Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to mark the centennial of Elida, NM.

In July 1907, the town of Elida was officially incorporated, and for the last 100 years this small New Mexico town has remained a close-knit ranching community. Although much has changed in Elida during the last 100 years, many things have not. Elida is still the kind of town where neighbors take the time to help one another and come together for a Fourth of July barbeque every year. I believe that kind of community is something special and those individuals who call Elida home should be proud.

As the residents of Elida and the surrounding area gather this weekend to celebrate the history of their town, I would like to wish them well and I hope Elida has another wonderful 100 years.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize six of New Mexico's youth who have participated in a national Mathematics, Engineering, Science and Achievement, MESA, USA competition. The competition held at the University of Maryland focused on physics this year and New Mexico had one team from middle school and one team from high school participating. Every participating team made a Trebuchet, or catapult with weight on one end and a projectile on the other. The teams were judged on accuracy, distance, and design.

Four students from Sarracino Middle School in Socorro won the middle school division of the Jamboree State-wide competition held at the University of New Mexico. After winning there, they competed at the University of Maryland and took the third place position for all middle school participants at the national MESA USA competition. Sam Hale, Daniel Jaramillo, Tyler Lam, and Jordan Vinson, all eighth graders, proved with their teamwork that they were a force to be reckoned with.

Two Belen High School graduates also represented New Mexico well at the competition. Samantha Huynh and Matthew Swanson won the high school division of the Jamboree State-wide competition held at the University of New Mexico. They, too, participated in the national competition in Maryland.

I am always proud to learn of students such as these who have taken their learning in the classroom to another level. These sorts of competitions allow students to think outside the box and come up with new solutions to old problems. Problem-solving skills, such as these displayed during the competition, prove to be invaluable for this Nation's future.

Congratulations again. I know these future leaders will accomplish great things.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my vote against cloture on S. 1639, the border security and immigration reform bill debated by the Senate this week.

I support some of the proposals behind S. 1639 because we must address our border and immigration crisis. However, I was forced to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639 for several reasons.

The bill before us is neither workable nor realistic. Additionally, many Senators do not even know what is in the latest version of the bill.

It is also pretty clear to this Senator that anything similar to S. 1639 is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. I question the rationale of passing a bill that has so many flaws when several Members of the House have said this bill will not even be considered by the House. Would it not be better for all of us to have a more open and fair debate on border security and immigration that is not subjected to unnecessary deadlines and closed-door decisionmaking?

In addition, as a border State Senator, I know first-hand the need to secure our borders because every day my constituents tell me about the problems they face because of illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on our borders that must be resolved.

However, instead of pursuing immediate emergency funding to help secure our border, S. 1639 cobbles border security improvements and funding with some concerning immigration reforms. While the bill also provided $4.4 billion to fund these border security initiatives, that money was contingent upon final passage of the bill by Congress, something that appears to be less than a sure thing.

What is clear to me is that the American people want the measures in the bill--like providing 20,000 Border Patrol agents, constructing 370 miles of border fencing and 300 miles of border vehicle barriers, putting 105 radar and camera towers on the border, and using four unmanned aerial vehicles for border security--in place before we address the millions of unauthorized aliens living and working in the United States. Therefore, I believe it would be more appropriate to provide $4.4 billion in border security funding in a separate emergency spending bill to fund these border security initiatives.

Additionally, I remain concerned about the amendment process associated with this bill. More than 300 amendments were filed to this bill's predecessor, S. 1348, and almost 150 amendments have been filed to S. 1639. However, we were only allowed to consider 26 amendments to S. 1639. Border security and immigration reform are the most important domestic issues facing the United States today. Clearly the Senate, the most deliberative body in the world, should be allowed to consider additional amendments that could improve upon this bill. While one of my amendments is part of the package of amendments that was allowed to be considered to this bill, I had other good ideas to make this bill better for New Mexico, the southwest border, and the United States. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle did too, and we deserve an opportunity to consider those amendments.

Also, some of the provisions that I initially supported in this bill have been amended to the point that the bill no longer has its initial purposes. For example, the temporary worker program that is critical to so many industries in my State does not meet those industries' needs.

Further, I am concerned by statements by members of the bipartisan border and immigration working group that some issues of concern in S. 1639 will be resolved in conference. The Senate should debate the issues of concern in this bill; we should not rely on a small group of our colleagues to resolve those issues in an unamendable conference report.

Lastly, I have been told that this bill would have an interesting and unintended effect in my home State of New Mexico. As I understand it, New Mexico State law would allow all Z visa holders under this bill to qualify for Medicaid. That matter needs to be reviewed and its impacts fully considered so that the Congress can avoid unintended effects of this bill.

For all of these reasons, I decided to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639. We need improved border security and immigration reform.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to commemorate the 231st birthday of our Nation, on this coming Fourth of July.

On the 4th of July, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence and our Nation was born. However, our forefathers would have to fight 7 more years and draft and ratify the Constitution before the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence could truly begin to be realized.

That was just the beginning of our Nation's story. It has taken the hard work and dedication of countless Americans to build the great and free Nation we know today. On this day we should pay tribute to the pioneers who struck out across the frontier to build new lives, the individuals who built the

roads and bridges that connect the country, the teachers who have ensured our youth reached their full potential and all Americans who in their own way have contributed to this Nation.

We cannot forget the brave Americans of our armed services who throughout our history have fought and died to preserve the freedom we all enjoy, nor those currently serving. On the Fourth of July we must also honor the sacrifice of these men and women.

As New Mexicans gather with family and friends to barbecue and watch fireworks, I hope they will take a moment to remember the greatness of this Nation and pay tribute to all those who have made it so.

Mr. President, today I would like to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Roswell UFO incident.

On July 8, 1947, the Roswell Army Air Field, RAAF, issued a statement announcing they had recovered a ``flying disk'' from a nearby ranch. This news release, concerning the landing of a mysterious object, was quickly changed. The next day, the RAAF issued a retraction and stated the mysterious object was in fact a downed weather balloon. Although Roswell Army Air Field officials had retracted their original statement within 24 hours, the controversy, which has endured for 60 years, had already begun.

The interest ignited by the original ``flying disk'' statement continues to spark debate for many, not just in the great State of New Mexico but around the world. Supposed witnesses of the event and UFO theorists to this day claim that the mysterious object was an actual alien aircraft. Others hold steadfast in the Air Force's latest classification of the object being a U.S. Government spy balloon. Regardless of what was recovered 60 years ago, this notable event has become part of Roswell and the history of our State.

