you are from a State that produces oil. We are a proud producer, as you know, of oil and gas. We believe we contribute to the wealth and security of this Nation. We believe and know that these oil and gas wells have brought jobs and wealth and opportunity and prosperity to our State. Yes, it has come at some environmental cost, particularly 40 and 50 years ago, where the science was not where it is today, the technology was not where it is today, the safety measures were not where they are today. We made mistakes, but we are quickly learning from our experience, as any smart individual or enterprise does. We are now engaged in new technologies that minimize the footprint. We are engaged in making tremendous improvements in environmental restoration projects.

So I hope people will not think it is strange that a Senator from Louisiana would be offering what I consider a very reasonable amendment to reduce oil consumption in this Nation because even our oil and gas producers themselves are willing, and know, in the long run it is in everyone's interests, including theirs, to diversify our source of supply, to minimize our consumption and our dependence on foreign oil by improving and increasing domestic production of oil and gas, which is a centerpiece of this bill which I am proud to support.

So, therefore, I offer this amendment which will save, if adopted-- and I am pleased to offer this amendment with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, as the lead cosponsor; Senator Lamar Alexander, from the great State of Tennessee; as well as Senator Collins from Maine--so we offer this as a bipartisan amendment to save the taxpayers and the businesses and the consumers in this Nation 1 million barrels of oil a day. That is the essence of this amendment.

Before I explain the details of the amendment, let me just talk a moment about the importance of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. As I said, we need to develop alternative fuel sources. One of the reasons is because oil provides nearly 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Sixty percent of the oil we consume today is imported, and that number is set to rise. Unless this amendment and others like it are adopted, that trend will continue to go up, putting at risk our national security and putting at risk our international economic competitiveness.

Because oil is truly an international commodity, and the United States is the world's largest consumer of oil, it is particularly vulnerable to any event that would affect supply and demand. As I said earlier, our daily consumption of oil is almost four times the next two largest oil consumers, Japan and China. Let me repeat: Our daily consumption of oil is four times the next two largest oil consumers, Japan and China.

The price of oil in our country is at the mercy of world events, and not just in the Middle East, which we see played out on television every day, but in Venezuela, which might be off the front pages but, believe me, it is not off the front pages of the business journals in this country where they see their prices and their businesses jeopardized because of the turmoil in Venezuela and Nigeria.

We owe it to ourselves to try to minimize the volatility of oil prices. We do that in two ways: increasing domestic production, which obviously Louisiana would support; and also by reducing our consumption, which people in Louisiana--average families, businesses large and small--all would agree to.

I continue to advocate for responsible and robust domestic oil production, as I said, but we need to do more to reduce consumption. Oil is a critical component of nearly everything that affects our daily lives: from transportation, to food production, to heating. And rising oil prices actually act like a tax by foreign oil exporters on the average American. We have spent a great deal of time trying to reduce taxes on the floor of the Senate. We have done that sometimes in a bipartisan way. Sometimes the majority has pushed through tax relief. We can debate that issue at another time. But there is no disagreement that when we can reduce taxes in a responsible manner, we most certainly should do so.

This amendment, which asks the President to reduce the consumption of oil in this Nation by 1 million barrels a day--we are consuming about 19 million barrels a day, so this would require and basically meet his goals, as outlined in his State of the Union speech--gives him broad latitude as to how to do that. It would be like a tax reduction because currently middle-class families pay about 5 percent of aftertax income for energy needs. As the price of oil increases, family aftertax income continues to decline.

When businesses pay higher taxes, pay for higher oil prices and disruptions in oil supply, this increases inflation and reduces profits, production, investment, and employment. Let me repeat: It increases inflation, reduces profits, reduces production, reduces investment, and reduces employment. We need to be increasing production, investment, and employment. My amendment will help us to do just that.

Consumers are spending $50 billion more in annual energy bills than a year ago. If we could reduce our consumption by the amount that our amendment suggests, we would begin to save consumers money they could spend on other most needed and necessary things for themselves, their children, their grandchildren, or their businesses.