For the past 12 years, the city of Roswell has celebrated this well- known event by holding the Roswell UFO Festival on the town's main street. Skeptics and alien-enthusiasts alike gather from around the globe to commemorate the incident by partaking in numerous activities and programs during a 4-day festival. The people who converge in Roswell this year for the festival, July 5--8, are in for an exciting weekend, as it promises to be the best in the festival's history. Lectures, parades, concerts, hot air balloon rides and air shows are only a few of the items on this year's program.

I have no doubt the controversy and debate surrounding the events of 60 years ago will continue. However, as long as we are able to enjoy and commemorate such events in our country's history, I look forward to many more festivals such as these that bring people together from across the globe.

Mr. President, while many may not know, last week was National Grasslands Week. I would like to join Secretary Johannes and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to celebrate and recognize the legacy represented by the establishment and maintenance of our national grasslands and to honor all of the individuals that have worked so diligently over the years to preserve New Mexico's precious grassland ecosystem.

In my home State of New Mexico we enjoy the luxury of hosting two officially designated national grassland areas. Those are the Kiowa and the Rita Blanca National Grasslands. These grassland reserves, located near the towns of Clayton and Roy, in the northeastern part of the State, are chartered under the Cibola National Forest System. They are both ongoing ecosystem restoration projects that were implemented following the Dust Bowl in the 1930s.

While the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands started as a means to preserve the environment and wildlife, they are rich in cultural significance as well. The lands were once inhabited by a number of Native-American tribes, including the Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apaches. They were nomadic tribes whose culture depended heavily on hunting Buffalo and gathering food from the areas vast array of native plants. The area also plays a significant part in the history of the Wild West as the Homestead Act of 1862 brought thousands of settlers out West, many of which settle in the grasslands of eastern New Mexico. They contain over 100 individual grazing permits, which incorporate the use of a wide variety of grazing management techniques, a large range of pinon-juniper management programs, which includes prescribed burning and mechanical treatment along with a personal use fuel wood program, and many active partnerships with State and local governments, and other entities such as Quail Unlimited and New Mexico State University's Clayton Livestock Research Center.

The National Grasslands of northeastern New Mexico provide thousands of acres of wildlife habitat, livestock forage and even serve as centers for recreation and clean energy initiatives. The Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands also attract many visitors who get to see firsthand the biological wealth, culture, and heritage the grasslands preserve and maintain. Visitors can participate in a wide range of activities like camping, picnicking, fishing, and wildlife viewing and get a taste of our western heritage.

The New Mexico's Grasslands provide a place of peace, quiet, and beautiful sunsets. Next time you are in my home State, I invite and encourage you to visit these great places in northeast New Mexico. I commend USDA, which has managed public grasslands to meet the needs of the American people for over seven decades, and salute the staff of the Cibola National Forest and the people of New Mexico who work so hard to help administer these grasslands in a way to maintain and preserve sustainable use.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Baucus amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.

There are only two things wrong with the Baucus amendment: One, it raises taxes in the wrong places; and, secondly, it spends these taxes on the wrong policies. I want to make two points upfront before I start my remarks.

When we speak of American big oil, let me remind people that America's five big oil companies hold less reserves than Hugo Chavez, the state-owned company of Hugo Chavez in his country.

My second point is, very seldom does the United States tax businesses that are in competition overseas. Let me repeat that. We in America hardly ever tax American businesses that are in competition overseas. Of course, that is exactly what we have done here, and what is going to happen is not going to be good. It is not going to help the American consumer one bit.

There are only two things, as I indicated, that are wrong with the Baucus amendment. I would repeat: It raises taxes in the wrong places, and then it spends them on the wrong policies.

I cast this vote, and I think it is an informed vote based on my experience. It is with a deep sense of responsibility to do what is right, with a keen interest and understanding of energy policy, because I have been forced to work on it with many who know a lot about it. With a real appreciation of the importance of this vote, I will oppose cloture.

The tax provisions in this bill will increase the cost of gasoline at the pump for Americans, increase electricity bills for families, and work severe hardship on our natural gas supply. Additionally, this amendment could seriously harm our economy. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently noted that: A significant increase in energy prices can simultaneously slow the economy, and raise inflation.

I cannot vote for that consequence. I urge that my colleagues not do so either. I do not cast this vote lightly, and I arrive at the decision after a great deal of reflection. There are many good and important provisions contained in this amendment. In the area of renewable energy, while there may be questions about how long certain tax credits should be extended, there should be no doubt that in the past I have supported renewable energy.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, with Senator Bingaman, we passed the largest tax incentives for renewable energy, a variety of renewable energies, than we ever have in American history. My friend and colleague Senator Alexander has often referred to the bill that we passed as the ``Clean Energy Act.'' He is right. In 2005, in the Energy Policy Act we provided renewable energy production tax credits, automobile tax credits, and we can keep going. We provided tax credits for energy efficient improvements, biodiesel, and for ethanol. We included tax credits for installing alternative refueling property, tax credits for the installation of solar. The world demanded cleaner energy, and the Energy Policy Act answered the call.

Between 2004 and 2006, global private capital investment in clean energy rose from around $30 billion to $60 billion a year. It rose because we set the framework into law, and it was invested on the private side. In the public market and in venture capital and in private equity, in corporate research, development, and demonstration, and government research and development and asset financing, the answer has been the same. Both the private and public sector are excited about the future of clean energy, and they are busy, under our 2005 act, investing heavily in it.

The weakness is in the amendment I am talking about. Without question, some of the tax incentives in this bill could have a positive impact on the landscape of American energy future. To deny that would be to debate unfairly the merits of this amendment.

Cellulosic ethanol production credits, plug-in hybrid vehicle credits, and clean coal energy bonds are smart financial incentives, and those tax policies complement many of the goals we have sought to achieve in the previous legislation. I think that is good.

Supporting the great things that we accomplished together in the Energy bill 2 years ago made us all feel good. However, the tax incentives in this bill focus on too narrow a field of energy policy. The Finance Committee has reported this amendment with a pricetag of $32.1 billion, a very large tax increase. In a few minutes I will speak about the troubling revenue-raising proposals in this amendment.

But, first, I ask myself and I ask others, so our people would get a feeling of what $32.1 billion is, what it can be better used for or what it might be used for in the American economy if it were free to be invested or other things bought with it: $32.1 billion would purchase 15 biorefineries, 16,000 barrels-per-day coal-to-liquid refineries, 5 gasoline refineries, and 4 nuclear powerplants, 10 bio-energy research centers, and 500 miles of transmission lines.