The amendment I offer today, as I said, would direct the President to develop and implement a plan to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by the year 2013.

I show you a chart I have in the Chamber because this amendment would actually put into law--I am hoping we can get a broad bipartisan vote on this amendment--it would actually put into law the words the President himself spoke in his State of the Union speech when he said U.S. oil consumption would be about 1.8 million barrels per day lower in 2020.

So what my amendment says is, instead of saying there would be a 1.8 million reduction by 2020, let's try to shoot for a 1-million-barrel- per-day reduction by 2013, which is just about the equivalent--a little different goal but you could argue an equivalent goal. The benefit and beauty of this amendment is that it does not tie the President's hands, but it gives him great flexibility in how to achieve the goal he has outlined.

There are any number of reasonable and simple measures the President could adopt that would help us to consume a less significant amount of oil and reduce taxes on the American people, increase our national security, improve our environment, and create jobs. It almost sounds too good to be true, but it is true.

We are not mandating a specific approach, which is the beauty of it, because the approach some have argued for I have actually disagreed with and want to give the President great flexibility but hold to this important goal.

There are any number of ways we could do that. The President could consider renewable fuels standards. A different approach could save 175,000 barrels of oil per day by 2013. Weatherizing of homes under credit enhancements or encouragement or new techniques that some local and State governments have found very helpful could save 80,000 barrels per day. Air traffic improvements, just simple improvements in the way and timing of our airplanes taking off and landing, which can be increased effectively by additional technologies, could save 50,000 barrels of oil per day. As to reducing truck idling, there are several new technologies being developed, employing scientists and engineers and putting Americans to work developing these new kinds of technologies which make the engines more efficient. They don't have to idle or, at the idling stage, don't use as much oil. That could save 50,000 barrels of oil a day. Just replacing tires, using our tires and keeping them filled with air as opposed to flat, new technology regarding the tires could save money.

The point of this list--and I could go on because I could speak about 30, 40, or 50 known actions that could be taken by the President in this realm without dictating exactly how the savings would occur--is to illustrate the plethora of choices where he could go to achieve these savings.

The amendment I offer today with Senators Alexander, Bingaman, Specter, and Collins is a clear and reasonable objective for oil savings. It will reduce our dependence on oil.

Let me show a couple of examples of the way the President could achieve these goals, some of which we have already passed on the Senate floor. Ethanol is now a part of this bill. There were some Members who disagreed with the ethanol fuels standard. I actually supported, along with Senator Daschle, Republicans and Democrats, that new standard. This will save oil consumption in the country. The President would have that option. In addition, I talked about the tire savings, replacement tires with the appropriate rules and regulations could save us 270,000 barrels of oil. And finally, the idling engines, this is a visual to show that with some new technologies to keep our airplanes flying and spending less time on the ground and more time in the air, which passengers would appreciate--believe me, as a frequent flier myself, if we could just keep our airplanes flying and keep them from idling; there are new technologies helping to do this--we could save oil.

In the past, we have focused the debate on just one way of saving oil which was directed at our transportation sector. My amendment does not direct these savings at the transportation sector, although I acknowledge that the transportation sector is the largest user of oil. This amendment provides flexibility. It sets a realistic goal that matches the President's, basically the equivalent of the President's own goals. And I think it would create, if adopted, a tremendous balance in the bill because again we have increased opportunities for production. We have given incentives for more domestic production. But that has to be coupled with Senator Bingaman's leadership on energy efficiency and savings to reduce our consumption of oil as we promote in the appropriate ways over the appropriate timeframe the use of other alternative sources of energy.

I offer the amendment in good faith. There will be Members who will speak hopefully for the amendment. Hopefully we can pass it by a good margin to show we are indeed serious about a balanced energy policy which promotes in the right ways domestic production but also oil savings.

I will ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a Business Week article that had a great impact with me as I read it, ``Taming the Oil Beast.'' It is time, since the business community realizes we can and should get smart about oil, that we do so. I think this is a very good amendment about getting smart about oil because it sets a goal of reduction, but it gives the President and his departments flexibility as to how this would work.

I would like to submit that for the Record because it would serve as a basis for the offering of the amendment today.

I would also like to reference an article by the Concerned Scientists Association, over 2,000 scientists who have written a paper, very illustrative, encouraging action on this subject. I say that because some of our brightest minds, some of the best scientists in the country are thinking along these lines and fully support this amendment to save 1 million barrels of oil. Perhaps we can save more. I would actually be open to saving more. If someone wants to offer an additional amendment, I would consider voting for it. But I am certain this is something we can accomplish. The President himself outlined this as a goal. The President's own budget that he laid down cited as a goal the equivalent, basic goal of what I am offering.

We have voted any number of times in the Senate and have come very close to reaching this goal. So while some may argue that we should try to save more, I think this is an amendment that can pass, that can get us moving in the right direction. I submit both of these from a business perspective, from an environmental perspective for the Record, to substantiate the value of the amendment.

I see my colleague from Tennessee on the floor who has probably come to add his good words as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to print the document I referenced.

Reserving the right to object, I have a question. Does the Senator think it would be possible to do that before lunch? I think my colleague would probably only need 30 minutes for our debate, equally divided between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk. We will be voting shortly on the Landrieu-Domenici-Specter-Alexander-Bingaman-Collins- Schumer-Feingold oil savings amendment. It is a very reasonable approach to an extremely serious problem. That problem is, unless we make some adjustments--and the time to make those adjustments is now-- to our policy regarding the consumption of oil, we will be seriously increasing, as opposed to decreasing, our dependence on foreign oil and hurting the American economy and taxing American citizens and businesses unnecessarily.

The amendment has been developed by many of us--Democrats and Republicans--and it is based on lots of good work. Two issues I pointed out earlier this morning in the debate are in a lengthy article recently published by Business Week--not a liberal magazine by any stretch, a middle-of-the-road business organization that argues that we need to get smart about oil.

As a Senator from an oil-producing State, let me say I agree 100 percent. We like to produce oil. We are proud to produce oil. But we know it is in the interest of our State in the short, intermediate, and long run to have greater supply, a diversity of supply of fuels, and not be overreliant. Why? Because it puts our economy, our industrial base at risk.

I also mentioned earlier today the statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, over 60,000 scientists and citizens working together to come up with some proposals for reducing our dependence on oil, and they are clearly outlined in these articles and these papers.

What this amendment simply does--submitted on behalf of those I mentioned--is give the President all the flexibility he needs in his administration but to reach very specific goals. This amendment, when adopted, will save 1 million barrels of oil a day by the year 2013, which is equivalent to the President's own goals, but it will put this in law in the underlying Energy bill.

I propose this amendment to the Senate for its careful consideration and hope we will get a broad vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to add some remarks, as well as other cosponsors who may be in the Chamber.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

How much more time remains under the unanimous consent?

I would like to have 1 minute to close and then turn to one of the original cosponsors, the Senator from Tennessee, who may want to add. Let me again thank the chairman and ranking member for their able help because without their support, this amendment would not have been possible. We worked on many different approaches, several different drafts. Finally, we did come upon a way that sets a very clear goal.

I would agree with Senator Specter, it is somewhat modest, but it is a compromise. It is a clear goal. It is an attainable goal. It is a reachable goal. It gives the President and the administration the flexibility they need to do it in a way that is most helpful to this economy. It will create jobs, reduce taxes that people pay because of the price of oil and energy, and it gives the flexibility necessary to come up with a smart approach to this very serious problem.

I yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Right.

I can yield to the Senator from Tennessee. He was here, of course, prior to my arrival. How much time would he like?

Fine.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I will take 3 or 4 minutes. I understand that the Senator from Alabama would like to speak in opposition to the amendment as well.