Now, I am not suggesting we would buy them with this bill, but I am suggesting that everyone should know the huge size of this tax, taken out of the economy, and what it would invest in similar dollars, that it could invest in the American economy. I just told you what they were.

We could use this money for commercial demonstrations in oil shale, fund demonstrations for energy from coal using IGCC, and we all know we must do that. We do not have any money to do them, and we are having difficulty getting loans from the Government, and here we are taking $32 billion and not providing anything for these kinds of investments that we must do if we are going to keep pace with China, which is going full speed ahead with all of those things, including nuclear power, and nuclear powerplants in this country. We must get there also.

But in the meantime, we are taking an awful lot of revenue flow out of the economy, right away from the energy companies that know how to invest it, where to invest it, how to pick up reserves, and how to keep the price of oil as much within bounds as the world market will permit.

Without question, the revenue-raising proposals in the amendment will increases the cost of exploring for and producing our Nation's oil and gas and natural gas. As a result, Americans will pay higher prices for gasoline at the pump, and we will suffer increased electricity costs as our Nation's natural gas supply is weakened. We will pay higher prices, obviously, for natural gas.

The excise tax on oil and gas exploration increases taxes $10 billion over 10 years on producers on our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf. Frankly, I believe that entire tax is wrong. We should not be taxing the most productive--the places where more money is being put for exploration than anywhere else, the Outer Continental

Shelf. Yet one-third of the taxes here come from imposing a fee, a very high fee, on the Outer Continental Shelf. Who would have thought it? The place in America where we have a chance of producing, we have imposed a heavy tax. Proponents of this amendment claim these tax provisions only affect the five largest U.S. oil and gas companies. Not true. But I have already told you who they are and what they represent in the world markets.

In fact, there are 40 lessee companies. Nearly 75 percent of all entities leasing on the OCS hold leases that would be subject to a 13- percent punitive tax. I hardly thought I would see that on the floor of the Senate. Yet here it is, bragged about as a very big source of money that we can do other things with, without regard to the prices the American people are going to pay in the increased prices for oil and gas coming from the shelf.

This is the lifeblood of our domestic oil and gas production. It makes absolutely no sense to advocate for independence from foreign oil, and then turn right around and raise taxes on our domestic companies that are producing America's oil and natural gas. It will mean higher prices for consumers.

Oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf amounts to approximately 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, and 12\1/2\ billion cubic feet of natural gas. Annually, this production equals approximately 600 million barrels of oil per year and 4.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year.

Now, that is good. They are doing fine. So why don't we put a tax on them of 13.5 surtax? It makes no sense. The price will go up, production will come down. These amounts produce 30 percent of our domestic oil production per year, and 23 percent of our domestic natural gas. Placing a punitive tax on this production is serious business backed by very serious facts, and I say serious consequences.

Activities on the OCS provide an average of over $6 billion a year in revenue to the Treasury. In the future the offshore will be even more important. The Minerals Management Service estimates about 60 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States are located where? Where might you guess? In the Outer Continental Shelf, upon which we are going to place a very stiff, very high tax.

Furthermore, the intent of the OCS excise tax and the effect of this tax is crystal clear. The provision charges 13 percent of the removal price of taxable crude oil and natural gas, with a credit available to those who have price thresholds on their oil and natural gas leases. In plain English, this amendment seeks to legislatively breach valid contracts from 1998 and 1999, because the Clinton administration failed to include a term in these agreements.

In other words, there was no fault of the companies. The Clinton administration either made a mistake or did not want to put the fee on; it just didn't happen. So for those 2 years, we have royalty leases with no royalty thresholds.

Congress cannot rewrite contracts after the fact merely because we do not like the contracts or the results. I predict when we are all finished, the courts of the land are going to say: This part of this tax is illegal and unconstitutional, and out the window will go a very large portion of this tax because the rights are clearly there. We have to think about it and think about what we are doing.

I do not like the idea of the United States of America going back on its contracts. It sounds and looks and smells like some foreign country. But we are close to doing it here in the name of some new answer, and at the same time saying it is going to yield revenues for us to use for various things in this bill.

As we consider this amendment, the Senate should be on notice that legal precedent would not be on our side. The U.S. Supreme Court and Federal circuit court precedents suggest that the Government cannot avoid the obligations of its contracts by using its taxing power to take back benefits it has given up pursuant to an agreement. I suggest to the Senate that a Federal court will recognize this tax for what it is and, therefore, this $10 billion we are counting on in this bill will be lost.

The Department of the Interior has already testified before Congress expressing its concern about protracted litigation over this issue and the potential for a loss of billions in revenue as well as the delay of oil and gas production.

There are 2 other provisions among the revenue raising proposals that are very troubling. One provision would amend the Job Creation Act of 2004, which created tax relief for more than 200,000 U.S. corporations and businesses. This proposal increases taxes by almost $10 billion over 10 years.

Instead of the Jobs Creation Act, we could call this provision the Jobs Destruction Act.

Finally, the increase in taxes by the U.S. Government on American companies competing overseas--through the foreign oil tax provision-- increases taxes $3.1 billion over 10 years.

This amendment also attacks American interests and cedes control to foreign interests. It says we would rather buy energy from the likes of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela than produce it ourselves.

To put the proper context on this, Saudi Aramco, the Saudi Arabian state-owned oil company, has nearly 3 times more daily output per million barrels per day than the largest U.S. oil company and holds nearly 10 times the oil and natural gas reserves.

To make it more difficult for American companies to compete overseas for this global commodity at a time when oil prices are nearly $70 per barrel is simply wrong. The Senate should reject this political expediency that will hurt American businesses, and the American consumer.

I began my remarks by conveying to this Senate the seriousness with which I cast this vote.

In my judgment, this amendment will have significant negative consequences on America's energy security. The Baucus amendment will increase the cost of producing oil and gas in America and will undermine the ability of American businesses to compete against state- owned oil companies run by foreign governments. The result for our Nation will be a greater reliance on crude oil from hostile regions of the world and an increase in the price of gasoline for the American people.

That is an unacceptable consequence and not what the American people expect of us.

For the reasons that I have stated, I must vote no on the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. President, I wonder, while the Senator is still standing, if I could ask him a question. I was standing someplace where I caught an echo on your last 2 or 3 minutes. Could you maybe repeat it, because it hit my ear wrong. I did not quite get it. What did you talk about when it went to the House and came back and what?

When is that? When you come back from the House?

The same people who voted here will vote again then, will they not? Are you expecting some Senators to leave in the meantime from this side?

I see.

I see. Well, it would be good if you would add to that there might be a little opportunity to work together on that, too, you know. If you get a few people a little anxious, you might find you could not get cloture again. That could happen.

Yes.

Well, you are inviting some of us not to approve anything tonight, to have another cloture, and you have nothing going to conference.

Senator, you know, you and I have been here long enough that we go through these tragedies every now and then. But they get worked out. Then as long as you do not try to defy reality--there were a lot of people who didn't want this to happen; a lot of people did. That is the Senate. Now we will see.

So do I.

Well, there is no doubt in my mind we are going to move ahead. We have had some terrific movement ahead in the past 3\1/2\, 4 years. Some of us who are questioning how you think it is going to happen have been part of that over the last couple of years. We are not--nobody is going to sit here and say: There is one way, only one group of Senators knows how to do this. We did our share in this pretty good bill you voted for a couple of years ago. Had we implemented the provisions of that with financing that went with it, we would already be a long way toward the development of both supply and conservation; supply of the type you want, and supply of the type some others want. We would already have that going. Instead, we do not, because we haven't financed it. We should have. You were with us on the financing. It should have happened.

Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments and cleared them on our side. We have no objection.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Does the Senator have a minute left for the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator on his remarks and say I concur with them. I would say this is the wrong time, while we are trying to enhance the investment in cellulosic ethanol and everything that goes with that, to come along with this idea. This would weaken the investment potential and the credibility of investment right when it is ripening and really generating interest.

This requires billions of dollars to be invested in cellulosic ethanol as we move to the next generation, and to have weakening that comes from this issue as to what is going to happen with this export- import issue is the wrong thing. I encourage colleagues to follow the lead of Senator Bingaman and Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I am. I say to Senator Schumer, we had no objection to your amendment. It took an extra amount of time because of matching up one versus one side and the other. It was nothing fundamental. It was just that.

I have to object to your bringing up the amendment.

We have no objections. We have worked together to arrive at this schedule.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate grant me 1 minute at this point to make a statement and ask the Senator a question.

Senator, first of all, I listened. Some people might say the Senator from New Mexico shouldn't listen again because I have listened now at least twice to you on this subject matter.

To tell you the truth, your analysis of the situation becomes more relevant every single month that passes in the Congress because today we are about to decide what to do with $30 billion, more or less; that we are going to levy a tax; and you have come before us and told us what you might do.

I might say, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I don't serve on the Finance Committee. That is the breaks of the way things are done in the Senate. I am not complaining, but I can guarantee you and the Senate that I, as one Senator, and as chairman of the Energy Committee a year and a half ago--not now--I would never have voted to put that much money in wind and so little in other technologies and breakthrough science items.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to honor and give special attention to the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument in my home State of New Mexico. On November 16, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the proclamation that recognized the Gila Cliff Dwellings and 533 surrounding acres as a national monument being what he called, ``of exceptional scientific and educational interest . . . as the best representative of the cliff- dwellers' remains of that region.'' This unique monument, nestled among the spectacular scenery of the Gila National Forest, was once the home to the people of the Mogollon, who lived along the East fork of the Gila River during the late 13th and early 14th century. It is at that place where these impressive builders constructed a 42-room collection of homes in 5 spacious sandstone caves high along the face of a small creek-canyon. Today, this monument gives Americans a glimpse of the great cultures and societies that once occupied the North American Continent prior to the arrival of European settlers.

This year-long centennial celebration is more than just an appreciation for the unique beauty that is defined by the many special places like this in New Mexico. In commemoration of this special centennial event, an unexcavated surface site referred to as the TJ Ruin will be open for a limited number of guided tours. Over the next few weeks other exciting events such as Stories in the Stars, Stories in the Shards, Rock Art and Storytelling will be taking place. There will be a number of other events, including an exhibit opening at the Silver City Museum, cowboy poetry, music, Dutch oven cooking, and Chiricahua Apache Culture Days that will be held throughout the remainder of the year to entertain those visiting the area and to celebrate the 100th anniversary.

The attractive weather and abundance of forest and desert flora and fauna in the Gila region of southwest New Mexico attracts over 60,000 visitors every year who contribute to the economies of southwestern New Mexico cities and towns such as Silver City, Cliff, Deming, Bayard, and Lordsburg. With over 1,500 miles of trails, the opportunities for mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding are endless. There is also a great abundance of wildlife that roam the Gila region. For the fisherman, there is over 360 miles of mountain streams, creeks, rivers, and lakes that are a precious resource in the Southwest.

The outdoors reminds us all of the things we hold so dear. Public lands make up over one-third of the United States, most of which is in the West. Those of us from the State of New Mexico cherish the open spaces afforded by the West. Like the Mogollon, we are reminded daily of our dependence on the land and therefore take a devout interest in its health and management. The Gila Cliff Dwellings and the Gila National Forest remain much the same as so many years ago, and I am glad this will be the case for generations to come.

The next time you happen to be in New Mexico, I encourage you to come visit and take some time to enjoy all New Mexico has to offer. From the many beautiful mountains, to the rivers, the canyons, the wildlife, the culture and the history--the marvelous place we call the Gila has it all. New Mexico is a great place, and the Gila Cliff Dwellings help make it so. To all, past and present, who have worked hard to preserve the Gila Cliff Dwellings, I extend a heartfelt thank you and honor you this centennial year.

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

Mr. President, for more than six decades, the bedrock of American national security has been a strong, reliable, and cutting- edge nuclear deterrent. Literally thousands of the best scientists and engineers in the world have dedicated themselves to ending World War II, winning the Cold War, and protecting the free world.

Each year, the Directors of the three national nuclear weapons laboratories must certify to the President, and through him to the rest of the United States, that our nuclear weapons systems are reliable. That certification process assures Americans, and warns our adversaries, that the Nation's nuclear stockpile will be able to continue to perform its basic mission--prevention of a nuclear weapons exchange.

During these six decades, discussion of the nature and size of our nuclear deterrent has been literally constant. Each year, hundreds of scientists, engineers, and global strategists devote innumerable hours and days to intense discussions of the proper strategy for the Nation and the proper nuclear stockpile to implement that strategy.

Each year, Presidents have recommendations based upon the work of specialists inside and outside the Federal Government. Since the end of physical testing of our nuclear weapons stockpile--a big event; and, in fact, a major event in American nuclear weapons evolution, the idea we would no longer test our weapons--America has relied on a concept called stockpile stewardship to try to keep our nuclear weapons resources certifiably reliable.