In all due respect to my colleagues who are offering this amendment to strike this very important provision from the bill, I wanted to come to the floor to strongly disagree and to add my voice at the outset of the debate and on the points which the chairman of the committee brought to the fore on this very important part of the Energy bill.

I wish to begin by saying that our Nation has 103 nuclear powerplants. The nuclear industry provides 20 percent of our electricity. I don't believe we will strip the Energy bill of this provision, but if we did, we would jeopardize the reliable and affordable source of electricity that this Nation needs to stay competitive in this world economy.

It will cost jobs and cause hardship. People would lose their jobs with this amendment.

I am not sure my colleagues are aware that over the next 20 years the United States doesn't need to move backwards as this amendment would suggest. We need to move very quickly in the other direction. We need to build 1,300 new powerplants in this Nation, which is the equivalent of 60 to 90 new powerplants per year to keep up with the increased demand of electricity. Why? Because our economy is more productive; because technology is demanding it; because good, old Yankee know-how makes it crucial that we provide our businesses with electricity and with power. If we don't give them power, they can't operate. If we don't give them power that is reliable and affordable, then we will lose jobs to our international competitors. It is as simple as that. We need everything and more, everything we thought of and more than we thought of.

Nuclear is a very important component of that. The amendment's authors argue that this is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. It is a loan guarantee. It is our intention that these loans be fully paid with interest. We do this. There are 100 examples in the Federal rule book where we do this. We want to encourage the development and movement in a certain way. We can give loan guarantees, and we have done it time and again. It is time we do it for the nuclear industry to keep them moving in the right direction.

Let me say to the chairman that I went down to Louisiana. We have two nuclear powerplants. Seventeen percent of Louisiana's fuel is nuclear. As the chairman knows, one out of five has the clean benefit of nuclear power.

My producers of natural gas said to me, Senator, please go and fight for nuclear energy. If we don't get more energy into the marketplace, the demands on natural gas will become so high that we cannot pay our gas bills, and it is driving our industry to its knees. They said, Senator, please go and fight for an increase in all sources, including nuclear.

Nuclear energy currently generates electricity for one in every five homes and businesses.

It is important not only in Louisiana, where two nuclear plants produce nearly 17 percent of my State's electricity, but also in States such as Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Vermont where nuclear generates more electricity than any other source.

Nationwide, 103 reactors provide 20 percent of our electricity--the largest source of U.S. emission-free power provided 24-7.

Nuclear energy is one of the most competitive sources of energy on an operational cost basis.

While I strongly support the use of natural gas for our energy needs, we cannot rely, as we have in recent years, on any one source of energy to meet our Nation's increasing electricity demand.

Over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption is projected to grow by over 50 percent while U.S. natural gas production will grow by only 14 percent.

The CEO of Dow Chemical recently wrote that the chemical industry-- the Nation's largest industrial user of natural gas--is particularly vulnerable to high natural gas prices.

To remain an economic leader we must promote a diversified and robust energy mix, including the full range of traditional and alternative energy sources.

Nuclear energy is also vitally important for our environment and our Nation's clean air goals.

Nuclear energy is the Nation's largest clean air source of electricity, generating three-fourths of all emission-free electricity.

Nuclear energy will be an essential partner for future generations of Americans, whose reliance on electricity will increase and who rightfully will demand a cleaner environment.

Just this past Sunday, the Washington Post highlighted the problems that the Shenandoah National Forest now faces with pollution. Think how much worse our Nation's air pollution would be if nuclear energy did not generate one fifth of our electricity.

To preserve our current levels of emission-free electricity generation, we must build 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear energy production by 2020.

In addition to providing the largest source of emission-free electricity, nuclear energy possesses the most viable solution to our over reliance on foreign oil, i.e., the potential to someday cogenerate hydrogen as a clean transportation substitute to oil.

The Wyden amendment will hurt our Nation's long-term economic, environmental and security goals if passed.

Building a windmill that has a generating capacity of 2 megawatts should not be compared to building a nuclear power plant that produces 1,000 megawatts or more.

I agree with my ranking member that the nuclear industry is mature in the sense that it has been safely, efficiently, and effectively producing electricity for several decades. But we have not brought a new nuclear plant on line in this country for over a decade and a new project will face some uncertainties.

The costs of the first few plants will be higher than those that are built later. Because the business risks will be greater for the initial few projects, financing will be more difficult to obtain. That is why the Federal Government needs to step in and provide an incentive to allow the industry to get over that hurdle.

Some rather large numbers have been thrown around as to the costs of this provision. Were theses numbers accurate, I would share the concerns voiced by my colleagues.

The construction costs as derived by CBO would be $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity is inconsistent with current cost incurred by other nations building similar types of advanced nuclear reactors.

According to a detailed cost analysis developed by industry the first few plants will cost less than $1,400 per kilowatt hour and will later fall to less than $1,000 per kilowatt hour, making nuclear plants very competitive with the costs of other technologies.

My colleagues who are opposed to these loan guarantees are assuming that a new nuclear plant could rise to costs over $3,800 per killowatt, based on questionable CBO projections.

In addition my colleagues also fail to mention that the Secretary of Energy will be required to use stringent criteria to provide loan guarantees.

I concede that we probably don't know what the exact cost will be, but the economic, environmental, and security benefits of investing in new nuclear plants for our future generations are many and great while the financial risk to the public sector is by comparison rather small. Let's give this idea a chance.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Wyden amendment. And I thank the chairman for all his efforts in helping to promote a vital source of energy and for helping to pave the way towards improving our Nation's energy security.

I strongly oppose the amendment on the floor to strip the provision in this bill, and I support the chairman's mark.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tanner Johnson and Neil Naraine of my staff be granted floor privileges.

Mr. President, as we reflect upon this Memorial Day, Americans throughout the country should take time to remember all the brave men and women who gave their lives in the defense of freedom and to preserve the liberties we cherish in this great Nation. We must never forget our fallen heroes, and we should continue to praise them for their service and commitment to country.

This year, in particular, we must be ever reverent because America lost some of her greatest sons and daughters in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Those who died did so in the defense of America from her enemies and to deliver downtrodden nations from the oppression of tyrants. I am both grateful and sorrowful this Memorial Day.

I want to express my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who only recently gave their lives fighting on behalf of the United States. My words cannot erase your pain, but please know my prayers are with you during this most difficult time.

It is said of those who fought in wars to defend America that ``All gave some and some gave all.'' On this Memorial Day, I hope every American will pay tribute to those who gave all.

Mr. President, I can think of few better uses of Federal dollars than the benefits derived from our commitment to the National Guard's Youth Challenge Program. Every year, over 500,000 boys and girls drop out of school. High-school dropouts face a much more difficult life after leaving school than their peers who continue their educations to finish high school. Drug use and run-ins with the law often plague high school dropouts for a life-time.

The Youth Challenge Program has reclaimed the lives of over 45,000 children through the instillment of discipline, self-respect, commitment to citizenry, and the renewed pursuit of a diploma. It costs over $40,000 a year for a child to be detained in a juvenile detention center. On the other hand, Youth Challenge can reclaim a child from a life of wrong-turns for $14,000 a child.

I am pleased the President and the Senate have committed $65.2 million to the Youth Challenge Program. Youth Challenge is funded on a formula basis, whereby the Federal Government contributes 60 percent of the funds and States contribute 40 percent. Regrettably, many States are facing steep budget shortfalls, and they are having difficulty meeting the 40 percent match. Already, New York and Missouri have closed their Youth Challenge programs.

This amendment authorizes the Department to increase the Federal match, temporarily, until the States get their financial houses in order. For fiscal year 2004, the Federal match would increase to 65 percent. For fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 the Federal match would increase to 70 percent. However, it is expected the States will have recovered from budgetary difficulties by fiscal year 2007; therefore, the Federal match would fall back to 65 percent in all subsequent years.