This Nation has already embarked upon, and through three different Presidents has reaffirmed, a commitment to physical testing-free testing that has cost billions of dollars. Our strategy has been simple: the most reliable weapons without physical testing, upgraded as strategy dictates.

At the same time, the United States has embarked on a major reduction in the size of our stockpile and in the nuclear stores of other nations. We have done this through programs this Senator has supported and authored during the past 20 years. I salute Senator Richard Lugar, my colleague from Indiana, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, for their groundbreaking work in forging these programs, and I am proud I have been able to work with them in these critical efforts.

Because of these initiatives--the Nunn-Lugar, Nunn-Lugar-Domenici, the Nuclear Cities Initiative, the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development Program, and others--our world is safer.

In total, under Nunn-Lugar, we have deactivated 6,982 warheads, 644 ICBMs, 485 ICBM silos, 100 mobile ICBM launchers, 155 bombers, 906 air- launched cruise missiles, 436 submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers, 611 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 30 strategic missile submarines, and 194 nuclear test tunnels. Indeed, nine more warheads were deactivated in the last month.

We have offered thousands of Russian nuclear scientists alternative pay and occupations, in hopes they will be less susceptible to blandishments from other parties. We are sharing nonproliferation efforts with other nations beyond the former Soviet Union states.

In more stark terms, under the Washington-Moscow Treaty, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, we will have in our nuclear stockpile, by 2013, fewer weapons than at any time since the era of President Eisenhower. We will have fewer nuclear weapons than we had, in other words, before the Cold War began in earnest.

So this two-pronged approach--international cooperation against proliferation and for elimination of weapons, coupled with the inception of Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship--has been America's strong response to the need to reduce the danger of both nuclear

weapon stockpiles and physical nuclear testing.

Almost a decade ago, in a speech at Harvard University, I outlined what I called a new nuclear paradigm. That paradigm envisioned, among other things, a cut in American nuclear weapons to what I then called a threat-based nuclear stockpile; that is, a stockpile commensurate with the anticipated international threat to our Nation.

Critical to that concept was, and remains, the principle of reliability and the continuous battle against degradation of our present stockpile. No serious expert advocated simply keeping the very same physical weapons we had 20 or 25 years ago, with no upgrading or improvements. At some point, the degradation of components in those weapons would mean the certification necessary from the three weapons labs Directors to the President could not be honestly made.

In short, without upgrades and continuous nonphysical monitoring, our nuclear weapons deterrence could be put in serious doubt. Yet at this very time, the youngest nuclear weapons designs in our arsenal are 20 to 25 years old. Age-related component degradation could impact several different systems at the same time, calling into question reliability.

For the past several years, this Senate has supported, on a bipartisan basis, spending the money necessary to protect our stockpile from degradation. At the same time, we have recognized some of our systems are too complicated, pose risks to workers, and need substantial upgrading.

This background brings me to the present Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 proposed by the House Appropriations Committee and scheduled for House floor action this week.

That bill, if enacted without substantial change, would send American nuclear deterrence strategy in a new, unknown, direction. Think about that. More than 20 years of intensive study, by some of the best minds in the world, could begin to be overturned by enactment of a single appropriations bill. The new direction wouldn't be enacted as the result of 3 to 4 years of intensive study and hearings by all of the relevant committees of Congress. It wouldn't result from a convocation of the best minds at our disposal. It wouldn't result from the kind of pain-staking analysis of future risks that any prudent American would demand from its government. No, that new path would begin by a single appropriations bill, devised by a small group with the best of intentions, but far from public view and analysis. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post, ``Congress seeks new direction for Nuclear Strategy,'' by Walter Pincus, be printed in the Record.

Note an important point in this story. The funding cuts are proposed now; a new strategic direction will be forged later in this decade. Such an approach is absolutely backwards. We should forge the new direction, if one is believed appropriate in a world of increasing threats to our security, after great study. We should fund our present strategy, 20 years in the making, now.

The House Bill and the Post story focus on the so-called RRW, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The RRW is a proposed new element of administration policy. The intent of the RRW, to enable increased reliability and design simplification in weapons of comparable explosive yield is, in my view, a very appropriate consideration, which may well result in the ability to maintain still smaller future stockpiles supported by a still smaller future weapons complex. But, as other legislators have suggested and as I noted in the last paragraph, I agree that a study of the complete role of the RRW in the Nation's nuclear deterrent is appropriate. That study must involve far greater resources than those involved in the House report language. Furthermore, Congress will have many opportunities to review and finalize any decision for actual deployment of the RRW, but the funds proposed for investment in the RRW now should provide the detailed data to underpin any future congressional decision to shift portions of our deterrent to that design.

But far beyond the RRW debate, with or without any RRW, stockpile stewardship is absolutely vital to our national security. As long as this Nation requires a nuclear deterrent in our defense or in support of our allies, we must maintain the skills and infrastructure that support the viability of that stockpile. That must include both trained people and the facilities to enable their work to proceed. Th House bill does harm to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. It cuts all funding for the new CMRR facility, which would replace the present facility, which will be inoperable after 2010. Without a new facility, our Nation will not be able to support the pit mission, which is a single point failure in the complex. Without a viable pit capability, the U.S. nuclear deterrent is vulnerable. The House bill cuts the Nuclear Material Safeguard and Security Upgrade, required to meet the Design Basis Threat around the key nuclear facilities that contain special nuclear material; it would cut stockpile services, the foundation of the production capability for our Nation; it would cut almost in half

our pit mission, the critical component of our nuclear deterrent systems; it would cut funding for the repair and elimination of old and unused facilities that now drain funds from required new facilities; it would cripple advanced computing, the key to science-based stockpile stewardship; force the shutdown of LANSCE, the accelerator needed for a variety of research; and, cut the Z machine, another component of our nonphysical testing regime.

I urge all my colleagues to attend to this debate as it moves through the House and to markup in subcommittee next week on the Senate side. Implementing and funding a new strategic policy after extensive debate is intelligent; defunding critical parts of our present strategy without a clear new path in view poses serious risks to our national security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if it is in order or appropriate, I ask unanimous consent, to establish my position following Senator Byrd, when he is finished, that the Senator from New Mexico will be recognized for his comments.

Mr. President, is it appropriate for the Senator from New Mexico to speak now?