There is no more effective program to make high school dropouts contributors, rather than anchors, to society. I hope you will join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, on June 6, 2000, the National D-Day opened in New Orleans, LA. This museum was the culmination of a vision of the late Stephen Ambrose. Dr. Ambrose dedicated his life to chronicling American heroes, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was President Eisenhower who mentioned to Dr. Ambrose that World War II was won in New Orleans because of the Higgins landing craft, designed by Andrew Jackson Higgins, which enabled Allied Forces to launch successful amphibious invasions.

The National D-Day Museum has been an unquestioned success as a tourist attraction, meeting place for veterans, and teaching tool for men and women, young and old, wishing to learn more about World War II. Already, over 1 million people have come through the museum's turn- styles.

America has a need to preserve its historical accounts and mementos from World War II. The National D-Day Museum is committed to such preservation. As a result of its mission, the museum has already had to expand and is building a 250,000 square-foot addition. We must preserve the stories and artifacts of the ``Greatest Generation.''

Accordingly, I submitted an amendment to designate the National D-Day Museum as ``America's National World War II Museum.'' We owe it to the Great Generation to maintain a museum that pays tribute to their great sacrifices so that we may live today in freedom.

Mr. President, over 220,000 Guardsmen and Reservists were mobilized as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Additionally, over 100,000 were activated as part of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. While the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act and the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, provide a number of protections of our Guard and Reserve personnel, there are no Federal protections for the educational status of Guardsmen and Reservists involuntarily activated while participating in higher education.

Currently, over 30 percent of Guard and Reserve personnel are enrolled in post-high school education. If they are activated while enrolled in higher-education, there are no safeguards to ensure that their academic status is preserved during activation; that they receive refunds or credits for the portion of the school year they paid for but could not complete to mobilization; that college grants and scholarships are preserved; or that they have a right to re-enroll in the educational institution upon their return from active duty.

I submitted an amendment whereby involuntarily called up student Reservists and Guardsmen would be able to take a leave of absence during the activation and for 1 year after the conclusion of such military duty from their institutions of higher education. Furthermore, the student shall be entitled to be restored to the same educational status, without loss of credit, and offered a right to re-enroll at the same educational institution where the student was enrolled prior to activation. Grants and scholarships shall be reinstated. Moreover, students shall be entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for classes they could not complete due to activation or be allowed to enroll in such classes subsequent to their re-enrollment at no cost.

Soon, thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists will be coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be eager to re-enroll in colleges, universities, and trade schools. Let's help these heroes get back to the classroom as effortlessly as possible.

The LPD-17 is certainly an excellent example of the dilemma posed in our Navy's shipbuilding program. I am hopeful that as we move through the authorization process, some accommodation will be found to move that shipbuilding program along. Certainly, this ship class, if produced at greater levels can clear the decks, so to speak, for the other, advanced ships, which are in development now.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest Senators to have ever served in this body, the late Senator Russell Long. Born in 1918, Russell Long came from a long line of Louisiana political elites. From the beginning of his career

as a public servant, Russell wanted to distinguish his career from that of his father and to make his own mark. No doubt, his distinguished leadership and passion for serving people allowed him to create a legacy that will be remembered by the people of Louisiana and this Nation for a long time to come. Although he is no longer with us, the legacy of his work and the relationships he fostered will live on forever.

For 38 years, Russell Long engaged in the debate of this Chamber. While he was a loyal Democrat, Russell always believed in putting principle above politics. His long list of accomplishments is a testament to that value. His Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, has proven time and time again to be one of the most effective methods for helping low-income workers stay off of welfare. Every year, the EITC helps millions of Americans raise themselves out of poverty. Similarly, his efforts to expand Social Security to include coverage for the disabled have saved tens of millions of lives over the past 50 years. These are but a few of the many ways that Russell used his vast knowledge of the Tax Code and his position as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to champion the poor and downtrodden.

Russell Long will not only be remembered for his incredible intelligence, but also for his kind, jovial manner. Always ready with a quick story or a witty one-liner, Russell was well known for trying to ease tensions during difficult debates. His calm presence was a unifying force that could negotiate both sides of an issue fairly and respectfully. His frequent practice of wrapping his arm around a colleague and pulling his colleague so close that he could whisper in his ear, helped to keep his friends abundant and his enemies rare. Everyone liked and respected Russell; few public servants can claim such a distinction.

In my 23 years of public service, I cannot count how many times I have looked to him as an example. Russell Long set a benchmark for service to the people of our State--a benchmark we all still strive to meet today. I challenge my colleagues to honor his memory and the spirit of bipartisanship his career embodied. What mattered to Russell was that justice was served and the policies put forward by the U.S. Senate were both equitable and fair. Faced with a growing deficit and an ongoing war on terrorism, these principles are now more important than ever.

I end my remarks with words from the eulogy delivered by my predecessor and Russell's colleague, former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, at Russell's funeral:

Eighty-four years ago, Russell Long entered this life as

Huey P. Long Junior. The legendary kingfish thought better of

it shortly after and renamed him Russell, and said, ``that

boy has to make a name for himself.'' And what a name he

made. He served 38 years in the U.S. Senate, 16 of those

years as the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, longer

continuous service in that position than anybody else in the

history of the U.S. Senate.

President-elect Jimmy Carter used to say that he was sent

to Washington to run the country and got there and found out

Russell Long was already running it. Jimmy Carter may have

been exaggerating, but he wasn't exaggerating by very much.

Russell Long understood that with the tax code we can make

water run up hill, and for those who are thirsty and in need

that was a great phenomenon for Russell Long to be able to

perform, and this State and this Nation for decidedly better

because of it.

His legislative victories are legend. If Russell didn't

invent bipartisanship he certainly perfected the art. All of

the presidents with whom he served had both respect and

affection, and occasionally consternation, with Russell.

He had a legendary relationship with LBJ. When LBJ had a

provision he wanted to pass in regards to agricultural aid to

India, Russell said I can't help you, I can't help you, I am

against it. Well, LBJ's top aide Bill Moyers called back in a

little while and said, ``Why don't you come by the White

House this evening, just a quiet dinner.'' And Russell said,

``I'm glad to go by the White House, the president is my

friend, but I do not want to talk about agricultural aid to

India.'' And Bill said, ``Well, that's a deal.'' So they were

sitting in the family room after dinner, just the three of

them in their rocking chairs, and after a couple of hours

Russell got up to go home, and the president said, ``Now one

more thing,'' and Russell's eyes shot through him And LBJ

said to him, ``You know that fifth circuit judge from

Louisiana you recommended. We'll, we've got a candidate from

Texas who's pretty good, too.'' And nothing else was said.

You know Texas and Louisiana share the fifth circuit. Well

the next morning Russell told his staff, ``Call Bill Moyers,

tell him we have an understanding.''

Nixon called him the partisan of principle, and indeed he

was. But he had a few characteristics which I think are neat.

He had a fifth gear he could slip into legislatively. He knew

when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to bring 'em up for

a vote, when the time was right, what arguments would appeal.

And it was an amazing thing to watch. One of his most

enduring characteristics was his sense of humor.

Russell was always popular with people but he never

hesitated to go along with something unpopular when it was a

matter of principle. He voted for the Panama Canal because it

was a matter of principle. Russell Long had a side that was

unknown to the public. Always he was up. He was the most fun

person to be with. Anywhere it was fun to be with Russell

Long. But he was also sweet and gentle. My 16 years serving

as Russell's colleague are among the most pleasant memories

of my life.

He's a legend. A friend. A statesman. He will always be

bright and shining within us.

Bennett's words about Russell are so true. Russell's abilities as a Senator are legendary. His passing is a tremendous loss, but his service in the U.S. Senate was a great gift to this body, the State of Louisiana, and the entire country.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an excerpt from his official obituary and two articles on his life from the Baton Rouge Advocate.