Mr. President, I have a few remarks as ranking member of the committee. I am going to speak first in favor of amendment 1628, the Bunning amendment, with reference to coal to liquids. Later on today--later on today, Senator Byrd--and I don't say this because you need to be on the floor or anything like that, but later in the day, when some other people have finished speaking in favor of this amendment, I will speak against your amendment and be very specific and precise as to why.

I do say to you and your very excellent staff that I think you will be interested in my reasoning, because I am not trying to be vindictive or pick one over another, but I think your amendment, when we finish talking about it, you ought to be worried about whether you have set standards in it that will never commit coal to be turned to liquids.

I think you have done that, by mistake or otherwise. The environmental requirements are too high for it to be achieved.

So the money can be used for things other than coal to liquid. That is what it will go for over time, because you cannot achieve the environmental standards. I don't know how I can do it later, but I will talk with you seriously about it.

For now I am going to speak to the Bunning amendment, and later I will do that other one, and if I have to do it in writing, because of my great admiration for Senator Byrd, I will write it up and show it to you, because I do not think you are going to get coal to liquid the way someone has drawn the standards for you. I do not know who drew those.

I rise today, in the absence of Senator Bunning--I hope everyone in the Senate and those who are wondering why this distinguished Senator, who is so strongly in favor of this coal to liquids, is not here, let's make sure everybody knows that what is going on right now is a very important aspect of this energy bill. It is the tax portion, and Senator Bunning is on the Finance Committee. They are writing the tax portion, Senator Byrd. So Senator Bunning can't be here because he is there writing this giant tax provision that is going to be affixed to this bill.

First, I ask unanimous consent that the letter Senator Bunning and I received this morning in support of this amendment that we have be printed in the Record.

Now I would look to repeat once again my opposition to the Tester-Bingaman amendment on coal to liquid fuels. I believe it does little to advance the domestic coal to liquid fuels industry, and could, in fact, harm that effort. But I will return to the floor later today and speak to it in more detail.

I wish to provide some context for my colleagues as we move forward to vote this afternoon on the issue of coal to liquids, because it is so important for our country that we create a situation which will generate incentives so those who will invest money and try innovative technologies will do so for coal to liquid.

We have an abundance of coal. We have an abundance of need for liquefied coal. We have a lot of people who do not want to see this happen because they are fearful of the environmental consequences of this transition.

First, we must increase our national energy security by decreasing our reliance on foreign resources of crude oil. Second, we must ensure that the fuels available to American consumers are affordable. Third, we must seek to improve the environmental performance of the energy resources we consume.

I believe coal to liquid fuels will allow us to accomplish all three goals, and that the Bunning amendment puts us on the right path to get there. In terms of the opportunities for increased energy security that are created by coal to liquids, the case to be made is a convincing one. Our country accounts for 26 percent of the world's proven reserves, 26 percent of the coal.

We have enough coal right here in America to meet our needs for more than 200 years. In every authoritative forecast of domestic and world energy consumption, coal use is projected to increase, not decrease. No matter what people say, you know they don't want coal because it is not clean, every projection says there will be more coal used, not less, in the next 10, 20, 30 years.

What we have to do is be sure that since we have so much in America, we are pushing that and pursuing that with a hand on the accelerator, that makes sure what we come out with is a fuel that is clean enough to sustain itself among the fuels we are permitted to use, where it is as good as any we are promoting for the American people for their future.

Here in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we often talk about our Nation's increasing reliance on foreign sources of crude oil. We have included provisions in this bill that represent significant progress toward reversing this trend. I believe we should go further, however, and make better use of coal as our most abundant, secure, and affordable resource.

The facts in support of coal to liquid as a path to greater energy security don't only rely on the sheer abundance of this resource within our borders. It is because of this secure supply, but also due to the characteristics of coal to liquids as a fuel that the Department of Defense has undertaken an aggressive program to test, certify, and ultimately transition to meeting much of their demand with coal to liquid alternatives.

I want to repeat what I have just said about the fact that we are so abundantly blessed, and it is here and it is ours, and it is to be used by us. Because of this, the Department of Defense has undertaken an aggressive program to certify, ultimately to test and certify, to meet much of their demand with coal to liquid alternatives.

Last year the Air Force went through over 3 billion gallons of aviation fuel. That amount represents more than half of the fossil fuels consumed by the Federal Government. That is amazing. Half of all the fossil fuels consumed by the Federal Government was the 3 billion gallons of aviation fuel.

The goal of the Air Force is to certify their entire fleet by 2010, with a 50-50 mix of jet fuel with coal to liquid fuels and meet 50 percent of their demand for fuels with coal to liquids by the year 2016.

We must be encouraging progress along these lines, and the Bunning amendment is a step in the right direction. Coal is affordable. If we consider historic price trends, based on nominal dollars per million Btu's between 1980 and 2005, the cost of petroleum fluctuated between $6 and $16; natural gas fluctuated between $2 and $10; retail electricity fluctuated between $14 and $24; and coal between $1 and $3.

Is that not incredible? Now, if we can find a way through our technological advances and technological genius to make more coal usable, think of that, we will inject into this stream of usable resources that are used in the place of energy a fuel that is the cheapest and most stable fuel we have. I told it to you in incredible numbers. These are accurate. Coal, between $1 and $3 during the same period that retail electricity has been $14 to $24. You got that, my good friend from Montana? Incredible.

Petroleum fluctuated from $6 to $16, and here is that good old coal, $1 to $3. The problem is, we haven't figured out ways to use it for enough of the uses for which these energies I ticked off are used. Coal is secure. But it represents one of our most stable and affordable energy sources.

It should be our policy to ensure that this feedstock shares an equal footing with others that are available for production of alternative fuels. Of course, we must ensure that we continue to reduce the environmental impacts associated with energy resources we consume. Here, too, the ability of coal-to-liquid fuel to achieve this significant improvement is impressive. By virtue of the process coal must undergo in producing a liquid fuel, nearly all of the criteria pollutants are removed by virtue of the processes coal must undergo in the process of liquid fuel. I am repeating it. Nearly all the criteria pollutants are removed.

This represents a significant improvement relative to conventional diesel and includes a reduction in unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, and others.

I wish to direct the attention of my colleagues to the chart behind me which represents an average of the findings on the national renewable energy laboratories and other Government entities. It shows the percentage reductions achieved in the categories I have mentioned, by using coal-to-liquid fuels instead of conventional diesel.

Fuels are virtually sulfur free and dramatically reduced the emissions of other harmful pollutants. There it shows it to you right on the chart. Environmentally, what remains is a concern about the emissions of greenhouse gases. This too can be effectively addressed by coal-feeding biomass, utilizing a plant's carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery or through future efforts to achieve reliable and safe geological sequestration.

Those seeking to build coal-to-liquid fuel plants believe they can meet the same standard of 20 percent better than gasoline that is included in the underlying bill for ethanol. I believe no single one of the priorities I laid out as important to the consideration of the fuels legislation should overshadow the other. Coal to liquid meets all three priorities.

On this basis alone, I believe the Bunning amendment is the right approach. Now, some may ask, if this alternative fuel is such a good idea, why have we not already begun to produce it? The Department of Energy has testified that as long as the price of oil remains above roughly $50 to $60 a barrel, the first few gallons of coal-to-liquid operations will be economically viable. So as long as energy remains at that high price, from there, commercialization will further improve the competitiveness of coal-to-liquid fuels. It is a concern that oil- producing nations will increase production to lower oil prices, thereby undercutting the viability of alternative fuel production. That has created an unwillingness in the private sector to finance these plans.

I believe the most proven approach to addressing concerns of alternative fuel developers is to provide a guaranteed market and assurances that the market for these fuels will remain present. This is what the Bunning amendment does. This is all it does. This is all we need to do. Specifically, and starting in the year 2016, it will require that three-quarters of a billion gallons--that is all, three- quarters of a billion gallons--are produced a year. That gets us to a level of 6 billion gallons by 2022. Now, I would remind my colleagues that biofuels are mandated at a level of 36 billion gallons that same year under the base bill. We have required that coal-to-liquid fuels have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 20 percent better than gasoline. That is how we make sure that greenhouse implications are not something we need to worry about.

This is the same standard required of biofuels in the base text of the legislation that is currently before the Senate. We have seen the utility of a mandate in the current success of ethanol. In fact, currently the use of ethanol has even exceeded the mandates set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I believe the time has come to embark upon a similar success story in coal-to-liquid fuels.

If the environmental obligations are the same as the mandate for biofuels--and the coal-to-liquids mandate is one-sixth the size of a biofuel mandate--there is no reasonable basis to vote no on the Bunning amendment. The choice given by the amendment is coal from Wyoming, West Virginia, Connecticut, and North Dakota versus oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. The choice is an easy one. I encourage colleagues to vote for amendment No. 1628. It is not a huge amount of production we are going to assure the use of, but it will push producers and inventors, technocrats and people with money that they will all be working toward a new way to do it because by that point in time, they want to be able to say: Ours is ready. Please buy it. That is what the law says you are supposed to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think I have, what, 3 minutes remaining?

Thank you very much, Senator Larry Craig, for those comments.

Now, let me say we have a similar situation to the one we had here in the last 2 or 3 days on the 15-percent wind mandate--RPS. We have two amendments out here, and all of a sudden we find out neither of them is going to have the votes. I am afraid what has happened here is we have two amendments and neither is going to get the votes if the Senate doesn't consider the difference between these two bills and vote for the one that is most apt to accomplish the purpose we set out in a coal-to-liquid amendment.

The Tester-Bingaman amendment, No. 1614, in this Senator's opinion is only a long shot that we are going to get a lot of incentives for coal to liquid. There is $10 billion in direct loans. That is nice for everybody. We are going to have $10 billion to loan, but it is loanable on a number of things beyond coal to liquid. I predict the money is going to go to those other things because it is so hard to reach the calibration required in this amendment of coal to liquid.

In the Bunning amendment, there is a long time to work on it, until 2016, and a given amount of that liquid will be purchased and they can get ready for it to be purchased. But the standard is clearly achievable because it is the same 20 percent we are going to require of ethanol and of the other programs we are achieving, and we are saying do the same thing. They are not saying that in the Montana amendment-- do the same as we have done for the other fuels. I am afraid we are not going to get there and the money is going to get loaned for the wrong things before we are finished. In competing between the two, both are going to die. I suggest that colleagues vote against the amendment of the Senator from Montana and for the one of the Senator from Kentucky if you want to get coal to liquid started.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I looked around and didn't see anyone else, so I guess I will respond.

Fellow Senators, we defeated the best amendment to assure we would bring coal to liquid on board. Now what you have is an amendment that says a $10 billion direct loan program--not any other kind of loan but a direct loan--meaning the appropriators, without the White House, can approve in appropriations $10 billion. But the kicker is it does not have to go for coal-to-liquid technology, it can go for a number of technologies, and if you can't reach it in coal, you will reach it in the others. So you surely are voting for $10 billion in direct loans. You are not assuring that you are going to get coal to liquid because the standards are so high you may not be able to achieve them in the coal to liquid.

That is enough for me. I thank you for giving me some time, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe we have 8 minutes remaining in opposition, and I yield myself 5 minutes.

First, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves the floor, I wish to say I associate myself with her remarks as they pertain to both subjects, and in particular CERCLA, in which we both share a common interest. We have to get something done; we both know it. Those who are not letting us have a chance at getting a vote will find out sooner or later we are going to get a vote, and what is fair and reasonable will prevail. We are going to work hard to see that is done sooner rather than later.

Having said that, I want to talk about the No-OPEC amendment that would permit legal action to be brought in U.S. courts by the Department of Justice on alleged price-fixing and other anticompetitive behavior affecting petroleum product pricing, production, and distribution by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--OPEC.

While I can see at some level how this idea appeals to our sense of fairness and our frustration about oil prices, I must oppose this amendment and join with my chairman, because it is reality, not sentiment, that counts in public policy. The reality is this amendment would be unenforceable. OPEC producers would simply decide not to sell oil to us any longer. One-third of the oil used in the United States every day comes from an OPEC member. They would suffer the loss of some profits, but our entire economy could come to a grinding halt.

Another problem I have with the amendment is it is a major change in international law that has potential applications beyond the oil sector. The sovereignty of nations is put into question by this amendment. I know of no instance when the United States Government sued a foreign government.

I think if this amendment passes, we can expect a jittery oil market to become even more nervous. We can expect that. In reality, that means higher prices. We can expect less transparency from OPEC. In reality, that means higher prices. We can also expect less cooperation from OPEC in the future, and I think that, too, will lead to higher prices.

I believe this amendment should fail, but obviously, looking at the past and looking at the propensity of Senators to vote on this amendment without looking at the realities of it, I am not too hopeful. Nonetheless, that is the extent of my remarks.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I think Senator Bingaman yielded our time back.

Madam President, I wish to say to the Senator, I congratulate you on this amendment, the scope of the amendment and the rationale. It is something we need. From my standpoint, I am in favor of it. It will not require a rollcall vote. Hopefully, we can dispose of your amendment very shortly.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, because our very economic security is dependent on the availability of electricity, our Nation must reinforce its electric power transmission system.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress sought to establish national interest electric transmission corridors to make America's electricity grid more secure by ensuring there is enough capacity in essential areas.

In EPAct, we directed the Energy Department to identify regions where electricity reliability is threatened by transmission congestion and to designate national corridors. Congress further provided FERC with ``backstop siting'' authority for the construction of transmission facilities if the states involved are unable or unwilling to do so.

Just recently, DOE unveiled the following two draft corridor designations: the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor, which runs from New York to Northern Virginia; and the Southwest Area National Corridor, which includes counties in southern California, western Arizona, and southern Nevada.

The amendment offered by Senator Thune would authorize the Energy Department, in designating national corridors, to consider transmission constraints or congestion that increases costs to consumers; limits resource options to serve load growth; or limits access to sources of clean energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

Now we just had a debate on the Senate floor last week on the use of renewable energy sources. We all support the increased use of renewable energy sources but there is often heated opposition to the siting of transmission facilities. This is not in the national interest.

I don't see how you can support a mandate for more renewable energy sources but then oppose the designation of national corridors to get the transmission built that is needed to move these renewable energy sources to market.

Yet as we consider this amendment to expand the work we began in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there are those in the House that are attempting to block the needed funding to implement the national corridors designations out of NIMBY concerns. Again, such attempts are not in the national interest.

The siting provision in EPAct literally provides a light at the end of the tunnel for parts of the country where the electricity grid is at risk due to congestion.

The Thune amendment simply seeks to allow national corridor designations to ensure the necessary transmission to access clean sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

I ask my colleagues to support the Thune amendment.

I congratulate Senator Thune for his amendment because it is just a rational extension and expansion of what we did in the Energy Policy Act. I happened to be part of that Energy Policy Act. As a matter of fact, I think I can say that for years before we got together and Senator Bingaman and I were carrying it, we couldn't get it through. But we did get it through. I believe we got it through because it was high time the United States decided that for most matters we could stand on States rights, but every now and then something percolated up that demanded that we take a serious look at a greater interest of the Federal Government.

That is all we are talking about here. If the development of our electric grid ran into situations where you couldn't go through because of the obstinacy of a State to your moving from one State to another or one property owner had a transmission line totally locked up, you could back that up with the Federal Government ending up saying: It has to go because it is a big national interest. You are just kind of piggybacking on that national interest already found in that law as we passed it. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that we pass this amendment tonight.

I yield back any time I have. I wonder if Senator Bingaman would so we could vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, how much time do we have in opposition?

Well, I want to take 5 minutes and yield the rest of it to Senator Bingaman. But I do want to make a point that this country is going to need large amounts of natural gas over the next 15, 20, 30 years. One source is probably going to be LNG, liquefied natural gas. It is terribly important for our country that we have this available when we need it, and if the price is right that we be able to locate sites that serve the United States.

Now, frankly, when we passed the Energy Policy Act, there were three or four things that were very much on the minds of those who wanted to deliver energy to the United States. I say to my new friend, the new Senator from Maryland, one of those at that particular time happened to be liquefied natural gas and those around the world who were trying to figure out whether the United States was going to be a place where they could sell liquefied natural gas or was it going to be a place where they could be held up forever.

We had to decide, as we worked through this very gigantic, gargantuan bill, what we were going to do about the concern on the part of the LNG market that if you left the law as it was, every State's Governor would have a veto power, and in some instances mayors would have veto power over an LNG site. We decided that would not work.

Now, we did not take away everyone's power. As a matter of fact, we encouraged cooperation. We encouraged the involvement of the States and the local governments with the LNG company, and we said only when you get to the point where you cannot reach agreement does the Federal Government step in, and then they backstop it and make a determination, through FERC, what is in the interest of our Nation, what is fair, and what is right.

Frankly, I don't know the facts about the Maryland plant, and I do not believe we need to know them on the floor of the Senate, nor do the Senators. What we need to know is we have a good law now on the books that

gives involvement and participation to everyone who ought to have that, but it does not give a Governor veto power over the site.

I correct any implications or direct statements by my good friend, the new Senator from Maryland. There is no question the amendment which they offer seeks veto power on the part of the Governor, gives the ultimate control to the Governor of the State as to what happens to an application. I do not believe that is what we wanted when we overwhelmingly--as the occupant of the chair has said so many times--in a bipartisan manner passed the Energy Policy Act.

I do not think we intended the first time we had a problem that somebody would come to the floor and change that wonderful law that was clear as could be, that when it came to locating LNG plants, we were not going to revert back to where we were and take the power away from FERC, the Federal agency in charge, and reinvest it in the Governor of the State.

We all know how this happens. People get disgruntled about a site, they go to the Governor, we immediately have a political tussle, and, all of a sudden, the Governor, talking to 500, 600, 700 people at a meeting, cannot get out of it, and that puts the Governor in the position where he has to say: I am not going to let that happen.

We saw that over the years. We saw it in other areas. We were bold enough in that Energy Act to change that situation, not only when it came to this kind of LNG siting but we also changed it--just a while ago we were talking about it as it pertained to the grid--the occupant of the chair might recall, where we said, if the grid gets clogged up, where you cannot get things done, we are going to actually put power in the Federal Government to use its public powers to take that gorging and dislodge it through eminent domain.

We did that, and we did other things, all in the interest of what we knew was true; that you ultimately had to let energy sources and energy grids and energy plants--you had to let the Federal Government have the last say, especially where arbitrariness on the part of the local unit was entering the picture and they wanted their way, their way under all circumstances.

I thank the Chair for being aware that I am over a moment or so, but I am now finished and have left most of the time for Senator Bingaman because I think he will do a good job, and maybe we will not have to have a vote. But if we do, I urge Senators not to change the law they just voted for 77 strong. Do not change it the first time we get an amendment of this nature coming before us. Leave it there for a try. Let it get tried. It is going to work. It is not going to hurt anybody.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Bingaman. Just 2\1/2\ years ago, we decided we needed LNG so much in the future that we wanted an orderly process that did not give the Governors of each State the right to veto. This one is even broader. This gives Governors a 15-mile radius around the opportunity to veto.

I don't think we should change the law so quickly. I think we should leave it alone for a few years.

I object.

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